The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 09/26/1989 R Naples, Florida, September 26, 1989 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Co~missioners 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 distracts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, mat on this date at 9:00 A.M. in ~I~A~ SESSION in Building "F" of the 0overnment~ Comp/ex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Burr L. Saunders Max A. Rasse, Jr. Richard S. Shanahan Michael J. Volpe Anne Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosk¥, Finance Director; Annaliese Kraft and Ellis Hoffman, Deputy Clerks: Nail Dorrlll, County Manager; Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager, Tom Olliff, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuwler, County Attorney: Brenda Wilson, Assistant County Attorney, ~eorge Archibald, Transportation Services Admin~strator: Frank Brutt, Community Development Administrator: Mike Arnold, Utilities Administrator~ William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrstor~ Raymond Bellows, Planner: James Reardon, Emergency Services Adminlstra~or~ Jeff Perry, Chief Transportation Planner: Bob Blanchard, Comprehensive Planning Manager; Stan Lltsinger, Growth Management Director: Cliff Crawford, Parks & Racreation Director; David Russell, Solid Waste Department Supervisor: Bob Dunivan, Engineer; Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant to the Board: and Deputy Tom Storrar, Sheriff's Office. Pa~e ! SEPTENBER 26, 1989 Co~tmmtonmr Sh~ ~. m~condmd ~ Co~lmmlon~r Vol~ ~ c~rt~ ~~ly that the A~n~ ~d Con,eat ~ ~ ~ 2e Itu SCS to be held ·t 1:00 P.#. - Ordinance as~ndln~ Ordinance 85-33 by ·xp~ndln~ the definition of propert~ ~hlch is · public nul·ance due to ov, r~rown ~eeds, ~ra~e or under,re,th. Item 12B Added - ~erkshire Lakes PUD - U.S. InstAllAtion. Ite~ 12C Added - Approval to purchase Ra~llan let· for the Florida Association of Counties' Luau. Item 9B1 Deleted - Resolution author/zing Staff to ACqUire, by gift, purchase, or conde.natton, twentw-flv~ feet of addi- tional road right-of-way needed for the four-lantng of C. R. 951. 9e 10. Item 14B1 Deleted - Purchase Agreement for acquisition of portion of right-of-way needed for the widening of County 'Ro~d 951 between U.S. 41 and R·ttleer~ke Ha~aock Road. 11. Item 1¢E2 Deleted - Approval of one ~ear lea~e agreement with the South Florid· Mater Management District to use a~l office at the Collier County Development Service· Building. Item 14E4 Deleted - Resolution re O~d. 89-48 to ~tntaln conformity with International City I~u~ge~n~ As~oct&tion Retirement Corporation (ICHA"RC) trust requtre~ente. Item 9Al Continued to October 10, 1989 - Resolution authorizing Staff to acquire by gift, purchase or condem- nation, ~nty-ftvw feet of additional road right-of-way needed for the four-lantng of County Road 951 (C.R. 981) bet- mn U.S. 41 ~ Rattlesnake Hasmock Road (C.R. 884). Item 9D2 Cantinas· - Approval of mt·ts remmmlvtng fund loan agree, ant for East and South Naples Sanitary Sewer ~imtem Project. Item 9B1 moved to 6C1 - Dtecu~eton of one-cent ~lee tu o~tion. 14F3 moved to 9F! - Request for Bomrd ~ro~el to the county-wide fire ~ ~ ~r~ r~lo co~ ~icattons ne~rk t~gh a coo~ratt~ tnter~~ntal ~c~tsm. 12. Item 14G1 moved to 9G2 - Reco~nd~tion that the BoA~d of County Commission·re author/z· the C~t~ to ~te a contract for pbllc relatto~ ~emlce. with the rim of ~la 4 ~tlng, Inc. Xtem ~4 #Iw0TsS o~ se~r~,~_ 8, 1889 - ~OVXD Pa~e 2 Colm~sionor Shanahan moved, seconded by Comut~oner ~mo~e and carried unmn~mou81¥, that the mtnutel of September 5, 1989 bo approved. Item ORDIN&IJOI 80-64 RI PKTXTXON R-88-2! AMKNDXNQ ORDXWCI 89-20 RXDC~I' FfddlZD UIEIT DKVKLOPMKHT TO REFLECT REVISED KXHIBXT~ Legal notice having been published tn the Naplea D~tly NM on Septenb~r 7, 1989, as evidenced by ifft~vtt of ~bltcittoa fll~ utth the Clerk, ~mbltc hearing was o~ned to consider ~ Ordt~ce ~t~ Ordtmce 89-20, "S~d Rtd~' Plied Unit ~lo~nt to corr~t scribner's error to reflect r~vtsed ~tbtts Plier Rm~nd kllo~ e~l~tn~ ~h~t the ~rd of Co~ Coutssloners, on May 23, 1989, approved the S~d Rtd~ ~ Ordtmce 89-20 ~d ~rlng the course of the public hearing, the ~ster PI~ ~~ to ~ce the n~r of out~rcels ~d access ~tnts. tndtcat~ t~t ~tbtts i thr~gh 5 containing ~ teritl up, to~~tc ~p, soils ~d ~t~tlon ~p ~d ~at~ ~re ~t ~t~. He noted t~t Staff rsccmn~ apprml to ~lblts 1-5 with the 5~ ltd~ PUD. C~isstmer Vol~ ~t, seconded ~ Couisstoner c~ri~ ~t~sly, that t~ ~bltc hearing ~ close. Cmtsstoner Vol~ ~-~, ~cond~ ~ Co~lsslo~r 8~ ~d c~rt~ ~i~usly, that Ntttton R-86-il ~t~ ~lbtts to Ordtmce 69-~0, S~d ltd~ PUD, ~ appro~ ~ t~t the ordlmce u n~red ~d tttl~ ~1~ ~ a~pted md enter~ into Ordtmce ~k ]o. 36: O~IN~CI 89-64 AN ORDINANCE ~ENDING 0RDINANC~ 89-20 "SAND RIDGE" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO CORRECT SCRIV~NER'S ERROR TO REFLECT REVISED EXHIBITS 2-~, AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Item ~B2 P~ITIO~ Z~0~22 ~STING ~ ~ TO CO~I~ CO~ o~xm 02-2, ~z~o SECTION 7,7, 'RO' ~TION ~ O~ SPACE ~SIO~ USE 'p" - CHILD C~ C~KRS - DENIED Legal notice havin~ been published in the Naples ~ail~ News on September 7, 1989, as eviden~ed b~ Affidavit of ~blIoatlon flied with Page 3 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 the Clark, public hearing was openad to considar an Ordinance amending Ordinanca 82-2, the Zoning Regulations, by amanding Saction 7.7 "RO" racraation and opan spaca district. Planner Bryan Milk stated that Petition ZO-89-22 raquests an amendment by adding provisional use "p" child care centers. Ha explained that this distrlct is designed to apply to areas which pro- vide natural or man made recreation and other open space lands and facilities that provide public or special group recreation, education, entertainment and relaxation. Ha noted that such lands and facilities may be provided through public, private, commercial or special group sponsorship. He indicated that within the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2, child care centers are allowed as provisional uses within A-2, RMF-12, RMF-16 and C-4 zoning districts and allowed as a permitted use within the C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. He explained that based upon criteria contained in Section 13.1d of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Staff can determine the appropriataness of child care centers on a case-by-case review as a provisional uss on a given parcel of land with any recreation and open space district and recommend approval. He noted that the CCPC held a public hasting September ?, 1989 and forwarded Petition Z0-89-22 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval by a vote of 8/0. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Planner Milk indicated that of tha ~§ "RO" and Open Space districts, the majority are public, i.e. County park facilities, private, i.e. gun range, sportsman's parks, and scattered throughout most of the county. Commissionar Volpe stated that a child care center is incompatible with boat ramps, public swimming pools, marinas and boat ramps, ampitheatre, shooting range, racetrack, miniature golf, driving range, archery range, water ski Jumps, zoo, and sea aquariums. Mr. Milk rasponded that Staff would like to add it as a provisional use and Staff could look at the com- patibility and appropriateness for a particular area within tha RO district, such as a park. Commissioner Saunders explained that in this particular district, Collier County would be able to consider a child Page 4 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 care facility as a provisional use and it would come to the Board of County Commissioners for a decision as to whether it would be com- patible with surrounding uses. Commissioner Volpe expressed concern about putting child care centers in the Recreation and Open Space districts. In responses to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Milk explained that the need for this request is public support for child care centers in an "RO" district. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Milk indi- cated that child care facilities are permitted uses within C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. Commissioner Saunders indicated that part of the problem with child care facilit~es is that they are required in com- mercial areas that are e:~pensive, or the surroundings are not necessarily compatible with child care facilities, and that is part of the motivation to open up areas for child care. Assistant to the County Manager Olltff explained that a site in Immokalee is zoned "RO", which was built by a private non-profit Kiwanis group, and could be used for a child care center and would make a good accompanying use to the park site. He explained that it is a small park, located in a residential type area and the Zoning Ordinance does not allow for a child care center there. He reported that Staff is trying to al/ow for that small opportunity when a pri- vate park facility or some "RO" district requests use for a child care center, and Staff can then bring it to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. Commissioner Volpe commented that the Zoning Director has discretion for any other recreational use and this is not an area appropriate for a child care center. Mr. Olliff pointed out that the Board of County Commissioners can restrict those types of uses. A discussion followed about child care centers and private parks. Mr. George Keller, President, Collier County Civic Federation, stated that this Ordinance will create a lot of problems because pro- visional use has been badly mismanaged. He pointed out that Commissioner Volpe's suggestion that a 4 to 1 vote be required on pro- visional use, the same as a rezone, will save a lot of headaches. He Page 5 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 emphasized that it should be placed on the Agenda within the next 2 weeks. Commissioner Hesse concurred. Mr. Jack Silk, Immokalee Child Care Center, stated that a non- profit or~anization runs the child care center with approximately 120 children of migrant farm workers. He indicated that the children are fed Ina school type operation that has been on County property for 25 years. He noted that members of the community donate their time and efforts to the child care center and they asked Co~lssioner Goodnight for her help. He explained that the present location is in a poor neighborhood, but that is where the children come from and At is an easy facility for the parents to drop off their children. He noted that the park is adequate, and he would like to expand the operation on the park grounds. Commissioner Volpe asked if there ]s another way to approach this issue and address it7 Planning Services Manager Ken Baginski stated this Ordinance will allow for community uses and centers, such as facilities for children after school, the Y.M.C.A. and overall on a case by case basis, through prov~sionsl use, determinations could be made if It is a compatible and acceptable use. County Attorney Cuylcr indicated that there is no way to address a specific situation; it has to be appropriately zoned for that use. He explained that something such as a Y.M.C.A. is recreation, but with adults using the pool, it is In the ne%ute of an accessory use to recreation. In response to Commissioner Vo]pe, Attorney Cuyler pointed out that the type of facility, such as the Y.M.C.A., can be allowed in recreation open space. Commissioner Goodnight reported that the Board of County Co~missioners has the right to vote on each issue, and the County needs to be consistent and not take one child care center in Immokalee and work with that. She explained that the County ID 1982 zoned it "RO" and the child care center has been there for 25 yes, rs. Commissioner Hesse expressed concern abou% bringing commercialism to every park and community center. Commissioner Saunders noted that Page 5 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 the child care Is located on County property and that ts the Issue. Mr. Oeorge Keller suggested that the County deed the land to the child care center. Commissioner Goodntght commented that the County has a lease with them and they have the appropriate Insurance. Co~mtmaloner Shmnahan moved, seconded by Commissioner and carried unanimously, that the public hearing b~ clo~ed. Co-missioner Goodnt. ght ~ov~d, seconded by Comaisstoner Sh~n~h~n that Ntltt~n IO-89-11 ~ndlng Section ?.? 'RO' Recratton and Open Sp~cs Otstrlct, b.3, p~r~ttted provisional uses and structures by adding provtstal use 'p' -Chtld Care Centers be adopted. Commissioner Saunders noted that the definition of "RO" district Is "This district ts designed to apply to areas which provide natural or man made recreation and other open space lands and facilities which provtde public or special group recreation, education, entertainment and relaxation. Such lands and facilities may be provided through public, private or commercial or special group sponsorship." Co~mlseloner Saunders commented that child care facilities, though co~erclal, would be more compatible with those types of facilities than with facilities and locations in commercial districts. He noted that the Comprehensive Plan has been changed to eliminate commercial areas that are not at major intersections and child care facilities will, In the future, be located on major intersections. Commissioner ¥olpe co,anted that Inconsistencies exist with that type of enterprts~ in a ~ecreatton and open space area. Upon call for the question, the ~otlon failed 3/2. (Coatmston~r ~ ~ Volp~ opposed). Ce~atselon~r ~oodntght questioned wh~t the I~olr~le Child Cmtor ts ~~ to do? & itecuaaton follc~e~d about child c~r~ cen- ~ere ~nd proper u~ee. Co~tm~ion~r Saundere sugpwsted that &ttoru~y Cuylor ~nd County Nanag~r Dot,ill Investigate the sttu~tion for this p&rttcular child care center and report beck to th~ Board of County Cogitating, rs f~r ~e~onatderatton. Itea ORDINA~Cl 89--6~ A~KNDING ORDI[ANCI 89-5, FIRST ANNUAL CAPITAL I~V~T ELE~IeT UPDATE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ~ROWT~ Pa,.