Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/11/1992 R Naples, Florida, February ll, 1992 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business here~n, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in R~OULAR SlSSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan Burr L. Saunders Max A. Hasse, Jr. Patrtcia A. Goodn~ght ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance D~rector; Annette Guevln, Debby Farrts, Kathy Meyers and Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dorrill, County Manager; Jennifer Pike, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; MarJorie Student and Richard Yovanovlch, Assistant County Attorneys; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator; Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Adm~nlstrator; Tom Conrecode, Director, Office of Capital Projects Management; Mike McNees, Budget D/rector; Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; Jeff Walker, Risk Management Director; Diane Flagg, Education Quality Control Manager; Peter Bolton, Chief Helicopter Pilot, EMS; Dave Weeks, Ray Bellows, Sam Saadeh, Bob Lord, Wayne Arnold and Bob Mulhere, Planners; Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Toml~nson, Sheriff's Office. Page February 11, 1992 A~ENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANaES Co~mtaeloner aoodnight moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanmhan · nd c~rrl~4 ~n~nt~ously, that the agenda be approved with the following changes: Item #10C - Discussion to clarify Board of County Commissioners action taken regarding the management reorgani- zation plan - Added. (Requested by Commissioner Volpe.) Item #7A - George Vega representing Manatee Road Land Trust - request for compatibility exception - Deleted. (Duplication of Item #12Cl.) 3o Item #SD1 - Award of contract for the construction of the Livingston Road Water Main - Phase I - Bid #91-1825 - Continued to 2/18/92. (Requested by Staff.) Item #16B3 - Recommendation to amend the four party Transportation Financing Study Agreement to reallocate funds between consultants for the purposes of providing Information at a public workshop and at a public hearing - Continued to 3/3/92. (Requested by Staff.) Item #3B COI~ENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED The motion for approval of the Consent Agenda ts noted under Item '. #16. ~':" EI~E SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Commissioner Volpe congratulated the following Collier County employee and presented his service award: Mark Burtchin, Transportation/Roads Construction - 5 years I~ESOLD'flOM 92-98 SUPPORTINa THE IMMOKALEE HORSE TRIALS AS TH~ FIRST FUNI~t&ISER OF TH~ IMMOKALEE FOUNDATION, INC. - ADOPTED Commissioner Goodnlght moved, eacondsd by Commissioner Hmasa mhd carried nnmntmously, to mdop~ Resolution 92-98 ~p~rting the I~la Horse Trials as the first f~dratmmr of the lmhlee F~tton, Inc. Page 2 February 11, 1992 Cc~mteetoner Raeee moved, seconded by Commteetoner S]~Lh~n and carried unanimously, that Budget Amendments 92-139 through 92-143 ~tem ~D I~OO~NDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM~ISSIONERS &UTHORIZE TI~ OOUFl"f"S AUDITORS TO PREPARE TH~ ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT FOR THREE SI~CIAL DISTRICTS: COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY, COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH FACILITIES AUTHORITY AND COLLIER CO~ INDUSTRIAL DNVELOPM~NT A(F~HORITY - APPROVED WITH COST OF FUTURE AUDITS TO BE INCLUDED IN BUDGETS Finance Director Yonkosky recalled in 1989, the Florida Legislature created Chapter 189 of the Florida Statutes which was intended to require independent and dependent special districts to make certain recording requirements to the Board of County Commissioners in each County. He said those Collier County entities were contacted beginning in June, 1991, for the lggo reports, and on October 1, lggl, the Clerk's Office reported that all special districts had filed with the exception of three. He reported upon Board direction, the County Attorney contacted the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and at the same time information was obtained from the State Comptroller's Office that the annual reports for these three districts would have to become a part of Collier County's annual financial reports to the State. He said the Auditor General has taken the position if the Board of County Commissioners does not provide an audit for these three entities, they will conduct an audit and require the Board to pay for that cost. He recommended the Board authorize the County's external auditors to conduct the audit, adding they have agreed to do the work for all three districts and provide a report for the sum of $2,000. Commissioner Saunders mentioned a report from the Utilities Division expressing concern with the procedures utilized by the exter- nal auditor. He suggested when meeting with the auditors that Staff Page 3 February 11, 1992 ensure the procedure being used not only gives the County accurate Information, but gives the best benefit from using the external audi- tors. Commissioner Volpe communicated the Collier County Housing Finance Authority periodically seeks authority to issue bonds through an attorney representing their interests. He questioned that they do not have any money to fund their own audit7 Finance Director Yonkosky advised the three entities are established by the Board of County Commissioners and are not struc- tured with an annual operating budget. He said whenever bonds are Issued, the only fees are those going to pay the bond counsel repre- senting them. He remarked there may have been funds left over from the Industrial Development Authority in 1991, however, until their audited financial statement report is completed, he does not know what ~,!~.'-~. actually happened to those funds. '~ ~ Commissioner Volpe suggested there should be a way for the cost of the audit to be Included within the budget for bond issues. : Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Coutealoner Hmsaa and carried unanimously, to authorize the County's external auditors to prepare the annual audit report for the Collier County Housing Finance Authority, Collier County Health ~ectltttee Authority and Colltar C.mmty Industrial Development Authority; the County to be ratmbursad for tho costs from the districts if funds are avmll&bla; and the costs of audits to be planned In future budgets of the districts. Item ~lk4 CARNIVAL PERMIT 92-1 RE PETITION 0-92-1, GOLDEN GATE CHAMBKR OY COJOiI3tCE, REQUESTING A PERMIT TO CONDUCT THEIR ANNUAL FRONTIER DAYS FROM FABRUARY 13, 1992, THROUGH FKBRUARY 16, 1992, ADJACKITT TO THE GOLDKJ[ ~ATK COMMUNITY CENTER ON GOLDKN GATK PARKWAY - APPROVXD Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator, requested the Board approve the request for a Carnival Permit for the Annual Frontier Days from February 13, 1992, through February 16, 1992. He said the Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce ts also requesting a waiver of the associated Surety Bond and the processing fee, and Page · February ll, 1992 Staff recommends approval. Cc~/Ieioner Ha~ee ~oved, ~econded by Co---iseioner Goodnight and carried unanimously, to approve Carnival Per. it 92-1 for the Golden Gatt Cl~a~ber of Commerce Annual Frontier Days. .... Pa~e ~ February 11, 1992 ~ESOLUTXON 92-99 AND CWS 92-2 RK AGREKMKNT N~ ~ C~ FOR ~ ~~ ~ DXS~LIRG OF PA~G~ ~~~ ~~ P~, CO~Y~CE OF W~ATER LI~S, STATIO~ ~ ~~S IN CO~CTION WITH S~ TO ~E ~GION~ ~~ FACILITIES OF ~E COLLIER CO~ ~AT~-S~R DISTRICT SYST~, ~ S~TTL~K~ OF CASE N0. 91-09~S-CA-Ol-~B BE~ THK P~TIES TO THK AG~~ ~ COLLIER CO~ ~ ~ COLLIER CO~ WATER-S~R DIS~ICT - 408 ~ ~ ~ING SO.CE Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator, recalled that the Board directed Staff to look at what the County is receiving for ~ the money being paid to the Naples Sewer Company and to review the · ~v. - Company's latest revenue and expenditure data. Ne said this is an !!?