The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 06/13/1989 R "-,_. Naples, Florida. June 13, 1989 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special distric:s as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SKSSIOH in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Burt L. Saunders VICZ-CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jl'. Richard S. Shanahan Michael J. Volpe Anne Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles. ClerIc John Yonkosky, Finance Director; Maureen Kenyon, Annaliese Kraft and Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dorrill, County Manager; Brian MacKenzie, Assistant to the County Manager; Tom Olliff, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; Kevin O'Donnell, Public Services Administrator; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Bru'ct, Community Development Administrator; Ken Bag inski, Planning Services Manager; James Reardon, Emergency Services Administrator; Mike Arnold. Utilities Administrator; William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; David Weeks and Ron Nino, Planners; John Boldt, Water Management Director; Jeff Perry, MPO Director; Harry Huber, Technical Services s~pervisor; Nancy Israelson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Sam Bass, Sheriff's Office. , I Page 1 ------- --..-" --- JUNE 13, 1989 Tape #1 It.. #3A ~ - APPROVED WITH CHAHaES AND COUHTY MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO EX&COTE PLATS AHD MATER AHD SEWER ~ACILITIES ACCEPTANCES DURING THE BOARD'S VACATIOK coaaissioner Shanahan aoved, seconded by Coaai..ioner Hasse and carried unaniftOu8ly, that the agenda be approved with the following changes: 1. Ite. 9Al Added - Recoaaendation to approve for recording t~e final plat ot "Toll Gate Coaaercial Center Phase One". 2. It.. 9Cl Added - Approval ot and permission to sign. coIltract tor architectural and engineering services tor an addition to the Central Library Headquarters. 3. Ite. gel Added - Hibiscus Clubhouse - Water Facilities Acceptance. 4. Ite. 9H7 Added - County Manager's Annual revi.. and .alary adjuat..nt. 6. Ite. 12C Added - Board ~pproval ot Collier County Fair Manager8 tor 1989-90. (CoaniS8ioner Goodnight) 6. Ite. 9Hl withdrawn - Di8cussion ot the public petition policy. 7. Ite. 14C4 Moved to Ite. 9C2 - Recomaendation to approve authorization ot statt to obtain land appraisal. tor a poten- tial boat launch .ite and an existing site located on Bluebill Avenue. 8. Ite. 14Hl Moved to Ite. 988 - Recoaaendation to approve ranking of th~ consultants to provide engineering services tor the Collier County Beach Renouri8hment Prograa. 9. Ite. 12D Added - Request concerning the proceø8ing ot the rezone tor property purchased adjacent to Farmworkers Village in Iaaokalee. (Coaaissioner Goodnight) Commissioner Saunders stated that with regards to Item 9H7, he is not prepared to discuss this matter as he was not aware that this item would be on the agenda. He stated that ~e wou~d reques~ that this item be delayed until he has had a chance to review the backup. In answer to Commissioner Volpe. County Manager Dorrill stated the reviews normally take place on the anniversary date of the contract which was May 27. 1989. He stated that he sent a memo to ~he Commissioners asking that this matter be discussed this date. Commissioner Shanahan 1tated that he revieweù the memo and has thought a great deal abC"", it and is ready to hear the item. Commissioner Goodnight and Commissioner Hasse concurred with 9 Page 2 . - .~" "" ,-"...""" JUNE 13, 1989 Coaaissioner Shanahan. Commissioner Volpe stated that he has no problem with ~his item as it should have been on the agenda in May. It was the consensus that Item 9H7 be left on the agenda and heard. Commissioner Volpe indicated that he has some concerns with regards to the items that are being added to the agenda. County Manager Dorr ill stated that in year's past in the Board's absence, consideration has been given to allow the County Manager ~o approve only consent agenda items and then after-the-fact concu~r~nce will be received and those items will be entered into the recorù. Commissioner Volpe stated that he does not see the need to have the additional items placed on the agenda, like Item 9Al. County Manager Dorrill stated that these type of items are of a non-emergency nature but are of a public convenience nature and the developers have construction loans, final retainage payments and bonds that need to be released. County Attorney Cuyler stated that if the Board makes a motion giving the County Manager the authorization to handl~ these matters after the County Attorney has signed off on them, this can be done, as the approval of a plat is an administerial executive function, as long as it meets platting requirements. He noted that the water and sewer facilities acceptance is also administerial in nature and the Board could authorize the County Manager to approve these. He noted t.hat Item 901 is a routine matter also. Co..issioner Shanahan .oved, .e~~nded by Co..isaionor Hasse and carried unaniaoualy, that the County Manager be authorized to execute plat. and water and sewer tacilitiea acceptances during the Board'. vacation providing they .eet all require.ents and del.to It.. gAl and SÞDl tro. the ~nda and have the County Manager handle tho.e iteas on bebalt at the ".:.card. It.... MIBUTES or ~Y 23, 1989 RElroLAR HEETING - APPROVED AS PItESEKTED Co..i..ioner Ha..e aoved, seconded by Co..i.sioner Shanahan and carried unaniaoualy, that the .inutes of the May 23, 1909, Regular ...t1ng be approved a. pre.ented. }O Page 3 .._"'-,~,.__...- ,-"'---.-----.---- .. -...-- JUNE 13, 1989 It.. #6A DlPL()IQ; SDVICE AWARD PRES,.",tED TO DORIS DEASOH CollUllissioner Saunders presented an Employee Service award to Doris Deason, Probation Department, for 5 years of service. It.. "Bl.2 ~~LOTIOK 89-149 R% DOA-88-3C AND ORDIRAKCK 89-34 R% PETITION P1)A-II-9C, VKKSKL AND ASSOCIATES, IHC. REPRESEHTING D!LTOHA CO1lPOUTIOX, ftEQt1ESTIHG AN A.MEHDMEHT TO THE MARCO SHORES DEVELOPM:::-TT ORDe AJrD THE MARCO SHORES PLAJrlŒD UNIT DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTED S~.JJtCT TO PETITIOKER'S AGREEMEWT. CHAKGEs AND AMENDMENT OF THE POD D(~:~,:7.KT Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May 24, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was continued from May 9, 1989, to consider Petitions DOA-88-3C and PDA-88-9C, filed by Vensel & Associates, Inc., representing Deltona Corporation, requesting an amendment to the Marco Shores Development Order and an amendment to the Marco Shores Planned Unit Development by reducing density, providing for fill for the four- laning of S.R. 951 as a fair share contribution towards its four- laning, providing for a certain time when residential traffic from Unit 30 may access S.R. 951 prior to the four-laning, other than through Unit 27, deleting the causeway road connection to Unit 30 and Unit 27, changing community district language, providing for users of the northern 18 hole go lf course in Unit 30, providing for enforcement of the Marco Shores Development Order and providing for additional preservation of wetlands. Planner Weeks stated that this item has been before the Board pre- viously, noting that Unit 30 of the Marco Shores PUD is where the amendments to the project will take place. He stated that Unit 30 density would be reduced and the total number of dwelling units would drop from 9,110 to 7,000, a 9.2 acre commercial tract would be converted to a multi-family URe, and the causeway would be deleted with another access replacing it, which would be a new golf course access road that would lead to the west to S;ate Road 951 wi th golf course and clubhouse traffic having ::.-::cess to S.R. 951 as of September 1, 1990. He stated that at previous hearings the dates were one year closer to I J Page 4 "',e"" q,-- JUNE 13, 1989 what they ar~ now, noting that if S.R. 951 is not tour-laned, then Ii lIax i mum 0 f 200 units would be allowed to have access on S.R. 951 to this golf course access road beginning September 1, 1992. He stated that if S.R. 951 is four-laned, then unlimited access would be per- lIitted by that date and after September 1, 1993, the petitioner is proposing that unlimited access to State Road 951 onto this golf course access would be allowed regardless if it is four-laned. He noted that the project would be subject to any imposed morator ~ :lm or deferral of development to State Road 951, noting that this wot11cl. have a severe impact on the development of this project if the road con- dition does not improve. He noted that the applicant has provided additional verbiage which will be inserted into the document and will read: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event State Road 951 is not four-laned by September 1, 1392, and a building permit moratorium is imposed by Collier County with respect to development with direct access to State Road 951, such residential development in the Marco Shores PUD will be subject to such a moratorium", County Attorney Cuyler stated that he has not seen this language, but he will look at it as the hearing proceeds. Planner Weeks stated that the last of the amendments is that the Petitioner is donating the entire amount of fill projected to be needed for the four-laning of State Road 951 via an 18 acre lake which is located to the east side of S.R. 951. He indicated that Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments with the various changes, even though there was some concern about the impact upon State Road 951. He stated that the applicant has agreed to be subject to any moratorium that might be imposed on S,R. 951 which alleviates Staff's concern. He noted that the CCPC reviewed this petition and recommended approval by a vote of 7/1. He concluded that Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of both petitions. Mr. James Vensel, repre:¡ent ing Del tona Corporat ion, stated that the basic history of this project goes back to the Corps of Engineers denial on some permits in 1976 which resulted in an approved develop- I~ Page 5 ___d______----' .-- ,_d ,-- JUNE 13, 1989 aent by the County and the State. He noted that Deltona reached a settlement agreement with State, Conservation interveners and the Federal Government to provide a new location for dwelling units that had been previously approved on Marco Island in order to move them further landward to Unit 30. He noted that as part of the Settlement Agreement, the plan was approved in 1984 as a DRI and a PUD and he is now asking for a modification of that portion of the PUD that is represented as Unit 30. He indicated that in 1976, the total I"x..,ber of units that were denied represented approximately 14,500 dw~ll~.:1g units. He stated that a total of 9,110 units were in Unit 30 and part of this application is to reduce that number to 7,000 units. He stated that Massachusetts Mutual and Marriott Hotel Corporation are proposing to build the first 18 holes of a 36 hole golf course that is planned for development in Unit 30. He noted that access is needed to S.R. 951 for vans and other transportation vehicles carrying the people from the hotel to this major recreational facility. He stated that included in the application is a time of September, 1990, when only access to the go 1f course clubhouse would be available, adding that all construction to the golf course would have to go north through the property to U.S. 41 and no construction traffic will be placed on S.R. 951. He stated that there are other amendments of the PUD including the elimination of the causeway across the wetlands which would have been the access of all the units "0 S.R. 951 through the existing development of Marco Shores. He fJtated that there is a provision for till for approximately 500,000 cubic yarJs which will be required for the entire reconstruction of S.R. 951 which represents a value of approximately $1.6 million. He stated that the right-of-way has been dedicated for the widening of S.R. 951. He indicated that the appli- cation has been reviewed by all agencies of Collier County and has been recommended for approval. In answer to Comll1issio:~er Volpe, Planner Weeks stated that Staft would like to see the lônc;uage regarding S.R. 951 subject to the con- currency system of the Growth Management Plan. ~ Page 6 '. ---- '-". ,-.---, . ------" ",- JUNE 13, 1989 County Attorney Cuyler stated that under concurrency, the County does not have to establish a moratorium if the level of service drops, adding that it is an automatic restriction. Mr. Tom Barnard, Vice President of Deltona Corporation, stated that they tried to come up with language that would make the DRI and the PUD subject to any moratorium that might be declared regarding traffic on S.R. 951. He stated that he does not know what complet,~ reliance on the concurrency issue means and he does not know how it would effect Deltona Corporation or what they would be giving up. He stated that if the concurrency issue becomes a stipulation, he would have to have this approved by Deltona. Commissioner Shanahan stated that without the causeway there would be no additional access from Marco Island in the case ot a hurricane. He stated that he would like to see something that would provide access for the County in the event that there is a need to get ott Marco Island. He stated that he would like Deltona to commit to the use of their roadway in the event of a storm. Mr. Vensel stated that he would have no objection to the two road- ways that are going to be constructed to be connected but to be blocked with a fence or gate that will be removed upon orders from the County Commission for an emergency evacuation. Commissioner Shanahan stated that if this is a commitment, he teels that this would eliminate a lot of concerns of the people. Mr. Vensel stated that Deltona will rommit to this. He indicated that this piece of property is unique because it is the only piece of property that can materially increase the evacuation capability. Commissioner Saunders questioned if there is anything from a legal standpoint that is keeping Deltona from building the causeway, to which Mr. Vensel replied negatively. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Vensel stated that Deltona would still be subject to the normal impact fees or tolls or anything else that is applicable to the area in general. Mr. Vensel indicated that construction will begin soon and the { Page 7 --0,<-_"","0'--" JUlIE 13, 1989 construction traffic will access U.S. 41 and not S.R. 951, noting that the construction traffic cannot access S.R. 951 for the 200 residen- tial dwelling units until :>eptember, 1992. He noted that as of September, 1993, there will be unlimited access to S.R. 951 unless there is a moratorium placed on that road. He stated that the dates indicated should state that access will be provided on these dates or whenever it is four-laned, whichever is sooner. Mr. George Keller, representing the Colller County Civic Federation. stated that the access roads would not solve the çt'c':lem tor evacuation, as everyone will be coming onto S.R. 951. He stated that when the PUD was originally done, the causeway was ap;~oved, which was a good idea. He noted that they still have the right to build the causeway and they should build it which would solve a lot of problems. He stated that the fill is not worth $1.6 million when it is sitting right there at the property edge. He noted that it should be deve- loped according to the original PUD and no additional traffic should be allowed on S.R. 951 un t il it is four-laned. Mr. Michael Hughes, representing the Marco Island Taxpayers, read a prepared statement of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association, (which was not presented to the Clerk), which indicated that any access points onto S.R. 951 should be deferred until S.R. 951 has been improved, that the creation of a second golf course will only make the first golf course a private one and will create a more saleable com- munity for Marco Shores, that the value of the fill dirt is very unfavorable to Collier ~ounty, that the causeway should not be elimi- nated as it would be a direct access off the island, and that none of the amendments should be approved until all solutions to the problems have been r~solved. He stated that he is concerned about the cost to the County for digging and trucking the fill, noting that he does not feel that it will be that economical for the County. He indicated that he is also concerned with the water for the use of the golf course as Marco Isla1d has water problems now. He stated that impact fees should be increased so that developments of this size / J~ Page 8 ..-. ..n " --.,..,--,-, -",----_.'-- JUNE 13, 1989 would be paying their fair share contribution for the various impacts they put on the County. He stated that he is requesting that the Board deny this request. Mr. William Hanley, representing the Isle of Capri Civic Association, stated that he concurs with the recommendations of Mr. Keller and Mr. Hughes. Mr. Barnard stated that the biggest issue has been S.R. 951 and this problem is going to be solved and when it is, he will be gett1.ng everything that he has originally asked for without giving up anything, but he is trying to reach a compromise with the County. He stated that with regards to the concurrency issue, language was drafted to address the concern of S.R. 951 traffic without subjecting Deltona to something that is not resolved at this time. He stated that DCA has issued letters stating that projects that have gone through the DRI process are exempt from concurrency for moratoriums. Attorney Debbie Orshefsky, representing Massachusetts Mutual and Marriott Hotel Corporation, stated that DCA issued a statement declaring DRI's exempt from moratoriums based on vested rights and Chapter 163 which states that the es::o.ence of the development of regional impact review was a concurrency type of predecessor. Mr. Barnard stated that if this development is going to be made subject to the concurrency issue, he would ask that he be allowed to withdraw his petition. He stated that he would rather have the PUD as it is presently drafted than to be s~bject to concurrency. He indi- cated that the golf course and recre~tion area will bl~ a first class amenity for everyone's use and with the recommendations of Staff, he feels that this project should be approved. Commissioner Volpe stated that the issue concerning concurrency had been discussed in a staff report dat~d December 21, 1988 and it was the recommendation of staff at that time, that lang<;'!ge be included in the Development ~rder addressing the concurrency require- ments. He stated that this language never got into the proposed Deve- lopment Order. )(¡ Page 9 -~...,".--"-,"-- -_._.,,----"--~..._. . JUNE 13, 1989 Commissioner Saunders stated that the petitioners will voluntarily subject themselves to the potential moratorium imposed because of transportation related issues, but as far as a general concurrency .anagement requirement, they will not subject themselves to that, they would rather withdraw their petition. Mr. Keller stated that it would be to the advantage of the County to let the petitioner go back to the original PUD. coaai..ioner Shanahan aoved, seconded by Co..l..ioner Goo(a!tg~~ and carried unani~ly, that the public hearing be cl08ed on Petiti0n8 DOA-88-3C and PDA-88-9C. Commissioner Saunders questioned if this project would adversely affect S.R. 951 with the modifications, to which Mr. Perry stated that he teels that the problems of S.R. 951 will be solved in the near future. He stated that it is hlS feelings that the concessions that are being offered outweigh the fact of temporary problems with regards to the go lf course creating a small amount ot traffic and the 200 units impacting a portion of S.R. 951. T ape #'2 Commissioner Shan~han stated that he feels that the density reduc- tion is most favorable, the fill and the right-of-way contributions have been major, the golf course is a plus because it will be public but the 200 units in 1992 is where the progress should be stopped unless S.R. 951 is four-laned. He stated that he feels that at the end of 1992, rather than providing unlimited access to the rest of the development, the developer should come back for a re-examination at that time before anything further is done. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the petitioner's language or staff's language, with regards to the concurrency issue, is preferred, to which MPO Director Perry stated that the petitioner's language is very specific, adding that it deals with S.R. 951 and its four-laning only. He noted that the l,mguage of staff or the concurrency language is broader and includes this project under all forms of infrastruc- ture. He stated that he would like to see this project subjected to /1 Page 10 ..""-",,,,- JUNE 13, 1989 the concurrency language, but if the petitioner decides to withdraw the pet it ion, the concessiors of the petitioner would be lost and based on that decision, he would prefer to use the moratorium language regarding S.R. 951. Commissioner Saunder5 stated that this developer has not agreed to total concurrency management, but has agreed to concurrency management as it relates to transportation prohlems on S.R. 951. He stated that it there is going to be a moratorium in this area, there are t;,r'ee areas that would be affected; water, sewer, and transportation. tie stated that he does not feel that there would be any moratorium because of libraries or parks and recreation. He noted that this developer would be connecting to the County water and sewer service and if those services are not available, they will not get a "CO", for understanding of the language iu that, if S.R. 951 is declared substan- dard to a point where a moratorium is declared on that road, this PUD would be subject to such moratorium. Mr. Barnard stated that with regards to Commissioner Shanahan's collUllents, he does not agree. He stated that the golf course is not a problem and the 200 units in 1992 is not a big issue, but the main problem seems to be 6,800 units in 1993. He stated that a reasonable limitation would be no more than 200 units a year with access to S.R. 951 until such time as S.R. 951 is four-laned, which is in z.ddition to everything else. Commissioner Goodnight stated that the moratorium language should be rewrittErl to include six-laning because this project should be sub- ject to that moratorium as well as any other projects in the area. Mr. Barnard btated that he would agree with this change. County Attorney Çuyler stated for the record that he wants the Board to understand that with regard to the wording, the Board is not tied to the four-laning and the 1992 date. He stated that if a mora- torium goes into effect, tïis project falls under that moratorium. He stated that the language would have to be reworded to reflect the Board's intent. 1~ Page 11 ,,-'-' JUNE 13, 1989 In answ"'..r to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Barnard stated that the causeway is fully permitted by all state agencies, adding that the Settlement Agreement requires that Collier County grant the construc- tion permits. He noted that the causeway is buildable and it was intended that Unit 27 and Unit 30 be tied together but thlr.