~e 7 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 PLAN - ADOPTED. RESOLUTION 89-276A CREATING SALES TAX ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 7, ]989 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication fi/ed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance 89-05 enacting and establishing s Growth Management Plan for Collier County, Florida. Stan Lttstnger, Growth Management Director, stated that this is the public hearing for the Board of County Commissioners to review and adopt the CIE update of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. He noted that Chapter 163 Fla. Statutes requires an annual update process for the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Mana- gement Plan, and the CIE ts the basis for programming capital projects to meet the adopted level of service standards in the Growth Manage- ment Plan for quality livable communttl, environment. He indicated that public facilities are identified as well as the cost and the sources of revenue that will be used to fund those revenues which will be required during the next 5 years. He stated that eliminating existing deficiencies and providing adequate public facilities is the No. i goal of the CIE. He noted that the CIE update contains $276,000,000 in projects to maintain n. tnimum levels of service requirements and concurrency. He reported that it is proposed to fund this CIE with 13 revenue sources; most significantly is the proposed 7th cent sales tax surcharge; increased impact fees for roads are addressed, and he noted that 22% of the funding of the CIE is from impact fees. He pointed out that the State road improvements in the County's CIE ave included for the first time in order to maintain minimum levels of service as adopted by the County on State road segments to meet concurrency requirements. He indicated that Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance. Jeff Perry, Chief Transportation Planner, explained that the State Highway Road System is included in this year's CIE update because of the absence of sufficient State funding in the State's work program to Peg~ 8 build necessary tnf:rastructure within the time frame necessary to maintain concurrency, He Indicated that the State suggested minimum standards to be set bV local Jurisdictions for the State highway system, and the obligation to maintain the levels of service has become the County's obitgatton. He reported that there ere three options available to Collier County: I) lower the level of service standard and live with more congestion, or 2) raise revenues to build Improvements to maintain the appropriate level of service, or 3) stop development in areas Impacting roadways to keep the level of service at the same. He explained that lowering the level of service ts not recognized by local Jurisdictions and the State has said that the County can Justify lowering the level of service, but not paying for the roads ts not Justification according to DCA and the only option left ts to stop or delay building permits In those particular areas. He passed out e handout (copy not provided to Clerk to the Board) of a smaller version of the map displayed. He explained and pointed out the areas of significant influence on the displayed map. He noted that when the levels of service adopted tn the plan fall below the acceptable level an area of significant influence around the affected segment of highway ts created. He explained that the areas are broken up into four different areas: 1} North Naples, 2) East and South Nap.les, 3) East Naples, Golden Gate Area and, 4) Marco Island. lie reported that roads highlighted tn black are projected State highway deflclencle~l within the § year period tn the event the Board of County Commissioners chooses not to include them in the CIE. He pointed out the State road~ that are projected to exceed the adopted levels of service for which there ts no ~tate funding available. He noted that vested rights and the likelihood that an off the top allocation of capacity has to be given to the DRI's, complicate the problem. He stated that most DRI's have to pay their particular share of the road- way, and can obtain their necessary building permits and continue development, but other developers cannot develop until the road is physically improved, either by the County or the State. Contseloner Page 9 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 Htsse co~ented that that ts growth paying for growth. In response to Com,aissioner Shanahan, Mr. Perry stated that the formula for determining the capacity, impact and what percentage their cost of making improvements translates into a portion of the cost to build that new segment. Mr. Perry showed on the d/splayed map the far reaching effects of the State roads on development in the area. He emphasized that the North Naples area Impact extendR beyond the City of Nap/es. He reported that 19~ of the traffic using the roadway comes from outside the urban area. He explained that traffic continues to grow because of an increase in the people coming from out of the county. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Perry said that Lee County has the same problem and Collier County will be seeking interlocal agreements with the City of Naples and Lee County if we find substantial traffic coming from those areas, and Collier County will ask them to stop Issuing Development Orders. Mr. Perry stated that as an example, the majority of traffic on Radio Road occurs by development around that segment, but he also found 6 or ?~ of the traffic crossing the Gordon River Bridge comes from Marco Isl~.nd, using the Bast Trail. He emphasized that the State roads have a far reaching effect on the growth potent/a/. A discussion followed about the lack of State fumdtng. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Perry replied that other counties are looking at funding roads themselves, i.e. Lee County. Coutssloner Shanahan commented that most every county in the State has Petitioned the Governor to increase the gas tax by 10 cents and send § cents back to the county, and asked for increases in vehicle registration, licensing, rental cars etc. to generate monies to accommodate the road situation. County Manager Dorrtll questioned that at some point in the next 5 years the City of Naples could not Issue any non vested Development Orders because of 2 roads outside the City limits that fall below level of service standards, compared to someone at the County having a vacant lot at the Naples Bath and Tennis Club off Airport Road, who could not obtain a building permit due to a deficient State road three miles away. In reply to County Manager Dorrlll, Mr. Perry responded in the affirmative. He pointed out the area in blue, including the City of Naples, that sccount~, for 60% of all the traffic that uses that road. Ne noted that ne,xt year the Board of County Commissioners will have to decide at what point and where they want to draw the line to stop issuing building permits. He reported that Staff is trying to show the Board of County Commissioners and will show during a formal analysis of these areas, what percentages of the traffic come from the In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Perry replied that the Gordon River Bridge segment to Davis Boulevard is not listed in the CIE. He indicated that if the sales tax goes through and the Cou31ty uses their portion for State roads in the unincorporated area, he hopes that the City of Naa, les will use their portion to fund that. A discussion followed about building permits in the areas surrounding the Gordon River Bridge. A discussion followed about the City of Naples and the traffic It attracts. County Manager Dorrtll reported that the County cannot affect level of service on State roads, but can affect the zones of influence within new areas for construction that are contributing to further degradation of the State road's ability to carry cars. Commissioner Shanahan questioned zone influence? Mr. Perry replied that examples are cited tn the Growth Management Plan as to how thls system would work. He noted that the Citizens Advisory Couittee of the Growth Management Committee would not recommend spm- ctflc adoption or creation of any zones of influence 2 years ago, and the zones could have different shapes each year. Commissioner Goodntght questioned DRI's vested rights and building permits being issued if they have paid up front regardless of whether or not the State builds the road to that standard7 Mr. Perry replied that if some statutory exemption is granted to DRI development, the Page Development Order stipulates what sort of vesting the developer has, i.e. Pelican Bay has agreed to pay one portion of the roadway, but has also agreed not to allow commercial development in a portion of their project until the roadway is approved. He reported that there are DRI's with vested status that are not subject to concurrency mana- gement limitations imposed on non DRI's. Commissioner Goodntght com- mented that Secretary Pelham said DRI's have vested rights and Collier County cannot stop Issuing building permits, regardless of the levels of service. In response, to Commissioner Goodnight, Mr. Perry stated that it is the County's choice as to where the improvement goes. Commissioner Volpe questioned the flyover on U.S. 41 in North Naples redirecting traffic to other roads, i.e. Airport, Pine Ridge Road? Mr. Perry replied that when one improvement is created, you create another problem downstream in the network. Ne explained that until the network is completed, temporary Interim problems will arise. He reported that the County tries to look at the whole network as an entire system, and there will be continuing adjustment and readjust- ment to update the situation. Commissioner Volpe commented that is called managl~:g growth. *****R~-~e: 10:15 A.N. R~convwned 10:30 *** D~mt~ Clerk Boff~an replaced D~put~ Clerk lirmft mt this tim Cautt~matton of Iten 6C1 Growth Management Director Litsinger provided a copy of hie memo to Chairman Saunders, dated September 22, 1989, summarizing the con- cerns and recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission, Mr. William Tracy, Vice-Chairman of the Collier County Planning Commission stated that he has been a resident of Collier County for 36 years. He noted that the existing Capital Improvement Element (CIE) had a deficit of $66 million, and the revised Element, 9 months later has a deficit of almost $85 million which represents a 27~ increase tn deficit spending. He indicated that in the original budget, 42~ of the one mill ad valorem tax was allocated to the Capital Improvement Element, and in the revision, the allocation is 20~. He noted that both Elements tnclvde a $7 mill/on Regional Park Bond issue which reduced that deficit, and now the County is faced with a 101~ increase in Capital deficit in 9 months. He indicated that the "wish list" provided by Staff were the items to be funded from the 1 mill ad valorem tax, and included approximately $42 million in Capital Improvements, or 60% of the ! mill. He explained that originally, the CCPC recommended to the Board, that 80% be funded toward the Capital Improvements, however, this was not done. Mr. Tracy offered the following solutions: there is a $64 million deficit, and if $38 million for State roads is removed, the~e will be a deficit of $26 million, noting that 38.5% of the 1 mill will wipe out the deficit; or, the $64 million deficit can be reduced by funding §0% of the ! mill which will leave a deficit of $30 million, and if Staff can reduce the other $42 million to $12 million, the State roads could be f~ded and the budget could be balanced, and the proposed cent sales tax would not be needed. Mr. George Keller indicated that in the past, the general practice of government was that the Federal Government supported the State Government, the State Government helped support the County Government, but no%~ that entire philosophy has changed, and everyone is broke. He noted that many things are mandated at the top level that are to be provided and paid for at the local level, and the whole process is ridiculous; and, the State has plenty of options to raise additional money, i.e. increase gas taxes, income taxes, etc. He stated that he does not believe that the County should take over any responsibility for State roads in order to maintain the Levels of Service; when Collier County is built out, there will be no roads that will not be impacted. He noted that he has no objection to the sales tax referen- dum. Commissioner Volpe called attention to Mr. Tracy's remarks regarding the 101~ increase in deficit in 9 months, and questioned P~g~ 13 whether there are additional projects that were not included last year? Mr. Lttslnger replied that one option which stands out Is the fact that State roads have been added, and based on the computer model, there are additional needs for County roads. He explained that last year there was a 6th year CIE which totaled $67 million for roads, and currently there is a 5 year plan, totaling $117 mill/on. He indicated that the primary projects which were not considered 9 months ago, are: increases in cost estimates for the County Road Program, plus additional projects; 6 new proposed projects on the State road list; Parks which ts attributable to bicycle trail construction (this is included In the Parks inventory, but funded through the Roads Program). Mr. Litsinger reported that since the original CIE was presented tn August, Staff has Identified the fact that there has been double counting in the area of government buildings which are funded by ad valorem: the new Courthouse and the new Health Building have been Incorrectly identified as additional costs. He noted that the CIE identifies only needed new appropriations, therefore, the budget shows carry-forward dollars. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Lltatnger explained that when a revenue source is considered over a period of time covered by the CIE, all projected revenues must be Identified, including those that are needed to fund the CIE. He stated that in this case, there is 4 1/4 years of collection of a potential 1¢ sales tax, and over that period of time, an estimated 8128 million will be cullected, and of those monies, $64 million is required to meet the needs of the plan, and the other $63 million is available for other County needs. T~pe~ Assistant County Manager McLemore stated that the Commission had directed Staff to come back with another alternative relating to the issue of the 7th cent sales tax. He noted that the basic findings of an analysis of the sales tax referendum which had taken place in the State indicated that: there have been 18 successful referendums, with Pag,~ 14 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 an average voter approval rate of 66.2~; §0% of the referenduma that have passed, took place in 1989; 85.8~ of the 18 successful referen- dums Included the full 1¢ sales tax; 11.2% included 1/2¢; ~he term of approval of the successful referendum was 72.2% for the full 15 year period. He advised that 16 of the project similarities included Jails, or 89%; 50% had solid waste disposal facilities, including one incineration facility; 50% included governmental buildings; 38.9~ included roads. He noted that the analysis indicated that w&ter/sew~r utilities had the largest voter approval over any other project type Use. Mr. McLemore advised that the key factors of input that have been received are: people felt the referendums were successful because of their association with their Growth Management Plans; also stated was the unpopularity of the property tax alternative as a means for financing the Growth Management Plan; and the provision that the sales tax referendum include a provision for a finite period of time, I.e., the full 15 year pex. tod. He noted that it was also reported that in most cases, the conventional and political wisdom was that these referendums would not pass. Commissioner Volpe stated that In his mind, he would like to Justify the need for the additional revenues as they relate to the Growth Management Plan, but he has not yet seen the Justification. He noted that Mr. Tracy advised that he has a proposal to balance the CIE without the additional sales tax, and questioned whether this has been considered7 Mr. McLemore replied that Staff has given the Commission alternative plans to be considered, but they will be happy to look at any other proposals that anyone desires to present. Mr. McLemore explained that all of the concerns that have been raised by this Commission, w~re previously raised by the people of Leon County, but they wanted their roads f~xed, and they recommended through an Agreement with the DOT that any expenditures that were used for State roads will be credited for later projects. He noted that Collier County Staff is suggesting the same type of recomumendation. SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 Mr. McLemore advised that from the input received, he doss not believe that the total package will be passed by the Legislature in the immediate future, and if it is, there will be a 820 million def~.