The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 11/11/1980 R Naples, Florida, November 11, 1980 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and als.) acting as the Governing Board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in Regular Session in Building "F" of the Courthouse Complex with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: V ICE-CHM RMAN: C1 ifford Wen;-!! 1 Thomas P. Archer John A. Pistor C.R. "Russ" Wimer David C. Brown ALSO PRESENT: William J. Reagan, Clp.rk; Harold L. Hall, Chief Deputy Clerk/Fiscal Officer; Edna Brenneman and Darlene Davidson (10:45 A.M.), Deputy Clerks; C. William Norman, County Manager; Donald A. Pickworth, County Attorney; Irving Berzon, Utilities Division Director; Clifford Barksdale, Public Works Administrator/Engineer; Terry Virta, Community Developn~nt Administrator; Thomas Hafner, Public Safety Administrator; Jeffory Perry, Zoning Director; Danny Crew, Planning Director; Tom McDaniel, Planner; Lee Layne, Planner; Mary Morgan, Administrative Aide to the Boare'; and, Deputy Chief Raymond Barnett, Sheri ff' s Department. IOQK 056 rAGE '391 I._I November 11, 1980 AGENDA - APPROVED WITH ADOITIONS/DELETlDNS Commissioner Pi:;toi' moved, seconded by Commissio~er Archer and unanimously carried, th3t the agenda be approved as amended with the following additions and deletions: 1. Recommendation by County Manager on proposed program reduction r~garding the FY 80-81 Budget - Added. 2. Request by G.E. Carroll, representing Statewide Environ- mental Contractor's Inc. for ruling on proposed franchise provision re exclusive right to collect construction debris as a condition of purchase of Marco Solid Waste Collection Franchise - Continued until November 18, 1980. 3. Recommendation from staff that the Board aut.horize the publication of advertisement to help taxpayers understand 1980 taxes - Added. 4. Selection of Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board for next year - Added. 5. Acquisition of treatment site re County Water-Sewer Dis- trict - Added. 6. Minutes of October 21, 1980 - Deleted. BOARD ELECTS COMMISSIONER PISTOR AS CHAIRMAN AND COMIIISSIONER WENZEL AS VICE-CHAJR.....A~: FOR O~~E-YEAR TER~.:S EFFECTIVE NOVEHoER. 12, 1980 Clerk William J. Reagan conducted the election for Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and called for nominations from the floor for the Chairmanship. Commissioner Archer placed the name of Commissioner Pistor in nomination. Upon call for further nominations by Clerk Reagan, there were none forthcoming with Commissioner Wenzel seconding the nomination. Responding to Commissioner Brown's query, Clerk Reagan explained th~t, according to last year's minutes pertaining to the election for the current year, the elected officers were to remain in office one year from the date of that election and, evidently, the terms expire this date. The nominations were closed and, upon call for the question, the motion to elect Commissioner Pistor as Chainman was carried 4/0, Com- missioner Wimer did not vote. It ~as pointed out by Clerk Reagan that the current terms expire at 12:01 A.M. on November 12, 1980. Clerk Reagan opened the nominations for the position of Vice- Chainnan. Connlissioner Pistor placed C0J1ll1iss10ner Wenze1'~ name in nomination and COllmissioncr Archer seconded the motion. ..... -" >'I "'l" &OO~ 05H rACE 396 November 1" 1900 Commissioner Brown nominatcd Commissioner Wimer and when asked by Clerk Reagan if he would accept the nomination, Commissioner Wimer responded in the ncgative. There were no further nominations made whereupon the nominations were closed by Clp.rk Reagan. The vote on the election of Commissioner Wenz.el as Vice-ChairmJn carried 3/1 with Commissioner Brown voting in opposition, stating that he would like the minutes to refle~t his strong opposition to "this kind of a deal", and Commissioner Wimer did not vote. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE THIRD WEEK OF NOVEMBER AS "YOUTH APPRECI- ATION WEEK" - '\DOPTED Commissioner Archer read in its entirety the proposed proclamation establishing the third week of November, 1980 as "Youth Appreciation Week" and moved its adoption. The motion was seconded b.y Commissioner Pistor and unilnimollsly carried. The Proclamation, following its execu- tion, was presented to County Manager Norman for submittal to "he sponsors. '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 600~ 056 rAC~ 398 November 11, 1980 PROCLAMI\TlON DESIGNATING TilE ~IEEK OF NOVEMBER 10 AS "TENNIS WEEK" - ADOPTED Chairman Wenzel read in its entirety the proclamation designating the week of November 10. 1900 as "Tennis Week" in Collier County, fol- lowing which he presented the following proclamation to the County Manager for transmittal to its sponsoring organization. PRO C LAM A T ION . WHEREAS, the beDuty of Collier County is made up of its geographical locn~ion, the nature of its people, and the fine athletic facilities; an~ '~IEREAS, among the activities most avidly pursued is tennis at the public and private levels; .and WHEREAS, the beautiful tennis facilities that Collier County has to of~er compels excellence, perforrr.ance, and exhibition by. amateurs and professionals alike in Naples; and . "r.:EREAS, Collier Cour:ty is blessed by having the greatest of the former professional champions in the 4th Annual Almaden Grand Masters Tour vintage '80 for the benefit of the Collier County Y. M. C.A. at the Naples Bath and Tennis Club on November 13 thru November 16; and " ........1.'.. '" ! \ MIEREAS, this tournament is working to bring to Collier County the finest tennis to be seen. NO\'1, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of County Com- missioners, Collier County, Florida, that the week of November 10, 1980 is hereby designated ~s '. 0':'.: ~ : ': '.: TEN N I S "1 EE K in Collier County. Done and ordered this 11th convened in regular session. day of November, 1980 while ATTEST: ~Bcr:r BOARD OF COUNTY COMIUSSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA /d$.~~&//& C ,l.f.~/fd Wenzel, U>l.11rman t...} November 11,1900 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 11 AS "VETERANS DAY" - ADOPTED Chairman Wcnzel rcad the proclamation de~ignating November 11, 1980 as "Vcterans Day" following which is was presented to a member of the local veterans organization. PROCLAMAT ON VETERANS DAY 1980 WHEREAS, the citizens of this niltion and Collier County live In Freedom because of the sacrifices and contributions made by those who served In the Armed Forces of the United States of America in time of national dangerj and WHEREAS, there. are over one-million Veterans In the State of Florida who continue their devotion to the highest ideals of Citizenship, and consti- tute a foundation of both the strength and progress of this State and, County; and WHEREAS, to those who died we offer our respect and gratitute. To the 'loved ones they left behind, we offer our concern and understanding; and WHEREAS, to those who still bear the wounds both physical and psychic, from all wars, we acknowledge our continuing responsibility; now THEREFORE, we the members of the B011rd of County Commissioners do hereby procl11im November 11, 1980, as Veterans Day in Collier County, and urge all citizens of our County to remer~ber the silcr-:fic~s and contributions of 1111 those who served this Nation in time of war to preserve our cherished Herit11ge of Freedom, and further, thilt we dedic11te ourselves to the,. t<1sl< of promoting world pCilce as the, greiltest rewilrd which might be bestowed upon these veterilns of liberty. DONE AND URDERED this 11th dilY of November, l!lOO while convened In regulilr session. ": ATTEST: WILLlAM/J. REAGAN, CIT 1< .. / ~~-~ . I 130Af~D OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ~~e/ue;~.. C LI f I' WJF IV E N l EL, CV:0ITHM N eoa~ 056 PACE '399 TK/nn/l-0 Boax' 056 FJ.cr 400 November 11, 1980 PETITIOH R-80-27C, DELTONA CORPORATION, REQUESTING REZONING FROM "An TO "PUD" FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS MARCO SHORES (CONTINUED FROM 11/4/30) - DENIED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 3, 1980 and in the Marco Island Eagle on October 9, 1980 as evidenced by I\ffidavits of Puhlication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was continued from November 4, 1980 with regard to Petition R-80-27C, filed by The Deltona Corporation, requesting rezoning from "A" to "PUD" for property known as Marco Shores. Planner Lee Layne located the property on the map provided as being 321: acres located east of SR 951 and west of the Marco Shores Airport. Reading from the Executive Summary prepared on the subject, Ms. Layne said that the petitioner proposes to develop 1980 multi- family units, a commercial area, and a golf course on the parcel. Various concerns were expressed by the Coastal Area Planning Commission when their public hearing v:as held on October 2, 1980, said Ms. Layne; among t.hem - the stJff recommendation concerning the building of the fire station; the installation of a traffic signal at SR 951 at the entrance to the project; the ability of SR 951 to absorb the additional traffic; and the fact that the project is being developed in a piece- meal manner rather than looking at the overall plan for all of the lands held by the petitioner, as well as its effect on the entire area. It was the unanimous CAPe recommendation that the petition be forwarded to the 8CC with a recommendation of denial for the following reasons: 1. It would worsen an a.ready poor traffic situation. 2. This was an unclear picture of the environmental impact this project would hav~. 3. The DER's intent to deny the project. Concerning Dr. Jay Hannic's recommendation, Ms. I.avne said that Dr. Harmic did not have to review the Environmental Impact Statement because the pertinent ordinance states that a waiver of the EIS has to be granted if the area in question has been deneutered or altered recently. She further pointed out that the Environmental Advisory Council recommended approval of the petition. November 11, 1980 County Mana~er Norman advised the petitioner's representatives that any exhibits presented during the hearing and which become part of the basis for the Board's decision will need to become the property of the County. Mr. James Apthorp, Vice-President of Corporate Affairs for The Deltona Corporation, introduced Mr. Howard Ostrout, who designed the project for the developer, for the purpose of describing the plan and project to the &oard. Mr. Os trout began his presentation by explainin~ that at the time the airpor, and golf course were constructed there were plans for the development of the out-parcels which are now being proposed for condo- minium development. At that time, said Mr. Ostrout, the Corps of Engineers did not feel that the work required a permit and there was no permit required by the DER; however, there was a DER permit required to operate the golf course and such permit was obtained. The plan. continued Mr. Ostrout, is to develop 122 acres of the property in 8 multi-family parcels, as shown on the blueprint displayed, with a gross density in the overall project of 6.15 units per acre. He pointed out the locations for other facilities planned, such as commer- cial area, parksites, utility site and the like, also mentioning the fact that he has met with the advisory boards and the Subdivision Review Committee and received their approval. The concerns expressed by the Water Management Advisory Board were resolved following which the project received their approval, he added. Mr. Apthorp explained in detail the signalization improvements being proposed for the intersection of SR 951 and the entrance into the project which it is felt will significantly improve ~he safety conditions at the intersection, together with the widening of the shoulders of the roadway to the extent possible, all of which have been agreed to fol- lowing their meeting with the Florida Department of Transportation. Other plans include adding to the storage lane for vehicles making left- hand turns traveling toward the project from the north and a comnitment to building a deceleration lane for travelers coming from the south providing that permits can be obtained, continued Mr. Apthorp. "", n~R W" ~n1 ( ao~K 056 rAG( 402 November 11. 