Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/10/1989 R Naples, Florida, October 10, 1989 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Burr L. Saunders Max A. Hasse, Jr. Richard S. Shanahan Michael J. Volp~: Anne Goodnlght ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance Director; Annaltese Kraft, Deputy Clerk; Netl Dorrill, County Manager; Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Kevin O'Donne]], Public Services Administrator; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Mike Arnold, Utilities Administrator; Frank Brutt, Community Development Administrator; John Boldt, Water Management Director; Jeff Perry, Chief Planner Transportation; William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; Ken Baginskt, Planning Services Manager; Dave Weeks and Bob Lord, Project Planners; Ron N]no and Ray Bellows, Planners; Stan Lttsinger, Growth Management Director; Bob Blanchard, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Bob Lord, Project Planner; Leo Ochs, Administrative Services Administrator; Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Sam Bass, Sheriff's Office. 0ctobex. 10, 1989 Tape IteaAdded: CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,045,000.00 FOR UNUSED FEES RECEIVED FROM GUY L. CARLTONa TAX COLLECTOR Guy L. Carlton, Tax Collector, stated that this ts the second year the Tax Collector's office ts returning over $1,000,000 in unused fees and it represents a great effort by Staff. Mr. Carlton presented the check to the Clerk of Courts, James C. Giles. AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES Contostoner Shanahan moved, seconded by CommLsstoner Hesse and carried unanimously, that that the Agenda and Consent Agenda be approved with the following changes: 1. Item 9H4 - Added - Appointment of members to the Sales Tax Study Committee 2. Item 14B4 Moved to 982 - Recommendation to approve Master Interlocal Road Agreement between Lee and Collier County for Joint planning ]n construction of arterial roads that affect both countles 3. Item 8B - Continued for one week - John Hooley representing Eastgate Office Center -Stte Development Plan Petition 89-39 Commissioner Volpe requested that the appointment of a Sales Tax Committee be continued because he ts not prepared to make a recommen- dati~,n. Commissioner Saunders reported that was fair and the matter was continued for one week. Commissioner Saunders explained that each Commissioner would appoint one person, noting that the City Council and the School Board will also make some appointments. Item #4 MINUTES OF BUDGET HEARING SEPTEMBER 13f 1989 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Commissioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and carried unanimously, that the Minutes of the Budget Hearing of September 13, 1989 be approved as presented. EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Commissioner Saunders presented Employee Service Awards to the following employees: October 10, 1989 Barbara Komorny, Human Resources - 5 years John D'Amlco, Facilities Management - 5 years Enrique Salas, Road & Bridge - 10 years W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager - 10 years John Ute, Facilities Management - 5 years PROCLAMATION CONGRATULATING THE FINE ARTS SOCIETY ON THEIR TEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY AS IT ENTERS THE "DECADE OF THE ARTS" - ADOPTED Commissioner Volpe presented the Proclamation to Carol Jensen and congratulated the Fine Arts Society on its ten year anniversary as it enters the "Decade of the Arts". Commissioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and carried unanimously, that the Proclamation congratulating the Fine Arts Society on its ten year anniversary be approved. October 10, 1989 Item #6B1 ORDINANCE 89-68 RE PETITION R-89-10, SALVATORE Co SCUDERI OF SCUDERI AND CHILDS REPRESENTING RO~.NO AND LAURA CIOCCA REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RO TO RSF-2 FOR PROPERTY ON THE N~ST SIDE OF SOUTH BARFIELD DRIVe, MARCO ISLAND. (COMPANION TO PETITION PU-89-9) - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO PETITIONER'S AGREEMENT Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 21, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition R-89-10, filed by Salvatore C. Scuder] of Scuderi and Childs repre- senting Romano and Laura Ciocca requesting a rezone from RO to RSF-2 for 3.5 acres of property located on the west side of South Barfield Drive approximately 200 feet north of the southerly terminus of South Barfield Drive, Marco Island. David Weeks, Planner, stated that the subject property is located on Marco Island at the end of South Barfield Drive and pointed out the property on the displayed map. He indicated that the applicant proposes to rezone 3-I/'2 acres to RSF-2 and divide the property into 4 lots for single family homes. He emphasized that the Board of County Commissioners will be considering rezoning the property to single family, not approving the lot layout or road location. He noted that Staff reviewed the request, and has no objections, as it is a logical extension of the surrounding development. He stated that to the east and ~outh is RSF-3, single family; to the west is Caxambas Pass, a waterway; and to the north is HeiGhts Waterway. He stated that this Petition is not consistent with the point system in the Zoning Ordinance, but Staff feels that the property has adequate public ser- vices, facilities and roadways for the project. He noted that the water and sewer demands can be easily accommodated by existing ser- vices and the impact on public services and facilities are negligible. He reported that the CCPC recommended this Petition for approval on September 21, 1989. He stated that the speakers at the Planning Commission expressed concern about the 3 lots and the existing and conceptual road. He explained that access for the 3 lots to the south might be to the proposed new road, as opposed to the existing road, Page 4 October 10, lgsg and if the access were located there, the orientation of the houses would be different and the residents across the existing street would be viewing a back yard. Mr. Weeks stated that the second Petition before the Board of County Commissioners is a provisional use request for a docking faci- lity to moor boats, but there will be no launching of boats. He pointed out the proposed location at the end of Heights Waterway on the displayed map. He explained that the dock will be 85 feet long, adjacent to the seawall, and protrudlnH § feet to the waterway to serve the 3 lot owners who do not have waterway access. He indicated that the other lot owners have waterway access and have their own individual lots. He reported that Staff has no objection to that location and the impact of noise, etc. will l,e neHltgible and recom- mends approval. He stated that the CCPC held their public hearing on September 21, 1989, and also forwarded this Petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, but added one stipulation after the public comment. He noted that some speakers expressed concern about the effect the dock facility would have on the surrounding properties. He explained that the CCPC made the recommen- dation that the dockfn9 facility be moved, and pointed out the loca- tion on the displayed map, to the larger part of the waterway along the north part of proposed Lot D. He indicated that this would have less impact on the surrounding properties. He pointed out that Staff's recommendation is: 1) approve the rezone, and stipulate that there be no access from these 3 lots adjacent to the south vehicular access to the proposed roadway should it be approved on the Subdivision Master Plan and 2) approve the provisional use with the relocation of the dock facility. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Weeks indicated that due to the configuration of the property, there would be approximately 6 lots. A discussion followed about the boat docks. Attorney Salvatore Scuderi of Scudert and Chi/ds stated that there Page 5 October 10, 1989 will be 4 lots, not 6 and displayed a drawing. He indicated that his client is willing to accept the recommendations of the CCPC to move the docks to the larger water area than where originally proposed. He explained that there will be an easement granted to the 3 lots, Lot 1, 2 and 3 on the other side of the road, and a Homeowners Association will own the road, own the dock and there will be the necessary restrictions with regards to leasing dock space. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Attorney Scuderi stated that he did not know if there is a County Ordinance that stipulates which way a house should face. He assured the Board of County Commissioners that the lots will face the existing court. Mr. Elklund indicated that he Just arrived from Europe, and as a lot owner in the area, has no ob3ections to the Petition. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Shanahan staved that approving this petition is the right thing to do as it is compatible with the area and should not be formulated as a yacht club or marina. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight, and carried unanimously, that the Ordinance as numbered and titled below be adopted and entered into Ordinance Book 36 subject to the Petitioner's Agreement and the additional stipulation that "There shall be no access provided from this project's road to the adjacent three lots to the south": ORDINANCE 89-68 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 82-2 THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER MI-10 BY CHANGING THE 2ONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RO TO RSF-2 ON THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH BARFIELD DRIVE; SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONTAINING 3.5 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Page 6 October 10, 1989 Item #?B1 RESOLUTION 89-281, RE PETITION PU-89-9, SALVATORE C. SCUDERI OF SCUDERI AND CHILDS REPRESENTING ROMANO AND LAURA CIOCCA REQUESTING PROVISIONAL USE "a" OF THE RSF-2 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A NON-COMMERCIAL MULTIPLE DOCKING FACILITY ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH BARFIELD DRIVE, MARCO ISLAND. iC_O___MP_A.N~!~p~T~9_N_~gm~9) - ADOPTED Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carr/ed unanimously, that Resolution 89-281, re Pet/t/on PU-89-9, be adopted subject to staff stipulations and the additional stipulation that "The boat dock fac/ltty shall be relocated to the basin along the north side of proposed Lot D." Page 7 October 10, 198g Item #6C1 RESOLUTION 89-282 RE PETITION AV-89-017, WILLIAM AND ANN PHILLIPS REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF A FIFTY FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT ON A PORTION OF LOT 4~ BLQCK "B"~ GULF ACRES - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 24 and October l, lgBO, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- sider Petition Av-8g-17 filed by Attorney J. Thomas Conroy, Asbell, Wains, Doyle & Pickworth, P.A. representing William and Ann Phillips requesting vacation of a portion of the 50' right-of-way so Petitioner can build within the right-of-way. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated that this is a request to vacate a 50 foot easement fronting along Lot 4, Block B, in Gulf Acres Subdivision which is on the east side of U.S. 41, immediately north of Ohio Drive. He explained that this area was originally platted in ]g23 as the Naples Improvement Company Little Farms, Lots 75 and 76 and later rep]atted in 1957 to Gulf Acres. He noted that as a result of a title search, a lending institution entered into the public record, a public right-of-way for that 50 feet and it was not platted as a road right-of-way by plat, but by an instrument prepared by a lending institution. He stated that this vacation is simply to clear up a title concern that relates to a docu- ment indicating 50 feet of public right-of-way, Lot 4, Block B of Gulf Acres. He reported that the current property is zoned PUD and used for commercial purposes, has been built on and the front area of the lot is used for parking for a building within a portion of this loca- tion. He explained that the vacation follows the requirements of the County, noting that letters of no objection have been received and Staff has reviewed the Petition and has no objections. He noted that the right-of-way is not needed for future public roads and a resolution has been prepared calling for the vacation of the public's interest to the road right-of-way. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hames and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Pa~'~ 8 October 10, 1989 Co~aisstoner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasss that Resolution 89-282 re Petition AV-89-017, vacating tbs descried ease- mnt be adopted. In response to Commiss~oner Volpe, Mr. Archibald explained that the utilities provided 4 letters of no objection. Upon call for the question, the motion passed unanimously. Page 9 October lO, 1989 Item #6C2 RESOLUTION 89-283 RE PETITION AV-89-018, PATRICK J. O'MARA REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON LOT ?l, TALL PINES - ADOI~ED Legal notice havlng been published in the Naples Daily News on September 24 and October i, 2989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- sider Petition AV-89-018 filed by Patrick J. O'Mara requesting vacation of a portion of the l0 foot drainage easement so Petitioner can build across the easement. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated that th~s Petition is to consider a request to vacate a portion of the drainage easement on Lot 71 of Tall Pines Subdivision located on the east side of Airport Road, 1/2 mile north of Pine Ridge Road. He indicated that the owner is requesting that a portion of the existing 10 foot ease- ment be vacated. He stated that this was an open ditch and the owner installed 2 drainage pipes within the easement. He stated that Collier County no longer needs 20 feet of easement and the Petitioner is asking that the County vacate 2-1/2 feet which would leave ? 1/2 feet on the Petitioner's lot line, and 10 feet on the northerly lot line for continued drainage purposes. He stated that Staff installa- tion of a storm drain system within the drainage easement does serve the ~ublic purpose in providing a better system that will require less maintenance on the part of the County long term. He indicated that letters of no objection were received from ali pertinent utilities. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Archibald replied that the County will remain authorized to control what is used and how it ks maintained but in permitting the pipe to be installed the owner is being obligated to share in the maintenance of that, which means that 2 entities will be responsible for the maintenance. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald explained that as part of permitting the installation of pipes, one requirement is that the Petit~oner assumes a level of maintenance as well as installing the pipe. Comm~ssioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and Page October 10, 1989 carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Comisstoner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasee and carried unanimously, that Resolution 89-283 re Petition 89-018, be adopted. Page 11 %tem #~C3 ORDINANCE 89-69 RE LETHAL YELLOWING - ADOPTED. October 10, 1989 ORDINANCE 80-87 - Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 21, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an Ordinance repealing the Collier County Lethal Yellowing Ordinance and replacing it with a new Lethal Yellowing Ordinance. Kevin O'Donnell, Public Services Administrator stated that the current Ordinance is difficult to administer and requires inoculation of ali coconut palms in the entire county. He explained that this Ordinance will allow the County to set up geographic zones if the outbreak of lethal yellowing occurs, quarantine the areas and inocu- late the trees. He indicated that the Ordinance would allocate $20,000 to cover expenditures of tree removal, i.e. survey of the coconut palms, inoculation and removal of infected trees, and would operate the same as Emergency Management. John Begeman, County Horticultural Agent, passed out books (copy uot provided to Clerk to the Board) to the Board of County Commissioners and explained that the current Ordinance is unmanageable and unwarranted because all the coconut trees in Collier County are to be inoculated on a continuing basis. He noted that Collier County has not had the disease since 1980, and inoculation of all coconut palms because of lack of the disease is not warranted. He reported that Lee County had a serious situation that occurred in February of ~987 when several cases of lethal yellowing palms were detected on San Carlos Island, the north side of Fort Myers Beach, and since that time the disease has spread to include 300 plus coconut palms that are dead or dying in a 3-1/2 square mile area. He noted that this area continues to extend south from Fort Myers Beach and he fears that Collier County will have the disease again with the most likely point of reinfection being the northern part of the County. He explained that the new Ordinance would not require inoculation of all coconut palms in Page 12 October 10, 1989 Collier County on a continuing basis, but inoculation based on the threat of lethal yellowing infection or the presence of the disease in the County in certain geographical areas. He reported that the areas of infection and the surrounding areas that require inoculation could be zoned off to effectively seal off the disease. He pointed out that if the lethal ye]lowing came to the County llne, the Ordinance could be enacted in the north part of the county and those trees could be inoculated to serve as a buffer for the trees in North Naples, and the coconut palms farther south in Naples and Marco Island. Mr. Begeman explained that the disease ~s similar to Dutch Elm disease and blocks the flowum tissue that conducts sugars to produce foods in the tree and starves the tree. He reported that the disease is similar to a virus or bacteria and once it gets in the trunk and flowum tissue, it clogs up those tissues in the trunk. Ne ~ndicated that the disease is spread by a plant leafhopper, found in areas of urban development, which feed on St. Augustine grass. He noted that there had been no cases in Lee or Collier County prior to the disease's start in the Fort Myers Beach area. He reported that an Infected tree or sod wit}] leafhoppers infected with the lethal yellow organism may have been brought over from the East Coast. He empha- sized that the disease works rapidly, within 3 to 4 months from the time the tree begins to show symptoms. He explained that this disease started in the 1800's in Jamaica, Cuba and other Caribbean Islands and spread to Key West in 1952 and to Coral Gables where it did most of its destruction, i.e. Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties. He reported that a low estimate of trees destroyed number 200,000 coconut palms and 70,000 Christmas palms; higher estimates number 500,000 coconut palms and 200,000 Christmas palms, and it devastated the East Coast. He stated that the disease eliminated 90 to 95% of coco- nut palms on the East Coast, and Collier County ]las been fortunate because the cases which occurred in 1974 were held in check by the quick action of the Board of County Commissioners. He explained that an inoculation program was instituted and only 3 cases developed in Page 13 October 10, I989 Naples, and after passage of the mandatory Lethal Yellowing Inoculation Ordinance tn 1980, that was also stopped. He emphasized that Collier County is the only place in the world that has success- fully stopped infection of the lethal yellowing. Commissioner Hasse indicated that it is a good idea to cooperate with Lee County and questioned why it is recommended that the inoculation be eliminated in a good portion of Collier County? Mr. Begeman replied that they are unable to check all coconut palms in the County to see if they are being inoculated. He explained that there are approximately 35,000 trees in. Collier County and having them all inoculated on a continuing basis is overkill because at this time there are no cases of lethal yellowing. Commissioner Shanahan questioned ~f Lee County has taken strong action to prevent further spreading of the lethal yellowing disease? Mr. Begeman replied that they attempted to pass a mandatory inocula- tion ordinance 2 years ago, which failed. He noted that the only program instituted is replanting and educating and encouraging the people to inoculate their trees. Commissioner ihanahan commented that Lee County does not seem to be concerned about stopping lethal yellowing or seeing that it does not continue. He questioned inoculating after finding the trees dise~,sed? Mr. Begeman indicated that the diseased trees will be removed, but with antibiotic in3ections in the early stages, the disease can be cured. He stated that he would like to go in and remove the diseased trees and inoculate an area for at least a one mile radius. Commissioner Saunders questioned the cost of ino- culating one tree? Mr. Begeman replied the price ranges from $2.50 to $7.00 per tree and inoculation is good for 4 months. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Begeman ~ndicated that surveillance must be constant, and at present, inspections are made by helicopters once every 4 months. He stated that once a tree has initial infection, it takes 3 or 4 months before the symptoms appear and can be seen. He explained that ground surveys are being conducted, in addition to Page 14 October 10, 1989 follow up of homeowners calling about their palm trees. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Begeman stated that they have consulted with experts at the University of Florida, and they concur with the new Ordinance. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Begeman explained that the areas of inoculation can be lessened based on the presence of the disease. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. O'Donnell replied that there are no funds appropriated and supple- mental appropriations for an emergency would be sought from the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Begeman stated that the $20,000 would pay for removal of infected trees and inoculation of trees that not in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Saunders pointed out that the issue is whether the County wants to continue with the existing mandatory program or the new program to establish zones for mandatory inoculation. Commissioner Shanahan indicated that if an emergency occurs, the County will have to inoculate and spend money. He commented that the County has been doing a good job with what it had and questioned if ~he ordinance really needs to be amended? Mr. Begeman indicated that he estimates that 60% of the palms are being inoculated while 40% are susceptible and could be infected. He noted that to continue enfor- cement on a 100% level is not warranted because of the current con- ditions that exist in the County and by changing the ordinance, the program can be better managed and the trees controlled that should be inoculated. Commissioner Goodntght commented that the $20,000 is strictly an emergency fund, and pointed out that in 1980 when lethal yellowing was discovered in Collier County, the disease was isolated and inoculated, and a mandatory requirement was put into effect. She emphasized that Mr. Begeman has been in Collier County for 5 years and is extremely familiar with the disease and is one of the best horticultural agents in the State. A lengthy discussion followed about administrative costs for the new Ordinance. Mr. O'Donnell explained that cost of monitoring since Page October 10, 1989 February of 1987 has been borne internally with the use of Staff time and helicopter operations. He stated that on a 3 to 4 month basis, the County monitors Lee County to see if the disease is encroaching on Collier County. Mr. Leonard Rena stated that he was up in Coral Gables when the lethal yellowing outbreak occurred and encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to be cautious as far as lessening any safeguards that it has in effect. He emphasized that the area in Coral Gables was totally annihilated and there ts nothing more ghastly than trees in death throes. He encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to make the public aware of their responsib~]ity as ~t will affect property values and the ambiance of the area. Couissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodntght and ca~ried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight, that the Lethal Yellowing Ordinance No. 80-8? be repealed and that the Ordinance as numbered and titled below, be adopted and entered into Ordinance Book No. 36. Commissioner Hasse questioned how many trees were saved tn the ?O's by inoculating them after the fact? Mr. Begeman replfed that he did not have the figures. Comm~ssioner Hasse commented that the Collier County Lethal Yellowing Ordinance has been working well. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Begeman replied that there are 25,000 coconut palms in the City of Naples and 10,000 outsfde the City. Upon call for the question, the motion carried 3/2. (Commissioners Hasse and Volpe opposed). ORDINANCE 89-69 AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING INOCULATION AGAINST LETHAL YELLOWING DISEASE; PROVIDING APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE DECLARATION OF LETHAL YELLOWING EMERGENCY; PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENT OF STATE OF EMERGENCY; SETTING FORTH AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY MEASURES; PROVIDING FOR DESIGNATION OF AREAS OF MANDATORY INOCULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES AND MANDATORY INOCULATIONS; REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTICE; PROVIDING FOR LIABILITY OF OWNER FOR COSTS; PROVIDING FOR INOCULATION BY OWNER; PROVIDING FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH INOCULATION; PROVIDING FOR DISPOSAL OF LETHAL YELLOWING INFECTED TREES; PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT FOR ABATING NUISANCE; PROVIDING Page 16 October 10, 1989 FOR RIGHT TO HEARING ON ASSESSMENT; PROVIDING FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE; PROVIDING PENALTIES; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 80-87; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILIT¥; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 10:30 A.M. Reconvened 10:40 A.M.***.8 Item #6C& RESOLUTION 89-284 RE PETITION AW-89-1, LEONARD P. REINA REPRESENTING SHAN SHAH SU, S.W. RUNAN RESTAURANT REQUESTING WAIVER OF SEPARATION REQUIREMENT BETWEEN AN ESTABLISHMENT WHICH SELLS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES AND A CHURCH, SCHOOL, PUBLIC PARK OR PLAYGROUND FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS 5569 GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 24, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition AW-89-1, requesting a waiver of 100 feet from the minimum separation requirement of 500 feet between places serving alcoholic beverages and schools, churches, playgrounds and parks, with a resulting required minimum separation requirement of 400 feet for property located at 5569 Golden Gate Parkway. Ron Nino, Planner, stated that the Petitioner seeks a reduction in distance requirements between a place of business serving alcohol~.c beverages and a church, school, park or playground. He noted that this petition has to do with the S.W. Hunan Restaurant located in the Santa Barbara Shops on the northeast corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Colden Gate Parkway. He reported that Staff reviewed the petition with respect to the new Ordinance amendment adopted several months ago that requirements be established to Justify granting of a waiver. He indicated that Staff has reviewed the petition, and concluded the con- ditions were met for reducing the distance requirement. He reported that the restaurant is 400 feet from the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, a waiver of lO0 feet, however, if you were to take a portal to portal measurement, there is a 500 foot separation. He noted that the CCPC reviewed the application and unanimously recommended approval. He reported that a petition was filed by the Golden Gate Church of Christ in opposition to the petition. He stated that Staff recommends approval of the petition. Page 17 October 10, 1989 Leonard P. Reina, of Forsythe, Swalm and Brugger, P.A. repre- senting the Petitioner pointed out that the Ordinance was changed for this type of situation. He stated that there are 2 establishments in the shopping center that sell alcohol; a package store and another restaurant. George P. Keller, President, Collier County Civic Federation, questioned if there is going to be an increase in parking requirements if business ts increased due to the sale of alcoholic beverages. Commissioner Saunders pointed out that the number of parking spots is determined by the number of seats in a restaurant and that will not change. Commissioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Coniasioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and carried unanimously, that Resolution 89-284 re Petition AW-89-1, be adopted. Page 18 October 10, 1989 Item ~6C5 R~SOLUTION 89-285, RE PETITION SMP-89-12, GEORGE MELLEN OF WILLIAM MCANLT AND ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING RICHARD MCCULLOUGH, REQUESTING SUBDIVISION MASTER PLAN APPROVAL OF CANDLEW00D, A SUBDIVISION TO BE LOCATED 3/4 MILE NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD - ADOPTED Legal notice havfng been published in the Naples Daily News on September 24, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition SMP-89-12, filed by William C. McAnl¥ and Associates, Inc. repre- senting Richard McCullough, requesting Subdivision Master Plan appro- val for Candlewood, a subdivision to be located 3/4 mile north of Immokalee Road in Section 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. David Weeks, Planner, pointed out the location of the property on the displayed zoning map. He stated that the project contains l0 acres, is approximately 3/4 mile north of Immokalee Road, south and east is Willoughby Acres, west ts Quail Crossing and Palm River, and Imperial Golf Estates is to the north. He reported that the pro- perty ts zoned NSF-3 and the request ts not a zoning change, but a Sub- division Master Plan Petition to approve the proposed subdivision; i.e. 26 lots, each containing 1/4 acre, 11,000 square feet and one tract of land about 1.4 acres to be used for a preserve and water management area, and additional acreage for the roadway. He noted that Staff has reviewed the petition, and it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. He stated that one concern is that access to the adjacent properties will be public and will afford access through the project from properties to the north and south. He indicated that the CCPC forwarded this Petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Tape #2 Commissioner Volpe expressed concern that dead-end streets do not contain cul-de-sacs. Mr. Weeks replied that Staff's position is that the Board of County Commissioners should make a determination at ~ome point in time when cul-de-sacs are no longer required. He pointed out that the Fire Department can back up and get in and out of the area, Page 19 October 10, I989 and barricades will be required at the end of the dead-end streets. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Weeks stated that there is no criteria for cul-de-sacs. A discussion followed about dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs. In response to Commissioner Volpe, George Mellen of William Mcanly and Associates, explained that the roads being discussed are short sections that extend from the two major intersections to the sub- divisio~;, and are lO0 feet in length from the intersection to the tem- porary terminus of the pavement. He stated that the elongated cul-de-sac extending to the west with a large cul-de-sac at the end is Fire Department diameter sized and meets all their criteria. He reported that the two short sections which are apparent at the inter- section with the FDOT barricade has no exit and the driveway for the corner lots to the north and south will be off from that. He noted that emergency or public vehicles can make a wide turn and exit the subdivision without difficulty. Conisstoner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner GoodnLght ~nd carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commismioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Comm~ssioner Shanahan and carried unanimously, that Resolution 89-285 re Pet~tton $HP-89-22 be adopted. Page 20 October 10, 1989 Item RESOLUTION 89-286 RE PETITION SI~P-89-?, COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSU~TAITT$, INC. REPRESENTING I~,RINA SOUTH, INC. REQUESTING SUBDIVISION MASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR HARRINGTON SOUND LOCATED AT INTERSECTION OF FERN STREET AND THOMASSON DRIVE - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on. September 24, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition SMP-89-7, filed by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. representing Marina South Inc., requesting Subdivision Master Plan approval for Harrington Sound, located in Section 14, Township §0 South, Range 25 East. Bob Lord, Planner, stated that Petition SMP-89-7, Is a request for S,lbdivision Master Plan approval for 21 single family lots on 18 acres of land zoned RMF-6 in Harrington Sound. He noted that Staff reviewed the Petition and found the Subdivision Master Plan in compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and has no objection to the Petition sub- Ject to stipulations contained in the Agreement Sheet. He explained that the proposed Lighthouse Lane Road which runs north and south set- .ricing the proposed lots on either side will have a connection to the north with Windstar Boulevard and a south entrance on Thomasson Drive. He reported that the proposed project is an isolated project, well buffered on the west and north by Windstar Golf Course and on the east by a lake. He stated that residential property is east and south of the property and the subject site has been in use as residential and is substantially altered from its original state. He noted that the CCPC reviewed the req~est on September 21, 1989, and forwarded it to the Board of County Commissioners with a unanimous recommendation of approval, subject to staff stipulations. He indicated that no correspondence has been received and there was no public comment for or against the request. He reported that the density and type of land use is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. He explained that this morning the Petitioner asked if it is possible to add one lot at the entrance off Thomasson Road revising Eagle Acres subdiv~alon eli- Page 21 October 10, I989 minating 2 lots, 7 and 8 and adding i lot to the proposed subdivision. He indicated that Staff has no objection to that and noted that it would probably enhance the subdivision. County Attorney Cu¥1er replied that since it was not part of the advertisement, and he cannot entertain that change at this time. Stan Chrzanowskt with Coastal Eng~neering stated that the Petitioner still intends building a 2! unit subdivision, but the owner purchased two other parcels which he pointed out on the displayed maps. He noted that the Petitioner wanted clarification to add the parcel without coming back to the Board of Oounty Oommissioners in S months for another Subdivision Master Plan Approval. Gommissioner Saunders suggested that the Board of County Commlsstoners consider the original petition of 21 lots and work with Staff on any major changes. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unanimously, that Resolution 89-286 re Petition SMP-89-?, De adopted subject to CCPC stipulations. Page 22 October 10, 1989 Item RESOLUTION 89-287 RE PETITION V-89-12, FRANK FITAPELLI REQUESTING A 13 FOOT VARIANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6528 TRAIL BOULEVARD PINE RIDGE SUBDIFISION - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 24, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition V-89-12 filed by Frank Fitapelli requesting a 13 foot variance from the required sideyard setback of 30 feet to 17 feet to permit an existing garage to be converted into a guest house in a RSF-1 zone for Lot 35, Block C, Pine Ridge ~ubdivision. Ray Bellows, Planner, pointed out the location of the subject pro- perty on the the displayed diagram. He stated that it ~s on the east side of U.S. 41 and 270 feet north of Ridge Drive. He indicated that the variance of 13 ~eet from the required 30 feet to 17 feet is to allow the conversion of the garage to a guest house. He explained that at the time of construction in 1961, the garage and dwelling con- formed with the original R-1 setbacks, but in 1982 the County rezoned the area to RSF-1 requiring a 30 foot side setback. He reported that %he Petitioner purchased the property in June, 1989, with the intent to convert the garage to a guest house and was not aware of the set- back requirement. He stated that there are no additions to the extel, lot and the existing setback of 17 feet will not be affected. He noted that there is 27 feet between the property line and the struc- ture is well screened with vegetation. He indicated that one letter of objection was received. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bellows stated that the concern was that the windows in the structure would overlook the pool and backyard of the owner next door. Frank Fltapelli passed out photos and papers to the Board of County Commissioners (provided to Clerk to the Board). He indicated that the photos show the natural buffers that exist, the property ts not in a direct line with the owner next door, and he has 27 signed letters of support from neighbors in the immediate area. He stated that he did not have the paperwork and pictures for the CGPG, but Page 23 October 10, 1989 referred to them and explained the layout of the buildings as depicted. He stated that the outside of the structure will not change at all, and pointed out the heavy vegetation. He reported that the garage has electrical service, but nothing else. He explained that the interior will be converted to a guest house for his sister, and it will not be rented. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bellows replied that guest homes are permitted in the Pine Ridge Subdivision. Co~isstoner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan that Resolution 89-287, re Petition V-89-12, be adopted. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Bellows replied that the use will change, not the exlsttng structure. Upon call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. Page 24 October ]0, 1989 HEARING ON ASSESSN~I~T OF LIEN FORWEED ABATEHENT ON LOT ?o BLOCK 203° GOLDE~ GATE U~IT ~O. 6~ P~T I. ~C~SCO & AUGUST~NA GO~Z~EZ - CO~D T0,OCTO~ I~ ~989 Frank Brutt, Community Development Adminis~rator, explained that an individual nas the right to appeal to the Board of County Commissioners for a hearinG on the assessment of a l~en which was approved in September, ]989. He stated that the violation was ]den- tified tn June, certified letters were sent with second notices g~ven tn July and August. He ~ndicated that the lot was mowed and the Pet~tioner was charged $45.00. He reported that the o~er was billed in Au~st for $45.00 plus administrative costs and the Petitioner has pet~tioned the Board of County Comm~ssionems as to hls feel~nG that he should not pay the charges fo~ mowing and administrat~on fees. In response to Comm~ssioner Vo]pe, Mr. Brutt replied that the mowing took place on August 5, ~987. Attorney Cuyler explained that the subject of the hearing is not whether the mowing was appropriate, but the expenses and charges and whether or not they are excessiv~ ~nwarranted and should not constitute a lien against the property. pointed out that the administrative costs were authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to go beyond $75.00. Francisco Gonzalez stated that ~n 1987 he received a letter that he had to cut the grass on his lot. He lndlcated that he informed the County by telephone tha~ he and his neighbor were going to cut the grass, and asked fo~ an extension of time. He stated that he then received a letter requesting payment of $75.00 for mowing of the lot. He reported that when he went to the lot, another lot was cleaned and part of h~s lot. He stated that he called the County again and requested an inspector come to see the lot. He indicated that he waited one month and nothing happened. He repo~ted that he and h~s neighbor cut the grass and he then z'ecelved the letter tn September. In response to Commfsstone~ Saunde~s, Mr. Brutt stated that the v~ola- t~on existed in June, 1987, July 30 and Au~st 5, 1987. Commissioner Saunders stated that Staff safd the co~ect lot was cut. Page 25 October 10, 1989 Commissioner Saunders questioned if Mr. Gonza]ez' neighbor who helped him clear the lot could be contacted? Mr. Gonzalez stated that he could. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr, Gonzalez replied that he would pay for part of the lot being mowed, Commissioner Saunders requested that the neighbor be contacted and the matter be continued for one week. P~:COMM:~'~&TION 'I""/~AT ~ COLLIER CO~/"~' BOAR~ O~ Co~rY C01~SSION~R$ CONCRETE BATCH PLANT IN TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, SECTION 25, OWNED BY HARPER BROTHERS AND REPRESENTED BY WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, SOLL, AND PEEK, INC. ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - UPHELD Bob Blanchard, Comprehensive Planning Manager, stated that this item deals with an appeal of the Growth ManaGement Plan interpretation issued on September 9, 1989. He explained that the interpretation deals with the application of criteria in the Growth Management Plan for the Rural Industrial District located in the Future Land Use Element. He reported that earlier this year, the party requesting the interpretation was denied a petition for rezone to locate an asphalt ~lant in Naples Production Park, one of the areas on the Growth Management Plan designated for industrial uses. He noted that the denial was based on compatibility questions and concerns with surrounding land uses that exist in the park and the residential area to the east. He explained that at the same time the Board of County Commissioners denied this, it recommended that the applicant try to locate a parcel of property where it could deal successfully with com- patibility issues. He reported that in attempting to locate a site, they selected a site that is the sub3ect of this interpretation. He pointed out on the displayed map the location of the property which is one mile east of C.R. 951, directly south of Immokalee Road, across from the Mule Pen Quarry. He explained that prior to proceeding with another Petition for a rezone, the applicant's representative con- tacted the Planning Staff to determine how the Growth Management Plan would affect this particular site, and Staff responded that the cfi- Page 26 October 10, 1989 terta appears to be met, but there were still some questions about compatibility and groundwater studies that would be needed based on the potential future location of a wellfteld north of Immokalee Road. He stated that after a letter was received and a series of additional staff meetings were held, the Petitioner decided to request a formal Interpretation tn order to verify the prior Staff position. He reported that Staff's formal Interpretation was initiated under the basis that any rezone petition must be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and in this instance, the criteria tn the rural industrial district Is being looked at. He stated that this district primarily states that industrial uses must be limited to designated areas, and tn the rural area of the County th,~:e is only one designated area which Is the Ford Test Track located east of Golden Gate Estates north of Highway 84. Mr. Blanchard Indicated that the district further recognizes that it may be appropriate to locate some additional industrial uses out- side industrial parks as long as certain criteria are met. He reported that the plan spells out the following criteria: 1) the ?mzone must be tn the form of a PUD, 2) the project must have direct access to an arterial roadway, 3) the proposed site must not be spot industrial and must be located adjacent to either lands designated as industrial or lands already zoned Industrial, 4) the proposed land use must be compatible with adjacent land uses and 5) the necessary Infrastructure, including an Internal road network and central water and sewer, must be provided or already in place. He explained that 3 of these criteria can be met tn this instance. He pointed out that the property is located next to Immokalee Road, which is designated as minor arterial, and development approval can be submitted in the form of an industrial PUD and as the parcel is developed, if it ts approved, the necessary infrastructures can be provided. He reported that 2 criteria are inconsistent with the plan. He noted that the plan states that the property must be adjacent to existing land that is either designated industrial or is zoned industrial, and tn this par- Page 27 October 10, 1989 ticular instance, the surrounding property on the north, east and south is all designated agricultural rural. He stated that the property to the west is designated urban and all of the surrounding property is zoned A-2, rural agricultural. He Indicated that the com- patibility test has not been met, and he pointed out on the displayed map the areas designated agricultural rural. He explained that the intent of the agricultural rural designation is to encourage agri- cultural activities and provide the opportunity for a rural lifestyle with a residential density of ! home per § acres. He pointed out the Mule Pen quarry to the north, an industrial type use, noting it is separated from this particular property by Immokalee Road and when the quarry is depleted, is will be redeveloped consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that is in effect. He noted that in this case 2 sections of the quarry property are designated agricultural rural and that would be developed as residential or whatever uses are permitted. He explained that other parts of the quarry are within the urban designated area, noting that one section is in an activity center at the intersection of Immokalee Road and C. R. 951. He stated that the property to the west is designated urban which has the potential for residential development at a range of 4 to ~6 units per acre. He explained that Staff has determined that this industrial use is not appropriate in this location. He stated that Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny this appeal. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Blanchard replied that industrial districts within the urban area are not appropriate and that is what prompted the applicant to go to the outskirts of the urban area. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Blanchard replied that the County has 21 or 12 excavation sites and industrial uses could be determined to be consistent with the plan if they were adja- cent to any of those sites. A discussion followed about spot zoning. Commissioner Volpe commented that the Board of County Commissioners could end up rezoning a 10 acre parcel which would then be considered spot zoning. Page 28 October lO, 1989 Alan Reynolds, of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll& Peek, Inc. stated that the size of this parcel Is 10 acres, and the purpose of the appeal ts to have a determination under the Growth Management Plan made regarding industrial uses within the rural area. He provided a description of the location of the property on the displayed map. He provided a memorandum of a chronology of events (copy provided to Clerk to the Board). He explained that on April 6, 1988, Harper Brothers contacted Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soil & Peek, Inc. to assist in obtaining provisional use approval for a piece of property that they had contracted to purchase in the Naples Industrial Park, and Wilson, Miller, Barton, Solla Peek, Inc. had a series of discussions with staff, negotiated and resolved the issues with respect to com- patibility, and the zoning application was processed through the County's review. He noted that the CCPC recommended approval and on February 14, 1989 there was substantial opposition from residents of the park to the intended use citing problems with compatibility and environmental concerns and as a result of the opposition, the Board of County Commissioners recommended denial and gave the Petitioner direc- ~ion to identify a site on the fringe of the urban area that would be tn proximity to the mining operations that currently occur tn the eastern part of the County. He reported that Harper Brothers searched for a piece of property to meet the criteria of the Comprehensive Plan and the direction of the Board of County Commissioners and on March 8, 1989 a site was found. He explained that a meeting was held with Ken Baginski, CharlIe Gauthier and Bill Lorenz and the issues related to whether or not the 5 tests of the Growth Management Plan were met, and whether or not there was a valid groundwater protection Issue for this site in its relationship to the future county wellfteld that will be located north of Immokalee Road. He reported that subsequent meetings with Bill Lorenz and County Staff addressing the wellf~eld ~ssue were held and upon mutual agreement, an extensive computer modeling of that wellfield was completed last month. He explained that the results indicated that the site fell well outside the 2 year travel time zone Page 29 October 10. 