\;,;> have changed. He indicated that there is no longer a need for a causeway and they plan to vacate the easement. Commissioner Hasse stated that there would be a better evðc~õtion route tor the people if the causeway was built. MPO Director Perry stated that his concern with the causeway was that it was eliminating an interconnection between developers that has been encouraged previously. He stated that he would like to leave the language in the document saying that the developer has the right to build the causeway or the County has the right to :.)U ild the causeway. He stated that from a transportation standpoint, it is more advan- tageous to leave the opportunity to build the causeway. Commissioner Shanahan questioned if the language for the causeway could be left in the document or some type of language that would allow the County to build the causeway someday? Mr. Barnard stated that he would be willing to leave the easement tor the County to bu ild the causeway in the future, if necessary. Co_issioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Co..issioner Goodnight, that Petition DOA-88-3 be approved with the tollowing condition.; the reduction in density be accepted; the till and right-ot-way co..it- aent. be accepted; the golf cour.e entrance connection be allowed g/Ol/90; the 200 units be allowed to begin 9/01/92 and thereatter .tart~ in 9/01/93, 200 units per year be allowed until S.R. 951 is four, .~ or eight-laned, whatever i. required; trattic moratoriua languag8 tor S.R. 951 is included; the northern gaIt cour.e entrance be allowed.. the evacuation route a. needed; and to work out language that i. acceptable in order :0 leave the causeway a. a potential bulldout tor the County. Mr. Barnard stated that four-laning is a reasonable assumption in ¡q \ P"ge 12 .---.,-.."..". JUNE 13, 1989 1993, but it someone decided that it had to be eight-laned by 1993, this would be an unreasonable request. He stated that the language should indicate that in the event that a moratorium is declared on S.R. 951, the project will comply with it and the 200 units per year limits begins in 1993 and continues until such time as the road is four-laned. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he does not have any problem with 1 anguage 0 f that sort. CCl88i88ioner Sh.8naÞ--" added to hi. .otion that all con.-'tru.t'""-Li!.~a trattic will utilize U.S. 41 entrance and exit until S.R. 9151 is four- laned. Commissioner Volpe que~tioned if the language regarding the mora- torium has been settled, to which County Attorney Cuyler stated that it will be settled before he releases the document, adding that he would like the Board to approve sub$tantially the form that has been discussed and he will worry about the verbiage. Attorney Debby Orshefsky stated that she would propose the tollowing language: "Notwithstanding the foregoing in the event a building permit moratorium is imposed by Collier County with respect to development with direct access to S.R. 951 because of unacceptable levels of service on S.R. 951, such residential development in the Marco Shores PUD will be subject to such a moratorium." Commissioner Volpe stated that he would like it to state "residential development in Marco Shores PUD will be subject to a moratorium" and take out the word "&\.lch." A~torney Orshefsky stated that she is present to protect the interest of Massachusetts Mutual to be able to get a building permit for the golf course. She stated that as long as she can be assured that the golf course construction would be exempt from any potential moratorium, she does not have a problem. County Attorney Cuyler stated that he does not have any problem with this language, but he would still like the Board to approve it in substantially that form so that he can review it completely. Jrv Page 13 no. ",,-,,--'-- - . - - --",-- ...----".. .. JUNE 13, 1989 Commissioner Saunders stated that these conditions are subject to all the other staff stipulations and the Petltioner's Agreement. Upon call tor the question, the motion carried unanimoualy that Resolution 89-149 be adopted. Co..issioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that the Ordinance as numbered and titled below re Petition PDA-88-9C, be subject to the Petitioner's Agreement and all stipulations necessary to make it consistent Mith DOA-88-3~ and subject to review by the County Attorney, be adopted and o,1',e',"4d into Ordinance Book No. 35: ORDINANCE 89-34 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 84-42, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 88-48, TH~ MARCO SHORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY AMENDING SECTION 2.3.A" LAND USE SUMMARY MARCO SHORES PLANNED ON!! ~EVE~OPMENT; AMENDING SECTION 2.4., MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY; AMENDING SECTIO~ 2.7., FRACTIONALIZATION OF TRACTS, TO ADD A NEW S\JBSECTIO?i G.; AMENDING SEC~ION' 4.2. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS; AMENDING SEC7ION 11.4, PROJECT rEVELOPMENT AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES; AMENDING SEC7ION 11.20, MAINTENANCE FACILITIES, SUBSECTION A., UNITS 24 AND UNIT 30; AMENDING SECTION 12.5, STIPULATIONS AND COMMITMENTS - TRAFFIC; AMENDING SECTION 12.6, PLANNING DEPARTMENT; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, J\ Page 14 .- ---'" "'.--'~'- - -"',- JUN~ 13, 1989 ..... Recess: 11:10 A.M. - Reconvened: 11:20 A.M. at which time Deputy Clerk ~raft replaced Deputy Clerk Kenyon ..... Itea 6B3 PETITIOJt R-89-2, HOLE, MONTES AND ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING 7 ~ AND ALLIGATOR ALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORP. REQUESTING REZONE FROM PUD (CALI IIrnUSTRIES) TO C-4 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF INTERSECTION O~AVIS BOULEVARD (SR-8~AND CR-951 - DENIED ;:'egal ~otice having been published in the Naples Jaily News on May 21, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Pet it ion R-89-2, fil",d by Robert Duane, of Hole, Montes & Associates representing 75 arJ1 Alligator Alley Development Corp., Inc. rec:uesting a rezone from PUD to C-4 for property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersec- tion of Davis Blvd. and CR 951. David Weeks, Project Planner, noted that there are three items related to the same project. Commissioner Saunders stated that the Board of County Commissioners will .::onduct public hearings for R-89-2, PDA-89-4 and SMP-89-2. Mr. Weeks pointed out that the subject property is located at the northeast corner of S.R. 84, known as Davis Boulevard, and County Road 951, and the northern border is the off ramp of I-75, outlined in red on the displayed zoning map. He noted that the property to the north opposite I-75 is zoned A-2 and undeveloped, properties to the east are zoned PUD, Toll Gate Plaza commercial and south and west C-4. He noted that north. south and west lands are vacant, and south S.R. 84 is zoned industrial with an automobile service station at the corner and the outparcel, not included in t:le property, contains a con- venience store and gas pumps. He indicated on the displayed maps that the applicant proposes in the 3 petitions to delete 6.3 acres in the existing 27 acre PUD, move the proposed site for a se~lage treatment plant to the southern side of the project, develop 12 acres as a wetland preserve and add C-4 and C-5 uses in the southern portion of the PUD. He also noted that the applicant will create a uniform zoning boundary and with the addition of C-4 and C-5 uses, residential multi-family and group housi~g will be constructed. Page 15 JD .. -~. ---,~-- ," -""..""".- JU::-iE 13, 1989 Mr. Weeks indicated that the Petition SMP-89-2 divides the 41 acre project into 7 lots, 1 in the center, 2 for commercial uses, 3 on Davis Bouleva:d, and 1 for the 12 acres in the north as a preserve. Mr. Weeks stated that the wetland area is a requ;, remen t of DER and the Army Corps of Engineers and will be develo:?inç¡ C"4 and C-5 uses. Commissioner Hasse questioned the area below the green liDe and Mr. Weeks explained that the green and red intermittent dotted line is the existiDg p~~ boundary and showed where the applicant prop:c:;;e.l to convert the 6.3 acres and rezone it to C-4. Cor..missioner Saunders asked if the are" Mr. Weeks pointed out is an activity center? Mr. Weeks responded that the entire project has 2 different activity centers; one at Davis Boulevard and 951 and the other at the I-75 interchange. Commissioner Volp~ que Itioned the size of the current C-4 are'\ of the activity center at Davis and 951. Mr. Weeks responded that it is a strip approximately 400' x 800'. Commissioner Volpe ql1estioned if the 40 acres in the northwest quadrant of Davis Boulevard and 951 would ue zoned C-4 and after Mr. Weeks replied it would be, he asked if there is anything to prevent this parcel from being combined with the parcel to the west? Mr. Weeks indicated that he is only aware of the interconnection being proposed. Commissioner Volpe questioned :f the activity center is going to be mixed use or could it be C-4? A discussion followed about commercial and residential uses. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Weeks stated height requirements proposed are 50 feet for residential and 30 for commer- cial and 100 for the C-4 district in the southern port:on. Commissioner Shanahan noted that 50 feet is for commercial and 30 for residential. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Weeks stated the height would be increased because the activity center is appropriate tor more intense land uses. Commissioner Volpe f'+"ted that hotel/motel density, a provisional use in this district, would be 16 units per acre. Mr. 'IJeeks pointed jl Page 16 --- -- --.-----.' , """"",""-'" a,", ... - JUNE 13, 1989 out that within the PL'O, density would be 26 units per acre. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Weeks ind~cat...d that the Growth Management Plan allows hotels and motels in an activity center at a density level lower than the Zoning Ordinance because the Zoning Ordinance is inconsistent. He stated that C-4 and Co.5 zoning allow 16 units per acre while residential tourist (R.T.) a lImo,s 26 units per acre. Commissioner ~asse questioned where a 10 story building could be erected? Mr. Weeks responded "At the shopping center proposed for the site". Commissioner Shanahan emphasized the intersection is a blÅsy corner and questioned if traffic and mitigation to provide entrances and exits had been explored? Mr. Weeks responded that the Transportation Staff's study showed that less than 5 percent of the Level of Service will be generated a the intersection of Davis Boulevard or 95:. He explained that there will be 2 E!xternal accesses but the 7 lots will have internal '3.ccess only. Commissioner Volpe commented that, in actuality, the activity center at Davis Boulevard and 951 is being rezoned. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Bob Duane of Hole, Montes & Associates, representing the Petitioner, replied that Cali Industries, the former owner and developer, contemplated motel units and con- dominiums on the PUD portion of this project. He indicated that the present owner is contemplating motel and condominium uses, but is addi:1g use:; in thl~ C-4 and C-5 districts. He noted that the DER and Army Corps of Engineers permitting process resulted in the dedication of 14 acres. He emphasized that this prcject is no mo::"e intense than the development currently permitted in C-4 zoning. Mr. George Keller of the Collier County Civic Federation stated that the items he was interested in had been settled. Co..issioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that the public hearing on Petition R-89-2, PDA 89-4 and SHP-89-2 be closed. Commissioner Volpe q~es,ioned the Level of Service on Davis ~J- Page 17 . ---___'0-0- .0. ----- - JUNE 13, 1989 Boulevard at the present time? Mr. Weeks responded the area operating below Level "COO is west of County Barn Road, but at this ;,articular area the Level of Service is "C". Co..issioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse, to approve Petition R-89-2 subject to CCPC stipulations. commissioner Volpe stated that rezoning the enti=e activity center to C-4, C-5 use is not assurance the Activity Center will be mixed use under the new Comprehensive Plan. He indicated that the proce'3s of adopting new zoning regulations is not consistent with what n;ay '/.appen later in Activity Centers. r~r. Weeks stated that the Growth Management Plan does not specifically require. but rather encourages, rezoning of properties in the Activity Centers to be PUD. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Weeks respcnded that tr.e Growth Management Plan requirements met are applicable. but subject to con- currency and Level of Service standards when permits are sought. Commissioner Volpe pointed out that rezof'ing could create intense commercial development at that particular intersection. He f'.xpressed concern and emphasized that a great deal of control h3s been relinquished by the County in rezoning the Activity C~nter. Commissioner Saunders expressed his opinion that he did not feel the County was giving up a great deal. Mr. Weeks replied that the wetland area being created by the Petitioner cannot be developed com- mercially. He pointed out that permits can only be obtained from the DER and Army Corps of Engineers by creating this wetland area. He indicated that 13 acres of more intense ùevelo~ment w:ll result. Commissioner Saunders questioned approval of this project by both Staff and the CCPC? Mr. Weeks stated that the project was looked at as a whole, and half of it will be non-com~ercial oper. space use. Commissioner Hasse expressed concern about the trõ,ffic. A discussion followed about access and possible relocation of Davis Boulevard. Commissioner Saunder~ c¡uestioned loss of control relating to C-4 zoning as opposed to PUD zoning? Mr. Weeks stated "Yes, the C-4 zoning g3 Page 18 ._-, ,'.---. - ~ "..--,---_.~, --. - '_--"'-"'-"_.""0-'" JUliE 13, 1989 district allows a wide variety of commercial land USES and the appli- cant simply has to go through various administrative permitting pro- cesses to develop the property". He added that in the PUD, the applicant can choose the land useR. He summarized that the County, in effect. is losing control because the applicant can apply for permits. Upon roll call the motion tailed 3/2 as tollowa: (Rezone requires a 4/5 vote.) Coaai88ioner Goodnight aye CO..i8sionar Hasse nay CO..i88ioner Shanahan aye Co..iasioner Volpe nay Co..isaioner Saunders aye Commissioner Saunders stated that he assumed Petitions PDA-89-4 and SMP-89-2 would be withdrawn. Mr. Duane did not concur and asked the Board of County Commissioners for guidance. Commissioner Saunders responded that was not appropriate. Attorney Cuyler stated that Mr. Duane will have to meet with the Pl?nning Staff. Ite. 6B4 PDA-89-4 REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO CALI INDUSTRIES POD - WITHDRAWN The Petitioner agreed to withdraw this item. Ite. 6B5 RESOLUTION 89-150 RE PETITION SMP-89-2, SUBDIVISION MASTER PLAN APPROVAL, REPRESENTED BY BOLE, MONTES AND ASSOCIATES FOR 75 AND ALLIGATOR ALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORP., FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF DAVIS BLVD. {S.R. 841 AND C.R. 951 - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May 21, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to c~nsider Petition SM?-89-2 f fled by Robert Duane of Hole, Montes and Associates, representing 75 and Alligator Alley Development Corporation. requesting Subdivision Master Plan approval. Mr. Weeks stated that the Subdivision Master Plan allows the divi- sion of lots that comply with the C-4 zoning district, lê-nd area and lot width requirements in the PUD. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Weeks stated that one of Staff's stipulations indicated Page 19 Jif -,._--- .",m"- --.,. -...--- JUNE 13, 1989 that sidewalks should be provided at one of the entrances and along Davis Blvd. Co..i.sioner Goodnight uoved, seconded by Co..issioner Shanahan and carried unanimously, that Resolution 89-1~0 re Petition SMP-89-2, be adopted, subject to CCPC stipulations. See Pages qa -LL 1-~~á Itea 986 AUTHORITY FOR CHAIRMAN TO EX1!CUTK BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR NORTH ~APLES ROADWAY MSTU PROjEC1 - APPROVED County Manager Dorrill stated that thi!'. is ;:¡ roadway projl>c. ,'eady to go to final design fur construction of a new road North of Immokalee Road and then proceeding west to tie into Old U,S. 41. He pointed out that this road is the only other North-South arterial roadway connection East of 4. linking ColLIer and Lee County. He explained that funds to construct the roadway will come from the bi- modal bond pool created in 1985. He pointed out that the primary issue relates to a secondary pledge which will benefit developers of large tracts of land as well as the general public. David Fischer, SunTrust Securities, explained that this item is approval to act in the absence of the Board of County Commissioners and sign a purchase agreement for the sale of the bonds. He noted ti,at this purchase agreement would come back to the Board of County Commissioners prior to the closing and cotlld be rejected. He cautioned that the 12 million dollar issue has a rather narrow evaluation of 35 million dollars of property covering it, He explained that this bond issue must get into the bi-modal by J'll Y 12, 1989, during the Board of County Commissioners' absence, before it collapses, He cautioned that setting up and marketing these bonds may be difficult resulting in the County missing the bi-modal, He stated that the bond issue could have higher interest rates than Collier County general obligation or uti- lity revenue bonds. He noted that the bond issue can still be done without the bi-modal, but the arbitrage benefits would be lost. He indicated that if Collier Cnunty had a Triple "A" insured utility bond issue, it could be done for 7%, but a special non-rated assessment / Page 20 g~ _.,_.__.~"'--"_...,""", "", " -"" . ' " .--- JUNE 13, 1989 bond issue would be 8 or 8-1/2%. He emphasized that if investors feel coverage is slim between the assessed valuation and the improvements, he may have to come back for consideration of backing. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Fischer responded that authorization for the Chairman to sign the agreement if¡ required, unless analytical snags have to be contended with. Commissioner Volpe questioned if this bond isf;ue is different from the one to be discussed on July 6 and the million doll~r saving? Mr. Fischer responded that it is the same bi-modal bond issue. Mr. Fisch:::;c expressed doubt about the million dollar saving generated by the use of the bi-modals. He explained the formula he uses: 1-1/2 percent arbitrage earnings on the reserve fund, or 1 percent per year on $1,200,000, 1. e. $12,000 a yp.ar. Commissioner Saunders indicated that before the last Board meeting, he was told $600,000 savings would result and questioned where the numbers were coming from. Commissioner Volpe stated that it appears the County may not be able to use the bi-modals and will have to initiate a second bond issue. Commissioner Shanahan questioned if this action would preclude the July 6 meeting? Mr, Fischer responded that the County should try to make the deadline to obtain the bi-modals. Commissioner Saunders ques tj oned if granting approval to sign the agreement was necessary today? Mr. Fischer stated bondholders may have to be notified of withdrawal of the bi-modals prior to July 6, 1989. Commissioner Saunders suggested the Chairman be given authority to sign the Bond Purchase Agreement .:In the advice of the County Attorney and County Manager. County Attorney Cuyler stated that the agreement is subject to approval and ratification of the entire Board. Mr. Fischer, in answer to Commissioner Volpe's concern, assured the Board that the bi-modals can always be cancelled prior to a Closing. Co..iss10ner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight, that the Chairman be author:.zed to sign the Bond Purchase Agreement it so directed by the County Attorney, County Manager and Financial J~ Page 21 '.'-" ...".--.--.-----""- ,- ",,- .7UN!: 13, as¡ Advi.ory Co..ittee. Clerk Giles asked about the practicality of backing out of a bond issue? Mr. Fischer replied that there is no cost involved in can- cellation of the bond. Mr. Fischer agreed to add Commissioner Saunders' s~ipulation that a good faith deposit be required or the agreement can be cancelled. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Fischer said that it additional collateral is required due to the spread and the bi-mocIal is rnisse.:l, he will come back befo~e the Board of County Commissioners fo;:- .:1,;, rec- tion. Upon call tor the question, the motion carried unaniaoualy. Commissioner Volpe stated for the record that decisions based on certain representations were thrust on the Board. He emphasized that an analysis should take place before decisions are made, not after. A discussion followed about the proposed million dollar savings and hasty decisions. Mr. Fischer stated that this issue might require good analytical work. ~~~~ ~ ~ 9~ 13/ /ÝI'? )1 Page 22 .---.------"...--.."..--...,-.--.,,-, "no ~. -, , -, .it;;;?: 13, 1989 Item 6B6 ORDIJfANCE 89-35 REGARDING PETITION PDA-89-7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION AND WESTINGHOUSE COMMUNITIES OF NAPLES, INC. REQUESTING AN AMJ!:1IrDMJ!:1r TO THE PELICAN BAY POD - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO PETITIONER'S A GRE EM1':NT ------~---- :'e\Ïal notice ;,aving been püblished in the Napl....s Da il y News on t-'.ay :~, :J83 a!> ev iclenc(,tJ !JY Affl(]av~t of PllulicatiOIl fi led w1th the Cle:-k, po.:bl ic hearing was opeOled to consider a proposed Ordinance a:nending the Pelic-'i;: 3ay ::>..~ . v,"". Planner Cacchione pointed out the subject property oOl a d ~ r.p~ a'/ed !;lap. She iOldicated th-'it the subject property is on n.e west :> i d'~ of U.S. .:: so...th of ';a;¡de:-bi: t 3èdC]¡ "oae.:, a.;d north of Seagate Drive. She noted that Beachwalk a!1d 7he Pavilion SLoppl;¡g Center are to the north, zo:ìed RMF-C, land -'iCr05S U.S. 41 is ZO;¡ecl c-.; and RSF-1; land to the soc;.tl¡ across Seõ.gote :::: l'..e is ¿0:1e" C-.:, RSF-3 and RSF-., and R1-:F-::. She e;~p:ained t:lrt t the proposed ,,:r,er:e.:¡;lt'!¡ t to t:1e PUD contai!IS the followi;!" c~;a;1ges: rezoning the neiçhbe;r[¡uod district on Gulf Pa:-k ::;rive to residential, rezoni;]\] reside:1ti,,1 to coffi,nuni ty commer- cia: in t:,e r:o. the",;:; t ",ec ~- i 0;;, a r",;1o.:(. t lvI, 0; 9,600 to 8,600 maximum dwelling units, reduct io/. e:; ;Jaxi¡;¡u¡;¡ allowed hotel units from 1,500 to 1336, 1 i;;¡i Lng büilding height to 5 floors above 1 flo()r parking, setti:1g ;:;a;':irr.u¡;; :,eiç:J~ "" cu¡;¡m",rc-L,l ,i.:"ea to :00 fe~t, establi5hlng a landscape buf~er for the area alo;"" We:;t Bo;';'lev",rd, establishing directional sig:lêtge ;or t;¡~ commercial area district, l'equi:-ing site development appro"'",l pürsuant to Section 10,5 uf tl:e :e:!llng Ordinance, establ ishir.g êI ¡;-,ax i ::.u;n tlmoun t of commercial square footage. She said that revi,,;ioll of th!:' langudge recoli1mendiny connection of Seagate and Crayton Road has Jeen revised and 'ç the ruaùs are connected, there .. will be a public :lt~êt.:" i:;,. d;U:; property owner", wi 11 be notified. Tape 113 :'::'s. Cacc:¡io:-.e e:,:.,lai:-:ed t:¡a t t ;It,, relucation of nei;¡hborhood com- :;¡e.cial to the activity '-enter is consistent with the Growth ~"'ar.açe;:¡eOl t Plar. a;.d tr,e t:-aff ic will have nu negative impact on roads which are operating below O'.pac i ty. She pointed out th;H the CCPC gg Page 23 --,_. -..---...----.