~ opportunity to settle a number of problems concerning pending lit/ga- .:... tion over the imposition of impact fees in the Naples Sewer Company area, and whether or not the County can serve in that area as well as the threat of an injunction for continuing the Naples Production park <;'i' MSTU. He said this agreement settles all those issues. He advised .:~i the value attached is a performance based agreement for $800,000 which '~ is payable in three parts on performance by Naples Sewer Company for :~' certain items. He said the question was raised by the Board of ~ whether the Company is worth $800,000 and as previously indicated, he · *' said this is neither a good or bad deal for the County, rather it solves problems. He stated the Company is probably worth $500,000, ~" however, that must be measured with the question of litigation and the difficulties associated with trying to take this utility off-line should the County not be successful in a lawsuit. Commissioner Saunders communicated his concern in that he looks at the value of the system as an operating system, and it seems the most generous the County can be in terms of evaluating this utility is 31. $§00,000. He said if this agreement is approved, the County will be i!. paying $300,000 for what is a perceived benefit to the community, ~ whether it be elimination of litigation that might result in delay in the Naples Production Park project, or whether it be a delay in removing a small package plant. He asked what will be the impact to Page 6 February ll, 1992 the County's utility system if the Board of County Commissioners deci- des to let Mr. Arnold continue to operate his system, not proceed with condemnation, and simply apply with the Public Service Commission (PSC) to take over parts of the certified area if the County is ready to serve those areas? Mr. Bloetscher answered the private utility will continue to exist and at some future point Naples Sewer Company will proceed with the litigation, which will have more far-reaching effects from the loss on the litigation than if the County lets the small utility continue to operate. Commissioner Shanahan stated the hard value as well as the future value have been shown. He said the time, effort and expense asso- ciated with litigation and condemnation procedures should be con- sidered as well as the overall goal to provide the best service to the customers in that segment of the community. He indicated his support for the agreement proposed by Staff, understanding that the costs will be recouped within a relatively short period of time. Mr. Bloetscher reported this agreement will pay for itself within the next 10-20 years, depending on the number of people coming on line in that area. He sald another polnt to remember is the County's rates will be lower than those Naples Sewer Company is looking for with the PSC. Commissioner Hasse concurred with Commissioner Shanahan, adding this issue has been discussed for many years and should be settled. Commissioner Volpe asked what is the source of payment to acquire this system? Mr. Bloetscher rep//ed that $2.3-million tn user fees was budgeted In 1991 for utility acquisition, specifically targeted at North Naples Utilities. He said the carryforward from not expending that total amount will allow for this acquisition. He advised none of the user fees were collected from customers of North Naples Utilities. He said the fees were collected Countywide and are' being used to expand the rate base. Page 7 February 11, 1992 Commissioner Volpe asked if the surplus funds are an appropriate funding source to consummate this agreement with Naples Sewer Company7 Finance Director Yonkosky clarified the composition of the funds are transfers from the operating fund, impact fees and interest earned on those fees. Commissioner Volpe asked if impact fees are a part of that fund, is it appropriate to utilize them for this purpose7 County Manager Dorrtll responded an allocation of the fund reve- nues that make up that fund needs to be done, because he does not believe it would be appropriate to use impact fee revenues to make this acquisition. Clerk Giles pointed out that since Countywide Water-Sewer District funds are being utilized to purchase this utility, the Board needs to make the determination whether this agreement serves a Countywide. Water-Sewer District purpose. Commissioner Volpe asked if there has been any discussion of expanding the boundaries of the Naples Production Park MSTU to take in this area? County Manager Dorrill stated the Gounty is responding to a peti- tion for what is being called the Naples Production Park MSTU which did not include this area. Gommissioner Saunders commented the Naples Sewer Company has a total of 240 commodes with the possibility of doubling that capacity if they expand. He asked how much of the MSTU overlaps ~nto the cer- tified area of Naples Sewer Company7 Mr. Bloetscher answered the County has planned sewer infrastruc- ture on Enterprise, Domestic and Progress Avenues. He said Mr. Arnold has sued to prevent the County from installing sewer lines in those streets. Commissioner Saunders inquired how long has it been since Mr. Arnold has expanded his service into other parts of his certified area7 Mr. Bloetscher indicated additions to the system were made two Page February ll, 1992 years ago, but Mr. Arnold has made no aggressive efforts to serve his entire area. Commissioner Saunders stated if this agreement is approved the Board is saying to the private sewer operators in Collier County that the County will pay for not only the fair value of their systems, but will pay a bonus in order to take over an area that the private opera- tor may never desire to serve. Commissioner Volpe remarked the Board should not loose sight of the fact that the community is interested in a regional wastewater treatment system and the goal is to acquire the private uti/it/es. He said the real issue is how best to make those acquisitions. Commissioner Shanahan asked how strong is the recommendation of Staff to acquire this facility? Mr. Bloetscher advised that Staff is comfortable with the agreement. County Manager Dorrill stated in his opinion, the acquisition is a good deal because the County is buying an existing and a future tax base and ability to make money within this defined area. He said regardless of the litigation issues, it is also a good deal because Collier County has a desired project that goes back to 1982 in the Naples Production Park. He indicated the County acquired the Lely, Glades and Foxfire systems as part of the regionalizatton process, and this is the smallest of the systems that make up the South County Regional Sewage Treatment System. He said it is also a continuation of a policy from 1984 when the Board first adopted the regional sewer master plan. Attorney Robert Medvecky, representing Naples Sewer Company, reported he has advised his client that this system is worth substan- tially more than $800,000. He pointed out that the figure of $500,000 is nothing more than appreciated original cost and has nothing to do with the system's value. He mentioned case law which supports the his client's rights, and the County will have a very difficult time position to argue in court. He said this is a good deal from both ee 64 Page 9 February ll, 1992 points of view and it is the Judgment of both sides that 8800,000 ts an acceptable figure. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Attorney Medvecky stated the County will be acquiring Naples Sewer Company's territory and totally eliminating their rights to operate. In his opinion, he said, that of considerable value. C~i~ion~r Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Co~ieltoner Hula, to a~t l~lution 9~-99 ~d 05#-9~-~ author~z~n~ the ~~nt ~n Collier Co~lssloner Volpe advised he will support the motion only if he receives additional information regardinG the funding source. Finance Director Yonkosky reported a review ts currently under way of the water and sewer impact fees. He said Staff ts attempting to go back tn the records to 1984, which was the last time they were segre- gated, and carry them forward tn order to know how much available money the Board has tn the way of funds transferred over, how much water impact fees and sewer impact fees. He said that information will be available within the next two weeks. Clerk Giles clarified impact fees are used to fund Infrastructure Improvements, while user fees are normally used to fund operations. He said another ~estton ts whether this ac~lsttton ts an authorized use of impact fees because it ts not an infrastructure improvement. He added if this it will be paid for from the customer base, leading to the question of whether this primarily benefits the County water/sewer customers? County Attorney Cuyler answered the acquisition benefits the ~stomers tn the sense that it ts an addition to the system as a whole. He Indicated he is inclined to say that impact fees probably can be used because this ts a capital acquisition, however, he wtll investigate that issue further. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Finance Dire=tot Yonkosky stated If the Board of County Co~tsstoners approves this agreement, February 11, 1992 .~..,,... it Is his recommendation to fund the acquisition from Fund 408, the operating fund. He said the review information will be available tn two weeks, should the Board decide to wait for funding. He concluded there are sufficient funds in Fund 408, in reserves, to cover this acquisition. Commissioner Volpe asked Mr. Yonkosky's opinion of the more appropriate funding source. Finance Director Yonkosky advised the more appropriate funding, according to the way the Board adopts the budget, is in capital funds. He said the general types of capital acquisitions in the operating fund is limited to $25,000 or less. He indicated these types of acquisitions would normally be budgeted and paid for out of Fund 412 or Fu~d 414, the capital acquisition fund. ~taaton~r Shanahan amended the motion, seconded by Comtsstoner lisa# ~mt c~rrted 4/1 (Co--lsstoner Saunders opposed), to fund the m~q~tsition of this utility from l~and 408. '7'3 :. Page February 11, 1992 ~: 10:20 A.M. - Reconvsned: 10:30 A.M. st which time Clerk Firrie replaced D~put~ Clerk ~usvin ,,e $~L~TION OF DATES AND APPROVAL OF PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ~ TO TH~ ~RCN~I~B PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S C091PATIBILITY EXCEPTION DETZ~IINATION~ - 3/30/92, 4/13/92 & 4/20/92 BIGINNIN~ AT 9:00 A.M./C0. ATTT. DIP~CT~D ?0 D~V~LOP PROCXD~aXS FOR C0NDUCTINa ~INGS PRI0a T0 2/lS/92 Community Development Services Administrator Brutt reminded the Board of County