1989 and ts between ? and 9 years of travel time away from that wellfteld. Mr. Reynolds indicated that Petitioner had addressed the ground- water Issue to the County's eattefactton. He stated that on Aprt! 25, 1989 a letter was received from Charlie Gauthier, Comprehensive Planning Manager, containing an interpretation of the Growth Management Plan indicating that the § criteria could be met, subject to demonstrating the permitting activities that occurred at the Mule Pen quarry, and identifying that wellfield protection would be an issue. He reported that, on the basis of that and other studies, Harper Brothers closed on the property, completed the groundwater study and initiated the rezoning process. He stated that on August 10, 1989 at a pre-application meeting with County Staff, Bob Blanchard suggested that the Petitioner refile for a formal interpretation of the Growth Management Plan. He noted the request was filed in September, and Staff reversed Its prior position and found that the site was not consistent with the Plan. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Reynolds explained the two points: specific language regarding ad]acancy to zoned or ~esiguated use and a compatibility test. He reported that the com- patibility issue must be evaluated with respect to the Growth Management P/an and be site specific relative to the size of the site, buffel'ing, adjacent lan~ uses, etc. Mr. Reynolds emphasized that the Petitioner has met the test of the Growth Management Plan and the direction that the Board of County Commissioners gave with respect to finding a site. He stated that if the Board of County Commissioners upholds Staff's interpretation, the only other site that has a remote chance of qualifying is east of C. R. 951 on South Tamiamt Trail adja- cent to the Krehling facility, more than twice the distance of this site from the source of material that will be used. He indicated that he does not feel that it was the intention of the Growth Management Plan to take the very strict and narrow interpretation of the language in question. He explained that it does not say deei~nated industrial on the Future Land Use map, it Just says designated, and there is Page 30 October 10, 1989 flexibility in the language based on the specific case. Commissioner Saundere questioned County Attorney Cuyler if the Board of County Commissioners agrees with Staff's interpretation in the April 25, 1989 letter that agrees with the Petitioner, should a rezone request be filed and reviewed by the Board, and further questioned if action this date would be binding on the Board of County Commissioners in the review of that procedure? Attorney Cuyler replied that the compatibility issues are inter-related to some extent, and the Board of County Commissioners could find it was com- patible for purposes of this finding under the Comprehensive Plan issue and not find that it ts compatible under further review from the zoning perspective. He stated it should put on the record that the Board of County Commissioners is not making the finding compatible. Mr. Reynolds stated that he did not see how, based on this first exa- mination, the final determination of compatibility could be made until a rezoning request has been reviewed. He explained that the Petitioner has to demonstrate compatibility with surrounding land u~es and show an adequately sized site that can provide proper buffering, ~etback, and location of the facility. He pointed out that the nearest residence to the site is 1/2 mile away and the closest use is the Mule Pen quarry operation, and a commercial nursery located on the corner of Immokalee Road and C.R. 9Sl. Commissioner Saunders commented that the issue is whether or not the Board of County Commissioners is going to permit the rezone peti- tion to be filed or determine if it is incompatible which means that no rezone petition would be filed. Commies~oner Volpe commented that a general interpretation is being sought of the Future ~and Uae Element of the Growth Management Plan. He reported that the Board of County Commissioners is to determine the appropriateness of industrial uses in the rural areas. Mr. Reynolds stated that a number of excavation sites exist in Collier County, but tests that have to be met: 1) location outside of the urban area, 2} s~te adjacent to one of those uses and S) direct Page 31 October 10, 1989 access to an arterial road. He stated that the only two locations that meet the criteria are Immokalee Road and East U.S. 41; 1-75 and the Ford Test Track will not provide direct access to the roadway. A discussion followed about expanding boundaries and existing industrial districts. Commissioner Hasse commented that the site is adjacent to AcreMaker Road which has several single family homes. He indicated that he does not believe homes to the southeast are a full 1/2 mile from the site, and this operation ts not beneficial to any residential area. Mr. Reynolds stated that this language was Intended to be more broadly interpreted than Mr. Blanchard ts now Interpreting lt. He believed the similarity of use can be the basis of the Board of County Commissioners' Interpretation. Commissioner Volps commented that tf this Industrial interpretation ia allowed on this l0 acre parcel, that creates a domino effect. Mr. Reynolds disagreed, and stated that the Petitioner ts reclvesting a specific interpretation to this particular site only. Commissioner Volpe commented that all the property fronting on Immokalee Road across from the Mule Pen quarry would fit khe same criteria that the Board of County Commissioners ts being asked to establish for this 10 acre parcel, and the whole site will become Industrial. Mr. Reynolds stated that for zoning of industrial to take place the general test of the land use plan must be met, and that site would have to come tn during the rezoning process and demonstrate all of the tests, i.e. compatibility, access, buffering, etc. A discussion followed about needs for industrial land. Mr. George F. Keller, President Collier County Civic Federation, stated that making a general Interpretation of land use for one speci- fic piece of property ts not correct, and this ts the first step to a rezone. He pointed out that a site ts available on East'4! next to the Krahltng Plant which ts zoned industrial. He emphasized that changing the interpretation of the Land Use Plan for one specific piece of property should be not be done, and it ts the responsibility of the Board of County Commissioners to decide zoning, not the respon- Page 32 October 10, 1989 stbtlity of Staff. He stated that the Land Uae plan should stand by itself and the Board of County Commissioners should not make & deci- sion to change the interpretation of it for one item. Commissioner Hasse concurred. He emphasized that once the Growth Management Plan ts deviated from, a great number of areas will want to move forward the same way. He emphasized that the Growth Management Plan should control the growth that Collier County is experiencing. Commissioner Goodntght commented that she has a problem with the location and going out of the urban area to allocate more industrial property. She stated that she does not want to stop Harper Brothers from coming to Collier County, but the County should not allow more Industrial areas to be formed outside the urban boundary lines. Commissioner Ruse ~oved. seconded by Co~alastoner Volpe that the appeal be denied and the Growth Management Plan interpretation be mpproved as prepared. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Blanchard indicated that this type of use would be consistent with the zoning of the Airport at Immokalee which is an area designated for Industrial uses. Commissioner Shanahan commented that his concern is the favorable opinion offered previously and the Board of County Commissioners directed that a location be found for an asphalt plant in Collier County, and he stated That he would like to make a decision for Harper Brothers and the Growth Management Plan, but cannot. He emphasized that Staff speaks for the Board of County Commissioners and interprets right and wrong on its behalf. Upon cmll for the question, the ~otion passed 3/2. (Co~isltone~ S~ ~z~ maunders opposed). In response to Commissioner Goodnight, Mr. Blanchard pointed out that the Growth Management Plan obligates Staff to prepare an Industrial land use study that will be presented to the Board tn 1991. Commissioner Goodnight stated that Harper Brothers will not want to wait until 1991, and she would like some recommendation from Staff about future applications for asphalt plants in Collier County. A Page 33 October 10, 1989 lengthy discussion followed about industrial site uses tn Collier County. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Blanchard replied that Staff ia tr~ing to iron out whether or not the interpretat~on is a planned policy, or is a determination of consistency with the Growth Management Plan. He stated that in this case he feels that it ts a determination of consistency with the Plan, but due to the fact that there Is no appeal process to Staff's consistency determination, ~t evolved into an interpretation. A discussion followed about heavier Industrial uses relating to the Growth Management Plan, and where asphalt plants should be located. Commissioner Goodnight stated that she made a mistake tn voting to take the project out of an ~ndustrta! park and put it into a rural t%rpe setting, and she would like Staff to bring back recommendations on industrial parks, agricultura! role setting and criteria for each specific use of asphalt p/ants. It~gB1 AGREEMENT~T~TN DEVELOFERS 0F L~Y SQU~ ~R ~ATI~ OF ~~Y AC~SS O~ U.S. 41 ~ ACC~CE 0F AC~SS ~S~ ~ FA~ ~ PA~ 0F AC~SS ~O~S - ~~D Transportation Services Administrator Arch/bald stated that this is an agreement with the developers of Lely Square for access to the East Naples Library site. He explained that the County has a library built on a parcel donated by the developers, and the original plan called for access from U.S. 41 in the immediate vicinity of their frontage. He reported that there was conflict with permitting of the access point on to U.S. 41, and in consideration of possible access off Saint Andrews, Staff and the developer have prepared an agreement to relocate the access point, centralize it for the benefit of the commercial buildings and provide more room for parking and access to the library site. He indicated that there had been discussions addressing the fair share cost of the access Improvement, which Is not only for a westbound right hand turn lane Into that area, but also includes an eastbound left turn lane and median opening at a cost of $?0,000. He stated that Staff determined how the cost would be shared between the developer and the County and that was done based on traf- Page 34 October 10, 1989 flc data. He reported that the report dons by local consultants showing the traffic analysis at butldout between the library and the commercial development ts included In the executive summary. He reported that a sharing ratio of 30~/?0~ is outlined with the County paying 30~ of the cost of the improvement, and the developer paying 70~. He explained that the cost includes the cost of construction and design of the improvement. He pointed out that based on the fact that the access point ts relocated, the developer will Incur the added expense of redesigning and re-permitting that entrance way. He noted that one of the requirements the County discussed with the developers was to establish a cap of $21,OOO which was tn one of the initial agreements making the County's share 30~ or an amount not to exceed $21,000. He explained that the developer did not want to expose him- self to any additional changes relative to the Improvements within the rights of way of U.S.41 and has already experienced substantial changes of cost as a result of the turn lane having to be redesigned for a travel speed of 7 miles per hour and incurred cost for redesign, proper radius and acceleration lanes aa you exit the location. He emphasized that the developer wished to stick with 30%/?0~, and Staff has no objection to revising the agreement, as long as control over the contract exists to allow Staff to be part of the approval process of any change tn that construction project. He explained that Staff ts recommending the agreement as proposed with two provisions: 1) for the sharing of the cost, and 2) the county would play the role tn assuring that his construction contract of $55,000 would not be changed without county approval. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Archibald stated that instead of constructing a 30 foot radius exiting on to U.S. 41, the State has required an acceleration lane. Mr. Archibald reported that the traffic report indicates the amount of expected traffic between the library and the commercial development. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Archibald replied that the 2 changes to the contract are the removal of the $21,000 cap and in paragraph 3, the Page 35 October 10, 1989 County's role in monitoring and allowing changes to the existing contract. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Archibald stated that in paragraph 3 a sentence should be added that reads: "The County shall have Joint review and approval authorization of any and all construction contract changes involving the cost of roadway access improvements. Coati.loner Shanahan moved, seconded by Comtssioner Hasse that t~ ~~t ~ ~r~, as ~nd~, with re~l of the c~ ~ the ~ml ~rizati~ of ~ ~d all c~t~cti~ c~tract c~ la~olvt~ t~ cost of r~ access t~r~ts. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald reported that the developer ts expected to start within 30 days, and tn the intertm there will be access by Saint Andrews Boulevard. ~ call for the ~sti~, the ~tton carrted~imly. NOTE: ~ NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO ~OARD OFFiCE AS OF 1/15/90, October 10, 2989 l~pe~ MASTer INTEItLOCAL ROAD AGREEMENT BETWEEN LEE AND COLLIER COUNT~ ~Dl1~ THE PLAXIING, DESIGN, COI~TRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ROAD IMI~O~T~ NITHZN THE BOUNDAR~ AREAS OF COLLIER AND LEE COUNTIE~ - Commissioner Saunders Indicated that he asked that th~s item be taken off the Consent Agenda because the agreement was not tn the agenda packet, but he has reviewed the contract and has no questions. In response to Commissioner Volpe, the master Inter/ocal Agreement is the first step in attempting to identify those road improvements tn and around the County line and that supplemental agreement wtl/ fo/low ~dentif¥ing specific roadways and how those roadways may be Improved, as a result of the Joint effort of Lee and Collier County. Co~mL~loner S~under~ ~wd, seconded by Contestoner VO~ ~d cmig ~imly, t~t the ~ter lnterl~al A~~t ~~ ~~ Collier ~d ~ C~t/e~ r~rdtng the plying ~d ~rl~tt~ of ~Jor road t~rmmnts ~ a~rmd. Page 37 Octobe~ 10, 19a9 Zt~ ~gD1 R~CO%~ND&TIONS REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF N~AR AND LONG TERM WAT~R · ~]FFLY ~ AND PROPOSED SECOND WELLFIELD/NATER TREATMENT - APPROVED. STAF~ TO WO1REWITH TOPEKA AND DELTONA TO STUDY MANATEZ ROAD SIT~ AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANT"S TO MAKE PRESENTATIONS Mike Arnold, Ut/l/t/es Administrator stated that this item c/ar/- lies action taken by the Board of County Commissioners on August 29, 1989 and modifies some of the recommendations adopted by the Board. He explained that the Marco Island Water Feasibility Study presented went Into the related water Issues as they pertained to the mainland. He explained that the Board of County Commissioners should focus their attentlon on the four key questions necessar~ to proceed with plans for a second water plant and additional long term water supply for Collier County. He reported that some of the changes are not provided for tn the Utilities budget. He emphasized that the presentation today ts focused on cost savings with a revision to the water plan and wellfteld plan scenario. He Indicated that the steps to be taken for long term water sources for Collier County, including Marco Island, reiterate the previous action for use of the Lower Salins Aquifer as a water source tn the future. He stated that Staff recommends entering into the process of soliciting hydrologic engineers to evaluate the sources and do a Joint study on the Manatee site. He reported that savings of $150,000 may be accomplished by a Joint study. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Arnold replied that Topeka ts doing a study required by the South Florida Water Management District. He noted that if a plant is built sometime in the future, it would probably be tn the Manatee Road site and would serve Marco Island as well as picking up demand from the South County area. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Arnold reported that on one occasion Topeka ~ndtcated that they would be ~nterested ~n cost sharing. Mr. Arnold stated that some of the water quality and RO studies Topeka is conducting may not yield what Topeka previously thought. Commissioner Volpe commented that something needs to be done soon Page 38 October 10, 1989 regarding future water supplies on Marco Island and questioned if this will help. Mr. Arnold replied that this Is the first step to find a water source for Marco Island, the yield, and how the water will be treated. Mr. Arnold stated that questions 2, 3 and 4 go hand in hand; what water source should be utilized for the County's proposed second wellfteld; what water source should be utilized for the County's pro- posed second water treatment plant and what location ts best suited for the site of the County's proposed second water treatment plant. He described the location of the second wellfleld on the displayed diagram on Immokalee Road near the ~ule Pen quarry and noted that the source of water was identified as being able to serve long term needs in Collier County. He reported that this has been Identified as a water table source with a potential yield of 50 million gallons per day, but since that time, circumstances have changed. He reported that requirements for protecting the wetlands have become more stringent; treatment and regulations from the Federal Government are more stringent in relation to organics, and other problems. He ~xplained that consideration of the Lower Tamtamt Aquifer ia the next level, the same source tapped in the Golden Gate Estates area. He stated that some projections run from 50 to 70 million gallons per day for this aquifer, and noted that the County currently draws 13 million gallons per day, while the City of Naples draws 26 million gallons per day. He stated that there are many problems associated with the Mule Pen areal i.e. environmental, construction of major lines, road and cost factors etc. Mr. Arnold stated that Staff's recommendation is that the County go with the membrane softening type plant as it will lend best to future needs and capitalizes a saline source. He pointed out the site proposed for the plant 2 miles south of Immokalee Road, east of C.R. 951 and Vanderbllt Road, and reported that the property is zoned A-2, with land available there. He stated that this site ties in with the north County transmission main put in last year and eltmt- Page 39 October 10, 1989 nates 4 miles of 36 inch pipe. He reported that one of the advantages to the membrane softening process is that it is easily expandable and can be done quickly. He noted that the plant site is less obt~usive and utilizes and maximizes the raw water coming in. He reported that the reject water comes out towards higher chloride counts, and rather than waste that water, it could be pumped back to the existing lime softening plant and make that water treatable for re-use. He noted that Staff's recommendation is to waive the selection process, utilize the consultants the County has had on board in the past to move ahead with permitting and investigation. Re recommended declaring an emergency, waive the selection process and move ahead with Hole, Montes & Associates and Missimer & Associates for technical confirmation. Commissioner Saunders questioned if there is a consensus to waive the advertising requirements and continue working with the consultants on board? Commissioner Volpe questioned the change to the Master Plan and how it ties in with the Master Planning being done, and who is pro- viding water to Quail Creek? Mr. Arnold replied that the deviation is the relocation from Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road and C.R. 9§1, the implication to another portion of the Master Plan will be beneficial and there will be a 4 to 5 million dollar savings by relo- cating the plant. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Arnold stated that North Naples utilities provides water to Quail Creek. A lengthy discussion followed about pipe lines. A discussion followed about acquiring the land for the site. Commissioner Saunders asked for a consensus on the first part of the plan to approve the amendment to the Master Plan and the recommen- dation by Staff. Co~issioner Shanahan ~oved, seconde~byColissione~ Goodnight ·nd ~%'Tlednnani~onsly, that Staff reco~endationm be accepted. Commissioner Saunders pointed out that the cost sharing of Topeka was skipped. Page 40 October 10, 1989 that St~ff be dt~e~ to work with Topek~ Delton~ ~n~ ~ the ~tee ~ site. Upon call for the question, the wotion carrie~ Mr. Arnold indicated that he would like to approach the City of Naples about cost sharing in the Golden Gates estates wellfield. Mr. Arnold indicated that last week the Board deferred to Staff to make a selection from the consultants for the raw water booster sta- tion which was a $400,000 project, but based on today's recommendation this project would have to be upsized and could cost up to $1.5 million. Commissioner Shanahan commented that this matter should be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Haese con- curred. Mr. Arnold indicated that negotiations have been opened with the consultants. He indicated that if the Board feels that this matter should be brought back and finalized by the BOO, he will have the con- ~ultants make a presentation. Commt~ton~r Shanahan moved, eeconded by Comaisstoner Hesse and carrl~lunant~usly, that the raw water booster engtneertn~ p~- tart=ns be brought beck to the Board at the ea~e time ae the etorm~ Commissioner Volpe questioned if this means that the Board will be ranking the consultants on the raw water booster even though Staff already decided on a consultant last week, to which County Manager Dorrtll stated that both projects will be heard and ranked next week; the raw water booster repump station and the storage tank. Commissioner Volpe stated that he is asking for an opinion from the County Attorney with regards to a Florida Statute that was men- tioned by Finance Director Yonkosky as to the process that was used tn the selection and he would like that opinion before next week. Mr. Cuyler indicated that he would have this opinion by next week. Commissioner Shanahan questioned the alternative schedule for lawn Page 41 October 10, 1989 sprinkling on Marco Island? Mr. Arnold replied that Staff has been working with the South Florida Water Management District for a revised schedule and feels that they will go along with it. He indicated that the next step of making the formal application ts being actively pursued. County Manager Dorrtll commented that he was contacted by offi- cials in Volusia County to be an interested party because Volusta County will move within the next 30 days to condemn and acquire all Deltona and Topeka owned utilities. He stated that he has asked to be apprised of the situation. In response to Commissioner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler indicated that his opinion of the process used tn selection of the consultants according to the Florida Statutes will be ready this week. ALLO~&TION OF FUND~ FO~ THE PI~0DUCTION AND MAILING OF ~AI~A'EI~LY RB~ORT D~TRING FISCAL %~KA~ 89-90 - APPR~ C~issionar Bases ~ved, seconded b~ Co~missioner Volpe that the produc~i~n and uiling of the C~'~ ~rterly re~rt ~ ~~d~ In response to Co~ssAoner Shanahan, County Manager Dorri~ stated that the County ts exploring the possibility off an in-house prin~ shop. A discussion followed about distributing the newsletter other than mailing. Co~issioner Volpe co,anted that most of the cost As postage, and asked if there is another way to distribute the newslet- ter? County Manager Dorrlll indicated that he would explore the possibility of other ways. ~ call for the ~estAon, the ~tion passed ~l~el~. A~ ~ ~ ~~ D~L0~ CO~TION ~ ~ OO~ON OF A WA~ L~L COBOL ~~ ON I-~5 C~ AT PI~ ~I~ ~O~ - ~~ ~ O~ ~ John Boldt, Water Management Director stated that during the 1983, construction of I-?