-..........." JUr,E 13, 1989 recommended a traffic signal and il"'. response to Commissioner Volpe, noted that the Barron Collier Company will be seeking approval for their properties in the llPIJer location extending to Immokalee Road, currently zoned A-2. She indicated that the following correspondence was received and marked as Exhibit "A", which appears on file in office of Clerk of the Board. Letter from Richard Greiner requesting residential use of the land between U.S. 41 and GreenTree due to traffic concern Letter from Murray Gruber in favor of PUD amendme:1t Fred Sullivan, Naples Property Owners Association supporting PUD amenðmen t. Carl J. Allen, opposed to PUD amendment due to traffic concern. Ross p, Obley, opposed to prohibition of connection of Crayton Road to Seagate Drive. Edward A. Riguard, opposed to rezoning, supporting change from commercial to low height and density residential. Fred Mueller, The Mueller Company, opposed to PDA 89-7. Eva Ii Richard R. Smith, oppose::! to commercial development along Vanderbilt Road. Attorney George Varnadoe of Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe Ii Benton, representing Westinghouse Community of Naples, developers of Pelican Bay, pointed out the 2 parcels requiring a PUD amendment to the Development Order" approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 26, 1989. !-Ie pointed out the change reflects moving of middle commercial to north commercial and rezones the middle commercial area to Group Two Residential, and height restrictions on residential and commercial structures. He noted that th,! cc.mmf'rcial relocation from the middle to the north to an activity center is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Varnadoe stated the changes as Mr. Turner, of Westinghouse Communities, Inc., pointed them out on the displayed map; 1) the :1 parcels in question to be rezoned ~Ii 11 be increased to 50.2 acres, the number of dwelling units w~ll be reduced by 1,000, from 9,600 to 8,600, the number of ..ot,,] rooms will be reduced 164 f:-om 1,500 to g~ Page 2" JUNE 13, 1989 1,336 both having positive impacts on traffic, limitation of area of hotels to be constructed, height restrictions to 100 feet in commer- cial areas, and height restrictions in certain residential areas to 5 floors over parking. He emphasized that the site plan for commercial districts was given to the property owners association for their input to Staff in issues they thought appropriate, limitation on commercial square footage with breakdown of retail and office square footage by each location was included, limitation of access points to Wa!;('rt:irJe Shops in the south commercial district and a landscape buffer is to be provided on West Boulevard to eliminate a lighting impact from the commercial area to the residential area, signage in t;-¡e commercial district will show external exit to U.S. 4., the conn~ction of Crayton and Seagate Roads will require a public hearing and due public notice. He summarized that the CCPC, Pelican Bay Property Owners' Association, President's Council, S taft, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council and DCA have approved these r.hanges. A discussion followed about Crayton Road and Seagate Road being connected. Commissioner Saunders requested the exact language and Ms. Cacchione noted it was on page 12-5 of the PUD document, page 83 in the backup. Ms. Cacchione noted that it states "Rights-of-way for the extension of West Boulevard and Crayton Road into Pelican Bay shall be dedicated as part of platting. However, the construction of the Crayton Road connection shall not be authorized until a public hearing is held with due public notice to receive input from surrounding pro- perty owners. " Attorney Varnadoe noted that the language is agree..ble to the Petitioner and the representatives of the Pelican Bay Property Owners' Association. Commissioner Volpe questioned how Seagate owners pro- perty association feel about it and Attorney Varnadoe replied that they had not made contact with them. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the relocated commercial property from the center of Gulf Park Drive results in any additional access "0 Page 25 '--""'-'- ,---* , - ,-- _0-...".... .--" JUNE 13, 1989 points for Vanderbil t Beach Road or U.S. 41? Attorney Varnadoe responded "No". and said that the access points proposed are the ones originally contained in the PUD and Petitioner has agreed with Staff to eliminate one access point. In response to Commisßioner Hasse, Attorney Varnadoe pointed out there is an access point, right-in and right-out as outlined on the backup, one at Laurel Oak Drive and Pelican Bay Boulevard, Gulf Park Drive, another on Pelican Bay Boulevard and one more. Mr. George Buonocore of the Pine Ridge Civic Association indicated that the agreements made on March 28, 1989 were not benef:cial to the Pine Ridge area. He pointed out that the rezone will cause additional traffic and asked if the turn lanes will be eliminated? Chief Transportation Planner Perry stated that the turn lanes will be reconstructed when the six-lanin,7 of U.S. 41 takes place. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Perry stated that the majority of the new lane construction will occur in the median and there will be some widening of the outside Idnes to accommodate the necessary turn lanes. Commissioner Saunders questioned the replacing of the turn lanes and Mr. Perry pointed out that there will be no elimination of right turn lanes. Commissioner Saunders noted that the concern is that people traveling North on U.S. 41, after it is six-laned will still be able to make right hand turn into the Pine Ridge area. Mr. Perry stated that there is no elimination of right or left-hand turns into Pine Ridge from either side of U.S. 41. Mr. Buonocore questioned property being eliminated from the buffer zone in the road and right-of-way the Trail Boulevard owners have? County Manager Dorrill stated that the imp<lct is being resolved by Pelican Bay paying the cost of six-laning and any costs for right-of-way for potential eight-'laning are not in the future or attributable to Pelican Bay. Mr. Buonocore noted the traffic impact that will result from the Philharmonic Centel and the shopping center in Pelican Bay and the increase of commercial density. Mr. Russ Mudge stated that he is a resident of Pelican Bay and a tll Page 26 .----- -- - ""0".__--_-,..." '"', ,",'"""" - JUNE 13, 1989 member of the Board of Directors of the Pelican Bay Property Owners' Association and has participated in the negotiations with Westinghouse. He noted that the Association unanimously supports the amended POD agreement, Co..issioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unaniaously, to close the public hearing. Coaaissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight to approve PDA-89-7, subject to the recommendation ot the CCPC. Commissioner Volpe questioned County Attorney Cuyler about t::1e effect on the provisions with respect to tt:e additional square footage previously authorized if this rezone petition does not pass? Attorney Cuyler responc~d that the square footage currently allocated to the center commerc ,al parcel would remain at the center, and not be reallocated tc. the north, and i1' the development of Phase 4, the com- mercial squa e footage is contingent upon the adoption of the rezoning ordinance, ~nd the reduction of 164 hotel roo~ units are not an obliga- tion until the adoption of the rezoning ordinance. Commissioner Volpe questioned the height limitation and Attorney Cuyler responded that it would remain the same. Commissioner Volpe indicated that the only effect would be additional square footage, approved under the Development Order, reallocated to the center. Attorney Cuyler responded that it would remain in the c!!ntral area and not be relocated to the North. Upon call tor the question, the motion carried unanimously, that the ordinance as numbered and titled below be adopted, arubject to the Petitioner's Agreement and stipulations recommended by the CCPC, and entered into Ordinance Book No. 35. ORDINANCE NO. 89-35 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PUD ORDINANCE 77-18, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE PELICAN BAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE ORIGINAL POD DOCUMENT: INDEX PAGE BY DELETING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL - SECTION IX, AMENDING LIST OF EXHIBITS BY ADDING "EXHIBIT L" HOTEL LOCATION RESTRICTION AND EXHIBIT "M" HEIGHT RESTRICTION FOR PORTIONS OF GROUP 4: AMENDING SECTION II - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. SUB<,ECTIONS 2.08 - RESIDENT7AL, BY INCREASING ACREAGE IN THE GROUP 2 PARCELS, DECREASING ACREAGE IN GROUP 3 PARCELS AND DECREASING UNITS IN THE GROUP 4 PARCELS, AMENDING TABLE 1 - PELICAN BAY LAND USE SCHEDULE BY ADDING MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF COMMERCIAL REALLOCATING COMMERCIAL ACREAGE AND 4{)- Page 27 '. , "..... -. r ~ .~. , . ._----"._~---.... --."..","'-"". JUNE 13, 1989 DECREASING MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, AMENDING SUBSECTION 2.09 PRQJECT DENSITY BY DECREASING TOTAL ACREAGE AND NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS TO BE BUILT PER GROSS ACRE, AMENDI~G SUBSECTION 2.10 PERMITTED VARIATIONS OF DWELLING UNITS AND TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS NOT TO EXCEED 8600 UNITS: AMENDING SECTION VII - GROUP 4, AMENDING SUBSrCTION 7.02 - MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS BY DECREASING NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS, AMENDING SUBSECTION 7.03 - USES PERMITTED PARAGRAPH B.4) - PRINCIPAL USES REQUIRING SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY DECREASING HOTEL UNITS AND PLACING LIMITATIONS ON LOCATIONS, AMENDING SUBSECTION 7,04.04 MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF PRINCIPA~ h::J ACCESSORY STR~CT~RES BY PROVIDING HEIGHT LIMITS FOR CERTAIN RESICE~TIAL AREAS, VELETING SECTION IX - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND RENUMBERING SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS AND SUBSECTIONS; AMENDING SECTION IX, AS RENUMBERED - COMMUNITY AND AREA COMMERCIAL SUBSECTIONS, AMENDING SUBSECTION 9.02, AS RENUMBERED - USES PERM ITTED, A. PRINCIPAL USES, BY CErR~ASING NUMBER OF DWELLIN~ UNITS, AMENDING SUBSECTION 9.06, AS RENUMBERED - BUILDING SEPARATION BY CHANGING REFERENCE TO SECTION NUMBER, AMENt: !:\G SUBSEC7IOr, 9. 08, AS RENUMBER~D - MAXIMUM HEIGHT BY PROVIDING A HEIGHT LIMITATION, AMENDING SUBSECTION 9.10, AS RENUMBERED - MINIMUM LANDSCAPING BY ADDING ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AMENDING SUBSECTION 9.11, AS RENUMBERED - LIMITATIONS ON SIGNS BY ADDING DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE; ADDING SUBSECTION 9.13, AS RENUMBERED - SITE PLAN APPROVAL: ADDING SUBSECTION 9.14, AS RENUMBERED - MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE; AMENDING SECTIO~ XII. AS RENUMBERED - JEVE~OPMENT COMMITMENTS, SUBSECTION 12.3, AS RENüM5~~ED - TRANSPORTATION BY PROHIBITING CONNECTION OF CRAYTON ROAD I~ PELICAN BAY TO SEAGATE DRIVE: AMENDING PUD MASTER PLAN AND OTHER INCIDENTAL CHANGES FCR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF US-41, SOUTH OF VA!/DERBILT BEACH ROAD AND NO~TH OF SEAGATE DRIVE IN SECTIONS 4, 5, 8, 9, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST AND SECTIONS 32, 33, Tom,SEIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, See Pages Clð-i3'/ - B,b -----Recess: 12:40 P.M. - Reconvened 1:15 P.M. at which tillle Deputy Clerk Hottman replaced Deputy Clerk ~ratt----- Ite. #6B7 ORDIKAlICE 89-36, PETITION PDA-88-14C, GEORGE L. VARNADOE, REPRESENTING REPUBLIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. OF OHIO, REQUESTING AN AMX1lfDUXKT TO TH!: BRIARMOOD PUD - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO AMENDMENTS TO THE pun Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May 24, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordinance amending the Briarwood PUD, Petition PDA-8B-14C, Pepublic Development Corporation of Ohio, represented by Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Benton, P.A. Planner Nino advised that Petition PDA-88-14C is an amendment to the original Briarwood PUD document. He noted that the subject pro- perty is located on the north side of Radio Road, east of Air,?ort Road, and immediately adjacent from the Foxfire PUD. He indicated that land to the east of this area is zoned Agricultural and Estates; slightly further to the eas: is a large mobile home development, land ~j Page 28 .,~, .._~--". ."".,-"",..".", "."" "'."""'" "'."""-'-- JUNE 13, 1989 to the north is zoned Estates and A-2, consisting of low density deve- lopment: and land to the west is marginally developed and zoned Industrial. Mr. Nino reported that the essence of the rezoning is that which will eliminate the mobile home component of 395 units. He illdicated that this change will result in the proposed construction of site bull t housing with the same number of units. He noted that origi- nally, a golf course was provided for, but this amendment removes any consideration of a golf course, and replaces this with a series oÌ lakes and open space to enhance a water management p Ian and e:,'} ~ ~:m- mental design objectives. He stated that the application for amend- ment to the original PUD ordinance does nothing to change the substa~ce of prior approved land uses. He stated that the revision in single family, from mobile/modular units to site built housing, is to be accomplished with no change in density. He advised that the com- mercial component is not the subjec;~ of revision, although it is located in a slightly different configuration than on the ~pproved PUD Master Plan, and is subject to re-evaluation at a later date. Mr. Nino stated that the Staff Re.;>ort implies that the commercial component has vested rights, but thi.. is incorrect. He advised that the Staff Report should have stated that the developer has the right to apply for a building permit for commercial development on that pro- perty, but the affect of this amendment will not effect the require- ment that all commercial development inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan is subject to re-evaluation. He reported that Staff does not believe that the re-evaluat:on puts the County into an area of non-compliance with the Growth Management Plan since this oppor- tuni ty still exists under the re-evaluation of the Plan. Commissioner Volpe questioned why the commercial parcel of this site is not eliminated completely, if it is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan? Mr. Nino advised that he does not believe that the County has the right to do this, since the only thing that is occu~ring at this time, is that the same amount ~~ Page 29 . .--"'" - -,",-,-",,"'-"_".'-0_'."_"".'" ... JUNE 13. 1989 of acres are put into a slightly different location th,!n the original PUD. Mr. Nino indicated that there are many other thingB in this amend- ment that are in the best interest of Collier County. He stated that the Collier County Planning Commission unanimously endorsed this Plan. He noted that one letter has been received from Foxfire-, indicating support of the plan amendment. He advised that Staff is rC'commending approval of the PUD amendment, noting that all of the stipulations have been included in the PUD document. He reported that 3 or 4 telephone calls have been received as a result of the notificatic~ to property owners. endorsing the deletion of the mobile home park. Attorney George Varnadoe, representing Republic Development Corp. of Ohio, stated that he is requesting an amendment to the PUD, and a Master Plan amendment relating to Briarwood. He indicated that the project consists of 210 acree;, noting that the 395 single family mouile and modular residences will be upgraded to 395 single family residences, and the lot sizes will be increased. He advised that the 205 multi-family units for the project will remain, along with the 15.99 acres of commercial. He stated that the land use plan is being updated from the "old" land use plan. He stated that there are several benefits to the County: 1. The deve;oper has agreed to dedicate a 100' strip of land for the Livingston Road right-of-way on the west side of the project. 2. Elimination of strip commercial along Radio Road - The old plan depicts commercial in two parcels separated by a main entrance; this has been relocated to the intersE!ction of Livingston and Radio Roads. 3. The change to site built homes will result in larger lots, which are more comparable with the lote¡ of the neighbors to the south. 4. There will be 25' of right-of-way at the southern boundary of the project on Radio Road, 5. The Water Management Plan has been updated which will improve the quality of Naples Bay. 6. Cypress head on the site and the palmetco/pine segment will be preserved. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Attorney Varnadoe stated that hi5 client does not intend to claim any vested rights for this project, t/f Page 30 ----"-'- ~ .-. JUNE: 13, 1989 as a result of the Commission's approval of the PUD or Master Plan amendment. He further noted that he believes that the relocated com- lIIercial parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, since no new commercial is being created. He indicated that the Plan allows com- lIIercia~ to be moved, as long as the intensity of the use is not being increased. He noted that the commercial aspect of the project will be subject to zoning re-evaluation, adding that it is ,,]lore advan- tageous for the commercial to be located at the corner of the projt'ct at Livingston and Radio Roads rather than to be strippoa.d alon:¡ 1'<,:..110 Road. In summary, Attorney Varnadoe reported that there will be no increase in unit density or intensity of other uses, including the commercial; dedication of valuable right-of-way for Livingston and Radio Roads; an updated PUD and Master Plan so that the, process will be modernized; modernization of the Water Management Plan, Environmental aspects and Environmental stipulations of the project; anything that is being approved today, does not give the developer vested rights, under the re-evaluation program In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Varnadoe advised that the "old plan" had a great deal of open space, but very small lots for mobile homes; the "new plan" has larger lots, with more open space on each lot, but not as much common open space. Commissioner Volpe noted that the developer has agr~ed to donate the rights-of-way along Livingston and Radio Roads, but questioned whether the developer expects to recc~ve any credit against any impact fees as a result of these donations? Mr. Varnadoe statE~d that under the present ordinance, the developer will receive no credit for the donations of rights-of-way. He indicated that what he has requested, is that if the County amends its Impact Fee Ordinance within 5 years from the date of the PUD amendment adoption to include right-of-way acquisition and if said Ordinance as amended provides for credit against impact fees for dedi;ation of road rights-of-way, the County agrees to credit the applicant against future impact fees for the fair ~& Page 31 .... .." ~,~..,.",... . ,~ ."~._--, '--""" ........--"..",--"", JUNE 13, 1989 market value of the property dedicated as of June 30, 1989. Mr. Varnadoe stated that he is requesting that the PUD amendment be approved as submitted today, noting that if it is not approved, the developer intends to go forth with the original development. Commissioner Volpe stated that the commercial acrl~age is being moved from where it should not be, since it is inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan, and it is being relocated to the inter- section of Livingston and Radio Roads. He indicated that from a deve- loper's view, this is a much more attractive location, and th~': l~a'/e retained the right to build on this, since the zoning re-evaluatlon program will not be completed for two years. Mr. Varnadoe advised that as of today, there is no Livingston Road, and to the best of his knowledge, it is not in the County's Five Year Plan. He indicated that by having commercial on Livingston Road has zero benefit to a developer today. There were no speakers, either for or against this petition. Co..issioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissionor Shanahan and carried unanimously, to close the public hearing. County Attorney Cuyler advised that if the Commission is going to consider future credits against impact fees, he suggests that they be prepared to do so for others with the same circumstances. He noted that he would like to see a provision included in the POD which indi- cates that no vested rights will be claimed as a result of the amend- ments to the POD or the Master Plan. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he feels that this is a good plan, with the exception of the vested riyhts a~d the impact fees. COIIais.ioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Coaaiosioner Goodnight to approve Petition PDA-88-14C, subject to Staff's stipulations and the additional stipulations that no vested rights will be clai.ed as a result of the approned amendments, and that no future credits for impact fees will be ~eceived as a result ot the dedicated rights-ot- way for Livingston an~ Radi~ Roads. Commissioner Volpe stat~d that there seems to be a conflict bet- /1 Page 32 ,"-- -_.,-~,-- -"'------""'--"----,-~----- ,-" ~ JUNE 13, 1989 w~~n Mr. Varnadoe interpretation of th~ Compr~h~nsive Plan, and that of Staff's interpretation relating to the commercial location. County Attorney Cuyler advised that this area is not designat~d for commercial under the Growth Management Land Use Plan. He indi- cated that it is inconsistent as to where it presently exists, and it will be inconsistent when it is relocated. However, ~e reported that under the wording of the Growth Management Plan. changing from one position to another is allowed, but this will be subject to re- evaluation of the zoning. Commissioner Saunders commented that it seems that the "n::.... p.lan" is a better one. Upon call tor the question, the motion carried 4/1 (Co_isllioner Volpe °ppolled), that the ordinance a. numbered and titled below be adopted subject to the amendments ot the POD document and entered into Ordinance Book Ko. 35: ORDINAHC~ 89-36 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 76-22. WHICH ESTAB:ISHED THE BRlhRWOOD PUD BY ADnING A TITLE PAGE; ADD:¡'¡G LANGUAGE RELATING TO HISTORY OF BRIARWOOD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; ADDING A STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE; ADDING AN INDEX; ADDING A LIST OF EXHIBITS; AMENDING PUD DOCUMENT BY CHANGING ALL REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT "F", ?UD MASTER ?:AN TO EXHIBIT "E" , PUD MASTER PLAN; AMENDING SECTION 1. 3., PROPERTY OWNERSHIP; AMENDING SECTION 1. 4. C., STATING THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY; AMENDING SECTION 2.3., PROJECT PLAN AND LAND :.;:::£ 7RACTS; ~DDING SECTION 2.3.D, TO ALLOW FOR FILL MATERIAL FROM THE PRO~ECT TO BE SOLD FOR OFF-SITE USES; AMENDING SECTION 2.6., PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS BY ADDING SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS LANGUAGE; ADDING SECTION 2.7., LAKE SITING; AMENDING SECTION I I I, BY DELETING ALL LA~GUAGE RELATING MOBILE AND MODULAR UNITS: AMENDING SECTION 3.3,B., BY ADDING PRIVATE GARAGES AS AN ACCESSORY USE; AMENDING SECTION 3.4.4.B., MIKIMUM YARDS, SIDE YARD, BY CHANGING THE SETBACK FROM 7-1/2 FEET TO 5 FEET; AMENDING SECTION 3.4.5 BY INCREASING THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FROM 600 SQUARE FEET TO 1,000 SQUARE FEET; DE~ETING SECTION 3.5., SPECIAL USE; DELETING SECTICN 4.~., SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND RENUMBERING SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS; AMENJING SECTION 4.4.1.A., BY ALLOWING PARKING, CARPORTS AND LANDSCAPING ALONG RADIO ROAD FRONTAGE; AMENDING SECTION 4.4.1.C., BY AMENDING SETBACK FROM TRACT BOUNDARIES; AMENDING SECTION 4.4.3., MINIMUM FLOOR AREA; AMENDING SECTION 4.5,1., BY CHANGING THE DIMENSIONS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES; AMENDING SECTION 4.5.3., BY ALLOWING 25% OF SPACES TO BE RESERVED AS GREEN SPACE: AMENDING SECTION 4.6., FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING SECTION 4.7., ACCESS ':'0 RADIO ROAD; ADDING SECTION 4.8., SPECIAL USE; AMENDING SE~TION V, BY RENAMING IT RECREATION AND CONSERVATION TRACT THROUGHOUT THIS SECTION; AMENDING SECTION 5.1., PURPOSE; ADDING SECrrON 5.2.A.(4), TO ALLOW RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE IN TRACT D, PARCEL ~ OF 2 ONLY; DELlTING SECTION 5.2.B., PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS AND RENUMBERING SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS: DELETING SECTION 5.3.. GOLF COURSE, ANn rtENUMBERING SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS; AMENDING SECTION 5.3.. SPECIAL USE; AMENDING SECTION 6.2.A. (3), BY ALLOWIN~~ Page 33 '_0___"'_' -..----- -... - ---,-- JUNE: 13, 1989 SHOPPING CENTERS AS A PRINCIPAL USE; DELETING SECTION 6.5., PLAN APPROVAL AND RENUMBERING SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS; AMENDING SECTION 6.6.. BY ADDING LANGUAGE RELATING TO FUTURE LIVINGSTON ROAD; AMENDING SECTION 6.7., ACCESS TO BRIARWOOD BOULEVARD; DELETING SECTION 6.9.. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS; ADDING SECTION 6.8., SPECIAL USE; AMENDING SECTION 7.5., CLEARING GRADING, EAW:HWORK, AND SITE DRAINAGE; AMENDING 7.6., STREET CONSTRUCTION: DELETING SECTION 7.8. WASTEWATER COLLECTION, TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL; DELETING SECTION 7.9, WATER SUPPLY AND RENUMBERING SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS; ADDING A NEW SECTION 7.8, UTILITY DIVISION BY ADDING STIPULATIONS; RENAMING SECTION 7.1i., TRANSPORTATION AND ADDING STIPULATIONS; AMENDING SECTION 7,lR., WATER MANAGEMENT BY ADDING STIPULATIONS; ADDING SECTION 7.20.. ENGINEERING, BY ADDING STIPULATIONS; ADDING SECTION 7.21., ENVIRONMENTAL STIPULATIONS; AMENDING SECTION VIiI BY ADDING TITLE; AMENDING SECTION 8,1., PREFACE; AMENDING ~~ÇTION 8.2. B., RELATING TO TRACT E; AMENDING SECTION 8.3., PLANT COMMUNITY ANALYSIS; AMENDING SECTION 8.4.1.. BY DELETING REF£HENCE TO MOBILE AND MODULAR UNITS AND DELETING LANGUAGE RELATING TO SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY IN SF TRACT; AMENDING SECTION 8.4.4. BY AMENDING TITLE TO READ "TRACT E - CONSERVATION AREA"; DELETING SECTION 8.4.5.. OUT-LOT "A" - ,1ATIVE VEGETATIVE BUFFER AND RENUMBERING SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS' AMENDING SECTION 8.4.5., FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT RIGHT-OF-WAY; DELETING SECTION 8.4.8., TRACT F AS NATURAL OPEN SPACE; DELETING SECTION 8.4.9, TRACT F AS GOLF COURSE; RENAMING EXHIBIT "G", EXHIBIT "F" AND AMENDING THE ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE FIGURES; AMENDING PUD MASTER PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECT;VE DATE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RADIO ROAD, ONE MILE EAST OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST Commissioner Goodnight stated that she fei?ls that between now, and the time that all the commercial in the County will be re-evaluated, Staff may want to fast-track similar petitions as they are presented. Commissioner Saunders stated that Staff can be directed to look at this project, as approved today, to determine whether the commercial zoning is appropriate, and the developer will be on notice that he can not vest his rights "ntil the evaluation is :-:ompleted. County Attorney Cuyler suggested that Staft provide the Commissi~n with the number of petitions that are currently in the pipeline that are similar to that of Briarwood. Planner Cacchione replied that Staff can come back with recommen- dations as to what may be appropriate for future rezonl~s which do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan after the zoning re-evaluation. Commissioner Goodnight stated that she is suggesting that something be considered during the interim for develop~ents that have been permitted, so that the:e will be a way to address these issues. CO..i8sioner Goodnig~~ moved, seconded by CO-i8siclner Shanahan, and carried unaniaously, that Statt be directed to provide the ~q Page 34 . ---. ... ~.._- '-----~-' ------.".-. ""---""",""-00..',,0_...,,,-,.......--- --- " .. ." "..,-~ ~ JUKE 13, 1989 C088i..ion on July 18, 1989, with reco-.ndations relliting to an interla policy regarding requests for rezones of CO~lrcial properties loc.t~ in POD's. Ite. .«5B8 RESOLOTIOK 89-151, SMP-89-6, AGIIOLI, BARBER« BRUNDAGE, IKC., REPRESElITIKG COLLIER EKTERPRIS!S, REQUESTING SUBDIVISIOK MASTER PLAH APPROVAL FOR EAST KAnES IIrnUSTRIAL PARK, FRONTIKG ON SOOTH HORSESHOE DRIVE - ADOPTED Legal notice h<lving been published in the Naples Daily News on May 28, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publiciition filed ",:i.th '~he Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition SMP-89-6, filed by Collier Enterprises, represented by Agnoli. Barber & Brundage, requesting Subdivision Master Plan approval for East Naples Industrial Park, Replat #1, for property described as a subdivision of Lots 36, 37, 38 and part of Lot 39, East Naples Industrial Park. Planner Nino reported that this item is a request for a Subdivision Master Plan approval by taking 4 lots and subdividing into 8 lots; 4 of which will be fronting on a newly created street which terminates at a cul-de-s<lc. He advised that all County reviewing agencies have studied this request, .;¡nd recommend approval, subject to stipulations. He noted that included in the stij,Julations is a provi- sion that will grant a variance to the required right-or-way or 60' to 32' for the street which will service the four lots, and a 20' pave- ment area, and the elimination of sidewalks. Mr. Nino stated that the CCPC recommended approval of this peti- t1úl1 at their meeting on June 1, 198Q. He advised that no public com- ment was voiced, either for or against this petition. There were no speakers either for or ag"iinst this petition. Co..i..ioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Co..issioner Saunders and carried unaniaoUßly, to close the public hearing. C088i..ioner Shanahan aoved, seconded by Co..issioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that Petition SMP-89-6 be approved, subject to the reco...ndations of ~he CCPC, thereby adopting Resolution 89-151. to Page 35 -.., _c --'-'-,",,-- -. ~ -- JUNE 13, 1989 Ite. 66Bi PETITION PDA-8i-3, DONALD PICIOfORTB OF ASBELL, HAINS, DOYLE AND PICDfORTH, P.A. REPRESENTING PI~ RIDGE PARTHKRS, LTD., REQUESTING AN APlbLJlll£J'lT TO T1Œ FALLS 01" NAPL!:S PUD DOCUMENT AND MAST!R PLAK, LOCATED AT TBZ SOUTHWEST CORNER 01" PINE RIDGE ROAD AND AIRPORT ROAD - D!:NIED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May 2., 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication f 1led with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition PDA-B9-3, an ordinance to amend the Falls of Naples POD, filed by Attorney Donald Pickworth, Asbell, Hains, Doyle and Pickworth, P.A., representing Pine Ridge Partners, Ltd. Planner Cacchione reported that the proposed amendment is ¿>, ,=",:ange to the Falls of Naples POD which was approved in 1982. She stated that the subject property is located at the southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road. She indicated that property to the south is the Naples Bath and Tennis Club POD; property to the north is zoned C-5, and contains the Ridgeport Shopping Center; property to the east is zoned A-2, and C-l. Mrs. Cacchione stated that the original plan provided for 90,000 square feet of retail commercial on 11.22 acres and 220 multi-family units, a 6 acre lake, a smaller building at the northeast quadrant of the property, and no other out parcels. She advised that the proposed request is to increase the commercial square footage of ~he project from 90,000 square feet to 150,000 square feet, and to reduce the residential component from 220 units to 179 units. She noted that the request also reduces the lake size from 6.1 acres to 3.11 acres, and eliminates a smaller lake which was at the northeast quadrant. She advised that the proposed plan also calls for 3 out parcels: one bank out parcel, one at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road, and an out parcel adjacent to the residential development. Mrs. Cacchione noted that in reviewing this proposal there are three main issues: the increase of the commercial square footage and any adverse impact associated with same; any adverse impact aSBO- ciated with increased access points, and landscaping and buffering / j~ Page 36 ,,--_Ow' -_W'"." - ~ - ""-""-'_."'--"""-"'."'--'-"0_' JUNE 13, 1989 requirements. With regard to the land use and access points associated with the out parcels. Mrs. C" :chione disc losed that the southerly out parcel next to the residential entrance was in the original plan designated as residential surrounding the lake and the loop road was designed along the perimeter and landscaped. She explained that the Petitioner is now proposing to rezone that acreage (4.39 acres) to commerc j,,¡,\l . She advised that one reason cited by the petitioner is that t;¡e c.~'igi- nal PUD allowed for a full median opening at the middle entrance located on Airport Road, but the median opening is now not possible because of the confusion that would be created with the dual left turn lanes. She indicated that Staff has looked at this parcel and found that commercial may be appropriate with traffic using the southerly access point, but the type of use should be restricted to an office type of use, i.e. bank. financial institution. office, or child care center, and that other high traffic attracters not be permitted. Mrs. Cacchione advised that the second issue is that of access points, adding that Staff is recommending that what waÐ originally approved in the PUD was 2 access points on Pine Ridge ~oad, and 2 access points on Airport Road. She noted that Planninli Staff recom- mends that this project should be redesigned with the same number of access points. She advised that the petitioner is requ':st ing 3 access points on Airport Road and 3 access points on Pine nidge Road. She indicated that one of the main reasor.s for the additional access is the out parcel that has been added to the intersection :>f Pine Ridge and Airport Road. She stated that it is Planning Staff's opinion that an out parcel is not justlf ication for additional access to the site. She added that the main purpose of the surrounding arte~ial roads is to keep traffic flowing with few uncontrolled interruptions. She reported that this is also consistent with previous action on the Sand Ridge Center where access wè3 limited and internalized on the out parcels. Mrs. Cacchione advised that the originë.l approval provided for a J~ Page 37 "'."'---"'.""'-" ,.,- ~ "_'__00'___._,.,.-,.- JUNE 13, 1989 25 foot landscaped buffer along all public streets, noting the peti- tioner has proposed to continue with the 25 foot landscaped buffer except for the out parcels which will provide a five foot buffer. She explained that Staff does not agree with the reduction to 5 feet on the out parcels, but they have agreed to allow cross easements for parking and move the building as far to the rear of t~e property line as possible, or to increase the land areas to accommodate the landscape buffer. Mrs. Cacchione stated that Staff is recommending ~pproval of this petition subject to the limitation of access points to the number ori- ginallyapproved, limiting the southerly out parcel to office use, and maintenance of the 25 foot landscaped buffer throughout all out par- cels. She indicated that stipulations have been placed in the agreement sheet to incorporate thesp. items into the PUD document. She noted that the CCPC held their public hearing on June 1, 1989, and they are recommending approval, subject to Staff's stipulations. She noted that 3 letters opposing this project have been received; a representative from Naples Bath and Tennis spoke regarding concerns of the quantity and quality of dralnage, runoff into Naples Bath and Tennis, and traffic on Airport Road; one resident of Woodshire spoke with concerns regarding "'e proposed land use and the buffer and set- back from their development. Tape.. Commissioner Shanahan noted that thi!i' is a busy intersection, and questioned what the traffic study revealed? Mrs. Cacchione advised that it was determined that the additional 60,000 square feet of com- me7cial would not have a significant impact on the area. Attorney Donald Pickworth, representing Pine Ridge Partners, Ltd., stated that the initial concept of the project was a resort type deve- lopment around a large lake with small specialty shops, and residen- tial units on the other sidè. He noted that the property owners have decided to redesign the center for a more useable site. He advised that the type of center that is proposed ~s that of a neighborhood .11 Page 38 "0- .. ,.,- .. ... -. '-"'.'-" JUNE 13, 1989 shopping center, with the major tenant being a grocery store, and the secondary te:1ant being a drug store. Mr. Dan Brundage, of Agnol i, Barber & Brundage, Inc. stated that the water management plan for this site complies with guidelines, noting that less water will be discharged than what was originally proposed. He noted that in 1988, the residential portion at the site was reviewed by the County for site development approval, adding that at that time, there were other engineers associated with the project. He indicated that since then, his firm has become associated with ~he project, and they have reviewed the water management plans as p',n, posed, and they are 100% in concu!rence of what has been developed. He stated that those plans not only address runoff frol/l the residen- tial area, but also the runoff frem the commercial site. He advised that there is ample storage associated with the project, which will provide for periods of peak rainfall events. He reported that Staff found that the water management plan is in compliance with the County's criteria. Mr. Brundage advised that there is a previous agreement between the subject property and Naples Bath and Tennis Club, which provides tor this project to drain through thc Naples Bath and Tennis Club, whose water management system has been designed to accept the runoff. With regard to the issues of water quality, Mr. Brundage indicated that there is quite a bit of green natural storage area associated with this project, for which high credits are given with the South Florida Water Management District and the County. He indicated that this will add to improve the water qu,lity of storm water runoff. He stated that with regard to the water draining off of the commercial area, there is a 3 acre lake, plus add it ional green storage area which will serve as a buffer for water quality. He advised :hat this plan has been enyineered three times, and it incorporates all the best management practices, and the late!;t state-of-the-art techniques tor improving water quality. Commissioner Shanahan q\estioned whether Mr. Brundage has met with 5~ Page 39 - . -- . '", ~~.,--- '-----'---""'-""'--""" "'---""--""- ",,-,- JUNE 13, 1989 th~ r~pres~ntatives from Naples Bath and Tennis to discuss th~ runoff, and if so, have their CO:1cerns ~een satisfied? Mr. Brundage replied that he has met with the representatives from Naples 3ath and Tennis, and a great many of their concerns have been satisfied, but not all of them. He indicated that they are comfortable with th(~ res iden t ial portion of the project, and runoff from same, but they have not been totally satisfied with regard to the water quality issues. W1th regard to issues that have been raised by Mrs. Cacchione, Mr. Pickworth ref~rred to the landscaped buffer and noted that the :n i9i- nal PUD provided for 25' all the way around the project. He advibed that the owners are requesting that the 25' buffer in front of the out parcels be reduced to 5' for increased visibility. Mr. Pickworth stated that another issue of discussion is that of the out parcel closest to the residential area. He noted that Staff is suggesting that there be a s~ecific limitation of this parcel, 1. e. office, bank, or child care center, He indicated that if the goal is to eliminate the possibility of a high traffi~ attract~r, this should be approached by excluding those uses, as opposed to saying only a bank, office or child care center is permitted. He suggested a modi- fication of the Staff's position, that the PUD provide that a restaurant, fast food outlet, or gas station not be permitted on that site, Mr. Pickworth stated that the final issue is that of the access points. He noted that the initial proposal contained direct access points into and out of the out parcels. He indicated that a number of modifications have been made to the plan. He reported :hat the Staff Report contains certain stipulations which were produced by the Traffic Planning Department on their initial review. He advised that the site plan of today does not have the same objections. He referred to Walter Carter's June 12, 1989 memo to Mrs, Cacchione. which sets forth his department's findings relating to the access points, which are essentially in agreement with those of the owner's traffic people. Mr. John W, Barr, of Ba', r Dunlop & Associates, state:J. that his ¡t{ Page 40 --,"", , ------- ,-.-"" .,.""",,.. -"',-,,,,-,,".- "". . ..~.. " ..-. JUNE 13, 1989 firm has been serving as Traffic Engine~rs for this project. He noted that he has been examining the impacts of the project on Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road, the lnt.ernal circulation of the project, and the access points. He advised that Planning Staff is recommending that the project be held to two entrances on each road. He noted that initially, Transportation Staff had a similar recommendation because of the direct connections to the out parcels that were proposed, and spacing problems. He indicated that this project does not have a substantial impact on Pine Ridge or Airport Road. Mr. Barr advised that he has been working with the Gounty's Transportation Engineers to work out a totally acceptable traffic plan. He referred to the displayed map, noting that the problem with merely having two entrances on Pine Ridge Road, and two entrances on Airport Road which Planning Staff is recommending, is that this redu- ces the accessibility of the site. He indicated that a left turn out, into the dual left turn lane should not be done, and th1s design has been complied with. He advised that the two additional entrances, as requested, will provide for right turn in, right turn out. He noted that the spacing distances and the number of entrances ~or the fron- tage of the site do rnl!et the County guidelines and standards. Mr. Barr stated that in his opinion, the adverse impacts are mini- mized, even to a greater extent with the proposed confi¡¡uration of entrances and exits with the right turn only restrictions, than would a fewer number of intersectiona with more concentrated traffic at those locations. He noted that one ¿,dditional entrance on Pine Ridge Road, and one additional entrance on Airport Road are now being pro- pos;!d. He indicated that there is no direct entrance to any of the out parcels, and they do allow traffic to go to and from the site with a minimum of unnecessary V-turns or travel through the lnters-ection. He reported that this entrance plan will work better th"m an entrance plan which drops down to the original entrances. He advised that it is his recomm~ndation, that it is in the County's best interest, to approve the plan as submitted, He noted that this plan has been (pO Page 41 - -, -..--,-..,........, -- ... -. H JUNE 13, 1989 approved by the County's Traffic Engineers, with certain stipulations as to the addition of the right turn/left turn lanes, signal par- ticipation, widening requirements, etc. Mr. Ron Ferrin, Owner of the property, stated that the proposed project has two functions: residential, and commercial. He indicated that originally, the full median cut was located on the commercial portion of the project, but now the full median cut is an entrO?rll.:e to the residential portion of the project which is owned by the residen- tial owners. He indicated that the proposed access on Pine Ridge Road is an additional cut with regard to the out parce 1, but the proposed cut on the Airport Road side, is merely to gain access to the commer- cial portion of the project. Commissioner Hasse question~d whether Mr. Ferrin sold the southern portion of the property where the residential area is lQcated7 Mr. Ferrin replied affirmatively, Commissioner H3sse stated that it appears that Mr. Ferrin created the access problem. Mr. Ferrin indicated that he has a PUD document which states that there is a full median cut on the commercial side of the project, but he is now advised that the full median cut will not work. He noted that the plan has been modified so that access can be gained to the full median cut, but it still does not give proper identification to the commercial. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Attorney Pickworth advised that if today's plan is not approved, hh client will end up with a Commercial portion which is served by a full PUD, and the entranceway can no longer be used. Commissioner Saunders stated that this is a PUD, dating back to 1982, which has a full median cut. He noted that the road has been designed so that this is unsafe. He indicated that he assumes that the Commission, with its p<lice powers, can change median cuts where they are not safe. County Attorney Cuyler indicated that he concurs with Commissioner Saunders' statement. He advised that the PUD Plan is always subject (pI Page 42 - ' --~._..,_. JUNE 13, 1989 to subsequent permitting and and right-of-way permit. Mr. Pickworth reported that professionals on both sides have determined that there ~re no adverse traffic impacts. He indicated that the County has an ordinance which sets forth the standards relating to the number of entrances that are permitted for shopping centers, and <Ill requirements have been met. Commissioner Volpe questiuned how much of the addi tional commer- cial square footage that is being requested is allocatf!d to the out parcels? Mr. Pickworth replied that approximately 17,1)00 sq\> al:? feet has been allocated for the out parcels. The following person spoke against the amendment to the Falls of Naples PUD and Master Plan: Mr. John White, Naples Bath and Tennis Club Mr. Frank Wilson, Naples Bath and Tennis Club Reasons of opposition to H.is project are as folloHs: quality of water flowing from the Falls of Naples to the Naples Bath and Tennis Club, U-turns on Airport Road (suggest a sti;;¡ulation fc)rbidding u- turns at the Naples Bath and Tennis Club median cut, with proper signage). Transportation Services Administrator Archibald advised that as a general rule, the lesser number of access point~ there are along any given roadway, there will be less side street friction. He indicated that the original plan for this project showed twc majcr access points for Airport Road, and two major access points for Pine Ridge Road. He noted that as traffic grows on both of these corridors, the only access points which will really function are the major access points. He reported that on the Airport Road side, it should be assured that there is only one major access point that will be able to handle north- bound and southbound traffic. He noted that this access will be shared by the commercial users and the residential owners. He advised that he concurs with the Planning Department's recommendation. ..... Deputy Cler'! Kenyon replaced Deputy Clerk Hottman at this ';:~:.Ae - 3:30 P.M. ..... Mrs. Cacchione stated that in trying to come to an evaluation as to whether this property should be zoned for commercial at all, it was {¡!Y Page 43 - - .