Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/03/1989 R Naples, Florida, October 3, 1989 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners tn and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(e) of such special districts as have been created according to /aw and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION tn Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, w~th the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Burr L. Saunders Max A. Hasse, Jr. Richard S. Shanahan Michael J. Volpe Anne Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance Director; Annaliese Kraft and Ellis Hoffman Deputy Clerks; Nell Dorrlll, County Manager; Rom McLemore, Assistant County Manager; Tom Olliff, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Kevin O'Donnell, Public Services Administrator; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Brutt, Community Development Administrator; Mike Arnold, Utilities Admin~strator; William Lorenz, Environmental Services Adm~nistrator; Bob Fahey, Solid Waste Director; Barbara Cacchtone, Chief Long Range Planning; Martha Skinner, Social Services D~rector; Cliff Crawford, Parks & Recreation Director; David Weeks, Planner; Sue Fi/son, Admln~strative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Sam Bass, Sheriff's Office. October 3, 1989 Tape #1 Ite~ #$ Co~issloner Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Couisstoner Ras~e and carried un~ni~ously, that the agenda be approved with the following changes: 1. Item 12C - Added - Waiver of Fees relating to rezone petition for low income housing for Collier County Housing Authority in Immokale~ - Request by Commissioner Goodnight to be heard after the a~ards are presented Item 1405 - Moved to 901 - Recommendation to approve the Annual Contract for funding for the Shelter for Abused Women Item 9H1 - Continued to October 17, 1989 - Recommendation to approve the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Naples and Collier County re Beach Renourishment Funding Participation Item 1401 - Moved to 901 - Cover Material Bid No. 89-1417 for Landfill MINUTES OF REGULAR M~ETINO OF SEPTEMBER 12 1989 - APPR Cosaisstoner Sh~nahan ~oved, seconded by Co,missioner Hume ~nd c~rrled ',nantmously, t~t the Minutes of Septem~r 12, 1989, ~ appr~ u presented. Item ~5~B Commissioner Saunders presented Employee Service Awards to the following employees: Charles Tomastno, Compliance Services - 15 years Olive D. BusJaeger, Naples Library - 15 years Martlyn Roark, Library (Collier North) - 5 years Martha Skinner, Social Services - 20 years J. T. McDantel, Growth Planning - 20 years Robert Fahey, Solid Waste - 10 years John Ute, Facilities Management - 5 years Wllma Meyer, Emergency Management - I0 years Item PSC FLORIDA RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION AWARD TO COLLIER COUNTT PIKES AND RECREATION D~ARTMENT FOR ITS DRUG FREE YOUTH - PRES Comm~ssioner Saunders read and presented the plaque from the Florida Recreation and Park Association to the Collier County Parka and Recreation Department in appreciation of providing winning Page October 3, 1989 natives for a drug free life for FlorLda'e youth, September 18, 1989. Commissioner Saunder8 presented Cliff Crawford, Parka & Recreation Director, with the Florida Recreation and Park Association Award to Collier County Parks and Recreation Department for its Drug Free Youth Program. Mr. Crawford reported that over 500 youths were served in a drug free program this summer consisting of games and activities related to drug free alternatives. He expressed appreciation for the support received through funding mechsnlsms and thanked the County Manager for his support. RATLONDItA HULSIZER DESIC~NATEDA~ EMPLOYEE OF THE MO]ITNFOR OCTOBER, ~gsg Commissioner Saundere presented Raylondra Hulstzer, Water Operations, with a plaque and a $50.00 check for Employee of the Month for October, 1989. PROCLAMA'.'ION RECO~NIZINO OCTOBER 9 - 15, ~989 A~ HISPANIC mITAOE ~Fr~D Commissioner Goodntght read the proclamation recogniz~ng October 9 - 15, 1989 Hispanic Heritage Week. Coeaiss~oner Ooodn~ght moved, seconded bF Counieeloner 811~ and carried unanimously, that the Proclamation recognizing October 9 - 15, 1989 as Hispanic Heritage Week, be adopted. Page 3 October 3, 1989 Itmm WAIVER OF FEES I~LATED TO REZOR~ FOR L~ INCO~ HOUSING ~ COLLZ~ C0~ HOUSIRG A~ORI~ - ~0~D Commissioner Goodntght Indicated that she requested that this Item be pu~ on the agenda and reported that the Housing Authority of Immokalee, and the Cullier County Concerned C~tizens have been working for ~he last few years with the million dollar Pocked-of-Poverty effort. She stated that Fred Thomas and Dave Graham are present to discuss the proposals to fulfill the promises she made to State and Federal representatives to obtain money to build the 188 un,ts. Mr. Fred Thomas Indicated that he has provided to the Board of County Comm~ssioners, an overview of the Pocket-of-Poverty effort, and a copy of a reques~ made tn September concerning ~he 80 un~te to be constructed. (Copies annexed as Exhibit A and B). He staked that the Pocket-of-Poverty effort has brought the public and private non-profit sector ~ogeiher, crea~ng a slgn~ftcant impact on housing for farm laborers in the Immokalee community. He reported that to date a com- mitment has been made for 188 unite to be built, w~h federal funds of $3,700,0~0; 81,000,000 from ~he Pocked-of-Poverty Program, 8690,000 ~n State money from the Community Development Block Grant, and a $400,000 Sail Loan at 3~ Interest. He noted that he has been unable to contact the Collier County Concerned Clt~zene for the amount of the donations ~hey have coming, but stated that $425,000 has been collected from the private sector by the Immokalee Non Profit Housing Authority. He explained that the 30 units being built In Collier Village will satisfy the requirement of 27 units that must be built and occupiad within 24 months from the middle of September. He reported that he has met with Tom Olltff and the Planning Staff to facilitate the tim~ situation. He explained that the PUD document requires single family residences on 1 parcel and multi-family residences on the other par- cel, with a 15 foot natural vegetative buffer between the two parcels. He stated that duplexes are betng built on that site; 1,300 s~are feet for one bedroom and 1,600 s~are feet for two bedrooms; whtla Page 4 October 3, 1989 Habitat for Humanities wtl! be building units of 1,200 and 1,400 square feet on the other parcel. He noted that since the backyards are 30 feet, a 15 