Loading...
BCC Minutes 07/18/1989 R Naples, Florida, July 18, 1989 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners tn and for the County of C,~lller, an! also acting as the Board of Zoning App~als and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as hav{~ been created acc~)rdinG to law and having conducted business hero,in, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. In REGULAR SESSION In Building "F" of the Gow~rnment Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the CHAIRMAN: members present: Burr L. Saunders Arrived 9:25 A.M. VICE.-CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr. Richard S. Sha~nahan Michael J. Vo]pe Anne Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles Clerk; 3ohn Yonkosky, Finance Director; Annallese Kraft, E/lie Hoffman, and Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerks; Nell Dorrlll, County Manager; Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager; Brian MacKenzie and Tom O]l~ff, Assistants to the County MariaChi.; Ronald McLemore, Assistant County Manager, Ken Cuyler, County Attcrney; MarJor~e Student, Asslst~,nt Cou~lty Attorney, Kev~n C'D¢,nnell, Public Services Administrator: George Archibald, Trar~sportatfon Servlces Admin]stra~or; Frank Brutt, Community Dew~lopment Administrator: Bob Blanchard, Comprehensive Planning Director, Stan LltsinGer, Growth M~,naGement Director, Ken Baginskt, Planning Services Manager: Barbara Cacchlone, Ron Ntno, Raymond Bellows, E/lie Soto, David Weeks and Bob Lord, Planners, 3ames Reardon, Emergency Services Administrator; Mike Arnold, Utilities Ad~lnistrator; William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; Nar.cy Israelson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputles Sam Bass and Tom Storrar, Sheriff's Office. Pag~ ! Tap~ #1 A~E~)A - APPROVED N~[T~ CHARGES JULY 18, 1989 Co"~isetoner Sh~mhmn moved, seconded by Co--lselo~r Ooodntght and carried 4/0 (Coimissioner Sau~nders absent) that the agenda be mppz. ov~d ~ith the foll~tng ch~ges: Item Item 9H6 Added - Approval of certain bond do--ants related to the sale of North Nag!es Roadway MSTU Improvement Project Bonds and payment of bond tssumnce cost. Item 12A Continued to August 1, 1989 - Discussion of Ooodlmnd Marina - Re,port Back to 8oard of County Co~mieeloners. MINUTES OF MAY 30, JUNE 6TH AND 13TH, 1989 REGULAR M~ETING - APPROVED Couiseloner Shm~ahan moved, seconded by Couiseloner Goodnight ~ud carried 4/0 (Commissioner Saunders absent), that the minutes of May 30, June 8 and 13, 1989 regular meetings be approved as presented. Item ~BA PAT COOXSON DESIONATED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JULY, 1989 Commissioner Has~e presented Pat Cookson, Environmental Services Division, with a plaque and a $50.00 check for Employee of the Month for July, 1989. EMP~,OYEE SERVICE ANteD PRESENTED TO PAM LOW~ Commissioner Hesse presented an Employee Service Award to Pam Lows, Development Services, for 5 years of service. Item #6B2 ORDINANCE NO. 89-38 REGARDING PETITION Z0-89-6 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION RKPRESENTI~IG THE C~LLIXR COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REQUESTING AN AMENDg~NT TO ~,gDINANCE 82-2 AS AMENDED, SECTION 7.2? PlaNNED UNIT D~LO~ENT B% ADDING SECTION "1" WHICH ESTABLISHES PROVISIONS FOR AN I~USTRIAL PUD - ADOPTED Legal notice hax, tng been published in the Naples Daily News on 3une 28, 1989 as ev:[denced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider a proposed Ordinance as amended by adding Section 1 establishing provisions for an industrial Page 2 JULY 18, 1989 PUD, Plamner Lord ~,tated that Petition Z0-89-6 filed by the Community Development Division, representing the Board of County Commissioners, requests all amendment to the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2 as amended, Section 7.27 Planned Unit Development by adding Section "1" which establishes provisions for an Industrial PUD. He noted that the purpose of this a~.endment Is to create an environment for a high t~ch- nology research experimental type industrial development as opposed to the traditional s~.ok,~stack industrial developments. He indicated that the proposed amendment responds to the Growth Management Plan policy by creating a high quality industrial environment, and is structured to restrict Industrial development not designated as industrial on the Future Land Use Map to those types of manufacturing activity that do not produce external nuisances such as noise, smoke, vibration and other environmental pollutants. He pointed out that standards pro- ducing more aesthetically pleasing Industrial parks will be achieved by requirements for attention to setbacks, spacing, buffering, and landscaping requtI'ements. He noted that the CCPC, on June 29, 1989, reviewed this request and forwarded it to the Board with a unanimous r~oommendatton roy approval subject to revisions proposed by people requesting clarification and additional regulations. He noted that no one was opposed to the intent of this ordinance and Staff recommends approval subject to CCPC recommendation. Commissioner Volpe questioned the location of the more Intensive industrial uses7 Mr. Lord responded in the currently zoned industrial districts. Commissioner Volpe questioned if this ordinance would apply to existing industrial subdivisions such as the ones on Airport Road and Shirley Street? Planner Cacchtone explained that those areas are currently designated industrial on the County's Comprehensive Plan, and that ts where the more Intense industrial uses are to be located. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mrs. Cacchlone pointed out that accessory uses accommodated are: day care centers for employees, Page 3 JULY 18, 1989 recreational amenities, and corporate headquarters that may have golf co~Lrses; and provide flexibility but are incidental to the permitted uses. She stated that the maximum building height is generally 35 feet because of the potential of being located next to residential properties, but can be extended to 65 feet If it does not abut resi- dential propertteE~. A discussion followed abcut height requirements. Commissioner Shanahan questioned the recommendations and clarifi- cations made before the CCPC by interested parties7 Planner Lord ret~ponded that th~ addition of child care centers, wholesale and storage areas wer~ adopted as an accessory to principal use, and the PUD limited to less than 10 acres. He noted that a 50 foot buffer shall be provided between the two properties. Robert Duane of Hole, Montes & Associates, pointed out that he sup- poi'ted the ordinance but requested consideration of the permitted use category. He requested that the sentence "Uses of a similar Intensity an([ character can be permitted based upoD the discretion of the Zoning Director." be added under Section 2 (a) after Number 6. Mrs. Cacchione stated that the reason for the /imitation on uses re~!ers to the Coml~rehensive Plan specifically stating that the Inten- sity of the use be limited and ~denttfylng the permitted uses tn the industrial district. She explained that Mr. Duane's language allows mol'e flexibility In the district, but she believes the intensities are specifically ~pelled out tn terms of the Comprehensive Plan and the uses should be limited. Attorney Geor!;e Varnadoe stated that he had one suggestion re~ardtn~ light manufacturing. He pointed out that a showroom for light manufacture~rs, should be permitted as an accessory use. He suggested that a small warehouse type showroom or sales center be per- mitted by adding on Page 2 under Item 2 "sales as aa accessory use". Commissioner Volpe questioned defining the extent and amount of space allowed and Attorney Varnadoe responded that it could be based on a square footage basis. Planning Services Manager Baginskt Page 4 JULY 18, 1989 expressed concern about providing location for high tech office type plazas and suggested defln]tive gross square footage requirements. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Bagtnskl reiterated his con- cern about space for showrooms, etc., but stated that if the Board deems it Is appropriate, it should be no more than ten percent. A discussion followed about allowing retail sales as an accessory us~. *'*''Oomatssloner Saunders arrived at 9:26 A.M.*ese, Commissioner Shanahan suggested insert~ng language providing for display area only. He stated that light manufacturers should have an opportunity to display their products. Mr. Baginskt suggested adding It as an accesso~'y use and clarifying that it is not outright retail sales. (~ommtssloner Shanahan concurred. Mr. Blglnskl suggested that the language be Inserted under 2 (b) as Item 6 reading[ "Accessory retail sales and display not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area". Co~tssioner Shmnahan moved, secondad by Commissioner ~oodni~ht ar~'tval), that the public hasting be closed. Co~t~ton~r Sh~ah~ movmd, seconded by Co~t~ston~t Volpm ~d ca=tt~d 4/0, tha~: th~ Otdtn~c. ~s n~red ~d tltl.d ~1~ tm Petition Z0-89-~ ~ adopted with the added Stipulation 2 (b) 6 as ~ndtcat~ a~ve ~md entermd into Ordtn~ce Book No. 36: ORDI~CK 89-38 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 82-2, AS AMENDED, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY BY AMENDING SECTION 7.27 PLAHNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY ADDING SECTION '1" WHICH ESTABLISHES PROVISIONS FOR AN INDUSTRIAL PUD; BY PROVIDING FOR STANDARDS FOR AN OVERALL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN; BY PROVIDING FOR SIT~ DEVELQPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR EACH LOT OR BUILDING AREA; PROVIDING A LIST OF PERMITTED USES; PROVIDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUOING MINIMUM TRACT SIZE AND LOT AREA, BUFFMRING, LANDSCAPING AND O~EN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, REGULATIONS REGARDING SIGNAGE, LIGHTING, OUTDOOR STORAGE, PARKING AND LOADING, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT~ BY PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ~~ ~S~LATKS - CO~CTION OF CE~KR ST~ET ~ C~ICA RO~ - RO~S TO ]~IN CLOSED; STAFF TO I~STIGATE ~ REPORT ~CK TO ~ OF CO~~SSIO~RS rN Sr~ DAYS Page 5 JULY 18, 1989 Attorney George Varnadoe representing Monterey Associates, the developers for the Villages of Monterey, requested removal of the barricades preventing access from Goodlette-Frank Road to Cartca and Center Str,~ets. He noted that his clients, together with developers of the adjoining project, constructed Goodlette-Frank Road north of Pine Ridge Road to Cartca Road as noted on the displayed diagram. pointed ou~: that at the end of 1987, the County elected to barricade the entrances into the Pine Ridge Subdivision. He noted that removal of the barricades was considered in April of 1988, but the Board decided their the road should remain barricaded and directed his client to come back tn one year. He noted that currently there have been 74 lot sa]es tn sing/e-family development, 15 houses are now under constructlcn, 4 families are in residence, 13 villas have been sold and by the end of the month, 12 families will be tn residence. He "xplalned that the agreement with the developer was that the Goodlette- Frank Road extension would be connected to the west through the Pine Ridge subdivision. Commissioner Volpe qumstloned the agreement7 Attorney George Varnadoe stated it is a written contract between the County and the developers, not in the PUD document. He pointed out that It was done at a cost of $1,000,000. He indicated that access for people living in the Villages of Monterey, Crossings, Emerald Lakes and other developments access to the west is blocked by barricades, and that adds to congestion on the streets. He noted the Fire Depart~.ent and the Sheriff have asked for opening for emergency access. He stated that 19 owners from Pine Ridge and 88 land and pro- perry owners from Monterey asked for removal of the barricades. Th~se Petitions are entered into the record as Exhibit "A". Commissioner Hasse questioned stopping all truck traffic to the area and Attorney Varnadoe responded that construction traffic will not be brought throui;h the Pine Ridge Subdivision. Commissioner Volpe questioned the contract between the County and the developer providing timing or any guidelines as to when the Page 6 JULY 18, 1989 roads would be opened. Attorney Varnadoe stated that upon completion of Goodlette-Frank Road, the developerg assumed that the roads to the west would be opened up, but he did not know if '~here was a specific provision as to when the roads would be opened up. Commissioner Volpe recalled that the drainage issue in The Crosstng~: will prevent any sales for a p.arJod of time and questioned how quickly the area will be developed7 Attorney Varnadoe stated that he did not have that info~- ~ation. Commissioner Volpe expressed concern about the construction impact due to th,~ start of the stx-laning of U.S. 41 by Westinghouse Communities in that area. Attorney Varnadoe responded that most of the construction will be to the south of Pine Rid!;e Road. A discussion followed about traffic and future comp.letion of Goodlette- F~an< Road from Cartca Road to Immokalee Road. Cc. mmtssioi%er Saunders questioned if Attorney Varnadoe was involved i[~ the negotiations of this agreement7 Attorney Varnadoe responded that he had read all the corresponding letters, drafts of contract and ascertained the intent of the parties, but he was not involved in the negotiations. Commissioner Saunders questioned if the contract is the sole agreement between the parties7 Attorney Varnadoe responded zhat whether or nc.t it says it is the sole contract between the par- ties, it is vague or does not totally address a subject, the law is extraneous ev.[dence as to the intent. In response to Commissioner Saund~rs' que~;tton about referring to other documents, Attorney Varnadoe stated that he did not Know. The follo~{ing ;Dersons spoke in support of removing the barrlcades: Ann Jaeger Don Polen Gulon T. De Loach Don Barber The reasons were: Subdivision Agreement entered into by Collier County and Monterey Developers, access should be provided to re~tdents of Villages of~ Monterey, safety, better access to schools for resi- dents and students, relief o2 traffic congestion at tile intersection of Pine Ridge Road and East Avenue, and safer passage to Naples via Page JULY 18, 1989 Pine Ridge Road. The following persons spoke against removing the barricades: Henry W. Maxant, Pre:a. Pine RidGe Civic Assoc. (Petition Exhibit "B") Anita Hamilton Terri Tragesser Fred Gillette Gerald Merola Tom Maloney Tm~ #2 Grill Payne Diane Payne Zachary Payne Jib Reagan The reasons were: creation of heavy flow of truck traffic, safety of school children v~alttng for buses, accidents that have occurred before when the barriers were removed, cut-thru traffic will increase, art(.rlal roads should be tn place before barricades are removed, roads will become collectors, unusual design cannot easily and safely handle tra[ftc of major artery, fatalities that have occurred, safety!, for chi.!dren who ride bicycles, Joggers, and walkers. Petttlon~: for removal of barricades by Villages of Monterey and Pine Ridge Subdlv:[s~on are on file tn the office of the Clerk to the Board. *** Deputy Cl.rk llo~fman r*pl~c.d D~[~ty Cl.rk Kraft at tht. SPEAKERS FOR PETITION SPEAKERS AGAINST PETITION Mr. Harry Hubschman (with petition) Mr. George Buonocore (Exhibit "C") Mr. Mark Lamoreux Those In favor, cited the following reasons: there is currently too much thru traffic in the Pine Ridge area; the accidents that are occurring are happening while the barricades are up. Those opF,ostng, cited the following reasons: future construction on Tamlaml Trail will cause increased traffic thru Pine Ridge; Cartca Road is not adequate to accommodate right-turn traffic; Center Street ts not wide enough to accommodate two car9 and a person walking on the side of the road; willing to give up the convenience of opening up th~ road since thl~ is a safety issue; additional cut-thru traffic ~lll be generated. ~r. Archibald stated that lant year the decision of the Commission Page 8 JULY 18, 2989 was to keep those roadways closed due to very serious safety concerns, but to pursue, the extension of Goodlette-Frank Road to CR-846, and then report back In one year as to what changes in traffic movement have occurred. He advised that his handout provides the traffic move- ments of todi~y: 2,600 vehicle trips per day on East Avenue, and there are 900-1,000 traffic movements on Ridge Road at U.S. 41. He Indi- cated that S':aff's conclusion from a series of traffic counts on U.S. 41, Pine Rtd!le Road, East Avenue and Ridge Road indicates that out of the 900+ vehicles entering/exttln!~ via Ridge Road at U.S. 41, approxi- mately 50% of that traffic ts cut-thru traffic. He reported that the reason Staff undertook this traffic data, was based upon an analysis of accidents at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and East Avenue. He explained that the only movement Is a right turn or a left turn, and there h~,ve been 8 accidents at that location. He stated that if ther~ was some way to direct those movements to Goodlette-Frank Road, all of the turning movements would be occurring at a signalized inter- section under a protected green phase of a traffic signal rather than tryin~ to execute a right or left turn with oncoming traffic. He noted that there are concerns for safety as a result of increasing thru traffic, and the Intersection safety at Pine Ridge Road. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald aavtsed that if the connection at Center Street is to be open~d, it will have the function of allowing the residents in Pine Ridge to utilize the signalized Intersection at Pine Ridge and Goodlette-Frank Road. He stated that the negative side of this, is that this will increase the amount of cut-thru traffic, and the volume of that traffic will be one of the dectdln~ factors as to whether a worse problem will be created. Mr. Archibald further noted that another issue ts that of Hickory Road. He Indicated that if the north end is opened up, It is very likely that this will become a cut-thru, and be subject to an Increased volume th~mt will make those roadways ~unction in a manne~ like a mlnor collector rather than a loca/ road. He advised that ()()() 1 G Page 9 JULY 18, 1989 opening up Carlca at this time, would be a great concern. Commissioner Saunders stated that the Commission's obligation is twofold: to protect the motoring public, wherever possible, and also to protect its neighborhoods. He indicated that he has concerns regarding the traffic on East Avenue, and suggested the following: 1. Carica Road to remain closed. 2. Center Street at Goodlette-Frank Road to be opened to right turn traffic only, with sufficient barricades to prevent any thru traffic. 3. East Avenue at Pine Ridge Road to be righ'~ turn only, so that traffic in the Pine Ridge Subdivision can exit onto Center Street to Goodlette-Frank Road. 4. f'rohibit thru-traffic throughout the Pine Ridge Subdivision. Mr. Archibald stated that Commlss/oner Saunder~' suggestion Is a very good concept since thru-traffic will be prohibited, and at the same time, the Pine Ridge residential traffic w~ll be allowed to use a slgnaltzed lntersectlon. Commi~sioner Volpe indicated that he has had d.[scussions with Mr. Archibald regarding the possibility of using break~way barriers or one way on Center Street for residents within Pine Ridge to exit their community to acce~s a signalized intersection. Mr. Archibald reported that he has a serious concern as to how this will be designed. He stated that he will work with the various users, the Sheriff's Office, and the Fi[re Depa]'tment regarding emergency access and the restric- tion of movement to right turn only. Commi~sioner Shanahan suggested a compromise: open Center Street because of the problems that have been discussed, .and hold Carica Road In abeyance until a further study has been completed. Mr. Archibald explained that one of the alternatives that may be considered ~s to open up Center Street ~o Goodlette-Frank Road on an interim basis, and then Staff can report back to tke Commission in a period of weeks or months, and advise of any changes in the traffic movements that have occuFred, and whether or not there a~e sufficient problems of concern to close the road again or consider a right turn Page 10 JULY 18, 1989 only. Commt~sloner Saunders stated that the developers and property owners to the eas~ t;ant those roads opened up because this gives the property owners additlona] access; the Pine Ridge residents do not want a tremendous amount of thru traffic; and there is a dangerous intersection at East Avenue. He ]nd]cated that it seems that the }:asr Avenue intersection can be accommodated, and not create an increased traffic problem in the P]ne Ridge subdivision. He noted that he has a problem with opening up a road, testing it, and then closing it, addlng theft this nay create addltlonal problems. He suggested that tile roads remain as they are, until a study has been performed by Staff. Commissioner Volpe questloned whether any consideration has been given to reconftguring East Avenue for right-turn out only? Mr. Archibald explained that the problems with restricting the movements on East Avenue to right turn only are: it will be difficult to bring this into compliance; and, those persons maklng right turns will have to go out of their way, look for a median opening and make a U-turn. Cmls~atoner Saunders moved, seconded by Co-missioner Fo/lmm, and carried 4/1 (Co~um~sstoner Shanmhan opposed), that Center Street and Cartca Ro~d re~mtn closed; Staff to investigate the viability of right turn only on Center Street to Goodlette-Frank Road with ~lfftctent barricede~ to prohibit any thru-traffic onto Center Street, or left turn traffic off of Goodlette-Frmnk Road onto to Center Street; Staff to ~rther Investigate the vlabillty of rlght turn only at Avenue, mz~d report back to the Co-mission ~n 60 days. Staff to meat with Pine Ridge Homeowners and the Civic Association regarding the design concept to ensure compatibility with the needs of the co~- It~ R~SOLUTIO][ 89-161, PROJECT BOND AND RESOLUTION 89-162, BI-M(~DAL BOND OOItFE~SIO]! FOR TH~ NORTH NAPLES ROADWAY MSTU - ADOPTED AND PAlg~NT OF .BOND IS~;~OE COST APPRO~F~D Assistant County Manager McLemore advised that this item requires three separate actions: adoption of the project bond resolution, adop- Page 11 ()fl(; ! S JULY 18, 1989 tlon of the bi-modal bond resolution, and approval of the payment of the bond Issuance cost. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, County Attorney Cuyler stated that if he Is not directly associated with this issue, there is no need for him to abstain from voting. Mr. David Fischer of SunTrust Securities, Financial Advisor to the County, stated that the bond sale took place on July 12, 1989, and on July 14, 1989, the Chairman signed the Bond Purchase Agreement sub- Ject to today's ratification. He advised that the bonds sold prior to th¢~ $12,245,000 Collier County issue. He indicated that this is the first Issue of its class to be insured by MBIA, %{htch ts a feather In the cap of Collier County, noting that the interest rate was nominated at 8%, and was dropped to 7%, for a savings of $1 million over the life of the loan. He noted that the underwriting fees and expenses were $13.41, which relates comparably to the oth~gr issues that have been sold in prior bi-models. He explained that the difference bet- ween this and other issues, is that this is one of the lowest interest rates that Collier County has ever had which ts the result of insurance and a favorable market. Mr. Tom Glblln of Nabors, Gibltn, Steffans & Nickerson, advised that if the Commission decides to proceed with the remarkettng of the bonds and the sale of the bonds to Smith Barney, the three actions as described earlier by Assistant County Manager McLemore will need to be taken. Comteetoner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner H&eee and carried vnani~ov~ly, tha~ the Project Bond Resolution 89-X61, be adopted. Cmleeloner Sh~n~b~n moved, seconded by Co--missioner H~ee and carried ~nant~ouml¥, that the Bl-Nodal Bond Conv,~rston Reeolutton 89-162, b~ adopted. Commissioner Sh~nahan ~oved, seconded by Co.missioner Ra~ee and csx.tied unanimously, to approve the payment of the bond issuance co~lt~. Page 12 3ULY 18, 1989 ''''' R~ce~e: 11:30 A.M. - Reconvmned: 11:45 A.M. at which tim~ I~t~y Clerk Kenyon replmced Deputy Clerk Hoffmmn Item ~M3 STI;FULATED SETTLE~IHNT AGREEMENT WITH DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS TO '~INQ COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN INTO CO{~LIA{{CE ~[Ti{ CHA3~ 1~3 F.S. AND RULE 93-5 F.A.C. - ADOPTED WITH CN~NOKS Stan Litsinger, Growth Management Director, stated that Item 9H3 is a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approvo a com]~liance agreement with the DCA to bring the Collier County Growth Management Plan into comp/lance with Chapter 163, F.S. and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. l{e stated that on March 3, 1989, the County was notified by DCA of their intent to find the Collier plan not in compliance, adding that at this point, the County entered into a number of avenues in an effort to resolve the objections ~atsed by the Department, including preparation for an administrative hearing process and other legal appeals. He stated that he also looked informal mediation and retained a consultant for that purpose, notin~ that in May, there was a meeting with Secretary Pelham which opened up some channels for communication which indicated the possibility of reaching a negotiated agreement outside the informal mediation pro- cess. He stated that this agreement is the result of that mediation process. He indicated that this compliance agreement is not a growth management plan amendment, it is an agreement to amend the plan through Recommendation #2 in the Executive Summary. He indicated that the ,compliance agreement is not a down-zoning action by the Board of County Commissioners, i~ ts not an across the board capitulation to DCA demands. He stated that the County retains some very import~nt aspects of the original plan related to the five-year window and the capi~al improvements. He stated that without the five-year window and the capital improvements, there would be some very serious probl~ms related to continued community development. He indicated that this compliance agreement does not call for a change to the intent or the processes of any portion of the adopted plan. He stated that this agree.men% is not a taking of property rights, it is an acceleration of Page 13 JULY 18, 1989 the vested rights evaluation process. He noted that the two tc three year schedule is to remain with a provision to expedite determinations when development petitions are submitted for affected parcels. He stated that the primary DCA concern ts the fact that Chapter 163 F.S. is specific In its language which does not provide the Department latitude to approve the delay of the implementation of the Growth Management Plan for two to three years and a continued issuance of inconsistent Development Orders after the statutory date of August 1, 1989, would constitute a postponement. He stated that there are no such similar provisions In any other plan throughout the State. He stated that significant losses could occur if the County were to con- tinue with the administrative hearinG process related to the po~lstbl- llty .Df the Department opening additional issues or loss of the five- year window which would be critical. He stated that the County pwtll also retain the five-year window as it relates to State respon- sibilities, particularly the FDOT five-year road program. He grated that this five-year window will allow the County to continue to Issue Development Orders on the basis of facilities that appear tn the latter years of the County's five-Tear plan or the State's five-year plan. He Indicated that the recommendation of Staff Is that the BOC approve this compliance agreement; that the BCC approve the Institu- tion of an amendment process under emergency provisions of Chapter 163 to immediately amend the plan to r~flect these changes; and that Staff be directed to return on September 5, 1989, with Interim reilu]attons to govern vested rights determinations and issuance of Development Orders pending the outcome of the amendment process. The following people spoke against the agreement with DCA cil:tn~ the following reasons: depreciation of land values by down zoninG multi-family properties; commercial properties will be reduced; Illo- Gical and illegal agreement; lack of vesting regulations; property owners rights are beinG deprived; economic problems; loss of tax reve- nue; significant increase in millage; and makinG amendments to the Comprehensive Plan without due notice or hearings: Page 14 JULY 18, 1989 Gary Ptckel, President of McAlplne Briarwood, Inc. Michael McComas, President of Naples Area Chamber of Commercf~ read a letter from the Board of Directors opposing this agreemen,:. Gary Carlson, representing the Collier County Builder & Contractors Association 3ack Conroy, Co-Chairman of the Citizens R/UDAT Committee Xai;~o ~3 Edward Cater, Past Chairman of the CCPC William Barton, Professional Engineer and Land Planner Don Barber read a letter from Mr. Ross Obley, representing the Board of Directors of the Economic Development Council of Collier County, Inc. Stuart Kay, President of Community Development Corporation of Southw~st Florida Robert Duane of Hole, Montes & Associates Fred Gillette, representing BancFlorida Attorney George Varnadoe, representing 32 property owners *eec, Deputy Clerk Kraft replaced Deputy Clerk Kenyon mt this tt~ - 1:15 P.M. 0**** The following speakers spoke against the agreement: Jeff Frldkln R. Scott Cameron - representing Naples Area Board of R~ altorr~ Alan Reynolds - Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll and Peek Attorney Donald Ptckworth Richard Henderlon9 - Collier Enterprises Anthony P!res, Jr. - N.A. Realty Trust & Can American Naples Ltd. Wlllla~ Vines Tom Jennlngs Tom Jenkins Mr. Reynolds Indicated that tn addition to all the Issues discussed, the provision regarding fish and wildlife standards should be deleted. A lengthy discussion followed about an additional 2 year period for evaluation of commercially zoned land and 3 year period for rest- dentlal property, down-zoning and vested rights. Mr. William Merrill of Icard Merrill in Sarasota, consulting l~gal contractor, noted that he and his partner, Craig Richardson would make a presentation and address the issues spoken about today. He stated that a year ago the County Attorney's office hired an outside consultant to advise them concerning the Issue of vested rights as it relates to concurrency. He Indicated that support documentation and a report was Included in the Comprehensive Plan dealing with those spe- cific issues. Tape Mr. Merrill Indicated that the DCA In an administrative hearing (l()-I 13 Page 15 JULY 18, 1989 process is not going to dismiss their case against Collier County until the Comprehenslve Plan Amendment has been adopted, approved by the State and returned to local government for final adoption. He explained that implementation of the Growth Management Plan and ~.ts regu]iatlons have to follow due process. He pointed out that the zoning evaluation program will be adopted prior to any vested rights detel'minatton. He noted that when the Comprehensive Plan was origi- nally adopted, this program was anticipated and the outside time to prepa~re the ordinances was up to 2 or 3 years. ~[r. Merrill explained that his firm will address consistency determinations of ve~ted rights with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Saunders questioned developing a vested rights pFogr,~m without entering into this agreement with the DCA and staying with the Comprehensive Plan as presented? Mr. Merrill responded that that would be permissible. He noted a problem exists because there t~, a portion of Provision 31K that says al/ development with existing zoning Inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan will be allowed despite it b~ing Inconsistent. Commissioner Saunders noted that the language evidences the (:ounty's intent to conduct the zoning evaluation program within a two yeal' period. He explained that over the two year period, vested rights issues would be determined by staying with what was presented to the DCA, rather than the Compliance Agreement. Mr. Merrill concurred, but pointed out that the additional lang~uage in the zoning require- ment~; could treat properties tn a discriminatory fashion, t.e. Marco Island being re-evaluated first would give Immokalee the benefit of more time to obtain their approvals (~ommlsstoner Saunders questioned if the consent agreement was not approved, could the County be accused of treating some properties in a dlscl~lmtnatory fashion leading to inverse condemnation claims and a pote;~tial for damages? He noted that whenever local government gets lnvoJ[ved in any zoning issue, the same allegation could be made, but Page 16 SULY ~8, 1989 stated that treating properties d~fferently does not give rise to the taking issue. Mr. Merrill concurred. Commissioner Saunders questioned a compensatory taking or a change in zoning if the Court finds the County is not treating properties equally7 A lengthy discussion followed about civil rights action, takings, and liability. Mr. Merrill emphasized that the llabl]lty issue will not change, whether the Comprehensive Plan is or is not adopted by the County. Commissioner Saunders polnted out to Commissioner Volpe that a year ago the County alerted the entire community that commercial zoning would be re-evaluated over ;{ 2 year per]od. Commissioner Volpe questioned when the zoning re-evaluation program would be completed7 Mr. Merrill responded "August 1, or sooner, if possible" Commissioner Volpe questioned if adoption of the program includes vested rights7 Mr. Merrill rep]ted "Yes". Mr. Merrill explained that the zoning/re-evaluation program will be noticed for public hearing, Zoning Ordinance hearings will be held, and notices will be placed on ali permits advising that any perm.It issued may be subject to the Zoning Re-evaluation/Vested Rights Ordinance. Mr. Merrill noted that many developments will fall out of this process at the consistency determination. He explained that two pro- cesses will be set up for re-evaluation: 1) a County-wide initiated process getting and re-evaluating land, and 2) the development csm- munlty will be allowed to come in with their own petitions. He noted that if the determination is that it is not vested, a rezoning will occur, either County initiated or developer Initiated. A lengthy discuss]on followed about vested rights and their impact on Mr. Jenkins. Commissioner Volpe noted that Mr. Jenkins may end up with vested rights, but until that process has taken place, he can do nothing more. Commissioner Volpe questioned how the issue of th~ small property owner, i.e. Mr. Jenkins, who is actively proceeding in good faith toward the development of his property vs. the person who Page 17 JULY 18, 1989 is a land speculator, will be addressed? Mr. Merrill responded that these issues are being addressed in a vested rights criteria analysis and program that is being developed. He noted that funnelling it through an administrative bearing will be less costly and quicker. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Merrill stated that everyone who has a project has had notice since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan on January 10, 1989, and the County must start now in order to finish in the 2 to 3 year period. A dtscusslon followed about issuing developing orders before the zoning re-evaluation program. Commissioner Saunders suggested concluding with the Staff pre&en- ration and polling the Board to see If they want to adopt the Compliance Agreement with the County Attorney making several changes. Mr. Merrill emphasized that landowners will not lose their develop- ment rights by going through the vested rights process. He noted that Sanlbel's litigation was not on vested rights, it was on a takings case, and secondly Sanibel did not have a process oriented approach, they allowed the Courts to handle it. Assistant to the County Manager Olliff stated that the County must decide if this is the best agreement that the County can get from Tallaha~see through the DCA, and noted that Staff feels that it is. He pointed out that going through an administrative hearing brings up the question of what the community gains. He explained that the result would be more commercial property, residential with higher den- sity, and an over-capacity of available infrastructure to handle deve- lopment. He pointed out that a higher quality of development will not result from fighting and challenging this agreement, but rather a rush of development approval applications with the result that processing of those applications will not be of the highest quality. He /ndicated that a citizens survey will tell you that the community does not want to encourage the existing zoning patterns. He pointed out a landowner agreement allows a landowner all the legal avenues to develop that Page JULY 18, 1989 property in compliance and consistency With the County's Comprehensive Plan. He explained that Staff feels this Compliance Agreement ts the be~t approach for the Board of County Commissioners to take. Commissioner Saunders suggested seeing if there is a consensur) to adopt this agreement before discussing the issues. Commissloner Shanahan commented that with all the effort expended in trying to ~et a compromise there is no compromtne, and he is dismayed that Mr. Po]ham stated there would be no negotiations, and believes that the Compliance AGreement should be denied. Commissioner Goodnight noted that she saw Secretary Pelham, spoke with him and his bottom line was that he was not going to Give an inch for the 2 to 3 year window, and the County would have to be consistent by August ]. She indicated that Brevard County went to an Administrative Hearing and got nowhere. She pointed out that one of the Commissioners told her that they should have listened to advlce and cleaned up their comp plan. Commissioner Saunders commented that a year ago the County set in motion a process and that process ls moving along at a significantly fast pace and nothing he has heard persuades him to do anything dif- ferently. He explained that there may be a few commercial develop- ments tn areas not con~)lstent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and that is a minimal concern. He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan wi/] control growth for the long haul, and a plan cannot be adopted eliminating every probJem that has been created. He indicated that the community had been advised of the County's course and he does not see any significant liability picture or problem with implementing the County's vested rights program. He noted the only downside t$ a potential problem for a few commercial properties to be developed. He noted there are some issues in the Comp/lance Agreement with no an~wers or implications and, because of that he ts going to vote ag~ltnst lt. He emphasized that, other than Staff, approval has not come from the Conservancy, homeowners associations or any property owner~:. He aff/rmed that the Boar(] of County Commissioners should say Page 19 (3(,',4 1 ? JULY 18, 1989 "Ilo" to the agreement and go directly to the Administrative Hearing pro- cess and, at the same time, continue the negotiation process, and If necessary let a Court tell the County what the legal issues are. Commissioner Hasse stated that if he was told he could not use his property for what it was designated for, he would be out of sorts and concurred to a degree %~tth Commissioner Saunders and Commissioner Shanahan. Commissioner Volpe indicated that he is inclined to go along with this agreeml~nt, but is not sure it will accomplish anything to put this issue off to another time. He pointed out that timing ts a major factor, and suggested consideration be given to change th~ adoption date. He pointed out that Staff did what they were directed to do and perhaps a counter-offer is the answer. He emphasized that at some point a line has lo be drawn, and the law requires all these land development regulations be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan within one year of the date of the County's submission of the plan. He explained that the County dld not find out it was inconsistent until March, and January 10, 1990 might provide the flexibility the County ts seeking. He pointed out that this matter will at least be put to bed regarding the Capital Improvement Elements. He suggested th.mt the Commission adopt the agreement with a January 10, 1990 date, or the date the notice of intent of non-compliance was given by DCA. County Attorney responded to Commissioner Hasse that from a legal point of view, that would improve the County's arguments against the agency, but stated that DCA will maintain anything past August I ts not iix compliance. He pointed out that the window will allow certain projects while excluding others. Commissioner Saunders commented that elimination of the 2 y,~ar period and requirements to adopt the Fish and Game Commission recommendations are two reasons to reject signing the agreement, and he ~uggested sending Staff back with the above two exceptions to negotiate. A discussion followed about compromisinil and negotiating. Commissioner Volpe emphasized that the community has been told Page 20 JULY 18, ~989 within two years all commercial zoning will be re-evaluated and within three years all the other zoning will be re-evaluated. He noted ~hat each plan that comes before the Board of County Commissioners has been evaluated for its consistency and any plans inconsistent have not been approved. He stated that putting January 20, 1990 in the agreeme~t will not put the County any further ahead or behind if DCA reJect~ it. He commented that puttlng off something that is inevitable would not accomplish anything. Mr. Olliff stated that any window means 1,200 acres of commercial will attempt to get development permits, and a time period simply means a longer or shorter window. ~immionlr Shmnahan moved to reject the proposed Compliance Mr. Litsinger stated that the orlgJna/ proposal was for a March 1, ~990 date In anticipation of the Legislature changing statutory t~mlng but since the Legislature chose not to change the statute, DCA rejected March 1. He pointed out that January 1, 1990 was also rejected. Commissioner Hasse and Commissioner Volpe were not awar~ that that proposal was rejected. In response to Commissioner Goodnight, Commissioner Saunders pointed out that ~n an administrative process, negotiations continue until the h~,artng. Commission%er Goodnight responded that her understanding was that gotnu to Ad~ministratlve Appeal meant no conversation between DCA and the County. Commissioner Saunders noted that may be their position. Attorney Cuyler indicated that the County's counsel could attempt To ne~;otiate with DCA's courts, el, but f~om what he saw of their dealin~;s wi'th other counties, he was not sure they would negotiate. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney Student stated that the hearing is scheduled for the week of Sept~mber 18~:h and the Statute does not set up any t~me frame after the comp/e- Pa~e 21 JULY 18, 1989 tion of the hearing for consideration by the Governor and the Cabinet. £:~ioe~oner Saunde],e seconded Con~esionsr Shmnahmn'e ~otion, to a~,proww the Co~lt~ce A~eement ~d direct Staff to negotiate the 2 yea~ wlnd~ ~ Polio' 7.3.4. ~hlle going through the ~o~m. ~e mtton fa~led 2/3. (Co~ealonerm Ooo~Jght, Hamle Vol~ In response to Commissioner Vo]pe, Hr. LltsInger replied tha~ the ado]~ted plan governs. A discussion followed about which plan the County ~ould be operattn~ under. C~t~mtoner Vol~ mnved, seconded by Co~tae~oner O~tght that the C,~l~ce A~ment ~t~en Collier Cowry ~d the ~rt~t of C~mnl~ Affairs ~ a~roved. Commissioner Volpe suggested the County Attorney and Attorney Varnadoe comment about changes to be proposed. Attorney Varnadoe stated that his firm ~s an intervenor tn a lawsuit and has been given full party status and questioned If the County can enter ~nto a Settlement Agreement wlrhout the consent of the third party venor7 County Attorney Cuyler responded that the Board can take this step. He noted that on Page 3 of the document Paragraph 5, his recom- mendation is to delete that paragraph because it will be handled by operation of law and suggested that Paragraph 8 be adjusted. He lnd~- cared that at the end of Paragraph 8 after the words "under th~s agreement" replace under Paragraphs 30(b) and 32 of this agreement provided however that the total liability of the County to the Department shall not exceed the total sum of money actually received by the County under Part II of this agreement. Commissioner Saunders stated that there As no statutory obll(iation on the part of the County to assume any liability of the State. He requested Commiss~oner Hasse, Commissioner Volpe and Commissionem Goodnight to delete that. County Manager Dorrtll concurred and noted that the County Attorney is also reco~end]ng deleting that entire provision. Attorney Cuyler stated that in Paragraph 12 on Page 4, Page 22 JULY 18, 1989 Exhibit "B" should sul:fice and E×htbit "A" can be stricken from the agreement. He also no~ed that Paragraph 15 be deleted in its entirety and Paragraph 19 lnse~ted after proceeding "in the event that the other party fails to comply wIth the provisions set forth herein". Ken Rlley noted that he had a problem with County representation as far as legal coun~]. He re¢:ommended that the Board of (~ounty Comm~ssioners appoint legal counsel. In response to Attorney Don Pickworth, Commissioner Saundez.s and Co,J~ty Attorney Cuyler stated that 3 votes are sufficient for this document. Co--at.loner ¥olpe agreed to amend his motion deleting 5, 8. 15, striking reference to ~tbtt 'A' In Paragraph 12 and of non-co~ll~c~ of th,~ Commissioner Volpe ]'equested that Environmental Services Administrator Lorenz co~:ment on Po/Icy 7.3.4. Mr. Lorenz noted that DCA wants interim ~ld,~]tnes for habitat requirements and no criteria exists for Staff to ado[,t written or opinion forms. He suggested obtaining ~ldeltnes recommended by those agencies and evaluate a development with those ~tdeltnes to make a decision and bx.tng through the process as ,t stipulation, ~mtssl~r Volp~ ~nd~ h.is motion, c~tn~ ths ~mph ~.S.4 on pa~,~ 14 to remd: Until ~age~ent P~P~, th. C~ .111 sv~lua~ ~d apply appltcabl~ rscomn- ~tt,a of the Florida Gm ~d I~reshwater Fish Coulsslon t~tcal ~stst~ce to local ~er~ent ~d U.S. ~tsh ~d ~t.~ f~ral ~tdellnes regarding the protsctton ctal stam as stt~latlons to ~velop~nt Orders. ~[r. Lorenz noted that this paragraph would allow Staff to review the guidelines and make their interpretation through the development review process. Commissioner Volpe auggested that the effective date of this Page 23 JULY 18, 1989 agreement coincide with adoption of the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Lltslnger pointed out that the original language after adoption of 'the Land Development Regulations takes care of that. Comtsstoner Volp~ aovmd, seconded by Co,missioner Hasae, tilt the ~' ~ ~ ,lnco~z'~tsfl into ht~ ~tton. Attornmy George Varnadoe recommended deleting the last sentence tn Paragraph 25 b. on Pa!tes 8 and 9. He noted that the sentence reads: The State of Florida's performance and obligation to pay under this Agreement is contlngen~ upon an .annual appropriation by the Legislature as noted 3n Section 287.0582, Florida Statutes. Commissioner Saund,~rs questioned Attorney Cuyler if the re~olutlon requiring a 4/~th vote to change the Comprehensive Plan requires a 4/Sth vote to be rescinded? Attorney Cuyler responded that it does ~ot. Commissioner Volpe noted that when the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan ts addressed, the Board of County Commissioners can provide direction to all those who will be Impacted by it. Commissioner Saunders responded that the Resolution requiring a 4/Sths vote will have be rescinded to araend the Comprehensive Plan. A lengthy discussion followed about the Comprehensive Plan Zoning Re-evaluation program. In renponse to Commlsstoner Volpe, Commissioner Saunders stated that the County say "No" in term:~ of reducing the 2 year window to zero and emphasize that It is willing to go through the administrative hearing process If the DCA will not negotiate. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Commissioner Saunders explained that the planned development document will be in effect for many deca- des, be amended and Im[roved from time to time, but every problem cannot be corrected. opposed ). Pe~ 24 JULY 10, 1.989 *.*.e Receaa: 3:2,) P.M. - Reconvened: 3:40 P.H. at which Ite., ~r~A2 PETITION A-89-1, CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES OF COLLIER COUNTY, APPEALING XHI PLANNII~I/ZONING D~']~CTOR'S DECISION THAT THE OFF-SITE LOCATION MUST BE ZOHED TO PL~M~T A PARKING LOT AS A PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USE OR ZONED THE SAM~ AS TH~ PARCEL ON 'WHICH THE USE NECESSITATING THE PAKKIN6 LOT IS LOCATED FOR LOTS 5 AND 41, BLOCK ~88, GOLDEN GATE UNIT ~ - ~ ~ NI~! STIPULATIONS Legal notice havlrql been published In the Naples Dally Ne~s on July 2, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication filed with the Clerk, pub31c hearing was opened to consider Petition A-89-1 flied by Attorney Donald Plckwo~.th, representing Catholic Social Services of Collier County, Arthur G. Granzeter, 3r., Executive Director, reqllesttng an administ~attve appeal of the Planning/Zoning Director's decision that the off-white location must be zoned to permit a parking lot as a permitted principal use or be zoned the same as the parcel on which the use necessitating the parking lot is located for Lots 5 and 41, Block 188, Golden Gate, Unit 5. Community Development Services Administrator Brutt stated that this request has to be looked at as two separate courses of action; the first is the requ(~st to utilize a piece of residential property for a commercial parkLng lot and the second request ts with regards to the final interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. He Luted that if this appeal is granted, the decision would be applicable to the entire County and may or may not be altered with current interpretation of this section of the Zcnlng Ordinance. He stated that staff's main concern is the zoning Interpretation and not the use of this pI'operty for a commercial parking lot for the church. He indicated that the church has a piece of property that is zoned commercial and a piece of property across the alley that is zoned residential, adding that they desire to use the resJfeuttally zoned property for the commercial parking lot. He noted that there Is too much building that is iIolng to be put on the commerslally zoned property and, therefore, th,~y need to find a piece of land for the parking. He noted that the Zoning Page 25 JULY 18, 1989 Ordinance allows the Zcr. tng Director to allow parking within a certain number of feet of the commercial site, but on a residentially zoned piece of property, it t~, not being recommended because it may set a precedent that would be damaging to the rest of the area. He stated that there were two people in opposition to this appeal, noting that Mr. John D. Offutt, ow~r of Lot 42, Block 188, Unit 6, Golden Gate was one of them and sen-: a letter stating that approval of this appeal, would diminish property values and set a bad precendent. Mr. Timothy Perry, ?resident of Catholic Social Services, stated that Catholic Social Services is an agency of the Diocese of Venice which is a not-for-profit corporation. He Indicated that they have been In existence in Co311er County for the past 20 years and th,~y have been the largest dc:nator of the United Way in Collier County. He stated that over 90% of the cases lnvclve families, noting that ~! large number of children are affected by this agency. He stated that they utilize over 100 volunteers on a monthly basis and they have a professional staff that administer and render the various prograr~ of the agency. He stated that they are presently operating under l~ased quarters on Davis Blvd. which are Inadequate to continue to meet the demands of the agency. He indicated that the owner of the property that they are ]easing intends to sell the property and, therefore, they formed a committee last fa/] to begin looking at the issue of other property. He noted that an anonymous donor offered the a~ency these two parcels contingent upon obtaining al/ government approvals. He noted that it was al!~o contingent upon locating a new professional office building there. He stated that this property is a tremendous opportunity for the agency and would be a savings of at least $80,000. He indicated that the site will be used solely for a professional office building and counseling center, adding that the ~ervlces that they offer include adoption services and counseling, pregnancy assistance, family coun~;ellng, marital counseling, and spouse abuse counseling. 0(,,'4 t'.4 Page 26 JULY 18, 1989 Commissioner Hasse 5tared that if he was to consider this peTI- tion, there would have to be more buffering on 55th Terrace $.W. Mr. Perry stated that the Zoning Ordinance indicates that the agency will need 20 parking spaces and, therefore, they must utilize an off-street parking lot. He stated that he has agreed to buff,~r three sldoa and the parking lot plan shows the buffering with 24 parking spaces. Commissioner Hasse stated that he would like to see additional buffering for the people on 55th Terrace S.W. and this could be accomplished by deleting two of the parking spaces. Mr. Perry indicated that he would be willing to provide additional buffering if tile Commi$~lon desired such. He stated that precedent has already been set by a petition that was approved in 1981 for the senior citizen center c~tlled Our Place. He noted that the rear resi- dential lot was utilized for parking to accommodate their needs and the Zoning Ordinance tn 1981 was substantially identical to the sec- tion that ts being refez'red to this date. The following people spoke in favor of granting this appeal based on the fact that this facility would be compatible with the area; a precedent would not be t~et; the majority of cases are within thif~ general area; and the land was donated: Neno Spa~na Ann Swops Jane Hockwalt Be~nardo Garcia Richard Swops Art Granzeler Paul Hockwalt Rev. William J. Murray Dr. Bryan S. Thatcher Richard Henderlong Co~teetoner H~es ;~;ved, ~econded by Co~tssioner Shanahan ~md carrie4 ~nmnt~o~sly, t~a': the ~blic hearing; ~ closed. ~kt~ ~tm to the east are re~ed, the ~dt~ ~n the ~king ~wea is shortenS, ~d additional ~xffmrtng on tho mast side of ~he pro~rW along 55th Terrace S.W. ts provided. O~Ii[~l 8~39 ~ PITIIION Z0-89-7 C~I~W D~LO~ DIVISION, Pa~ 27 3U~Y 11!, 1909 A~DgI~ TO 1~ COLLII:R COUR"TY ZONING ORDI]]~CE 82-2 A~ A~ED, $1CTION 7.27f.6)(&) OF ~ ~ DISTRICT TO I?RO¥IDE A PROCED~ I~OR FAST TRAC~KIN~ T~ P.~IK'W PROCESS FOR MT~LTI-]~A/HILY ER'I'RY LEVEL R~TTAL HOU~3~NG - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on June 28, 1989, and June 30, 1989, as evidenced by AffidaviTs of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- sider Petition ZO-89-7 filed by Community Development Division, repre- senting the Board of C¢,unty Commissioners, Fequesting an amendment to the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2 as amended, Section 7.27f.6) (a) of the PUD district to provlde a procedure for fast tracking the review process for multi-family entry level rental housing. Planner Nino stated that this is an amendment to the PUD sions of the Zoning Ordinance and more spec].flcally the low and moderate income provisions to provide for a fast-tracking of review and approval of low and moderate income rezones which may be part of the PUD. He noted That this ordinance amendment would propose that a public hearing be scheduled before the CCPC 60 days after receipt of the application and that a public hearing be scheduled before the BCC 30 days after the CCPC hears it, therefore, within 90 days after the submission of an applica, tion, Staff would be requlred to have completed its review and reccmmendations of the petition. Commissioner Volpe ~tated that the definition of low and moderate rental housing is not contained in the ordinance and questioned why, to which Planner Nino stated that the original ordinance did not contain a definition either, but there are HUD federal guideltn,~s that define low and moderate income housing, adding that it is not required that the County define it because the prevailing guidelines would be the HUD guidel~nes. Commissioner Volpe stated that there is an exemption for low and moderate income housing in the Library and Park Impact Fee Ordinances and this could be tied into those ordinances. BIll Laverty, Growth Management Planner, stated that as part of Page 28 JULY 18, 1989 the Icard-Merrtll proJe,:*:, affordable housi:ag and guidelines and a definition for Collier County will be comln!l before the Board of County Commissioners later this year which is when low and moderate income housing in Collier County will be defined. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Planner Cacchione stated that the ord~n~nce addresses only those projects com.[ng as PUD's for mu/t:[- family entry level housing in the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that these are the only ones that will be fast tracked as a result of this ordinance amendment, which is found in Section 7.27 of the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance. She noted that when the recommendations are received from Iccard Merrill, there may be amendments made to thi:~ ordinance. Co~lme~oner Shanahmn moved, seconded by Co~aima~onsr Hames ~nd c~rr~ un&ni~o~lely, tha'~ the ~bltc hearing ~ closed. C~l~r Sha~ ~ved, seconded ~ Cooi~sioner H~II ~d ~ ~t~ ~ entered in~o Ordnance ~ok No. ORDINANCE 89-39 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 82-2, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING f:EGULATION FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING SECTION 7.27, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SUBSECTION 7.27f.6), MULTI-FAMILY ENTRY LEVEL RENTAL HOUSING AREAS TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR FAST-TRACKING OF THE [(EVIEW PROCESS FOR MULTI-FAMILY ENTRY LEVEL RENTAL HOUSING PETITI(]NS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROt~IDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ite~ ORDINANCE 89-40 RE PETITION Z0-89-8, CO~UNITY D~F~LOI~MENT SERVIC]£S DIVISION, REQUESTING AN ;d~ENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 82-2, SECTION 7.27F.7), TO PROVIDE STANDARDS AND CRIT~R.~A FOR PUD COgq~RCIAL COMPONENTS AND USES PERMITTED WITHIN PUD COg~E].tCIAL COMPON~NT~ - ADOI~fED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on June 28, 1989, and June 30, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hea~ing was opened to co~%- sider Petition ZO-89-8, fi/ed by Community Development Services Division, requesting an .a~endment to the Collier County Zonin~ Ordinance 82-2, Section 7.27F.?), to provide standards and criteria Page 29 JULY for PUD commercial components and uses permitted within PUD commercial components. Planner Weeks stated that this petition is to amend the PUD tion of the Zoning Ordinance specifically where it speaks to comm.r- cial components. He stated that the Growth Management Plan, specifically in the Futur.~ Land Use Element, provides for commercial in three different ways; within a large PUD over 300 acres or more than 1,O00 units; within the activity centers; and within the /n-fill commercial areas. He noled that this commercial deals with the com- mercial in the large PUD's, noting that the Growth Management Plan provides for certain criteria w]th regards to size and locatlon but does not address specific uses that constitute netuhborhood comm~r- cial. He noted that this ordinance will remedy this problem by stating that the uses allowed in the C-3 zoning district constitutes neighborhood commercial. He indicated that the CCPC reviewed this Petltion and unanimously recommended approval. Commissioner Shanahan questioned if this ordinance is applicable to the existing PUD's, t.o which Planner Weeks stated that these PUD's will be subject to the zoning re-evaluation program and whatever that may d~termlne. Mr. Robert Duane of Hole, Montes & Associates, stated that he is in support of the ordinance but alsn included within the PUD require- ments there Is minimum lot size requiremen~ of five acres but the~e should be PUD's allowed that are less than five acres. Planner Weeks stated that this type of amendment is not spec]fi- cally related to this ordinance. He noted that he would speak with Mr. ~ane on this matter in the future. Co~mlesioneF ShanmhMx moved, seconded by Conlsstoner ]tasu carried ~]~an~ously, tha': the ~blic hearing be closed. c~tN ~l~usly, that tbe Ordtn~ce ~ n~red ~d tttlg ~ ~t~ ~d ~tered Into Ordtnsnce ~ok No. 36: Page 30 JULY 18, 1989 ORDINANCE 89-40 AN ORDINANCE AMENEilNG ORDINANCE NO. 82-2, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 7.27, PARAGRAPH f. , PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: SPECIFIC REQUIREMEHTS, LIMITATIONS, AND STANDARDS, SUB-PARAGRAPH 7), COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS, BY ADDING STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTER PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDII[A~C[ 89-41 RE PETITION ZO-89-9 CO~I~UNI~ DEVELOPWiK~T SLrR¥ICI$ DIVISION, REQUESTING A~' ~~ TO ~ COLLIER CO~ O~I~O~ 8~-~, ~IN~ S~ION 9.1 "ST-SPECIAL ~~ O~Y STA~ CO~ - S~SITI~ T~A~ (ACSC-ST) ZONIng ~OVIDI~G D~~ S~DS ~ REGULATIONS, A~ IDE~I~ING THOSE ~S ON ~ O~ICIAL ZONING AT~S - ~ED WI~ ADDED ~AG~ Legal notice havln{; been published In the Naples Dally News on 3une 28, 1989, and 3un,? 30, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- sidem Petition ZO-89-9, filed by Community Development Services Division, requesting an amendment to the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2, amendtn~ Section 9.] "ST-Special Treatment Overlay District" by providing for a designation known as Area of Critical State Concern - sensitive treatment- (ACSC-ST) zoning overlay, provtdlng development standards .~nd regulations, and identifying those areas on the official zoning atlas. Planner Cacch~one stated that the purpose of this land development regulation ts to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for a sensitive treatment designation for ]ands within the Area of Critical State Co~- cern, adding that the proposed amendment provides development stan- dard~ and regulations ]?,~garding slte alteration, drainage, tran~portatlon, and structure installation. She stated that the area also will be designated on the official zoning atlas as the Area of Critical State Concern - ST. She indicated the area on an overnead map, noting that most of the area already has "ST" designatlon. She stated that the Big Cypress Area was designated by the State Legislature ~n 1974 as a critical area pursuant to Chapter 380 of the Florida Statutes, adding that it ts one of the four areas in the State 0( ).i U.