---- ,--- ~-*... -.---.", - JUNE: 13, 1989 Staff's recommendation that an office type use would be more appropriate and more compatible with the residential use than any other retail use. She stated that there is the possibility that there may be some retail uses that may be appropriate, but Staff felt that office type use should be looked into or a use that is related to the residential uses, like a child care center. In answer to Commissioner Shanahan, Mrs. Cacchione stated that reducing the landscaping would not produce a better plan and the out- parcels were not part of the original submittal. Commissioner Volpe stated that there is a commitment on Fine Ridge Road to give a 15 foot right-of-way which would come out of the 25 foot buffer. Mrs. Cacchione stated that a stipulation could be provided so that it would indicate that the landscape buffer would have to be 25 feet from the future right-of-way. Mr. Pickworth stated that he would agree with this type of a sti- pulation. He noted that 11' Staff wants to Hmit this to office, financial, or a child ca~e center, he would like the words "or other commercial use of a comparable intensity" added. He stated that if he does not have an office or financial use, this would make the approval of the alternative use a site plan technical issue which could be determined without the necessity of a PDA. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Barr stated that the entrances as proposed can be designed to work safe and to work well, adding that he has been dealing with major shopping center developers over the southeastern United States for 25 years and 11' there is a limited number of entrances there will be a need for a traffic signal at one or both of the main entrances. He stated that traffic signals create a lot of friction and as long as there is a lesser con- cent rat ion of traffic at the main entrances by providi~g well spaced auxiliary entrances, the in and out traffic movements are easier. Comais.ioner Shanahan ~wved, seconded by Commissiol:ler Haase and carried unani80usly, th&-:: the public hearing be closed. (¡~ Page U _,.'O"""-,-- ,- -.. '-----'-"'--' ....,--.... ~ JUNE 13, 1989 Co..i..ioner Hasse moved, seconded by Co..issioner Goodnight, that Petition PDA-89-3 be recoaaended tor Approval without the entrance at the corner on Pine Ridge Road, that the 15 feet ot right-ot~ay will not intertere with the bufter zone, and that the Petition be subject to the Petitioner'. Agreeaent. Commissioner Saunders stated that he is looking for the benefit to the community when an existing plan is changed. He stated that ',his is going from 90,000 square feet of commercial to 150,000 squ.ue ~:eet of commercial, adding that he does not see a benefit to the community. He noted that the existing plan is less intense than the proposed plan. Upon roll call, the motion tailed, 2/3 (Commissioners Saunders, Sþa~ah.n and Volpe opposed). Commissioner Hasse Aye Commissioner Goodnight Aye Commissioner Shanahan Nay Commissioner Volpe Nay Commissioner Saunders Nay ..... Recess: 3:50 P.M. - Reconvened: 4:00 P.M. ..... Ite. #6Bl0 RXSOLCTIOK 89-152 RE PETITIOK SMP-88-12 WILLIAM E. PAYR OF HOLE, MOlITES 6: ASSOCIATES, INC. REPRESENTING PORT OF THE ISLANDS, INC. RE SUBDrvISIOX MASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR EVENIKGSTAR CAY - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STlPULATIOKS Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May 21, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication f il<:!d with the Clerk, public hearing was continued ;rom June 6, 1989, to consider Petition SMP-88-12 filed by William E. Payne of Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc., representing Port of the Islands, In:. re Sub- division Master Plan approval for Eveningstar Cay, a subdivision con- taining 6.69 acres more or less in Section 9, Township 52 S., Range 28 E., Collier County, Florida. Planner Nino stated that Eveningstar Cay is a subdivision of 38 single-family lots at Port of the Islands. He stated that the pro- perty is zoned RMF-16 which is a dramatic reduction in density. He indicated that all county reviewing agencies have indicated no objec- (pi Page 45 ----~-,""- -.,_."",h"" JUNZ 13, 1989 tions subject to stipulations which are included in the document. He stated that the CCPC recommended approval of this petition and staff is recommending approval subject to the stipulations. Commissioner Shanahan stated that the document indicates that this density is greater than what is allowed by the Growth Management Plan but less than the existing zoning and questioned the ~eaning of this. to which Planner Nino stated that this is an area where no more than 4 units per acre would be permitted based on the Growth Management '?lan, but the property is already zoned RMF-16, which gives them the right to build 16 dwelling units per acre. Tape #5 Commissioner Volpe questioned what controls the density, the Growth Management Plan or zoning plan, to which County Attorney Cuyler stated that the higher density resirtential would be lo::>ked at the same way as the commercial outside an activity node which is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan but until such time as the County rezones it to be consistent. Development Orders can be issued for that zoning. Commissioner Saunders stated that if this subdivision master plan is approved, it is improving on an existing situation prior to that re-evaluation. Commissioner Volpe stated that he feels that the Comprehensive Plan is the controlling factor and the underlying zoni~g is superseded by the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Saunders stated that there is a provision in the Comprehensive Plan that permits commercial zoning to be moved around and questioned if there is a similar provision that permits the Board to approve a subdivision master plan petition that is inconsistent with the density in the Comprehensive Plan but improves on an existing plan prior to re-evaluation, to which County Attorney Cuyler replied affirmatively. Mr. William Payne of Ho',e. Montes & Associates, Inc., representing Port of the Islands, stated that this project is zoned RMF-16 which 13 a higher density than he is requesting. H~ stated that the design is / {p~ Page 46 --. -'-'---- JUNE 13, 1989 for patio homes with zero lot lines which are allowed in this zoned district. He stated that to apply the Comprehensive ?lan to this island development is inappropriate. He noted that this zoning and this use would be appropriate for this area, adding that he meets all the standards for this district and agrees with the s~ipulations. cO8ai..ioner shanahan aoved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carr led \maniaousl y, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Goodnight indicated that this plan in a much 'o,,!t.:er plan than what the property is presently zoned for, adding that the petitioner could build on this property now at 16 units per acre. Commissioner Saunders concurred with Commissioner Goodnight with reference to this petition. Planner Nino stated that this is not a rezone, it is a Subdivision Master Plan. He stated that lots are being created that will facili- tate the construction of single family homes. C088l8sioner Goodnight moved, seconded by CO..is8ioner Shanahan and carried unaniaously, that Resolution 89-152 re Petition SMP-89-12 be adopted, subject to Petitioner's ~gree..nt. (¡II Page <11 ,--,-- ..."",.-- .JU1Œ 13, 1989 It.. #6<:1 ORDI.~CE eg-37 REGULATING ESCORT SERVICE BUSINESSES WITHIK THE UWIHCORPORATED ARKAS OF COL~IKR COUNTY - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May 25, 1989, as evidenc~d by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider a proposed ordinance regulating escort service businesses within the unincorporated areas of Collier County. Assistant County Attorney Wilson stated that she ~as direc~e~ to draft this ordinance to regulate escort service businesses. :::h~ noted that this ordinance requires two different types of regula- tions; one is the permit that is required for the escort service busi- ness itself and the second regulation requires a license for anyone providing the escort service individually. She noted that the busi- ness would have the permit and all employees would have to have a license to work for that business. She stated that the ordinance includes guidelines for the application and the locat:.on of the busi- ness is required as well as requirements for record keeping of the employees. Commissioner Volpe stated that this ordinance would give better control over this type of activity and questioned what zoning district would be appropriate for this type of business? Assistant County Attorney Wilson stated that the ordinance simply states that it would have to be non-residential. Commissioner Volpe stated that pe feels that the fees should be higher than whac the ordinance is indicating. Assistant County Attorney Wilson stated that the ordinance was reviewed by the State Attorney's office and the T~x Collector and it has been indicated that these fees will be sufficient to cover the costs. Commissioner Volpe stated that he would suggest that the fees be increased to $100.00 for 1he applicant and $500.00 for the escorts. co..issioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and {Þ Page 48 . 0,,0__-- - ,.- ..roUE 13, 1989 carried unani~sly, that the public hearing be closed. Coaai..ioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Coaai.sioner Goodni~ht and carried unani.ously, that the ordinance as nuabered and titled below be adopted and entered into Ordinance Book No. 35: ORDINANCE 89-37 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ESCORT SERVICE BUSINESSES; SETTING FORTH PURPOSE AND INTENT; PROVIDING TITLE, APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR PERMIT REQUIREMENT ANt APPLICATI~N; PROVIDING FOR ~OCATION REQUIREMENT; PROVIDING FOB DISCLO':i'j~Œ OF ESCORT SERVICE BUSINESS RECORDS; SETTING FORTH PERMIT, L1CEF:jE AND PATRON AGE LIMITATIONS; SETTING FORTI! PERMIT TERM AND FEE; PROVIDING FOR PERMIT AND LICENSE SUSPENSION, DENIAL OR REVOCATION; PROVIDING FOR LICENSE REQUIREMENT, APPLICATION, TERM AND FEE; PROVIDING FOR NON-EXCLUSIVITY; PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT; SETTING FOF:TH PENALTIES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. It- #7Al RESOLUTION 89-153 RE PETITION CCCL-89-2C, WESTINGHOUSE COMMUHITIES OF lfAPLES, IlfC., REQUESTING A 161 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE COASTAL COKSTRUCTIOK CO1rTROL LIKE TO ALLOW FOR THE NORTH BEACH FACILITY IN THE PELICAN BAY DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Legal notice having been published in the Naple~ Daily News on May 28, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CCCL-89-2C, filed by Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc., requesting a 161 foot variance from the Coastal Construction Control Line to allow for the north beach facility in the Pelican Bay Development, Natural Resources Technician Edwards stated that this request would allow the petitioner to build the north beach facility, adding that the Pelican Bay PUD allows the petitioner to build 3 beach faci- lities and this is the third of these facilities. He noted that the structures will be elevated above the existing dune system and shall be constructed in a similar fashion as the one at the south gate and the Clam Pass facility. He stated that elevated structures are recognized as the best method to minimize impact to the dune vegeta- tion and the dune system, while still allowing access to the beach. He stated that staff is re:ommending approval subject to the stipula- tions in th~ staff report. Commissioner Volpe questioned how far seaward this structure would 19 Page 49 ,"'---' -,_._,.__. '-0' JUNE 13, 1989 be to the new relocated c~nstruction control line, to which Mr. Edwards indicated he did not know. Ms. Linda Lawson, representing Westinghouse Communities of Naples, stated that the size of the structure will be about 10,000 square feet which is approximately the same size as the other two structures. She stated that this structure is not air conditioned as that is a restriction. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Ms. Lawson indicated that: 1:1~el'e are two possibilities with regards to utilities, adding that one is to use a utility easement that is being proposed from thp southern end of the residential area and the alternative to that would be to run pipes ' under the boardwalk which is similar to what has occurred at Clam Pass Park and the southern beach facility. Commissioner Hasse question.~d if there would be liquor served, to which Ms. Lawson stated that there is nothing contemplated at this time. She noted that at the other facilitieE, alcoholic beverages are sold under a club license for the private use of the lI,embers for the homeowners association only. Commissioner Volpe stated that the request is to build an elevated snack bar, facilities, restrooms, and shelters and questioned if there would be more than one structure in this 3 acre parcel? Ms. Lawson stated that what is outlined in the backup information is what is being requested. She stated that there is nothing planned at this time, adding that this is the preliminary state of planning and it is being designed to be almost identical to the existing facility. Mr. Edwards stated that this is only a preliminary conceptual plan and the actual plans will have to be reviewed by the project review staff which is when the stipulations will be applied and followed. Ms. Lawson sta-:ed that she would bring the site plan back before the Board, if requested. Co..is.ioner Shanahan Iloved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, ~hat the public hearing be closed. Co..i.sioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight ,{ Page 150 ~ '-"-' J'U1Œ 13, 19S9 and carried 3/2, (Co..issioner Volpe and Hasse opposed), that Resolution 89-1~3 re Petition CCCL-89-2C, be adopted .ubject to statt .~ipul.~ians and that Statt review the site plan prior to any constru- ction ~o be sure that the tacilities are similar to the o~her two .~ructure.. 7Š Page 51 '-' ------,.-"-",, ,----------- .. -.-,--.--"- JUNE 13, 1989 It.. #7A2 RESOLUTION S9-154 RE PETITIOH V-89-5, BRUCE GREEN & ASSOCIATES, UPRESDTIRG MR. MARK DICKERMAN REQUESTING A 3.4 FOOT ARD A 1.2 FOOT FRONT YARD AKD A 3.7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE .A..PU OF OUTER DRIVE AND ORCHARD LANE, AVALON ESTATES - ADOPTED SUBnCT TO 5TIPULATIONS Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May 21, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition V-89-5, filed by Terry Kepple, representing Mr. Mark Dickerman requesting a 3.~ 'Ie." c and a 1.2 foot variance from the required front yard setback cf 12.5 feet and a 3.7 foot variance from the required side yard setback of 7.5 feet for property located at the apex of Outer Drive and Orchard Lane and further described as Lot 16, Block 2, Avalon Estates, Unit 1, Plat Book 3, Page 62, Collier County, Florida. ?lanner Saadeh stated that ~he petitioner is reques:ing two front yard setbacks and one side yard setback variance to allow an addition to an existing single-family residence to encr"oach 3.4 feet into the required front yard setback on Outer Drive, 1.2 feet into the required . front yard setback for the existing screen porch on Outer Drive, and 3.7 feet into the required side yard setback for the existing garage. He stated that the subject property is zoned RMF-6. He noted that in the past, the subject property was considered as a non-conforming lot and, therefore, RSF-5 setback standards are being used. He noted that the plot plan shows that the proposed addition is situated approxima- tely 32.5 feet from the easterly property line and relocation cloGer to the easterly property line would proviue morE' than sufficient room to satisfy all setback requirements, but construction on the addition is approximately 85% complete and, would therefore, preclude it from being easily relocated. Mr. Terry Kepple of Bruce Green & Associates stated that about a year ago the petitioner was granted approval to go ahead with construction in order to weather proof the home. He noted that the building plans shows the r".Llding 15 feet closer to Orchard Lane than the way it was laid out. He noteò that during the spot survey and 11 Page 52 ""'..--, -- JUNE 13, 1989 location of the structures, there was an error. He noted that there is no visible encroachment on any rights-of-way. He stated that the structure is about 85% complete and the owner would like to proceed to get his CO. Planner Saadeh stated that CCPC recommends denying the petition which is also the recommendation of Staff. Mr. Kepple stated that the variance was originally ::mly required for the one-story wood frame addition, but due to furth~r survey. the garage and scref'n porch was found to need a variance. He ind icat !Jd that the garage and screen porch was built around 1975 and in order to clean up the property for the owner, he decided to ask for the addi- tional two variances. Commissioner Volpe stated that only one variance actually involves the petitioner and the other two variances were created by someone else in previous years. ~..ioner Volpe moved, seconded by Co..issioner Go>dnight and carr 1 ed. ta:nani.au8l y, that the public hearing be closed. CO88i..ioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Co..issioner Haa.. and carried ta:naniaausly, that Resolution 89-154 re Petition V-B9-5 be adopted subject to stipulationa. 11 Page 53 .,,--- --. "."'.""P'.- ._.,,-,--,,-- ,- JUNE 13, 1989 It.. #9Cl coJrnACT WITH GORA, MCGAHEY, LEE FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND EKGIWEERIHG SERVICES FOR AN ADDITIOH TO Tn LIBRARY HEADQUARTERS - APPROVED Public Services Administrator O'Donnell stated that this contract has been agreed upon by the architect, engineering firm and the County relative to the design of the headquarters facility for th'!! Library. He noted that Staff was authorized to negotiate with the top ranked firm on March 7, 1989, adding that there is money in the budget in the amount of $115,000 and Phase I of this contract would co~t $lCJ,2':::J. He noted that U'le architect is optimistic that he can submit the final design plans to the State and meet the July 28 deadline for the grant monies. He noted that Phase II is the actual construction documents and overseeing construction of the facility, which he anticipates to take place next fiscal year. Commissioner Volpe questioned if there is any penalty clause if the architect does not have the plans ready by the deadline, to which Mr. O'Donnell replied negatively. Commissioner Volpe questioned what happens if the deadline is not met, to which Mr. O'Donnell stated tìlat he would have to discuss this with the County Attorney to see what legal recourse the County would have as this will cost $400,000 in grant money. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he feels that the County should move post-haste on this matter in order to get the $400,000 commitment from the State. Coaai..ioner Shanahan aoved, seclj.:1ded by ColUDissiclner Volpe, that the contract tor architectural and engineering services tor an addi- tion to the Library Headquarters with Gora, McGahey, Lee be approved. Commissioner Volpe questioned if this includes any penalty provi- sion if the architects fail to meet the deadline, to ¡o,-hich Commissioner Shanahan stated ~hat he would include within the recom- mendation that Mr. O'Donnell do whatever he can to protect the interest of the County. Commissioner Saunders stated that if Staff is directed to penalize ~3 Page 54 - - -~------- ,~- -".-.' ""'--'-"'- JUNR 13, 1989 the architect if he does not meet the deadline, it may pre8~nt a problem as the architect or engineer is probably not going to sign the contract. Public Services Administrator O'Donnell stated that the grants are available on an annual basis and if the deadline is not met, he would recommend that expansion be deferred for a year and apply for the grant next year. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Public Services Administrator O'Donnell stated that it will cost $104,000 for the architect, 'c~;. the plans will still be used next year. In answer to Commissioner Goodnight, County Manager Dorrill stated that the last two libraries, the East Naples Library and the Marco Island Library, have been constructed with grant money and Staff is optimistic that they will receive the grant money. County Manager Dorrill stated that he understands the motion is to do the design in conjunction with the expansion of the Central Library which in effect would abandon any further interest in that library being on the Troy property. Commissioner Volpe questioned if Staff has any recommendations as to the appropriateness of the expansion of the County library at the Central Avenue location, to which County Manager Dorr ill stated that the decision was made by the Commission within the growth management process several years ago. He stated that at that time, a decision was made to leave the library at the Central Avenue location, adding that it was an arbitrary decision for no other reason than the historical significance and the fact that many of the patrons using the library live downtown. He stated that this resulted in a decision for the County to make considerable investments in satellite libraries. Open call tor the question, the action carried unaniaously. ~~ Page 55 'c_.""'..- .. . " -----..-..---, '-'-'-' JUf'E 13, 1989 ..... Deputy Clerk Kraft replaced Deputy Clerk Kenyon at this time - 5:05 P.M. ..... It- iC2 AD'THO1lIZATIOW FOR STAn TO OBTAIN LAJJD APPRAISALS FOR POTDTIAL BOAT LAUWCB SIT! AID AX EXISTIKG SITE LOCATED OH BLUEBILL AVEWUE - APPROVED Public Services Administrator O'Donnell stated that Staff is seeking approval for appraisals for a potential boat launch site of 3.2 acres in the vicinity of the Wiggins Pass Marina. He noted that authorization was received to look at the possibility of constructing a boat ramp on the Bluebill Avenue site, but homeowners in th", Vanderbilt Beach Association contacted the County and suggesteà looking at alternatives. He explained that at a meeting in Þ.pr 11, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board directed Staff to explore other sites, if available. He pointed out that the homeowners group suggested this particular site because 1) the location is good, 2) adequate parking can be accommo6ated, and 3) boat ramps can be accom- modated. Mr. O'Donnell pointed out that appraisals are needed to negotiate with property owners and to consider the possibility of swapping or selling the Bluebill Avenue site, or other alternatives. Commissioner Volpe noted appraisal of the alternate site is an exc~llent suggestion, and questioned if it will accommodate one more boat ramp than the Bluebill Avenue site? Mr. O'Donnell stated that it is possible, depending on the configuration. Commissioner Shanahan noted that people were unhappy about a boat ramp on Bluebill Avenue and Mr. O'Donnell concurred. Commissioner Hasse questioned the appraisals costing $20,000? Mr. O'Donnell responded that Staff consulted with the Real Property Department about the cost. Commissioner Volpe questioned if Staff could. do the appraisals, and Ms. Sandy Taylor, Real Property Management Director, responded that bids were received for $10,000 this datf~ for both appraisal reports. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Taylor stated that the County can cnly do market studies, not appraisal reports. I 0 Page 56 ,--"-""" - -- ...-..-.- - JUNE 13, 1989 Mr. Arthur Jacob, President of the Vanderbilt Property Owners' Association, stated that the property owners have been opposed to the boat ram~ at Bluebill Avenue since it was proposed. He indicated that their Deed of ?estrictions calls for this site to be residential, and the Association has presented petitions, inv ited the Board of County Commissioners and the Parks Board to review the site, but the ramp is still there. He pointed out that the property owners are not opposed to a boat ramp in North Naples. but are opposed to a boat raJ!1;: i.'1 a residential neighborhood where traffic is presently dense. lie explained that on certain days Wiggins-Delnor Park causes the back-up of traffic almost a mile to where the Bluebill Avenue site is located. He pointed out that a boat ramp in a narrow canal facing other boats with not enough room for safe maneuverability is not acceptable. He noted that the area has been dE~lgnated a Manatee are3 and Turkey Bay is an environmentally fragile waterway. He pointed o'lt that the alternate site will impact less on roads and waterwaYG. is opposite Wiggins Pass and next to a full service marina, ramps and road approaches are ideal and in an area on Vanderbilt Drive where 4-laning 1s proposed. C~.sianer Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unani~ly, that Statf obtain land appraisals for a potential boat launch .ite and the existing site located at Bluebill Avenue, in an aaount not to exceed $10,000. 1/1 Page 57 -- ,---- ",'-- .- -' JUNE 13, 1989 It:.. !Uti LETTD. ~ MITE AMERICAlf GEBRAL GROUP SERVICES CORPORATIOK REGARDI.G GROUP MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUM INCREASES - ~PPROVED Administrative Services Administrator Ochs stated that this is a recommendation to approve a Letter of Agreement with American General Group Services Corporation deferring a mid-year premium rate increase request. He pointed out that. since 1975 the County has provided group major medical benefits through a fully insured program for employees and eligible dependents. He explained that in April i:b!! County was informed that the ::arrier intends to increas(~ the coverage by 24.4 percent effective June 1, 1989, and 15.9 percent effective October 1. He noted that both increases are unanticipated and unbudgeted. He stated that Staff requested the premium increases be deferred until the ensuing policy year October 1. He noted that the carrier has agreed to defer the rate increase to October 1 under the primary condition that Coll ier County will be held liable for ar.y def ic i t in the account for the current premium year expiring June 30, 1989. Commissioner Volpe questioned if there i2 a deficit and what hap- pens to that deficit? Mr. Ochs responded that it is approximately $350.000 and, under the terms of the agreement, there is a maximum liability the County is responsible for, and the maximum liability is the difference between current rates and the 24.4 percent increase requested for the 4 month period eff~ctive June 1 through the end of the current policy year expir~ng September 30, 1939. He noted that I.he fiscal impact section of the Executive Summary ::¡tates the maximum liability is estimated to be $338,000, Mr. Ochs pointed out that Staff would like to defer -::he mid-year increase to allow the County to explore alternatives to -::he c',urent plan. He stated that the rate increases projected in our budget instructions will cuver next year's group insurance program, but it will be under a different format, a self-funded program as oppose~ to a fully-insured indemnity type program, not uncommon for organizatjons ¡1¥ Page 58 ----...--- - JUNE 13, 1989 this size in both the public and private sector. He indicated that Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize the chairman to execute the agreement extending any rate increase to an effective date of October 1, 1989. Commissioner Volpe questioned simply absorbing the 24.4 percent increase from June 1 to September 307 Mr. Ochs replied that large losses occurred in the early part of this policy year, shock type losses that are non-recurring, but tIle claim volume is beginning to diminish. He stated that by th:.: .:::,.i of September, the financial accounting for the full 12 months will be at a more normal leve 1, and the County can earn interest by keeping the funds in the County's account and take the risk that the claim history will level off. County Manager Dorrill stated that claims-wise, t~e County's pre- mium is based on claims paid. He ,\Jointed out that 2 è.eath claims were paid in the line of duty and performance of county activities, in addition to an inordinate number of major medical claims involving heart ailments and cancer claims in excess of $100,000. He explained that initially a 40 odd percent rate increase was quoted, and Staff is seeking an extension to coincide with the start of the County's fiscal year. He reported that the County is evaluating totally self-funded coverage for group medical health insurance with stop-loss coverage purchased through a carrier such as Lloyd's of London for catastrophic claim~ and a third party administrator doing the claims administration. He expL:dned that the County is selt- funded for Workman's Compensation and an ample surplus is in that enterprise account. Commissioner Volpe pointed out that the County will not be tied into a renewal with this carrier. as of October 1. Commissioner Sha~ahan commented that the County will hav~ a viable alternative of one type or another by that time and self-funding looks the most promising. Coaai..ioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Co_issioner Hasse and carried unaniaoualy, that the Letter of Agreement regarding group 8edical insurance premium increases be approved. ¡1ß Page ð9 -,_.".- ._~_..._--"-,-,- .JtJ'lŒ 13, 1989 It.. 9E2 ACCEPTAKCE OF DEEDS FOR PHASE IV AND V FOR PROPERTY DEEDED BY AVATAR PROPERTIES IlIC. r/'r./A G.A.C. PROPERTIES, INC., - APPROVKD. RESOLUTION 89-15S CA1fCELLIIIG TAXES-=~PTED Ms. Sandra 7aylor, Real ?roperty Management Director, stated that this item addresses the recommendation to accept the deeds for Phases IV and V for property being deeded by Avatar Properties, Inc., as part of the agreement dated November 15, 1983 by and between Avatar Properties, Inc., f!k!a G.A.C. Properties, Inc., and Collier Co~nty. She pointed out that Collier County entered into an agreement with Avatar Properties, Inc., providing for the transfer of 1,051.5 "'.cres. She noted that the agreement references 5 geographical areas to be dedicated. She explained that on December 31, 1985 the agreement was to be terminated and Phase 4 is located south of Alligator Alley, Phase 5 is located south of Stewart Boulevard. She pointed out that the County Staff was allowed to choose from the acreage available the properties in the County's best interest to include in its inventory. She stated that this agreement is now being presented to the Board of County Commissioners for acceptance. She indicated that Staff, together with the Golden Gate Citizens Advisory Committee, attempted to negotiate with Avatar by the swapping of land south of Alligator Alley for property to the north and a possible cash buyout. She stated that Avatar denied both options. She explained that the County Attorney feels litigation would not benefit the County in cost or out- come because the property in Phases IV and V had b~en selected by Staff and the 1983 agreement has expired. She noted that on April 7, 1989, the Golden Gate Citizens Advisory Committee recommended that the pro- perties known as Phase IV and V and a cash settlement of $12,000, in lieu of any remaining acreage, be accepted. She indicated that the remaining acreage totalled 35 acres at that time, but the Real Property Management Department and Avatar verified the remaining acreage as of yesterday to be 20 acres. She stated that a survey can determine a shortage or overflow of acres and the original exhibit will be submitted for recordation at time of approval. ) g (, Page 60 ... .. ' ---,",_."., --'-----~--"---' ..- ~ JUNE 13, 1989 Mrs. Taylor pointed out that if the Board of County Commissioners recommends acceptance of Phase IV and V properties, Staff recommends approval and execution of the Amendment to the Agreement specifically stating that Avatar Properties, Inc., release any and all oil. gas and mineral rights for land!> in Phase IV and V, enabling the Golden Gate Citizens Advisory Committee to market those lands to the DNR by way of the Collier County Transportation Department and/or local developers. She explained that the ,.U1er.llmen t also releases any restrictions on the number of acres Collier County may sell in a given year. She requested that the resolution can- celling delinquent and current taxes on the properties contained be approved and executed, because Avatar paid their taxes through 1987 and a portion of their taxes through 1988, even though they satisfied their commitment as of December, 1986. She reported that in lieu of the remaining acreage, that the funds be deposited in the GAC Land Trust Account to be used for the spe- cified purposes. She emphasized that if the State of Florida approaches the Board of County Commissioners for purchase of the lands, they should b~ purchased at fair market value and all monies deposited in into the GAC Land Trust. Commissioner Saunders questioned if Attorney Cuyler agreed with the recommendation of accepting the lands? Attorney Cuyler responded that he does. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Ms. Taylor responded that the 3 earlier phases were taken care of in February 1988 and these are the last 2 phases dealing with that agreement. Coaai..ioner Shanahan JaOVed, seconded by Co..issioner Haase and carried unaniaoualy, that acceptance ot deeds for Phase IV and V tor property deeded by Avatar, be approved and to execute the Amondaent to Agre...nt subject to Statf stipulations, and that Resolution 89-155 cancelling the taxes, be adopted. J!7 Page 61 ".....,,"" JüNE 13,1983 .....Recess 5:25 P.M. Reconvened 5:35 P.M...... Itea 9H2 ACCELERATE EXPANSION OF BUILDING "w" TO CONSTRUCT AND PROGRAM A CHILD CARE FACILITY - CONTI~ED TO LATER DATE Co~~tj ~a~açe~ Ja~:~:: ~ta:ed that th~s ~5 a request to determine the Board of Co~~tÏ Co~ffi:ssio~ers' interest as an employer in the pro- visio~ of co~ntj a55:5:~d. ~~t ~ot subsidized, chi:d care. He pointed out that last '¡ea: a s-..:.r'.'ey was cond-..:.cted to è.etermine if therf'- ,¡af; interest '- ai', e:'-'Ì!_-::'-J":":: c:--,:l,: ca;-.: ;>:og::-a;;] ",¡¡d sufficie:1t intere~;~ was expressed for fo::ow-~?, Me noted two concerns: 1) Collier County does ~~t ~a~t .~ ~e ~¡¡ the chi:d care business or license child care operations, and ;) Ca:l:er Co'~ntï coulJ not s-..:.bsidize week:y child ca::-e rates, :;e stater2 :~1at the ir,itial .:onst:uction of the portion of the ware~o~se .~ $20C,COC and t~e other costs for the fixed capital ty;>e ~:e:-:.s :o:a: $270,COO, whic:! ~¡úuld be tl",e portion of the warehouse to ~e -..:.seè as an e~p:oïee c~.i:d care fac:lity. Ee indicated that let- ters of ir,tent s:~,J:d by COU:1:Y employees to c;t:lize this service wO';.llè. ba:ã:,ce ::,e Lust", Ee i¡,dicated a :ict::l\sed private company would CO;::f: -" a:-:d .~,:;':'r¿::c" the fac:::t,y ";',,:(:1';0, cuntract with the employees' 30a:¿ o~ :::~ctQrs, He ex~lalned that the County would be provldi;¡g a re;-:o',;ated .,,):',io[[ of the ,.¡areLo"sf" :'or chilù care and by owr:ersL:p a:' ::,.,. :'",,:i: :~'¡ t:'1e . ~;::c: care ~iOc:.:C: fall under the Co'..mty's umb::-e::a ::1s..;:a::ce co'.-",;age, !-:e e::-,pl"lélsiz,>d t:,.,,: ch::d care is a:1 issue the Cúc:.~tj should be sensitive to, recognizing the number of sing:e pare;'jts with chi:dre;'j, Cú;:;¡¡:issio;-;e:- :õêtsse q'..;estio;,eù ,r eno\lgr: CO":lty employees would use the facilities to make it profit;o,ble fo! a private ente::-p::-ise and/or t~" Cou;-:ty, Co'c;;-,:y Xaniiger :::ol'~i:: responded t:,a: ,,¡¡less enough let- ters of l¡:te:1: a:e sig:';ed by employees this program will not be e::acted, :;~ pointed out :hat weekly ç~i:C: care ra~es can run $70 per week per c:;ild a::è. w:t:: t::e Co-..:.nty providing t:h". facility and the net po:-tion of i:.sura:-,ce coverage or. the fac:::t-¡, ::,e:-e is enough incen- tive to attract private coMpanies, I ~ ~ Page 62 -_.~,--, --- ".-- . -,,--,-- JUNE 13, 1989 Tape #15 Commissioner Hasse questioned if the child care facility would only be for County employees and County Manager Dorrill responded that he was only worried a~out his employees. Commissioner Shanahan emphasized that provision of child care is a major recruitment and employee retenti'Jn tool. He questioned whether it is a capital improvement element presently budgeted for expansion and expense, and is this changing the configuration of the war'!'" house into a child care facility? County Manager Dorrill respon¿¡ed that it is an identified, but not budget related CIE government building project. Commissioner Shanahan questioned if it would be self supportive? County Manager Dorrill stated that the licensed pro- vider will have a contract with the employees association Board of Directors whose children attend the facility. He pointed out that providing space and insurance for the building owned by the County should be an incentive to get an attractive w~ekly rate for a licensed provider of child care. Commissioner Shanahan questioned if it does not work out, is the only cost the accelerated building preparation? County Manager Dorrill responded that is true and there may be the cost of small items, i. e. refrigerator, etc. Commissioner Saunders noted acceleration of construction and a tuture child care facility is what is being asked for. County Manager Dorr ill responded that he will come back to the Board with letters of intent and a type of bid. Commissioner Saunders indicated that employers providing child care is a Wi!ve ùf the future, but pointed out that the County will be in competition with locõll child care pro- viders. He questioned if the County wants to be in that business at all. Commissioner Shanahan noted that competition will be welcome, there is not much child ... care available. Commissioner Volpe stated that he felt a policy decision should be made before the expansion. He noted that displacing a portion of the warehouse that could provide storage for the County and the issues of liability must be explored. He emphasized that it is an excellent J ~ ~ Page 63 ."",.'0' ~--'--'---"~- - -.--- JUNE 13, 1989 tool but he shared the same concerns as Commissioner Saunders regarding competition. County Manager Dorrill pointed out that trying to anticipate school fall terms is a concern, and the facility can be easily built at a relativel" inexpensive cost. In response to Commissioner Volpe, County Manager Dorr 111 noted that the use of the facility as a child care center must be decided before the County solicits bids and propo- saIl>. C011Ul1issioner Saunders stated he felt additional inform~'<; ic'n is needed to make a policy decision. Clerk Jim Giles pointed out t:1at the space could be utilized for the Clerk and/or the County Manager and Oil- s te storage is extremely desirable. He indicated that this building is an appropriate site for him, his employees and housing microfilm records. Commissioner Volpe noted th~t the money is not in this year's budget. A discussion followed about continuing this to a future date. Co..i..ioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner S~~n.n." to cont~e to a future date the expansion ot Building .w. tor a child care tacili ty. Commissioner Goodnight pointed out that this will pose a hardship to the mothers of children planning child care for the school year. She noted that as a working mother, she would rather have her children on-site. She noted concerns about proper child care and pointed out that the David Lawrence Center has expanded. the YMCA has expanded and the Conservancy provides child care during the Summer. She emphasized that either the County should do it now or not at all. Commissioner Saunders stated that continuing is not forever and more information on day care is essential before he casts his vote in favor of it. County Manager Dorrill pointed out that an opportunity may exist to have something available after the school's Christmas recess. Commissioner Hasse stated that many things, 1. e. age limit, etc. must be determined and he recommends deferring it. He noted that child care would improve the employee pool tremendously. Upon call tor the question, the motion carried 4/1. (Co_lssloner 1 & ~ Page 6. . '-_<"--0--0' ,.--_._-",_.--.,.-......,---~- .7UNE 13, 1989 Gooðnlght OãJPO..d). County Ma~ager Dorrill thanked the Board for their interest and noted their questions will be res~lved by mid-July or the first of Aug".ls t . It:- 9B3 APPROPIlIATE ACTION TO BE TADK BY STAn' RELATIV:! TO THE VOLUHTARY PAYMKKT OF 1989/90 TAX BY CERTAIN OMITTED PROPERTIES IK THE MARCO ISLAKD BEACHFRORT RENOORISHMEHT M.S.T.U. AND CHANGE o~ ORDIKAKCE 88-59 TO I_CLUDE THE OMITTED PROPERTIES --- Harold Huber, Tech:ìica: Services Supervisor, stated that the objective is to obtain direction from the Board ~f County Commissioners whereby Staff can determine the action necessary to include certain parcels in the Marco Island Beachfront Renourishment M.S.T.U. He indicated that when the County obtained the current taxable value for the property to be included in this taxing district, 4 parcels intended to be included were omitted due to the legal description accompanying Ordinance 88-59. He noted that request is made for the Board of County Commissioners to provide direction for Staff to provide for the inclusion of the omitted parcels into the M.S.T.U. and if the answer if yes, authorization is required to adver- tise for an amendment to Ordinance 88-59 whereby a proper legal description can be provided for inclusion of the parcels. He noted the curr/~nt taxable value of these parcels is $26,563,525.00 and based on a tax levy of 1.2 mils, the estimated revenue generated will be $31,876.23. Commissioner Shanahan emphasize~ that Staff should do all things necessary to provide for the inclusion of these omitted parcels in the M.S.T.U. as quickly as possible and Ordinance 88-59 should be amended to include the proper legal description for the omitted parcels. He pointed out that these parcels cannot be included until 1990/'H, but he understood that two of the omitted parcels have voluntarily agreed to pay the 1989/90 taxes. Mr. Huber stated that Mr. Blanchard will address that. Commissioner Shanahan noted that it was an honest oversight and / 11~ Page 65 .-.,,--,.-. -""-'-'---'-'--' ' JUNE 13, 1989 mistake with no effect on the M.S.T.U. election and it has no reflection on the bo~d issue and the sale of bonds. Mr. Huber concurred. Mr. Frank Blanchard of Marco Island, noted two letters of sup- port present in the Executive packet, in effect, are self-annexation letters stating that two of the properties who did not have any registered voters would correct the omission of their properties ft'om the assessment rolls. He stated that he talked with the managar ~1 the Eagle's Nest Time Share Operation, Phase I I, the larger part of the operation, and that was also ina~vertently omitted. He pointed out that he had not spoken with the Emerald Beach Condominium which has 70 or 75 units, about a letter of support. He indicated that direction from the Board of County Commissioners in a letter suggesting voluntary payment of the 89/90 tax would eliminate the question of all properties paying their fair share. Commissioner Saunders questioned if it would be appropriate for the Board of County Commissioners to direct Staff to take appropriate action to include the omitted parcels in the Marco Island Beachfront Renourishment M.S.T.U., amend Ordinance 88-59 to include a proper legal description for the omitted parcels and direct the County Attorney and Mr. Huber to work with Mr. Blanchard to draft a letter for his signature. Commissioner Shanahan concurred and noted that the Board must recognize it will all be voluntary regarding the 89/90 taxes. He pointed out that after arn.mding the Ordinance all the omitted parcels will go on the tax rolls for 1990/91. Co-i..ioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Co..issioner Has.. and carried unaniaously, that the omitted parcels be added to the tax rolls, Ordinance 88-59 be amended, and letters be prepared by Statt reque.ting voluntary payment or the 1989/90 taxes. It.. 9H4 4TH FLOOR SJŒLL TO THE COURTHOUSE TO BE ADDED U1fDER CUR.R1DI'T CO.STRUCTIO. COlfTRACT AIm STA1"1!' TO STUDY ADDITIOK OP 5TH AIm 6TH FLOORS - APPROVED Tom Conrecode, Capital Projects Management Acting Director, noted that Don Mehan, the producer of the analysis and report tracking for I jV Page 66 -- JUNE 13, 1989 court functions and caseloads, and Mikp. Jordan, the architect of the project are present. He displayed a diagram of the additional floors to be added to the Courthouse. He indicated the 1989 BEBR population figures reflect the difference between those numbers and the numbers originally used for the program of a 3-story courthouse facility. He noted that it was designpd with a service life of a 3-story structure into 1997, but based on the increased population figures, creates a need for additional space in 1990. Commissioner Saunders questi~ned how many additional floors would be needed in 1990? Mr. Conrt~cod,;, responded that one additional floor would be needed, and the addi- tional floors would be needed in 2004 and 2005. County Manager Dorrill stated that judges are desirous of having as much courthouse as possible. He pointed out that Fund 301 of the Capital Improvement Budget is currently 13 million dollars out of balance for next year, and as a res\.ilt the County Manager has to defer, cut or cancel 13 million dollars worth of capital improvement projects from next year's budget before it comes before the Board of County Commissioners at their workshop. He explained that the only thing the County can afford to do is the 4th floor shell, and the County does not have the money to do that. He pointed out that if the Board does add the 4th floor she 11, it will seriol1sly affect the shell being put on the new health building or push back even further any serious construction on the expansion of the jail, and other capital improvements. Commissioner Hasse questioned handlin1 the $1,000,000 for the shell? County Manager Dorr1l1 responded that can be handled pro- vided sufficient interest is recognized when more judges appear to be arriving, but the County does not have the money to finish it in next year's budget. He explained that the only reason the option ~o add a Hh floor is being considered is because of the direction of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Hasse questioned the courthouse supporting all the additional floors in relation to the existing courthouse? Mr. Dorrill responded that a contract to renovate the J g 1 Page 67 .. -......