foot buffer will be aesthetically unattractive, and they would like to put sod to a 6 foot fence with a hedgeline made of natura! vegetation. He indicated that in order to accomplish that, a language change for Section 4.04C of the PUD is required. He explained that he would lake to break ground in January end fast tracking is committed. He requested that the Board of County Commissioners waive all impact and rezone fees and amend the PUD docu- ment for the language change. In response to Commissioner Saunders, County Attorney Cuyler reported that he has had no opportunity to review this and in order to waive zoning fees, a po/icy will be needed. He stated that the Library and Parks Impact Fee Ordinance has affordable housing provi- sions, but he will have to research the Utility Impact Fee Ordinance. He indicated that the Board of County Commissioners can make a contr~- bution regarding the other impact fees. Commissioner Goodn~ght com- mented that Mr. Thomas will have to work directly with Imm~kalee Water and Sewer regarding the utility impact feeo. She explained that the waiver of road impact fees, zoning fees and the language cha~ge in the PUD can be accomplished by the Board of County Commies~onere. Attorney Cuyler indicated that the Board can make & contribution to pay the fees because of the nature of the project. He emphasized that in order to waive zoning fees, the Board of County Commiesionerm must institute some sort of po/icy. A discuse~on followed about waiving zoning fees and establishing a policy. Commissioner Goodnight emphasized that the 188 un,ts receive money from the Pocket-of-Poverty which the Board of County Commissioners controls. She indicated that all of Immokalee non-profit housing, the Collier County Concerned Citizens, Habitat for Humanities, the Collier County Housing Authority and Church of Christ will be building on pro- perty that Collier County put money into through the Community Page October 3, 1989 Development Block Grants and the $1,000,000 Pocket-of-Poverty Program given to the County by the State. Commissioner Volpe expressed con- cern that there are no provisions In Collier County's Ordinances allowing the waiver of road tnpact fees for affordable housing. He Indicated that he has difficulty making a distinction between affor- dable hcuslng in [~okalee for migrant farm workers and affffordable housing in Naples for blue collar workers. In response to Co~tsstoner Volpe, Mr. Thomas stated that he wants to break ground for 80 units. A lengthy discussion followed abou~ affordable houo~ng and ~mpact fees. County Manager Dorr~ll suggested that ~he Board of County Commissioners authorize Staff to have the gene=al fund pay 84,000 impact fees to the Community Developmen~ Fund. A dlscuss~on fo/lowed abou~ walv~ng impact fees. Commissioner Saunders suggested taking tbs ~esues separately. ~d carried ~t~ly, ~t the ~ard of C~ Co. teeters acc~t the r~t for fur tracking of the rezone ~d ~d~M 1~. Co. lookout G~tght ~ed, seconded ~ ~d c~rted ~t~sly, that the C~ ~ager tr~fe= fees from the General ~d to the Co~t~ ~elo~t In response to Commissioner Saunders, Attorney Cuyler ~ndtcated that the board can make policy decisions regarding money matters, but not on an Environmental impac~ S~atement. Co~toeloner Sanders ~ed, oecon~d ~ Co~lolloner G~lght ~d c~rled ~t~ely, t~t the C~W Attorn~ pr~lde to the Ordt~ce r~ard~ng 1m~ct fees, a ~c~t~ to ~t t~ct f~e for this ~ of h~stng et~t1~ to the Par~ F~ Ordl~ce. Commissioner Saunders suggested deferring the waiver of the Environmental Impact Statement until an opinion can be obtained from Page October 3, 1989 the County Attorney. In response to Commissioner Goodntght, Mr. Olltff explained that the Petitioner has to file an Environmental Impact Statement and Staff will work with him to accomplish it in the proper time frame. Item ~Ol&2 - ¢ONTImuzD INDEFINITeLy R~QUEST FOR ~LIO ~TITION - WI~I~ P~S C~ - ~QP~ In response to Commissioner Saunders, Attorney Cuyler explained that a deve2oper denied vested rights will file an act/on for declara- tory Judgment for the rights he claims. He stated that if the Board dec/due tn the affirmative, he will proceed with the development, but state,t that if the Board does not decide in the affirmative, the com- mon forms of cases are declaratory Judgment ~nd damage suits for lost profits. Attorney Ptc~orth submitted for the record Exhibits C, D, E ~ F, which are on file In the office of Clerk to the Board. A discuss/on followed about the materials contained tn the Exhibits and the A~e~da packege. He commented that Michael Katz, counsel for the developer and officers of Boran, Craig ~ Barber are present to answer specific questions regarding the construction performed. Attorney Plckworth pointed out on the d/splayed aerials the construction work completed by the developer, but noted that the water and sewer in the ground are not visible. Attorney Cuyler commented tha~ he had reviewed materials submitted to him and an inspector examined the site noting that slabs and pilings are there, but a valuation of the utilities, lying dormant, has not been made. He stated that the developer indicated a certain amount of money was spent fo= the pilings and foundations, which are reflected in the documents. Attorney Plckworth reported that $2,000,000 has been spent, but anothe~ S963,000 spent ie not reflected. He ~tated that the monies expended on the three bui~dinge for construction and the necessary road work and utilities are identified. Co~tseioner Volpe Page 7 Octobe~ 3. ~989 questioned if clarification of action taken by the Board of County Commissioners in 1987 relating to building heights is being addresmed? Attorney Pickworth indicated that he would provide a brief history of the project. He referred to the site development plan file, files of the County Zoning Department and building plans, all part of the exhi- bits. In response to Comm~ssioner Volpe, Attorney Pickworth reported that there is one 22 acre parcel, and the 1979 site development plan showed 300 condominium units on the is/and portion, He stated that tn the intervening time, the project was sold to another development enttt?. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the 300 units relate to that parcel, and Attorney Pickworth stated that the other parcel is vacant and owned separately. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the access ts a private or County road? Attorney Pickworth replied that the road ia private, but has access eaeement~, and the developer has the right to cross that causeway of the parcel. Commissioner Hesse pointed out that the biggest concern is the height of the buildings In the project. Attorney Pickworth gave a brief history as set forth in the documents provided to the Board of County Commissioners. He explained that the project was sold to another developer who extended the building permits several times, defaulted under a Purchase Money Mortgage, and his client received the property back in Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure. He reported that when the developer received the property back, the building permits had expired, and under the Ordinance, the window for applying was closed. He stated that their initial action was to contact the County Attorney to see if any administrative relief was available, and they were per- mttted to examine County fi/es. He referred to the documents tn Exhibit D, and noted that he had a number of meetings with Staff before bringing this issue back to the Board of County Commissioners. A discussion followed about the date of the building permitm and site plan, as outlined in the exhibits. Attorney Ptckworth reported Page 8 October 3, 1989 that in 1982 the zoning changed, reducing densities and heights. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Attorney Plckworth stated that the current zoning allows for 100 feet or 10 stories, while the old zoning allowed for 20 stories over perking. Commissioner Saunders stated that he had a problem when this matter was brought before the Board of County Commissioners tn 1987, and he made the motion to approve the 300 units because he felt that a substantial amount of money had been spent by the developer. He reported that he asked the County Attorney for guidance tn providing an appropriate motion to approve the 300 units and tried to make the motion specific. He stated that he specifically remembered that there was n~ discussion about building heights. He noted that there was discu~sion about the developer paying funds for construction but no discussion of other issues. He emphasized that he tried to make the motion specific, and noted that he still feels fairly comfortable with the decision the Board of County Commissioners made in 1987, but does not feel comfortable with a 22 story building. Commissioner Goodnight disagreed, and stated that when Commisqloner Saunders made the motion, she thought that the problem that developed was satJsfied and she was under the imprese~on 22 stories were included. She indicated that it is not in the minutes, but she thought the permit was originally for 22 stories. Commissioner Volpe indicated that he was not present at that meeting, but understands the circumstances, and tn reading the minutes it is obvious that the primary focus of the d~scussion seemed to be the question of down zoning and the continued development of 300 un,ts or 240 units. Commissioner Saunders commented that the d~fference was 260 units or 300 units. Attorney Ptckworth referred to a meeting in June of 1986, as outlined in the exhibits, and read the County Attorney notes and notes from attendees of the meeting. County Attorney Cuyler indicated that the notes provided by his office are Planning notes. Attorney Page 9 October 3, 1989 Ptckworth emphasized that no height issue was raised by staff, according to the notes in the file. He stated that tn 1981 the origi- nal approval was for 3 buildings of 22 stories each. Commissioner Volpe commented that the building permits had expired, and Attorney Pickworth had tried to have them extended administratively. A discussion followed about building permits and the exhibits. Attorney Plckworth pointed out in the February 9, 1987 petition letter that the project had been previously approved, the building permits had expired and FM! seeks approval to complete the project. He emphasized that the letter recites site development plan approval, and a copy of a document titled Rating, Drainage and Landscaping. Attorney Ptckworth stated that the height of the building is a zoninq checkoff issue that must be shown, was shown and had to b, part of the file. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the Petitioner had building pea.nits, and Attorney Plckworth replied that they did not. Commissioner Vo/pe stated that nothing has happened since April of '87 when the Petitioner got the determination of the Board of County Commissioners and October of 1989. Attorney Ptckworth explained that building permits have not been drawn and stated some relevant facts: 1) the Board of County Commissioners did not put a time frame on its motion; because this project was committed to construction and the 3 buildings had been started; 2) it ts not tn the Developer's or Coun- ty's interest to have buildings built for which there is no market, 3) on April l, 1987, Petitioner wrote to the building official, Mr. Magri, inquiring how to begin the building process and received no reply. He stated that the issue of height came up when he asked for a confirmation from Staff, but no height issue was raised by Staff et any point prior to the Board of County Commissioners, meeting in March of 1987, and referred to the exhibits reflecting this. Commissioner Volpe questioned if construction ie going on now? Attorney Ptckworth replied negatively. Commissioner Volpe questioned if It Is fair to assume that In 1987 Page 10 October 3, 1989 ha would apply for a building permit, or was there some question as to continued economic viability? Attorney Ptckworth responded that he did not think it was mentioned that the Petitioner would immediately apply for building permits, but a number of discussions with Staff took piece. A discussion took place about the economics of finishing the project in 1980 and 1983. Commissioner Volpe commented that tn the 1987 letter, the Petitioner suggested that if the right to proceed with 300 units was not approved, they would ask Collier County to rebate the difference in impact fees; i.e. 260 rather than 300 units. He indicated that if the 300 unite were not approved, 260 units would obviously not be 22 stories? Attorney Pickworth concurred, and quoted Commissioner Saunders' concern when he made the motion. He reported that his posi- t/on was that if the right to build the 300 unit was denied, the pro- Ject has been down zoned out of feasibility and therefore $300,000 or $400,000 of impact fees paid to the County should be refunded. He stated that Commissioner Saunders' motion approved the construction of the 800 units because substantial capital was committed towards construction and the payment of the impact fees was not the issue being dealt