1980 Mr. Apthorp also said that thc developer has agreed to make an additional left-turn lane coming out of the project onto SR 951 upon obtaining necessary permits and that they are in agrecment with DOT that, as soon as the traffic count warrants it, full traffic signal would be installed at the subject intersection at the ~eve1oper's expense. Mr. Apthorp pointed out the need for the four-laning of the roadway and that it is agreed that the necessary right-of-way will be donated to the State of Florida at such time as four-1aning is a reality. The developer also agrees, said Mr. Apthorp, to bear the cost of four- laning 1,000' of SR 951, 500' on either ~ide of the intersection, pro- viding the alignment and necf!ssary permits can be obtained. In the event the project is completed and the permits still had not been ob- tained to make the improvements, Mr. Apthorp said that $275,000, the estimated costs for the subject four-lane improvements, would be placed in escrow to be used by the County for improveme.,ts in the vic:nity of the project on SR 951 or for four-laning the road, whichever the Board chooses to do. He said the stated improvements should overcome any objection, to the traffic considerations on SR 951 that might have been expressed to the CAPC or in rther places. Mr. Apthorp addressed another argument that has been raised with regard to the project and that is the fact that it is "piece-mealing". He said this argument was considered by the Stat~ of Florida in desiding whether or not it should be vested for DRI purposes. It is vested, continued Mr. Apthorp, with 1980 units and it is not necessary to go through the DRI process to corlstruct them, however, there will be a review of the impact when approval is sought for additional projects in the area, taking into account the 1980 units. Because the developer has spent money to fill the site and to create the building sites prior to 1973, Mr. Apthorp said that the State felt the developer should be properly vested with the number of units applied for. Mr. Apthorp concluded his presentation by reiterating the fact that three of the County's four advisory boards have recommended approval, as has the County staff, and that, since, in his opinion, I _" J NO'/ember 11, 1980 the traffic conditions have bccn addresscd to a greater extent than any private developer has ever done, the project should be allowed to go forward and urged the Board to grant full approval of the PUD application. There was additional discussion regarding traffic problcms on SR 951 and whether or not additional building activity should be pcrmitted in that area. County Attorney Pickworth commented on the conversation about the traffic problem causing a cut-off of building on Marco Island, suggesting that it is a misleading argument. He said that Marco Island is an approved development with fairly high intensive zoning in most areas and the right to continue to build there exists. The issue under discussion is whether to rezone pro- perty to a more intensive use than is already permitted, said Attorney Pickworth, and the use permitted now is in conformance with the Compre- hensive Plan which has been adopted. He further stated that there is a big difference between cutting off future building on Marco, where the higher intensive use has been permitted, and granting The Deltona Corporation the right to use their property in a more intensive manner than they are already permitted to do. Att0rney Pickworth said th~t he does not agree with the suggestion made that the Board should use their police power to cut off future construction on Marco Island which he said is not the solution at all, adding that there has been nothing shown to suggest that the existing zoning on the subject land is un- reasonable. Chairman Wenzel inquired if it would be feasible to develop the project as all single-family units with Mr. Apthorp responding in the negative explaining that there are a significant number of vacant single-family lots on the market and it is the opinion cf the petitioners that multi-family units arc necded and there are not enough locations to build them. Addressing the new information being presented, Mr. Apthorp said that following the preparation of the "package" by management and traffic consultants, the proposal being presented this date was also presented &O~K 056 fAGE '4.03 600K 056 rACE 4'04 November 11, 1900 to the CAPC for purely informational purposes but for lcgal reasons it could not be considered nor could thc CAPe change the position already taken. Attorney Pickworth said that it was suggested to Deltona that they rcquest reconsideration as an advertised matter but that the time schedule was such that the suggestion was declined. At Commissioner Brown's request, Dr. Jay Harmic, Environmental Consultant for the County, was asked to comment on the project. Dr. Harmic explained that under the provisions of the pertinent ordinance, the submission of an EIS was exempted, the stipulation ~)eing that land which has been clcarcd and filled and which will not revegetate to a natural condition is exempt from the submission of the EIS. He said that ordinance and that stipulation was reviewed when the ordinance was adopted by all of the advisory boards of the County and that particular portion was not changed. He said that a portion in the original draft addressed sequential development; however, d~rirg the course of the review process, that particular section was removed - not by him, con- tinued Dr. Harmic, but by some other County official. Therefore, said Dr. Harmic, he felt he had no choice but to waive the EIS, although, in his opinion, a waiver was not needed nor was an EIS required. He co~- tinued by stating his understanding that putting 1900+ units in an area will create an impact; however, if the impact can be minimized to a proper degree. the problem can be taken care of. If the water manage- ment and the water quality problems can be resolved, said Dr. Harmic, that will be fine. He said that he will not address the traffic issues because he does not feel that he is qualified in this area. On the basis of the fact that he was, essentially, required to waive the EIS and that sequential development cannot be addressed by him, in the particular location, he would recommend approval along with the Planning Department. Attorney Pickworth questioned how the EAC can approve such projects without an EIS, agreeing that the way the ordinance is written the waiver was required. Dr. Hdrmic said that the EAC could only address the parti- cular portion of the Marco ownership that had been dredged and filled, golf course constructed, road and airport constructed, and, therefore, November 11, 1980 in his judgment, the EAC members felt the impact had been made and that the deve10pmcnt of the subdivision would not substantially change the particular impact which had already taken place - the impact having taken place when the land was filled. The following persons were present to address certain aspects of the proposed development: Franklin Adams, President Of the Izaak Walton League of America - local chapter, who requested that there be no rezoning or permitting in the subject area until the over- all development is addressed because permitting it to be developed piecemeal will ultimately lead to a loss of development alternatives and prohibit future flexibil ity and assurance that the best land-u:~ practices are met in the entire Deltona project area. Arndt Mueller - President of the Collier County Audubon Society - concurred with the statements made by the pre- vious speaker and said that, from a personal standpoint, the constant development in an already-overcrowded area is undesirable not only from a traffic point-of-view but also due to the additional burden which will be placcd on the school system. George Keller - Chairman of the Collier County Civic Fed- eration Zoning Committee - voiced concern over firefightin9 provisions, adding that a school impact study should be made. He said that the area should be confined to residents and not permitted to be built in up to 20-story highrises which might seriously affect the entire area. Leigh Plummer - President of the Marco Island Civic Associa- tion - said that, in light of the fact that the development results from the denial of permits by the Corps of Engineers for the development of Barfield Say and Big Key, the Associa- tion has no objection to the project going ahead as scheduled. Also, they are not particularly concerned about the added traffic on SR 951, the development only causing a small portion of the total traffic on the road. Bernie Yokel - Collier County Conservancy - suggested that the issue of traffic is not the only concern regarding the project. The developer, said Mr. Yokel, agreed to present a total package of development for the approximately 17,OOO-acre holdings of the firm but that now fragmentation of development plans is being contemplated. Due to the environmental impacts of the project, there is a flaw in the ordinance which negates the necessity for an EIS. Such fragmentation will prevent useful decisions on dealing with the larger problcms of the area and good land management, said Mr. Yokel, and to take out a piece of upland which may offer considerable relief to sensi- tive wetland development will be a mistake. Lengthy discussion concerning the comments made by Mr. Yokel followed, during which the qucstion was asked by Chairman Wenzel if the developer agreed not to develop Unit 30 and leave it in its natural 800K 056 rm 4D5 BOOK 056 PACE 4'00 November 11, 1930 state, if he would have the same concerns. Mr. Yokel said that if Mr. Apthorp would state that they are giving up on Unit 30 he would say "Do it. Bless it. We're done with that watershed. We have as much of a problem as we're going to see". Attornp.y Pickworth inquired if what Mr. Yokel is suggesting is that perhaps greater density should be permitted on the parcels under discussion in return for no density on areas considered to be more sensitive. Mr. Yokel said that if higher density is required to save wetlands, that is the "way you have to go" suggesting that that would be thp lesser of two evils. Mr. Yokel agreed that such a solution is the same remedy that justifies the designation of "ST" on lands, stating that he regards such designation as a useful mechanism for the preservation of valuable land. Mr. Mullis Thorntor., representing building trades employees, spoke in favor of permitting the project to continue in order to safeguard the employment of aproximately 500 workers on Marco Island projects over the past several years. Not to approve the development would force the persons working for a living to move somewhere else to secure jobs, said Mr. Thornton. With regard to the safety of SR 951, he said that "Any road is hazardous if you don't drive pro~erly". Mr. Apthorp commented on some of the previous statements and con- cluded his presentation by suggesting that it is highly desirable to solve all of the problems at Marco Island but it does not necessarily mean that nothing else should be done in the interim. He also pointed out that the "piecemeal" argument will be considered again ~:en the drainage plan is presented to DER for approval, as well as to the SFWMO. Regarding whether or not a further appearance before the CAPe would be desirable, Mr. Apthorp said that there would be nothing presented to that Commission than what has been presented to the Board this date and that they would prefer to have the application acted ~pon during the BCC Session now convened. Commenting for the CAPe, Mr. William Walters said that there were instructions from the County Attorney not to participate in any discussion with regard to the new information and this instruction was followed. He said that the application was rejected unanimously with the facts at hand tha t they had. November 11, 1980 Mr. Virta said that info~tion hns been added to the appli~ation proccss before the Board that the CAPC was not privy to; however, he said that thc new infonnation addresses only one of several issues that the Planning Commission was concerned with. Deputy Chief Raymond Barnett, when asked to comment, said that the road in question needs to be four-1aned, noting that putting a traffic intersection with a blinking light will not help the situation - widening would. He also asked the Board to consider the fact that developments of the size under discussion are expensive for the Sherifj's Department to police, observing the demand for budget-cutting which has come forth. Addressing the fire station matter which was brought ou~,by one of the speakers, Commissioner Pistor stated that this provision is included in the application and read the pertinent section which deals with the subject. Utilities Division Director Berzon responded in the negative to Commissioner Wimer's query as to whether .he (Mr. Berzon) has reviewed the petition, pursuant to the proposal that he revicw all rczoning petitions which would cause an impact on utilities. He explained that no formal action has been taken regarding such reviews but, in direct answer to thc Commissioncr, Mr. Berzon said that he has not reviewed the subject petition nor was it offered to him. The matter of utilities was discussed at some lcngth with Attorney Pickworth informing the Board that a meeting has been established for th;s date with the Corporation's Counsel for a discussion of the franchise hcld by the firm's utility division, and the like. Esscntial1y, said Attorney Pickworth, unless the Board directs othcn~ise, he and Mr. Berzon will probably stand firm on the Subdivision Rcgulations, in this regard, and probably not