~) Page 31 JULY 15~, 1989 of Florida designated a:~ such. She indicated that tn conjunction with the regulation that was adopted by the Legislature, they also adopted implementing regulations known as Chapter 27.F3 of the Florida Administrative Code, adding that these have specific criteria and development standards for the critical area in regard to structure Installation, drainage, transportation in that particular area. She indicated that in order to protect the natural resources of the Big Cypress Area and to implement the Growth Management Plan, Staff recom- mends that the area be designated as "ST"; that the development stan- dards that are found in Chapter 27.F3 of the Florida Administrative Code be put Into the Zoning Ordinance; and that the area be so designated on the map to provide public notice to people that these regulations are tn effect and are State regulations. She stated that these are State regulations and are already in the Comprehensive Plan and they are now being put into the Zoning Ordinance to provide notice to property owners as well. She stated that the CCPC held rheim public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of this re~Jllla- tton, adding that they also recommended that Staff further review the exemption for the regul~itton governing agricultural use from the regu- lations. She stated that staff is in the process of draftJ, nga letter to send to DCA to request their input as to how they should proceed if it requires any amendments to State legislation or any other changes. She stated that tht3 im[,lements Policy 3.1k of the Future Land Use Element which requires ,:hat State regulations for the Big Cypre~s Area of State Critical Concern be brought into the County land development code which is currently the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Goodnl~ht questioned what this will do to the Port of the Islands development: and the Rock Quarry that is on State Ro~ld 29, to which Planner Cacchione stated that Port of the Islands has ~l deve- lopm~nt agreement with DCA which is about 3 or 4 years old and the County has been reviewing permits pursuant to that agreement, adding that the area south of ~1 that ts currently zoned will be allowed to 0().1 Page 32 JULY 18, 1989 continue and the north s~de will h~tve more restrictions west of the canal and these regulations will apply pursuant to that developl~ent agreement. She stated that with regards to the Rock Quarry, this development has been discussed recE~ntly with regards to a deter-- mination on vesting. 'She stated that she is not sure what will happen with this area tn term~ of these regulations. Commissioner Volpe ~tated that this ordinance does not allo~ for any mitigation and questioned how this will be handled, to which Planner Cacchione stated that there is not that much development in this area and there have not been any problems to date. Attorney George Va. rnadoe, representing Port of the Islands, Inc. and Jack Price, stated that the ruJ. es and regulations in the BiG Cypress Area of Critic'al State Concern are very strict in nature and do not permit developm{~nt other th;~n agricultural uses. He stated that the first criter]~ is that on].y 10~ of the site can be altered and only 5~ can be lm[,~rvious surface. He noted that Port of the Islands has been in th{~ Area of Critical State Concern and is comprised of 486 acres; 3/4 of whlc:h were filled when the Faka-Unton Canal was dug and the finger canal~ put in place. He indicated that Port of the Island~ entered into an agreement with DCA which recognizes the parts of the development that are vested and the deve- lopment regulations by which Port of the Islands can go ~orward with development of their property. He stated that on Page 48 of the County's Future Land Use Element, Jt recognizes the development rights of Port of the Islands, adding that if this ordinance is adopted without exempting Port o'f the Islands, there will be a land develop- ment regulation that t~ inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan which ts not allowed under Chapter 163. He stated that he redrafted Page 6 of the ordinance to insert a new Section Three which should state that any propertl,~s that have received or receive in the future, a binding letter of vested rights from the DCA, a development agreement with the DCA or are deter'mined to have vested development Page JULY 18, 1989 rights shall be exempt from the provisions hereof, providing however, they should be subject to the provisions of said vested rights deter- mination or the terms ~f gaid development agreement. He stated that this would recognize That some developments are on-going and have received development a~reements or have vested rlghts determinations from the DCA and should be allowed to continue pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that Mr. Jack Price has approxlma[tely 12,000 acres off State Road 29 on which Sunnlland Mines Js located, adding that thls has b~en an on-going mining operation for the last 40 or 50 years. He noted that he does not have a development agrsement or a vested rights letter from DCA, although he ts in the process of applying for one for Commissioner Saunders questioned If Planner Cacchlone has any problems with the language? that is being recommended by Mr. Varnadoe, to which Planner Caccb]one stated that she encouraged him to provide this language. Attorney Dudley Goodlette, representing Florida Rock Industries, stated that with regards to vested ~ights, the language that Mr. Varnadoe ~s presenttn~l would take care of his concern. Dr. Fran Stallings. representing the Conservancy, stated that he originally raised the Issue of the agricultural exemption and sub- sequent to that tlme, he has looked through the Comprehensive Plan more carefully and he feels that it is sufficiently addressed ]n other places in the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that his recommendation is to support the staff. C-~/~ner Shanm~n carried Un.hilly, t[~t the ~abllc hemming ~ closed. Cmtsst~r Sh~hu ~d, seconded cvrt~ ~tmly, ttmt the O]~dtn~ce as n~r~ and titled ~1~ ~ ~t~ ~ ~ntsr~ tn~o Ord:[~ce ~k No. 36 with the adittto~l 1~ c~ntng th~ exertion presented ~ Mr. Va~d~ ~ l~t- cat~! ~: Page SULY 18, 1989 ORDI ]~ANC;K 89-&1 AN ORDINANCE AMENDYNG ORDINANCfl NO. 82-2, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY; BY AMENDING SECTION 9.! "ST-SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR AN A~{EA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN - SENSITIVE TREATMENT (ACSC-ST) OVERLAY; BY AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS TO IDENTIFY THE ACSC-ST OVERLAY; PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE ACSC - ST OVERLAY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Item ~B6 ORDINANCE 89-42 R~ PE'I'ITION Z0-89-10 COMI~UNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION, KE~tFTII~3 AN 9~KNDt~E]TT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE 82-2 BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 9.13 TO PROVIDE SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR THE P~0VISION OF OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN ALL ZONING DIf~TRICT$ AND TO AMEND SECTION ~0 TO ~ROVIDK A DEFINITION FOR U~ABLE OPEN SPACE - ADOFTKD. STAFF TO PURSUE PROVISIONS FOR NEIGHBORH,00D PARKS AND DEDICATION OF USABLE ()PEN SPACE IN PUD'S Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on June 28, 1989, and Jur.e 30, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to son- sider Petition ZO-89-~0 f~led by Community Development Services Div~sion, requesting a~] amendment to the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2 by adding a new subsection 9.13 to provide special regulations for the provision of: open space requirements in all zoning districts and to amend section 20 to provide a defin~t~on for uz~able open space. Planner Cacchione stated that this amendment would require d~ve- lopments to provide a percentage of the project in usable open space and to define the term usable open space. She stated that ~n o~der to ~mplement the mandates of the Growth Management Plan an amendme~lt to the Zoning Ordinance is proposed that would require developers ~n all zoning districts to provide 60% usable open space within res~dentlal developments and 30% open space for commercial, industrial, and mixed use developments. She indicated that usable open space is broadly defined to ~nclude active or passive recreational areas such as plal~grounds, golf courses° beach frontages, waterways, lagoons, flood plains, nature trails, and other similar open space. She stated that basically anything that is not impervious or paved would be considered open space. She indicated that open space areas shall also include Page 35 JULY 18, 1989 those areas set aside for preservation of native vegetation. She Indicated that open wster areas beyond the perimeter of the stt~, street right-of-way, driveways, off-street parking areas, and off street loading areas wJ[] not be counted in determining u~able open space. She stated that: it should be noted that the requirement for 60% open space in resid{~ntial projects and 30% for commercial, indumtrial and mixed-u~e developments and the definition are the same as what ls currently r~qu]red in the PUD section of the Zoning Ordi- nance. She noted that this regulation will extend that requirement to all other zoning districts. She noted that one item that has been discussed in terms of :[;~plementtng an open space plan for the County was the requirement for neighborhood parks, adding that since the County's focus ts on community and regional parks, neighborhood parks are not addressed specifically. She indicated that the PUD sectlon of the ordinance also states that 8% of the gross project site can be required for dedication to public use for ail projects after a deter- mination by the Board of County Commissioners that a public need exists for such facilJ, ties. She stated that the issues of provisions for neighborhood park~ and the dedication of usable open space are further items that Staff can provide in reviewing requirements to Implement the open sp.~ice element of the plan. She noted that CCPC held their public hea:~':tng and several suggestions were made after review which are included in the amendment. She stated that an exemp- tion for small commerc]al and indus'trial properties of five acres or less from this requirement is provided, also street right-of-way which is dedicated to the public and donated to the County for future road- ways will be included as meeting 'the open space requirement at the point of time that they are actually zoned. She lndicated that this implements the Growth ~anagement ]Plan in terms of the recreation and open space element, ObJect~ve 1.2, Policy 1.2.1. Mrs. Barbara Cawl,~¥ stated that she could not find any connection between the ordinance and the pol.icy and objective in the Comprehen- Page 36 JULY 18, 1989 eive Plan. She stated that Objective 1.2 says to protect destftnated recreation sites and open space from Incompatible land use, noting that the ordinance that ts before the Commission does not do this. She stated that this ordinance needs to be rewritten to reflect what Is in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Robert Duane stated that he is not clear as to who this ordi- nance Is directed at and how the people will be affected by it, adding that he does not see that anyone will benefit from this ordinance. He noted that there will be a big impact on multi-zoned sites and he has not seen what Impact there would be on p~lvate property o~ers. H~ indicated that he would suggest that this matter be deferred. Commissioner Saunders stated that two speakers have asked for this matter to be deferred atnd asked Ms. Cacchtone for her comments. Planner Cacchlone f:tated that in terms of 85 rezones, 60 of them were PUD's and they were already meeting this requirement, adding that the other 25 were straight zonJ. ng issues. She stated that she looked at residential areas and they have all exceeded that open space ~e~lrement. She stated that wlth regards to commercial, 70% of the land area ts allowed to be developed. C~i~t~r S~ ~d, second~ ~ Co~tssioner ~m ~ c~rtd ~imly, that the ~.blic hearing ~ closed. County Attorney Cll}'ler stated that he is familiar with this ordl- nance mhd he ~ee~ that it can be supported. It ~as the consen~ms that S~a~ be directed to pursue provi~lon~ for neigh~orhood parks and dedication o~ usable open space In PUD's. C~s~to~r Vol~ ~, aecon~ ~ Coats,stoner Ru..Id ~i~ ~~ly, '~t th~ ordtn~ce as n~red ~d tttl~ ~1~ ~ ~t~ ~ mtere,i Into Ordl~ce ~ok No. 36: ODII[~CE 89-42 AN ORDINANCE AMENQING ORDINANCE 82-2, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR T~E UNINCORPORATED ARE OF COLLIER COUNTY BY ADDING SUBSECTION 9.13, .SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR THE PROVISION OF OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS; BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 20, DEFINITIONS; TO ADD A DEFINITION OF "OPEN SPACE, USABLE"; BY PROVIDING FOR CONFI,ICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Page 37 JULY 18, 1989 Ol~Ill~ 89-&3 R~ PII'ITION Z0-89-12, C01~NITY D~r~LOPI~NT DIVISION ~I~ ~ ~T TO ~ COLLI~ C0~{~ Z0~I~O 0~II~CE 82-2, ~IN SI~ION 0.lO, ISS~IAL SIRVICES, ~ ~INO SE~ION 20, D~I~TIO~, ~ ~D DEFINITION 0F 'S~ SERVICE FACILITIES' - ~ ~ ~DITION~ ~GUAflK Legal notice havinil been published in the Naples Daily News on June 2S, 1989, and June 30, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication filed with ~he Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- sider Petition ZO-89-12, flied by Community Development Division, requesting an amendment to the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2, amending Section 8.10, Essential Services, and amending Section 20, definitions, to add definition of "Safety Service Factlttteu". Planner Scheff stat,~d that this item concerns essential services noting that the Future [.and Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, Policy 3.18 requires that the availability of suitable land for uti- lity facilities necesi~ary to support proposed development be tn:sured. He stated that for privately provided facilities, this shall be accomplished through continued compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, which requires an identification and location of all utilities which will serve the developm,~nt. He indicated that the Zoning Ordinance addresses the provision of essential services through Section 8.10 which needs to be amended to provide for clarity and to identify uses not specifically provld~d for. He Indicated that the CCPC held their public hearing and unanimously recommended approval of this ordinance. Co~leeloner Shan~um moved, seconded by Co~ieetoner Goodnight and carried u~ant~ouel¥, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Volpe ~;tated that in the definition of essential services, government se]~vices has been deleted and questioned why this is being done, to which Planner Scheff stated that in the futur~ an ordinance will be coming back regarding a public use district. He stated that government ~ervlces could be included because this is still being discussed. Con,missioner Volpe stated that he would suggest that government Page 38 JULY 18, 1989 facilities be kept in this ordinance. Planner Scheff stated that if It Is to be left In, it should read governmental facllltl,~:~ in residential areas which ts on Page 2, tn Sub-Section "b". (~luto~r Sh~r~n ~ov~d, seconded by Co~tsstoner ~ss~ cvr:~ ~tmly, that the o:cdt~ce as titled ~d n~red ~1~ ~ m~t~ ~ entsr~ into Ordln~ce ~k No. 36 with "~mntll f~cl]tttl~ tn ~stdsnt.l~l ~re~s" ~tng ~tded to Page 2, Sub S~(:ti~ b: O~I]~C~ 89-43 I~N ORDIHANCE ~ENDING ORDINANCE NO. 82-2, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR T]-{}~ UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, I~LORIDA; BY AMENDII[G SECTION 8.10, ESSENTIAL SERVICES; BY AMENDING IiECTION 20, DEFINITIONS, TO ADD DEFINITION OF "SAFETY FACILITIES"; PROVIDING FOR COI/FLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ''' I~ Clerk Hoffn~n replac~ ~ty Clerk Ken~n at 5:10 P.M. ~~ ~ V~I~ ~II~0~50~ ~ COLLI~ CO~ ZO~I~ l,egal notice havtn~ been published in the Naples Dally New:~ on June 28 and 30, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition ZO-89-13, Community Development Services Division requesting an amend- ment to various sectioas of the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2, to al[low for group housing. Planner Scheff advised that Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use gleml~nt re~ires that l~dult Congregate Living Facilities (ACLF) and othe], t~es of elderly housing be permitted within the Urban Desllrnated Area at a .~axlmum density of 26 units per acre, that appli- cations be reviewed on a case by case basts with the actual denatty ~ln~l calculated during this process, and that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to establish permitted densities for this type of development based on the size of the living units. He explained {hat Objective 1.~ ~)f the Housing Element requires that provision fcr the location In pred,~termlned areas of group homes, residential treatment and foster Page 39 JULY 18, 1989 care facilities be addressed In the Land Development Regulations. Mr. Scheff state,~ that Staff i:~ proposing this language because the language In the Zoning Ordinance is very general and mandates the mor,~ specific requlre~ents as outlined by the Florida Legislature. He noted that Staff is proposing more new terminology with applicable locational requirements for group housing. He advised that u~e of the Flo~lda Statutes as well as a lltel~ature review of methods us~d by oth~r local governments were ut]lt::ed ~n developing these new land dew~lopment regulations. Mr. Scheff indicated that the Collier County Planning Com~ission (CCPC) held their public hearing on June 29, 1989, and are fol~ard~ng th~ petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a unam~mous recommendation of appmoval. He no~:ed that in between the meeting of the CCPC and this Board meeting, it was identified that there are cer- tain areas of A-2 land and Estates land that are not in the urban area, therefore, Staff is recommending that the following be added to the A-2 language: "As applicable to urban designated area as add]'essed ]n the Growth Management Plan". He advised that with regard to i:he Estates designation, Staff is leaving open to the Board the dec2lsion as to whethe]: group homes should be allowed in the Estates Use category because the Future Land Use Element does allow for rest hom~s as a permitted u~;e in the Estates. Mr. Scheff stated that Group Housing is proposed to be sepa~rated into six specific types: Family Care Factl.ity - A residential facility designated ~o be occupied by not more than three related or unrelated individuals and not more than two resident foster parents or supervtsol.y indi- vidual, and constitutes a single dwelling unit. This type of facility is proposed to be a permitted principal use in the low density residential zoning dts~ricts and a permitted provisional use of RMF-12. Group Care Facll]ty- A type of facl3tty designed to be occupied by not more than ~lxteen related or unrelated individuals in addi- tion to supervisory care Individuals and shall be designed for group occupancy with such common dining and other normal living facilities as may be integral to the personal and therapeutic care of the residents. Category I: A Group Care Facility designed to accommodate four to ten cared for Individuals plus resident superv:[sors, i.e., adult c¢)ngregate living facilities, foster care facili- Page 40 JULY 18, 1989 ties, and the developmentally disabled. Permitted as a pro- visional use in the l~wer density residential categories and a permitted use tn applicable commercial categories, lind C-6. ~ategory_II: A Group Care Facility designed to accommodate eleven to sl;:teen cared for individuals plus resident super- visors, i.e., adult congregate living facilities, foster care facilities, ~nd the developmentally disabled. Permitted as a provisional use in A-2, and Jn densities of RMF-6 and RMF-12 and as a permitted principal use in applicable Commercial Districts. Cateqory III~ A Group Care Facility designed to accommodate one to sixte,:n cared for individuals plus resident su~er- visors. Tht~ type of facility offers a higher level cf per- sonal and th,;rapeutic care than a Category II facility. This type of facility Js d{:sJgn~d for crisis and attention care, displaced adult care, mental health care, offender halfway houses, spou:~e abuse care. substance abuse care, amd youth shelters. This type facility would not be permitted in the lower densit'/ residential districts. Provisional use would be permitted tn RMF-6 and RMF-12 Districts, and permitted principal use in commercJal Districts and provisional use in Care Unit: A residential treatment facility, other than a nursing home, where, for compensation, persons receive food, lodging and some form of on-s~te therapeutic care on a dally basis. This type of care may involve psychle, tric, psychological, medical, physiolo- gical therapies, behavior modification and other such services. This type of facility may encompass either ACLF's or aspects of the Group Care Facilities, Category III, i.e. youth crisis or substance abuse skelters, ~nd has been designed to allow more than 16 people. This type of facility will be allowed as provl~Jonal use in the A-2 District, and a permitted principal use in appli- cable commercial districts. Nursing Home: A private ho,me, institution, building, residence, or other place, whether operated for profit or not, including those places operated by units of government, which undertakes through its ow~ership or management to provide for a period exceeding twenty-four hours, maintenance, personal care, or nursing for persons not related by blood or marriage to the opera- tor, who by reason of illness, physical or mental infirmity, or advanced age, are unable to care for themselves. This type of facility is designed to accommodate three or more persons and ~s comprised of individual group housing units. This type of faci- lity is proposed to be a permitted use in applicable commercial zoning districts, but not permitted tn any residential distl'lct, and allows provisional use in the C-6 District. Commissioner Volpe (}xplained that he has Great concerns relatinG to this ordinance, adding that he knows the problems that are asso- ciated with attempting to locate group homes in residential neigh- borhoods. He noted that Category I, which is designed to accommodate 4-10 cared for individuals, plus resident supervisors, is permitted in the highest category of residential development. He stated that he has a problem with thi~. Page 41 JULY 18, 1989 Mr. Scheff advised that Category I is allowed as a permitted pro- visional use, and is subject to approval by the Board of County Comalsstoners. Commissioner Goodnlght stal:ed that a Group Home Bill was recently pas,~ed, and questioned ~hether the Governor has signed off on it? Mr. Scheff replied that Staff has not had the opportunity to review '~he Bill, but noted that It becomes effective in October. Commissioner Goodntght indicated that she understands that the Bill states tha%t County Gow~rnment cannot prevent Group homes In any area, s~ngle- family or multi-family, and al]ow~ up to six residents. She stated fha! she feels that the Commission should hold off on any decision making until Staff has taken the opportunity to review the Group Home BIll. Mrs. Cacchlone stated that th~ Item can be continued for a week or two and bring it back. She explained that if that one particular provision changes, Staff can very easily change the area regarding to Family Care Facllit~es Ms. Lee Layne stated that the law that has been passed relates to more than Just Family Cave. She advised that it relates to the ACLF, nursing homes, and the developmentally disabled. She noted that any district that allows residential units, must allow 6 individuals Commissioner Volpe noted that the density for motels ts 16 units per ocre, and a rehabilitative setting is 26 units per acre. He suggested that Staff look at the density issue. c~J.