with at that time. He emphasized that it would be a financial disaster if the County's down zoning required refunding of millions of dollars of Impact fees. Tape ~2 Attorney Pickworth stated that he supplied the County Attorney with copies of the Sikowski vs. The City of Coral Gables case from the Supreme Court of Florida. He reported that Mr. Sikowski had nary plans for an apartment project that were submitted to the Coral Gables Zoning Department and tentatively approved. He indicated that at a later hearing the foundation permit was issued authorizing com- mencement of construction, but the foundation permit d~d not contain the height of the projected building. Commissioner Volpm commented that ~n that instance the Petitioner had a valid building permit, Page 1! October 3, 1989 while this Petitioner does not. A discussion followed about valid butldtng permits. Commissioner Hasse questioned the letter of April 1, 1987, to Hr. Magrt, wherein Attorney Ptckworth stated that the building permits expired in 1985 and Inquired how much the applicable fees were7 Attorney Plckworth replied that the fees were nothing because he did not receive a reply to that letter. He indicated that he and the County Attorney began discussions over the precise confirmation of the Petitioner's development rights and the height issue was mentioned for the first time. Commissioner Hasse questioned If he pursued it with the Building Department? Attorney Ptckworth stated that it became a legal Issue, and Attorney Cuyler indicated that the minutes did not reflect the Board of County Commissioners approving a 22 story building. In response to Commissioner Haese, County Attorney Cuyler stated that the issue Is whether the Board of County Commissioners vested 22 stories, 300 units and the payment of Impact fees. He reported that his position is that he does not have the knowledge whether or not the Board knew, and he ts not able to discern the Board's Intent. Commissioner Volpe questioned the fact that all the expenditures were Incurred In 1981, and there are no expenditures other than attor- neys' fees since 19827 Attorney Ptckworth concurred. Mrs. Emily Haggto, a Naples resident, indicated that she spoke in opposition to this petition and submitted her comments in writing to the Board of County Commissioners. She stated that all the paperwork changes nothing, and the basic question still remaining ts whether or not the County is at fault during this because anyone who draws a building permit has to pay for It. She pointed out that the site is overgrown, no fence has been constructed and she wonders If the pilings are any good. She reported that she read the minutes, and Commissioner Saunders struggled with the motion, and did not want to set a precedent. She pointed out that the Commission did not set a Page 12 October 3, 1989 time limit, but the Petitioner did not Inform or make any attempt to Inform the Board that he was not going to go ahead with the project immediately. She emphasized that nothing has been done. She stated that she does not feel the developer ia entitled to approval of this petition and she hopes that the Board of County Commissioners will deny it. In response to Commissioner Volpe, she replied that the building should be done within the laws that exist. Attorney Ptckworth replied that the transcript reflects what the Board of County Commissioners said the Petitioner could do, and no date was requlred to start construction. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Pickworth stated that the Petitioner will have a preliminary site plan review with some minor site plan lssuee, and would be applying for building permits wlthln 4 to 5 weeks. Mrs. Magglo reported that there is a "For Sale" sign on the property, and Attorney Pickworth stated that the property is for sale and the sale depends on assuring the buyer the petition is still valid. Attorney Ptckworth stated that the Board of County Commissioners has the right to do what the Pet~tioner asked for ~n 1987 and complete the project of 300 units that was started. In response to Comm~ssioner Volpe, Attorney Ptckworth replied that bulldtng permits should be Issued within the next 4 to 5 weeks. Attorney Pickworth explained that the building code has changed end the plans have to be re-drawn, and construction should start quickly thereafter. A discussion followed about the what has been done since 1987. Attorney Cuyler explained that he was not comfortable signing the December 10, lg87 draft letter provided by Attorney Ptckworth. Commissioner Volpe questioned if confirmation ia not received from the Board of County Commissioners concerning the height previously approved, would the site accommodate 300 units tn some other con- figuration? Attorney Plckworth commented that there ts a good chance It would not. Commissioner Volpe commented that the problem ts that Page 13 October 3, 1989 the Board of County Commissioners ts being asked to approve buildings that are no longer allowed under the current Zoning Ordinance, and there Is no place In the community where there will be a 22 story building. He emphasized that this is what happens when these projects drag on for years. Attorney Ptckworth stated that tn 1987, a 10 story building was allowed, and that Is why the Petitioner came before the Board of County Commissioners. He noted that the zoning required tn 1987 ts exactly the same aa today's requirements. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Attorney Ptckworth replied that the developer can- not do anything without building permits. Commissioner Hesse com- mented that the new zoning laws were Implemented for specific reasons, i.e. Collier County does not want buildings of that height, end the Growth Management Plan will have a significant Impact, and if thf~ County ts going to backwards on what it Cass, no progress will be made. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Commissioner Saunders explained that as a matter of law the Board of County Commissioners la not entitled to look at what the intent was In 1987, but must look at what Is a matter of record. Commissioner Goodntght commented that she was under the Impression that the building was 22 stories because the motion included 300 units and It did not say anything about redoing a site development plan. She questioned how 300 units could be built at a height less than 22 stories? She indicated that there was no discussion of any other way the 300 units could be constructed. She stated that since the Board of County Commissioners gave the developer permission to continue that project, 22 stories was part of It. Commissioner Saunders suggested taking the motion In 2 parts; 1) is the Commission convinced that the owner is entitled to build 300 units, and 2) whether they are entitled to build 22 story buildings or 300 units with heights consistent with the current zoning law. Commissioner Rases reported that If the 300 units can be Page 14 October 3, 1989 constructed with the present zoning, he is in favor of it. Commissioner Shanahan commented that based on what he has heard, the 1987 decision was to complete the project of 300 unite, exclusive of any discussion of height. He noted that he believes that the Board of County Commissioners gave the developer the authority to complete the project. In response to Commissioner Saunders and Commissioner Shanahan'e questions, County Attorney Cuyler stated that there ts some point at which the vesting Is lost, but there are no guidelines in case law that speak to the period of time. He stated that there is a certain period of time after the Board of County Commissioners says certain right, are vested, that failure of the developer to construct alIything will cause him to lose his vested rights, but he does not know iF it Is 1, 2 or 3 years. He reported that the Board of County Commissioners gave specific approval to the project In 1987, and Attorney Plckworth says that there has been contact with the County stnce that time establishing good faith on the part of the developer. He stated that expenditures in the past are an Issue, but there are no guidelines as to how recent the expenditures must be. He indicated that he cannot summarize and state any rule that applies, because there are no rules for that type of situation. A discussion followed about time limits and vesting rights. Commissioner Volpe Indicated that he believes that this developer, under the circumstances, has the right to build 300 unite. He stated that there was a failure to put a time limit on the issue. Commissioner Saunders asked for a motion on the 300 unite. C~temtoner Shanahan ~umved, seconded by Couteetoner Ha~se, that the Board of County Co,missioners approved building the SOO units An 1987. Commissioner Saunders stated that the Issue to be decided to if the developer Is still allowed to build 300 units. Co~tmmtoner Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Coateetonmr Goodnlght, Octobe~ 3, 19,g decided by the Board of County Co---leelonere. Commissioner Saundere concurred with the ~otion. Upon call for the question, the ~otton carried unanl~mel¥. Co~missioner Saunders asked for a motion regarding building heights or other ordinances applicable today. Commissioner Goodnight stated that in Collier County, high rase condominiums are not a number one sealer and the developer could take a better look and have a more feasible project if they lowered the height. She con~nented that she does not know if there is enough pro- perty for the developer to construct 300 units the Board of County Commissioners gave them the right to build and 22 stories may b~ the only way that they can build the 300 units. Commissioner Volpe commented that the Board of County Commissioners does not have to Insure the economic v~abAlity of this project, and the developer could build 300 units, 200 unite or one unit. Commissioner Goodnight stated that she cannot vote for a motion in reference to the number of stories the developer can build. ~ld~ ~n c~fo~ce w~th the Co~s preset ~ld~ ~. A discussion followed about the 1987 decision by the Board of County Commissioners ~n relation to the height of the bu~dlngs. Cmleel~r S~ ~, t~t the ~d of C~W ~11~ ~ ~ ~k~ for tn April of 19ST, ~d t~t t~ ~ld~ng ~te ~ re~tat~ u~n paint of all a~ltcable f~e w~th a tl~ A d~scues~on followed about ~he date ~hat the t~me limit should begin. Page 16 October 3, 1989 Co~missioner Saundere asked for clarification of the motion. County Attorney Cuyler stated that new permits will have to be obtained if the Board of County Commissioners allows permits based on the plans submitted, and noted that the plans have to updated to comply with al! new building codes and the Board of County Commissioners is approving height, setback, and density variances. Attorney Pickworth stated that the Petitioner will apply for new building permits with new plans and the building will conform to the standards o~ the original building permits. C~taelonmr Shanahan ~ov~d, that FMI be a~low~d to a~ fo= 1ts ~ mrcl~ within t~ tt~ rrm allocate. In response to Attorney Plc~orth, Commissioner Shanahan replied that ~he bulldlnG permits be obtained accordtn~ to the legal re~tre- men~s. County Attorney Cuyler stated that that must be set by the Board of County Co~l~toners, and payment of ~11 applicable feea be Included. Commissioner Volpe suggested tytn~ the t/me period Into the plan review. A discussion fo/lowed about the ttme frame. Community Development Administrator ~rutt Indicated that the architect redesigning the butldtn~ plans to meet the current codes can answer the time quest/on. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Attorney Plckworth stated that the butldtn~ permit applications be f/led ~tthln ~ to 6 months. Co~tsstoner GoodntGht su~ested that the process be~tn wtthtn a 9 month period from today. Co~tsstoner ~asse stated that the Board of County ~tll find Itself tn the same port,ton one, t~o or three years from now, and continuity of ~hat ts ~otn~ on ts lost. ~e stated that he has seen the site and it looks derelict. Re co~ented that the deve- Page 17 October 3, 1989 loper has had 9 years to do this Job. Cow~teetoner Shanahan a~ended hie ~otton that the time fram~ tm four month~. In response to Commissioner Vo]pe, Commissioner Shanahan noted that thls time period ls more than ample. Co~mlealoner Goodnlght seconded the motion. Ms, Magglo questioned if a site development plan takes 4 months? She noted that the Petitioner is talking about a whole new project, not the original site development plan. County Attorney Cuyler assured Commissioner Saunders that the Petitioner will be held to the original footprint. Commissioner Volpe questioned if a new site plan different than the one being discussed is contemplated? Mr. Char/cs Broman repre- senting the owner of the property, stated that the master development site plan giving the footprint of the buildings expressing the height is the same. He explained that bringing the plan up to code, i.e. insurance, fire, etc. takes time. Commissioner Shanahan stated that 4 months is ample time. Mr. Broman stated that he would be more comfortable with 6 months. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Barber of Aglloli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., stated that the foundations have been protected with a coating, the Building Department has made periodic inspections to observe the steel for deterioration, a structural engineer reviewed the steel and it is in good condition. He indicated that the pilings and foundations are ready to be built on. He noted that the water and sewer system ts complete. He reported that Coastal Engineering is inspecting the dock areas. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Broman stated that Coastal Engineering has reported that the docks are acceptable, end minimal work will be required to replace the pilings. Commissioner Hasse questioned the sprinkler system being in place. Mr. Barber indicated that the fire lines to the building come off of the potable water system and they are large enough. In response to Page 18 October 3, 2989 Commissioner Saunders, Utilities Administrator Arnold Indicated that there has been an Initial review of the water lines, and he assumed the 12nas were sized for 22 story buildings. Commissioner maunders questioned if there would be a substantial difference cost for water and sewer lines for a 50 unit vs. 200 unit building? Mr. Arnold replied that there would be. Commissioner Saundera questioned if the lines have to be recertified. Mr. Arnold responded that the lines would be pressure tested and bacteriologically cleared. A discussion followed about the Engineering Department's review off the plans. Mr. George Keller commented that the quest]on of whether the deve- loper has grandfathered rights is a matter of law and the Board of County Commissioners should allow the matter to be decided tn Court. He noted that this problem should be decided by the Courts. He Indi- cated that the existing zoning code is being violated by building 22 stories. He emphasized that the Petitioner had the right to do this when the original permits were granted, not now. He stated that the Board of County Commissioners does not have the right to change the present zoning codes to satisfy the developer. Attorney Ptckworth responded that to remove this kind of uncertainty, the Petitioner wtl! obtain the building permits within 6 months. County Attorney Cuyler commented that the development approval granted by the Board of County Commissioners will expire if the tiaa requirements are not complied with, and with regard to vested rights under the new Growth Management Plan, the Board of County Commissioners does not have to take a position. He stated that the Board of County Commissioners can make it clear that the vesting ta only for the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Volpe questioned if in this instance nothing taking place today can be construed as making a determination of vested rights under the new Growth Management P/an? County Attorney Cuyler ~ndtcated that that can be stated for the record. Page 19 October 3, 1989 Commissioner Shanahan m~ended hie mot/on to reflect that the deve- lopment approval will expire if the time requtrelente are not complied with, and the Board of County Co~m/seloners is not nak/ng a deter- elnatton of vested rights under the new Growth Management Plan. Commissioner Saunders commented that tn his opinion this project is vested, and he does not want to vote in favor of it and see 22 story buildings, but 2.3 million dollars has been spent on the foun- dations and 3.7 million dollars on the project, as a whole, and he will vo~e in favor of the motion. Commissioner Hasse commented that the Petitioner did not move for- ward with construction, and the new building requirements and zoning are being changed. He emphasized that the Growth Hanagement Plan instituted to prevent this is being thro~m out the window. He Indi- cated that he will not support the motion. Commissioner Volpe commented that tn all fairness, the Board of County Commissioners did not put a time limJtation on the project, but now, the Petitioner has 4 months to use it or lose it. Upon call for the question, the lotion carried 4/1. (Commissioner Hmeee opposed). **' l~put~ Clerk Hoff~an replaced Deputy Clerk Xraft at thle tame aec Itel ~gA1 ~N~TXAL REPORT OF AF~ORDABL~ HOUS~NG TASE FORCE - PRE$~iD Housing Urban Improvement Director Shreeve explained that on ~arch 2~, 1989, the Commission adopted a Resolution establishing the Affordable Housing Task Force. He introduced David Graham, Chairman of the Task Force, to present the preliminary report. ~r. David Graham thanked Staff for the assistance and enthustae~ they have given to the Committee to solve the Affordable Housing problems tn Collier County. He advised that there are problems in the coastal and Immokalee areas, not only in the lack of adequate affor- dable housing, but also a shortage in the work force to fill those Jobs which are available at a certain income level. He explained that Page 20 October 3, 1989 within the next 60-90 days, the ComaIttee will define the mechanisms which are needed to solve the short term and long term problems. Mr. Graham stated that one Issue he would like to touch on, is the Task Force's unanimous support of a Doc Stamp Ordinance for Affordable Housing in Collier County, as a Local Bill. He noted that the Finance Committee of the Task Force ts currently looking at ways where the small amounts of money that are being generated from the Doc Stamps can be put into a larger proportionate measurable number of housing units, as was done with the monies from the Pocket of Poverty Program. Mr. Graham thanked the Commission for al/owing his Committee an additional 30 days to present the preliminary report. He stated that the Committee ts more than happy to work with Staff on any issues, i.e.. the implementation of an Impact Fee Relief Ordinance, etc. Commissioner Volpe stated that he feels that it would be most appropriate for the Task Force to work with Staff and the County Attorney's Office, since their input will be very helpful. Commissioner Saundere thanked Mr. Graham for his service on the Task Force, thus far, and also for his offer to help with the drafting of the new ordinance. He indicated that the Commission looks forward to the Committee's subsequent reports. Iten~gB1 SNORT LIST AND R~C(N~fENDED CONSULTANTS FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: JENEIF & CHARLAND; HOLE, MONTES KIMLEY-RORN; WIL$ N, MILLER, BARTON, SOLL & PEEK; AND A~NOLI BAI~BEI~ - APPROVED Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated that a numerical rating system was used to