recom- mcnd an extcnsion of the franchise area. Commissioner Wimer voiced his concern over the lack of review by the appropriate persons prior to such matters being brought to the Board and which puts him in a position of voting "no" because he will not vote on somcthing when he does not havc the complete picture. Mr. Apthorp sa i d tha t hc fee 1 s confi dent the matter of the util it i es can be resolved with the beginning of the discussions scheduled for this date. ~MV [1:rn r!.r.r dO? November 11, 1980 aOOK 056 PACE '4.08 Commissioner Pistor moved to continue the public hearing for a month to permit tu;.ther discussion and investigation by the staff, the Attorneys, advisory cOIT'llissions, and the like, with regard to the new items which have been introduced during the hearing. Chairman Wenzel seconded the motion. Commissioner Wimer voiced agreement to the intent of the motion; however, he said that it is his belief that it should be readvertised due to the public interest shown, suggesting that, as soon as the peti- tioner has the problems solved, the petition can again be !Jut thro,,~h the established process. He added that the burden is on the petitioner, not the staff, to solve the problems. Mr. Edward R. Oelschlaeger, Vice-President for Product Development for The Deltona Corporation, requested that the motion for the delay be withdrawn since the firm is under time restraints. He said that the issue of utilities will be resolved either by the granting of an exten- sion of the franchise or as mandated under the Subdivision Regulations and dedicated to the County after their installation. Addressing a further issue which was raised with regard to the staff recommendation on traffic, Mr. Oelschlaeger said that the staff engineer reviewed the original proposal on traffic and was satisfied and, sincp. the CAPC was not, the proposal has been greatly expanded. Therefore, he said that he was uncle~r on what the additional issues are. Commissioner Pistor stated that, under the circumstances, the petitioner stands a good chance of having t.he petition turned down and the process started allover again. If the petition is continued for a period of time, he said, and all the matters cleared up, the Board will have a clear way to vote one way or the other and, therefore, the best interests of everyone will be served. Chairman Wenzel withdrew his seconding of the motion, following which Commissioner Pistor withdrew the motion. Commissioner Brown ~.ed, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and carried 4/1 with Commissioner Pistor voting in opposition, that the public hear- ing be closed. l. l ,I Nov~mber 11,1980 Commissioner Brown moved for Approval of Petition R-80-27C. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Archer And failed 2/3 with Commis- sioners Pistor, Wimer and Wenzel voting in opposition. PETITIOH St.\P-tlO-2C, THE DELTONA CORPORATION, REQUESTING SUBDIVISION MASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS MARCD SHORES (COMPANION PETITION TO R..80-27C) - WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily Nrws on October 19, 1980 and in the Marco Island Eagle on October 16, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication previouslj filed with the Clerk, public hearing was continued from November 4, 1980 with regard to Peti- tion SMP-BO-2C, filed by The De1tona Corporation, requesting Subdivision Master Pian Approval 'for prooerty known as ~Iarco Shores. Pursuant to Board action denying companion Petition R-80-27C, Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and unanimously carried, that Petition SMP-80-2C be with1rawn from the agenda. * * * RECESS: 10:40 A.I:. until 10:45 A.M. at which time Deputy Clerk Brenneman was replaced by Deputy Clerk Davidson. * * * DISCUSSION REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF REVERSING THE BCC ACTION TAKEN THIS ~IORNING AND/OR DIRECTING DELTONA CORPORATION TO RESUBMIT REZONE PETITION NO. R-80-27C - NO ACTION TAKEN AT THIS TIME (THIS MAiTER ACTED UPON LATER IN THE SESSION) COll11lissioner Pistor motioned that the Chairman instruct the staff and the CAPC to advertise the matter regarding Petition R-80-27C, as filed by Deltona Corporation, as soon as possible for a publiC hearing before the CAPC; and, that the staff be instructed to proceed with the investigation of all of the latest information regarding said Petition as well as the decision that may be forthcoming this afternoon between the County Attorney and the County Utility Director. He said that it is his intent that this matter be brought before the Board of County Commis- sioners for considcration as soon thereafter as possible. Chairman Wcnzel seconded the motion to get it on the floor. ~oaK 056 PACE 4.09 eoa~ 056 PACE 410 November 11, 1980 County Attorney Pickworth said that it Is his understanding that the motion to approve the subject Petition was a motion to approve the rezoning of the related property to "PUD"t and that motion failed. Chairman Wenzel concurred. Mr. Pickworth said that he understands that the Zoning Ordinance provid~s that a petitioner cannot come back and re-dlJlJly fur another 6 months, if their petition is denied by the Board of County Commissioners. He therefore suggests, continued Mr. Pickworth, that first the Board reverse the previous action which denied the subject petition, thcrcfore the petitioner would not be in the position of having been denied. He said that at that point, the Board could decide to direct that the petition simply go back to the CAPC for further review. He clar- ified this by saying that this is a suggestion based on the assuw.ption that Oeltona Corporation is agreeable. Commissioner Wimer expressed the feeling that this is in direct violation to the County's Zoning regulations, ard Mr. Pickworth said that the Board can reconsider a vote taken earlier in the same meeting and reverse it, if they choose to do so. Commissioner Wimer said that he would rather not; the public hearing was closed; the interested people have left; and, that if the petiti~ner wishes to ask for a reconsideration, they should request same as a matter of public record. County MJnJgcr Norman SJid thJt the fact is that a motion to approve the rezoning failed; it is not a matter of a motion to deny the petition passing, adding that he believes that a second motion would be in order. He said that the second motion would bp. that Oeltona could take their petition back to the CAPC. Commissioner Wimer said that he believes that the Ordinance states that the same petition cannot be heard for a period of one year and that if it is for the same particular land but a different petition, the time limit is six months. Chairman Wenzel asked Commissioner Pistor if the intent of his motion was to waive the waiting period and Commissioner Pistor replied that was essentially correct. When asked if the Board can do this, County Attorney Pickworth said that he did not believe SOj he has always cautioned against doing this because this would lead to a situation where the Board could be faced with no finality in petition decisions. November 11, 1980 Chairman Wenzel withdrew the second and the motion died. Commissioner Archer asked if a motion could be of.fered to rescind the previous action, whereby the motion to approve Petition R-BO-27C, failed and was consequently denied and Mr. Pickworth answered affirma- tively, adding that this motion, if carried, wou1d bring the Board back to consideration of the petition as it stood before the vote to approve sa:'1e had failed. Commissioner Wimer said that although it may be technically a legal move, he believes that it is not morally proper, in that all in- terested parties have left, and the public hearing has been closed. Chairman Wer,zel stated that the matter shall rest, as it stands; that the r.~lion died, and, the day's agenda will continue. PETITION NZ-80-14-C, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, REQUESTING AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADDING PARAGRAPH RE "CT" CRITICAL TREATMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT - CONTINUED TO 12/2/80 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 2, 1980, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication previously filed with the Clerk, public hearing having been continued from October 21, 1980 was reopened to consider Petition ~Z-80-14C, as filed by the Planning Department, requesting an amendment to Section 9, Ordinance 76-30, by adding a paragraph 11, "CT" Critical Treatment Overlay District, special regulations for areas of environmental sensitivity. Community Development Administrator Terry Virta stated that he is requesting that this matter be continued until Oecember 2, 1980 as it has been determined t~at the CAPC and the CCPA will have to review the proposed amendment; the latter will have to determine if the proposed amendment will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Archer n~ved, seconded by Commissi~~er Pistor and carried unanimously 5/0, that Petition NZ-80-14C be continued to December 2, 1980. COlmlissioner Wimer asked if this Petition could be re-advertised due to the fact that it has been continued for such a long period of time from the original public hearing datc, and Community Development Adminis- trator Virta agrced that it would be appropriate. Chairman Wenzel directed the County Manager to re-advertise the subject petition. M~~ 0 56 p,\~r 411 BOOK 056 fAct 412 November 11, 1900 PETITION BD-80-!)-C, SANDCASTLE DEVELOPERS, INC., REQUESTING EXTEtlSION OF A BOAT DOCK INTO VANOERBILT LAGOON AT THE SANDCASTLE COI'!OOMINIUM IN VANDERBILT BEACH - DENIED Legal notice having been publ ished in the Naples Daily News on October 26, and November 2, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition BD- 80-9-C, as filed by Sandcastle Developers, Inc., requesting an cxtcn5ion of a boat dock into Vanderbilt Lagoon at the Sdndcastle Condominium on Vanderbilt Beach. Planner Lee Layne located the subject water frontage that is being considered for construct.ion of the proposed dock, and explained that the petitioner is requesting an extension up to 75 feet into the Vanderbilt Lagoon, which is 55 feet over the maximum extension allowable without BCC approval. She said that during the CAPC's public hearing of October 16, 1980, there was some concern expressed regarding the proliferation of boat docks in the subject Lagoon, by resid~ntf in the general area; it was pointed out at that time that three (3) docks have already been approved in this area that are 75 feet in length and that the approval of the subject dock would not be any longer than those. She 5aid that it was also explained that there would still be some 375 feet of water- way left open after the subject dock is built. Ms. Layne said that the CAPC recommendation is for approval of Petition BD-80-9-C. In answer to Commissioner Wimer, Ms. Layn~ said that among the comments made at the CAPC public hearing, wa~ one that referred to ~1ving made their recommendation based on past approvals of 75 ft. boat docks, adding that the CAPC did make the comment that a precedent has been set by the BCC. Commissioner Wimer said that he could not agree that this is a legitimate reason for forwarding a recommendation of approval; he would prefer that this petition go back to the CAPC and have it stand on its merits. Ms. Layne said that the CAPC also con- sidered the five points 'of consideration outlined in the Boat Dock Ordinance, and that the CAPC members felt that the subject petition met all of the criteria within these five considera~ions~ November 11, 1980 v Chainman Wcnzel stated that he feels thc nee should take a firm stand a~ainst certain Federal and State agencies that regulate water- ways, etc. and, because they do not, there are many mistakes made. Commissioner Pistor said that he feels that the problem ,with the pro- posed dock is that it, unlike the other two dockJ that were previously approved, has "fingers" sticking out from the end of it into the water and the other docks have only walkways. He said that he thinks the proposed dock will be a navigational haLlrd, in that boats tied out at the end of the dock will not be lighted. Kris Dane, representing the petitioner, distribut~d some colored illustrations of the proposed boat docks, and addressed Commissionzr Wimer's comment regarding the so called "precedent" by saying that he believes that the CAPC members have looked at the carefully scrutinized approval of the first boat dock at a length of 75 feet, and based their decision on the fact that 75 feet was an allowable length on this particular waterway. He told Commissioner Pistor that the "fingers" only stick out into the waterway the same 75 feet that the other aoproved docks do. Conmissioner Pistor agreed, stating that his objection is that the "fingers" are 12 feet in length ,1nd that a boat will protrude far- ther than that into the water. Mr. Dane said th~t the subject boat dock was applied for immediately after the first 75 ft. boat dock was approved by the Board; that the owner of the property received a letter from the Engineering Department stating that the petitioner could take same letter and go down to the Building Department and receive a building permit for the dock; and, because the petitioner was not ready to construct the dock at that time, the permits were not drawn. He said that in the meantime the new ordinance regulating boat docks was adopted. Mr. Dane said that is why h~ is here today; had he applied for the permits ut that time, there would not have been a need to come to tile Board today. He said that there were at least two other boat dock permits applied for and received during that period of time, and those are indicated on the plans before the Board today. ........ BOOX 056 rAGC 413 DOOK 056 f^cr.u 4: November 11, 19BO Mr. George Keller, repr'esenting the Coll ier County Civic Feder- ation, spok~ In opposition to the approval of the subject boat dock, claiming that the present Roat Dock Ordinance prohibits docks from extending out into the w,1ter more than ;W feet unless the petitioner can prove some hardship or need for further exten~ion. Carl Gilzow, President of Vanderbilt Beach Property Assoc. spoke in opposition to the proposed boat dock, and urged the Board to follow the regulations of the present Boat Dock Ordinance. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the twr docks marked on the illustrations and plans before the Board today, marked "approved docks", ano Mr. Gilzow said that during the CAPC hearing related to Petition BD-BO-9-C, the CAPC members were as puzzled as he is as to how and when these docks were "approved". He further Objected to the fact that these two docks were to be built out 75 feet from a vertical sea- wall. Planner Lee Layne stated that these two docks were permitted through the Zoning Department; at that time they were not required to go before the CAPC or the BCC. Mr. Gilzow stated that these two docks have not been constructed as yet and a~ked why there was no public hearing held and why they did not come before the BCC. There was some confusion as to whether these docks marked "approved docks" were buil t, and Mr. Gilzow stated that they were not, and that this is another thing that was "misleading" to the CAPC when they reviewed the subject boat dock ~ctition. He said that during a physical investigation of the proposed site for the subject boat dock, it appears to him that a riprap seawall is being installed. Zoning Director Jeffory Perry stated that the two "approved" boat docks were approved after the first appeal and before the mora~o~ium on non-conforming docks was established; this was also before the current ordinance regarding boat dock regulations was adopted. He said that at that time the Zoning Department could not stop the permitting process for the two, based upon the approval of the 75 feet granted at the appeal. County Manager Nonnan concurred. L.J '- I November 11, 1980 After a brief discussion, Chairman Wen~el asked the Board if they would like to continue the public hearing until more information was forthcoming and some of the questions were answered regarding the Board's decision about dock length related to seawalls, and regarding the means for approving the two docks identified in the plans before the 80ard today and marked "approved". Assistant County Attorney Pires said that he would have to study all the minutes of the relative meetings in order to give any opinion and Mr. Keller sugg~sted that this might all be cleared up if Mr. Virta read the current Boat Dock Ordina~ce. Mr. Virta said that the current ordinance provides that rather than boat docks being approved through an administrative process, they must go before the CAPC and the BCC. He said that the docks that currently have building permits were permitted purs~ant to the Ordinance regulations that was in effect at the time; not the current Boat Dock Ordinance adopted last Mayor June. He further commented that the docks that are on the agenda today fall under the latter, and are subject to five factors for criterie. The fOllowing factors for criteria were read into the record: 1. The number of boathouses or docks to be located on the subject property in relation to the length of the waterfront property available for the location of the boat houses or docks. 2. Water depth where the boathouse or dock facility is to be located and the distance to the navigable chan- nel. 3. The naturp and speed of water current in the navigable channel. 4. The land contour of the property on which the boat- house or dock facility is to be located. 5. The effect the boathouse or dock facility will have on the safety of the users of the navigable channel and adjacent waters. He said that these points are the criteria used to arrive at the staff recommendation for approval. and in answer to Commissioner Wimer he said that these facts Here read into the record at the CAPC public hearing. Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner Brown moved for approval of Petition OD-BO-9-C, and the Chairman seconded the motion to get it on the floor. Upon call for the question the motion failed 2/3 with Commissioners Archer, Pistor and Wenzel opposed. ~M~ OSH r~~r ~ 1 !1 ~oo~ 056 rl.~ 416 November 11, 1980 PETITION BD-80-10-C, WEST LONDON COMPANY, REQUESTING AN EXTENSrON OF A BOAT DOCK INTO VANOERBILT LAGOON AT nlE SEAWATCH CONDOMINIUM IN VANDERBILT BEACH - DENIED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 26, and Ncvember 2, 1980, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition BD- 80-10-C, as filed by West London Company, requesting an extension of a boat dock into Vanderbilt Lagoon at the Seawatch Condo~inium in Vander- bilt Beach. Planner Lee Layne stated that the subject petitfJn is being requested for an extension of a boat dock that is to be 55 feet over the maXiml!m extension without Board approval, and pointed out the location of the pro- posed boat dock for the Board. She noted that the CAPC held their public hearing on October 16, 1980 and that there was some concern expressed by some of the area residents over the proliferation of boat docks in the Van- derbilt Lagoon at that time. She further stJte' that it was pointed out during that hearing that three docks have already veen approved for the length of 75 feet in the lagoon, and that the approval of the subject dock would not be any longer than those previously approv~d. Also, she said that there would still re~ain some 375' of waterway left after the dock is con- structed. Ms. Layne said that the CAPC is recommending approval of Petition BD-80-1O-C. Kri~ Dane, representing the petitio~er, stated that he has tried to comply to the regulations within the ordinance regarding boat docks, and due to the previous denial of the other boat dock petition that he is pre- senting today, he is at a loss as to how to proceed with docking facilities for multi-family developments. He said that even if somewone else went to the opposite side of the Lagoon and constructed a 75 foot dock there would still remain ample space for navigability through the lagoon for boats to pass. He also said that this area across the lagoon is a single family area anyway, and that there would not be a need for a 75 foot dock. He said that compared to the number of boats that could already be docked inside the lagoon, tt,,> impact of these particul.ar docks is very small. He said that the petitioner has met the Ordinance point by point and because the staff has reviewed this petition, he is at a loss as to what else the Board wants. I _ J .1 November 11, 1980 Commissioner Archer said that he voted against the first 75 foot dock in the lagoon. He asked Mr. Dane if the Board had approved 112 feet for the original dock, would he be here today asking for 112 feet? Mr. Dane said that that was a good possibility. He said that the fact is that 75 feet was approved before, and that there was no attempt to mislead the CAPC with the markings on the plans and illustrations. He said that these docks were approved; not built. He said that he was not the engineer for those two "approved docks', however, they do have permits, and he is just asking for the same consideration. Commissioner Pistoi said that he still objects to the fingers on the end of the docks and, Mr. Dane said that he is willing to be flexible, and that if the Board.wishes to make a stipulation that the docks be re- designed, to eliminate the fingers, then he would go along with that. Commissioner Brown said that the CAPC and the staff have recommended the approval of the docks as they are designed, and that he does not believe that the proposed docks will be a navigational hazard. He said that the BCC has ~pDroved this length of dock before. Commissioner Wimer stated that he believes that perhaps Mr. Dane and Commissioner Pistor could resolve the problem of the design and Mr. Dane agreed to do so now, in order to acquire approval of the project. Commissioner Archer asked how far out int~ th~ water the tie-off pilings would protrude and Mr. Dane said that they would extend some 8 feet out into the water, and Commissioner Archer said that he was still going to vote ne~atively for the reasons given earlier. Mr. GilzO\~, President of Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners Assoc., stated that he still does not understand how the two "approved docks" on the plans received approval, and Chairman Wenzel said that staff has been instructed to look into that, and in the event th~t the Board deems it necessary, they can rescind their action. Commissioner Wimer said the staff has said that the petitioners for those two docks received their approval before the moratorium was established. Mr. Keller, Collier County Civic Federation, stated that he still has not received an answer as to what the law reads regarding the al- lowing of docks over 20 feet in length, ~nd safd that he wants to know if the five pofnts must be met as "restrictive" points or "permissive" points. ~OQK 056 PACE 417 ~OOK 056 PAGE 418 Novcmbcr 11, 1980 He said that hc belicves the CAPC reconmendation was made in a "confused state" rcgar~in9 this. Chairman Wenzel directed Assistant County Attorney Pires to look into thc matter ond report to thc board if there is a problcm with these regulations. Mr. Keller said that he is asking the Board to stay within the regulations of the present Ordinance. Community Development Administrator Virta said that the request before the Board is not one for a variance; the ordinance provides for private boathouses and/or docks; individual 0r private boathouses and/or docks; including mooring pilings. He read a portion of the ordinance as follows: "including mooring pilings, to serve the residents of a development, with or without boat hoists, 6n canal or water way lots, not protruding more than 5 feet in- to the canal or water way, unless such canal or water- way has a width of 100 feet or more; in which case, the boathouse)r "ock may protrude 20 feet into such c1;nal or wa terway. " He said that the whole substance of the change lies in the following portion which follows the aforementioned paragraph. "Additional length beyond said 20 feet may be requested and shall require public hearing by the CAPC". He said that the ordinance goes on to require t.hat the petition will also be required to come before the BCC. Chairman Wenzel asked Mr. Virta if the two docks marked "approved docks" on the plans before the Board have ever been before the CAPC, and Mr. Virta said that the two Messrs. Keller and Gilzow mentllJlled and in- dicated on the plans as "approved" have not; the two which Mr. Dane petitioned for today before the Board have. Zoning Director Perry gave the dates that the events took place regarding the docks in question and concurred that they were properly permitted prior to the moratorium being initiated and prior to adoption of the prese~t ordinance regulating boa t docks. After a discussion regarding the various events that led to the permitting of the two docks that are not being ~equested for approval today, Mr. Dane respectfully requested that the Board propose the approval of both the dock just denied and the subject dock with the stipulation that perpendicular mooring of boats be prohibited anJ approve both petitions. November 11, 1980 There was some discussion rcgarding the distance that mooring pilings would be allowed out from the dock during which Mr. Virta said that according to the County's Ordinance, mooring pilings will be in- cluded within the mcasurement of the 75 feet, Commis~ioner Wimer asked if that ~pplies to all docks, i.e. would a five foot dock be required to have all the pilings within the five foot measurement and Mr. Virta said that according to the ordinance, they would not be allowed out beyond 5 feet. Commissioner Archer moved to close the public hearing and Chairman Wenzel sp~onded the motion which carried unanimously. Commissioner Pistor moved to deny Petition BD-80-10-C and Commis- sioner Archer seconded the motion which carried 3/2, with Commissioners Brown and Wimer opposed. Conrnissioner Wimer stated that there was Obviously a language problem within the Boat Dock Ordinance, and that he would like to hav~ the ambiguities cleared up. Mr. Virta concurred and said that he is aware of these prohlems and will see that it is studied and recommend- ations forthcoming. RESOLUTION 80-250. RE PETITION CCCL-8D-8C, BRUCE GREEN & ASSOC., INC., REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT r.