~ ~l~x~l¥, to con~tnu~ ZO-89-13 rom ~ ~ks, ~o e~ble Itn ~]j · m~ -~- ts'rares ~o -mm- TO n~ ~nown ;ts ~,anr.~n~ ~tr~s - ~IDO~I'~_~____AND ~ DOCUi~.N.~_..~.~SD Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on June 28, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Page 42 JULY 18, 1989 Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition R-87-23C, Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., reprf~senttng Samuel, Harrison and Albert Hubschman and Teryl Beyrent, requesting a change in the zoning classification from "E" Estates to "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as "Falling Waters" for residential and commercial uses for pro- perry located on the south side of Davis Boulevard (SR-84), and on the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension, containing 88.5 acres, more or less, located tn Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. IPlanner Ntno advised that this PUD rezone contains 88.5 acres of land, and the site fron~s on Davis Boulevard, and will also have fron- tage on Santa Barbara Boulevard. He ~ndicated that this is a mixed use development, in that, 490 units of housing are proposed on 40.5 acre~ of land, and 15-]./2 acres of commercial with the further speci- fication that the 15 acres of commercial allow 160,000 SF of C-4 com- mercia/ development. ~Ir. Nlno explained that the land immediately surrounding the slte ts ru.ral in character and sparsely developed on the south, east and west, but directly acros~ the street and to the north, there is a reservation within the Countryside PUD for commercial development; the ]and further north ts currently under d~velopment with a residential golf course community. He indicated that Staff is of the opinion that the proposed rezone is c¢,nststent with the Growth Management Plan, tn view ~f the fact that th~? site ]s located within an Activity Center. He noted that based on ~:he Master Plan density rating, a maximum of 8 dwelling units per acre %tould be permitted on this total acreage, and the d,~veloper is propos.ing 6.7 units per acre. M:~. Ntno reported that the pertinent County agencies have reviewed this mezone request, and have lndtcated that the Levels of Service will not be affected, arid Staff has concluded that the plan in its entirety Is cons]stent h'tth the Growth Management Plan. He advised that this ~'ezone has been unanimously endorsed by the CCPC. He noted Page 43 JULY 18, 1989 that several speakers at the CCPC's public hearing voiced concerns that persons living in 3-l, tory, multi-family units will be looking down on their properties a.nd reque~lted that adequate buffering be addressed. He explained that Staff believes that the PUD plan does establish adequate buffers for a compatible situation between those properties. Mr. Nino advised that ali stipulations have been been incorporated into the PUD document. He explained that within the last few days, the developer has agreed that he will plat the land and apply for an administrative review of SMP, but this lan.quage has not been included tn the PUD. He Indicated that Staff is recommending that language be used that had been used tn the previously approved "Briarwood" PUD which provides for an administrative review of an SMP and also provi- des for recording of the final plat. He noted that Staff will make this .amendment to the PUD document. M:r. Grady Minor, representin,~ the petitioners, stated that this petition was originally sl[bmitted in 1987, and was called Edenwood. He ad,;tsed that at that time 796 dwelling units were proposed, but due to th,~ changes In the Comp]'ehensive Plan and wetland considerations, it ha~ been reduced to 490 dwellinp units. He stated that he concurs with ~he recommendations of Staff. Mm. Garry Beyrent indJ[cated ~hat this petition is a five year ver- sion of a final plan which conforms to every form and fashion of today's Comprehensive Plan. C~lm~lon~ (k~utght moved, seconded ~te~ ~~ly, t~t the ~blic he~r~ng ~ clo~. ~ ~~ly, t~t the ordt~ce ~ ~t~ ~ ~ter~ into Ordtr~ce ~ok ~mt ~e ~ to include the 1~ relativs to t~ r~t~ of ~i~tstom ~ter PI~, ~md recording of the final plat. ODI]I~C[ 89-44 Page 44 JULY 18, 1989 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 82-2 THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 50-26-3 BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "FALLING WATERS" FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (S.R. 8¢), AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EXTENSION, CONTAINING 88.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, LOCATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EA~;T, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ' TaZ ~qUI~Z~m~S ~'OR A~C~0{~S ~U~ T~'"- DOWNS t'O~ ~BIL~ HO~S A~D T~tAV~L Legal notice having be(~n published in the Naples Daily News on June 17, 24, and July 1, and 8, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- eider an ordinance requiring anchoring, blocking and tie downs of mobile homes and travel trailers; There were no speaker~: either for or against this ordinance. C~l~sioner H&ase movmd, seconded by Commissioner Sha~ and c~rried unanimously, that the pttblt.c hearing be c/os:ed. Com~a~io~er Hasse moved, seco~]ed by Commissioner Goodnight and c~rt~d u~tnt~l¥, that the ordi~nce as numbered and titled below be adirpted ~nd entered into Ordt~mn,:~ Book No. 36: ORDIN&NC~ 89-45 AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ANCHORIN(.{, BLOCKING AND TIE DOWNS OF MOBILE HOME AND TRAVEL TRAILE[iS; ESTABLISHING APPLICABILITY; DEFINING MOqILE HOMES AND TRAVEL TRAILERS;; ADOPTING THE RULES OF DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND )rOTOR VEHICLES, DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES, CHAPTER I§C-I.IO, AS )iOBILE HOM{f STANDARDS; ESTABLISHING TRAVEL TRAILER STANDARDS; PROVIDING FCR NOTIFICATIONS OF OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS OF THE PROVI:;IONS OF VHIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING PENALTIES; REPEALING ORDINANCE 7§-15; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. R~$OLUTION 89-163, PETITION AV-89--003, MARK LAMOUREIFX REPRKSB~TIN~ C'09~=IAL DEFKLOPMENT CO{IPANy REQUESTING VACATION OF THE UTILITY ~ ON LOT~ 1-14 AND LOTS 49-~2 BLOCI[ 68, NAi~LES PAR~ U~IT ADOPTED ' Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on July 2, an(] 9, 1989, as evidenced by' Affidavit of Publication filed ()04 Page 45 JULY 18, 1989 with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Pettttor AV-89-3, requested by Commercial Development Company represented by Mark Lamoureux, P.E. for the purpose of building across side and rear lot lines for a commercial plaza. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald reported that this item is a request for the vacation of the rear and side yard easements in the Naples Park area. }{e advised that the site location is on U.S. 41 b~}tween 10Oth and 99th Avenue,s, and involves the vacation of a 7.5' side yard utility easemen~ on LoTs 11 and 52, and the vacation of a 5' rear utility easement on Lots 11-14, and Lots 49-52 of Block 68, Naples Park Unit 5. Mr. Archibald explained that the reason for the vacation is to allo~; the property owner to consolidate all of the lots into one par- cel that will be developed. He reported that all of the lots are zoned C-3. He advised tha~: the appropriate "Letters of No Objection" have been recelved from the pertinent utilities. He noted that the resol%tton that has been prepared does not include a 5' easement along lO0th Avenue and 99th Avenue since there are new easements being pro- vtded to FPL and United Telephone for the relocation of utilities to serve this parcel of ]and. He stated that Staff has reviewed this, and have no objections, and therefore, recommend that the resolution be adopted, and executed by the Chairman, and that the Clerk record the same. Commissioner Volpe questioned what the entire size of the parcel of land will be if the easements are vacated7 Mr. Archibald replied that the parcel will be 300' tn length along the Avenue and 200'+ along U.S. 41. Mr. Mark Lamoureux, representing the petitioner, stated that the vacation of the easements will allow a more presentable type of deve- lopment, instead of several owners having several different commercial types of development. He advised that the petitioner has granted replacement easements to the utilities along the frontage of lOOth Page 46 unamtmounl¥, to apt,rove Z'etttlon AV-89-003, aLnd tb~t 89-163 b~ adopted. Page 47 JULY 18, 1989 Item RESOLUTION 89-164, PETITION AV-89-008, HARTER SECRKST AND EMERY, REPI~SENTINQ iAND KASTLE CONSTRUCTION OF NAPLES, INC. REQUESTING A VACATION OF A PORTION OF 20' MAINTENANCE EASEMENT, LOCATED ON LOT BLOCK G, LONGSHORE LAKES 'JNIT ! - ADOPTED ' Legal notice having been publlst ed tn the Naples Dally News oil July 2, and 9, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition AV-89-8, requested by San,! Kastle Sonstruction of Naples, Inc., repre- sented by Hatter Secrest & Emery for the purpose of allowing a pool encroachment to remain. Transportation Servlc(~s Administrator Archibald stated that the purpose of this request .l~ to vacate a portion of a 20' Maintenance Easement at the rear of Lot 5, Block G, Longshore Lakes, Unit 1. He indicated that the site location l~ in the western segment of Longshore Lakes, and Lot 5 backs up to an existing lake with a 20' Maintenance Easement for thu purpose of maintaining the lake area. He reported that the owner has met th{~ setback requirements for the home, but he has built a pool enclosure l{htch encumbers the existing ease- ment by approximately 5' He advl~ed that the owner has obtained a partial easement release from the Longshore Lakes Association, and he is in the process of vacating that for public record. Mr. Archibald explaineJ that Staff has no objection to the requested vacation. Attorney Thomas Garlick, of Hatter Secrest and Emery, stated that the encroachment ts actually 1.8 There were no other speakers to this petition. Commissioner Haaee ac'red, ~econ.ded by Commissioner Shmnahmn and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. (:ommtaaioner Shanahan moved, oeconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, to approve Petition AV-O08, thereby adopting Resolution 89-164. Page 48 JULY 18, 1989 Itmm~C4 VACATION OF A PORTION OF MENTOR DRIVE RO~ RIGHT-OF-WAy IN WILLOU~BY Legal notice havin9 been published in the Naples Daily News on July 2, and 9, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition AV-89-005, William 3. Zwicker, owner of Lot 180, Willoughby Acre,s, requesting to vacate a pDrtton of Mentor Drive road right-of-way, for the purpose of allowing ,an existing foundation to remain. Transportation Services AdminJ~trator A~chtbald stated that this item is a request to con~ider a vacation on Mentor Drive in Willoughby Acres, and is part of th9 original plat. He advised that Mentor Drive at one location had a 80' right-of-way for turn around purposes. He reported that the builder of the western most lot in Mentor Drive has laid out a house, poured the foundation, and constructed the walls based upon the right-of-way being ~0' wide. He explained that the frontage of the house meets with the alignment of the other homes along Mentor Drive. He indicated that there is an additional easement of an added 10' on that side of the road right-of-way, and in order to correct the problem, the owner is requesting that the 10' be vacated. Mr. Archibald noted that Staff has revlewed the request, and have no objections to the vacation since there is no need for the 10' at this point in tlme. He noted that the adjacent development on Mentor Drive has been constructed, and the roadway has been extended to the west with an appropriate cul-de-sac at the end of the roadway for movements to turn around and gain access. He advised that the appropriate "Letters of No Objection" have been received from the appropriate utilities. There were no speakers to this petition. Co~teeioner Goodntflht moved, seconded by Commissioner S~mn &nd carried un~ml~ousl¥, that that the public hearin~ be closed. Pmgm 4~ ~TULY ~, ~989 adopttn~ Resolution 89-165. Page 50 JULY 18, 1989 Item ~5 ORDINANOE 89-%5, ADOPTII~G THE "NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1Q87 EDITION" WITH ~}C__AL ,,AMENDMENTS .- ADOPTED Legal notice havtn!] been published in the Naples Daily News on June 17, 24, and July ~, and 8, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication fi/ed with l~he Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- sider an ordinance enacling one part of the "Collier County Building Code" by adopting the "National Electrical Code, 1987 Edition", as published by the National Fire Protection Association, as further amended by this ord~nan¢.e. Mr. Larry Brennan, representing the Electrical Counsel of Florida, stated that his trade a~p]auds the Community Development Services Depa:'t~]~ent for their action. He indicated that now that the mechanism is in place, he requested that the Commission instruct Staff to move timely and speedily upor~ the adoption of the 1990 Electrical Code which is to be out in October, 1989. Mr. Brennan stated ~hat his organization is very concerned That there are no guidelines as to who is allowed or permitted to do electrical work in Collier County. He suggested that a licensed indl- v/dual, with a Certificate of Competency at either the Journeyman and/or Masters level be required on Job sites where electrical work is being performed. He advised that the Contractors' Licensing Ordinance 85-42, does not have a requirement relating to a licensed individual, in any of the construction trades, being present on a Job site %4here construction is being performed in Collier County. There were no other speakers. It was the consensus, of the Commission that Staff review the ~990 Code, and that recommendations be provided through the Contractors, Licensing Board relating to licensed trades persons on Job sites. Oo~'issionar Shar, ahen moved, seconded by Co~tsatoner Goodnight ~d cm/'ried ~nani~ously, that the public be closed. Com~iasioner Shmnahan moved, seconded by Com~iesioner Goodnight and carried unmni~ousl¥, that the ordinance as numbered and titled JULY la, 1989 belc~ be adopted ~nd ~ntered into Ordin~nce Book No. 36: ORDINANCE 89-46 AN ORDINANCE ENACTING ONE PART OF THE "COLLIER COUNTY BUILE, ING CODE" BY ADOPTING 7'Hfl "NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1987 EDITION," AS PUBLISHED BY TH[i NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, AS FURTHER AMENDED BY THIS ORDINANCE; AMENDING THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1987 EDITION, TO ADD ARTICLE 80, ADMINISTflATION, CONSISTING OF ARTI(:LES 80-A THROUGH 80-3, MORE SPECIFICALL%' DESCRIBED AS: 80-A, TITLE AND SCOPE; SECTION (HEREINAFTER IIOTED AS S.) TITLE, 80-2, CODE REMEDIAL; S.80-3. SCOPE; S. 80-4 RELATING TO MAINTENANCE OF ELE(;TRICAL SYSTEMS; 80-B, ORGANIZATION; S.80-5 ESTABLISHING ELEC?]~ICAL SECTION AND CHARGE THEREOF; S.80-6 RELATING TO INSPEC'FOP$; ~O-C, POWERS ,%ND DUTIES OF ELECTRI(~AL OFFICIAL; S. 80-7 RELATING TO RIG}IT OF ENTRY; S. 80-8 RELAUING TO STOP WORK ORDER~; 9.80-9, PROVIDING FOR REVOCATION OF PIiRMITS; S. 80-10 RELATING 'tO UNSAFE INSTALLATIONS; S.80-11RELATIN(i TO REQ[IIREMENTS NOT {~']VERED BY CODE; S. 80-12 RELATING TO INSTALLA- TIONS OF ALTERNATfl MATERIALS OR ALTERNATE METHODS OF INSTAI,LATIONS OF MATERIALS; S. 80-13 RELATING TO LIABILITY OF OFFICE]{S, EMPLOYEES, OR ENFO}~CEMENT BOARD MEMBERS; 80-D, APPLICATION FOR PERMIT; S. 80-14 RELATING TO WHEN A PERMIT IS EEQUIRED; S.~0-15 RELATING TO APPLIC,ITION FORM; S. 80-16 RELATING TO DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS; S. 80-17 PROVIDING FOR EXAMINATION OF DRAWI}IGS; 80-E, PERMITS; S. 1~O-18 RELATING TO ELECTRICAI~ OFFICIAL'S ACTION ON PERMIT APPLICAT;~O~S; S. 80-19 RELATING TO CONDITIONS OF THE PERMIT; 80-F, FEES; S.80-20 PROVIDING FOR A SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION; 80-G, INSPECTION; S. 80-21 RELATING 7'0 INSPECTIONS; S. 80-22 RELATING TO NOTIFICA- TION OF INSPECTIONS; :{. 80-23 RELATING TO MATERIAL AND LABOR INSPECTIOI;S; S. 80-24, RELATING TO INSPECTIONS PRIOR TO CON{~EAL- MENT; 80-H, CERTI~'ICA'FE OF APPROVAL; S. 80-25 RELATING TO FINAL INSPECTIONS; S. 80-26 RELATING TO TEMPORARY APPROVAL; 80-I RELATING TO VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES; S. 80-27 PENALTIES; 80-J PROVIDING FOR APPEALS TO THE BOARD OF AD3USTMENT AND APPEALIi; S. 80-28 APPEALS; A[4ENDING ARTICLE ]00 RELATING TO DEFINITIONS; AMENDING S. 210-52 TO ADD SUBSECTION (9) RELATING TO OUTLETS; AMENDING S. 230-7 TO ADD SUBSECTION (a) RELATING TO CONDUCTORS IN RACEWAY; AMENDIN(i S. 230-21 TO ADD SUBSECTION {a) RELATIIIG TO OVERHEAD SUPPLy; AMI!NDING SECTION 230-23, 230-31 AND 230-42 (b), RELATING TO RATING; AMENDIN(i S. 230-43 RELATING TO CONDUCTOI{S; AMENDING S. 300-i T.) ADD TO SUBSECTION (a) WIRING METHODS; tND AMENDING S. 300-1 T¢) ADD SUBSECTION 300-1 (c) RELATING TO CONDUCTORS IN RACEWIY; AMENI)ING S.310-16 RELATING TO AMPACITIES; AMENDING S. 336-3 REI,ATING TO PERMITTE~ USES AND MATERIALS; AMENDING S. 550-23(a) TO ADD SUBSECTIONS (1), (2), AND (3) RELATING TO MOBILf] HOMES; A~tENDING S. 680-20 (a) (1) AND (2) RELATING TO UNDERWATER LIGHTNING FIXTURES; REPEALING ORDINANCE 86-53; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERANCE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Clerk: Kraft re,placed Deputy Clerk Hoffmanesas. aT thie time - 6:00 P.M. Item ~6C6 P~$OL~fXON 89-166 RI PXTITION S~-89-3 AGNOLI, BARBER, BRUIDAGE, INC. I~PRE$~ING COLLIER EIT~RPRISE$, REQUESTING SUBDIVISION ~S~ P~ ~~ ~R I~EE AGRO P~ - A~ED Legal notice havtn!~ ~t~en puE, 11shed in the Naples Daily News on July 2, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed w~th the Page 52 JULY 18, 1989 Clerk, public hearing ~as opened to consider Petition SMP-89-3, filed by Domlnick Amico of A]noll, Barber and Brundage, Inc., representing Collier Enterprises, requesting Subdivision Master Plan approval for Immokalee Agro Park. Planner Ntno stated that the Petitioner seeks approval of a Subdivision Master Plan called Immokalee Agro Park located on C.R. 846 east of the center of Immokalee. He noted on the displayed aerial photograph the boundarle9 of the site. He noted that the Growth Manl~gement Plan and the Future Land Use Plan Indicate that this ts an area for Industrial d~ve!opment, the Levels of Service are not 3eopar- dtzed and Staff recommends approval subject to CCPC stipulations. Mr. Domlnlck Amico of Agnoll, Barber and Brundage, Inc., repre- senting Collier Enterpi'tses, stated that they are tn agreement with Staff's stipulations. Co~m~esioner Goodnlght moved, seconded by Commissioner Voll~ and CmXTied unmni~ous]¥, that the public hearing be closed. Co~m~maloner Goo~%[ght moved, seconded by Commissioner Haa~e mhd c:mrr~ed unani~ouel¥, That Petition SMP-89-3 be approved ~b3ect to CC~ e~lmt~ons ~d Resolution 89-166, be adopted. JULY 1.8, 1989 ~XSOLUTION 8S-167 ~ m~?r'rroN v-sg-a Jom~ w. ~RSON, ~PaXsxwrr~a ~~ B~ ~!