Commissioners of their decision to hear the Growth Planning Department's Compatibility Exception Determinations at meetings other than normal Tuesday meetings. He reported that origi- nally nineteen appeals have been received, one scheduled to be heard today under Item 12Cl, three being postponed pending further develop- ment plans, and fifteen of which are to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners. He suggested that March 30, 1992, April 13, 1992 and April 20, 1992 be established as hearing dates. Discussion ensued regarding the amount of time required to hear the number of appeals presently contemplated to be heard resulting in the determination that three hearing dates should be established at this time tentatively allowing for five appeals to be heard per day. Colttaeloner Shanahan moved, seconded by Col~tssioner Hal~e and carrie~ ~ntiously, to approve March 30, 1992; April 13, 1992 In~ April 20, 1992, beginning at 9:00 A.M., as public hearing dates for Appalls regarding the Growth Planning Department's Compatibility hceptton Nterltnattons, with s mtntlu~ of five Appeals scheduled to ~e heard per day. Later tn the meeting, after hearing Items #8A2 and #8A3, discussion returned to development of procedures for conducting hearings, at which time County Attorney Cuyler stated he has a four page memo with an attached analysis of about forty functions that the Board of County Commissioners does under the Land Development Code (copy not presented for the record). He announced there ts a need to make a couple of changes to same, but proceeded to read from it regarding quasiJudicial proceedings, pointing out the right of the Page 12 February 11, 1992 parties to present evidence, the right to cross-examine witnesses and to be informed of all the facts upon which the Board of County Commissioners acts, and that the hearings are not under the Rules of Procedures used in Courts. He referred to an attachment by Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director Blanchard, labelled Compatibility Exception Appeals Hearing Procedures (copy not presented for the record), and announced appeals will be heard on the evidence presented in the original application only with no new information being con- sidered during the appeal process except as it pertains to surrounding property or the subject property. He predicted th~s issue will be raised by a number of speakers, with the question being what constitu- tes new evidence. He advised the Board of County Commissioners their decision should be based on Mr. Blanchard's information and decision, adding there may be expert testimony on the basis for his decision. A brief discussion ensued whereby the Board of County Commissioners determined that any exchange of information is to take place five business days prior to the hearing date, not counting the hearing date itself; and that one hour will be allotted for each hearing with provisions made should they extend beyond that time. ~iset~ner Shmnahan ~oved, seconded by Co~lilsioner Saunderl, to al~ri~ the ti~e llmits for Co~atib~lit¥ Exception Appeal He~ln~ ~utlt~ tn Attac~nt A acco~ytng the ~e~ttve S~ ~ ~11 ~ ~tr~t of exch~ge of tnfo~tion to t~e place f~ ~ ~or to the hearing County Attorney Cuyler suggested it would be helpful to get something in the nature of a witness list as part of the information to be submitted, adding he wlll include the request in the letter he will be mailing contingent, of course, on the Board of County Co~lssloners' concurrence. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Blanchard expressed understanding that, ff the Board of County Commiss~oners upholds the determinat~on made by his office, the new findings are not an Issue as Page 13 February ll, 1992 the findings are already included in the determination letter and, therefore, only in instances where his determination As overturned As it necessary to have a checklist. Bruce Anderson raised questions and concerns about the proposed hearing procedures. He pointed out that evidence must be admitted on any matter that is relevant to any of the seven criteria list in the Ordinance and cannot be limited to the original application, and reminded the Board of County Commissioners that staff went outside the original application when making their determination. He q~estioned who has the burden of proof. County Attorney Cuyler responded that staff has the burden of proof in showing their action was supported by competent substantial evidence under the Ordinance and, that being the case, staff's deci- sion is to be upheld. Brief d~scussion ensued regarding who has the burden of proof. Regarding Mr. Anderson's comment about staff going outside the original application when making their determination, County Attorney Cuyler clarified that in such situations the appellant can address the issues staff has considered. Commissioner Saunders suggested establishing the principle that the hearings are to be reduced to the shortest amount of time, that evidence is to be limited to the smallest amount possible, and things are to be kept as simple as possible, and suggested County Attorney Cuyler develop the policies to implement such a procedure. Commissioner Saunders voiced concern regarding the question of /imitation of evidence, and County Attorney Cuyler replied that is a fine line the Board of County Commissioners might have to address on a case by case basis. Attorney Anderson pointed out there was no due process opportunity at the staff level. County Attorney Ouyler disclosed there was no limitation on the ability of the applicants to put whatever they wanted to tn the record and, therefore, they had the right to control what the petition 93 Page 14 February ~l, 1992 '~.,:~-~ consisted of .:~' Attorney Anderson reminded the Board of County Commissioners that time limits were considered and rejected after a thorough public discussion at the time the Ordinance was adopted. Attorney George Vega posed several questions to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the hearing process, at which time it was determined that same is a quasiJudicial hearing, that it ia not a super majority, Mr. Blanchard's decision should be upheld by three votes, demonstrative evidence is going to be admissible, and later on another session of batch rezones will take place which deal with the properties that have had exemptions acted on since the last batch rezone. Attorney Vega concluded that the double procedure as currently proposed makes more work and more cost to the client, and delays more · . proceedings. He suggested that a combination of the two procedures would be in the best interest of the County and preferable to the client as well. . ~ Attorney Don Pickworth suggested implementing a regular full b/own hearing examiner process. '~ ~/uiener Shanahmn withdrew his motion to approv~ the t~m l~t. for ~tibllity Exception Appeal Hearings at this tim and ~ui~ner saunters withdrew his second. C,~/oei~ner Saunders moved, seconded by Coniasioner Shmn~hm~, to dir~t O~nntFAttorney Cu¥1er to, between now and next T~em~F, (~ev~- lop a p~e to be followed to conduct the Co~atibili~ Exception A~I Hemrin~ keeping in mind they are to be kept aa simple ~ j;~ooa~ble. A brief discuss~on ensued regarding Attorney Vega's hearing ache- >~[ duled to take place this afternoon. ~n cai/ for the question, motion carried unanimously. ESTAbLIShMENT OF PUBLIC HEARIN~ DATH FOR THH ADOPTION OF TH~ OOLLIER OOUNTT FIRE PRH~ENTION CODE ORDINANCE, ADOPTIN~ AND AMKNDIN~ SP~OIFIO STANDARDS AND CODES OF THE NATIONAL FIR~ CODES AS PUBLISHED B~ TH~ NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION A~ENUY - 4/14/92 ESTABLISHED AS HEARIN~ DAT~ Page 15 February 11, 1992 Commxlnity Development Services Administrator Brutt advised that the State of Florida requires counties with fire safety respon- sibilities to adopt minimum codes and to keep them updated. He reported the present Fire Codes have not been updated since 1986. Co~iasioner Saunders ~oved. seconded by Conieeloner Chanahan and carried unanimously, to establish April 14, 1992 as the public hearing date for the adoption of the Collier County Fire Prevention Code Ordina~ce. and adoption and a~end~ent of specific standards and codes of the ~ational Fire Codes as published by the latlonal Fire Protection Agency. ~T~X~T OF PUBLIC HEARI]G DAli TO CONSIDER ADOPTION 0F 1991 Glt0~l~~ PLAN .