\ARCO ISLAND FOR REGRADING A DIKE, REVEGETATION, AND CONSTRUCTION OF CHICKEES - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Marco Island Eagle 0n October 23, 1980, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CCCL-80~8C, as filed by Bruce Green & Assoc., Inc., requesting a variance from the Coastal Construction Control Line for property located in Section 17 and 18, T52S, R26E, Marco Beach, Unit 7, for the pu~pose of regrading a dike, revegetation and construction of chickees. Planner Lee Layne presented the subject petition for Environmental Consultant Jay Hannic, who could not attend the meeting. She said that the proposed project consists of regrading the artificial dike that Deltona installed to hold dredged material, thus restoring the beach to its original configuration, adding that it will be revegetated immediately after regrading. She said that there will be no seawalls or any other BOOK 055 PAce 4j 9 BOOK 056 PACE 420 November 11, 1980 permanent structure seaward of the coasted construction control line. She said that Dr. Harmic has reviewed the petition and recommends ap- proval with the stipulation set forth in the Resolution. Jeff Purse, of Bruce Green & Assoc., stated that after he receives approval from the BCC, there is still required approval to be acquired from the Department of Natural Resources. Comnlissioner Wimer asked Mr. Purse to explain what is proposed, and Mr. Purse said that the existing dike that lies some 30 feet beyond the Coastal Construction Control line that was put up by Deltona, in 1973 to retain dredge material, will be regraded down to existing ground condi- tions. He said that it runs north and south of the property and the area along the beach has been used as access by vehicles, and this pro- posed regrading will prohibit people from conjugating on the beach, and will also provide some security for the people that will be living in the condominium. Comnlissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Corrmissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that Resolution No. 80-250, approving a variance from the Coastal Con- struction Control Line as requested by Bruce Green & Assoc., Inc" re Petition CCCL-80-8C, be adopted subject to the stipulations within said resolution. * ." ." ." * ." * ." ." ." eOOK 055 rA~E 426 November 11, 1980 REQUEST TO ADOPT RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ACQUISITION OF BARRIER ~SLANDS FROM DENISH SHARMA OF THE BARRIER ISLAND COALITION -DENIED Mr. Dcnish Sharma, representing the Barrier Island Coalition, made a presentation read from a prepared report regarding the proposed movement by the United States Senate and House of Representatives to support the acquisition of portions of the Barrier Islands. He requested that the Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution in support of this ac- quisition, specifically for the acquisition of Keewaydin Island, and Cape Romano in Collier County. He explained that the funds to purchase these barrier islands for conservation purposes will be State and Federal and not locally contributed. There was some discussion regarding these funds, during which Commissioner Brown pointed out that all State and Federal taxes will come from all citizens of this County as well as the fact that if these lands are purchased they will be removed from the tax rolls and Collier County will therefore lose revenue each forthcoming year. After a l~ngthy discussion regarding the need for preservation versus development of the~e environmentally sensitive lands, as Mr. Sharma explained it, and the need to keep these areas open for recrea- tional purposes as Commissioner Archer explained it, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by COIi1T1issioner Wenzel that a Resolution in support of the acquisition of the Barrier Islands be adopted. The motion failed 2/3, with Commissioners Brown, Archer and Pistor opposed. * '" * RECESS: 12:10 P.M. to 1:35 P.M. * * '" L November 11, 1980 PETITION FDPO-BO-V-12, FRANr R. QUINN, JR., REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM BASE FLOOD ELEVATION REQUIRED BY THE FLOOD PRE- VENTION ORDINANCE NO. 79-62 - DENIED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 26, and November 2, 1980 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publica- tion filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition FDPO-80-V-12, as filed by Frank R. Quinn, Jr. requesting a variance from the minimum base flood elevation required by the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance No. 79-62. Planner Tom McDaniel explain~d that the ~ubject pet1tion is for a variance from the required minimum base flood elevation to permit the construction of a single family home at an elevation of 9.48 feet NGVD instead of the 13 feet NGVD that is required in the FDPO, at 190 6th Avenue, Bonita Shores. Mr. McDaniel said that most of the units in the neighborhood are single family homes, which have been built at gr~de level prior to the adoption of the FDPO; that there are vacant lots on either side of the subject lot. and that the lots west and south of the subject lot are owned by the petitioner. He added that the requested variance totals 3.52 feet. Mr. McDaniel stated that the staff's rccom~cndation is for denial of this petition. Frank Quinn, the petitioner, stated that he wishes to build the proposed house at the same level as the others on the street and sur- rounding area; that if he is required to build as high as the FDPO requires, he would be much higher than the other homes and, that he believe this would not be aesthetically pleasing and would devaluate the proposed home as well as the surrounding homes. There was some discussion regarding the alternative methods of construction of a home at the required elevation, including stilt con- v struction; lower levels of the home comprised of oth~r than habitable facilities, i.e. laundry room, screen rooms, garage, etc.. and stem / wall construction. Also discussed was the fact that if fill were brought in, there are methods of construction whereby the walls could be brought to ground level, and not be constructed so as to appear much higher than the others on the street. ~OOK 056 PACE 42.7 ( I I I BOOX 056 rACE 42.8 November 11 I 1900 Commissioner Pistor suggested a compromise, regarding the number of fect to te granted fOl' the variance, and Mr. McDanicl said that staff feels that it would be better to give the full variance than to have a home ~eet the standards just part of the way. There was a dis- cussIon regarding the dangers of the lower construction and Mr. Quinn acknowledged that he was fully aware of the potential for flood and was wi1lin3 to accept that responsibility. Federal flood insurance availability in Collier County and the possibility of becoming non-eligible for same if too ~any variances are a 11 owed for cons tructi on of lower than requi red cons trlJcti on was di s- cussed and Planning Director Danny Crew explained that while variances in thc cases of lots with homes on both sides are not held against the County; variances with vacant lots next door are. He said that his Department has never recommendcd approval of any variance to the FDPD regulations th,t ~ould hinder the County's eligibility for Federal flood insurance and would never d6 so in the future. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Comnissioner Wim~r moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown that the variance be granted. The motion failed 2/J, with Commissioners Pistor, Archer and Wenzel voting in npposition. RESOLUTION 80-251, VACATING A 60' BISECTOR EASEMENT ON TRACT C; A 60' BISECTOR EASEMENT ON TRACT 7; AND THE 30' PERIMETER EASE- MENT ABUTTING THt COMMON LOT LINE BETWEEN TRACTS 6 & 7, UNTT 1, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 73. PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA - ADOPTED Legal noticc having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 26 and November 2, 1980, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider petition filed by Kris Dane and Michael F. Stephen, requesting t~e vacation of the 60' bisector easement on Tract C; the 60' bisector easement on Tract 7j and the 30' perimeter easement abutting the common lot line between Tracts 6 and 7, Unit 1, Golden Gate Estates. November 11, 1980 Public Work~ Administrator/Engineer Clifford Barksdale stated that the Engin~el'ing Department has received the subject petition for the vacation of the above-referenced easements for the purpose of subdividing the subject tracts into residential lots. He said that if the vacations are approved all subdivision regulations must be adhered to regarding the subdivision of the tracts into residential lots, and that the lots may be no less than 2.5 acres in size. letters of "No Objection" have been received from all utility com- panies, said Mr. Barksdale, and the WMAB has reviewed the petition and approved it administratively, as has the Engineering Department; it has been determined that there will be no effect in the area if the easements are vacated. Therefore, said Mr. Barksdale, staff's recommendation is for approval of the vacntions. Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the subject petition for vacation of the above-referenced easements be approved, and that Resolution 80-251, vacating said easements be adopted. * * * * * * * * * * * * November 11,1980 RESOLUTION 80-252 VACATING THE MOST SOUTHERLY 30' EASEMENT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH 165' OF TRACT 108, UNIT 29, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 26, and November 2, 1980, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publi- cation filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider a petition filed by Charles and Mary Ewing requesting approval of a vacation of the most southerly 30' easement located on the south 165' of Tract lOa, Unit 29, Golden Gate Estates. Public Works Administrator/Engineer Barksdale stated that his office has received a letter of "No Objection" from United Telephone Company, and that Florida Power and Light Company has indicated no ob- jection provided full' util ity easements are retained for the full width and length of the right-of-way on 64th Street, S.W.; the request to vacate the 30' easement will not affect the width or length of said right-of-way because the 30' easement ab~tts the right-of-way and does not encroach on same. Mr. Barksdale said that the WMAB has reviewed the petition and approved it administratively; the Engineering Department has reviewed it also and has determined that there will be no ~ffect in the area if the easement is vacated, therefore, the staff's recommendation is for approva 1.. Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioiler Wimer moved, seconded by Chairman Wenzel and carried unanimously, that Resolution 80-252, vacating the above-referenced easement be adopted. * * * * * * * * &O~~ 056 PACE 431 l..u.J ,} November 11,1980 AGREEMENT BETWEEN COUNTY AND IMMOKALEE SERVICES PROGRAM, INC. AND RELATED COMl>IITMENT OF CASH CONTRIBUTION FOR TRI-CQUNTY SENIOR SERVICES PROJECT - APPROVED FOR EXECUTION BY CHAIRMAN County Manager Norman explained that fn the 1980-81 tentative budget there is a recommendation that the contribution t~1 the Tri-County Nutrition Progrum, a congregate meal program related to senior citizens, be in the amount of $5,000. He said that he has been requested by the people in Immoka1ee Services to confirm that this is the intent of the County in order for them to proceed with their application for federal funding. In answer to Commissioner Wenzel, Mr. Norman said that these funds are in the tentative budget and he requested that the Board approve a letter of "Commitment of Cash" and an Agreement between the County and Immokalee Services Program, Inc., which provides the legal basis for the County's contribution. Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried 5/0, that the two documents described by County Manager Norman related to the County's contribution during FY 80-81 to the Tri-County Senior Services Project be approved for execution by the Chairman. * * * * * * * * * * * * MDX 056 PAGE '433 November 11, 1980 AGREEMENT WITH MOYER AND DYEHOUSE RE NORTH NAPLES BRANCH LIBRARY - APPROVED FOR EXECUTION County Manager Norman stated that pursuant to Board approval of the "Short List" for the selection of an architect regarding the North Naples Branch of the Collier County Public Library, and subsequent authorization of staff to begin negotiations with the first name on the list, Moyer and Dyehouse, a standard architect agreement has been negotiated with said firm and is being presented today for approval and execution. Mr. Norman said that by virtue of the fact that said firm has pre- viously worked on the Golden Gate and ImmoKalee branch libraries they have agreed 011 a 4'>% fee for their work. He said that he is pleased to report that the County is in the final stages of negotiations with the developers of Pelican Bay for the subject library site and that because the architect's services are required for finalization of these plans, the finn of Moyer and Dyehollse will be used up to the time of such finalization of determination of a site and, in the event that site selection shoul~ not be completed they will not be retained further. He explained that these provisions are out! ined within the subject agreelilent. Chairman Wenzel said that he believes that the County should not move forward with this project as the people have bpen requesting cuts in the proposed budget in order to lower taxes. Mr. Norman said that this project is part of the proposed Capital Improvement Budget and Chairman Wenzel said that he would not vote fnr it. Mr. Norman said that this is the last area within the County that does not have adequate library facilities and, in order to be consistent, he recommends approval. Commissioner Wimer moved to adopt the staff recommendation and approve the subject agreement with Moyer and Dyehousc for archi~ect services re the North Naples Branch Library. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried 3/2, with COlTlnissioners Archer and Werlzel opposed. Commissioner Archer said that he is voting against the firm in question and not against the proposed lihrary. Chairman \~enzel reiterated his reasons for voting in opposition as expressed earlier and said that unless the people vote for this Capital Expenditure on a ballot he will not favor it. He further stated that he is goin~ to vote ilgainst any more capi tal expenditures; he believes that the County can get along without them. * BOOK 056 PACE 437 1.__1 I. Nov~mber 11, 1980 WORKSHOP SESSION SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, NOVEI10F.R 17, 1980 AT 9:00 A.M. RE PROPOSED BUDGET CHANGES FOR FY-80-81 BUDGETS County Manager Norman stated that in accordance with the directives of the Board on November 5, 1980 to re-examine the FY 80-81 tentative budget for possible further reductions, the staff has been working very hard to formulate some recommendations to this end. He referred to a memorandum d~ted 11/10/80 prepared by himself, along with a 200 plus page report regarding various proposed cuts in the tentative budget, and indicated 'that he believes that all cutb~cks have been made that were possible without cutting back on the level of services to the public and that his recofrmendations will have this effect regarding some levels of service. The total dollar f-igure that can be cut from the tentative budget for departments under his discretion and as recommended within this re- port comes to $487,423, said Mr. Norman, and noted that two copies will be made available for public review at the Clerk's office. After a brief discussion regarding the information and recommenda- tions within the subject report, Chairman Wenzel stated that he would like to have a workshop scheduled for Monday, November 17, 1980 at 9:00 A.M., during which all the Commissioners would hav:, the op,,:,tunity to bring forth their comments before the public hearing that evening for adoption of the FY 8G~81 budget. Hearing no objections to same, he so directed that the County Manager schedule the workshop as indicated. TIME REQUIREMENTS WAIVED AND RESUBMISSION OF REZONE PETITION BY DELTONA CORPORATION RE "PUD" ZONING FOR MARCO SHORES - APPROVED County Attorney Pickwcrth stated that after the pu~lic heari1g this morning regarding Petition R-80-27C, filed by Deltona Corporation, he has found that he must stand corrected, in that he was asked about the possibility of a waiver of the time limits before resubmission of a re- zoning petition that \~as denied. He said that he was mistaken when he stated earlier that the Zoning Ordinance did not provide for such a waiver, and he read the following into the record from the Zoning Ordinance: BDOX 056 fACt 449 800X C5G P,\C: 450 November 11, 1960 "The time limits of Subsection 9b, above, may be waived by thrce affirmative votes of the Board when such action is deemed np.cessary to prevent injustice or to facilitate the proper development of the County". Hc said that the Subsection 9b, refers to the 6 month~ and the one year time limit of the resubmission of rezone petitions, and that he is sure that Deltona contcnds that they havc becn served with an injustice and that they intend to proper~y develop that portion of the County. He said that the Board does, then, have the au~hority to allow De1tona to reapply for their requested rezoning as specified by the Ordinance. There was some question as to what constitutes the Board's deeming that this is neressary to prevent an injustice, and Mr. Pickworth 3aid that this is up to the Board to decide. He further stated that Deltona's repl'esentative should speak to this matter, and then, if the Board decides that it would not be unjust to give them this waiver, then, the Board has the power to do that. Mr. James Apthorp, Vice President of Corporate Affairs for the Deltona Corporation, stated that he did not believe that meeting the criteria for allowing the waiver is a major burden for the Board, and it seems to him that the question is whether the Board wants Deltona to wa its i x months or twelve moni.hs or not. He said that it is hi s impres- sion that most of the Board was not intending to wait that long; ~hat the Board wanted to see another review by the CAPC, which was the only one out of the four advisory groups that recommended against the subject project. In answer to Chainman Wenzel, Mr. Apthorp said that he does not find an injustice in the denial of the petition based on only one of four recommendations for denial; rather, the injustice wOtild be in requiring a lengthy delay. He said that he believed that all the aspects of questionable areas could be cleared up and that he admits that all of the pertinent infol~ation was not presented at the time of the public hearing before the CAPC. He requested a favorable vote on the question of a waiver of time. I November 11,1980 In answer to COlTTllissioner Wimer, Mr. Apthorp said that it was not his intention to have the motion for a 30 day delay in the public hearing to be withdrawn, he intended to ask that the petition be allowed to be brought back as soon as the items related to the Utility Div~sion were worked out. He said that he wants his project to be weiyhcd on the merits only. Commissioner Wimer said that he believ~s that the reason the time requirements ar~ in the Ordinance is to prevent exactly what is happening today; to prevent Commissioners from changing their mind for whatever reason, and coming back to a session when the public hearing has been closed and the public have gone home, and thus, not allowing people that are interested in the issue to be present when the Board takes action. He said that he still believes that this is morally incorrect; he ob- jects to it happening here, today; he objects to the manner in which this particular matter has been handled; and he objects to the Board even discussing this matter at this time, when it is not on the published agenda. He said that he would probably give the issue more consideration if it were put on the published agenda perhaps two weeks from today, while the BCC is conducting business in a normal manner. There was a discussion regarding whether or not the Utility Division was ever sent information regarding the subject rezoning in an effort to obtain Mr. Berzon's recommendations regarding u~ilities, etc., as discussed this morning. Ms. Layne said that a copy of an agenda was forwarded to ~1r. Berzon's office regarding the subdivision review committee meeting, and Mr. Berzon said that Ile never received same. Commissioner Wimer said that he was only concerned that ~omething should have been resolved on the utility problems before the petition cane to the Board for consideration, and Conmissioner Archer said that he has learned during lunch that Mr. Berzon has been made aware of the subdivision conrnittee meetings and did not attend. He said that he is not sure that the problem was caused by the petitioner, but, perhaps it is a problem cf communication within the County. Mr. Berzon said that this is not the way it is; he has not been an active member of the eOOK 056 rA~E 451 eoox G56 PAC~ 452 Novembcr 11, 1980 subdivision review committee for nver a ycar, since the time that he has been removed from involvement on the WMA8. Mr. Bcrzon said that he does not participate in any way in the subdivision review process. He said that is why, when several weeks ago, the subject came up that hi5 office should be involved in the review of zoning applications, he sent a memorandum to the Chairman asking if this is going to be a policy of the BCC. He said that he recommended at that time that if this is the wish of the BCC, then it should be done by adoption of a relative Reso- lution; he does not want to be put in a pusltion, nor doe) he believe that the Board wants him in the position of taking on responsibilities that are not the intention of the BCC. He said that the County Manager has contacted him within the last week regarding this matter and that he indicated that such a policy is to be worked out and presented to the Board for consider- ation. He said that he did not know, nor was he involved in, the rezoning process. Furthrrmrre, said Mr. Berzon, the question arises as to what he is supposed to review if the petitioner says that he will provide water and sewp.r services and nothing more. He said that if he is to be part of the review process then the petitioner will have to submit information on which a reconmenuat\on can be made in order tc. have any meaning. Commissioner Archer stated that there seems to have been a communi- cations gap somewhere between various departments and the Board within the Co~nty; the blame for these instances should not be put upon the developer. Mr. Berzon stated that he did not agree, and that he saw no "communications gap" within the County, and said that he has not been invo""~d in any rc- view process except specific requests for hooking up to the County's utili- ties, and construction plans. He said that he has not been asked to partici- pate in any review process, since he removed himself from that procedure regarding participation on the subdivision review co~iltee. Mr. Berzon said that he needs direction from the Board. Commissioner Archer moved to waive the time requirements for the resubmission of Deltona's rezone petition, in view of the requests that were ~4de this morning. He further stated that this petition should be re-advertis~d as soon as possible, and that it should be brought back to November 11, 1980 the BCC after it goes through the Utility Director and the CAPC with the new information presented today regarding the Subdivision Regulations. Commissioner Pistor seconded the motion. Commissioner Wimer clarified the fact that he did not vote against Deltona's petition this morning because Mr. Berzon had not reviewed the petition; he voted against it because ~Iater and sewer rl'lated questions were not answered to his satisfactic.n as tie" as other information was not available. He said that he felt that he was not getting the entire picture and that if this were not being decided today, in this fashing, he would be open to reconsideration on his stand. He said that he believes that this action is destroying the Board's credibility. County Attorney Pickworth suggested that the motion Simply allow Deltona to resubmit the application; it should not include the type of review that is must go through or the subjects that will be reviewed during this process. He said that there is nothing that stipulates tt: at Mr. Berzon's department must review utility aspects of a petition, simply because utility aspects are to be considered. There is an entire provision for utilities within the Zoning Ordinance and this consideration should be a part of both the Plannin9 Staff and th~ CAPC's concern, said Mr. Pickworth. After stating that he is only trying to answer requests made by some of the Board this morning, Commissioner Archer said that he would agree to amend the motion to waive the time requirements and that Deltona Corporation be allowed to resubmit their rezone petition accordingly, in the same fashion as any other petitioner would, as recommended by the County Attorney. Commissioner Pistor agreed to the amended motion as the seconder. Commissioner Wimer asked if this means that the petition will go through the entire rezoning process again, and Mr. Pickworth agreed. The motion carried 4/1 after the following roll call vote: Commissioner Archer Commissioner Pistor Conrnissioner Brown Commissioner Wimer Commissioner Wenzel ..... Yes ..... Yes ..... Yes .... .No ..... Yes MO~ 056 rm 4.53 BOOA 05"6 rACE 454 November 11, 1980 RESOLUTION 80-253, FOR A PROVISIONAL USE OF THE "I-MIlSD" DISTRICT IN PINECREST SUBDIVISION IN IM~IOKALEE FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER - ADOPTED: IAPC FINDING OF FACT ACCEPTED FOR THE RECORD Zoning Director Jeffory Perry stated that Petition PU-80-2-1, submitted by Raul and Juanita Reyna, requesting a provisional use on Lots 11 and 12, Block D, Pinecrest Subdivision, for the establishment of a Child Care Center has been reviewed by the IAPe on September 24, and October 29, 1980. He said that they recommended forwarding the subject petition to the BCC with a recommendation for approval. In answer to Chairman Pistor, Mr. Perry safo that no one app~ared before the IAPC to object to the requested pruvisional use. Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Wimer and car- ried unanimously, that Resolution 80-253, for a provisional use for a chil~ ~are center in Pinecrest Subdivision in Immokalee, be adopted and that the IAPC finding of fact be accepted for the record. * * * * * * * * * * * * * BOQK 056 PACE '458 November 11, 1980 IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES PHASE 2 - APPROVEO FOR RECORDATION; TWO IRREVOCABLE LETTERS OF CREDIT ACCEPTED AS GUARANTEE SECURITY Public Works Administrator/Engineer Oarksdale stated that the construction plans and the final plat for Imperial Golf Estates Phase 2 were approved by the BCC on February 5, 1980, with the stipulation that the plat would not be recorded until adequate security was pro- vided or that the required improvements be completed. Commissioner Pistol' moved to accept the staff recommendations to the Board, including the approval for recordation of the Imperial Golf Estates Phase 2's final plat and the acceptance of the two Irrevocable Letters of Credit as guarantee security. Chairman Wenzel seconded the motion which carried 4/1, with Commissioner Archer opposed. INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTS RE NAPLES PARK AREA AUTHURIZEU AS PER STAFF RECOI.1MENDATIONS Public Works AdministrJtor/Engineer Barksdale read the Executive Summary, dated 11/11/80, and concluded by stating that it is his recom- mendation that in view of all the facts described within the Executive Sunmary, the authorization should be given to proceed with the instal- lation of street lights in the Naples Park Area with one li0ht at mid- block and one at each intersection utilizing the 16,000 lumen high-pressure sodium lamp fixture, concrete poles, and underground wiring. This pattern of light, with one at midblock, will not provide the standard lighting that is normally provided within a subdivision, said Mr. Barksdale; however, it is a compromised position that can be added to at a later time in order to bring it up to the standard it should be; this would not have an increase in costs for installation and would only require the costs of the additional poles and lights. Underground wiring plans were explained by Mr. Barksdale and the public was asked to ~peak. The following people spoke in opposition to the recommended street light installation in Na~les Park: 1. Jeannette Foresman, 1040 6th Avenue North, representing Naples Park Voters League. t ,J November 11, 1980 2. l.S. Emmert, 755 104th Avenue, representing himself. 3. Elwyn J. Avard, 582 104th Avenue, representing himself. 4. Florence Nofrio, 612 l04th Avenue North, representing herself. The following gentleman spoke in favor of the recommended installation of street lights in Naples Park: 1. Carl Pauly, resident of Naples Park. The following gentleman spoke in favor of the recommended instal- lation of street lights, if that is the most light tt:at can be installed at this time, and strongly favored closer spacing of lights if at all possible: 1. Harry Moore, 564 99th Avenue North. Upon hearing that there were no other members of the public registered to speak on the rnatter, Conrnissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried uranimously, that staff's recommended installation of street lights in Naples Park be authorized in the manner outlined within the Executive Summary and as recommended by Public Works Administrator/ County Engineer Barksdale. BILL OF SALE, DEED EASEMENT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO WIGGINS PASS MARINA-SEWER FORCE ~~IN AND LIFT STATION - ACCEPTED FOR RECORDA- TION; UTILITY DIVISION'S ASSUMPTION OF OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY OF LIFT STATION AND FORCE MAIN AND AUTHORIZATION OF COLLECTION OF ALL SEWER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES RE SAME - APPROVED; ONE YEAR MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE RE SA~E SYSTE~l TO BE PROVIDED BY DE- VELOPER - APPROVED FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE COUNTY Utility Director Irving Berzon stated that in compliance with County Ordinance No. 79-33, a Deed and Bill of Sale for the sewer force main and lift station at Wiggins Pass Marina are being offered to the County; that the sewage force main and lift station for the Wiggins Pass Marina is located within the public right-of-way anrl/or dedicated utility easement; and, that the developer is retaining ownership and responsibility of the lift station and force main. The necessary t~sts have been submitted and the Utility Division is satisfied to reconrnend the acceptance of the force main connection and the lift station for ownership by the County, said Mr. Berzon, who added that this acceptance will also carry with it a one year maintenance guaran- tee of the facilities by the developer. ~n~~ 056 rm [159 BOOK 056 PACE 460 November 11, 1980 In answer to Commissioner Wimer. Mr. Berzon stated that the gravity system regarding this project is located on the developer's property, therefore, it will not be dedicated to the County as is usually the case in other projects of this nature. He said that the Utility Division has no problem with this because if there are any problems with a blocked scwer linc on the gravity system, it will be the responsibility of the developer to cleJr it up and not one of the County. Commissioner A~cher moved, ~econJed by Commis~ioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the County accept and record the Bill of Sale, Deed, Easement documents, and all other pertinent documents for accep- tance of the sewer facilities and lift station located at Wiggins Pass Marina; that the County Utility Division be authorized to assume the ownership and maintenance responsibility of the sewer force main and 1 ift station; that the County Util ity Divisio.:n t.~ authorized to collect all sewer system development charges for connecting to these sewer facilities; and, that the County accept a one year maintenance guarantee for the sewer force main and lift station from the developer. '* * '* * '* '* * '* * '* I. I. November 11, 1980 10/21/80 Dec ACTION REAFFIRMEO - STAFF TO CONTINUE EFFORTS RE ACQUISI- TION OF TIlE ORIGINAI.LY CHOSEN "PARCEL A" PROPERTY FOR THE SITE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM TREATMENT PLANT Utility Oirector Irving Berzon stated that pursuant to BCC direc- tion the staff has entered into negotiations with the owners of the originally selected property for the site of the County Regional Water System Water Treatment Plant in the Golden Gate Estates area just east of S.R. 951, south of the Golden Gate Canal and approximately 1 mile north of Alligator Alley indicating the subject site on an overhead map, colored in red and referred to same as parcel "A", he said that when the Board selected parcel "A" as their choice, Mr. Mabey, representing the owners of parcel "A" asked the Boar;! to consider alternate sites for the treatment plant. The Board directed the staff to enter into negotia- tions with the owners tcwards this end, and subsequently that is why he is here today, to enlighten the Board as to how these negotiations are going. He said that afler holding two meetings, the Board was furnished letters regarding the results from himself, and he regrets that there has not been a mutually satisfactory arrangement arrived at, thus the negotiations have failed, primarily, due to the fact that the owners of the property are asking approximately $16,000 per acre and the appraiser hired by the County has valued the subject land at $12.000 per acre. He said that based on the fact that the County wants to acquire 26 acres this represents some S120,OOO more than anticipated for purchase. Mr. Berzon said that in addition, the various alternate pieces of property, all similar in size and closely proximated to the originally chosen parcel, will cost a minimum of $42,000 in present day costs for ad- ditional pipe that must be laid ~f any of the alternate sites are chosen. Mr. Berzon said that for those reasons, as outlined in the two letters, he has forwarded to the members of the Board, the Engineering Consultant for the project, the staff, and he, all concur that the original reconlnendation be adhered to and that the Board reaffirm thei r action of 10/21/80 and authorize staff to begin the necessary steps to acquire parcel "A". He said that this would include the authorization of the staff to acquire the property either by condemnation or otherwise, as specified during the 10/21/80 meeting. BOOK 056 r^CE 467 eoo~ 056 PACE {58 November 11, 1980 Mr. Reginald W. Mabey, representing Trust '50-0990, who are the owners of parcel "A", displayed three maps on the wall, each depicting an alternate site, all of which are made up of portions of the land owned by the Trust, as possible sites for the water treatment plant. Mr. Mabey referred to these maps as drawings A, B. and C. He said that he has no intention of "moving the County off the land", rather, he is simply asking that these alternate portions of the land be considered. He said that he understands that there will be an additional expense of some $42,000 on the part of the County if they were to choose one of these ot.her parcels, however, he and his partners have millions of dollars in their investments at stake. He described each of the three alternate sites, A, 8, and C, to the Board and upon completion of same, Mr. Berzon told the Board that the Utility Division could construct the water treatment on any of the three alternates shown by Mr. Mabey, however, each one would cost more than the one chosen on 10/21/80 to develop, for this purpose. He said that the additional $42,000 cost cou:d be offset if the purchase price were offered at a somewhat lower figure. County Attorney Pickworth asked Mr. Mabey if he has had a profes- sional appraisal of the subject property, and Mr. Mabey answered nega- tively, who said that he and his partners have mentioned the approximate figure of $16,000 per acre basp.d on the appraisal completed by the BCC's appraiser, Mr. Johnson, with some exception including the fact that this is prime property that is a portion of one of the largest blocks of land vacant in Collier County that is developable, and based on the location of the property relative to the 1-75 interchanges proposed. He further stated that the figure of $16,000 is negotiable, if the location of the site could be negotiable. * * * Commissioner Archer stepped out of the room - Time: 3:50 P.M. * * * There was a lengthy discussion regarding whet~er or not negotiations would result in a more ~atisfactory arrangement than has been arrived at thus far, on both the part of Mr. Mabey and his associates, and the County. I.__J November 11, 1980 County Attorney Pickworth said that unless Mr. Mabey is willing to accept less money ,per acre, there is no need to continue with the negotiations, and certainly no need to consider other than the origi- nally selected site. Mr. Berzon concurred, adding that the Utility Division could accept an alternate site if the price were acceptable. After a lengthy discussion, Consulting Engineer Ted Smallwood recommended that at the price recommended by the appraiser, the most optimum property is that which was originally chosen hy the BCC, identified as parcel "A", or the most northerly parcel of the two con- sidered on 10/21/80; however, the second choice would be Plan A, which is the first of the three offered as alternates by Mr. Mabey, if the price were lower. Regarding the willingness of the County and Mr. Mabey to negotiate towards the enc to which the County is striving, versus the willingness to negotiate towards both a more accepta~le site and price according to Mr. Mabey and his partners point of view, Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded b~' Conmissi:lI1er Pistor and carried 4/0, with Commissioner Archer out of the room, that the Board rp.affirm their 10/21/80 action and di"ect staff to i'<:quire the property identified as Parcel "A" and move forward with condemnation proceedings if further negotiations are not fruitful. Chairman Wenzel said that the Board will be recp.ptive to negotiations in the interim period between now and the time of con- demnation hearings. County Attorney Pickworth concurred, adding that he would be receptive at any time to the land owner offering the land at a more reasonable price. ROUTINE BILLS - APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown, and car- ried 4/0, with Commissioner Archer out of the room, that the bills, having been processed following established procedure, be approved for payment as witnessed by the following checks issued from November 5, 1980 through November 11, 1980: ACCOUNT CHECK NO. 1 1576 - 1877 174G9 - 17929 Genera 1 Fund Vendor Payments BCe Payroll r- ,..