~: ~ PELrCA~ BAY F~ - A~PTED Legal notice havln9 been published in the Naples Daily Ne~s on July 2, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition V-89-8, f~led by Porter Homes, Inc., repl'e:~ented by John W. Emerson, requesting varian- ces from front and side yard setbacks. Planner Scheff stai~.d that Petition V-89-8 flied by Porter Homes, Inc., represented by John W. Emerson ts requesttn~ a 0.3 foot variance from the northeast sld~ yard setback and i-1/2 foot variance from the required rear yard seth,ack of 25 feet to 23-1/2 feet for proper~y located at 703 Tamarind Court, Site 26, Block B, Unit 4 of the Pelican Bay PUD. He indicated that this variance has been requested tn order to allow the single-fa:ally residence to remain in its present loca- tion. Staff and the CCPC recommend apprcval, he noted. ~lsstoner ~oo~iGht moved, seconded by Co~tsstoner Sh~ ~ c~ri~ ~i~sly, that the public hearing be closed. ~ c~t~ ~tml~, that, Petition V-89-8 ~ appr~ed ~d b~lutt~ 89-167, ~ adopted. Xtra #7B1 RESOLUTION 09-168 RE PETITION PU-88-7C, NKNO J. SPAGNA, REPRESENTING CENTRAL CHURCH OF CHRIST, INC. REQUESTING EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL USE "a~ OF T~z aE- ESTATES DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH AND RELATED PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT VANDERBILT B~ACH ROAD AND OAKS _BOULEVARD _ AD~_,PTED Planner Scheft stated that Dr. Spagna is requesting an extens.ion for a provisional use ~tng criteria of Section 13 of the Zoning Ordinance allowing a one year extension for a provisional use that has not commenced. Commissioner Hasse questioned if the Church Is on the way? Dr. Spagna responJed "Yes, this coming year". Commissioner Volpe noted that these extensions should not be automatic, but questioned if Dr. Spagna's client needs the one year to commence construction and use of the property. Dr. Spagna responded that he was assured that all the preliminaries have been completed. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Dr. Spagna stated that the Church does not have an existing location in the community and they are meeting in Bonita. Commissioner Volpe commented that the proposed church is tn Golden Gate Estates, and that the issue of provisional uses ~n this ar,~a has been the subject of great debate, and he explained that he has reser- vations about allowing the Petitioner another year. Mr. John Cunnlan of Golden Gate Estates stated that a committee was appointed by the Board to work with Staff and draw up a Master Plan. He indicated that he had attended two meetings held in Golden Gate and Golden Gate E~;tates. He noted that a Master Plan for Golden Gate Estates will be r,~ady in September and suggested waiting until then. Commissioner GoodnlGht pointed out that the Commission a~pproved this provisional use last year and this is merely an extension. Commissioner Goodnight and Commissioner Hasse emphasized to Dr. Spa{;na that there wl]] be no extension next year. Co~,,iealoner Ooodnlght moved, second,~d by Commissioner Hms~e and carried unanl~mousl¥, that Petition PU-88-7C be approved, and Resolution e9-168, be adopted. Pa~e 55 Item JULY 18, 1989 I~$OLIITIO~ 89-169 R~ FI~-89-3 TODD L. TURR~LL RXPR~$EI~TIN(t BROOI~ID~ ~INI ~I~ ~ISIONAL US~ '~' OF HI C-4 ZONI~ DI~ICT ~OR ~ ~l ~IT S~XS I'AClLI~ L~ATKD AT BROOKSIDK DRI~ a DAVIS Planner Scheff no,;ed that this is another provisional use request for outdoor boat sale~ located on Davis Boulevard at Brookslde Drive. He Indicated that the .~reas to the east and south are occupied by small shopping centers with a variety of occupants. He pointed out that south of the prop~rty are several used car lots as well as a fur- niture store; west is vacant ]and, north is occupied by single-family residential and the prcvtsional use Is in compliance with the GroWth Management Plan. He explained that currently constructed is a 4,500 square foot metal building housing a video store, used clothing store and dance studio, and the petitioner proposes to use this site for the outdoor boat sales burliness. He pointed out that the boat sa/es faci- lity will have a minima2 impact on traffic and the nelghbortn~ pro- perty and is similar to other uses in the area. He reported that the CCPC recommended approval with Staff's modified stipulations and the addition of Stipulation 'E", noting "No repairs or maintenance ~ork shall be allowed on the premises". He noted that two letters of sup- port and one letter of opposition have been received. He explained that the letter of opposition expressed concern abou-~ traffic visibi- lity on Davis Boulevard and the amount of space where outdoor boat sales will be located. Commissioner Hasse questioned what is located west of the proper- ty? Planner Scheff responded that Taco T/co Restaurant is located East of the property. Commissioner Volpe questioned the location rela- tive to old Brookslde Bowling? Mr. Todd Turrell, representing the petitioner, responded that Brookside Bowl is west, adjacent to tbs existing Brookstde Marina and a vacant piece of proper, ty ts between them. He responded to Commissioner Vo]pe that 600 feet ts estxmated to be the location bet- ween Brookside Bowl and the proposed dlsp]ay area. Commissioner Volpe 0{3-1G8 Page 56 JULY 18, 1989 questioned ~f the property ls under common ownership? Mr. Turrell responded "That ~s correct',. In response to Commkss~oner Volpe, Mr. Turrell responded the owner will not be movkng Brookskde Markna to thks location. Commksslcner Vo]pe questioned if the 3 1]ses permitted In the steel building wl.]l be abandoned kn~mediateky7 Mr. Turrell replied that they W~ll b~. phased out w~th the leases, but he dkd not know the perlod of time. Commlssioner Volpe questioned ~f boats could be displayed in the parking lot ~f the provisional use was grants, d, and still conduct those uses ~n the bu~ldings? Mr. Turrell responded "It ks possible for so~.e period of time, Yes" Planner Scheff note,~ ~hat ~n order to receive approval for a s~te development plan for th, sale of outdoor boats, a certakn number of parkin~ spaces would be required kn additkon to the other busknesses parklng spaces. Commissioner Volpe pointed out off-site parking could be PrOvided. Mr. Todd noted that the Petltkoner would not open a boat sales ~ervtce w~thout control of th~ property and at least one of the ex~stln~ uses would be kmmed~ately phased out, probably 2 of the 3 kn a fairly short term; the dance studlo might stay for awhile. Commissioner Volpe com- mented that the kntersection ks heavily traveled ,and the access to Davks Boulevard lsa concern. He also stated that the boats are dlsplayed tn a manner ~hat is aesthetically unpleasing, no trees or shrubs are used. Mr. Tu~rrell responded that the slte ~s run down and ragged looking and whatever Brooks~de does will be a b~g ~mprovement, and as an example he Pointed out the ex~st~ng Brooks~de Marina and the old bowling area. Commlss~oner Volp~ expressed concern about a]low~n~ existing uses to continue, i.e. dance studio, video and tailor shop, and, in addt- tlon a parktn~ lot. Ee stated that use of one as a sales offlce would make h~m more comfortable. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Turrell d~d not know the provislons of the leases. Mr. Turrell ~ndl- cared that the vkdeo store ~s on a month-to-month basis and the pert- Page JULY 18, 1989 ttoner could move into that rapidly. that l~tttlon PU-89-3 ~ approved subject to Staff's modified mttpull- ticks mr~ the addition of Stipulation "m", and that Rmmolutton ~9-169, b~ ~opt~d. Carri~ 4/1 ~o~iasionmr ¥o1I~ OPl~ed)' 1989 Tap~ ~7 5:30 P.lq. - Heconvaned 6:40 RE~ST TO RECONSIDER PETITION R-89-2 BY ROSERT L. DUANE OF HOLE, Mr. Duane stated that he would like Petition R-sg-2 reconsidered and was present to answer any questions that the Board might have. Commissioner Saunders noted that the petition was fi]ed in a timely manner and since the vo~e was 3/2 in favor of the Petition, he questioned if Commissioner Hasse or Commissioner Volpe, who voted against the petition, wm~ld reconsider the Petition? Since no motion was made to reconsider this petit]on, no action was taken. Ite~ mT~L!g prr~ST~D BY m~S__O~ J._____~EE~ ~ PETS ~ON r~z s~ca _ CommisSioner Saunders noted that Deborah j. Greene, Petitioner, had left the meeting and reque~ted the item be taken off the Agenda. He requested that CountV M~nager Dorrill contact Ms. Greene about a future date to consider her Petition regarding pets on the beach. Ira ~A1 . ,R~P~__T OF TRACT ' C ~____UN__UNI~___T~iaTE__E~' i~L~C0 BEACH - _~O~D Planning Services Manager Baglnskl stated that this item ts a-- petition to approve a rep]at of Tract "C", Unlt Thirteen of Marco Beach. He noted that review of this proposed rep/at indicates ~t is In compliance with the Subdivision Regulations and Florida Statute No. 177, with existing infrastructure and no need for any security. He explained that the unusual location in the Caxambas area of Marco Island may contain certain historical and archaeological st~tftcance. He pointed out that Staff is requesting that two conditions be included and recorded with the plat: 1) dealing with the issuance of tree removal permits and 2) completion of archaeological activities prior to construction o~' issuance of permits. He indicated that con- dition Number 1 references Lots 3, 7 and 8 and it should reference Page 59 Lots, 8 and 10 instead. JULY 18, 1989 In response to Commissioner Hasse. Mr. BagtnskI explained that archaeological studies are being condllcted at present and Preservation of certain areas and flnd~ may be recommended. He stated that Staff recommends replatttng. Co~tsatoner H~ao ~Ov~d, eecond~! by Co~lsstoner $h~lmh~n carried unanlm~usl¥, that recording of the Replat of Tract "C', Unit ~il't~n of ~co ~mch, ~ Petltlone~ Todd Tateo stated that County Staff has recommended specific restrictions and a special review of building applications for this site due to environmental an,t archaeological factors. He said that he feels that the recommended environmental ~egu]atlons are unfair because they do not apply to surrounding properties within Unit 13 and Unit 9, Marco Beach for 119 vacant lots with 60 ac~es con- raining upland vegetation and potential for a~chaeologlcal sites, nor within Unit 5 Marco Beach for 200 lots w~th 60 acres. He summarized tha't all slt~s should be sub, 3ect to the same restrictions. Commissioner Saunders questioned the difference between this perry and the other lots7 A discussion followed about replatting and environmental conditions. Commissioner Saunders explained that new ordinances apply because property is replatted, and the only alternative is not to have it replatted. Commissioner Volpe questioned land development regulations pro- tecting the environment in platted but unimproved land7 Mr. Baginskt could not answer whether the ordinance is applicable to platted land. A discussion followed about platting and replattlng. Mr. Baglnskt indicated that an expert did find archaeological significance tn the Caxambas~ area. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bagtnski stated th;it if the ordinance is adopted, new land deve- lopment regarding archeologJcal slles will apply to al~ areas. Mr. Ketth Edwards of PlanninG Sa~rvlces stated that sing/e-family restden- Page 60 JULY 18, 1989 ce~ would have to comply with the land development regulations. Mr. Tateo stated that a consistent policy should be ]mplemente,~ for the entire area. R~J?ORT R~ CON$IDKRATIONS FOR INCREASING LOCAL ROAD FUNDING A~D LOCAL RO;~ C~TR~ION I~ T}~ GOLD~ GATE ESTA~S - STA~ DIREC~D TO Transportation Ser~,lces Administrator Archibald stated that this preliminary report outlines financing road needs encompassing Golden Gate Estates. He explained that of 350 local roads, roughly a mile long, north of Alligator Alley In Golden Gate Estates, 155 are ltmerock roads which will need to be upgraded to paved road stand~rds. He Indicated that the funds allocated for that improvement currently, ts the Interest revenue from the GAC Road Trust of approximately $1,000,000 of which the -interest on an annual basis ls used to upgrade heavily traveled roadways. He pointed out that the lnterest varies according to the interest rate. He stated that since 1979 approxlma- te~y 60 miles of road improvements have been done tn Golden Gate Estates, but if the area grows as rapidly as now, other funding ce-. may be needed to keep pace with the growth on the llmerock roads. He suggested supplementing the interest from the trust fund with a l'evenue base from a tax[lag district, and possibly using some of the principal from the Trust Fund. He pointed out that surfacing llmerock roads with paved roads benefits the property owners and they should abs:orb that cost. He noted that of all the alternatives Staff is con- stderlng a taxing district concept. Commlssloner Hasse stated that property owners now looking for their roads to be paved feel that they should not be assessed when others were not. He questioned the spoil banks money. He suggested meeting with the Taxpayers Assoctatlon, himself and Mr. Archibald to find out what money Is available. Mr. Archibald addressed using spcJl material dollars. He explained that the County was paid funds by GAC for removal of spoil material and tn 15 years received in excess of $100,000, but at the Page 61 3ULY 18, 1989 same time expended more to raonitor the spoil removal. He stated that those monies received are n~)t ~,~,,les available to the Count%'. Commissioner Hasse stated that he would like to make a motion to con- tinue this until he, Mr. Archibald and some of the people from the Taxpayers Association find out what is going on. Commissioner Good]~tght pointed out that not one of the llmerock roads are in Commissioner Hasse's district, they are in her district, and empha- sized that she does not want th~s p(]stponed. She explained that she has held meetings with her constituents over the past 6 months and they are waiting for thc Board to take some kind of action. She stated that trying to negotiate with the taxpayers is worthless, and that Finance Director Yonkosky can advise if money is available from the spoil banks. Mr. Ycnkosky responded that $93,000 was collected, but that was put lnto the unincorporated area MST'D fund and expended. A discussion followed about funding sources and revenues. County Manager Dorril] noted Alternative No. 2, to spin down the trust fund and pave as many roads with the $500,000 principal and during the budget process repay that p~'incipal back to the $1,000,000 level. Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Co=a~ssioner Hasle ~nd cm]~rJed unanimously, that: Staff be directed to study whatever com- b~].~at~ons of revenues are~ available, ~ncludtng Alternative No. 4 ~ =l~rt ~ck to the Board of Cowry Co~sstoners. Clerk Giles commented that Golden Gate Taxpayers Associat~ons regard the spoil bank money as money that should have been set aside for road ~mprovements rather than used for maintenance. N)D BID ~9-1413 - OI~ $~,~ ~R CON~UCTION 0F ~ ~TIFICI~ ~-~I~ ~ SI~ Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on May 3~, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed wfth the Clerk, bids were received until 2:30 P.M. on June 14, 1989 to cons/der Page 62 JULY 18, ]989 Bid #89-1413 for construction of an artificial reef project. Environmental Services Administrator Lorenz stated that the su.bstltution of materials occurred because two bids were received based on a certain type of material an~ that type of material was ;lot available and Staff had to obtain another set of bids so as not to Jeopardize the $20,000 grant. Coma~lon~r Voll~ ~o~md, seconded by Co~testoner Shmnmhan and carrl~ ~~ly, that Bid ~89-1413 ~ ~rded to Kelly B~t~rm, lnc, in t~ ~t of ~27,800. Page 63 JULY 18, 1989 BI]) #89-1412 - AWARDED TO H. W. BEAUDOIN & SONS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $108,682.60 FOR CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT MEDIAN CURB FOR PHASE III, SOUTH C~OLLIER BOULEVARD~M~A__~gO ISLanD Legal notice having been published 1n the Naples Dally News on June 9, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of P~lb]ication filed with the Cl.~rk, bids were received, until 2:00 P.M. on June 19, 1989 to consider Bid #89-1412 for construction of a median curb for Phase III, South Collier Boulevard, Marco Island. Technical Services Supervisor Harry Huber stated that the previous phase had only one bidder also. He noted that the price is identical to the previous contract the County had with the bidder, H. W. Beaudotn & Sons, Inc. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Huber responded that experience with this contractor has been good. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnt{lht and carried unanimously, that Bid ~89-1412 be awarded to H. ~. Bemudoln ~ Sons, Inc., in the amount of $10S,682.60. ~*~ Deputy Clerk Hoffman repl~aced Deputy Clerk Kraft at this time It,ea ~9H2 PROPOSED FUNDING PLAN FOR WIGGINS PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING - STAFF AK.D ADVISORY COb~ITTEE TO FURTHER ANALYZE TERMS OF FUNDING AND BRING Technical Services Supervisor Huber explained that on November 16, 19~8, the Commission directed the County Manager to develop a mecha- nism whereby 50% boating registration fees and 50% voluntary contrlbu- tlons would be used to dredge Wiggins Pass. He indicated that Staff ha:~ had a number of meetings with Wiggins Pass Advisory Committee, and on May 31, 1989, the Advisory Committee recommended that the proposed fundlng plan be presented to ~he Board for consideration. Commissioner Volpe noted that the proposed budget for next year contains a note which ~ndicates that boater registration fees will be used for dredging Wiggins Pass in FY 1990, and in subsequent years the boat re~istratlon fees identtfled in Fund 304 will be available for the construction of boat ramps. He questioned whether this means ~hat Page 64 JULY 18, 1989 those funds will not be available for this purpose7 Mr. Huber advised that the boatlng registration fees that are referl'ed to In the proposal a:~e the local registration fees whlch were established by Ordinance 87-17, whereby, effective June 1, 1988, ve:$sel registration fees were increased 50% above the State mandate. He not:ed that that money goes into the boating improvement fund in Tallahassee, and the then the County gets reimbursed. County Manager Dorr]ll stated that the original Growth Management Plan included a recommendation that boater registration fees would be used to build boat ramps and boat launchlng facllJtles, but at the time of the budget meetings last summer, the Commlsslon made the deci- sion to defer any boat ramp related projects in the coming year, and made the offer similar to the continuing dredging concept where the Col~nty will provide 1/2 the cost, and private donations were to jpro- vide the balance of the necessary funds. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Dorri]] stated that the Commlsston made no long term or spectflc appropriation to do thi~ type of dredging because of the re-occurring nature and the numb,ar of navigable Inlets and passes throuQhout Collier County, and a concern that a precedent not be established of getting into the pass dredging business. Dr. Fran Stallings, representing the Environmental Protection Staff of the Conservancy, stated he is not comfortable with the current dredging proposal. He noted that the dredging is to take place in an area which has silted up rather quickly while at the same tlme, the channel has migrated to the north. He indicated he understands that the Comprehensive Plan requires a management study for this area, and he believes that if a substantial amount of money ]s going to be spent to do this work, a study should be conducted In order to learn how n.m:essary the dredging is, and whether this will be a long term solu- tion. He advised that the Conservancy is willing to cooperate ]n any way possible. Page 65 JULY 18, 1959 Mr. Paul Harvey, Chairman of the Wfggtns Pass Advisory Committee, stated that after many long meetings and sessions of debate, the genera], consensus was that the Pass needs to be dredged as a matter of nav~gatlonal safety. He ]ndlcated that boaters are coming In at ].ow tide, and the channel markers are completely out of the water. He noted that the Pass has moved to the north, to the south, straight out, and now it appears that it: fs starting to turn to the north agalin. He stated that the solutlon that the Advisory Council arrived at :Is a means of funding that :is fair to all concerned. He explained that the original concept was that of a Taxing District, but ther{~ wer~ problems with that since some of the areas would not be deriving a direct benefit, and other areas wotlld have been derlving a tremen- dou:~ benefit. Mr. Harvey stated that it does not make sense to spend boateF registration monies for additional boat ramp facllitles when there is no navigable access. He note~] that Lee County has recently made the effort to keep Hickory Pass olpen since it creates better tidal flushing for the back bay areas. Mr. Harvey stated that it is the hopes of the Advisory Council that the proposed plan wlll be a way to fund the necessary dredgln~, and the boaters and the people using the Pass will pay for this, rather than the homeowners. Mr. John Gebo, Acting President of the Wiggins Pass Conservancy, stated that he concurs with the statements made by Mr. Harvey. With regard to the proposed funding plan, Mr. Gebo noted that the Collservancy has concel.ns regarding a maintenance PrOgram. He tndt- ca'ted that the Conservancy will undertake the collection of funds for the matching donation portion of the plan, but noted that they can only do this if there is a maintenance program in effect. Commissioner Volpe stated that he has concerns relating to th~ proposed source of funding, noting that Item A. , the initial dredging can be met, but when looking at the proposed budget, Item B., sub- Page 66 JULY 18, !989 sequent dredging costs cannot be met. County Manager Dorri]] stat:ed that the continuing maintenance funding plan proposed by the Advisory Council is not viable ]n his opinion, since there are 7 or ~ navigable passes and lnl(~ts Jn Collier County that will be vy]ng for that same amount of money, and those monies have been pledged for boat ramps. Cc. mmisstoner Saunders indicated that it appears that the County is at odds, since the people that are going to donate the money for the dredging will not do so unless the County provides 50% of the maln- tenance. Mr. Gebo mentioned that there was a Taxing District in place which would bare provided this on a continuous basis, amd the donators are looking for some type of continuing maintenance of the Pass. Mr. Huber pointed out that the Taxing District is still in place, but the proposal as provided by the Advisory Council is their recommended source of funds. Mrs. Emily Magglo stated that the prcposed source of funding for the initial dredging is what the Commission recommended. She recalled theft the boaters were to pay for this service. She indicated that she is surprised to hear that the Conservancy has committed to the 50%, since the firm cost is unknown at this time. She noted that no one has seen the dredge plan, adding that at the beginning of June, it was discovered that this project is larger than the dredging that took place in 1984, and the environmental impacts are greater. She cited that anything that is done to the Pass will affect the back waters. Commissioner, Volpe replied that an outline of the current status of the project indicates that as of July, 1988, DER issued a permit for the dredging, and on June 13, 1989, the Division of Beaches and Shores approved the application. He stated that presumablI, all of the information was available to them. Commissioner Saunders stated that since this Is a County pro3ect, he believes that it would be appropriate for the Commission to be Page 67 JULY 18, 1989 ad~tlsed as to what the actual scope of the project Is, so that a deci- sion can be made as to whether it should be as large as it is, or to po~slbly make it smaller. With regard to the funding plan, he su~lgested that Staff t)resent to the Commission, a report relating to the permit applicat]on, and that the Environmental Staff ensure that the permlt ts one which makes sense for this type of project. Mrs. MaGglo indicated tha~l the Pass definitely needs something, but she does not believe that all the options have been exploFed. Commissioner Vo]pe noted that Coastal Engineering Consultants, In(:., have been engaged to de.~]gn the project, and the D/vision of Beaches and Shores has approved the scope of the project. He questioned whether anyc)ne on Staff participated with this? Environmental Services Ad~lnlstrator Lorenz advised that Staff became involved by reacting to, the permitting and looking at the scope of the project in 3une, 1989. He reported that Staff provided infor- mation to Coastal Engineering Consultants to address var:ious comments. He indicated that on 3une 20, 1989, Staff met with Coastal Engineering and the project was down-sized by cutting the channel by 50' from what was originally submitted in the permit application. He explained that the environmental impact that will exist Is encroaching a tern nesting area by 10%. He indicated that Staff feels that some type of dredging is necessary. He reported that: a Coastal Beach Management Plan is required by August 1, ]990, and as part of that Plan, the. Pass main- tenance and the types of criteria to apply to these areas with regard to environmental impacts must be addressed. He advised that he feels comfortable with the project. Commissioner Saunders questioned the proposed depth? Mr. LDrenz replied that the proposed depth is 8 feet, noting that there are con- cerns that this is too deep. Mr. Ken Humiston of Coastal Engineering, noted that this depth was arrived at by the Corps of Engineers in 1979, as a safe depth. He stated that the scope of the project is identical to what it was the Page 68 3ur, Y 18, 1989 last time it was dredged, but the limits have been modified in the area next to Wiggins State ['ark, and the project is now smaller than it was the last time. Commissioner Vo]pe questioned whether this has been presented to the Governor and the Cabinet? Mr. Humlston replied that a represen- tative from Coastal Eng.[neerln~ Consultants attended the meetlng of the Governor and the Cabinet, and this plan was presented through the Department of Natural Resources staff, with a ~ecommendatton of appro- val. He advised that the current depth of the Pass is 3'-3-1/2' Commissioner Volpe stated that he is satisfied with the scope of the p~oJect, but he has concerns about the report of the Advisory Committee since he be]J,'~ved that they identified an inJtJa] ~ource of funding and on-going ma.intenance, but it now appears that the County has the project, but it does not have the money lo do it. Mr. Huber advised that the Advisory Commiteee may have some alter- nat.Iveco. He explained that the cost of the project Js based on the est:[mated initial cost of $200,,000, 'lotlng that the Cummissio~] has approved a contract with Coastal Engineering to comp]ere the construc- tion plans which will be put out for bid, and then there will be an actual cost on which to base the flgures. He noted that the construc- tion plans cannot be completed until all of the permit condltions are know~. Commissioner Volpe question~d whether the Advisory Committee would be J.n a position to explore the funding sources, and a plan to address all the Passes alonG Collier County's coast line7 County [4anager DorrJl] advised that initially, a large number of cond.o owners and condo associations combined with boater registration fees~ provided the balance of the funding. He suggested that the Advisory Committee could explore other alternatives, and then come back to the Commission when the Capital Improvement Budget is being discussed, and see ~f they feel differently concerning the continuing maintenance dredging as opposed to the initial project. Page 69 JULY 18, 1989 Co,--tsston~r Volpe aoved, ~econdsd by Co~tssloner Shana.h~n and c&rz'ted unantaously, to continue this ttea until further analyses by Staff and the Advisory Co~ltt~ regardIng the source of funding, and that it be brought back to the Commission. COI~TRUCTIO~ OPTIONS AND RELATE]) v. XPENSE ESTIMATES FOR THE COURTHOUSE CAPITAL I~ltOV~KNT PROJECT - ~,TH AND 6TH FLOOR SHELLS FOR C~LETIO~ - APP_~R~_%'KD ~ STAFF TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS RE B__U_ILDINO Commissioner Saunders stated that when this item was previously discussed, he suggested that tke six floors of the Courthouse Building be "shelled tn", and that this be accomplished by using the funds for the renovation of Building "A". He Indicated that the rationale behind{ thti~ is that it will cost a lot of money to tear off the roof, and the landscaping and other amenities may be lost. He stated that it would be practically imposslk]e to disrupt the court operations for a period of 6-8 months until tk~e fifth and sixth floors are completed. County Manager Dorrll~ advised that there are merits and long term benefits of completing the pro3ect. He explained that the cost to add the fifth and sixth floor shells is $2.1 million, which includes the finished roof, pre-plumbing for' the chilled water system for the a~r conditioners, and cable as opposed to hydraulic driven elevators. Commissioner Shanahan questioned the dollar amount of the Building "A" renovation contract7 County Manager Dorrill stated that the amount for these renovations Is; ~2 million. Commissioner Saunders stated that he recognizes that there may be some short term office space pro'Diems since there will not be the use of Building "A", but he is reccmmendln9 that the funds be shtfiad from the renovation of Building "A" to shelling tn the fifth and slx floors of the courthouse. Clerk Giles stated that whenever there is an increase tn the acti- vities of the Judges, there is also an increase tn the activities of the Clerk's Office which supports those Judges. He stated that what ts being proposed, is a situation to cover the need in the year of Page 70 JULY 18, 1989 2005 for the 5th and 6th floors, but if there is an immediate need In the next 4-5 years for additional services to the Judges, there will be an old bulld~ng. He indicated that he has heard the County Manager talk about a new Adm]nJstratlon ~luilding in the northeast quadrant of thE~ Courthouse Complex, and suggested that rather than constructing that building, Building "F" cou](! be used for that purpose, and all the court activities could be located tn the new courthouse. He indi- cated that currently ~t is d~fflcult to add one position to hls couzt functions on the 2nd floor, and questioned what he will do ne;~t yeal' to place those people? Acting Director Conrecode, Office of Capital Projects, advised that under the current [)lan the Clerk's Office uses 21,700 square feet tn Bulldlng "F" and ina portlon of Building "A", and under the propos;ll for them to take over spac~ occulpted by the courts currently as wel[ as the space they use in Bulldln!] "F", they will increase thelr space to 35,400 square feet, or a 63% increase in space. He advised that by addlng the 5th and 6th floor shell]s, Building "A" will remain essen-- ttally the way it is now, with off~ce space, courtroom space, etc., without any renovatlons, and the addition of those floors would allow the Clerk to expand to the the 5th and 6th floors along with the Public Defender, States Attorney, and other court related acttvitles. Clerk Giles advised that there will be a new County Court Judge, and a Circuit Court Judge w]!] be converted from half time to full tlme during the coming year, and questioned where the additional people that will be 1nvo]ved with this will be placed? Mr. Conrecode replied that tk~ Courts will go into the new courthouse, and the Clei~k related activities w~ll completely fill out Bu~ldJng "A". Mr. Giles explained that there are currently courtrooms in Building "A", and there will be the need to put up partltions to make it accommodatlng to the public. He indicated that he agrees that there ts a need for the 5th and 6th floors now, but there wlll be an immediate problem If there is not space to accommodate the new Judges that are coming on Page JULY 18, 19~t9 board. Commissioner Volpe stated that when looking at the Capital Improvements for next year and the commitment proposed for government buildings, It appears that $19 million is budgeted for next year, and thE: County Manager is recommending deferring certain projects. He noted that he bel]eves that it was practica] to shell tn the 4th floor, but If the choice go be made is between the 3ail expansion and the addition to the 5th and 5th floors, he would like to be so advised. County Manager Dorrlll staucd that in this case, it is the dif- ference between renovating Building "A" now, or renovating it as a part of next year's budgex. He indicated that the crane is on site, and the contractor is on utte now, and there wlll not be a long term disruption to the courts. He stated that perhaps Mr. Giles' needs will be at the front of the line next year when the budget comes through. He noted that Mr. Giles. will have BuIl(lin~ "A", and there will be space, even though it won't be great space slnce 1/3 of that building Is courtrooms that do not benefit him. He explained that there will be costs wlth either coming back and renovating Building "A" to serve the courts needs, or makinG do until such time that It can be renovated, or have a better solution to the Clerk's special needs whether they are in the 5th and 6th floors of the new cou;rthouse, renovate Building "A", or put him in some other place. Tmp~j ~! Commissioner Shanahan remarkeJ that previously there were concerns as ~zo whether Building "A" should be renovated since the building is old.. County ManaGer Dorrlll replied that Building "A" is comprised of 28,000 square feet which c.~n be renovated for $2 mill~on, noting that a 28,000 square foot but]d:ng cannot be built for that type of cost. Cor~mlsstoner Saunders moved, seconded by Com~tssioner Hasse and c~l~led unanimously, to sh~ll tn the 5th and 6th floo~s of the n~w Page 72 JULY 18, 1989 co~rthouse, using the funds that were appropriated for the renovations of Building "A"i Staff to come back to the Commt~ston with rscomn- dmtlo~s regarding Building "A". tim. E~put¥ Clerk Hoffman )cas replaced by Deputy Clerk Xraft at this Ite~m ,llAl&2 BUDGET AI,[ENDN~NTS 89-220/221; 89-226/229; 89-231/232; 89-234; ~9-23~/238j..89-24~[ 89-242 - ADOPTED Finance Director Yonkosky briefly reviewed the seven budget amend- ments not previously discussed. Cc,~tseioner aoodntght moved, seconded by Commissioner Hames and carr.ie~d unanimously, that Budget Amendments 89-220/221; 89-226/229; 89-231/232; 89-234; 89-236/238; 89-240 and 89-242 be adopted. Ite~ ~llD1 POLICY R~ MUNICIPAL CODE CODIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENT ,32 _ Finance Director Yonkosky reported that the large number of ordi- nances passed by the Board this f~iscal year and the size (number of pages] of many of those ordinances (library impact fees; park impact fees, utility standards; etc.) has nearly doubled the cost of codi- fication and printing to $7,867.65. He noted that an increase of the $4,000 original purchasi, o~der to $7,867.65 will exceed the Purchasing Po/icy $6,000 limit on non-competitive purchases. Co~umtssloner Bases moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodntght and carr'te~ unanimously, that the competitive bid policy requirements for Supple~ment 32 of the codification be waived. Its~t ~12B ~)L~XON 89-170 APPOLTrING CHARLES W. BUELL, AND KAREN O. DAVID$ON J~gD JJ,C~ WINTERS TO TH~ ~RGEN~ ~DICAL SERVICES ADVISORy CO~CIL - Administrative Assistant to the Board Israelson asked that Charles W. Buell and Karen G. Davldson be confirmed for the two vacant consumer positions to fill the remainder of the terms expiring August' 31, 1991 and that Mr. Jack Winters be confirmed as the new Page 73 JULY 18, 1989 representative from the Health Department for ~he remainder of the term expiring August 31, 1990, and the appropriate resolution be pre- pared. C~ts~toner Hawse moved, seconded by Co~tsstoner Shan~h~n ~nd c~t~d unanimously, that Resolution 89-170 appointing Charles ~. ~mll, K~t~n G. Davldson and Jack Winters to the gae~gency Nedtcal 8~vl~ Advtao~/ Council be Page 74 JULY 18, 19~ RE~LUTION 89-171 REAPPOINTING HILLIAM L. JONES, MARIO LA~NDOLA, JA)~S L~LN, LARRY BREI~AN', PAUL D. JACKSON AND APPOINTING RICHARD M. WI~GOLD, BRUCE DALLY, TIMOT~f C. MITCHELL, SR. AND BRAD W. STI~I~RN TO.THE CONTRACTORS LICENSING BOARD - ADOPTED Administrative Assis~amt to the Board Israelsom requested that the Board consider Staff,s recommendation and the resumes to appoint or reappoint the full 9 members to the Contractor's Licensing Board for 2 year terms expiring June 30, 1991. In response to Commissioner Vcl~e, Ms. Israelson explained that the Advisory Board Ordinance limits the term to two consecutive terms, but the Board may waive that 9rovis]on if no other qualified car~ts apply. She stated that Messrs. Jones, LaMendola, Kuhlman amd Jackson have served more than two terms. C,m~iaelonar Hasse ~oved, e.~conded by Commissioner Goodn~ght and carried u-n~n1~=ual¥, tha~ Resolution 89-171 reapl~o~nttng W~lll~ L. Jonee, M~rio [,~Wendol~, 3a~es /uhl~an, Larry Brenna_u, Paul D. Jack~on ~ ai~°Inttn~ R~chard M. ~legold, Bruce D&lly, T~oth~ C. Sr. and Brad W. Stelnmann to the Contractors Licensing Board, be adopted. Page 75 30L~ 18, :lgsg )~]~:)'HO~ 0'~--172 ,~)T~ORXZIMG Flqi*LXNIMA,R'T AC~A.WCI~ OF ~T, 1. Release ~ent Development, Inc. the Developer and Barnett ~nk, the Lender from the Escr~ Agreement entered Into with Collier County on January g, lgBg. Accept the Irrevocable standby Letter of Credit ~1393 from ~rnett Bank as security for maintenance of the tnfrast~cture ~ntll the ~ard of County Oo~tssioners grants final acceptance of all Improvements. 3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Maintenance Agreement for Preliminary Acceptance and Resolution authortztnQ preliminary acceptance. 4. Preliminary acceptance of improvements will not become effective until water and sewer facilities have ~en conveyed to Collier County Water-Sewer District. Recorded tn O.R. Book 1456, Pages 1429-1457 Itc ~ ~ )'I, II~lL 0I [IRI'I, IID PlIl,~ io~llb"i TO STIPULATIOIB - I. That the final plat not be recorded until the required Improvements have been constructed and accepted or until approved security t~ received for the incomp]eted Improve- ments and that construction shall be completed within 36 months of the date of this approval. That the plat be approved pending Project Review Services receiving minor revisions to off-site drainage. 3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. 4.That the deed restrictions be noted by 0.R, Book and Page on the cover page of the plat. 5. That no building permits be Issued until the final plat Is recorded. ltn ~14BI COW--OM OF GOLDKM GAT]: PAJUOEAY J~ AZILPOIq~-FOLLXMG ROAD l~ AJm &XRPORT-P~LLXW6 ROAD 0~ARX~AXL X~PR~ P? .BrrTgw ROAXW, XWC. - P~EASE or r!S&L PA3~EF~ TO BETTER ~, Xtmu mldB2 JULY 18, 19~9 CLHAR-UP AND REMOVAL OF DEBRIS IN THB IMMOKALEE AREA AND NAPLES MANOR - STAFF TO UTILIZE HKNDRY COUKTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FORCES CONSISTENT WITH THE Ih~EP~,GENCY AGREemeNT DATED NOVEMBER 15 1988 AT A COST 07 APPROXIMATEI, Y_~[,~00.00 ' Item ~14D1 SATISFACTION OF LIEI[ AGREEMENT FOR WATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BH~! FReD W. MCDANIEL, JR. AND MARSHA A. MCDANIEL AND COUNTY WATER-_~EWER D I STRI CT Item #~&D2 See Page __~_~--_'_~..,. / JOINT ~SOLUTION KO. 89-173/CT~S-89-10 AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A FLORIDA STAT~ REVOLVING FUND LOAN FOR "EAST AND SOUTH NAPLES SANITARY SEWER !~YSTEM' [~OVIDING ASSURANCES, ESTABLISHING PLEDGED REVENUES, DESIGNATING AN AUTHORIZED ~EPRESENTATIVE, AUTHORIZING THE LOAN AGREEM]~NT AND ESTABLIS~~ ~Y~_~T~._ TO UNDERTAKE THE PROJECT Item iliE1 APPROVJ.~. FOR SOLICXTATION OF PROPERTY &,ND CASUALTY INSURANCE PROPOSALS It~ ~14E2 SOlr~ICIE~ OF BO~)S OF C0~5~"/ OFFICERS Item #14E3 LEASE AGRK~RT BE~%/EKN BOB A~D PAK DI~ELOPMENT, INC. ARD THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR CONTINUED RE~AL FOR PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION*S SUITE 102 FOR A PERIOD OF O~ YEAR IN THE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF ~0,0~0.00 Item ~1%K4 LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY DEEDS )lOS. 585 586 587 ,=88, 589, 59__0, AND 591 ' ' , Item FIVE NDOT UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENT OVER LOT 8, UNIT ONE, S~AGAT~ SUBDIVISION', AS RECORDED IN PLAT HOOK 3, PAGE 85, PUBLIC RECORE~ OF COLLIER COUN"~Y~__FLORIDA IYmm BID #8%'--1408, FOR OF~IC:~- SUPPLIES AWARDED TO FILE ONE, IN TH~ A~OUNT pF ~_~2r-'OX~rZLY__~0_~_000.00 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May ~9, 1989, as e~ldenced by Afftdav.t~ of Publication fi]ed with the Clerk, bids were received until 2:00 P.M., June 2, 1939, to consider Page 77 3ULY 18, 1989 Bid #89-1408 for office supplies. STAFF I)IRKCT~D TO SECUR~ CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FROM FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRJd~ORTATIOH AND FLORIDA HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TO COITSTRUC'T WATER]~.EV~L CONTROL STRU~.T~RE ON I-7§ CANAL AT PINE RIDGE ROAD Item dt],4G2 ~UDGF~LAm~nFmKKNT IH THE A~UNT OF $4__99,.