~1~1~ AND INVlli TH~ DKP~ OF ~ ~AIRS TO PARTICIPATE - 3/17/92 KSTABLISWRD WITH STAI~ TO Community Development Services Administrator Brutt disclosed that fo/lowinG the Board of County Commissioners previously conducted public hearing on October 1, 1991, staff transmitted the proposed amendments to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), which in turn forwarded their comments to staff on January 29, 1992. He relayed staff's recommendation of March 18, 1992 as the date for the public hearing to consider adoption of the 1991 Growth ManaGement Plan Amendments. He advised that, although an invitation was extended for a representative of the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to attend the public hearinG, to-date there has been no confirmation that they will have a representative in attendance. C,m~ui~loner Shmnahan moved, seconded by Co~miasioner ~me and ~t~d m~mntmousl¥, to sat the hearing date for the 1991 Growth ~t Plan A~end~ents for Narch 17, 1992, with a tim cart&in to be mt k~ staff after con~ultation .tth the ~rt~nt of Co~tty A~ai~ (~A). ~er thim item ~AX ~ ~mg the proc~em ~or ~blic heuA~g8 r~dAag a~a2m Page 16 19~2--95 ~ POLICIES AND FR~S - BUDget POLZCZU · PROC~IX;I~$ ~ ~A~HD ON FLEXZBILITT/CONCENSU$ TO APPROV~ 8150,000.00 FOR Mike MeNses, Budget Director, explained the proposed program budgeting step outlined on page 2 of the Executive Summary. He referred to the statistical and economic information detailed on pages 6, reflecting the changes in assessed property value; 7, Iljustrating the per capita General Fund property tax; 8, depicting the employees per thousand population; 9, portraying the General Fund balance; 11, the per capita General Fund expenditures, and 12, a synopsis of the Citizens Survey results. He pointed out that Attachment III of the Executive Summary represents the proposed budget policies for FY 1992/93. Re explained that the Revenue Allocations Issue, Section 2, essentially details what has been the current practice in allocating revenues between the MSTD General Fund, the unincorporated area, and the County-wide General Fund. Referring to page 14 under Operating Budgets, he stated staff is proposing to continue funding the Pay-For-Performance system in the County Manager's Agency and for the other offices, the dollar amount being 4~ of gross payroll allocated for pay increases. He pointed out page 15 reveals that FY 1992/93 provides for $177,900 In support of contract agencies, with the ambu- lance fees for County residents being subsidized 50% by General Fund ad valorem taxes. Commissioner Saunders remarked there may be a couple of policies which cannot be set today such as the gasoline tax revenue allocation on page 13 of the agenda packet. He suggested the contract agency funding should be kept in place for FY 1992/93 and consideration given to the best method for addressing some of the social problems currently being dealt with by these voluntary organizations. In response to County Manager Dorrtll, Commissioner Saunders stated as long as policies are entered into with the understanding Page 17 February 11, 1992 that guidelines are being established which are all subject to change, then he has no problem with adopting the policies. Commissioner Volpe stated he Is supportive of the idea of funding growth by Increases tn Impact fees. He stated he ts supportive of phasing out the business of contract agencies. Co~lmIoner Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Contsetoner ~ee and carried u~ani~u~l¥, to accept the budget policies and procedures b~eed o~ the discussion of today and with the understanding that they Ce~ai~i~mer Saundere ~oved, ~econded by Conisstoner Ha~ee and ca~ried ~ni~l¥, to approve Funding at 8150,000 for Contract EATI~.~ ~TNOLD~ U SUPPORT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN SCHOOL IN COLLXU Kathleen Reynolds reported having sought and being granted the endorsement of the Marco Island Board of Realtors, with over 400 mem- bers; The Women's Club of Marco Island, with membership tn excess of 200; the Naples Daily News; as of tomorrow, The Marco Island Eagle; the Marco Island Taxpayers Association; The Economic Development Council of Co/l/er County; and with positive reactions by various businesses of the area. She acknowledged that included among those present with her today are some senior citizens, some educators, parents with small children ae well as older children in the school district, and business people. She briefly summarized the proposal for a new American School put together by the major Fortune 500 com- panies An this country for the purpose of educating all children. She proceeded to outline the selection process. In response to Commissioner Hasse0 Ms. Reynolds discussed some of the funding options currently available, with Commissioner Shanahan pointing out this ts all private money and there la no funding commit- ment on the part of the Board of County Commissioners. Page 18 February 11, 1992 Commissioner Volpe asked those who have registered to speak to this issue and who are tn support of the proposal submitted by Ms. Reynolds to stand, and a number of persons stood. Tanya Ferrao read a statement detailing the reasons for her oppo- sition to the New American School proposed by Marco Island residents. She referred to the strate~ booklet published by the U. S. Department of Education, copy not provided for the record. She questioned why, if the school board has avoided discussion or taking issue wtth the ~ubJsct, the Board of County Commissioners Is addressing the matter today. Couulss~oner Saundsrs reported there Is a letter from Oovernor Lawton Chiles to the Superintendent of the Collier County Schools, copy not provided for the record, wherein the Governor asked the school boards not to get involved in this particular program because of another program called Florida's Blueprint 2000. He stated the Board of County Commissioners is not making any commitment An terms of f~dlng but simply making a commitment to support them for purposes of their applying for a grant. Ms. Fsrrao countered that it says right tn the book from the U. S. De~rt~ent of Education that it is the state and local governments that provide 90~ of the funding for education. Kenneth Hunt offered to make available to Ms. Ferrao the 50 page proposal for a New American School in Collier County. Commissioner Hasse questioned whether the best approach might not be to present the matter to the school board first to insure against a conflict with established policies, and Ms. Reynolds responded that has been historical thinking. o~ ~ly, to ¢onceptn~lly endorse this application for the ~ o£ · Ne~a~erlcan School in Cellist Connt~, with sion amd~tlonml funds &loc coming from the oa~e sources of revs- sss iloceooed: 12:38 P.M. - Rec~: 1:25 P.M. at vhtch Deputy Clerk Meyers replaced Deputy Clark tarfA. *** Page 19 ~Z~T~MI~RZ~ TO BIGN A LaTTeR STAT/NO COLLIER COU~fYtS ~ TO )~NT Tl~ CORDZTIO~ OF Tl~ B~LZCOPT~R G1U~T AGRE~I~IT - Peter Bolton, Chief Helicopter Pilot with Emergency Services, reported that on December 3, 1991 the Board signed a grant application for a fifty percent matching grant request, for the purchase of a new helicopter for Collier County. He noted that on January 10, 1992 the grant was approved in the amount of $773,813.00, which ts half the total purchase price ($1,547,626.00) for the new helicopter. He added that aa part of the grant award the EMS State Office requested a letter from the Board of County Commissioners stating that Collier County is willing to meet certain conditions, which are lasted in the Executive Summary. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Diane Flagg, w/th Emergency Servlcem, verified that helicopter service will be provided to por- tions of Hendry and Monroe County, but only if the helicopter ts not co.mitred to an emergency call tn Collier County. She stressed that Collier County's primary responsibility ts to Collier County. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Flagg stated that Lee County would provide backup for Collier County for both ground and air medical transport, if Collier County ts already committed to a call. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Ms. Flagg confirmed that there was no change in the mutual aid agreement with Hendry County, and Monroe County Is being covered because access time by air is 30 Ilnutes. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Ms.' Flagg explained that a mrkat analysts valued the helicopter at $610,600.00, leaving a b~l~nce of $163,273. She stated that the market analysis was co~pleted b~ the American Aircraft Appraisers Association, so she per- cetved it to be accurate. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bolton commented that if the balance could not be raised through the conUnunlty, then the availability of impact fees would be looked into. OOO- .. 99 Page 20 February 11, 1992 In ~nswer to Couisetoner Volpe, Ms. Flagg expressed that partial Funding of the balance through the District 8 Health Council could be investigated. County Nanager Dorrtll said that first it must be determined what Collier County's existing helicopter Is worth, and then It must he determined where, other than property taxes, the difference can be obtained. He said he recommends the approval of the proposed &oreement. Cooede~ioner S~r~ ~, eec~d~ ~ Co~ie~io~r ~ ~ ~l~ ~1~1~, to nthorize Cootssl~er Vol~ to et~ ~he letW ~atl~ t~t Collier C~W will ~t the condttl~ of t~ ~11~ ~t ~nt. 100 Ftbru~-y 11, 1992 · B/D 11-1112 RgG&RDI~ CON~TRUCTIOR OF M,IkT*gR &,RD SgM~lq LTB'g ~ ON 8.R. 951 SOUTH - AMARDED TO FLOR/DA $T&T~ UNDERGROUND IN T~ J~IOUNT OF 01,581,889.48 M/TH T~CHNICAL DEFECTS MAZVED Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator, stated that this ts a bid award for water and sewer line improvements along S.R. 952, between U.S. 41 and a point 2 miles north of the Marco bridge. He stated that seven bids were received, the lowest being a bid of $1,581,889.48 from Florida State Underground, Inc. Mr. Bloetscher advised the Board that the contract required an "A" rated bond, as rated by A. M. Beet, with a Glass V or better financial size category, with the ~erformance bond amount not to exceed 5~ of the available poltc~holder's surplus. He reported that Florida State Underground could not meet this requirement. Mr. Bloetscher summarized that staff was recommending the bid be awarded to the second lowest bidder, Stevens & Layton, Inc. , since Florlda State Underground cannot meet the requirements of the contract. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bloetscher explained that the bond requirement in this contract was t~tcal for contractors per- forming in other outstanding construction projects (i.e. Gulf Shore Drive, Goodlette-Frank Road). Additionally, he noted that outside construction counsel had recommended this bid requirement. In response to Commissioner Saundere, Mr. Bloetscher confirmed that Florida State Underground has worked under contract with Collier County on the Pine Ridge Project, which cost lees than $800,000. He further verified that Florida State Underground is capable of doing the work within a reasonable period of t~me. Mr. Bloetscher commented that Florida State Underground ts pro- posing to post bond at $150,000 and have a re-insurer ~uarantee the reminder of the contract. He stated that the Board would have no direct relationship with the re-insurer, and that this bond ts not as etron~ as the "A" rated bond. ee 000 , 105 Page 22 February 11, 1992 In response to Commissioner Saundere, County Attorney Cuyler explained that instead of having a direct relationship with the bonding company, the Board would have a re-insurer who is in privity with the contractor, who then answers to the County. Thomas McKimm, President of Florida State Underground, informed the Board that the bond would be for the full amount of the contract. Randy Burnley, with Sedgwick James of Fl, Inc., an international Insurance brokerage house, stated that Florida State Underground is his client. He reported that Sedgwick James facilitated the bid bond and would also facilitate the final bond for this project. He atreeeed that this final bond will be "A" rated tnsurety in the full face a~ount, and that both the primary carrier and the re-insurer are "A~ rated by A. M. Best. He informed the Board that re-insurance is atandard in the Insurance Industry, and that the re-insurance agreement is as per all the Best requirements. He said that the COl~Aty~s requireaent that the bond should not exceed 5~ of the coa- bined capita/ and surplus of both the primary and the re-insurer would be met. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Burnley stated again that he believes that the combination of the primary carrier and the re- in~urer exceeds the requirements set forth within the bid document. David Pesh with Reliance Insurance, spoke concerning their client Stevens & Layton, who was the second lowest bidder. He explained that Reliance Insurance was the bonding company for Stevens & Layton, and that Reliance Insurance would provide on a primary basis, with no re-insurance ties, a bond that meets all the requirements as stipu- lated in the original specifications. In answer to Commissioner Saundere, Mr. Pesh confirmed that re- ln~rurance could be considered standard on large construction pro,acts, ~nd that it ia an industry standard. Robert Wtlentus, President of Stevens & Layton, stated that he believes that Collier County has the same b~d requirement for all lobe, and that Florida State Underground is not meeting this. He 108 Page 23 February 11, 1992 stated that Stevens & Layton bid on this project according to specifi- cations and now the rules are being changed, after the fact. He said that the bond being provided by the lowest bidder is not essentially equivalent to the bond that is belng asked for by the consulting engi- neers and detailed in the specifications. Comutsstoner Volpe stated that the Intent ts not to change the rules in the middle of the game. Jeff Walker, Director of Risk Management, explained that it ia highly unusual for a bond to be presented with a re-insurance. He stated that normally a re-Insurance Is never mentioned, and that Collier County deals with the strength of the primary Insurer. He Indicated that the bond ts presented to make It appear that Florida Underground qualifies. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Walker responded that the re-insurer Is covering everything above $150,000. He said that should the contractor fall to perform the lob, Collier County would not be able to collect from the re-insurer, and would have to go through the State Guaranty Fund, creating substantial delays. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Walker s~mmartzed that the primary surety is not strong enough for this Job. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Burnley stated that the free capital and surplus of American Bonding Company at their last report was 8.6 million dollars. He explained that as a matter of normal prudent business practice they reinsure at a much lower level as that In the event of a catastrophic loss It does not wipe the colpan¥ out. He agreed with David Pesh that re-insurance is a stan- dard insurance practice. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Burnley verified that In .the event of default, the value of that default would have to exceed $1~0,000 before the insurance would kick in, because the re-Insurance treaty will be excess of loss. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Burnley stated that should this company file for bankruptcy, Collier County's recourse Is to 107 Page 24 February 11, 1992 look directly to that company and then to t~etr re-insurer to relm- bu~ee them; if it becue a court action, Collier County does not have to file against the primary carrier and the re-insurer. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bloetscher verified that the retainmge provided for in the agreement ts 10~ throughout the life of the contract. ComaA~ion~r ~mdera ~oved, seconded by Co~ataaloner Shanahan and c~z~l~d ~/mou~l¥, to ~d Bid ~91-1812 to Florida State Og~ ~nd to w~tve ~ry technical defects in the bidding proca- dura that aa? have ~volv~d from the bonding requirement. !~11~OII Ol-lO0 A~D DEV~LOIR~E~T ORDER 92-1 ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~8~lA~8, IRC., ~ ~ ~1 IN ~ I~I~ OF ~ USES AS DKS~X~ ~ C.R. 9~1 (~~ON TO ~XTXON ~83-18(3)) - Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on December 29, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition DOA-91-2, f/led by Wtlllam R. Vines of Vines and Associates, Inc., representing Ashley Papineau of Tollgate Commercial Center, requesting an amendment to the To//gate Commercial Center PUD Development Order 84-1 to allow the addition of 30.83 acres of land which will increase the intensity of land uses as described in the amending document for property located in the southeast corner of I-?§ and C.R. 951 consisting of 100.23 acres. (Companion to PUD-83-18(3)) Ray Bellows, Project Planner, recalled that this petition was pre- oentad to the Board on January 28, 1992 and was continued so the Board could study the language concerning affordable housing. He stated that staff found it to be consistent with the Growth Management Plan, Co~tsatoner Yelps reiterated that this ts a large interstate acttvit~y center which at bulldout wall result in the employment of a Page 25 February 11, 1992 significant number of people, and the Southwest Regional Planning Council had Initially asked for some sort of commitment with respect to affordable housing. He mentioned that Mr. Vines had provided the Board with a copy of the new language on February 10, 1992 (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board). Mr. Vines explained that the alternative language states that that the Petitioner will pay an Impact fee on all new development on land to be platted as a result of this development order approval, up tO the point that the county adopts a general Impact fee; at this point the special fee tn the development order would cease and the general countywide one would take effect. He noted that if the county does not met the terms of its obligation tn the Growth Management Plan by adopting some sort of housing program by 1994, then this language would no longer be valid. Commissioner Volpe pointed out that at butldout approximately 12,000-13,000 new service Jobs would be created and the issue of affordable housing needs to be addressed. He expressed that he ts satisfied with the alternative language that Mr. Vines and his client have presented. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Cu¥1er confirmed that he ts coordinating with the Manager's office on trying to complete the second half of the linkage fee ordinance, which will definitely be finalized by 1994. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Vines reiterated that the Petitioner would pay 20¢ per square foot up to 1994 at the latest, and if at anytime beforehand an ordinance Is adopted, this would cease. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Vines verified that the building space referred to in Section F (1) refers to gross building area ~nd this wording will be amended to read as such. Gar~ Beardsley, 2393 13th Street North, served each Individual Bo~rd member with a subpoena from ~he Department of Community Affairs to appear at the Collier County Courthouse on March 9, 1992. 000 . . 109 ~brua~ 11, 1902 ~ ~~ly, to clo~ the ~bllc ~lng. ~t~ ~l~ly, to m~r~ ~itlon ~a-91-2, ~bJect to the ~lltt~ t~t ~ ~n a~d to with re--ct to affo~ble ~tng, :... 