§, a stop log water level control structure was Page 42 October 10, 1989 removed and not replaced, causing overdratnage In the area. He explained that in the rezoning of the Vineyards, the developer was required to design and bear the coat of conatructtng the replacement structure, and the County planned to attach it to the north headwall of the Pine Ridge box culverts. He Indicated that those plans have been completed by the developer and the permits have all been obtained, except from the Florida Department of Transportation. He explained that attaching the structure to the headwall puts it Just inside the so-called limited access right-of-way involving the Federal Highway Administration. He reported that the County has had a number of meetings with FDOT and was not successful in obtaining a permit from the Highway Department. He ~ndtcated that the County Attorney advised that the County cannot pursue condemnation, as it does not have that Jurisdictional authority. He noted that the County feela the DOTts decision was unreasonable, but the proposed structure,s location will have to be moved and made a free standing structure away from the box culvert out of the limited access highway. He stated that tn order to do so, a new site selectIon, soil borings, field sur- veys and substantial revisions to the engineering plans will be required. He reported that the County will have to re-submit an application for the right-of-way. He stated that the developer ha~ sh~ a good faith effort and It is not his fault that DOT refused to allow the County to put the structure where it belongs. He explained that part of the additlonal engineering cost of removing the struc- ture, and cost of making the structure free standing should be borne by the County. He stated that the developer's engineer has submitted a proposal for $12,000 to engineer the relocated structure, and esti- mates a free standing structure will cost an additional $20,000 to $30,000. He lndlcated that Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize Staff to prepare an agreement with The Vineyards to obtain modifications and permits, and to redesign and construct the new structure at its new location and upon comp/etlon, the County would reimburse the developer a lump sum amount of $3?,000. Page 43 October lO, 1989 In response to Commissioner Volpe, Hr. Boldt replied that Staff thought the local Fort ~ere people from FDOT were convinced, but because it involves the Federal highway there are strtct rules that do not allow structures within a limited access highway. County Hanager Dorrlll questioned if there ~s an Appeal of a Denial off an Admin~stratlve Permit? Hr. Bold~ replied ~No~ ~o his kn~ledge~. Cosmissloner Saunders stated that ~r. Archibald has also Indicated no. County ~anager Dorr~ll suggested giving h~m a weeh ~o e~lore a be~er solution. ~i~ ~iml~, t~t th~e utter ~ c~t~ed for ~e mk. ~hls to assure that the rlgh~ cost for engineering and construction being paid? Hr. Boldt responded that during the original rezonlng process ~he County ~ade a stipulat~on that the developer had ~o bea~ ~he cos~, and Hr. Giles pointed ou~ ~ha~ ~he Co~y ~s bearing co~ 100~ ~n ~hls case. ~r. Giles s~a~ed ~hat ~he County should put ou~ b~ds ~n order ~o be assured ~ha~ ~he cos~ Is co~rec~. N~. ~es~ioned how the County can know ~he cos~ ~f ~t does not b~d ~he project out ~self? ~r. Boldt replied ~ha~ ~he developer's records could be checked. Commissioner Shanahan cemented ~ha~ ~he eng~- ne~.rlng cost of $12,000 and the estimate ~s $~0,000 ~o $30,000 and Bold~ s~a~ed ~ha~ he reco~ended a f~xed su~ off $37,000. Nr. G~les pointed out that the construction project ~s not being competitively bid. Commissioner Saunders suggested ~ha~ Nr. Dorr~ll and Nr. Giles ~ee~, d~scuss the matter and repor~ back ~o ~he Board off County Co~ssioners In one week. CountF Manager ~orrill explained that there are men~ pro~rams, emploFees and budgets that support the CountF and Circuit Courts, and Page 44 October 10, 1989 there have been probleme relating to who has been administratively responsible to the Court system. He reported that individual Judges and/or the Court Administrator would provide administrative respon- sibility to approve various documents of the budget personnel and purchasing nature. He stated that a new County Administrative Judge has been appointed by the new Circuit Administrative Judge, and a line of authority within the Court administration to provide supervision over the employees of the Court Is being established. He noted that the appropriate responsibility for those employees and budgets rests with the Chief Administrative Judge who can determine and set those priorities under the direction of the Chief Circuit Judge for the TWentieth Judicial Ctrcutt In Fort ~yers. He Indicated that he ham reviewed Mr. Giles' concern with County Attorney Cuyler who indicated that the appropriate mechanism would be to give division administrator status to the County Chief Judge and after he has signed off person- nel, budgeting and purchasing matters, the County Manager could exer- cise and maintain the Agency Manager status. He explained that the County would like to give the Chief Judge of the County Court division administrative designation for those purposes. Coumdslioner CJOcKinight moved, eeconded by ComRieeloner Volpo ~nd carri~n~ni~onsly, that Staff's reco~endations be approvmd in con- J=ncttonwith the advice of County Attorn~F ~uyler. KMIIqe~IICY~ MANAGEMENT ~ PROCESS AS PROVIDKD FOR IN CHAFTER 16S.S187(1)(a) P.S. IN ORDKR TO AMKHD THE GROWTH PLAJ[ II &OOORDAJJCK WITH THE KXKOUTKD STIPULATKD SKTTLKMKNT WITH Tile .E~PARTMKFF OF COMMUWITY AFFAIRS - ADOPTED Stan Lttstnger, Growth Management Director, stated that Staff recommends approval of the emergency amendment process provided for in Chapter 163 in accordance with the executed Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Department of Community Affairs. He explained that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners executed the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on September S which was subsequently executed by the DCA on September 14, 1989. He reported that an Page 45 October 10, 1989 emergency process is recommended because of the potential effect on public funds of not amending the plan in an expeditious matter, and the second standard amendment process is recommended to be reserved for the potential need for Staff or Board ~nttiated amendments before the end of the calendar year. He stated that amendments must receive a unanimous vote for approval by the Board of County Commissioners under the emergency management process. Ne noted that the current schedule would call for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing on November 2, and the Board to hold a public hearing on November ?, 1989. He explained that w~th the amendments through this emergency process to reflect remedia! actions appearing in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, the plan would be in full compliance with all applicable Florida Statutes, and Administrative Codes and would result in dismissal of proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Litsinger replied that 4 votes are required to amend the Comprehensive Plan tn its normal course. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Lltsinger replied that other amendments cannot be added to the process if they are not directly related. Mr. Lttsinger stated that the only potent/a/ staff initiated amendment by the year's end may be the Golden Gate Master Plan. Ne reported that if the second amendment process were used to amend the Plan for the stipulated agreement, the County would not be able to begin the second process until after January 10, 1990. Co~ieaionmr Shanahan ~d, seconded bF Cow~ismions= Goo~ntght and carried unanimously, that the emergency a~endment proce~a for the SettleB~nt Agreement be approved. Item ~'9H3 ~ATIOM OF 1989/1990 STRATEGIC GO,tLS AND OBJ'BCTIV'~S - ~ County Manager Dorrill indicated that Staff talked to the Board about Identifying strategic objectives and goals for the coming year. He explained that the County would like to publish and include, as Page 46 October 10, 1989 part of the County Commission's adopted budget, about 24 key result areas, many of which awe identified specific proposals tn the County's Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the key result areas and specific objectives and performance dates for Staff have been identified. Commissioner Saunders questioned the recommendation that the document be Included in the Board's adopted budget? County Manager Dorrtll explained that the tentative budget and the final budget are both printed, but when the final budget is adopted, changes are made and is made available to the public, and this document should be indexed within. In response to Commissioner Volpe's question about goa/ 1, Mr. Dorrlll stated that tn campaigns in the past, the County Attorney has indicated that there are strict procedures that must be fo/lowed and anything of a promotional nature is not allowed. He explained that they will be information distribution type items, and anyone who campaigns will have to do that outside of the purview of the Board. Commissioner Shanahan commented that the Chairman of the County Commission of Sarasota made 85 presentations in support of and for public education during their one cent sales tax program, and noted that every Board that has gotten the one cent sales tax campaigned vigorously. In response to Commissioner Volpems question about goal 2, strategic ob~ectives number 5, Mr. Dorrill replied that it would be any projects identified In the 5 year CIE element, i.e. three community center buildings, parks, expansion of the main central library, and others. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Dorrill indicated that there may be a typographical error regarding the objective date of 1991. Commissioner Saunders asked that Mr. Dorrtll make the correction. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Dorrill replied that the Increase of major road design projects from 9 to 24 tn 1990 has been done and noted that secondary roads and traffic signals are included. Coati.loner Shmn~h~n ~d, seconded by Commtssione~ ~x~ntght · mt c~=Tt~un~ni~ously, that the strategic plan be approve~with the ch~n~ on the ~ol~en Gars Master Page, 47 Octobo~ 10, 1989 Iteu#lO& COY/TI*B~ZJ~RETrlITIO'd&GRKIXK]FTS TO AITTHORIZI LEGAL ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ZS (A~ ~ ~ C~ ~~ ~) - ~ County Attorney Cuyle~ explained that the three Continuing Retention Agreements; one with Hogg, Allen, Ryce, Norton & Blue for Jim Blue the County's Labor Counsel~ Carlton, Fields, Ward, E~anuel, Smith 8 Cutler for Mike Nuechterletn, Construction Counsell and Wampler, Buchanan · Breen for Earl Gallop Lead Counsel are not for any specific pro~ect, but authorize "as needed" services for the County when re~ested. He stated that the County Attorney's Office recom- mends entering Into these agreements. In response to Co~tsstoner Hasse, County Attorney Cuyler indi- cated that correspondence from the Collier County Bar Association had been received asking if it la necessary to go out of the County for counsel. He reported that the 3 agreements do not preclude hiring members of the 1ocal Bar Association. He explained that these contracts are with counsel that have been dealt with ~d who ~ Collier County. He stated that the County will be looking for per- sonal injury attorneys, attorneys for the County's self tnsur~ce program etc. from members of the legal bar association as counsel. Mr. Don Thompson, Collier County Bar Association, indicated that he was making himself available and Indicated that Mr. Dawson, who ~ote the letter to County Attorney Cuyler and Chairman Sanders, Is unable to be here. Co~isstoner Saunders commented that a re,est for proposals from various firms on various issues might be of benefit. ~t~ ~~ly, t~t the ret~tt~ a~~ts ~ ~ ~t the Octobe~ 10, 1989 ~ ~ 89--362~ 89-364~ 89-366t 89-36er 89-374 - ADOPTKD cmFFlodvmmntmov~l¥, t~ut B~dget ~nts 89-362; 89-364~ 89-366, 89-36~ ~nd ~9-{74 bo /t~R~llJk2 BO1XJlTAJI~B~O~SIITB 89-367; 89-370; 89-371; 89-370 JkJ~ 89-377 - Cemmlooloner hoe Bo~ed, seconded by Commissioner Si~nahan and CL--rteduna~tUousl¥, that ~t~t ~~ts 89--367; 8~370~ 89-3711 8~375; ~ 8~377 ~ Commissioner Hasse emphasized that it ts time the Board of County Co~isstoners moved forward on this Issue. He explained that the projected revenue of a tourist t~ rate of 1~ yield ts $1,364,220 ~d the tourist t~ rate of 2X would give the County $2,728,440. He stated that Collier Cowry would have a substantial amount of money to go towards beach renourtahment and other things. Co~tssfoner Saundera reported that a month ago the Board of Co'unty Co~tssloners directed Staff to come back with a reco~endatton on the potential bed t~ after the Tourist Developmen~ ~o~ctl repor~ was accepted. He indicated that Staff should be prepared to tell the Board how much money Is available and what t~e of plan could be implemented with these funds. Couisstoner Hasae co~ented that his estimates are accurate and he would like to move fo~ard on this issue. Co=tssioner Goodntght ~esttoned if the tax ts used for beach renourtshment does the fibre Include Marco Island? She pointed out that ~arco Isled paid for its beach renourishment. Couissioner Saundero agreed that the issue needs to be addressed and suggested waiting 2 