~ " 1r"n Novembcr 11, 1980 BOOK 056 PACE 470. Commissioner t\rcher returned to the meeting - Time: 4:05 P.M. * * * DISTRIBUTION OF FEDERAL FUNDS RECEIVED IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR 1980 - Ar?ROVED AS SUBMITTED BY FISCAL OFFICER Fiscal Officer Harold Hall explained that the distribution of Federal FUllds in I ieu of taxes for 1980 is based on a fixed formula or guideline from the Federal Governmcnt for this distribution, however, as a matter of routine, this is covered each year by himself with the County School Board Associate Superintendent of Business Affairs, and then brought back to the Board for approval. He referred to the Clerk's report, and noted that it includes a summary sheet identifying the re- commendec distribution of these funds. Commissioner Pi~tor moved, ~ecor.ded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that the distribution of Federal Funds in Lieu of Taxes, be approved as submitted by the Fiscal Officer, totaling $531,741. RESULTS OF CANVASSING BOARD RE NOVEMBER 4, 1980 ELECTION - ACCEPTED FOR TH E .BI C .PEP Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the results of the Canvassing Board from the November 4, 1980 Election be accepted for the record. In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Administrative Aide to the Board Mary Morgan stated that in the event that the Elections Supervisor has t~ amend the figures due to uncounted votes of personnel in the Armed Service, that dn amended Results of the Canvassing Board will be filed at that time and that this would not negate t.he need to enter the subject results into the record. MOK 056 PACE 181 November 11, 19130 Corrrnissloner Wimer moved, seconded by Cotr.nissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the advcrtisin9 be nuthorized for information regarding the 19130 taxes and explanation thereof, as prepared and rec.ommended by the Fiscal Officer and the County Manager; this ad- vertisement is to appear in the Naples Daily News on Friday, November 14, and Sunday, November 16, 19BO. BOARD PRESENTS THOI-lAS ARCHER INSCRIBED PLAQUE IN APPRECIATION AND RECOGNITION OF YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTY AS A COMMISSIONER The Board presented an inscribed pldque in appreciation and recog- nition of the years of service to the County as a memb~r of the Board of County Commissioners to Commissioner Thomas Archer. Upon hearing said inscription read by Administrative Aide to the Board Mary Morgan, ;';ommissioner Ai"cher expressed his gratitude to all the members of the County staff. ~lRS. GRACE SPAULDING SELECTED AS ADMINISTRATIVE AIDE TO THE BCC EFFECTIVE DECEM8ER 1, 1980 Commissioner Pistor recommended Hs.Grace Spaulding, pre;:;ently wvrk;ng as the Executive Secret~ry to the President of Hole, Montes and Associates, to replace Ms. Mary Morgan, who will be leaving due to her recent election. Commissioner Pistor said that Ms. Morgan has screened a"plicants for the subject position from both within the County and from the outside. I;le said tha,t' M~. Spauld ing is recommended very hi gh ly and tha t she is well qualified for the position as evidenced by her various skills which he read from her resume. Hearing no objections from any member of the Board, Commissioner Pistor moved, sccor.ded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that Ms. Grace Sp<lu1.ding lbe selected as the Administrative Aide to the Board of County Conr.llssioncrs effective Deccmber 1, 1930. November 11, 1980 MS. MARGIE HALL APPOINTED TO FILL VACANCY ON LIBRARY BOARD AS AN ALTERNATE MEMGER Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that Ms. Margie Hall be appointed to fill a reccnt vacancy on the library Advisory Board as an alternatc member. Administrative Aide to the Board Mary Morgan stated that thc tcrm of the gentleman whose seat Ms. Hall will be filling expires at the end of this year. TRAFFIC SAFETY SUB-GRANTS RE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT FROM THE BUREAU OF HIGHWAY SAFETY - AUTHORIZED FOR CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE Commissioner Pistor moved, seconded by Corrrnissioner Arc'her and carried unanimously, that thQ Traffic Safety Sub-Grants obtained by the Sheriff's Dep~rtment from the Bureau of Highway Safety be author- ized for the Chairman's signature. * * * * * * * * * * * aOOK 056 PACE '485 BO~X 056 PACt 4.96 November 11, 1980 CERTIFICATE FOR CORRECTION TO THE 1979 TAX ROLL - AUTI10RIZED FOR THE CIlAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE Commissioner Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the following Certificate for Correction to the 1979 Tax Roll, as presented by the Property Appraiser's Office, be authorized for the Chainnan's signature: 1979 TAX ROLL NUMBER 1979 - 219 DATE 10/31/80 DISCUSSION REGARDING THE NEED TO HAVE A SEAT ON THE PROPERTY APPRMSAL ADJUSTMENT BO^RD FILLED BY A COMMISSIONER - NO ACTION TAKEN Pursuant to Administrative Aide Mary Morgan's statement that one of the Commissioners who was to be seated on the Property Appraisal Adjust- ment Board cannot attend, there was some discussion regarding the need to have this vacancy filled by a Commissioner. It was the consensus of the m~lObers of the Board that one of the remaining two Commissioners would be available to attend the meetings and no fonnal action was taken regarding the matter at this time. RESIGNATION FROM DR. JAY HARMIC REGRETFULLY ACCEPTED; COUNTY MANAGER DIRECTED TO DISCUSS RE~~INING WITH THE COUNTY ON A PART TIME BASIS AS ENViRONM:rnAL CONSULTANT WITH OR. HARMIC Upon hearing from Ms. Morgan that a letter of resignation had been received fr0m Or. Jay Harmic as the Environmental Consultant to the County, and noting that this has been a contractual position, Commissioner Brown moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried unanimously, that the County regretfully accept the resignation from Dr. Harmic and agreed to the termination of said contract effective December 31, 1980. After a brief discussion regarding the fine Job th~t Dr. Karmic has done and the wishes of the memt~rs of the Board that some sort of an agree- ment be en tcredi n to with him for future services, the County Manager was directed by a motion offered by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commis- sioner Wimer and carried unanimously, to contact Dr. ~armic and discuss same, even if it is only on a part time basis. In answer to Mr. Norman, the Board indicated that they believe that the Environmental Consultant needs of the County could be met by retaining Dr. Harmic on a part time basis. r. ___1 November 11, 1980 TAX COLLECTOR AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DUPLICATE TAX SALE CERTIFICATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PETITION SIGNED BY RICHARD Eo OLSON (NO. 2752) Commissioner 'Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carried unanimously, that the Tax Collector be authorized to sign duplicate Tax Sale Certificates in accordance with the petition signed by Richard E. Olson, (No. 2752, sale of 1978 having been lost). * .. :1. * .. " ' 'i... :( ~: " * * " * " * " * " " * BOOK 050 PACE 497 t Novcmbcr 11, 1980 SATISFACTION OF MORTGAGE RE 1/24/69 LIEN IN ANTICIPATION OF r1EDICAL EXPENSES THAT THE COUNTY MIGHT HAVE lNCURRED - AUTHORIZED FOR CHAIRMAN'S EXECUTI ON Commissioner'Archer moved, seconded by Commissioner Pistor and carr'ied unanimously, that the Satisfaction of Mortgage regarding the 1969 lien in anticipation of medical expenses that the County might have incurred on property owned by Abner and Rosa Lee Heron, be au:horized for execution by the Chai rman as recommended by Social Director Martha Skinner, as there were no funds expended by the County for this particular case. ,t , COMMISSIONER PISTOR APPOINTED TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SOUTH CENTRAL FLORIDA HEALTH SYSTEM COUNCIL Commissioner Wimer moved, seconded by Commissioner Archer and carried \, unanimously, that Commissioner P,stor be appointed to fill a vacancy on the Board of Directors of South Central Florida Health System Council. LETTER DATED 11/3/80 FROM GEORGE KELLER ~E PROVISIONAL USES - TO BE OIRFr.TFO TO STAFF FOR RFVTEW AND COMMENTS Chairman Wenzel directed that Mr. Keller's letter, dated 11/3/80, regarding recommendations relative to provisional uses in Collier County be referred to staff for their review and/or comments. COUNTY MANAGER TO FORMALIZE THE PROCEDURE OF REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION BY THE UTILITY DIVISION RE REZONING, SUBDIVISION REGULATION REVIEW, ETC. Commissioner Wimer stated that he would like to see the review process procedures regarding the Utility Divisions role in the review pro- cess of rezone petitions, subdivision regulation reviews, etc. cleared up. He suggested that a recommendation be forthcoming, perhaps as soon as next week. County Manager Norman said that he would meet with Mr. Virta and Mr. Berzon and formalize this procedure regarding the relative review process and in keeping with the Board's direction in this matter, he would like the opportunity to handle this formalization administratively. He said that the Board's direction will suffice as to what role Mr. Oerzon will play for r.ow, ilnd that he \'/i11 follow up with an administrative policy regarding this process. 6QDK 056 PACE 499 BoaK 056 PAGE 500 November 11, 19ao Commissioner Wimer so moved, seconded by Commissioner Brown and carried unanimously, that the County Manager shall develop an administra- tive policy regarding the Utility Division's role in the review process for rezones, subdivision regulation reviews, etc. LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CERTIFICATE DEED NO. 242 - RECORDED AND FILED FOR THE RECORD Pursuant to action of the Board January 10, 1978, wherein the Chair- man was authorized to sign various deeds to Lake Trafford ~Icmorial Gardens cemetery lots as the need arises, the following Deed No. 242 was recorded and filed for the record: * * * * * * * * * * * '* "It J I November 11, 1980 15. Copy of memorandum dated 11/3/80 to Fire Chief Dave Reeves, Golden Gate Fire Department from Community Development Administrator re renaming of streets and roads in Golden Gate and Golden Gate Estates. Filed. 16. Office of Inspector General, Farmworker Fact Sheet, Nov- ember 1980j xc County Manager; Community Development; Filed. 17. Notice of Workshop meetings on the Local Govt. Comprehensive Planning Act (LGCPA) from the Fla. Department of Community Affairs, received 11/11/80. xc County Manager; Community Development Division; Filed. lB. South Central Florida Health Council, Inc. Hearing review schedule for grants and certificates of need within certain described regions. filed. 19. DER notice dated 11/5/80 announcing public meeting scheduled for 11/18/80, in Tallahassee; a workshop for 11/25/80 in Tallahassee; and Docket No. 80-26R, re Chapter 17-15, F.A.C., to be considered 12/4/80 in Tallahassee. xc Mr. 8erzon; Filed. 20. Monthly Departmental Reports as follows; Purchasing Dept. (Oct.); Ochopee Fire Control District (Sept.); Golden Gate Fire Contrrrl District (Oct.) Filed. 21. Letter dated 11/10/80, from Secretary to G.E. Carroll, re- questing that the public hearing re B&B Disposal Transfer of Franchise to Statewide Environmental Contractor's Inc. be deferred to 11/18/80. Filed. ......- 22. Letter dated 11/10/20 from Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida in opposition to Petitions R-80-27C & SMP-80-26, Deltona Corp./Marco Shores. Filed. 23. Letter dated 11/10/80 from Robert E. Doyle, Jr., representing Structural SysLems, rnc. re proposed franchise for construction debris removal on Marco Island, Florida, responding to a request for information re same firm. xc County Attorney; County Manager; Filed. 24. Letter dated 11/11/80, from the Izaak ~alton League of America, Cypress Chapter, in opposition to rezoning re Petitions R-80-27C and SMP-80-25. Filed. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time; 4;37 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNI~G BO!\RD OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: WILL~A!iI'Jli jRt~~~, CLERK ~. ~/ ~J"~~ ~ ~ '," 7~~ '/, " \:.,." , ~.. , 8eOK 056 PAGE 503 j