--- . ->, -,,-_.. JUNE 13, 1989 existing courthouse for the use of the Clerk will not be affected, but is programmed for Jim Gile&' functions. Clerk Giles stated that when use of the Judges increases from 3 to 4 floors, the Clerk has to add clerks to serve the Judges, and that needs to be projected also. Commissioner Hasse questioned County Manager Dorr i 11 if anything can be done with the existing courthouse, i. e. going higher? Mr. Dorrill responded that the building could be expanded vertically, but some problems would occur with columns and soil stabilization for tll<: foun- dation. He empha;õized that it is easier to add floors to the courthouse while the contractor is here, and that is why it has been brought to the Board of County Commissioners. Clerk Giles questioned adding concrete to the foundation in order to stabilize BIll Iding "A" and add additional floors? Commissioner Saunders questioned if the 5th and Cth floor additions are based on current projections, or when will they be needed based on the growth occurring now? Mr. Conrecode responded the year 2004, and that is an updated analysis. Commissioner Saunders asked how much it would cost to renovate Building "A"? County Manager Dorrill responded $2,000,000. Commissioner Saunders stated that Building "A" is old and has had tre- mendous problems. In response to County Manager Dorrill's request, Mr. Conrecode stated that gross square footage of the courthouse is 23,000 square feet per floor, but he could not ascertain if the square footage in Building "A" is 46,000 square feet. Commissioner Saunders pointed out that if the Courthouse iR finished off to 6 floors, it will be a lot cheaper to do it now, than in 5, 6 or 7 years and thê! extra floors can be used to provide extra space for the Clerk or whoever needs it. He also noted that at that time the County could also decide whether or not to tear down Building "A" and bui Ie' a 4 or 5 story administration building. Clerk Giles stat~d that in the design phase of Building "A", people move from one building to another, and a substantial architec- tural expense will occur if the County chooses to make that change. Commissioner Saunders pointed out the expense of going up on the admi- t f'i Page 68 - .",-.._"_'0 JUNE 13, 1989 nistrativl! part of the jail building would cost approximately $1,000,000 to remove the roof and that does not include the cost of the addition, and that adding floors to an existing building is not economical. Mr. Dorrill indicated that a properly finished roof is also expensive, and Commissioner Saunders pointed out that finishing the 4th floor and not finishing the 5th and 6th floor until the year 2000 would require a permanent roof. Mr. Conrecode stated th¿>, t the economic analysis showed the addit ion of the 4th floor shell would be beneficial and if the 5th and 6th floor are added and fully utilized, the dollars are utilized, but if the floors are not utilized the dollars are better spent on other capital projects. Commissioner Volpe indicated that finishing off floors 4, 5 and 6 are not included in the number,,>, and an additional $6,000,000 is the correct figure. Commissioner Saunders pointed out that shelling in 4, 5 and 6 allows the County to finish the floors over a period of time, and $2,000,000 of the Building "A" Fund could be used to shell off all 3 floors, and a floor or two of the 3 final floors coulå be programmed into our Capital I~provements Fund. County Manager Dorrill pointed out that the only decision that has to be made today is building the 4th floor. Commissioner Shanahan noted that electing to go on the 4th floor allows the flexibility of going to 5 and 6 in the future. Co..i.sioner Hasse moved, seconded by Comairaioner Sh.~.han and carried unaniaously, that Option "8", adding a 4th tloor shell be approved and Statf is directed to study the building ot a 5th and 6th t locr shell. It.. 9H5 I'IKAL PLAT "THE VIKriARDS UHIT 3 - CHAIRMAK TO MEET WITH PRIKCIPALS TO RESOLVE DIFFEREHCES RE SCHOOL AND PARE SITE Assistant to the County Manager Olliff explained that ongoing negotiations for the final plat of The Vineyards Unit 3 designated to include a school and park site have not been concluded. He pointed out that trying to site those facilities on one location has not been an easy job. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Olliff stated } gq Page 69 .,._---,-- --- JUNE 13, 1989 that some d~tails need to be worked out. Commissioner Volpe questioned the lack of an executive summary and asked for Staff's recommendations? In response to Commissioner Volpe and Mr. Olliff, County Attorney Cuyler recommended authorization of the Chairman to execute the plat wh....n the requirements of the PUD, the School Board parcel and County parcel have been satisfied. He noted that the Chairman will have the authority to sign it after the requirements have been satisfied, and the developer can have the plat signed. \'"hlle the Board of County Commissioners are on vacation. Commissioner Saunders explained that he had been discussing this with Wafaa Assaad, Dr. Ritchie of the School Board, Assistant County Manager McLemore, Tom Olliff, Ken Cuyler among others and there is an impasse regarding the park site and the school site. He noted that Dr. Ritchie has to have final a?Jproval of the site for the school within 2 weeks in order to have the school bull t next year. He indi- cated that he would ask the Commission for authorization to sign plats or agreements acceptable to Dr. Ritchie, County Manager Dorrill and County Attorney Cuyler in the next two weeks. He poir.ted out that he had indicated to Mr. Assaad that he will not sign anything that is not acceptable to Dr. Ritchie. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Commissioner Saunders stated that there is no agreement for the number of acres that the school will receive and what the County will receive for the park, where the school site will be located, water management issues, and a com- bination of issues that have not been re£olved. County Manager Dorrill noted 3 primary issues: 1) The school is in a hurry and trying to carve out the piece of property needed, 2) The Vineyards is concerned about marketing and selling adjacent single and multi-family properties without sufficient buffering and landscaping, 3) The County will not have the parcel necessary to meet the requirements for its park after the buffers, retention lake and school parcel have been carved ou t. Commissioner Volpe indicated that, in his view, this is another instance where this item was added to the agenda at the ele- ¡qO Page 70 .' ------,,- JUNE 13, 1989 venth hour as an emergency. He noted that these issues were not resolved at the time of the relocation of the fire station site. He questioned why the issues have been identified, but the County is not any close, to a resolution? County Manager Dorrill responded that the County is trying to cooperate and help the School Board with the time requirements allowing the building a new school on this property, but the County does net want to give away a good park site. In respon,,-e to Commissioner Volpe. Mr. Dorrill responded that the relocat1c~ of the fire station site was a miniscule problem, now solved. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Dorrill pointed out that the developer has full liability for a segment of the road used as a public road and has a cuntractor who cannot be released from the security to receive his retainage and cannot complete the installation of street lights. an annual budgetir:g cycle from Florida Power and Light. He noted that the school has a two week time limitation cri- sis, but the County simply wants to protect the County's long-term interest on what will be left over for the park. Wafaa Assaad, Project Manager fOl The Vineyards, stated that request for acceptanc~ of the Plat, as proposed, does not show the division line between the school site and the County park site and the properties belonging to 7he Vineyards. He noted that all the property is in one tróct of land. Tract "S" as displayed. bound by Vanderbilt Beach Road to the north, I-75 to the West, the newly constructed and finished Vineyards Boulevard to the P:lst, triangular in shape and the size will remain the same. He explained that this piece of land is earmarked for the school site, County park and village square to be developed by The Vineyards. He stated that the plat requirements have b....en met, the road has been finished, the utilities have been constructed, and the fire station site withdrawn by The Vineyards. He stated that The Vineyards has complied with all requirements but Staff did not approve the plans. He reported that without recording of the plat: 1) The Vineyards are liable for the road when it is constructed, landscaped and open to the public, 2) the contractor's I C} l Page 71 '-"""'-'--' -'- JUNE 13, 1989 obligation to guarantee the road for a period of one year from the date of preliminary acceptance cannot be released until the plat is accepted. and 3) a street lighting district cannot be obtained without a letter of authorization from the County Engineer. He pointed out that the developer negotiated in good faith and the technical require- ments have been met and should be accepted for recordation. He empha- sized that he will not disband any pieces of property nor sell any of the property. Commissioner Volpe questioned what the County is negotiat:!.ng? Mr. Assaad responded that the highlights of the negotiation are not rela- tive to the location of the tract, but rather to how the property should be divided. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the impasse exists between the County and the School or the Coun~y and The Vineyards? Mr. Assaad noted t~~t he could not respond to that. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Assaad indicated that he complied with the proposal of May 9, 1989. A discussion followed about the impasse with Staff. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Assaad replied that appro- val of the fractionalization or site plan of the boundary lines would not require an amendment to the Plat or a Plat by itself. County Manager Dorr ill stated that his concern is the negotiation stalemate and the County's history of being taken advantage of. He explained that after carving out a piece for the village square, School Board. lake, buffer strip, an oddly shaped C-piece of property frontiny along the Canal is left, which may someday be acquired by DOT for 1-75. Commissioner Volpe questioned how many acres were initially committed for the park? County Manager Dorrill responded 34 and the County could be left with only 9 acres for the park. Commissioner Hasse questioned the agreement last time, and Mr. Dorrill noted a ver- bal agreement reached attributed 36 acres to the County. Commissioner Shanahan questioned recording plat "$" with a commitment from the developer for the County to receive 31 acres in that subdivision? Mr. Dorrill indicated that this has to be renegotiated for the County. 191/ Page 72 --"---'.._' ," JUNE 13, 1989 Attorney Cuyler recommended the plat not be recorded because it is not the typical plat where meeting the requirements is satisfactory. He explained that everyone is trying to protect their interests, 1. e. the School Board, Mr. Assaad. and the County. In response to Commissioner Hasse, he indicated that the proposed plat of usable acreage left nothing to build a park on, and that is where the problem lies. Mr. Roger Otten, Director of Planning for the Collier County Schools, spoke on behalf of the Superintendent of Schools and ~~1:.~d to clarify several points. He noted the School Board and the County have not fought over any of this, the school cannot be long and narrow in shape, 27 acres was not needed for an elementary school and if an agreement is not reached within 2 weeks, they cannot build the school this year. He emphasized that next August, 952 children will be affected by not having that school, and it is critical to build an ele- mentary school on that site. He pointed out that if the County did not have a park on that site, the School would need more than 18 acres. He questioned adjusting the plat and going back to the origi- nal 27 acres for the school and 34 lor the park. Commissioner SauT.ders reiterated his offer to act as a facilitator to resolve this on a fast-track basis and suggested a negotiating session on Thursday morning. He pointed out that he will not do anything ~ontrary to the interest of the School Board or the County Manager. In response to Mr. Assaad, Comml.ssioner Saunders emphasized that, in any event, he would not vote to approve the plat today. A discussion followed about alternatives and the division of this acreage. Mr. Assaad indicated his willingness and desire to continue to find a satisfactory solution for all parties concerned. Commissioner Saunders stated that he will not sign off on the plat until the entire issue is resolved. A discussion followed about the time period. Co..is.~oner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Has.. and carried unaniaously, that Co..issioner Saunders be authorized to aeet ,qg Page 13 ~.,_~'M"'-' JiJH1! 13, 1989 with the developer, the School Board and County Statt to resolve approval at the plat. In response to Mr. Assaad, Commissioner Saunders requested Mr. Assaad, Mr. Otten, Attorney Cuyler, Assistant County Manager McLemore and someone from the County Manager's office familiar with this matter to meet at his Conference Room at 801 Laurel Oak Drive at 10:00 A.M. Thursday, June 15, 1989. ... Deputy Clerk Boftaan replaced Deputy Clerk Eratt at this tj~~ ... It.. nlf7 COOJrTY MAKAGER' S A.JnroAL REVIEW AND SALARY ADJUSTMENT - 7-1/2' IKCREASE APPROVED RETROACTIVE TO MAY 27, 1989 County Manager Dorrill stated that May 27, is his anniversary date. He noted that in keeping with past practice, he sent a memo to Commissioner Saunders on the Monday following his anniversary date, outlining the more significant achievements, a self-analysis, and the goals and objectives arising from the past year which he intends to improve on in the coming year. He advised that he is proud of the job that he has, and he has always enjoyed working for the County. He indicated that the issue he has ident if ied for the Commission today, is salary. He explained that he has identified the corre5ponding amounts which ar~ available under the current pay-tor-performance system that are eligible tor all other County employees, and how this will affect his bi-weekly check. Commissioner Saunders advised that when the Pay-For-Performance Plan was approved for the 88-89 budgnt cycle, his concern was whether the County was loosing control of the budget process as it relates to salaries, since the Plan required 7-1/2% for employees who were rated excellent. He questioned if the Manager is given a pay-for- performance raise right now of 7-1/2%, is it fair to the other employees if the program is not funded to the extent that is suf- ficient to give everyone who is rated excellent 7-1/2%7 County Manager Dorrill.advised that the Pay-For-Performance system is in the current year's budget. He reported that there has not been q4 Page 74 ..._.."-'-' .,- JUNE 13, 1989 an abuse of the system, noting that only 28-29\ of the total County employees are being judged in the excellent category. ColIUllissioner Shan'3.han stated that he feels that the Manager has been an excellent guiding force for him. as a new Commissioner. He noted that he believes that Mr. Dorrill has been excellent in the objectives and achievements that he has provided for the County, and he is confident that the goals and objectives that he has for the coming year will be beneficial for the County. CO88d..ioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Co..is.ioner Has~d, r:hat County Manager Dorrlll's Annual Pertoraance Review be rated as excel1-ent. In answer to Commissioner Has!:ie, County Manager Dorrill advised that every County employee receives an annual review on his anniver- sary date, and the subsequent adjustment is made in the next pay check. Commissioner Volpe stated that he assumes that any adjustment in the County Manager's salary will be r'i:!troactive to May 27th. County Manager Dorr ill indicated that this is what was done last year, and that is what he is recommending. Commissioner Volpe indicated that he has had limited experience with County Manager Dorrill, but noted that he has been very pleased wi th the professionalism of the r'¡anager and his Staff. He stated that he concurs with Commissioner Shanahan's comments. Commissioner Hasse stated that if other employees' increments are due on their anniversary date, he sees nn reason why the same should not apply for the Manager. He no:ed that he has not seen a more dedi- cated., trustworthy, and efficient Manager in his 20 years experience in County/City Government, than that of r'¡r. Dorri11. He indicated that he supports the "excellent" recommendation for the Manatjer. Tape #1 Commissioner Saunders explained that he has no problem with a 7-1/2\ increase for County Manager Dorr ill, noting that he feels that he has done an excellent job. He stated that there are things that he /q( Page 75 -,-...- -~ ,...---.. JUNE 13, 1989 would like to see in terms of cost effectiveness and cost efficiency. Commissioner Goodnight statp.d that she feels County Manager Dorr i 11 has shown the professionalism that is needed for County Government, and has also displayed a common sense approach. She indi- cated that she is very pleased with Mr. Dorrill, and also recommends him for an excellent review. Upon call for the question, the motion carried unan1aously. It.. nH8 REC~DATI0R TO APPROVE RANXING OF CONSULTANTS TO PROVIDE ~GIIEERIRG SE~CES FOR THE COLLIER COURTY BEACH RENOURIsHMEHT PROGftAM - COASTAL PLANNING & ENGIKEERING, INC. AND COASTAL ENGINEERING COJrSULTANTS, INC. TO MAKE PRESENTATIONS TO BCC ON 7/6/89 Technical Services Supervisor Huber stated that this item is a request to approve the ranking of consultants for the Beach Renourishment Program. Commissioner Shanahan indicated that he feels that the Bp.ach Renourishment Program and the ranking of a consultant is an '_xtremely important issue and a ma~or commitment. He noted that in reading the consent agenda, the Commission would be recommending Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. of Boca Raton, if this item was not reviewed and if no changes were suggested. Mr. Huber advised that Commissioner Shanahan is correct, noting that the recommendation is for the Board to approve the ranking as indicated in the Executive Summary, and to authorize Staff to nego- tiate a contract. He noted that on February 28, 1989, the Commission directed that any further services performed relative to this Program, be subject to Request For Proposals, in accordance with the Consultants' Cornp~titive Negotiation Act. He reported that Staff distributed the RFP's, and three formal proposals were received. He noted that each firn made a presentation and was reviewed by the Selection Committee, adding that upon conclusion of the interviews, the Committee ranked the firms as follows: 1. Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. Boca Raton, Florida 2. Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Naples, Florida ,q(, Page 76 . .", JUNE 13, 1989 3. Applied Technology and Management, Inc. Gainesville, Florida Commissioner Shanahan stated that when he saw that the numbers between the two top firms were so close, and one was a local firm that has been involved with the County's Beach Renourishment Program, he felt that the Board should lo~k at presentations by the top two firms, for final recommendation. Coaai..ionar Shanahan aoved that a date be set tor the two top ranked f1raa to aake presentations to the Co..ission. Motion d16ód tor lack ot a ..cond. Commissioner Volpe stated that he feels that Staff has done what they were directed t~ do. He indicated that they were asked to send out RFP's, rank the consultants. and then come back to the Board. He noted that he is very confused about the County's Policy. County Manager Dorril- advised that generally, if the Board directs Staff to rank the consultants, they i'\ssume that they are to immediately rank negotiations with the #1 firm. He noted that if the Commission desires to conduct the interviews, he suggests that Staff be directed to prepare the short list, without ranking the tirms, and then the Commission can select the consultant. Coaai..ioner Hasse aoved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe, to approve the final ranking ot the Consultant Selection Coaaittee, and authorize Statt to negotiate a contract with Coastal Planning and Engineering, Inc. ot Boca Raton, Florida. Commissioner Shanahan advised that h.! cannot vote for the motion, since he feels that the top two firms should be interviewed, and the Board should make the final decision. Commissioner Saunders stated that his suggestion is that the Commission should interview the top tW(J f i rl".<>. Mr. Tom Campbell. President of CoastiJl Planning and Engineering, Inc., stated that during the selection process, Staff has been very professional in the requirements for th'~ project. He noted that it took his firm one week to answer all Hoe questions that were posed to q 1 Page 77 -'~"---""" JUNE 13, 1989 them. He encouraged the Commission to move forward, addin¡;¡ that he will be happy to give a presentation, if this is the Board's desire. Mr. Prank Blanchard, rE;sident of Marco Island, stated that he feels the selection of Coastal Engineering of Naples should be sup- ported. He noted that they are a local firm, and they will be imme- diately available for any discussions or questions relati:1g to a project. Upon call tor the question, the motion tailed 1/4 (CO..iS8ione't's Sh~n.},.n, Volpe, Goodnight and Saunders opposed). Coaaissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse, and carried unaniaoualy, that the two top ranked tiras make presentations to the Board on .July 6, 1989, tor final decision. ... CO..is8ioner Saunders lett the aeeting at 7:3ð P.M. ... It.. .10A RZCUl'll'lAJlluATIO1I RE CASE OF COLLIER C;JUHTY, PLAIN'l'IFJ', VS. UNITED STATES 1.iXr:iUM COMPAn A1rD ULSOK FURBER, DEn1fDAN'l'S, CASE NO 8ð-0970 - 5 :!TT'LEMEIIT APPROVED WI TH E.A CH P Aft TY BEAR I N G ITS OWl'( FE E 5 AlfD C 0 S T S AND CASE DISMISSED w;ITtL~.JUDICE MITH RESPECT TO NELSON A. FAERBER County Attorney Cuïl~r stated that the offer of a settlement regarding this case was explained to the Commission by Assistant County Attorney Weigel a couple of weeks ago, and the Board authorized the settlement. He noted that this is a recommendation, based on out- side counsel, that the Board of County Commissioners approve settle- ment of Case No. 85-0970 with defendant Nelson A. Faerber with each party bearing its own fees and costs and the case being dismissed with prejudice with respect to Nelson A. Faerber. Coaaissioner Shanahan moved, secon~d by Commissioner Goodnight and carried 4/0 (Commissioner Saunders absent), to accept the recom- aend.a.t1on as provided by County Attorney CUyler ~ ~ 9. m. 1- /J1... 3 It.. .1~1 & llA2 ÖUUU~~ ~ 89-205-206,208-209,211-213 AND 219 - ADOPTED Coaai8sioner Goodnight aoved, seconded by Commi8sioner Shanahan and carried ./0 (Co..i..ioner Saunders absent), that Budget Aaendaents 89-20ð, 206. 208, 209, 211, 213 and 219, be adopted. Jq q Page 78 <""",,-.-- .. -,' -"'--.---.