- cltin th~ first five year program for State roads, and $5 million for local roads. Regarding the question of how Justification can be made to spending sales tax revenue on State roads, Mr. McLemors replied that the Legislature passed the Bill to build infrastructure for local com- munities, and in order to meet those needs, a revenue means is pro- vided to deal with this: The one cent sales tax. Mr. McLemore indicated that there is a precedence for schools being addressed by the 1¢ Sales Tax Referendum, and the Inclusion of the schools will result in a $170 million program to meet their building deficits. He reported that on April 28, 1972, Collier County voters voted 72.2% in favor of approving a $12,600,000 general obliga- tion bond to construct new and improved schools. He advised that Staff has been informed by the School Board, that unless the new Capltal Improvement Program ts implemented by the schools, Collier County students will again be faced with double sessions in the very near future. Mr. McLemore stated that in terms of equity, property taxes are inherently inequitable, and if the reliance for governmental needs are plac~d on alternative revenues sources, i.e. sales taxes, this is a fairer approach. Mr. McLemore called attention to the three Plan Alternatives. He explained that Plan #1 is basically what was presented in the Tentative Budget, and lists CIE and Non-CIE uses for the monies that will be involved in the one cent three year effort. Mr. McLemore advised that Plan #3 (the second plan) is the basic implementation of the total Growth Management Plan which provides for a number of Non-CIE projects, and commits only sales tax monies to the State and local programs which show up as deficits after the 10¢ State program ts tn place. He noted that it holds in reserves sufficient Pag~ 16 revenues to construct those projects, If that program ts not put in place. He indicated that this is the full lC for five years. Mr. McLemore stated that Plan #4 is the plan which was submitted to the Conmtsston a few weeks ago, with reserves of $46 mil/ion. Ne stated that on a sales tax supportive program, at least 20~ will be held in reserves. Ne noted that after all of the projects were listed, the projects that were left over, were shown as reserve, adding that in his opinion, the reserve is inadequate. Ne explained that when this plan was presented, it was so done as a conceptual plan in getting started, and provides full funding for the local and state road programs, the Growth Management Plan, and a number of Non-CIE alternatives for a full ten year period, including the option for schools. In answer to Commissioner Shanahan~ Mr. McLemore advised that six different alternatives have been worked up, noting that the three Plans as presented today, are those that Staff decided to present to the Commission for consideration. In answer ~o Commissioner Volpe, Mr. McLemore stated that if the sales tax is adopted, a detailed financial plan will need to be worked out, and the requirements will then be known. Ne noted that at the end of the period that is given to use the sales tax to build the infrastructure, pay-as-you-go financing will then take place, thereby, minlmizin~ the consumption of public dollars. Commissioner Volpe called attention to the fact that 80~ will be dedicated to Non-CIE Pro3ects, and questioned who is going to say that these monies will be spent on those items, and when will there be a chance to say it7 Mr. McLemore advised that the Commission was pre- sented with a § Year Non-Capital Improvements List, but there ia not a formal Non-CIE authorization program in place, noting that he feels that there should be. Commissioner Vo/pe stated that there are things that are mandated by the State, and questioned the specifics of same7 Mr. McLemore indicated that the projects that are listed as Non-CIE pro3ects, are SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 those that are required under the Growth Management Act. Mr. McLemore explained that because of the concerns and dile~uaas regarding the sales tax issue, he does not believe that further accomplishments can be reached, without the assistance of an advisory committee. He stated that Staff is requesting that the Commission approve the creation of an advisory committee to come back with a program which reviews all of the projects, and makes recommendations on same. Com~tssioner Shanahan mentioned that Staff will be working with the blue ribbon committee and interfacing, etc. in an attempt to design a package that will satisfy the Commission as beat as is humanly possible. Commissioner Saunders stated that he had originally voted against the concept of a committee a couple of weeks ago, but tied to that, was the acceptance of Plan #4, which was the $445 million. He indi- cated that if Staff's recommendation is to establish a committee to look at the 1¢ Local Option Sales Tax, and in what form it should be presented, he does support that. County Manager Dorrill advised that his recommendation, is Just that, noting that he believes that the marching order of the committee should be Plan #1. He indicated that as stated by Mr. Perry's presen- tation, this community will have serious problems if the State road system is not improved. He stated that the Commission has a one month reprieve to see whether or not the 10¢ gas tax will be received. He reported that Collier County is like the other 19 counties, in that, it needs to build a jail, more money is needed for local roads, there seems to be a compelling interest in this community for a beach renourlshment project, and the only other project that is in the minimum list is a parking garage. He suggested that the Commission take the minimum list, and if it is felt that it will enhance the voters opportunity to have a different perspective, create an advisory committe, and keep the wild card in there for State roads. Mr. Dorrill explained that there are two general type elections SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 next year, and in the event that a referendum is to be held in February, a committee should be impaneled now in order to have their recommendation by November, and at the same time, Supervisor of Elections Morgan's pre-clearance requirements will need to be met. Commissioner Saunders questioned which structure, in terms of the committee, Is being recommended by Mr. Dorrlll7 County Manager Dorrlll stated that he Is recommending the same structure that was laid out previously: § appointments from the Commission; 2 appoint- ment by the City of Naples; 1 appointment by Everglades City; and 2 appointments from the School Board. Commissioner Volpe stated if the blue ribbon committee ts being discussed, and appointments from the School Board are being con- sidered, he believes that the Commission is back to where they were 3 weeks ago. County Manager Dorrlll indicated that if the committee feels that they are compelled to tell the Commies/on what their /nteresta are relatinG to State roads, which is his wild card, or local schools, which may be someone else's wild card, he believes that they should be heard, and not pre-Judged. Commissioner Volpe stated that he has a problem with local govern- ment ~esuaing an obligation for State roads. Com~l=sloner Shanahan noted that the recommendation of the CCPC puts strong covenants on anything that would be done in relationship to State roads. He indicated that in his opinion, the Commission is being asked to conceptualize the 1¢ sales tax, without any commitments to the period of time, CIE projects, or Non-CIE projects, and the com- mittee will be establishing a review for the Board's consideration. ~tmmt~r $~derm ~oved, seconded by Comieelon~r Shan~han, ~ c~r~lmi 4/1 (~ismto~r Volpe oppomed), that cremtt~ a co. mitt. u outlined by th~ Comity Nan~i~r position of tbs coaeltt#, t~ adopted, amd that tbs Co~imsion med~e Its api~lnteents to that comm/ttH within t~o mlr~; ~bst tbs i~:nctiogl ot tl~ commtttH will be to evaluats the q~e~tton ot tbs 1~ Lo~l Opttan ~l~ Tu, and to report back to the ~d of County Co~aimio~ on ~t~r there eh~ld ~ a local opttoa a[~ tu ~t~ to t~ ~rm, ~d tf mo, t~ tom t~t t~ c~ltta ia ~di~ Is to ~ nkltt~ to the ~d= ~ t~ Co~t~t~ to t~ ~t ~ti~ ~ do ~tth It u th~ ~ fit, at ~ ~~t~. c1~ ~ ~bl/o ~lng. ~rs. Charlotte ~estman, representtn~ the Lea~e of Women Voters of Collier County, atated that she concurs with ~r. Tracy~s remarks. She questioned ~hether ~he Sales Tax Plan ~htch was presented to the Planntn9 Co~lsston Included the Non-CIE Projects7 ~r. advised that the CCPC was presented the CIE Plan, and when the question arose as to the possible allocation of the 80~ of the 1 over the 5 year period, they were presented a list of possible iden- tified projects ~here the 80~ of the 1 2tll aay be spent. Nra. ~estman indicated that the total project costs are $64 ~lllton, and the CIE Items only total $41 21111on. ~he noted that the CCPC had a problem ~tth the 5 year lC sales tax, ~hlch reflects reve- nue in the amount of $160,000,000. ~r. Litsinser replied that the collection cf the 1¢ sales tax over a total of 5 years ~htch ~ould besln at so~e period in the fourth quarter of the calendar year, would expand beyond the time frame covered by the CIE which ends on Octobe~ 1, 1994. ~e noted that of the $160,000,000 ~hlch ~ould be collected tn a total 5 year ttae frame, $128,000,000 would be collected durln~ the tt~e that the CIE Is effected. Nra. ~estm~ advised that the Lea~e ts very Interested in LeSlslattve Acts, etc., and thlnss that have to be approved by the electorate. She explained that she believes that tn order for any project to be successful in a referendum, ~ need must be eatabllshed; there ~ust be a 9ood education process, and it should resatn outside of the political realm. Nra. ~estm~ noted that the same dollars appear tn the 10 year i' ~ge 20 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 plan for 1¢, under Beach and Pass Trust Fund, that appear In the year plan, and she does not understand why the 5 year plan has the same amount of money required as the 10 year plan. She stated that the Leagu~ supports Staff and the Advisory groups as often as they can, and they respect what the CCPC does. She explained that there is sufficient evidence to proceed slowly, and to be careful about making final decisions, Commissioner Shanahan called attention to the fact that the majority of the communities have expressed a high degree of acceptance of the idea of sales tax, that the sales tax was a means of shifting the reliance of government away from property taxes. eeD~put~ Clerk Kraft replaced Deputy Clerk Hoff~an at this tt~e ~n call for the question, the public hearing w am closed 5/0. Co~/#toner Shanahan ~ved, ~econded I~ Co~testoner Goodnight that (h~t~nce 8g-65 adopting th~ first ~umu~l Capital II~s~t ~p~te of th~ Collier County Qro~th N~tt~nt Plan b~ ~iopted. Commissioner Volpe indicated that he cannot support what Is being proposed tn this amendment, because of a) State roads, b) a CIE men~ showing a $?1,000,000 deficit, which Is the same as 9 months ago with no new projects, c) the allocation of 20~ of the one mill capital improvement levy on the CIE projects which was previously 40I, while the CCPC recommended using 90~ of the one mill capital Improvement levy, and d) relying on alternative sources of revenue that have yet to come into existence. Commissioner Saunders Indicated that at some point In time, projects will have to be eliminated from this pro- Ject. He noted that changing levels of service, deleting projects or imposing a moratorium wlll be forthcoming, and while he Is approving the document, he is not approving the funding sources necessary for this document. Commissioner Shanahan concurred. Commissioner Saunders agreed with Commissioner Volpe that this is a numbers game, and a conflict between what projects are being approved and what the County Is willing or able to fund ts imminent. (10¢) 28 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 Commissioner Hasse indicated that he cannot support the funding of State roads with revenues indicated in this CIE update. ~ call for the question, the motion cm~ried 3/2; C~me~ ~ tttl~ ~1~ ~ m~pt~ ~d ~ter~ into Ordtmce ~ ]o. 36. O~II~CI 89-65 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 89-05, AN ORDINANCE ENACTING AND ESTABLISHING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION ACT OF 1985 AND CHAPTER 9J-5, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, MINIMUM CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE; BY CORRECTING UPDATING, AND MODIFYING CERTAIN COSTS, REVENUE SOURCES, SUPPORTING POLICIES AND THE DATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES ENUMERATED IN THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS IN FISGAL YEARS 1989/90 THROUGH 1993/94; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ,.) P,.'~'O'e 22 $~PTEMB~R 26, 1989 °°°°°Reco,oo: 12:15 P.M. Reconvonmd: 1:15 P.M.melee ORDIIAiICI 89-66 AMI31DI~G ORDIIUUICK 85-33 EXPANDING TEK DI3PZ~ZTZON OF FROFSIFTT M~ICH IS A FUBLIC NUISANCE DUE TO OVKRG~ WI~D~, ~RAS$ OR Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on September 7, 1989 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed wlth the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an Ordinance amending Ordinance 85-33. Assistant County Attorney Wilson stated that the County Attorney's office prepared this amendment to Ordinance 85-33 tn response to the hard work done by an organization called CURE, Collier United for Rights and Equality. She explained that CURE did a lot of monitoring of overgrown lots. She reported that the current ordinance allows for demand for the owner to mow his lot, and if that fails Collier County can clear the lot and charge the owner, place a lien on the property and ultimately foreclose the lien. She emphasized that the ordinance doe~ not cover lots and parcels of property tn Immokalee and Naples Manor. 5he stated that CURE had concern because the overgrown lots have been used by persons with criminal ~ntent to commit burglaries and crimes against persons. She noted that the primary problem ts that clearing of lots ts allowed tn recorded subdivisions, but not in unrecorded subdivisions. She explained that the Golden Gate Estates area is excluded from this ordinance. She pointed out that allowing clearing of the lots to 20 feet Into the property from a public right- of-way will alleviate the problem of someone walking on the sidewalk of the public right-of-way and being attacked by someone on the piece of property. Attorney Wilson pointed out that there ts an incorz,ect description on Page 3 under Section A and B. She explained that Code Compliance Director should be changed to Compliance Services Manager or his designee, tn both Sections A and B. She noted that a suggestion was made that notice to the record owner, which allows 30 days notice to correct the violation, be changed to 20 days. She explained thmt thls Pag~ 23 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 change will occuz' In Section FOURTEEN A, FOURTEEN B, 'and on Page 4 in the NOTICE provision. In response to Commissioner Sh~ahan, Attorney Wilson reported that providing notice for the people to correct the violation, contact a contractor to correct t]~e violation, takes s cer- tain amount of days, and 20 days seemed appropriate. Co~lssioner Shanahan took exception to the 20 days and requested 1§ days. Ne emphasized that the report is not made until growth reaches 18 inches and by the time the process is completed, the area is so overgrown it is difficult to mow. He indicated that the com- munity would like 15 days or less. Commissioner Hasse concurred. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Attorney Wilson replied that Golden Gate Estates was deleted in this Ordinance because there is a wide variety of size of lots, type of lots and property has different undergrowth. She noted that many people living in the Estates like the kind of undergrowth they have and would not appreciate having it cleared. Attorney Wilson reported that lots with Brazilian Pepper plants cannot be mowed with bushhoG equipment, they have to removed with a chain saw. She recommended removal of the Brazilian Pepper plants from the Ordinance on PaGe 2, Section ELEVEN B and C. She explained that the County clears many lots, puts a lien on the property and noted that staffing and enforcing the lien is time consuming and expensive. She suGGested eliminating "mowable", which limits the types of lots the County can clear and will allow fina~cial control to be exercised over the types of lots the County will har~dle. In response to Commissioner Hesse, Attorney Wt3. son explained that money is not collected by ~'he County until the lien is foreclosed, which is a lengthy process. A discussion followed about the procedure for foreclosing liens. Iaaih Birollo, President of CURE, stated that he is present to support the proposed amendment to the ordinance. He noted that CURE has been working for over a year to resolve the problem of overgrown Pag~ 24 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 properties which have been the source of crime related problems. He expressed appreciation of the work that has been done by County Attorney Wilson and County Staff members. He Indicated that CURE has asked Commissioner Saunders to assign one staff person to oversee the cleanup process. Dick Clark, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted that the process is not a deterrent. He emphasized that the administrative feeo are not high enough because it is financially feasible for a lot o~wner to allow his lots to grow to 18 inches or more. He stated that lots should be mowed at least ~our times in the summer. Commissioner Saunders questioned if the administrative fees could be changed? Mr. Clark suggested a minimum of $75.00. Coo~te~iooer Shanmhan m~ved, seconded b~ Com~i~ionez' ~ ~d c~u"rt~d ~nl~usly, that th~ P~blic Heartng b~ clc~e~d. In response to Commissioner ¥olpe, Attorney Wilson indicated that the right-of-way property has to be declared by a resolution of the Board of County Commissioners to be a public nuisance, but under Section ELEVEN B on Page 2, easily defined and described lots can be cleared. She explained that some property could run as large as 20 acres and Staff wanted the Board of County Commissioners apprised of the problems and cost. In response to Commissioner Hesse, Mr. Clark Indicated that collection is less than 50%. He emphasized that the big problem is staff time, and the County can only recover the amount of the lien. Commissioner Hesse commented that removal of Brazilian Pepper would be beneficial. Mr. Clark concurred and nck,~d that other plants such as palmetto bushes cannot be mowed with ~ bushhog and this ordinance should address that. He reported that Transl~ortation Services Administrator Archibald has the authority from the Board of County Commissioners and the Hendry Correctional Institute to provide prisoners to clear some of the areas. He explained that if the Amendment covers platted and non-platted subdivision lots, Staff will have authority to clear the palmettos, etc. Pa~e 25 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 Attorney Cuyler recommended that the time period of 30 days be dropped to 20 days, rather than 1§, so that due procoes questions will not arise. He noted that the situation can be monitored with Mr. Clark and if there is too much of a time lag, Staff can come back to the Board of County Commissioners. A lengthy discussion followed about eliminating Brazilian Pepper plants. Mr. Clare indicated that Brazilian Pepper should be eliminated from the ordinance becaus- Staff cannot stay on top of it, but he indicated that the prisoners could, with equipment furnished by Mr. Archibald, handle the situation. Attorney Wilson explained that a quote from a contractor was received to clear a number of lots not covered by this ordinance, and the CURE people have provided a list of lots that are pr~orities to them in Immokalee and Naples Manor. She reported that an anonymous benefactor is going to provide the County with resources to clear the lots. She stated that the County will be able to go through the full process due to the new ordinance, and can, in the future, see if the problems have been corrected. C~mmAasio~r Sh~r~ahan move~ ii,at Ordinance 89-66 ~iz~; Ordtn~a~e 15--33 b~ expanding the definition of property.bAch t. a public nuisanc~ due to overgrown ~e~de, gra.~ or undergrm~h, with the deletion of Brazilian Pepper. be adopted with the follmeing change~: Page 3, ~ctlon FOURTEEN L and B0 Code Co~pliance Director be changed to Compline Services Manager or has designee; ~,~cttota ~ A a~ B amd !~ 4, ~otice be changed from 30 day~ chartered t~J 20 4ay~, a~l- nistrmtiv~ fee~ be raised to $75.OO in Section ~O[~ A. A discussion followed about the fees. C~Aasio~er Shmnahan a~n~e4 hie motion to include c~a~ing tbs ~tt~ co~te to AlSO in each location, and Co~iasio~er t~ c~l! for the question the ~otion carried unanimously that ~ or~A~mce as numbered and titled below be a~opted a~d e~tem-~d into Ox-~A~mm ~ Is. S6 SZP'ZIX~ 26, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 85-33, BY AMENDING PART III, SECTION TEN, DEFINITIONS, SECTION ELEVEN B., DECLARATION OF PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND SECTION FOURTEEN, SUBSECTIONS A., B., AND C., ASSESSMENT FOR ABATING NUISANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE Xte~ ~6c2 R~SO~JFfXOI 89-28S ff~ PETITION AV-Sg-16, CARL ANDERSO~, F~TXTXONER, ff~X]l~ VAGATXOM OF SIX FOOT SXDK EASEMENTS ON LOT~ 27-29, BLOCX e4f eO~ ~ATE UNIT 3 - ADOFTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 1D and l?, 1989 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition AV-89-16, requesting vacation of the six foot side easements on 27-29, Block 84, Golden Gate Unit 3. Transportation Services Administrator Arch/bald stated that the three lots are located one block south of Golden Gate Parkway axld one block east of Tropicana Boulevard. He noted that the zoning is RMF-12 and they are multi-family lots. He explained that the owner wishes to build across the property lines of the 3 lots he has purchased and has to vacate the side yard easements. Ne stated that vacating the easements will give him the benefit of building across property linea and increasing his density area. He noted that the applicant made appropriate applications to all utilities, no letters of opposition have been received and Staff re:ommenda approval of the increase in density. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald rep/ted that developing on a per lot basis is 2 units per lot, and combining 3 lots allows enough square footage to construct two four-ple~ee. Commissioner Hasse commented that Golden Gate is plagued with duplexes owned by an individual who collects rent and allow8 them to deteriorate. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald stated that Carl Anderson is the owner and has a local Golden Gate address. CENl~eeifjDer Goodnight ~ovffd, leconded by Comilmllczx~ir ~ Eu~d cez-rXed un~nWl¥, thit the public hemr~ng be clheed. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald replied that Pa~e 27 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 parking in the front rather than the back is a result of the Zoning Ordinance restricting the use of the alleyway as a pr.tlary access, but consideration of that could be implemented from a site plan review. Ne explained that access should be from a local street. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Archibald indicated that changing the location of the parking to the rear would require the owner to meet all front and rear yard setback requirements, which may be difficult. Commissioner Hasse emphasized that he is tired of seeing old beat up trucks and automobiles ~tored in the front yard on the Golden Gate Parkway ~nd surrounding areas. Me indicated that he would not support this Petition unless the owner explains exactly what he is going to do. Mr. Archibald explained that If the owner built on ~mch lot he would have 3 small buildings end 3 small parking areas in ~he front, but his site plan shows 2 buildings fairly well laid out on driveways for each building location. Attorney Cuyler ~ndicated that there is a typographical error in the middle of the Resolution which will be corrected; Naples Park should be Golden Gate. C~m~t~ion~r Goodntght ~oved, ~conded b~ Co~-t~lon~ ~olpe t~t ~lntton 89--258 vacating the six foot side aa~e~eutm on Lots 27-29, Block 84, eolden Gate Unit 3 be adopted. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald replied that the mortgage deed shows the transfer of the property to Carl Anderson. ~ c~ll for time qu~etion, the ~otton carried 4/1. C4~g~imtooer Page 28 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 RI:SOLUTION 80-259 RK PETITION &V-89-010, LK]FJlAR HONKS, V&CATIOll OF THI I~FTKI31 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT BKTWKI~ TRACTS 1 20, WIO~IlrS I~Y - AnOPTKD Lega! notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 10 and ~?, ~989, as evidenced by A~fidavl~ of Publication ~lled with the Clerk, pvblic hea~lng was opened ~o cons~de~ Pe~ion AV-89-010. Transportation Services Administrator Archiba~d sta~ed ~hat the petitioner Is see~ing to vacate a drainage easemen~ between Trac~s and 2G in ~iggin8 Bay ~evelopment on t~e so~th side of ~igg~ns Pass Road and east o~ Vanderbilt Drive. Ne explained that ~o build on Tract ~ ~e relocation o~ an existing easemen~ is required and between T~act ! and ~G there ~s a~ easement ~ ~eet w~de and 258 fee~ long. Ne repo~ted that ~he petitioner ~i~! be vacating tha~ drainage easement and supplemen~ln~ in its place a drainage easemen~ o~ the sale width, b~t 2~8 ~eet long. Ne no,ed ~ha~ ~he has ~lled the appropriate ~etters ~th a~l ~ti~iti,~s and $taf~ has no ob~ection to vacating the e×~sting eas~men~ and acc~p~ing ~he dedica- t~on o~ the ne~ easement. ~e ind~¢ated that the ~onin~ will remain ?U~ and this ~eso~tion doe~ ~ot a~ect and c~r~Aed unan~uous~y, ~ha~ the~ ~he public he~ng bu Ce~to~ionor Shmnah~n moved, seconded by Commissioner and carried un~ntBoiml¥, that Re~olutton 89-259 allowing vucltton of the fifteen foot drainage easement between Tracts 1 mad 2~, B~y, allowtn~ P~tttloner to build across the eos~mont be Pug'd, 29 Item #6C4 RESOLUTION 89-260 RE PETITION AV-89-007, ASTRON DEVELOPMENT OF NAPLES, INC. REQUESTING VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON A PORTION OF BLOCK "C", CRESCENT LAKE ESTATES - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 10 and 17, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition AV-89-007. Transport,.tion Services Administrator Archibald stated that the petitioner seeks to vacate a portion of the drainage easement on Block "C" of Crescent Lake Estates off Airport Road immediately to the east of Victoria Park. He indicated that the tract in question includes a large easement area for a retention lake, and the owner of the property wishes to construct the building in such location as to reconftgure the lake, vacate a segment of the existing drainage ease- ment, and dedicate a new easement to Collier County that would allow him to build on the remaining property. He explained that the necessary submittals have been made, but noted that Staff requests that a condition be added that the owner or Homeowner's Association remain responsible to maintain the lake. Mark Minor, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, indicated that the Homeowner's Association would act as maintenance entity !or the new lake, and it is in the condominium documents and in the easement grant. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Minor stated that the Homeowner's Association of Crestview Condomlnium would maintain the new lake. Commissioner Saunders suggested that the County Attorney be provided sufficient evidence that the Homeowner's Association will be obligated to maintain this easement, and the County Attorney s~gn off on the necessary document. Commissioner Volpe questioned why the vacation is needed and Mr. Minor replied that there was never a site plan when the original ease- ment was platted. He indicated that the site plan drawrl up did not work with the location of the lake. A discussion followed about the location of the lake. In response to Commissioner V¢)lpe, Mr. Minor indicated that improvements have been made. Commissioner~ VoLpe Page 30 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 question~d what would happen if the Board of County Commissioners does not approve the petition? Mr. Minor Indicated that It was stipulated in the excavation permit that the lake would have to be restored. O~m~[smto~mr ~anahan ~ov~d, ~cond~d by Coamt~ston~r ~odnlght ucite · ~rtt~ of the Cm~t ~ lstltes with the stt~latton t~t the u~ t~t t~e uJnte~e of t~Je eaeemnt ~ill ~ t~ ~- slbtltW of ~ ~rW ~er*~ ~soctatton, ~ ~t~. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Hr. Archibald indicated that the original lake was dug as part of the original site work, but reconft~ratton of the lake was recently excavated and the original lake was modified, but noted thst the County ts only dealing ~tth a portion of the easement that may be dedicated to the public, If the County needs ~ call for the ~stlcn, th~ ~tlon carrt~ ***NOTE: DOCUMENT NOT RECEIVED IN CLERK TO BOARD OFFICE AS NOVEMBER 15, 1989'** SKPTKMIIKR 26° 1080 It~SOE~]TZO]I 89-261 RE PETITION SNP-89-11, 3EI~PRET A. RU]I]I~R O~ IlOLK, ~ A~D A~OCI&TE$, INC., REPR~$E]ITING AUDUBON COURTT CLUB REqO~:~r/~t~ S1;TBDI~SION NASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR TRACT aB' OF AUDUBON COU~t~T C~UB - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on September 10, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition SMP-89-11. Planner Ray Bellows psinted out the proposed 53 lot subdivision for the property on the displayed map. He indicated that the 22 acre parcel of property is on the west side of U.S. 41, South of the Collier/Lee County line, with access from Audubon Boulevard. He stated that this petition is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, it has been reviewed by all agencies and Staff recom~mends appro- val subject to CCPC recommendations. Commlo~toner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight Comm/.~ton~r Goodntght moved, aeconded by Commissioner Voll~ ~ c~z'rted una~ntmou~l¥, that Ra~olutlon 89-261 requesting 9ubdtvtalon M~ter Plan &p~rov~l for Tract 'B' of Audubon Country Club, Unit 1 in S~ctton 9, Town~hlp 48 South, RanG~ 25 ~t, !