determine the consultants with the highest rating for the slx Transportation Improvement ProJect~ as follows: Jenkins & Charland - Bridge Design - S.R. 29 Pedestrian Overpass Hole, Montes - Road Redesign - Immokalee Road CH2M Hill - Road Redesign - Pine Ridge Road Ktmley-Horn - Road Redesign - Golden Gate Parkway Wilson, Miller - New Corridor Road Design - Vanderbtlt Beach Road Agnolt, Barber - New Corridor Road Design - Goodlette-Frank Road Coeoateetoner Goodntght moved, seconded by Coenteeloner Volpe, and carried unanlnousl¥, to approve the reconnendattons of Staff. Page 21 October 3, 1989 It~ tgCl R~COI~q~NDATZON FOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR TH~ 1999-90 ~DZNG CONTRIB~'rIoN TO SH~LTX'R FOR ABUSSD WOM~H OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. CONTINUKD TO OCTOBKR 17 1989 - Commtsmioner Hume movmd, seconded by Commime/oner SI~ mhd carrtm~ ~tmouml¥, t~mt this Item bm continued to Octobmr 17, 1909. Xtmm PgD! cA~P, ,.m~ssx~ & ~'~xg APPROVXD AS #! ,Im~ FOR ~M STATION, ST~ TO ~ING BA~ 0 . ~S~ I_.._ _I~ ~C RE 5 MG. STOOGE - ~ Utilities Administrator Arnold advised that this item tm a request for direction from the Commission relating to the select,on of pro- fessional engineering f~rms to provide dest~ and construction super- v~s~on services for a Raw Water Booster ~mp Stat/on and a 5 MG Storage Tank/Pumping Stat/on. He reported that on June 6, 1989, the Board authorized Staff to solicit proposals, form a Staff Select~on Committee, and to provide a shoFt list for the Commies~on,s con- sideration. He reported that 8 f~rms submitted PrOpOsals, and Staff did go through the ranking process. Mr. Arnold indicated that during the rating process, co~cerne were raised relating to the amount of prior work that has been awarded to any particular f~rm. He noted that he has provided two as indicated in his memorandum dated September 22, ~989: one cons~de=lng the prior work factor~ and the other not cone~dering the prior work factor. Mr. Arnold called attention to the original rankings and the recalculated rankings for both projects. He requested that the Commission advise as to their feelings on the selection of the engi- neering firms, and to establish an appropriate date and time to con- duct interviews and to make the final selection. Commissioner Shanahan stated that his recommendation tm to accept the recalculated rankings as presented in Mr. Arnold's September 22, 1989 memorandum, and establish a compatible date to hear the presen- tations and make the final selection. Page 22 October 3, 1989 Com~issioner Saunders stated that because the Raw Water Booster Station is a relatively small project, the Commission may not want to be involved with interviewing the engineering firms, but the 5 MO Storage Tank Project is a bit different, since it Iea larger project in terms of construction costs. Commiasioner Sh~n~han ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnlght, to accept the recalculated rankinga of Mr. Arnold'a September 22, 1989 ~e~o; BCC to hear Presentations from tho thr~e topped r~nked f~z~m~ for the 5 MO Storage Tank, ~nd rely on Staff's reco~and~ttoll regarding the ~ Nater Booster atatton. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, County Manager Dorrill advised that the Commission has never made a policy decision to penalize people who have done work for the County in the past. He noted that this is the reason that he had the one categorV removed, and the num- bers were recalculated. ~ call for tbs ~eatton, tho motion carried ~t~l~. T~ 9S It~ HD~ NOI~tAL BIDDING PltOCESS WAIVED; COUNTY ATT0~3EY TO I~tEPAItl AND ~o~s~0~ ~o~c~ ~zs Fen ~r~S~TZ~ ~ ~SS County Attorney Cuyler advised that he needs to bring the cent=act with Missimer and Associates back to the Commission. He noted that because of the time frame, request is being made to waive the normal bidding and proposal requirements. Cmism~o~r ~e ~o~d, meconded ~ Co~smioner Vol~ ~ c~rl~ ~~ly, to ~ the noml b~dd~ng proces~ ~ To seri~ t~ co~tralnte, ~d that the C~ty Attorn~ ~ d~rect~ to t~ C~mm~. Itm ~! BID 4~9-1417, DAILY COVER & FILL MATERIAL FOR NAPLKS AND IMMOKALEH LANDFILLS - ANARDED TO NUMEROUS VENDORS Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Dally News on July 23, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Page 23 October 3, 1989 Clerk, bide were received unti! 2:30 P.M. on August 16, 1989, to con- sider Bid #89-1417, Daily Cover & Fill Materials for Naples and Immokalee Landfills. Commissioner Vo/pe noted that in reading the backup materiel, it appears that the fill from the Fairgrounds ie not acceptable for the cover at the Landfill. Solid Waste Management Director Fahe¥ advised that the material that was used to cover OrangeTree was designated for use to elevate the base of Lined Cell Phase III, and that is separate and distinct from the sub~ect material. Mrs. Charlotte Westman called attention to the fact that the Execut. ive Summary states that the lowest responsive bidder will be used in all cases, but noted that there Is a wide disparity in the bids, and questioned why a $9.20/ton bid will be used ae opposed to $3.95/ton bid? Mr. Fahe¥ stated that the least cost material provider will be used, but in the event that something should occur, I.e. if the other suppliers were out of business, and that was the only resource that the County had, then that supplier would be used. Cmtmmioner Goodntght ~oved, seconded by Commissioner carried unanimously, that Bid #89-1417 be awarded to Harper Brotharm, APAC of Florida, Highway Pavers, and Sea Con Industries, ~nd that tho quantity or quality develop, the next low. et reopon~ive bidder Item #ll&l B~D~IT AMINDMI3FF8 89-331; 333; 335; 337; 339/340; 348; 352-356; 389 - Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner bee and carried unantmouml¥, that Budget Amenduaente 89-331; 333; 335; 337; 339/340; 348; 352-356; and 359 be adopted. Item #11A2 BUDGET ~ 89-342; 344; AND 360 - ADO~D Co-.lealoner Sbanah~n ~ved, eeconded by Co~'teatoner Hu~e ~.d ~ 24 C~'~CO~ ~, ~g~g ca~rie4 .~4mi~mzsly, that Budget A~end~ente 89-342; 344; Xt~ ~XOW 19-277, ~X~XNO ~~ ~ ~0 Administrative Assistant to the Board Ftlson stated that there vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. She Indicated that a press release was Issued, and two resumes have been received. She advised that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board ts recom- mending that Cherryle Thomas be appointed to fill the vacant. ~ c.~i~ ~i~ly, t~t R~ol~tt~ 89-277, ~tntt~ Page 25 October 3, 1989 Item ,12B RESOLUTION 80--278, RKAPPOIIFFI~G R. FREDKRZCK B:KYKS AND FRKD N. 