8 ~ ~l~lltl~ pro~ ~ staff. Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on December 24, 199! as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition PUD-18(3), filed by Mr. Wtlltam R. Vines of Vines and Associates, Inc., repre- senting Ashley M. Paptneau of Tollgate Commercial Center, A Florida General Partnership requesting an amendment to the Tollgate Commercial Center PUD to allow the addition of 30.83 acres of land which will incre&se the Intensity of land uses as described tn the amending docu- nent for property located southeast corner of 1-75 and C.R. 95! (Companion to Petition DOA-91-2). This item was discussed tn conjunction with the previous Agenda Item #12B1. eoodni~ht ~v~d, ~conded t~ Co~lsst~r ~ ~ to clo~ the ~bltc he~tng. to a~rm ~tttt~ ~83-18 (3), ~ t~t the nd titled ~1~ ~ adoptS, ~bJect to t~ ~n~ ~d dts~s~ with Co~ton Petition into ~dt~ce ~k No. 51: ORDINANCE 92-10 AN ORDIHANC~ AMENDING ORDINANCE )lUMBER 91-102 TH~ COLLIER COUNTY L&ND IFEF~LOFMKNT CODE MIIICH INCLUDKS TR~ COMPR~R~q~IV~ ZON/NG R~L&TIO~8 FOR THE UNINCORPORATED ARE& OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND JkI~NDIIIG TH~ OFFICIAL ZONING ATLA~ MAP(S) NUMBEreD 963536 0~O102~ BT CNARGING TH~ ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF TH~ HER~IN I~V~LO~ ~ AS TOLL~AT~ CO~D~RCIAL CENTER FOR MIX~D BU-~II~SS A~D LIGHT IND~BTRIAL USES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT TH~ SOUTHEAST ~ OF 1-75 AND C.R. 951, BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY C.R. ~'fI~Y~ 35, TO#NSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AND SECTION 2, T~q~BXP 50 SO~TH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, C~3~I~TIR OF 100.23_+ ACRES,; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF O~D~ NDMB~R 14-6, AS AMENDED, TH~ FORMER TOLLOATH COMMERCIAL ~ PUD; AND BT PROVIDING AN EFFECTIV~ DAT~. February 11, 1992 ,~;;:* ~ em)--ea-4s(2), RXCXJLRZ) v'rrrz~, aLoazs~x,rxxo NZST ~ ~ ~TXON, ~~X~ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~, ~~ 600 ~ ~ OF AI~-~LX~ RO~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~l~, ~OXI~LY 900 ~ SO~ OF ~lO RO~ - Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on January 8, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition PUD-83-45(1) flied by Richard Vetter representing West Coast Development Corporation, requesting a PUD Amendment to the Westvtew Plaza PUD, located 600 feet east of Airport-Pulling Road, North and South of ~.i Nestvlew Drive, approximately 900 feet South of Radio Road, consisting of 20.37 acres, more or less. ~:.. Sasl Saadeh with Planning Services, summarized that this Is currantly an approved PUD that Is undeveloped, but It is surrounded by developed Industrial zoning to the north and west, by developed rest- dsntt&l RSF-3 zoning to the east and across Donna Street, and by deve- · ...~'~":: loped estates to the south and across Gall Blvd. ~',:' In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh explained that the /~: only access to the subject property Is through Airport-Pulling Road, ~. and no through traffic would be permitted through the residential &tiaa. Re stated that the proposed amendment complies with the Growth Management Plan, since the PUD has been deemed improved as defined tn .~:,. the Collier County Zoning Re-Evaluation Ordinance. HI pointed out that the proposed PUD Amendment has more stringent development standards than the current PUD and makes it more com- pattble. He explained that the Petitioner Is requesting to add whole- ?, sale distribution, warehousing and fraternal organizations to the list of currently approved uses, and further agrees to the following restrictions on locations for the proposed uses: fraternal organiza- ~/ tiona to lots 5 & 6, warehousing and wholesale distribution to lots 2, : 3, 4, aa permitted uses and to lots 1, 7-12 as conditional uses. He Page 29 mtated that the Petitioner also has agreed to: February l!, 1992 75' setbacks as opposed to the current 50' on Gatl Blvd., maximum height abutting residential property 25' as opposed to 30' in the current PUD, landscape buffer of 25' on the eastern boundary and 35' on the southern boundary instead of 10' in the current PUD, loading and unloading hours of operation limited from ? a.m. to ? p.m., restricted language for burglar alarms, architectural controls, special con- dition~ that would restrict the noise order and chemical discharge, ~d all activities are to take place within an enclosed structure. Mr. Saadeh stated that the proposed PUD was a more compatible PUD than the current one and that staff recommends approval of the PUD a~and~ent. He verified that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC} unanimously recommended approval subject to their stipulations which are incorporated into the Executive Summary, however, citizens prelent at the meeting expressed their opposition. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh confirmed that he has not received a copy of the documents (correspondence) that the Board received on February 10, 1992 from the Petitioner and th~ rest- dents (Copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board). In ~n~w~r to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh specified that the PUD a~ it is proposed ia considered more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood because of the added restrictions that are not in the current PUD. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh replied that the PUD as it stands could be considered commercial with light manufacturing, the proposed PUD would be considered heavy commercial or light industrial. Bill Hoover with But/er Engineering, stated he ts representing RIchard Vetter. He revealed that Mr. Vetter wants to create a busi- ness p~rk on 12 ~ubdlvided lots, similar to the Radio Square PUD. He pointed out the ~ubJect property on a color-coded map and identified the ~urrounding properties. Page 30 February 11, 1992 Cozmissioner Volpe pointed out that the current PUD has come before the board three times in the last five years (1985, 1986, 1987) for similar types of requests, and each time was denied. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh confirmed that ware- housing ~nd wholesaling would be allowed In lots 2, 3, and 4 and con- ditionml use would be allowed in lots 1 and ? through 12. Richard Vetter, the Petitioner, mentioned that he has also agreed to place a chain link 8' fence at the end of Westview Drive. Lind~ Hel~, residing at 4000 Gail Blvd., mentioned that she has provided each member of the Board with a letter (copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board). She stated that this PUD has no business being across the street from their residential neighborhood. She Doreen Vachon, residing at 4361 Lorraine Avenue, stated she owns acr.s on Oail Blvd.. whio .i l be her future horn.. that Mr. Vetter knew what the property was zoned when he bought lt. She stated that the PUD should remain as it ts. Betty Gulacstk, residing at 9615 Berkshire Street, stated that this ts her fourth appearance before the Board concerning this pro- perry. She stated that property adjacent to a residential area should never be zoned Industrial. She stated that when the residents bought their land, the subject property was zoned agricultural. Janice Elltott, residing at 4121 Gall Blvd., stated she has had conversations with realtors, and they feel that the proposed changes would adversely affect property values. She stressed that this propo- ~l would only benefit the landowner, and that warehousing, whole- smling and fraternal organizations should not border a residential neighborhood. Ruth Betcher, residing at 3950 Gall Blvd., stated that her husband is a builder and would never develop a commercial area like this adJa- :i. cent to a residential area. Rosalla Dante, residing at 4182 Kathy Avenue, submitted a signed petition and informed the Board that there is a total of 89 signs- Page 31 !,itlZre~ opposed to this ,end. ant. February 11, 1992 Bob Beckler, residing at 4?20 Gall Blvd., stated that his primary concern ts the noise that the commercial vehicles will create. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Beck/er stated that he does not object to fraternal organizations as long ae club members have no outside functions and will not generate noise. Coutsstoner Volpe mentioned that tn looking at the PUD document ·nd the intent, tt states within Section 3.0 that the development strategy ts intended to produce a general commercial/light manufacture ual environment. He expressed that he has reservations about Omem/mto~e~ Eu~e moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnl~ht and o~led~lm~aely, to close the public he~rtng. Commissioner Volpe summarized that this appears to be an oppor- tunity for financial gain on the part of the developer to try to add to the already existing 49 different uses, and that he sympathizes with the community for having to appear before the Board ttme after time. ~mmdsmt~ ~ moved, seconded by Co~isstoner aoodni~t, and · eZT~~~l¥, to deny Petition PUD-a3-45(1) and to &llo~w the OOODs~atT Clerk Hoffu~n replaced Deputy Clerk Meyers at thio During the public speakers' portion of Item #llB4, the following discussion took place with respect to continuing various agenda Items: Commissioner Volpe suggested for the Board's consideration, that "'because of the lateness of the day, that the remaining scheduled public hearings be continued for one week with the exception of Items 12C2, 12C3 and 12C7. Ommmmioo~ee~r Baoee moved, eeconded by Couateetoner Shanahan and ~'~~17, that the follo~tn~ re~ainlnG ~tv~rtt~ public hm~a-~ Mled for this meettq be c~tt~ to l~b~ 1[, 1992, ~ k ~in of Its ~12C2, 12C3 ~ 12C7: ~~ ~~ ~I~TI~ ~ ~~ ~A~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ff ~~ ~, ~/4 ~I ~ OP S.n. 962 - ~I~ ~ 2/X8/~2 0 Page 32 February 11, 1992 ~ CC~L-gl-9, RI V~ILT BL~CH COUFfY PARE - COFf~ TO ~*.." I~T/TI~ F!