~ adopted. P~ 32 JSI~(I~UTXJ i~-161 RK FKTITIO~ V-i~IO, ~G R. ~ ~~ ~~ A 6.9 ~ V~~ ~ ~ ~ SZH T~ ~ OF 7.5 ~ ~ .60 ~ ON ~ ~ SX~ Y~ ~ ~ ~A~ AT go4 ~~ ~O~ ~ TS ~ D~~ U ~ 1, n~ 122, ~ BU~ ~IT ~ - ~egal no,ice havia9 been published in the ~aples Daily News on September 10, ~9~9, a8 evidenced by Affidavit o~ ~bllcatton flied the Clerk, public hearin~ was opened to consider Petition V-89-10. Planner ~rFan Milk s~ated that ~he petitioner ~8 8eektn~ a variance from the required side yard setback of 7.~ feet to .60 feet on ~he northern 8ida yard a~ 904 Juntper Court. He no,ed that the oubJec~ ~roper~y is zoned aHS-4 and allows sincle-fanily residences with a pool as an accessory use, 2 side yards, one front and one rear yard. ~e explained that the petitioners purchased the house on 3une 3, 1988 ~ithout the knowledge that ~he ~ouse di~ not meet the re~1red side uard setback. ~e reported that the pool and house ~re constructed by the prior o~er and a Certificate of 0ccup~cF was lssue~ on October 15, 1979. He stated ~hat on :une ~, ~988, the Collier County Code Enforcement ~oard received a complaint from a neighbor re~ardin~ the setback violation. ~e indicated ~'hat the CCPC reviewed this Petition and found that the setback variance ~8 re~1red end necesser~ to n~e possible the reasonable use of land and the structure. ~e stated that the CCPC on September 7, 1989, the petition to ~he eoard of Coun~F Co~issioners with a reco~en- daCion for approual by a vo~e of V/~. ~e noted that one letter of support ~d one letter of opposition were received from adjacent pro- pert~ o~ero. ~n response to Coutssioner ~asse's ~estion ~bout the pool built at the same time as the house, Mr. Milk stated that the tile was lost with the building permit, and the Certificate of Occup~cy was issued December 15, 1979. He reported that the Collier Cowry T~ Appraiser went to the property on December 7, 1979, and app~oximate]y a month and half later the pool and house were built. Co~issioner Volpe co--anted that the zontnD complu~,t Indicates Page 33 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 encroachment on the adjoining property owner's lot. Mr. Bryan replied that the encroachment is ~ome landscaping and a sprinkler head. Commissioner Volpe stated that that is a different problem than the variance. Mr. Milk concurred. In response to Commissioner Haaae, Mr. Milk replied that the sprinkler appears to encroach a couple of feet on the neighbor to the north on Lot 2 with some landscaping around the corner of the pool deck. Attorney Craig Woodward, representing the Petitioner, reported that this is the first time he heard about the sprinkler system being on the adjacent lot. He explained that the adjacent lot owner who complained about the setback violation sold the lot. Me indicated that if the sprinkler is encroaching on the adja- cent lot, his client will remove the sprinkler head. Mr. Maurlce Metcalf of the Marco Island Civic Association, stated that MICA strongly recommends denial of the variance. He reported that another violation is being excused, not corrected. He read a memorandum dated September 26, 1989, to the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County (Exhibit "A" on file tn office of Clerk of the Board). Attorney Woodward commented that the Marco Island Association and their deed restrictions are enforceable by them, not the Board of County Commissioners. He noted that all the criteria set forth were addressed, Staff and the CCPC reviewed the criteria and felt that the variance was Justified. He explained that approval from all the utility companies was obtained for the encroachment into their easement. Attorney Woodward pointed out on the survey the corner of the screen enclosure 100 feet from the road which is the encroachment. Commissioner Hasse commented that if someone wants to build on the lot next door, they would be on top of the pool. Attorney Wood.ward stated that they have notice of the hearing and have not objected. A discussion followed about the amount of the variance. C:~ee~/~icmer (k~dntght ~ov~d, seconded by Co~t~tott~v: ~ ¢~s~ted~l~o~ly, thmt t~ public heartr~ be Commissioner Goodn~ght connented that the reason she will make the aotion approving the variance fs because the owners of this property purchased the property without ~nowing a variance was needed. ~~i~r ~lght ~ t~t R~olutt~ 6.9 f~t ~t~ fr~ the r~tr~ o/de yard oet~ck of 7.5 f~t to .60 r~t ~ tb ~rt~m st~ ~d for pro~rW ~t, ~r bcrt~ ~ Lot 1, Block 122, hrco bach ~t~ 8, T~tp 52 S~th, ~ 26 ~tt~, ~ m~pt~. Co~tsst~r S~ ~ t~ Co~lsstoner Sh~ahan commented that any encroachment on the pro- perty next door ts to be taken care of. In response to Co~tsstoner Hasse, Attorney Hood~ard replied that a survey w~s made, but his client did not see the survey prior to clostnp, and the tltle company he enpa~ed told him the survey was acceptable. Also, Attorney ~ood~ard Indicated that the recourse ~ould include teartn9 out the pool, pool deck and enclosure. ~r. Hetcal~ co~ented that Anchor Enplneertn9 showed ht~ the results of a survey made on ~uly 7, 1986, and the survey clearly marked out the encroachment of the pool enclosure and ~t~tn9 ~ool. ~ call for the ~stt~, the ~tton carrt~ ~t~1~. ~ 35 ORD~ 8~'-6T ~KI4~NDING ORDZIA~U~ 87-15 I~tJ~ING IT ~ TO FOSSES8 ~C B&~IL&8~ TX JLl~f FUBLIC OR ~B341-FUBLIC PA.RF~I~ LOT AXD ~ Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally Mews on September 7, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an Ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance No. 87-16. Assistant County Attorney Wilson stated that this Ordinance will expand the coverage to include people not in a motor vehicle, but standing in public or semi-public parking lots or beach access areas. She noted that the Ordinance was amended to add appropriate definitions with a different penalty provision. She noted that State Statute Section 316.1636 amended and addressed the type of penalties that should be imposed for possession of open containers of alcoholic beverages in or on a vehicle by both a driver and passenger. She explained that Collier County has a third penalty provision that addresses the amended portion of the Ordinance covering the parking lot areas. In response to Commissioner Masse, Attorney Cuyler replied that beach access areas are defined as parks, and alcoholic beverages are not allowed in parks, but the County is not going out of its way to enforce that. He emphasized that this is included for people who are in and out of cars and drinking in that area. Commissioner Saundera explained that definition "b" defines container as container or recep- tacle of an alcoholic beverage and open container as a contain~ that ls open. A discussion followed about public and semi-public pa~,k%~ lots. Attorney Cuyler reported that Clam Pass is a beach acce~ f~rea. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Attorney Wilson l~,dlc'~¢ed that semi-public is private ow~ership but allowed to be used for limited public purposes. Commissioner Goodnight explained that the problem in a number of SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 areas, i.e. on the beach, beer parties have been held in parking lots, and property owners have to clean up the garbage left behind. She reported that in the packing house on Highway 29 in Immokalee, commercial and/or private parking lot owners are also cleaning up gar- bage from beer parties. She stated that this Ordinance would address automobiles sitting in public or semi-private parking lots consuming alcoholic beverages and discarding their garbage. Deputy Storrar stated that situations such as these also occur In convenience lots, and would give the Sheriff another tool to work with in that situation. Oesm~m~i~ aoodnight moved, seconded by Com~iaaton~r ~ ~n'led ~m~onml¥, that the public he.ring be clo~. (~mdml~r ~lnl~ht moved, seconded ~ Coalmmi~r Vol~ ~~l~c ~k~ lot ~d ~ch ac~ee ~ea ~ ~t~ ~ ~~ ~nto ~~ ~k ~o. 36. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 8~-16, AS ~ENDED, ~KING IT UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS A~COHOLIC BEVERAGES IN A~ PUBLIC OR SEMi-PUBLIC PARKING LOT OR BEACN ACCESS AREA OF COLLIER ADDIN6 DEFINITIONS FOR PUBLIC OR SEMI-PUBLIC PARKIN~ LOT AND BEACR ACCESS AREA; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; PROVIDIN6 FOR CONF~ICT AND SEVE~BILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ~~ AT ~~ CITE, ~I~ C~ ~ RO~, ~ 432, 433, ~ 439 ~ 445 - ~D Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily ll%ws on August 27, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication f led with the Clerk, public hearing was continued from September 12, 1989, to consider Petition V-89-9. Planner Sam Saadeh stated that the 3 foot variance reqllested from 6 feet to 9 feet at Bordeaux Circle abutting County Barn Road ts a PUD single family dwelling development. Ne noted that the petitioner pro- Page 37 SEPTEMBER 26° 1989 v~ded the CCPC with elevation readings0 sho~ng a d~op ~n elevation ranging from 2 feet 3 inches to 2 feet 6 inches from County Barn Road, supplemented by photos of the 6 foot fence which is Inadequate due to the drop tn elevation. He indicated that Staff did not find a hardship existed and recommended denial of the petition, however the CCPC held a public hearing and forwarded the petition to the Board of County Commissioners wi'th a recommendation for approval. He displayed photos (Exhibit 1 on f~l.~ ~n office of Clerk of the Board). In response to Commissioner Hasse, Ms. Belice indicated that there will be landscaping in front of the fence, some hibiscus, etc., and the fence will not be seen from the road. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Ms. Belice reported that there is a noise problem, their windows cannot be left open and some people cannot use their lanats. c~t~ ~l~ly, t~ ~ ~bltc heart~ ~ clX. c~i~ ~1~, t~t ~lu~i~ ~9-26~ ~tlng a $ f~t ~~ ~ ~ ~1~ ~t~t of a f~ce of 6 f~t to $ f~t for ~ ~W l~at~ at ~r~ Circle, a~tti~ C~W ~ ~, ~tB 447, 4~, 445, 444, 443, 442, 441, 440, 439, 433 ~ 432, ~tL~ 1Y, ~p ~0, ~ 26, ~ ~t~. Dick Clark, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated that Curtis D. Mitchell requires a mobile home permit for his business, Golden Gate Tree Farm. He noted that the mobile home is a watchman type w~th ~ood reason because of its location. He explained that Staff had no authority to review this on its o~ and recommends approval. He reported that the reason for the ordinance is to limit the use of mobile homes as an agricultural operation for 3 years. Mr. Mitchell reported that this moblle home Is 1/2 mile north of the County land- fill In Golden Gate. In response to Co~lssioner Saunders, Mr. G/ark indicated that there are no violations by conducting retail sales. Co~lssioner GoodntGht reported that the standard procedure Is ~ agri- cultural type operation with a mobile home watchman. Shanahan qu(~stioned ]f an amendment could be presented to cover a situation such as this? Ken Baginskl, Planning Services ManaGer, replied that the Ordinance allows placement of a m~b~le bom,,., for the length of the agricultural use or 3 years, whichever i's wl'urter, with no provision for extension. He reported that Staff Is I- the process of preparing an amendment within two months to make a Feco~endation that this activity be al/owed for as long as there is a ~na fide agricultural activity in progress. ~ ~ ~ ~ft t~ o~lm~ ~ to the fact *t~tl~ wl~ ~td B~'s fa c~ ~fo~ t~ ~ of C~ ~l~ ~ ~id Br~ did not 1t~ tn the trailer, ~s~ ~ ~rW fm 1t~ tn t~ trailer; ~ t~ ~/~ator l~t~ of hi~ help, ~ t~ ~ fur ~ t~ In t~ ts ~p ~ a It ts mler to mm4J~le JNlmle ,m~ mm~ :it there, rather than rebuild · ho~e. ~ r~Ll! For tim q~e~t2~, the mot2on cLrr~ed unanimously. Itu d~B $IT~ ~JYdO~rF FLAIl I~'flTION 89-039, NJtSTq2AT~ OlrrIC~ ~ - County Attorney Cuyler stated that he spoke with Attorney John Hooley, and advised him that the Board of County Commissioners would be briefed in memo form about this item and the matter would be con- tinued for 2 weeks. Project Review Services Manager John MadaJewski, stated that he is present for rebuttal purposes. He referred to the memo and attach- ments that have been provided to the Board of County Commissioners. (copy not provided to Clerk to the Board). He stated that the origi- nal plat was one piece of ground but over the years there were metes and bounds sales of property, all fronting Highway 951. He explained that there have been subsequent conveyances, the property has been subdivided, passing the test of the subdivision deftni'tion, and caused problems for Staff In the review of a Site Development Plan petition for Parcel No. 7, Attorney Hooley's client. Mr. MadaJewski reported that the situation has been r?~w~d in detail with the County Attorney and meetings were held with the appli- cant and 4 of the 5 reuaining property owners. He indicated that Staff has been trying to resolve the illegal subdivision problem because some properties may not have proper access. He reported that providing water and sewer and especially drainage on this tract w~ll be extremely difficult. Mr. MadaJewski pointed out the properties that front 9~1 and 20th Place Southwest, and a large parcel in the back that is landlocked. He noted that Alligator Alley cannot be utilized for those properties, and initial information with the Site Development Plan request showed a second access to H~ghway 951, adjacent to Parcel 6, but Staff has not been able to obtain records showing the access still exists. Page 40 SEPTEMBER R6, 1989 In response to Commissioner Saunders0 Mr. MadaJewski explained that Attorney Hooley is requesting relief from the Board regarding Staff's position not to proceed with Site Development Plan approval for Parcel No. ? until an acceptable Master Plan is worked out by the remaining property owners. Attorney John Hooley explained that a group of people wanted to purchase the parcel of property. He reported that originally the entire parcel was owned by a Trustee, First Union Bank took the pro- party in foreclosure and put it on the market. He stated that his clients asked him to iqvestigate the zoning in order to build an office building, purchased the property in April and submitted a Site Plan for review. He reported that his clients have been told they must get Master Plan approval on the entire tract. Coml~tssioner Hasse questioned the easement tn the center of the property next to The Gathering7 Mr. MadaJewskl responded that Staff has not been able to verify that. Attorney Cuyler explained that this particular piec~ ,,- property can be physically and legally accessed, but not for the p'urpoaea they want. Attorney Hooley pointed out the easement on the displayed map, and Mr. MadaJewskt replied that the 40 foot easement ts over-laned with other easements. He explained that the problem is there ts no clear picture of what is out there regarding the easements. He empha- sized that the project has no master plan or consistency. A discussion followed about the definition of a subdivision. Attorney Cuyler indicated that Attorney Hoole¥ ts asking that the Site Development Plan be processed and normal platting requirements for the entire tract not be submitted. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Attorney Cuyler stated that in his opinion the Board of County Commissioners does not have the authority to do this. Re emphasized that this Is an illegally subdivided lot. Commissioner Saunders questioned if this matter could be continued so that Attorney Cuyler can render an opinion as to what the Board of Page 41 SKPTEMBER 26, 1989 County Couissioners can do? Attorney Hooley concurred, but noted that the method of enfor- cement is the problem because technically his client purchased pro- perty and Is being denied consideration of the Site Development P/an based on the f~ct that someone prior in title failed to comply. He emphasized that the 40 foot access easement on the north side of the parcel next to his clients is sufficient for access along 20th Place Southwest. A discussion followed about master plan require- ments. Commissioner Shanahan commented that he did not think Attorney Hoole¥'s clients should not have to do the entire master plan. He reported that if the Board of County Commissioners had the authority to instruct Planning to accept the site plan and work out the details with the other owners, Mr. Knight and Mr. Pollack, that would be the best direction. A discussion followed about all tbs owners possible site plans. Commissioner Saunders stated that he would like adv:~.~ from the County Attorney on how the Board of County Commissioners can proceed on this item and asked that this item be continued for ~ weeks. also asked Mr. MadaJewskt to meet with Attorney Cuyler. ''$ lt~cee~ 3:15 P.M. - 3:30 P.M., at which tieae D~1:~t~ Clmrk ~ NITH A~W~'~OR ~N~XNH~IMG FOR P~OF~SSIONAL SUNF~X~ AND ~~~ ~X~ ~R ~ ~IOM OF 25~ A~. S.~./~~ Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated that this item is being returned to the Commission for reconsideration regarding the possibility of coming up with a road alignment to serve the rural area of the County as a result of the access controls which ar~ being implemented from the construction of 1-75. He advised that in early 1987, hearings took place relating to the affects that I-?S ~ould have on cutting off access for many parcels along the north and south s~de of the Alley. He noted that at that point in ti~e, Staff was d~rected Page 42 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 to look into the concept of whether a service road could be devoloped on either the north or south side of the alley to recreate access bet- ween Golden Gate Estates on Everglades Boulevard and C.R. 951. He stated that the possibility of extending Sabal Palm Road from C.R. 951 eastward to Golden Gate Estates was also considered at that time. He indicated that when reviews were made in the rural areas north of the Alley, considerations were given to the possibility of a service road on the north side of the Alley, and through an environmental review, the corridors one mile north, and two miles north of the Alley were looked at to consider an east/west roadway that may in fact recreate accesses that have been taken away by 1-75, and to determine if an alignment is found, whether or not the Department of Transportation may participate in the initial studies or the construction. He reported that since that time, a number of condemnation cases have been filed, and many of these are being discussed relative to whether or not the County can recreate accesses. Mr. Archibald explained that in February, 1989, Staff was authorized by the Board to distribute Request for Proposals, and a selection committee was appointed and they reviewed the four proposals which were submitted. He noted that the firms were short-listed, a~d the two firms that were the most qualified were asked to submit infor- mation on the time to perform the work, and the cost. He advised that from the Information that was provided, Staff felt that not only was the firm of Anchor Engineering qualified, but they could also perform the work in a short period of time, and at a price that is almost 1/3 of the proposal submitted by the other qualified firm. He stated that one of the reasons that Anchor Engineering is able to submit the good price and time frame for doing the work is that they are currently performing survey work for a landowner in the subject area, and tn so doing, they have been able to establish many of the section corners which will be important for the County to tie the road allure, ants Into either a map of survey and location, or a legal description at some future point tn time. Page 43 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 M~, Archibald advised that between now and the end of 1989, Staff will have some Idea from the surveys that have been done, to account for vegetation, existing easements, and existing terrains, and to determine whether there are 1, 2 or 3 good alignments for a future road and how much it will cost to put in a grade connection. He reported that one roadway in question is Camelot Drive, where there is currently four families, and they have been given notice that by the beginning of 1990, the Florida Department of Transportation will have to complete the canal work and fencing of the right-of-way, and in so doing, they will have to follow through with their condemnation case, or find some other way to gain access to a public road. He stated that the road that Staff is trying to determine alignment of, would have the ability of tying in some of the other roads. Mr. Archibald indicated that the consultant has h~ttn chosen, a contract has been prepared, noting that one change need~ to b~ ~ade relating to the Interest payments for late payments for ~cnthly invoices. He advised that that section of the contract will be deleted, and rely upon the prompt payment act, whereas if payments are late, there will be up to a 1% charge per month placed upon that invoice. He indicated that the price is favorable to do the sur- veying, vegetated analysis, and contour work which will determine two or three good road way alignments, for a cost of approximately $45,000. He reported that this price is consistent with what was sub- mitted to the Commission in 1988. He stated that after the alignments and costs are determined, Staff will be able to ascertain whether the right-of-way can be donated, and whether or not funding can be obtained from the State or other private property owners to put In some type of graded connection which will provide for immediate access for some of the owners that are cut off, and in the long term will possibly provide for an east/west connection that will shorten those tripe between the rural area of Golden Gate Estates and C.R. 951 in the urban area. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald advised that the Page 44 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 alignment that is being considered is approximately 6 miles long, noting that 2 miles of the roadway currently exists, but the right-of- way has nmver been dedicated. He indicated that the cost for the graded connection which will be a stabilized subgrade and limerock surface will be approximately $40,000 - $50,000 per mile. Commissioner Volpe stated that the last time this item appeared on the agenda, there were discussions relative to a possible conflict of interest. ~r. Archibald reported that Anchor Engineering is under contract to establish survey corners for property owners In the area. He noted that both of the firms that were short-1]~te(! had tb~ same conflict, in that, they both provided work in the sama area. He explained that the Commission has Just about every col~sult~nt In town under contract for some type of work, either design or uo~struction, and he does not believe that there is any problem with Anchor Engineering providing input as to the results of that work, and the alignments to be considered. Mr. Archibald explained that the State currently has a series of condemnation cases with those owners which are being delayed with the idea that if the County can provide access to those owners, the State, rather than putting their money into buying that property, can put their money into road ~mprovements. He noted that the State is waiting on the County from the standpoint of whether or not an align- Bent is feasible. Commissioner Volpe stated that he does not see any i~mediate bene- fit to those taxpayers who are going to fund the other road projects. He indicated that he believes that the people in Golden Gate Estates would love to have the $45,000 to be used to pave the limerock roads in the area where people are living, rather than to do this work for future generations. The following persons spoke ~n opposition to a contract award to Anchor Engineering for survey work for the extension of 25th Avenue S.W./Brantley Boulevard: Ms. Tanya Dekowskl Mr. Jeff Hill SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 Reasons of opposition were cited as follows: conflict of interest; extensive damage by bulldozers, heavy equipment; survey markers have been destroyed and thrown in nearby bushes; vegetation has been destroyed: and this is an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Archibald stated that based upon information supplied by County Staff, there is a strong indication that the alignment of the road has to go either north or south of a wetland area, and the fence line has stayed along the section line, itself. Mr. Ron Hurt, President of Anchor Engineertng~ Inc., stated that his firm is not the agent for Mr. Brown, nor have they fi/ed any applications for him. He explained that Anchor Enginoerin~i was hired to put in section corners over an area of 4 miles nortk ~%. ] mouth, and 6 mi/es east and west. He noted that many of these sections had never been establlshed. He advised that the work has been completed, and Anchor Engineering currently has no involvement in that section. He reported that his firm did surveying work for one particular property owner, but that is the extent of their obligation. He noted that his firm did no clearing. Mr. Archibald reported that he has been advised by a Code Compliance Officer that this particular case is currently in Circuit Court, and is being prosecuted by the County relative to the c/earing without a permit. Commissioner Saunders questioned the importance of this project to Collier County? Mr. Archibald replied that he believes that this pro- Ject is worthwhile for the following reasons: 1. To determine where the best alignment for a future roadway would be. 2. When the subject area is developed, the County should know in advance the type of terrain. Mr. Archibald called attention to the last page of the Executive Summary, advising that one thing that may want be consider is possibility of breaking the project up into two phases: the first phase to tie down the alignment will cost $8,650; and the second phase, for the alignment survey has been estimated to cost $11,900. Page 46 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 Me indicated that the Couission may desire to scale down the survey work from the original $4§,000 to the range of $20,000 or less. He advised that Phase I, and part "a" of Phase II will give Staff a strong indication of where that road should follow, and it will give DOT a strong indication of what is possible, and whether or not they may wish to participate. Commissioner Goodnight stated that she has been cont&¢ted by the people in th~ subject area as late as last week, and they have voiced concerns not only of the additional miles it takes them out of their way to reach C.R. 951, but more importantly, if ther~ i~ ~ver a fire on Everglades Boulevard, how will these residents be able <] g,~t them- selves out of the area7 She indicated that she feels that this is a good, legitimate question, and it is well worth the County'~ time and money to have the survey performed, and hopefully, the State wil,~ par- ticipate; and if not, the road can be limerocked, so that people will be able to g~t out in the case of an emergency. Co~lsstoner Volpe indicated that that those persons bought pro- perty in the area knowing what the access was at that time. He noted that he cannot support the expense of $4§,000, when only a handful of people will be benefiting, adding that the County has other priori- ties. Mr. Archibald advised that in 1987, ~ petition was received from 25 residents in the Keens Road area to consider undertaking this by creating a Special Taxing District. He noted that unfortunately, there may not be sufficient time between now and the end of the year, to indicate to the State whether or not an alignment is f~asible in that area. to ~ tl~ ~ I survey for $8,6~0, ~nd Pha~e II, l~rt "&" for Co~lsstoner Volpe stated that he feels there are some Inherent inconsistencies. He noted that there Is the alternative of the MSTU, and the property owners to benefit will underwTtte the cost~. He Page 47 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 called attention to the fact that millions of dollars ars being cut from the County's budget, since $250,000 Is not sufficient, and now $20,000 is being considered to be sptnt for a survey that will merely benefit a handful of people. Commissioner Saunders indicated that he concurs with Commissioner Volpe. ~ ~11 for the question, the motion f&il~, 2/3 *** C~/~ioner Saunders left the roo~at this time REBOr,,ArTX01g 89-264, ~Xl~G ~ 2989-90 PAY PLA]IAIDAPPIq~,~"~q II~C~ ~XFXCATXO~ FOR THE ~PO~ZTXO~ COIITAZ~I~D Z~ Human Resources Director Whitecotton stated that last year tho County Implemented a new comprehensive classification, compensation and performance evaluation system which succeeded in the following: 1. To ~ecure a better position In the marketplace for recruit- ment and retention of employees. 2. To maintain internal pay and classification equity among all positions. 3. To make performance the primary basis in compensation deci- sions. 4. To allow trained Staff to administer the system. Mr. Whltecotton explained that part --f th~ administration Is the update of the Plan based on market conditions and Internal equity con- slderattons. He noted that the proposed pay plan for this year is based on the annual wage and benefit survey which was conducted, as well as a number of internal position classification studies. He advised that the new plan includes 21 nf~w pay titles, and 31 pay grade adjustments of existing titles. He reported that there are no across the board, or General wage adJustme,~s recommended for this year. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Whitecotton indicated that the turnover has been reduced by 6~. O~mlmio~er Sh~n~han~oved, ~on~ed by Co~mlmslo~er ~ ~ted 4/0 (Cstmmtoner Saunters not present), to ~pp~ov~ the and that lte. olutton 0~-2~ be adopted. SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 TRAJr~iJ*Klt OF 042,153 FROM GKNKR&L FUND RKSKRVKS TO I~ Tflx COUIlTT-WIDE FIRE ABD EI~ EH~tG~3~C~ RADIO CMICATIOII~ ~IET#OR~ - Emergency Services Administrator Reardon stated that this Item involves a consortium of many agencies within the C~unty coming together and co-sponsoring the purchase of additional equipment to add to the existing control radio frequency. He advised theft the Intent Is to build in redundancy so that only a part of the s¥'etem, rather than the entire system would be lost. He noted that tht~ will also provide day to day coverage throughout the County. Mr. Reardon indicated that approval is requested tod~y sl~ce the prices do go up October 1, 1989. He explained that this will be next year budget item, noting that $42,1§3 is requested from Reserves as seed money into an account, and once the system is up and running, the various agencies will reimburse the seed money and it will go back into Reserves. eom Co~iam~o~r Smunderm In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Reardon reported that the hardware is a one time cost, and the rental is an annual on-going cost. He advised that in many parts of the County, the emergency vehicles are unable to communicate with control. Ne further noted that during periods of power losses, the emergency dispatch capability is entirely lost. He explained that this ~ystem will allow the con- tinuance of service, regardless of the location, and whether or not power is lost. Ce~m~ml~r 8hanahan ~c~d, seconded by c~rrlmd ~x~nJ~u~ly, to approv~ th~ tr~fer of ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ to ~d tho ~c~ of r~o ~ ~tallatlm m~cee fr~ ~torola C~tcatl~. O~ ~~ - ~D Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on July 10, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed w~th the Page 50 Clerk, bide were received until 2:30 P.M., on Suly 21, 1989, to con- sider Bid #Sg-144g Track Type Dozer (Rebld of · nvtronmental Services Administrator Borenz stated that Staff is requesting that the subject bid be awarded to Kelly Tractor of Ft. Myers. He explained that Staff believes that this is the best value for Collier County, the Caterpillar User Llst offers four landfill applications in Florida, has the best service capability, and offers a superior warranty. He advised that Kelly has met all of the vehicle specifications, and they offer a superior drive train. Mr. Lorenz referred to Page 3 of the Executive Summa,fy, th~ total life cycle cost analysis, and noted that when a considered, the cost for the Caterpillar is less than that o! the Fiat. Co~issioner Volpe questioned whether both the Fiat equipment mnd the Kelly equipment meet the specifications? Mr. Lorenz replied that both pieces of equipment meet the essential areas, with the exception of the final drive configuration, and only Kelly Tractor met that spe- cification. Attorney Nelson Faerber, Jr., representing Adams DeWind, Flat Supplier, stated that Page 5 of the bid specs requested that the bid- ders submit their factor warranties, but neither of the bidders did that. He advised that the bidders provided dealer incentive warran- ties, and the result was Kelly Tractor ~ years/?,500 hours; and Fiat, a I year warranty. He indicated that had the specs called for optional warranties, Adams DeWind CO%l!d have provided for an addi- tional $7,000, but $3,500 less than Kelly, § years/7,500 hours on the power train, § years 18,000 hours on the engine, and 2 years 3,000 hours on the overall. Attorney Faerber advised that Bid #89-1395 was tailored to only one manufacturer, Caterpillar, and it was thrown out at the pre-bid conference. He indicated that there was no pre-bid conferenco for Bid #89-1449. He noted that Solid Waste Management Supervisor Russell telephoned his clients late one afternoon to discuss the details of the bid, and the specs went out pretty much unchanged. He stated that Page 51 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 the important laaue appears to be the salvage value, and he believes that Staff's information is very flawed. He advised that the Fiat FD30B model was not offered to the general public for sale until February, 1988, and therefore, Staff is not comparing the models as they indicate in the Executive Summary. With regard to the bid specifications for drive systems, Mr. Faerber advised that his clients contend that the doubl~ reduction ie as competent as the double reduction planetary design. He noted that his clients read the specs to mean double reduction or ,planetary design. He stated that landfill applications are much ~o~.? mrringent and tougher on machines than a construction application, in ~ene]~al. He indicated that Adams Dewlnd's bid is $42,190 less than Kolly Tractor's bid. He explained that if necessary, he can address the user list which was addressed in the Executive Summary. He noted that his clients were asked to provide in-state landfill references, and not out of ~tate references. He stated that his clients contend that Collier County is getting as competent a piece of heavy machinery which has been used in this application successfully, for $42,000 less, and they do not understand the recommendation to award the bid to Kelly Tractor. He further noted that there ts nothing in the bid specifications regarding salvage values, trade-in value, present day dollars, etc. Solid Waste Management Supervisor Rucsc31 advised that sorvice ts always an Issue with his department, since the vendors have to be relied upon for repairs. He noted that the Solid Waste Department does not have mechanics, and it was stated upfront in the specifica- tions that this would be part of the summary and review. Tape ~ Commissioner Shanahan asked Mr. Russell to address the question relating to salvage value. Mr. Russell stated that Staff used Data Quest, a Dun & Bradstreet Co., which has been in business for 27 years, and they go by resale value as opposed to auction. Mr. Leo Charboneau, Sales Manager, Kelly Tractor Co., ~tated that Page SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 he ts in support of Staff's recommendation. He noted that he believes they did a thorough Job of investigating the users lists, and his com- pany can provide a genuine list of users for the landfill waste dispo- sal arrangement. He indicated that he does not believe that Fiatsllts can supply the Commission with a list of satisfied users, and the reason for that Is basically, because there are none. He advised that one of the reasons that the Caterpillar product is mor~ expensive, is because the%* have dealer support where it counts: 4 dealers in South Florida, and parts availability at 98% within 48 hours. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether Mr. Charbon~-~'l .{$ pi'spared to g%l&rantee a salvage value of $175,O00, to which he repla~d affir- matively. Commissioner Volpe stated that it appears that based upon the cost analysis that has been done, Mr. Faerber's client ks not the lowest responsible bidder. Attorney Faerber noted that the buy back provision is outside of the specifications, and he does not believe that it should be a cri- teria in the decision, and if it is, the bids should be thrown out and rabid. Mr. Russell explained that it ~;as stated in the first paragraph of the specifications that the salvage v;llue would be considered. Couemtostoner Smunderm mcr~d, secoltd~ ~ C~lsst~r b ~ cm~t~ ~~ly, t~t Bid ~89-1449 for ~ D8N Track ~ ~r ~ ~ to blly ~actor of Fort ~ro In t~ ~t of 0276,046. o.e ~ Clerk ~mft replmc~ ~ Clerk Hof~ mt thlo t~ ~s0 Itu~l ~~ - ~X~ ~ m Commissioner Saunders reported that the contract provides $55,000 be spent between now and December 31, 1989, for consulting work. He stated that thls is a large amount of money for that type of con- sulting and the short time period Involved. He indicated that in Page 53 SEPTI~ER 26, 1989 reading over the list of services to be provided by the consultant, he does not feel that the contract Is sufficient to warrant a $§5,000 fee. Environmental Services Administrator Lorenz explained that the County is still tn the process of developing Its recycling program. He reported that the Media Marketing would work with The Conservancy to provide audio visual materials and press releases, ~orklng up newsletter~, etc. Commissioner Sounders commented that he has no idea what the consultant will do. A discussion followed about exactly what the consultant would do. County Manager Dorrtll suggestsd continuing the item for a week, and Staff will provide the Board of County Contestoners with further Information. Commissioner Sounders requested that Attorney Cuyler work with Mr. Dorrtll to define exactly what the services are. L~ ~ ~ B~'~[ COLLI~I~ G~ ~ ~ ~ OF Assistant County Manager McLemore Indicated that Waste Management of Collier County is seeking site locations or staging areas where their equipment would pick up containers or cylinders for 90 days on a trial basle. He noted that if It Is feasible for both parties, a firm agreement will be brought before the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. In reepoaee to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. McLemore reported that there Is no fair market r~ntal value. A discussion followed about the locations. Commissioner Volpe questioned the benefit of allowing the County property to be Used for this purpose? Mr. McLemore replied that a monetary value for rental or provision of current services would be provided to the County. Ken Engelseer, General Manager of Waste Management, Inc.~ reported that the County Is providing service through the County's couercial container service at a number of the locations, and the cost of that to the county will be reduced. He also explained that there is the potential benefit to the residents In terms of Collier County, i.e. Page SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 efficiencies, cost, cleanliness, etc. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Engelseer reported that the system is difficult to explain without seeing it. He stated that a route truck in a residential area when filled up, rather than going to the landfill disposal site, would drop a sealed container, and pick up an empty container in the staging area. He reported that later in the day a vehicle cap~ble of hauling 3 containers would pick them up and transport them to the landfill. ~W ~ ~ ~t of Florl~, Inc. a~t~ ~W ~ ~.~r~ to all~ ~t~t~ a~u for P~ 55 ~ Countt Attorney Cuyler discussed in detail the documents in the agenda pa.:kage relating to this Appeal. In response to Commissfoner Volpe, At'~orney Cuyler noted that there are quite a number of cases where liblary and park impact fees were collected, but the developer did not ask for vested rights determination. He explaim~d ~:hat cer- tain preliminary work was done, but no building permits were issued. Attorney A.~%hony Pires, Jr., representing Can-American Naples, Ltd., indicated that all the exhibits were attached when this applica- tion was submitted to the County Attorney, and the same exhibits will be relied upon today. He explained that the project is located on Airport Road, east side across from J & C Boulevard and north of the Collier County School Board Transportation Maintenance facility, south of Princess Park. He stated that there are 400 units involved, 25 buildings, and 16 units per building. He briefly described the chro- nology based on the documents submitted in the executive summary. He noted that in August, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners rezoned the property from A-2 to RMF-12 and oranted a provisional use for a wastewater treatment plant. He indicat~9 that after obtaining the rezoning, a tree removal permit and excavation permit was applied for and the application fee for the excavation permit was paid. He noted that on December 6, 1988, Planning Services had no objection to the Excavation Permlt with certain conditions. He explained that on December 8, 1988, 3ohn Boldt in Water Management approved the Application for Development Excavation with stipulations, 7 numbered items to be resolved, a performance bond provided and permit fee pa~d before the Excavation Permit would be issued. He stated that on December 16, 1988, numerous permits were applied for and on December 19, all permits had been applied for and December 27, 1988, is the effective date of the Ordinance. Commissioner Saunders commented that Page 56 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 the application was made after the Ordinance was approved, prtor to it becoming ~ffecttve. Attorney Plres concurred and explained that the building I~rmlt applications were made December 16 and 19, the tree remo~&l permit application was made November 21, and December 8 was the d~te the Water Management Department approved the development excavation request and on December 7, Natural Resources indicated some vegetation had to be removed with a tree removal permit .if ]'% wa~ not to be incorporated into the landscaping. Commissioner ~aur-~Qrs questioned the water management permits being picked up :~ February, 19897 Attorney Pires responded that the permits were picked up in February, 1989. subject to stipulations, and approved Decembem 8, 1988. Attorney Ptres reported that every ordinance can be drafted and written a particular way, and Attorney Cuyler's response and det~r- mination of no vested rights indicated that, according to a copy of the Key West case he provided, building permits were applied in one pro3ect, impact fees were adopted after building permits, impact fees were due at the time of Certificate of Occupancy issuance. He stated that the Ordinance as drafted and a.~opted by the Board of County Commissioners in this particular case has to be dealt with before determining vested rights. He pointed out that Section 3.03 of the Library Impact Fee Ordinance, the same ~.anguage as Section 4.04 of the Parks and Recreational FacJlities Impact Fee Ordinance, states that the Petition for vested rights determination shall be evaluated by the County Attorney and a decision made based on the following cr~teria: 1) the existence of a valid, unexpired governmental act of the County authorizing the specific development for which a determ~nation is sought. Commissioner Volpe questioned if this ordinance had been ~n effect at the time, would the developer have paid the impact fees for Park & Library at the time the tree permit approval permits and the permit for excavation were received, or when the building permit was pulled for the dwelling units? Attorney Pires responded that, pur- suant to the ordinance, at the time of the building permit appltca- Page SEPTENB~R 26, 1989 tiaa. He noted that the mechanten for triggering payment regarding these 2 ordinances were the actual applications. Commissioner Volpe commented that if the ordinance was in effect, the Impart fee would not have to be paid until the building permit was pulled for the dwelling unit. Attorney Ptres stated his concern ts a Darr~ Interpretation of the existence of a valid unexpired gove';'.