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