~'O-91-'4, 3AM~S J~'*KTIINKY, 3R., REQUESTING VJtRTAIIr~ FOR isJl~0J"~l~'T &T 618 S~IIHrT DRIVE, r, OT 20, ~ Is, GOODLAIFD ]'flT,,E~,, I~Iq:ST : ~ - COFn'BOWD TO 2/18/92 PRTXTIOIV-91-19, DAVID AWO C&IqOLYW RYAleo RIq~ESTX1M VARI~ i~OR : i~PlRTTAT $$80 21ST AVE., S.#., GOLDKN (IATE ESTATKS, UIflT NO. 28 - CCgTn~D TO ~/18/02 FLORIDA CELLULAR RSA, LTD. PAR., REQ~ESTZB~ ~A 280 ~ ~ZCATZON ~ ~R ~)~ ~ O~ X-?~ (S.R. e4), ~ST OF ~ ~:A~ ~ S.R. Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on December 17, lggl, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to cons/der an ordinance amending Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code, re Petition PUD-80-20(4), Royal Marco Development8 represented by Donald A. Plckworth of Asbell, Heine, Doyle & Pickworth, P.A. Planner Lord explained that the petitioner is requesting an amend- ment to the PUD document to allow 77 boat slips as an accessory use to the Group 2 - Single Family Residential Dletrlct, to /nd/cate on the Mamter Plan that Lots 1 thru 4, the parking areas, the boat sltps and the existing residence on Lot 3 will be owned by and accessible to the &eaoctatton and the residents of Hideaway Beach. He announced that Pa~e 33 February 11, 1992 :; this project Is located in the northwest corner of Marco Island, adja- cent to Collier Bay and the Renard Waterway, noting that the site ts developed with an existing structure and parking facilities currently used aa a sales center. Mr. Lord detailed the surrounding land use and zoning, noting that because the Hideaway Beach PUD Is designated In the Future Land Use llsmnt aa Urban Residential, the addttton of the proposed docks will b~ consistent with the Plan's direction to encourage water-dependent land uses. Re remarked that the construction of docks at this site will also be consistent with both the use and siting priorities con- tained In the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Plan. Mr. Lord advised that the proposed docking facility site Is disturbed and the upland is seawalled and has no native vegetation. He indicated that no dredging or impacts on marine life will occur as a result of dock construction making the stte even more suitable for the proposed facility. He announced that it Is staff's opinion that the proposed modifications to the PUD are consistent with all ~lements Of the ffro~th Management Plan. Mr. Lord related that if approved, the project will be constructed in two phases: Phase 1 will allow a maximum of 38 slips and e~tend east~eard 175' Into the Bay; Phase 2 proposes the balance of 39 boat slips and will couence upon approval of state and County staff that Phase I has produced no Impact on the waterway as to boat traffic and has not adversely affected the water quality. Nr. Lord stated that the request for boat slips and the private ra~p requires a sewage pump out facility, will adopt the ~anatee protection requirements and will not allow trailers or the dry docking of boats at the site. Re reported that the assignment of the boat sltp~ will be the responsibility of the developer, however, upon completion, will be owned, maintained and managed by the Hideaway ::... B~ach Homo~nera &ssoctatlon which clearly Indicates that the proposed ~' uss ts an accessory use to the PUD and not a commercial endeavor. Pl~r~ner Lord reported that staff recommends approval, subject to February Il, 1992 stipulations aa contained in the staff report and the revised PUD document. He affirmed that the Collier County Planning Commission unm~l~aualy recommends approval, subject to staff's stipulations and the following conditions: No boats or docking facilities shall be allowed on Renard Waterway. No boat ra~p. A ~axi~um of 26 boat slips shall be allowed with this request. Approval ts granted for Phase I only. No boat moored at this facility shall exceed a length of 31 feet. 6. No commercial or public functions may take place on Lots thru 4 or within the existing residence. 7. A vegetation barrier, with 100~ opacity shall separate Lots 1 thru 4 and the residents to the south of Renard Waterway. 8. No walls or fences shall be used to create the screen. N~. Lord advised that at the CCPC hearing, one resident spoke In favor of this request, citing that the residents of the Hideaway Beach PUD need this amenity within the project rather than having to impact the public road system with the trailering of their boats. Mr. Lord stated that 5 residents spoke in opposition to petition at the CCPC hearing. He reported that letters totaling 36 In rru~ber and a petition signed by 429 residents opposing the approval of this request have been received, citing that the new docking facility · ~uld reduce the value of their homes and Impact the environment. Mr. Lord revealed that staff is of the opinion that these changes will not impact the intent of the original PUD or the surrounding pro- perttea with the stipulations and development standards wtthtn the PUD document. Re noted that the requested PUD changes enhance the recreation opportunities of the Hideaway Beach residents by making ~ora convenient, their access to the local waterway systems. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Lord stated that no dockage would be allowed on Renard Way. Mr. Lord announced that he received a letter at 10 A.M. this date Page 35 February Il, 1992 the Regional Planning Council Indicating if this project moves forward with ?? boat slips, this would become a DRI Issue. He affirmed that without going through the DRI process, the petitioner would bo allowed 74 slips. Attorney Donald Plckworth advised if the petition ts approved, the four lots may only be used for those uses specified in the petition, I.e. a small parking lot and the building would be used by the Holteowners Association for administrative purposes. He explained that no co--ercial uses will be allowed. In response to Coamtsotoner Volpe, Mr. Ptckworth stated that he does not believe that 6 or 8 boat slips In the Renard Waterway would bo unreasonable, which would bring the total slips to 32. He tndt- cited that the total protrusion into the waterway not be any Btore than the protrusion which would be authorized for homes on the other side of the waterway, therefore the boats would have no more than a 9' beB. He suggested that a reasonable way to deal with the boat ramp wo~ld be to have a permit system which would limit the amount of i~," usage. A discussion ensued with regard to the m~xlmum length of bcats to be accommodated in the fingers. Attorney Ptck~orth stated that he would not want to be deprived of the ability to have two boats In the 40'-45 * range. Mr. Pickworth pointed out that some of the concerns have been environmental Issues, noting that the first 38 slips a/ready have DER permits. He reported that an objection was flied to DER*o Intention to file the permit by some of the folks opposing this project which , WaS heard before a hearing officer. He explained that the hearing officer recomuended the Issuance of the permits. In addition, he indicated that the hearing officer found insufficient evidence that local bird and fish habitats would be adversely affected. The following persons spoke tn opposition to the proposed project: Mr. Robert Duane (representing property owners) (Tape Mr. Todd Tares (Tape ,5) Mr. Nick Carstllo (representing MITA) (Tape ,5) February 11, 1992 Mr. Carl Ullmann (Tape J~. Clyde Shadley (Tape ,Mr. Ray Parer (Tape ,v;. Mr. George Keller (Tape ?:' ~. b~o Conlon (Tape ~5) ~. ~o~ D*~bro8~o (Tape ~5) b. ~ Stretch (Tape S6) ~o8e o~er8 voicing opposition cited that: many properties ~ld ~ efffected In ~erms of their view of the waterway and boat traffic; 14 criteria ~n the L~d Development Code have not ~en met; negative ~act8 on properties of 15~ to 20~ of market values; pro- ~rt~eo ~re purchased tn H~deaway Beach knowing that docks ~d a ~r~na ~re not part of the deal; residents property rights should be protected; the PUD does not permit docks; the docks would on~y benefit 77 of The 660 members; It's a mistake to allow a PUD to chugs ~altty tn order to aattsfy the developers; otl from the boats will pollute the entire area; there are already too many marinas on Marco; Impacts on the envtro~ent tn addition to impacts from diesel fumes, noise, ITC.; do~sitc tran~lllty would be affected; and the residents should not ~ nbJected to looking at a parktn~ lot tn the middle of The following persons spoke In favor of the proposed project: Rick end Sharon Kraft (letter) Mr. Anthony Pinto (letter) ... Mr. L~onard Llewellyn (Tape #5) Mr. Herb Savage (Tape #5) Dr. James Finneren (Tape #5) Mr. Kenneth Brown (Tape #5) Mr. Nalter Landau (Tape #5) Mr. Nark ~yson w/petition (Tape #5) Mr. J&ck Skoog (Tape #6) · hoae persons speaking tn favor, cited the following: Narco ts a boating con.unity and