-- JUNE 13, 1989 It.. #11A3 BOwn AJŒJrDtm]fT R.!SOLUTIO!1 89-17 - ADOPTED Coaa1..ioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Co..i.sioner Shanahan and carried 4/0 (Co..issioner Saunders absent), that Budget Aaendment Resolution 89-17 be adopted. c¡O-C. / See Page. Ite. #12A DISCOSSIO. RE GOODLAJrn MARINA - COUNTY ATTOMEY TO l'URTHER uv.n;. SITE PLA.lf WITH PLA.I1II.G STAn, MEET WITH GOODLAXD CITIZENS AID RE1'O~T ~ACX TO THE BCC UPOK THEIR RETURN FROM SUMMER RECESS County Attorney Cuyler stated that la$t week, a number of the citizens from Goodland presented themselves to the Board and raised concerns regarding the taking out of mangroves and other le~al issues relating to the Goodland Marina. He reported that the complaints can be separated into three areas: the general ability of the developer, and whether he has the right to do what he is doing; the manner in which the developer is constru::ting, and differences between the old and new site plan; and, the removal of vegetation on the site. County Attorney Cuyler advised that with regard to the removal of vegetation on the site. the :u..;;1ty has sent inspectors to the site, and the removal is within the scope of the permit. Community Development Administrator Brutt advised that Inspector Ed Maguire went to the site and conducted a thorough review. He noted that Mr. Maguire provided a statement of satisfaction that the develo- pers are conducting themselves within the permlt:'> that have been issued by other agencies. County Attorney Cuyler indicated that with regard to the general ability of the developer to develop a marina on the property, he noted that his opinion i'5 that the County can litigate this issue, but he believes that the County will loose. He stated that based on the rights that were acquired in the settlement agreement, the subsequent rezone will not automatically grant vested rights, but coupled with the agreement that numerous parties entered into, and the developers /q'1 Pa~e 79 ,---.,,-.- ' ..--,... JUNE 13, 1989 purchase of the property, they will be found to have a general right to construct on the property under marina development zoning. With regard to the site plan, County Attorney cuyler indicated that he will need adòitional time to review this further with the Planning Department. Commissioner Volpe noted that there were two site plans shown to the Board last week, adding that there may be a significant deviation in the site plan. He questioned whether the developers should bn allowed to proceed during the time in which Mr. Cuyler is comple>ting his analysis? County Attorney Cuyler explained that it is his understanding that the developers will not be in a position to pull any building permits for the next 90 days, adding that his evaluation will be completed by that time. Mr. Bud Kornse, resident of Goodland, stated that he has concerns regarding the marina because of the effect this project will have on the environment. He noted that under the settlement agreement, he understands that the lease expired, and if it did, he questioned how was it renewed? He further noted that this project was advertised for a 10 acre marina site, and it actually comes to 15.83 acres. He indi- cated that upon review of the site plan, this project will comprise 30+ acres. He questioned whether the developers are in compliance with the Growth Management Plan, and the original PUD? He referred to the permit by the Corps of Engineers which gives authorization to complete the residential resort community on thE' Gulf of Mexico, adding that this project is not residential, nor is it on the Gulf of Mexico. Commissioner Hasse suggested that Mr. Kornse meet with County Attorney Cuyler to ascertain whether the issues he has raised are within the legal limitations of the developers. Mr. Kornse replied that he will be happy to make an appointment to meet with Mr. Cuyler. Mr. Elhanon Combs of Goodland, stated that Commissioner Hasse's suggestion to meet with County Attorney Cuyler is exactly what he 1°0 Page 80 -~ ~,,"-~~--- JUNE 13, 1989 wanted to hear. Attorney Richard Aaron, representing Maritime Ventures, advised that the site development plan was circulated prior to submission to the County Staff for approva 1. He indicated that the site plan was circulated to all the signatures to that Agreement, including the County, and subsequent to that, th~ Development Services Department cited that this plan conformed to the PUD. He advised that one of the signatures was the Collier County Conservancy, and he has a Ip.+ 1:t.'r from Dr. Benedict indicating that the site plan does conform to '~ile intent of the settlement agreement, and the changes that have been made a~e environmentally beneficial in design to the prior plan. He stated that the developers do not intend to apply for a building per- mit during the time that the Commissio:, is in summer recess. County Attorney Cuyler stat~d that he will keep the developers and the citizens of Goodland advised of his analysis, and will provide a report to the Commission upon return from their vacation. It.. #12C APPOI~~S OF 1989-90 COLLIER COUNTY FAIR MANAGERS, AUDREY .JOHlfSON AHD GEO1lGE FRAZER - APPROVED Commissioner Goodnight reported that a letter has be~n received from Bill Hill, Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, Inc. President, advising that he has appointed the following as managers tor the 1989-90 Collier County Fair: Audrey Johnson - Fair Manager George Frazer - Concession Manager coami..ioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Coamis.ioner Shanahan and carried ./0 (Co..issioner Saunders absent), to approve the appolnt8ents ot Audrey .Johnson and George Frazer, as managers tor the 1989-90 Collier County Fair. It.. #12D REQUEST COKCERKI.G PROCESSING OF THE REZONE FOR PROPERTY AD.JACERT TO FARMMORDR' S VILLAGE IN IMMOJCALEE - STAl"l" TO FAST TRAC" REZOlŒ Commissioner Goodnight stated that several weeks ago, this Board authorized the Collier County Housing Authority to take $90,000 out of ~ol Page 81 --,-- ,-'-----"- JUNE 13, 1989 the pocket-of-poverty funds to purchase property adjacent to the Farm- Worker's Village in Immokalee. She indicated that this land is zoned A-2, and the Commission is being requested to authorize Staff to fast track the rezone, so that construction of the houses can commence. coaai..ioner Goodnight aoved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and carried 4/0 (co..issioner Saunders absent), to authorize Start to tast track the rezone tor the Collier County Housing Authority. It.. #128 DISCUSSIO. OF MODEL HOME REGULATIOJfS - TEMPORARY USE AUTHORI2:1..}1 ,,¡~rJ LUI.&~B Bt71fT Community Development Administrator Brutt reported that the complaints which were registered by Mr. Hunt last week have been investigated. He stated that if Mr. Hunt had advised Staff from the beginning that he intended to build a house as a model home for display purposes for sale, etc., the answers that were given to him would have been different. He indi~ated that Mr. Hunt applied for a permit to build a single-family home, received the Certificate of Oc-:upancy, and then came in and stated that he wanted to change this to a model home. He explained that if intentions of the model home were presented to Staff in the beginning, Mr. Hunt would have been inforI:led that this house had to be designed as a model home, that landscaping and parking plans were required, and that a sign permit was required. He advised that Mr. Hunt did not have a landscaping plan, but he provided the xericscape, and as a result, he could not get a final C.O. for his project. Mr. Brutt stated that as a result of Mr. Hunt filing complaints about the fact that some of the signs on Marco Island contain excess material, inspectors have responded, and have given verbal instruc- tions to the people that have the signs and have violated the Code, and to those who do not have the proper signage for the handicapped parking, advising that they should take the necessary steps to correct the violations. Mr. Brutt indicated that in order for Mr. Hunt to receive a C.O., 1°1/ Page 82 .." --- ----.---'...--.. ..,-- --d--m' JUNE 13, 1989 he must sati~fy the landscaping requirements of the present Code, alter the buffering of the parking space, because it is a commercial operation in a residential zone. He noted that the only way to change this, is that of a Policy decision made by the Commission. Commissioner Hasse questioned what Mr. Hunt is required to do to correct hls situation? Mr. Brutt explained that in order for Mr. Hunt to satisfy the Code, he is required to provide the normal shrubbery buffer which is 3' high, in a 5' strip. Commissioner Shanahan indicated that there have been sever~l ,;r)m- municatioD gaps and misunderstandings in Mr. Hunt's approach to receive his permits and the necessary approvals. He noted that he believes that Mr. Hunt did approach the County in good faith to obtain these approvals. He stated that Mr. Hunt has put together a beautiful xericscape project and it is truly in the County's best interest to work with him. He suggested that Staff work with Mr. Hunt on the xericscape, provide the C. 0., and eliminate the need for the 3' buffer around the parking area. He indicated that he believes that there should be a clear, concise plan for model homes. Mr. Brutt advised that he has inJtructed Staff to include in the revisions of the Zoning Code, an insert which specifically addresses the model home situation. Commissioner Shanahan stated that he is recommending that the 3' buffer requirement around the parking lot be waived, in lieu of the tradeoff for the xericscape plan. Commissioner Volpe noted that th': County makes these laws, and it should also observe these laws. He indicated that Commissioner Shanahan's recommendation is a very reasonable and practical approach, but others will be asked to comply with the same law. County Attorney Cuyler advised that he is not aware of any provi- sion which would exempt this. Mr. Brutt stated that Staff can work up language indicating that "xericscape is an approved method of landscaping in front of a model home". ~oJ Page 83 -'-' ----.'-..-..- ..--. ",.,,-,-.,-- r JUNE 13, 1989 County Manager Dorrill suggested that the Commission authorize a temporary use permit, as it relates to the time between now and when the revised language can be bronght back to the Board. Co..issioner Shanahan moved, s~conded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried 4/0 (Co.missioner Saunders absent), that Mr. Hunt be issued. teaporary use per.it. It.. .1483 ~ BETMEEB COLLIER COUHTY ASSOCIATES FOR THE CROSSINGS II, LTD., AKD KATIO.AL DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES OF FLORIDA, IKC. AJID COLí'.ID COUKTY - COKTIBUED IKDEFIKlTELY -,--- Assistant to the County Manager Olliff asked that this item be continued indefinitely, at the request of the Crossings. He indicated that they have worked out a better solution. Co..issioner Shanahan aoved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried 4/0 (Co..issioner Saunders absent), that Ite. 14H3, be continued indet1nitely. ... ..... Co..issioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Sh.nahan and carried 4/0, (Co..issioner Saunders absent) that the tollowing iteas under the Consent Agenda be approved and or adop- ted: ..... It.. #14Al AUTHORIZATIOK FOR REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FROM QUALIFIED ENGIREERING COKSULTAKTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OP COLLIER VILLAGE UTILIZIKG COMMUHITY DEVELOPMEKT BLOCX GRANT FUNDS AND CONCEPT APPROVAL FOR APPOINTMENT OF SELECTIOK COMMITTEE Item .UA2 FIKAL PLAT OF "CRYSTAL LAlŒ RV RESORT PHASE ORE" - WITH STIPULATIONS 1. That the final plat not be recorded until the required impro- vements have been constru~ted and accepted or until approved security is received for the incompleted improvements and that construction shall be completed within 36 months of the d.;¡te of this approval. 2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the Construction and Maintenance Agreement. 3. That no building permits be issued until the final plat is recorded. 4. Construction shall not begin until construction plans have been approved by Project Review Services. See Pages 91)- n. 1- v~ Ite. .14Cl 1-°~ Page e4. -----~-'"'" '." . -",' I .1UJŒ 13, 1989 BID #89-1398 CERAMIC TILING OP RESTROOM FLOORING AT KORTH RAPLEs, GOLDa GAn: UD IMMOl:ALEE COMMUNITY PARKS - AWARDED TO MCGOVE1Uf COK~~~UCTIOR IR THE AMOUNT OF $39,626 Legal notice ha'ling been published in the Nurles Daily News on April 12, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit oi Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received until 2:30 P.M., on April 26, 1989, to consider Bid .89-1398, Ceramic Tile for restroom flooring for North Naples and Golden Gate Community Parks. It- .1~C2 COJITRACTS FOR SERVICES FOR COt1MU1HTY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY PROŒ.IJUo: UKDER BID 88-1292 AWARDED TO UPJOHN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, IKC., :::F. THE AMOUKT OF $100,000: AND QUALITY CARE SERVICE CORP., INC. D/B/A ltIMBERLY QU~ITY_y~~-,~_~~OUN:LQL~t15,0~ . See Pages 90-;Y./-¡ý'S- U~ ~ . ~~ . ~~~ It.. .UC3 tJ...A...' tJ-f ~ 4) If?! BID .89-1404 GOLDEK GATE COMMUNITY CENT R PARKING LOT RESURFACIKG - AWARDED TO HARPER BROTHE~ INC., IN THE AMOU1f!'_Q~j13, 400 Legal not ice hay i,lg b(!en pu'u: isl:ed in the Naples Daily News on April 30, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received until 2:30 P.M., on May 17, 1989, to consider Bid .89-1404, Golden Gate Community Center Parking Lot Resurfacing. It.. #I.e. Moved to 9C2 It.. #UDl PRIRCESS PARK SEWER FACILITIES AGREEMENT - WITH STIPULATIOK 1. That the developers fully execute and the County Attorney approves the executed Agreement, See Pages 90.. 7;(. / - ;;;(, IJ f Ite. .14D2 AUDUBOK COU1lTRY CLUB - TRACT G, UKIT ONE, WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTAlfC!: Recorded in O.R. Book 1448, Pages 2125-2126 and 2136-2145 It.. #14D3 .&Ju.nJJllUUll-r TO AßREmIŒHT FOR APPROVAL OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH HOLE. MORTES AKD ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE VANDERBILT DRIVE/BOKITA BEACH ROAD WATER MAJ1L!MP:Rq.YE1'ŒlIT~ - NOT TO EXCEED $20,500 See Pages ~~~ Ite. #14D4 ~~ ?~/3.1 Iff/' BID .89-1405, AHALYTICAL SERVICES FOR THE UTILITIES DIVISIOK AWARDED TO DVIROLAB, IRC. IK THE AMOUKT OF $5,000 FOR THE REMAIRDER or / FY 88-89, AKD THE TOTAL FY 89-90 t-°~ Page 85 - _._,-,.~-,------ -- ".., "., I JUNE 13. 1969 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on April 30, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received u~til 2:30 P.M., on May 17, 1989, to consider Bid #89-1405, Analytical Services for the Utilities Division. Ite. .14D!5 ~ID .89-13815, TELEMKTRY SERVICES FOR THE UTILITIES WATER AID WASTDfATER DJtPARTI,,~.JU:S AMARDED TO FLORIDA SERVICE DGIJrDRS IK AX AMOUKT ROT TO EX~~LU $10,000 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily Ne~s on March 13, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received until 2:30 P.M., on March 29, 1969, to consider Bid #89-1385, Telemetry Services for the Utilities Water and Wastewater Departments. It:- #141:1 AGREDmJIT WITH COASTAL DGIHEER'1:NG CONSULTANTS, INC. OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, FOR THE PIKE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING AID BE1fElPIT UIHT PROJECT See Pages 90- E. I - £,/6 Ite. #14E2 RESOLUTIOK 89-1156, AMENDING COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY TO ADDRESS THE RESOLUTIOK OF BID, PROPOSAL AID CONT~CT DISPUTES See Pagps qIJ- ¡::: I - f',/f It.. .14Fl ACCEPTAKCE OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR EMERGENCY MITIGATION SUPPLIES AID REPLEBŒSH ~£~uABLES USED IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,543, AKD BUDGET ~WIJU'IT TRAlfSnRRING FUNDS FROM CONTINGENCY RESERVES INTO THE EMERGDCY SERVIC~S DIVI~JOI'LAD~lNI!)TRATIOIf BUDGET It.. #14Gl Apuuu..ftAlU TO I!;.JI.T~U THE COMPLETIOK DKADLIKE OF THE FLORIDA DIfR ARTIFICIAL FISHIKG REEF GRANT CONTRACT #C5346 FROM JUNE 30, 1989 TO .:roLY 30, 1989 See Page 9 () -,,If . I Ite. .14G2 SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $105,500 TO RECOGKIZE CARRY FORWARD AND IKCREASE SOLID WASTE DEPARTMEKT ADMIKISTRATION OPERATING BUDGET FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES It.. .14G3 AUTHORIZATION TO REBID #89-1395 FOR A TRACK TYPE DOZER AND .89-1396 FOR A LABDFILL COMPACTOR -t{)Ú Page 86 .-, ' ,-_.",-,.,.. ."'- ,- ,-_. I JUNE 13, 1989 It.. #UG4. A~r WITH POST, BUCnXY, SCHUH« JERKIGAN, INC. FOR PREPARATION OF COVWTY-WIDE STORMWATER MANAGEMERT MASTER PLAN IN AN At~vUKT NOT TO EXCEED $275,000, ~ OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES FOR AN AMOUKT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000, ~ BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR BASE MAP MATERIALS ($3,000) Mæ _S~ÇI_AL~IJ'TJlfG~_~E_RYI,Ç_~S -{$3.l!QQL____- ----~- ----- See Pages -Cj¡2ß-, / - /:I, 3~ Itea #UG5 APPLICATION FOR LITTER PRKYENTIOK GRANT FUKDS AND CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE SAME - See Pages ~ ¡) tit~ ,~ -" <~ ~t...1....... Ite. #14.81 Moved to 9H8 ~ 7- /3 - PI Ite. #14H2 ADDKIDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH THE JOINT VENTURE OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, SOLL,. PEEK, HIC. AND HOLE, MORTES ~ ASSOC., IKC. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PINE RIDGE IKDUSTRIAL PARK M.S.T.U. IN THE AMOUKT OF $35,000 See Pages -2.o~..J) , I - J. 3 It.. #UIl DCLUSION REQUEST EXCLUDIKG THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM A CLASS ACTIOJr SUIT RELATING TO THE VACATION O!" AN INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT LOCATED_~~~IN THE VICINITY OF BROOKSIDE SUBDIVISION See Pages ~.I- 9.h It.. #14Jl CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLL AS PRESENTED BY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1987 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY No. 147 Dated 06/01/89 1988 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY Nos. 120-121 Dated 06/01/89 1988 TAX ROLL Nos. 231-232 Dated 05/30/89 It.. #14J2 SATISFACTION OF LI~ RE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Page C¡a- ){.I It.. #14.1 MISClLLARSOUs CORRESPONDENCE - FIL~D ~/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated below: ~ol Page 81 I JUNE 13, 1989 1. 03/01/69 Department of Community Affairs Coastal Infrastructure Policy Report, annual report to assess the effectiveness of the Coastal Infrastructure Policy in controlling growth and development on barrier islands and in other coastal areas of Florida. Routed to all Commissioners, and filed. 2. 05/30/89 letter from Patrick Kenney, DER, Environmental Specialist, enclosing short form application, File No. 111654015, which Involves dredge and fill activities. Referred to He il Dorrill (letter), Bill Lorenz. and filed. 3. OS/26/89 letter from Don E. Duden, Assistant Executive Director, State of Florida DNR, reo state Recreation and Parks Land Acquisition Program notifying that Barefoot B?ach, and Clam Pass had been approved for acquisition. Referre:J. to Neil Dorrill, Kevin O'Donnell, Ken Cuyler, and f lleCl. 4. 05/30/89 Notice from Governor Bob Martinez to all ripó.rian property owners within 1.000 ft. of proposed erosion control line. Referred to Ne il Dorrill, Bill Lorenz, Harry Huber, and filed. 5. 05/15/89 letter from Gale E. Mapes. General Manager, Foxfire Community Association, in support of McAlpine "Briarwood, :::nc.. PUD. " Referred to BCC, Ken Baginski, and filed. 6. 05/30/89 letter from Kurt Bomar, Martin and Bomar, re: Notice of Claim for Es,ate of Helmuth Scholl v. Collier County. Referred to Ken Cuyler, Risk Management, George Archibald, and filed. 7. 05/17/89 letter from Gary Pickel. President, McAlpine (Brlarwood). Inc., stating that Briarwood, Inc. owns the 210 acre Briarwood PUD located to the north of Foxfire develop- ment, and stating their support for the County to vacate roads within Foxfire. Referred to Ken Baginski, and filed. 8. Minutes received and filed: A. 05/09/89 - Golden Gate Parkway Beautification Advisory Committee and 06/13/89 Agenda. B. 04/24/89, 05/03/89, 05/03/89 - City of Naples C. 04/04/89 - Marco Island Beautification Board 9. OS/25/89 Notice to Owner from Edith P. Israel advising that they have furnished HVAC Equipment and/or Plumbing for the improvement of Collier County Cçurthouse under order given by: B & I Contractors. Referred to Neil Dorrill, Tom Conrecode, and filed. 10. 06/01/89 Notice to Owner from Krehling Industries, Inc., to Collier County Board of County Commissioners advising that they have furnished concrete and/or all other related building materials for curbing and sidewalks for handicap, starting at Central and U.S, 41 North to 7th Ave. Noi'th. Referred t::J Neil Dorrill, Skip Camp, and filed. 11. 06/01/89 Notice to Owner from Krehling Industries, Inc. to Collier County Board of County Commissioners advising that they have furnished concrete and other related building materials to replace wheelchair ramps at U.s. 41 and 8th Ave. thru 14th Ave.. !:aples. Referred to Neil Dorrill, Skip Camp, and filed. ~O~ Page 88 --~-_..,- r - I JU:<E 13, :989 :2. 06:02.":-; S"'(;û;~c: ::s:::-~ct Court o~ Appea:, ~ee Col.:ntY'5 }:otion ~o::- ?e~ea~~nç, ~~. C~der o~ ?rosecut~on of Criminal Appeals ~y :~'" 7e~:~ J~G:::ò1 C:rcü.i: Cour: ~ublic Defender. ?efe:-:-e'~ ';0 ::e:. Cuy:e::-, Jir:\ Gi:es, and filed. :3. ç~:2C¡e') 3ec.;",c: :':strict Court of Appeal, Manatee County's :";:'::'-':-. fo:- Re;:eaz-:r;g, rp. Order on Prosecution of Criminal Apped:s by the Tent~ Judicial CIrcuit Public ~efender. ?-efe:-red :0 ::eil :0:-:':1:, ,:eL C"j1",:, Jim Giles, a:1d fi:ed. .~. C:':3C:iS3 Se..:.;",è :;:CJt: let COJ::t of Appedl, Sarasota County's Motior, fo:- ?e~.(:,::::-.;, ~(:: C:':,~, ,j;, ?:'os",cut~O:1 of C::i::\:nal ;'.j)¡Jé-'11" '.J-J- t:"" ':'E::¡:::, J",::c.la: ::::l:..:..it Court PubLic Defel.:ìer. ;O:e=ferreJ ,,--' ::c:l :;o:'~.:.::, ::c" C'ù.jler, Jir:-. G:les, a:-,d r3,lf'G. .~. C~/:3,'89 :ette~ fro~ Florida DC: to all Chairmen of the :o":':-,':y Co::,:;-.,:,s5:ons H:t~. attac~l;;,ent of Five-Year ':'::-a::spcrta:.:c:. ?:an for Fiscal ','ea, :"ly ., :989 to June 30, :1?C, ---, f,:,u:- "ucceed:::ç. -;ea:-s, .:.:.cl ~iv1ng dates and loca- t:O:1S of ~.:str:c~ "'.."d sta.tew:de 11..::'110 ::earings. Eefe;:-red to 3CC a..c fi:e:,: :'5. CS::::39 le:te:- fro:., :l.e :;r,:~(:è. ~~.:.te:,; ::Jepartment of Commerce B'.;.rea'J. of :he Ce.;sc;s, ê.c.:'...<s:.~g ~hat they ar>: conducting its annual Bo-,;[',d;;;",' :,:.'- :,;:¡;(:;':é1~':'0:1 .':':-':<ë'l :'J:- 1339. Referred to :;:-a::]..; 3:~~:-, ::"':: :;0::-:11, .-:om: ::l",(. ~,. ::::'J¡:: ",t._-, :.,-,,:, :Je.:::l" ,- :;úc'dan, ?lor1ùa Panther Coo:-d::-:"'..:or, :;:11te(1 States :J,:,p",-rt;;-,e:\t of the Interior Fish a:-:c Wildlife 3~~~lce, e~clos:~g ~~Jê.:ed Participation 3,~:,<,:":_le fc:- ~~.'" Flo;::da P":",;I<--. :;:¡:>dates t:,e original docu- ;,:"':_: :2,~ ',;;l'~.,e',: ... :338, 7',-",:.:::,:: ~(. <'.l: ~,>;;.:"l:>sionej;'s, anè. fi1t:c¿. .-. :O?i of lo::t:e: Gated :5,'30:39 to SlIeriff H'.lnter, fro;;\ :h",odo:'t;' _'~":'¿"" u: Vegé1, Brown, St",nley &. X«rtin, P.A., re: :'.erb(:rt :(:rro, -:;::" :2/2;36. Refer:-e": to ;,eil !)orrill, Ken C'J.y1e:, a:-:c fi1eå, 19. C5/2':89 le:te:- f;:om - F. :tuvRr, :;l:ector, :Jepartment of Ve~era:ls' Affa1:s, :ll[tHI"::I'; ~¡l¿..t t:,e Dept. hd.s filed pre- applicat:c>:, fur;:, Feùeral Grant to :.~::d a 120-!:>ed S:ate '¡e~e.",..", ;:'-'.:'si:,g Ho;:;e, a:1cll",q,.esting donation of land. ?ef,,:-:'e': ~'--' ::-?i: :,:..::-.:l:, é1:Jè. :1:",è. 1oQ Page 89 I JU;;E : 3, :989 . .. 7he::-e being ;;'0 fur~he::- ',,:¡-..siness fo::- ~he Good 0:' :::.e COU:-¡ "-" t::.e ;;""e: :..~ .,¡ë." a.C:~û..r:'.ec.: :.y :)~ del ,,~ : 1.," Chair - 7irne: 8:05 P.M. BOAR;) OF COUNTY CO;OI:::SSIONERS/ BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPEC:::,,:' D:::STRICTS UNDER ITS CO1:7ROL /i/Y ~ -- BURT :.. SAUNDERS, C~AIR~AN A77EST: JAMES c. ::;::':::5, ::::LER:: ~~£}C . Thos. minu'es app,oved by 'he Booed on H /£ /7'.1:'/ ------ / / / as ?:-esen~eG or as corrected. [0 ~ ?age 90 .._0.0_".