'I*KOMAS, ..,°R., /did AI'PozJrrzxo J~x]nlrfH R. ~ TO THE CO~LZER COUNTY PT.,LNJIIJlU .CO~S~OX - A]X)PTgD Administrative Assistant to the Board Ftlson explained that a press release was Issued on August 18, 1989, announcing the expiration of three terms on the Collier County Planning Commission. She indi- cated that five resumes have been received from applicants tn D/strict 1; five resumes from District 2; one resume from District 3; and one resume from District 5. Hrs. Fllson advised that recommendations have been made to reap- point Messrs. Keyes and Thomas, and that Susan Secula be appointed from District 1. Comm/moloner Shenahen moved, that Pan3 $. O'Wetl! be appointed from District 1. Commissioner Shan~han Mlthdrew hie motion, following · abort discussion regarding the requtreBent that an appli- cant reside within the D/strict that he Mill be serving. Coumtemtoner Sh~nahmn moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Volpe and cur/ed unmn/mouoly, that Kenneth R. Hunt from District 1, bo appointed to oerv~ on the Collier County Planning Commission. Commissioner Volpe moved, ascended by Commtsmtoner Hm~me and carrted unanimously, that R. Frederick Keyes of District 2, be real)- pointed to the Collier Count~ Planning Con/es/on. Commissioner Ooodntght moved, meconded by Contmstone~ Hesse and cez*rled un~ntmouely, that Fred Thoma~ of District 5, be reappointed to the Collier Co~nt7 Planning Commission. Page 26 October 3. 1989 un.er the Co~ent Agenda be approved and or adopted: Its el4A1 ~ TO AGRKIXK]F~ BETN~ER THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEP~ OF COI~I~NITY AF~AIR~ ~ ~ ~C ~R ~ 81,000,000 ~ OF ~ Itu e14A2 R~SOL~TZON 89-279, PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF THE RO&DM&Y, DRAINAGE, MATER AND S~ ~~ ~R ~g FIN~ ~T OF "N~A RZ~ ~IT I1' - ~ TO ~TZOMS That the Board of County Comm/esioners grant preliminary accep- tance of the roadway, drainage, water and sewer improvements tn "Naps Ridgg Unit II" with the following stipulations: 1. Accept the Irrevocable Letter of Credit as security for matn- tenace of the Infrastructure until the Board of County ComsissJoners grants final acceptance of all improvements. 2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Resolution authorizing preliminary acceptance. 3. Preliminary acceptance of ~mprovements wtl! not become effec- tive untl! water and sewer factl~tJes have been conveyed to Collier County Water-Sewer District. See Page: ~' B' / Item#14B1 BUDGHT&M~NDME]IT TRJLN~FEKRING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF 095,900 FOR I~D 222, R0,,&D J~qS~SM~NTS - CO~STR~CTIOR ltem#14C1 R~CKZPT OF ADDITIONAL OLDER AMERICANS ACT TITLE III-B FUND~ IN AIqO~FT OF ~22,033 FOR 1990 GRAFf See Page Itu ~1~C2 C0NTHACT ~ T~ 1989-90 FUNDING CONTRIBUTZON IN TEK AMOUNT OF $5,000 TO THZ TaA~. AeD ~CaTIOXXL cmrrER Fca TH~ mumic~, Iec. ~T.E.C.W.) Itu #1~C3 CONTInenT FOR TH~ 1989-90 FUNDING C0NTRIB~T/ON IN THE AMO~TRT OF 811,000 .TO ~OSPIC~ OF N&PL~S, INC. ~tm~ ~14C4 h~ 27 Octoblfz- $, lgSg COrl'ff. ACT FOR ~ 1989-90 Iq~'DXNG corfRXBUTXOM XM TI~ ~ OF 846,760 Xtmm #14C5 ~ to Xtmm I~CZ COrllAC~ ~ ~ 198g-~ ffOM*DIMG CO~XBTT2'XON XX ~ ~ OF $30,~0 Xtmm ~14CT Xtem ~14C8 ~ OF C0~TRAC~ WX/~ ~I~T,Z, CRE C~B COMP&J~f TO PRO~TDI~ a~RVXC~ col~lmrx~ CAff~ ~R ~ ~-D~RT, Y PROGRA~ IR AR ~ WO~ I~ ~XC~D ~4,000 Xt~ #14D1 XtEm #1412 ~ BETWeeN THE GOLDEN GATE BUSINESS ASSOC., INC., AMD TI~ BCC FOR Pq~RlmOSB OF HOLDING TI~ ~A~LY ~ '~O~I~ DA~" See Pages ~O'~. /-- ~, ~ Xt~ ~1413 Xt~ #14E4 ltI~OT.,UTXC~ 19-280, ONE YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT BETI~EN lqXB BCC ~ ~ E'~ 28 ~ g~ O, A~ OFFICE AT TR~ COLLIER COUNTY DEVELO~ SEIt~ICES ~ ANOUNT OF $62,135.60 Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on September 5, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received until 2:30 P.M. on September 20, 1989, to consider Bid .89-1474, Court and Nightwatch Security Guards. =~Tr~xoarxs o~ cosazcrIOX TO T~X TAX Ro~.~- ~.s ~sxFrm~ sr ~OFSm'r ~~m,s oW~CE No. 139 /tem,14Z2 1988 TAX ROLL Dated 09/19/89 IKXTRA qA~l TZNZ FO~ INMAT~ NOS. 36317, 50534, 63S04, A~D 58534 Item ,24I .MI~/J-AN~OUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR KE~K~ED The following miscellaneous correspondence was flied and/or referred to the various departments as Indicated below: 1. 09/26/89 Notice of Public Workshop on Hazardous Waste Collection Center Grant Program, from the DER with enclosed conference registration form. xc: Hell Dorrlll, Bill Lorenz, and filed. 09/11/89 Letter to Chairman, Collier County Board of County Commissioners, from Robert K. Lofltn, Environmental Specialist, Z!R, re: Collier County - WRR File No. 111703805 Southport Venture Assoc., enclosing short form application dredge and fill activities, xc: Nell Dorrtll, Bill Lorenz and filed. 3o 09/18/89 Letter to Chairman, Collier County Board of County Commissioners, from Robert K. Lofltn, Environmental Specialist, DER, re: Collier County - WRR File No. 111700965 Tempustech, Inc., enclosing short form application involving dredge and fill activities, xc: Nell Dorrtll Bill Lorenz, and filed. ' 09/26/89 Hemorandum to Board of County Commissioners from Deena L. Qutnn, Real Property Supervisor, re: Immokalee Atrport, possible leasing of airport property to Polycycle and the proposed Ground Water Protection Ordinance for con- stderatlon, xc: BOO and flied. Page 29 October 3, 1989 09/20/89 Letter to Board of County Commissioners from John C. Green, Managed Logistics Systems, Inc., re: Notice of Protest advising that they are protesting the action of the County tn awarding a Fleet Management and Vehicle Matntenace Contract. xc: Hell Dorrill, Leo Ochs, Purchasing, Fleet Management, and filed. Minutes received and filed: Ao 09/11/89 Agenda and Minutes for September 13, 1989 for the Coiller County Advisory Committee for the Homeleem. 0?/2?/89 Minutes for Library Advisory Board with attached Librarlan~s Report for July 27, 1989. 09/21/89 Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, Case No. 88-2173-CA-01-HDH, Tactmark, Ltd., vs. Terence L. Fttzglrald. xc: Ken Cuyler and flied. 09/18/89 Letter from James B. Hughes, Executive Director, Hendry-Collter County ASCS Office, advising that Congress had passed and the President had signed the Disaster Assistance Act of 1989. xc: Nell Dorrtll, Steve Dobbs, Agricultural Director, and flied. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 12:35 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: J.A~.ES C. ~ILES, CLERK These m ~es approved by the Board on as pFesented ~ or as coFrected Page 30