~0o.00 FOR POLLUTZON CONTROL Item dtl4H! DISTRIBUTION OF RFP #89-~442 APPROVIKG THE APPOI]TIq~ENT OF A CONSULTANT SHLECTION COMMITTEE AND APPROVING TH~ SELECTION PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN PROFK!;~;IONAL SERVICES FOR WIGGINS PASS MAINTENANCE DREDGING Appointment of Consul'ant Selection Commit:tee: Harry Huber, Tect,nlca] Serv:|ce Supervisor GeorGe Archibald. P.E., Transportation Services Administrator Wl]llam Lorenz, P.E. , Environmental Services Administrator Steve Carnell, P~rchasinG Director Tom 011iff, Assi~tant to the County Mona§er Item BU]XI~' AMENDMENT IN THE A~t~)UNT OF $2~{,400.00 RECOGNIZING CARRY ~=~ ~ ~ 87/88 FOR ~ 133 ]~ORT-AU-PRINCE ENGINEERING ~.fl.X.U. ' Item ~14R3 APPRO~'AL OF CONSENT AGEND~, ITEMS BY ~IE COUNTY MANAGER DURING THE .BOARD'!L RECESS ~ ~4 THROUG~ JULY :3~_ ~989 1) AG~ B~KN ~ BO~D OF CO~ CO~ISSIO~RS 0F COLLIER C~, ~ORIDA AND THE COLLIK~ CO~ VKTK~S CO~CIL, INC. FOR HOLDING ACTIVITIES FOR ~IS ~'S ~LY 4 CKLKB~.TION 2) WATKR ~D S~R FACILITIES ACCEF~ANCE - VILLA FLORESTA, P~SE II 3) Recorded in O.R. Book 1453_, Pages 2266-2286 AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPT~CE - GOLF CO.AGE, PHASE III, Recorded in O.R. Book 14,53_, Pages 2287-2307 4) .~k~ ~ SEWER FACILITIES ACCEI~'ANCE - ROSEMF. ADE- WYNDEM~.RE Recorded in O.R. Book 14.54 , Pages 295-315 5) J~JLTER A~D SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE - GRASSMERE PHASE III, Recorded J.n O.R. Book _L~fu~_, Pages 2~- 2303_ AMENDMENTS - GOVERNMENT COMPLEX WORK 7) $]~3~ER FACILIT__IES AGRgEMENT -- PRINCESS PARK Page 78 ~-~Y ~8~ ~989 Recorded in O.R. Book 1,LSd, Pages ~308-231~ mrn sm~zR ~ACILITIES ACCE~r~mCE, BE~XSHIRE n~ZS Recorded 1~ o.n. Book l_f_..~J_, Pages ~o-~a~F · ~9-140~ -- R~J~CT~D 10) NA~ FACILITIE3 ACCEPTANCE - AUDUBON COUI~rRY CLUB, CLUBHOUSE Recorded Jn O.R. Book 1~L53, Pages 2312-2343 11) W&T~R AND SE~f~R FACILITIES ACCEP'fANCE - BLOOMFIELD RIDGE, ROYAI2~OOD GOLF AND COUNTRy CLUBz Init TWO Recorded in O.R. Book !33~2, Pages 608-620 and 1514 12) ~9~C~T~OH OF GROUP H~,ALTH PROPOSALS 13) ~T~R.FACILITIES ACCEP__~TANCE - VINEYARDS - NAPA RI____~__E_t PHASE I Recorded in O.R. Book 1__4.3~, Pages 2219-2236 Recorded in O.R. Book 1~_~!~, Pages 1653-1655 14) DiE$IGNATION OF WILLIAM MCNULTY AS COLLIER COUNTY'S 9-1-1 O3~KIW~ATIONS COORDINATOR ~.5) ~rAT'OS OF BIDS RECEIVED FOR COLLIER COUNTY SURPLUS REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON PRICE STREET 16) WATER FACILitIES ACCEPTANCE - LELY .HIBiSCU~_CLUBHOUSE Recorded in O.R. Book 144~, Pages ~146-2159 17) FINAL PLAT OF TOLL GATE COMMERCIAL CENTER PHASE ONE - ESCROW ~!~lq~_._.AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT See Pages ~-_/_~, / ' ~'9 -- 18) WAT~R AND SIIT.~R FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE ' WYNDEMERE - ~SASK I Recorded in O.R. Book 145~, Pages 1458-1478 1~) ~I$OLUTION 89-175 AUTHORIZING PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF TH~ I~OADWaY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPRO~NTS FOR TH~ FINAL 20) ~KSOL~ION 89-176 A~ORIZING FIN,~, ACCE~ANCE OF THE S~R, RO~AY ~ D~INAGE I~RO~E~S IN "RI~R R~CH P~SE 1~ 21) l~l~ FACiLiT~ES ACgE~C~ - THE.~ROSSINGS~ P~SE II Recorded tn O.R. Book }45~, Pages 2371-2379 Pag~ 79 JULY 18, 1989 C~IrIC&TIO,$ Or CORRECTION TO T~E TA~ ROLL AS PRESENTED BY THE _,t~toe~8..r~Y &Pm~XSER'S O~XCE 1988 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY Nos. 1988-122/223 No. 1983-399 No, 1984-275 1985-262 No. 1986-243 No. 1987-384 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 Nos. 233-235 1988 Ires ,1412 Dated 6-8/7-10/89 Dated 6/22/89 Dated 6/22/89 Dated 6/22/89 Dated 6/22/89 Dated 6/22/89 Dated 6-9/6-22/89 EXTRA ~AIN TIME FOR INMATE NOS. 50955, 6062¢, 25871 60700 44145, 58042~.427.__6.~r 29904, 60378, 52161 ' ' Item ,1413 ..~ATI_~_~AC~ION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER Ired #14J1 )POI~]~ OF SEVKN MEMBERS TO SOUTHWEST FLORIDA PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUN~ JI'TA SERVICE_ DELIVERY AREA ~20 FOR A TERM OF THRW~ YEARS Willie Anthony J. R. Humphrey David Mlkelson Donald Ashley Donald Berry George Krahn Sylvester Humphrey Naples Area Chamber of Commerce Naples Area Chamber of Commerc~ Naples Area Chamber of Commerce Charlotte County Chamber of Commerce EDC of Collier County Florida Department of Labor Hendry County School Department Page 80 (.)( .k'-:; ()G 3ULY 18, 1989 R~OLUTION ~0. 09-174 DESIGNATING TEF.~3 OF OFFICE FOR THE ADVISORY See Page Its#'lil MI$C~.LI~I~W]~OUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/ON REFI~RRED There being no objection, the following miscellaneous correspon- dence was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indi- cated below: Letter dated 5/30/89 from Jill Maschmeyer, Acting Executive Director, Area Agency on Aging, regarding Semi-Annual CCE & Title III-B Monitoring Visit and Enclosing copy of Semi-Annual Monitoring Report. xc: Kevin O'Donnell and filed. Publtc Notice dated 6/12/89 from Department of the Army re!jardlng Permit Application No. 89IPP-20236, applicant Board of Cou'aty Commissioners, to construct 6-mtle road expansion of C.R. 951. ×c: Nell Dorrtll, George Archibald and filed. N.~ ice of Issuance dated 6/30/89 cf report on Central and Southern Florida Water Supply, from Department of Army, Corps of Engtneers, Jacksonville District and South Atlantic Division Engineers. xc: Bill Lorenz and filed. Letter dated 6/9/89 from Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, to Chairman, BCC regarding completion of appeal process applications submitted for funding under the Federal Fiscal }'ear 1988 Small Cities Community Development Grant. ×c: Nell Dorrlll, Russell Shreeve, Frank Brutt and filed. Letter dated 6/14/89 from Lewis O. Burnside, Jr., Director Division of HousinG and Communlt!g Development, Florida Department of Community Affairs, to Chairman, BCC regarding Contract Number 90DB-49-og-21-O1-H05, successful completion for CDBG funds for fiscal year 1988. xc: Russell Shreeve w/documents and fl/ed. Memorandum dated 6/28/89 from Wanda A. Jones, Planning manager, Florida Department of Community Affairs, to Small Cities Community Development Grant Recipients, regarding Intergovernmental Coordination and review materials, xc: Frank Brutt Russell Shreeve and filed. ' Letter dated 5/26/89 from Virgil Choate, Correctional Officer Inspector II, Florida Department of Corrections regarding Jail overcrowding, violation 33-8.002 (5) (b) 3 F A C "Overcrowding', Filed. ' ' ' · Letter dated 5/26/89 from Virgil Choate, Correctlonal Officer Inspector II, Florida Department of Corrections regarding correc- tive action response - follow up inspection of Stockade. Filed. Letter dated 6/5/89 from Philip R. Edwards, Deputy Assistant Secretary, DER, re: Collier County-PW Clam Bay Beach Pavlllion PWS ID #5114084, water system with no bacteriological clearance. xc: Nell Dorrill, Kevln O'Donnell and flied. 10. Letter dated 6/7/89 from Patrick Kenney, Environmental Specialist, DER, re: Collier County - File No. 111657445, E. E. Bailey, enclosing short form application involving dredge and fill actt- Page 81 JULY 18, 1989 vlty. xc: Nell Dorrtll (letter only), Geol'ge Archibald and filed. Letter dated 6/15/89 from Robert K. Lofltn, Environmental Specialist, DER, re: Collier County - WRR File No. 111660875, Yacht Club of Marco Corporation enclosing short form application Involving dredge and fill activity, xc: Nei1 Dorrlll (letter only), BIll Lorenz and flied. 12. Letter dated 6/23/89 from Patrick Kenney, Environmental Specialist, DER, re: Collier County - WRR File No. 111662685, Lely Development Corporation, enclosing short form application involving dredge and fill activity, xc: Nell Dorri]l (letter only), Bill Lorenz and filed. 13. Copy of letter dated 6/20/89 from Philip R. Edwards, Deputy Assistant Secretary, DER, to Milton H. Leonard, President Marco Island Civic Association, re Collier County - PW Marco Island Utilities Water Pressure Complaints. Flied. 14. Letter dated 6/27/89 from Patrick Kenney, Environmental Specialist, DER, re: Collier County - WRR File No. 11166545, TIna Kurylak, enclosing short form application involving dredge and fill activity, xc: Nell Dorrlll (letter only), Bill Lorenz and filed. 15. letter dated 6/27/89 from Patrick Kenney, Environmental ~;peclaltst, re Collier County - WRR File No. 111665645, Wtndstar Oevelopment Co., enclosing short from application involving dredge and fill activity. Referred to Nell Dorrill (letter only) Dill Lorenz and flied. ' 1~. Letter dated 6/29/89 from Robert F. Loflin, Environmental Specialist, DER, re: Col'let County - WRR File No. 111665755, to Dr. and Mrs. Barry Davis, enclosing short form application involving dredge and fill activity, xc: Nell Dorrlll (letter only), Bill Lorenz and filed. 17. Letter dated 7/5/89 from Robert F. Lof/ln, Environmental Specialist, DER, re: Collier County - WRR File No. 111667375, Power Corporation, enclosing short form application involving dredge and fill activity, xc: Nell Dorrill (letter or y) Bill Lorenz and filed. ' 18. Memorandum dated 6/5/89 from Ronald F. Cook, CPA, Finance Department, to Michael Arnold, Utilities Director, regardln9 County Water-Sewer District Interim Financial Statements for the period ended April 30, ~989. xc: BCC, Lori Zalka and filed. 19. Memorandum dated 6/5/89 from Ronald F. Cook, CPA, Finance Department, to George Barton, EMS Director, regarding E.M.S. Interim Financial Statements for the period ended April 30, 1989. xc: BCC, Lori Zalka and filed. 20. Memorandum dated 6/5/89 from Ronald F. Cook, CPA, Finance Department, to Dan Pucher, Fleet Management Director, re: Fleet Management/Motor Pool Interim Financial Statemen~ for the period ended April 30, 1989. ×c: BCC, Lori Zalka and filed. 21. Memorandum dated 6/5/89 from Ronald F. Cook, CPA, Finance Department, to Michael Arnold, Utilities Director, re: Marco Water and Sewer District Interim Financial Statements for the period ended April 30, 1989. xc: BCC, Lori Zalka a;,d filed. 22. Memorandum dated 6/5/89 from Ronald F. Cook, CPA, Finance Department, to Robert Fahey, Solid Waste Director, re: Solid Page 82 JULY 18, 1989 Waste Disposal Interim Financial Statements for the period ended April 30, 1989. xc: BCC, Lort Zalka and filed. 23. Memorandum dated 6/5/89 from Ronald F. Cook, CPA, Finance Department, to Leo Ochs, Admlnt:Jtratlve Services Director, re: Workers Compensation Insurance [?reliminary Interim Financial Statements for the period ended April 30 1989. xc: BCC, Lori Zalka and filed. ' 24. Memorandum dated 6/26/89 from Ronald F. Cook, CPA, Finance Department, to Michael Arnold, Utilities Director re: County Water-Sewer District Interim Flnanclal Statements for the period ended May 31, 1989. xc: BCC, Lori Zalka and filed. 25. Letter dated 5/30/89 from Jane Po]kowski, M.D., Public Health Unit Director, HRS, enclosing 1988-89 contract Management Report of activities and expenditures for the period ended May 31, 1989, xc: BCC, Lori Zalk. a, Kevin O'Donnel] and filed. 26. Letter dated 6/6/89 from Robert L. Johnson, Director, Child Support Enforcement, HRS, enclosing a State of Florida warrant totaling $217.00 for first two quarters tn federal fiscal year for child support collections processed in Collier County. xc: Joe Warren with check, and filed. 27. ~' 'Dy of Contract #614 to HRS, Child Support Enforcement, dated ~t/7/89 from John Yonkosky, Finance Director, certifyin~ funds and requesting payment of $979.10. xc: Lori Zalka and flied. 2~. Letter dated 5/31/89 to The Car]son Corporation Southeast c/o Mr. John Drozler, HRS, from Law Offices of Henry Paul 3ohnson, P.A. re: Suncoast Steel Corporation, Project Collier County Health Services Building SSC Job #89-052 demanding immediate payment of $86,246.88. xc: Nell Do-rill Skip Camp Jeffrey Walker and filed. ' ' 29. Letter dated 5/30/89 from Ralph Parllla, Chairman, Private Industry Council Review Committee to Chairman, BCC re: appointment process for JTPA. Filed. 30. Forms dated 6./14/89 from 3ohn Tippins sent to Tallahas[ e - current PIC membership Profile and List of Private Industrial Council Nominees and Appointments. xc: Filed 31. Minutes received and filed: A. 6/8/89 - Agenda for Collier County Advisory Committee on the Homeless B. 6/19/89 - Agenda for Collier County Beach Nourishment Ad-Hoc Committee and Minutes of Meeting held on May 22, 1989. C. 6/8/89 - Minutes for Devil's Garden Water Control District. D. 6/8/89 - Agenda for Collier County Fire Consolidation Study Group, an(] Minutes for meei;ing held on May 25, 1989. E. 5/12/89 - Agenda for Golden Gate Estates Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting, and mtnu~es of meeting held on May 12, 1989. F. 7/10/89 - Agenda for Collier County Beach Nourishment Ad-Hoc Committee, and Minutes for meeting held on June 19, 1989. G. 5/15/89 - Agenda for Collier County Planning Commission, and minutes for meeting held on May 18, 1989. H. 6/29/89 - Agenda for Collier County P]annlng Commission, and minutes for meeting held on June 1, 1989. I. 7/11/89 - Agenda for Golden Gate Parkway Beautification Committee, and minutes for meeting held on June 13, 1989. J. 6/21/89 - Agenda for Collier County Advisory Committee on the Homeless, and m~nutes for meeting held on June 8, 1989. Page 83 JULY 18, 1989 N. 0. 7/6/89 Agenda for Collier County Planning Commission. 7/6/89 - Addendum to Agenda for Collier County Planning Commission. 7/12/89 - Agenda for Water Management Advisory Board. 5/3/89 - Minutes for Pocket of Poverty Review Committee. 5/31/89 -- Minutes for Pocket of Poverty Review Committee. 32. Notice to Owner dated 6/14/89 from H.D. Rut/edge and Son, Inc. advising that Graybar Electric Co., Inc. has furnished electrJcal panels, switches, etc. for Collier County Health Public Services Building, with attached request for Contract and Bond xc: Neil Dorrlll, Skip Camp and filed. ' 33. Notice to Owner dated 6/30/89 from USF&G Insurance, re: Contractor Better Roads, Inc. concerning Golden Gate Parkway, Pulling Road, Project 68013 and 68023, Performance bond. xc: 3elf Walker, George Archibald and filed. 34. Notice to Owner dated 6/22/B9 from CES Industries, Inc. Consolidated Electric Supply that they have furnished miscella- neous electrJcal supplies and equipment under an order given by Rainbow Electric of MD. for the Collier County Govt. Building C-2 addition, xc: Neti Dorril], Skip Camp and fi/ed. 35. Notice to Owner dated 6/]8/;~9 from Tom Barrow Co., under order c.',,en by Doug]as N. Hlggin~, Inc. that they have furnished air distribution devices and accessories for improvement of real pro- perty described as South Service Area Collier County. xc: Mike Arnold, Nevin O'Donnel] and fi]ed. 36. Notice to Owner dated 6/14/89 from Graybar Electric Co., Inc. pur- suant to contract w/th Mid-Continent Electric, requesting contract and bond for services and materials furnished for the Golden Gate Community Park Construction of Baseball Field and Parking Lot Lighting. Kc: Nell Dorr[]l, Kevln O'Donnell and filed. 37. Notice to Owner dated 6/7/89 from Ferguson Underground, Inc. that it is furnishing pipe, valves, and/or fittings for installation Jn the water and/or sewer systems :for the Lely Beach Boulevard Extension. xc: George Archibald and filed. 38. Notice to Owner dated 6/5/89 from Rainbow Electric of Maryland under an order from Wallace-Wilkes, Inc. that they have furnlshed electrical materials for the Collier County Government Center, Building C-2. xc: Skip Camp, Tom Conrecode and filed. 39. Notice to Owner dated 6/22/89 fz'om Owen 3olst of Florida, Inc. under order given by Florida Aluminum and Steel Fab, advising that they have furnished steel joist and accessories for the Improve- ment of the Government Center xc: Nell Dorrill, Skip Camp and filed. ' 40. Notice to Owner dated 6/~4/89 from Thompson Pump and Mfg. Co. Inc. under an order ~lven by T.A. Forsberg, Inc. of Florida re: dewa- terlng systems supplied for the :South Side Service, County Barn Road. xc: Nell Do,'rill, Skip Camp and filed. 41. Notice to Owner dated 6/14/~9 iron] Hughes Supply Inc. under order g~ven by Mldcoast Plumbing that they have furnished plumbing for the Health Services Bulldin{l, located at County Complex xc: Neil Dorrlll, Skip Camp and filed. ' 42. Letter dated 6/8/89 from Dal'rell W. Smith, Planning and Budgeting Administrator, Depal'tment o~ Revenue, ~o BCC, re: receipt of Property Appraiser's Budget Request for 1989-90. xc: Loft Za]ka and filed. Page 84 JULY 18, 1989 43. Validated tax receipt data dated 6/26/89 from Department of Revenue for: August 1988, report date: 4/20/89 xc: Joe Warren and filed. ' 44. Letter dated 6/20/89 from John D. Oates, Finance Officer, Office of the Public Defender, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, to Chairman, BCC re Leglsl;~ture has amended F.S. 27.54(3) broadening the scope of county provided services to the Public Defender's office xc: Lori Zalka and filed. ' 45. Notice of Hearing dated 6/6/89, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Case No. 89-1941-DRI Collier County, Florida. ~;epartment of Community Affairs, Petitioner vs. Collier County Board of County Commissioner, Respondent. xc: Ken Cuyler Nell Dorrill Frank Brutt and filed. ' , 46. Notice dated 7/3/89 Hillsborough County's Motion for Rehearing, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, re: Order on Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by the Tenth Judicial Circuit Public Defender xc: Ken Cuyler and filed. ' 47. Notice dated 6/19/89 Pasco County's Motion for Rehearing, re: Order of Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by the Tenth Judicial Circuit Public.. Defender. ×c: Ken Cuy]er and filed. 42. Nc ice of Hearing dated 6/14/89 oD Case No. 88-2415-CA-01, Crossland Savings, FSB, Plaintiff vs. Arthur M. Roberts et al, D, fendants, xc: Ken Cuyler and filed. 49. Notice dated 6/I/89 Charlotte County's Motion for Rehearing, re: Order on Prosecution of Criminal Appeals by the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court Phb]lc Defender. ):c: Ken Cuyler and filed. 50. Memo to Al/ Florida Sherl~ fs from J. M. "Buddy" Phillips, Florida Sheriffs Assoc]ation, re: U.S. Disaster Team Canine Search and Rescue Unit. xc: 3ames Reardon, Ken Pineau and filed. 51. Letter dated 6/29/89 from South Florida Water Management District to interested persons that District is preparing to puk ish in the 7/7/89 issue of the Florida Admin.istratlve Weekly the Notice of Rulemaktng to initiate formal procedure to adopt proposed Rule 40E-61 and enclosing copy of draft rule. xc: Bill Lorenz and filed. 52. Notice of Workshops dated 6/14/89 from South Florida Water Management District to receive public comment on potential changes to the 5/15/89 draft of Rule 40E-61. xc: John Boldt and filed. 53. Copy of letter to Ms. Priscilla Twigg, Regulatory Division, United States Army Corps. of Engineer from Wayne E. Daltry, Executlve Director, Southwest Florida Regicnal Planning Council, re: IC&R Project #89-104, U.S.A.C.E. 89IPF-20236, Project Name: C.R. 951 Expansion and Canal Relocation, F.D.E.R. #111602529 xc: George Archibald and filed. ' 54. Letter dated 6/1,5/89 to All Chairmen of the County Commissions from District Secret.~ry, Florida Department of Transportation, notify]ng that statewfde public hearing for Five-Year Transportation Plan for fiscal years July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1994 has been chanoed from 6/]5/89 to 6/29/89. xc: NeJl Dorrtll George Archibald and filed. ' 55. Letter dated 6/9/89 to Commissioner Burr L. Saunders from Gerald G. Lott, P.E., DJ. strict Traffic Operations Engineer, Florida Department of Transportation, re: Notification of changes tn Traffic Regulations. ×c: Nell Dorrtll and filed. Page 85 JULY 18, 1989 56. Letter dated 6/6/89 to Commlssion~r Burr L. Saunders from W.R. Trefz, P.E. District Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation, official notification of transfer of right-of-way from C.R. 951 to S.R. 93/I-75 Section O3OO1/S.R.84. xc: Nell Dorrlll and filed. 57. Memo to all Fire Equipment Dealers from Terry Barrow, Administrative Assistant, Bureau of E×plostves and Fire Equipment, Office of the Treasurer, Department of Insurance re: Portable Extinguisher Course az the Fire College. xc: David Pettrow and filed. 58. Letter dated 6/19/89 to BCC from Charlie Hudnell, District Director, United States Department of Agriculture Farmers Home Administration, advising FMHA has revised its requirements for .insurance and fidelity bond coverage for Community Programs loans on May 3, 1989. xc: Ken Cuyler, Nell Dorrill and filed. 59. Letter dated 6/2/89 to Concerned Citizen from Bruce R. Barrett, Director Water Manage~]ent Division, United States Environmental Protection Agency, enclosing copy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Notice of Decision" pertaining to Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act. xc: Bill Lorenz and filed. 61). L~ tter dated 6/23/89 1:o Commts'ttoner Burr L. Saunders from Donald E Odenthal, Director, Housing Development Division, United States I)ei'nrtment of Housing and Urban Development, 4.6HD, re: Section 202 Application for Fund Reservation - No. Units 64, Location: 5th and Palm In Immokalee, Project No. 066-EH267-WAH. xc: Nell Dorrtll, Frank Brutt, Russell Shreeve and filed. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order. of th,~ Chair - Time: 8:30 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BC.,{D(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BURT L. SAUNDERS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: JAMES C. GILES, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented ~-"''" ur as corrected Page 86