weeks for a report from Staff. Ita~12J ~ A~~ ~ TO ~ ON ~ ~SS~ ~~ ~ BE Page 49 0ctobe:~ 10, 1989 Coutssioner Hasse emphasized that he would like County Attorney Cu¥1er to advise how the Board of County Commissioners can go forward in the matter of requiring a 4/Sths vote on all provisional uses in the County. In response to Commissioner Saunders, County Attorney Cuyler indicated that he will coordinate with the Zoning Department regarding the necessary procedures. Commissioner Saunders requested that County Attorney Cuyler report on the procedures that the Board will have to follow and provide a schedule as to when it will be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners for final action. George Keller, President, Collier County Civic Federation, stated that provisional use ts becoming a real problem in the Estates area and places where property can be bought at a more reasonable cost. He pointed out that Provisional Use was originally set up to take care of the safety and welfare of the people in a particular area, and since property is more reasonable in the Estates and the East Trail area, many provisional uses are being brought in from people who do not live there. He stated that there are 18 churches In Golden Gate City and Golden gate Estates, a good percentage of which are from people who do ;~ot live tn that area. He reported that provisional use is a rezone and it hurts individual people who are working people and do not have the time to protest. He urged the Board of County Commissioners to chancle the law making a 4/5the vote required for provisional uses. eeeee~isstoner Simnders and Comatesioner Goodnt~ht left et 1:25 P.M.esee° G/~AJlT~ES FROHTH~ DEPARTMEF~ OF COMH~II~AZ~ FOR JI31TI-DIU~ ~ ~II~/~ION AWARD IR T~ AMOUNT OF 0147,005 - ~mtl#loner Shanahan Bored, seconded by ¢o~tlssloner Yelps and carried $/0, that grant nonies free the Department of Con,unity iffa/~ for anti-drug abuse enforc~ment/apprehenelon award be ~ in th~ m~ount of $147,005. (Co~tseloner~ S~ ~ ~md~t ~t). Pag~ 5O October 10~ ¢o~tooloner Volpe BoY. d, seconded by Comuismtoner 8hsnahan and caFFled $/0 that the following itm undeF the Comnt ~ be 8~oved end/o~ mSopted: (Commissioner Saunderm and Co~mt~toner Accept the irrevocable Letter of Credit as security to ~uarantee completLon of the subdivisLon improvements upon approval by the County Attorney. Authorize the recording of the Final Plat of Audubon Countr~ Club Tract B upon approval of the appropriate legal documents and securities required by the Subdivision Regulations. Authorize the Chairman to execute the construction and main- tenance agreement upon approval by the County Attorney. That no Certificate of Occupancy be granted until the requtred Improvements have received preliminary acceptance. See Pages~.~._.~_~,~. /~ Iteu ~14&2 IXTI]ISIOil UFflL JANUARY 1, 1991 TO FLORIDA ROCK INDUSTRIES FOR ~XCAV&TION ~ NO. 59-251, SUNNILANp MINE WITH STIPULATIONS Applicant will submit to the County, on the first of each month, a status report of the progress of the process. That the extension may be rescinded by the Board of County Commissioners if at any time the Board finds upon recommen- dation of the Staff that the applicant is not making a good faith effort to obtain the required permits. 3e That all perm/ts for the current phase must be tn hand by Sanuar¥ 1, 1991, unless the Issuance ts being withheld pending administrative hearings by any of the permitting agencies. Itm~#14E1 coPzLUo - Item #14B2 moLuTZOm 80-288 A~rf0RIZIN0 STm TO ACQUIRE, BY GIFT OR PURCHASE TWEnTY-FIVE FEET OF ADDITIONAL ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDED FOR THE FOUR-LAIIB~ 0Y COUNTY ROAD 951BKTWL'KNU.S. 41 AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (C.R. e~4) Xtem#14BS See Pages ~ Bo/~ FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A PORTION OF THE RISET--OF-ffA?IEEDED FOR THE WIDEFING O! C0~R0~ 951B~U.S. ~ RO~ (C.R. 864) ~ ~I~ C. ~ ~ ~3,137.05 Plge S1 20, 298g XteB #14¢1 A~ FL'fl~E~N COLLXER COUNTY AND I~MOKALEE SERVICES FROGRAHS, XI~. T~ltOOtlll T~Z TRX-CO~ITY SERVICE PR03~CT 1~ THE AHOUNT 0F $32,328.00 FO~ 2989/go lf~I~DXI~C3 OF SERVICES TO ~ AGeD See Pages~~_ D' 3 Item#14C2 CO.fit&CT BrI'W~:NCOLLXER COUITI'T AND I~MOKAL~ FRIENDSHIP ~OUS~ Z~R 1989/~0 FU~IDING CO~'RIBUTION I~ TH~ AMOURT OF ~15~000.00 See Item#14C3 ~~DM~IT IN THE GENERJLT. ~ TO COVER XRSUFFXCXENCYOFFU~DS I~LXBWk~F'glt~II~., OB3ECT CODES Itu~14C4 corrltACT ~ COLLIER COUlqTYAND TR~ DAVID LAWI~NC~Iq~rfAL lf~TH C~T~t, I~C. FOR & FUNDII~ CONTRIB~rloN IN TH~ AMOU~ OF $644,S00.00 FOR N~3FfAL ~3tLTlf, ALCOHOL/DRUG ~ ~ ~ $g6,000 ~R~ AT See Pages ~-,' /~f ~ Xt~#/4Dl ACC~FTA~I~'~ 0F~T~:R&~D S~W~R FACILITIES - S&I~~ 1. That the required Maintenance Bond is submitted. That the legal documents are found to be sufficient and approved by the County Attorney. Xt~#14D2 See Pages BOARD OFFICE AS 1/15/90., ACCla-rm oy W~TX~ mm sxwaa FACX~.XTXZS - S0XOff~ XJXZ - T~Z VXlm~ WXT~ ~rx~T~o~s The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation furnishes a letter approving the water dJstribut~on system for service and bacteriological testing has met the County's require- ments. Page 52 0ctobe~ 10~ 1989 That the video tape of gravity sewer be found acceptable by County's requirements. That all legal documents are found to be legally ~ufftcient by the County Attorney. See Pages '~~ - $450.00 AtTT~RZZ~D TO PORCK&g~ P~O RZBBO~J FOR "RED RIBBON WE~Ea O~-k~-~ 2~ - OCTO-~t- gg, 1989 RH~OL~TZON 89-289 AUTHORIZING EXECUTZON 0FTH~ DECLARATION OF TRUST OF TH~ I~FEI~&TIONAL CITTMANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (ZCMA) RZTZR~E]T.r Ite~14E3 MONTH TO ~)NTH LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN HITCHING POST, A FLORIDA (~ENEP,&L p~IP AND COLLIER COUNTY PROVIDING FORT HE LIB~JLK~"$ CONTI]IUEDUS~ OFT HE EAST NAPLES BRANCH LIBRARY FACILIT~FOR A MONTH TO MOrf~ Dwa~ I~IIT~E AMOUITf OF $536.00 A MONTH lt~#1414 ~ TO ~ &GREEM~IT BET~EKN THE IOI, RS~ LEASZIt~ CORPORATZON ~J~DCOLLZIRCO~ITT PROVIDING FOR COI~IU~ZTY DEVEL0~ SERVICES' U$~ OF &~OIX~IIR OFI~Cl &T TH~ COURT ~0USE COMPLEX FOR AM OITllTOIqOITH T~'WIwCY I1 ~ ~.~.OUIlT 0~ $740.00 e&~r~ MONTH Item #1416 L,IJ~I ~ Brl~l~N DEWEY R. GARGIULO, TRUSTEE AND COLLIER COUNT~ FOR THE U~E O~ PROPERT~ FOR ADDZTIONAL PUBLIC AND CONF~RUCTIO~ PA~g~]I~ AT Ail ANNUAL ~_LA~T~ 0F $8~856.17 See Zte~ #14H1 ~ BETWKZ]I COLLIER COUNTY AND A(~IOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, I~C. FOR WATER &ND SEWER IMPltOVEMEFZI AT THE COLLIER COUNTY ~ ~ ]1:1 Ail ~.~-~ NOT TO EX _C~D_~ $36,000 See Pages *,..~~* -. ,~, 7 ZteRff24Z1 UmbRA ~aTWTZME FOR INMATE NOS. 59398r 20832f 37133 8nd 28295 ~ 53 Octot:m~ 10, 1989 Zt~ ~14Z2 s~z~l~-rzo~ 0v LZX~S FO~ S~,~S OF ~ P~S~ZC D~ Item #14! MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED There being no objection, the following miscellaneous correepon- denc~ was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indi- cared below: Grant Adjustment Notice to Collier County Board of Commissioners, from DCA Title of Project: Enforcement/Apprehension, Nature of Adjustment: Budget Revision and Subgrant Period Extension for OCO Category Only, Grant Number: 89-CJ-75-09-21-01-033, xc: Nail Dorrlll, Russell Schreeve and filed. Letter dated 9/22/89 to local elected officials, from Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary, DCA, re: 1989 Legislature appropriated $?,403,000 to assist local governments with the cost of preparing or revising land development regulations, xc: Nell Dorrtll, Stan Lltsinger and filed. Letter dated 9/27/89 to Chairman, BCC, from Robert K. Lofltn, Environmental Specialist, DER, re: WRR, File No. 111704985 advising that they are enclosing short form application Involving dredge and fill activities, xc: Nail Dorrill (letter only), Bill Lorenz and filed. 4. Notice of Proposed Rulemaktng dated 9/22/89 from DER re Docket No. 89-58R. xc: Nell Dorrill, Bill Lorenz and filed. Memorandum dated 9/28/89 to BCC from Mary W. Morgan, Supervisor of Elections re: Budget Funds stating that pursuant to Florida Statutes 129.202 requesting distribution of FY 89/90 budget funds. Filed. Letter dated 9/22/89 to BCC from Tony D. McNeal, Engineer, Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation, DNR, File: C0-217, notifying that DNR is considering a coastal construction control line permit for Steven J. Brisson, Architect, on behalf of George Orban. xc: Nell Dorrill, Bill Lorenz and filed. Copy of Letter dated 9/22/89 to Mr. James Stephens, President, Council for Human Services of South Central Florida, Fort Myers, Florida from Carl D. Steinberg, District Contract Administrator, HRS, thanking for courtesies extended to Collier County monitoring team and enclosing copy of monitoring report. Filed. Copy of Letter dated 9/28/89 to the Division of Ad Valorem Tax, "Trim Compliance", Tallahassee, Florida, from Norman R. Hatcher, Jr., Fire Chief, Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, enclosing copies of the required resolutions pursuant to the Florida Statutes pertaining to budget adoption by the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District. Flied. 9. Minutes received and filed: A. 9/18/89 Collier County 4-H Foundation B. 9/7/89 Collier County Planning Commission, and 10/5/89 Agenda Page 54 October 10, 1989 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16. 17. 18. Ce 5/89 Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board 9/12/89 Golden Gate Parkway Beautification Advtsor~ Committee and 10/10/89 Agenda 9/7/89 Collier County Fire Consolidation Study Group cc: BCC 9/6/89 Marco Island Beautification Advisory Committee 10/11/89 Water Management Advisory Board Agenda Letter dated 9/21/89 to Chief Elected Official, from John P. Thomas Executive Director, National Association of Counties, enclosing the President's National Drug Control Strateg~. xc: Netl Dorrtll (letter only), Tom Whitecotton (original) and filed. Notice to Owner dated 9/26/89 from Montgomery Elevator Company under an order given by H.D. Rutledge and Son, Inc. that they have furnished and installed three Hydraulic eleva- tors in the Collier Health Service Bldg. xc: Skip Camp, Netl Dorrtll and filed. Notice to Owner dated 9/29/89 from American Roll-Up Door Co., under an Order given by Gulf Constructors, Inc. advising that they have furnished and installed Rolling Steel Service doors at the South Regional Sewage Treatment Plant. xc: Net1 Dorri11, Mike Arnold and filed. Copy of Letter dated 9/22/89 to Property Owner from Ron Ntno, Project Planner, Planning Services, Community Development Division, Col//er County Government, advising that Collier County Is within SOO feet of the described property and a public hearing will be held by the CCPC. Petition R-89-5. Filed. Letter dated 9/29/89 to BCC, from V. Aubre¥ Mtnce, Jr., Senior Division Counsel, Ryder System, re: Bid Protest RFP#89-1402, wtth enclosed protest, xc: Neil Dorrtll, Steve Carnell, Ken Cuyler, Dan Pucher and filed. Copy of letter dated 9/25/89 to John Yonkosky, C.P.A., Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, from Sheriff Don Hunter re: Interest Earnings FY 1988-89, with attached check num- bered 8909056 for $334,117.0§ and filed. Letter dated 9/89 from the Office of Communications, South Florida Water Management District, advising that they have released the first draft of Volumes I and II of the Everglades SWIM Plan, enclosing address for more information. xc: Net! Dorrfl! and fi/ed. Letter dated 9/27/89 to Commissioner Hasse, from John R. Wodraska, Executive Director, South Florida Water Management District, enclosing Certificate in duplicate certifying to the lands tn our county lying within the boundaries of the SFWMD, and enclosing copies of Resolutions 89-24 and 89-25 'Adopting the Tax Rates and Certifying the Lev~ to the County Property Appraisers of the Dtstr~ct" and "Adoption of Budget for Fiscal Year 1989-90". xc: Netl Dorrtll, John Boldt and filed. Letter dated 10/2/89 to Hon. Burr Saunders, Chairman, BCC from Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector, advising of Florida Statute advance payment of commissions due Tax Collector for 1988/89 fees. Filed. Page 55 October 10, 1989 19. Letter dated 10/3/89 to Hon. Burr Saunders, Chairman, BCC from Guy L. Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector, advising that the County make application for a tax deed on all tax certlficatel held in the n~me of the County, w/th enc]oled summary of tax certificate. Filed. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 1:30 ~OARD OF COUIlT~ BOARD 0F ZORIRG APPE&r~/F..X OFFICIO GOVERRING BO,t.~:D(S) O~ SPECIAr= DISTRICTS ~.~ ITS CO~ROL ~[U~T r=: ~AUNDERS, CHAIRMAN ! as presented /~/ or as corrected . Page 56