~, ntal act of the County authorized tn the specific development, h= explained that there Is no definition of Development Order in the ordinance, and no definition t~f what constitutes a valid unexpired governmental act of the County authorized In the specific development for which the determination Is sought. Ne indicated that he would look to guidance from Chapters 380 and 163 of the Florida Statues in the definitional sections, and Section 380.031 of Section 3 which says: "Development Order means any order granting, denying or granting with conditions an application for development permit", and "Development Permit includes any building permit, zoning permit, plat approval or rezontng, certificate certification variance or other Act having the effect of permitting development as defined tn this Chapter. He reported that the term Development Order means at'~y order granting, denying or granting with conditions an application for development permit. Commissioner Volpe questioned the Developnent Order he is relying on? Attorney Ptres responded the developme~ excavation request. A discussion followed about Development Orders and criteria. Attorney Cuyler pointed out that the term development can be broken do~ Into almost anything and not necessarily used in terms of the pro~ect. He indicated that he construed development as being the actual building or construction. Commissioner Saunders questioned if there was a Site Development Plan when the Water Management approval was received7 Attorney Ptres replied that there was and ts part of the submittal tn the conveyance letter from George Mellen to John Boldt dated November 21, 1988, but the document was not part of the appeal package. Attorney Cuyler explained that his determination was not made based on a site plan Page 58 SEPTEMBER 26, 1989 that was not su~)aitted as part of the appeal package. He commented that his opinion would not necessarily have been chanHed because of that. Commissioner Volpe questioned the analysis of t~e case law sup- porting the strict construction of these types of statutes? A discussion followed about case law and local govern~?nt~ in relation to impact fees. Attorney Cuyler reported that the Key West case law t~dtcates the Court had ~ situation where building permits were issued, properties were sold, and the developer was still required to pay impact fees that he could not pass on to his purchasers, prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy. He commented that if that Is equitable, charging impact fees under Attorney Ptres' case where $271,000 of work has been done on a 400 unit pro3ect and not a single building has been built is not unreasonable. He noted that these costs can be passed on to his client's purchasers. He emphasized that the Board of County Commissioners remember that there is an impact and there is a level of service to be kept up, and if the Impact fees are not paid by develo- pers, they will be paid out of the general fund. In response to Co~issioner Volpe, Attorney Plres ~tated that the impact fees amount to $200,000 for 400 units. Cosumtssioner Saunders questioned the name of the pro3ect now? Attorney Ptres Indicated that it is Fountain View with the same owners on the same property. A discussion followed about the original pro~ect site and changes made since then. Commissioner Saunders questioned how the Board of County Commissioners can get around 1) the statement from the County's state- ment on December 8, 1988, from John Boldt that the County Commission approved the project on August 2, 1988, Including the proposed lake excavation tn Mr. Pires exhibits, and 2) the Ordinance deflnttton of a substantial expenditure of funds tn order to vest rights. Attorney Cuyler responded that the exact expenditures are one of the criteria to be evaluated and he had to place a certain degree of weight on the amount of expenditures In relation to the total amount spent on the Page 59 SEPTEMBER project. $271.000 as opposed to the land cost for 400 units and the construction of 400 units, which he estimates will be ;znder 5 percent, He emphasized that he placed a great deal of weight on public policy and the damage to the public, rather than the alleged damage to the developer. Commissioner Volpe concurred and stated that m!.~e the units have not been sold, the developer can recoup the Jl'mts by passing them on to the prospective purchasers. Commissioner Volpe indicated that he is not particularly sympathetic to this situation. Commissioner Saunders commented that he is looking at the lan~age In the Ordinance that defines what the expenditure would be. A discussion followed about Mr. Pires' letter of January 25, 1989, and imposition of the library impact fee. Attorney Plree indicated that has changed and is going forward. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Attorney Cuyler replied that he discounted the fact that affordable housing is being provided, because the impact fee ordinance s~ts criteria for meeting affordable housing and gives waivers and/or rebates for impact fees. He noted the Board of County Commissioners legislatively determined what is affordable housing and Attorney Plres does not meet that criteria. Attorney Cuyler emphasized that building permits have not been issued, and the Courts bend over bac;~ard~ to assist local ~overnments in assessing and collecting these type~ -.f impact fees. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Attorney Cuyler stated that the Board of County Commissioners is being asked to overturn his determination. Commissioner Volpe explained that the Board ia being asked to waive the requirements of collecting $200,000 in impact fees for these 400 units. Omm~i~r ~ ~, ~ by CommAmmto~r !~ m~d ~ mt ~ mt~ rt~tm ~d la ~t ~t f~ t~ Its ~llll ~ lm ~ ~ ];-311/317, 320/3!2' 324/31a ~ 310 - O(' l I 0 Page 60 SKFTL'NBER 26, 1989 ~ ~l~ ~/0 t~t ~t ~to 89-311/317, 8~3~4/1~0 ~ 0~310, ~ ~t~. (C~tool~r S~~ at'l ~ ~ ~L~zoa e~o2s - ~ ml~ I/O, t~t ~t ~t ~luttn e~o2G ~ ~~. Pug~ t! S3~PTI~'MBIR ~6, 1000 RK~OLUTXOII 00-274 ~I~IR PA~ JAPER ~ ~I~ ~ A~ ~ ~t~. (~tosloner Sa~rs ebnt) Page 62 SEPTF~'LtER ~,, 1989 County Manager Dorrill explained that the problem is not the flag,- pole, but with the location. He reported that the wisdom h~gh fla~ole in a County median that is 5 feet wide is not good desi~, according to Mr. Archibald. He indicated that there is more than ade~ate property on either side of the road or at the entrancs of the development for the flagpole. Co~issioner Shanahan suggested that Mr. Archibald ~d M~'. meet and designate a more suitable and acceptable place for the fla~ole. ~~~ O~ ~l~* LUAU - Commissioner Goodnlght explained that it has been customary prac- tice for some type of memento to be given to the delegates of the Florida Association of Counties from Collier County. She indicated that the Board agreed to host the florida Association of Counties, and Co~missioner Saunders appointed Commi~sioner Shanahan and herself to oversee the details. She reported theft the most cost efficient memento is Hawaiian leis for the delegates, and requested that the Board of County Commissioners authorize $~17.52 to cover the coat. Commissioner Goodnight suggested that the money be taken from the Board's travel budget. and cax~ted &/O that Resolution 89-265 be mdopted and that the $317.52 be tm~ fx~m the l~mrd'a travel t~udget. (Commimmionmr Sanu~d~ro absent) SKPT'&~tBKR ~, lg89 following Items Moro approved mhd/or 8dopted ~'.6::r .~h~ ¢onoent by motion of ¢ontssioner 0oodntght, seconded by ~oulomtonez' SILune~mn ~nd cerrted 4/0. (Gommtsmtoner $eundmrs absent} ! t~m ,14,0.2 See Pages F~'OVIDIIe~ FOR ~5g~S~NT OF LI~N 01[ ~ 5, BLOCK 67, NARCO N~DI& ~NI'~I~ISES See Pages~ ~ Itu ,14A3 R~SOL~TIOSl 8~-267 PRO¥IDIRI3 I~R &SSESSMEIIT OF LIEN Oil LOT 16, 12, MMi~O BLI~H ~WIT ONK - PATIqICIA NIKELSON AND KD BL~'E It# RK~OLUTI0JI 89-268 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKN ON LOT 3, BLOCE 326, MARCO BKACH U~IT TKN - LLOYD K. MYR1tS ~ MARJORII M. MYKRS See Pages~~oa Item R~SOLUTIO~ 239, ~ See Pages ~o/~.,I-- E*~ ~LIF/IO~ 89-270 PROVIDII~I FOR ASSK$SMR3FF OF LIEN 01[ LOT 2, BLOCK 260f ~T 7r ~ GA~ - ~OY~ O'~OR ~ ~ ~D See Pages~f--F,/ Itu ~14~7 RESOLOTIOiJ 09-271 PROVIDIJ~ FOR See P~: ~e s ~~_~. & Itu d~l 4&8 RESOL~flON 89-272 PROVIDI]~3 FOR ASSE$$N~IFF OF LIEN ON LOT 11, BLOC~ 2.34, UIfIT 7, GOLDKN GATK - MAURIC! CALA AND KIN CAtA Item #14A9 ~ OF CRKDIT ~. 89-13 PROM CITIZ~I~ NATION~ BANI[ AID BOIrD B~ KJIICSIJWO~D FOR ORIfllNAL KSCROWA~ - RI'VIXR& (JOY_J' l'uge 64 See Pagee ~J~'"' SKPTI~%.~,, 26. 1989 RI(INT-OF-MIYALOJe8 JORTH AIRPORT ROAD/KIFFKRP'RISK AVKI~ COIq~R SUFPIJ~WTAL ASI~KMKNT BKTWKKN COLLIKR COUWI'Y AHD THK CITY OF NAFLKS FOR ;OIIFf/C~J~VRl~lFf UTILITY &ND ROADNAY CONSTRUCTION ~ ~LO~ ~BI~OI~T-FULLII~ ROAD BETWEEN RADIO ROAD AND ~OLDEN ~AT~ PARK3tILY FUR~U~F T~ FULL CO~T REI~UR$~MENT BY CITY OF NAPLK$ Iteu#14B4 See Pages NOTE: Documents not provided to Clerk to Board Office as 11/21/89 ~qIIT CLAIM ~ DISCLAIMKR OF KASKMB3FI'S FRKVIOU~LY DKDICATKD TO COLLIKR C~;JrTY IE THI SOqFFff OInK-HALF OF THK NORTHWKST QUART"KR OF Sl~Ml'IOJ~ 14, T~MBrSIIP 01 SOUTH, ~K 26 EAST BT T~E I]KL'I~NA CORPORATIOM See Pages~ Item ~14B5 SKTTL~ A6~IIMB~T BKTWKKN COLLIKR COUIFTY AND STAT~ OF FLORIDA, I~P~ OF B3IVII~OID~IrTAL RKOULATION eec CASK NO. 89-O156 I~ COBJJ~IBJCTXO~FITH ~ D~tI~AGE IMPR~ PKR~ORMKD I~ WORTH Item ~1~1 &FFLICATION Imf 19~ LI~ O~T!Wit ~ ~R ~CKI~ OF ~l~ AID Item d~14,C2 SICOMD AMEIrIB(KNT TO COLLIKR COUIFFY COIrTRACT WITH (~KN FOR A BID JO. 57-1205) IN ~ AMOUNT OF $?,000.00 TO FROVI~ ADDTTI0JLJ_L Item ~14C3 cmrrv~-TWZTS H.K.S., Foa m~ovzszo~ oF mrsLzc sEAa~ sza~rzczs z~ cotaz~ comrrz Item rl4D1 ACC~PT~OF S~MB3q FACILITIK$ -VO T'KCHADMINISTRATM~ 1. All legal documents are found to be legally sufficient by the County Attorney. Recorded in O.R. Book ,Pages Item ,14~ NOTE: Documents not provided to Clerk to Board as of 11/21/89 ~ Old'LiTER AJ~D SKieR FACILITIES - ~~ ~~, Page 65 S~PTBNBE~ ' ', 1989 The fire flow requirements of the Project have t~en satisfied and the Fire District furnishes a lett~ accepting the fire hydrants for ownership and maintenance. 2. Bacteriological testing has met the County's requirements. That all legal documents are found to be legally suffici~,~t by the County Attorney. Recorded in O.R. Book/.~7~ , Pages ASRK~rf ~ COLL/KR COUIFTY ~ ~ CITY OF ~ AIRP~.fT FOR C~rTXNUKD USH OF FROI'KIr~ BKKDKD FOR A SOLXD WASTE STATXOB~ BI~IJI~IJlG OCTOBKR 1, 1989 ~R O~ ~ IN ~ ~ See pages ~, /~ LKASI ~ BrTWKB~ COLLIER COURTT AND 'I"HK CIT~ OF ~Z~, AIRPORT &UT~XTT FO~ TH~ SOL~ I:'~RPOSK OF MAXNT~NANCK, STORAG~ AND FLIGHT OF COLLIER ~ N~LICOFTHRS BEOINNING OCTOBER 1, 1989 TH~ ~ OF ~43,777.74 P~ See pages /D COFfRACT BrI~KKI COLLIER COUFfY A~-% FIRST BKNKFXTS, I~. OF FLORIDA &BiD G~tOO~ & BLACK MAIJAG~3eKNT, linC. flOR GROUP HKALTH CLAIMB ADMINXSTRATXOIJ A~D FROFKR~f AND CASUALTY CIdtIMS See pages : SEE SEPTEMBER 19, 1989 BCC minutes for Corocn & Black Management, Inc,, Contract Ite~ #1418 re RIP 89-1458. SEE PAGES:~-_~.4~.-./.~ for First Benefits, Inc. of Fl ~ OF ~X~ CO~ ~O~ ~I~;~K CO~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, l~. (~ OF BID B88-129G) IN ~ ~0~ 0, ,80,~.00 See pages ~-~, A / FIB CONSOLIDATION 0ITIZXES ~TUD~ ~ Xte~ #IAI~ II~SOLgTXOI 80-273 AP'PROVING RATKS, ~ AID CH&RGKS FOR 8KRVXCK~ ffROVXI:~D BY COLLXKR COOFFY I3ql3qGKIUY MKDICAL SKIl'VICKS, B3fJ'B:U"~r'XVK (],C'r'OBER 1, 1989 Iteu#1411 K~H~MAL OF CO~'I~RACT ~ITH LIVINGSTON'S LAMN SEll'VICE F~R ~ B~AUTXFXCATION ~I~T~Z~E D~I~ FY 1989/90 IN TH~ AMO~NT OF $1,8T8.00 ~~. ;~ , 1080 BJgTW&~IITI:M~ 1FOR 1]lqAT~ J~OS. 47950, 58637, 57221 It~1412 The followin~ miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or referred to the various departments as ~ndicated below: 10. Letter dated 8/31/89 to Commissioner Saunders from Mr. John M. Passidomo, President, Fine Arts Society, enclosing Programs and Activities. Filed. Letter dated 9/8/89 to Commissioner Hasse from Lewis O. Burnside, Jr., Director, Division of Housing and Community Development, DCA, RE: 90-CH-67-09-21-01-007, Enforcement/Apprehension advising that they have awarded an Anti-Drug Abuse Grant. xc: Neil Dorrlll, letter only, ori- ginal forwarded to Sheriff's Department. Filed. Letter dated 9/8/89 to Collier County Board of County Commissioners from Philip R. Edwards, DER, RE: Collier County-WRR, File No. 111671085. xc: Nell Dorrill, Bill Lorenz and filed. Notice of Publlc Workshop dated 9/8/89 from DER for proposed Rule, Chapter 17-640 F.A.C. xc: Nell Dorrlll, Bill Lorenz and filed. Notice of Proposed RulemakJ..ng dated 9/15/89 from DER, Docket No. 87-18R, Rule Title: Special Protection Outstanding Florida Waters. xc: Nell Dorrtll, Bill Lorenz and filed. Letter dated 9/1/89 to Commissioner Saunders from Mr. Robert Dyed, District Manager, DNR, RE: Inferior water quality pro- vided by shallow wells at Collier-Seminole State Park. xc: Nell Dorrill, Mike Arnold and fi]ed. Copy of Letter dated 9/11/89 to Walter D. 2tephens, P.E. from Kirby B. Green, III, Director D]vision of Beaches and Shores, DNR, RE: Approval of Time Extension Permit File Number: LE-223, Permtttee Name: Lee County; and filed. Memoraadum dated 9/6/89 to County Commission of Florida from Program Administrator Dale H. Heideman, Medical Exalminers Commission, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, RE: Medical Examiners Commission 1988 Annual Report. xc: BCC and filed. 9. Minutes received and filed: A. 9/6/89 Agenda for Marco Island Beautification Advisory Committee. B. 9/21/89 Agenda for Collier County Planning Commission. C. 9/22/89 Agenda for Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 8/17/89 Minutes for Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Letter dated 9/1/89 to James Glles, Clerk of the Board, from Joan D. Owens, Assistant Director, Administration, Collier Mosquito Control District, in compliance with Chapter 189.005, Florida Statutes, enclosing tentative Annual Certified Budget for fiscal year 10/1/89 to 9/30/90, and filed. Page 67 SEPTEM~ER 26, 1989 11. Letter dated 9/6/89 to Board of County Commlsslou~,~s f~'om Paul Bourque, President, Naples Recycling Inc., ~nclostno prospectus of the Collier County Landfill. xc: BeC and fi]ed. 12. Notice to Owner dated 9/13/89 from Dick Drywall, Inc. under an order given by Haas Construction, advising that they have furnished labor and materials for Acoustical and all related items for Collier County Mosquito Control, N. Road, Naples. xc: Skip Camp and filed. 13. Notice to Owner dated 9/11/89 from Graybar Electric Company under an order from Madison Electric advising that they have furnished improvements to the South County WWTP, located at the corner of Warren St., and Saint Andrews Blvd., xc: Skii) Camp and filed. 14. Letter dated 8/28/89 to Whom It May Concern from Shannon Howell, Vice-President, North Naples Utilities, Inc., seeking authorization from the Florida Public Service Commission to expand its water and sewer service area under Florida Statutes 367.061. xc: Nail Dorrill Mike Arnold and filed. ' 15. Letter dated 9/8/89 to Board of County Commissioners from Karen S. Miller, CLA, Legal Assistant, Pizza Hut, RE: Permit Application No. 89IPP-20236, 6-Mile Road Expansion of CR 951 from the present 2-Lane undivided roadway to 4-lane divided highway, xc: Netl Dorrill, George Archibald and filed. 16. Notice dated 9/14/89 from Collier County Sheriff's Office advising that effective September 14, 1989 their new address Is as follows: Collier Ccunty Sheriff's Office, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Bldg. J., NaFles, Florlda 33962. 17. Letter dated 9/12/89 to Board of County Commissioners from Jeanne Hall, Deputy Department Director, South Florida Water Management District, enclosing Permit No. 11-00670-S. xc: Nell Dorrill; original to Gecrge Archibald and filed. 18. Motion from Twentieth Judicial C~vcutt for Costs from State of Florida vs. Jean Louis Edner. Case No. ?9-406-CFA-TB. xc: Ken Cuyler and filed. 19. Notice to owner dated 9/15/89 from Johnson Controls advising that under an ~rder given by A & D Air Condttlotntng and Refrigeration, they have furnished temperature controls for Building "C" addition, xc: Skip Camp and filed. Item #14J1 RE$OLUTIOIN 89-275 APPOINTING THOMAS BRKWEN TO THE GOLDEN GATE PAR]~AY BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Item #14J2 See page RESOLUTION 89-276 REAPPOINTING ELMER (BUD) HARDOW, JAMES L. GLASS, AND GEORGE C. PEARSON TO THE LELY GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE See page Pag~ 88 SKPTKMB)I3~. ? ; 1080 There betn9 no further business for the Good of the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 6:00 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER IT~ CONTROL BURT ~AN ATTEST': JA.MKS C. GILg~ · ~h, ese mtnu.t~s' a~Sproved by the Board on as presented ~ or as corrected Page 69