ts designed for recreational use; boat docks would increase property values; Hideaway should not be committed to a life sentence of no boating in a boating community; and the residents of Hideaway B~ach should be afforded the same rights as those of other Marco residents. ee INl~latl'Ol~z'k Ouevin replaced Deput~ Clerk Hoffman at thim tim oe ~e foll~tng person spoke In opposition to the petition, stating 187 Page 37 February 11, 1992 boats belonging to residents of Hideaway Beach should be docked In front of the Royal Narco Point condominiums on the river where there is a~ple room for boats of all sizes: Fays Oraefe The following people spoke tn favor of the petition, stating reel- dents of Hideaway Beach should be allowed the right to enjoy what other residents of Narco raland are allowed; and there wall be a greater environmental impact by 600 residents hauling boats down the roa~eay~ to launch at another facility than would occur with the pro- poled boat slips: Nltch Murch Robert D. Pearce Ed lqullaney Hr. Pickworth pointed out this ia a private facility and very limited in its uae to residents of Hideaway Beach. He said of' the potential for 2,O00 boats utilizing Collier Bay, this request is 3~ of that allocation and does not create a major impact. He concluded this request ia very reasonable, and the petitioner has worked for months with Staff in developing stipulations which will protect the m~lgh- borhood. ConAsaloner Shanahan communicated his desire to protect tho integrity of homeowners in the area. He suggested the Board consider approving a maximum of 28 boat slips starting at Lot ! tn this phase, not allow a boat ramp or a parking area other than for golf carts, and no conercIal use of any kind at any time. He also suggested that additional channel markers on both sides with manatee awareness signs are necessary. He further requested the Board set a cap of 6? boat e~ipe as the maxiarum amount allowed tn this development. In an~r to Commissioner Ooodnight, Planner Lord replied the application ia for ?? boat slips, however, any amount over ?& slips re~u2te tn this development becoming a Development of Regional Impact (mHz). Responding to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney 8tmdent stated the position of the County Attorney's Office is that Page 38 February ~1, 1992 > this is a rezone petition. Colmissioner Volpe questioned if certain findings necessary for a razons w~re not ~ade by the CCPC, does that impact on the procedural posture in which this petition comes before the Board of County Comissioners? Assistant County Attorney Student advised that those findings are traditionally a part of the Staff Report sent to the CCPC with their recommendation. She said the Board receives the CCPC's approval or denial with conditions, and since that Is part of the record to the CCPC in the Staff Report, they would have addressed those points and asked Staff or the petitioner any questions as they concern each point. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney Student Mid ~he Is satisfied that the procedural requirements of a rezone have been met. Furthermore, she said, the Board has an opportunity In this hearing to ask the petitioner or any member of the public what their position on any one of those points might be. Commissioner Volpe Inquired if this is an accessory use or a new use being added to the PUD for Hideaway Beach? Attorney Ptckworth replied in terms of the structure of the PUD, this is being added under the residential portion as an additional . a¢casaory use. Col~tasioner Volpe asked what are the maximum number of parking spaces proposed for the four residential lots? Attorney PIckworth explained parking currently exists at the sales center building and Staff has requested those 20-30 spaces · remain. He Indicated he understands Commissioner Shanahan~s proposal ~ to mill there will be no parking other than golf cart parking on Lot Comlsstoner Shanahan clarified for Mr. Plckwor~h that the con- 'eideratton he has asked of the Board Is for phase one. He said he is atte~pting to cap the number of boat slips at 67 so that if the peti- tioner receives the appropriate approvals from all regulatory agen- 1119 Page 39 February Il, 1992 the assurance is in place that there will never be more than 67 boat slips. Co-~isaloner Saunders commented he would prefer the Board take &etlon on a total of boat elide, rather than discussing two phases. Oeem~eet~er Shanahan ~v~d, seconded by Commissioner ~odntght ~ ~A~ ~~ly, To clo~ The ~blAc he~An~. ~ ~At~ ~8~20(4), ~bJect to the foll~ing ~te: aim l~r three single-family residences; no boat ram~ faclllt~ all~ ~ ~ts liattg to a mln len~h of Sl-f~t ~c~t for Plier Lord stated for clarification that the mot/on approves 28 ~t slips plus one per lot tn Renard Wate~ay, with boats limited to a length of 31 feet except for two allowed up to 45-feet, no boat r~p, no co~erclal use of the property, channel markers on both sides, ~ollter Cowry landscape retirements to be followed and golf carts only to be parked on Lot 1. Plier Lord noted the beam of a boat tn Renard Wate~ay can only ~ nine feet because of the 2S-foot m~t~m tn the wate~ay. Coatsstoner ~oodntght co~untcated the motion should not Include ~y slips on Renard Wate~ay, because those wishing to build on those lots are allo~d ~ accessory dock the same as all others. Coalsstoner Sanders e~latned his major concern was the boat len~h In Renard Wate~ay. He said tn terms of the other 28 slips, ~rhaps there should be some leeway given. In res~nse to Coutsstoner Volpe, Tim ~rham with Wilson, ;;:)(~ ~ton · Peek, Inc., stated the docks have been designed to accom- ~o~te ~ats up to 40-50 feet. Page 40 February 11, 1992 ~ l~titio~ !~)-80-20(4), with s minim of 28 tx)mt slips; fac/- ~ ~~ ~ ~t r~ s~ll ~ c~stncted; the ~ly ~king ~ ~1~ ~ ~th sides of the c~el, Including ~t~ p~tec- ~11~ wt~ ~ ~ ~ts all~d up to 45 f~t, all other ~ts to Attomey Ptc~rth co~ented he would be satisfied w/th two boats up to 45 feet tn length, three or four boats In the range of 31 to 40 feet with the remaining limited to ~der 31 feet In length. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERED MB2A BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS HIDEAWAY BEACH PUD, FOR PROPERTY FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 OF BLOCK 24, HIDEAWAY BEACH ENTRANCE, IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 305 ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 80-81, HIDEAWAY BEACH PUD, AS AMENDED; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIV~ DATE. ess ~c~e~: S=~O P.N. - Reconvened: 6:45 P.N. st which tilt Qle~k PI~TIO r~place~ Depnt~Z Clerk ~vtn eeo Xt~m Legal notice having been published In the Naples Daily News on JiRusr~ 26, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with 000 ,,:171 ag. ,, February 11, 1992 [.the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition $NR-91-6 flied by Ms. Kathy Wood requesting to rename approximately 1,000 feet of ~r&ld Circle to Sewel Lane. Planner Wa~e Arnold ~nounced this Is basically a tec~tcaltty f~d u~n revt~lng the const~ctlon documents for this piece of ~ 4/{, {~.t~r ~, not prmnt) ~o cl~ the ~bltc ~ m ~ f~ br~ld Circle to ~nl ~e for ~ ~rtl~ of ~ l--tg in th brlld ~ ~, ~d record~ ~ braid b It ~i~t ~ ~ivtst~, there~ ~optlng XKlutton 92-101. Page 42 February ll, 1992 (JlO3]iliC~ tJ-~, R:IANENII(K:IFT O~ORD][NANCl 88-42 TO COIq3qlCT IGR_TlIIIR~I ~ ZIITKI LEGAL I~SCRZFTZOJIrOR PROPKRTYLOCATKD ON OLD TAMLM~ TRA.TL (C.R.867), APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FrBT NO~ OF THE I]rlI:RBL'MA~OJIOFOLD TAMIAMI TRAZL (C.R.867) AND U.S. ROUTE 41 - Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Dally News on January 23, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an Ordinance amending Ordinance 88-42 to correct scrivener's error tn the legal description for property located on Old Tamlamt Trail approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Intersection of Old Tamtamt Trail and U.S. Route 41. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Planner Wayne Arnold stated this ts the fifth revision on a legal description of a typographical error that was found tn the Ordinance which has been taken care of. ~mmlsmt~ ~odniGht moved, seconded by Co.missioner ~h~ahan eeg esrelei ~l~e~sl¥, to cio# the public he~rin~. Oalm~eolonez- Eases lov~d, seconded by Commissioner Shmnihmn and c~rl'ldut~ly, to approve the correction of the 8criv~neF'o the legal description for propmrt~ located on 01d Tm~tmm! Trail, tbereb/ ~loptlng the O~din&ncs es numbered ~nd titled belo~ aud e~tegs~ J~toOrdln~nceBook Xo. ORDIN&NCE 92-12 A O~~ AMENDING ORDINANCE 88-42 TO CORRECT 8CRIVKSER*S Klq~OR Z~THI L~GAL I)K~CRIPTION OF TH~ II'REIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED 0~[ Ol~ TI~Y~t~I TRAIL (C.R. 867), APPROXIMATELY 2,000 ~ II01FTHKAST OF TH~ INTERSECTION OF OLD TAMIAMI TRAIL (C.R. 867) AND U.S. ROOTE 42, IN SECTION 16, TOWNNHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLI~R COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN KFFKCTIVE DATE. BI~N3LUT~GII~J--102 Il AOTHORXZATION FOR SUBMISSION OF ANAPPLXCATION TO TI~BSOIEIBADBI~~ 0FCOIMON/TY JLFFAZR8 FOR A COIOIOIFZTT ~V~J~TBLOCEGRAJlT01IDKRTNKNKIGHBORNOODRKVITALZZATZONCATEGORY TO ~TWIT~ mT~t, SAFITP~f 8~, AND STR~T IMFR~ IN COI~KLAilBANDJkIIOTH~R APPLICATION UNDER CAT~8~IrlrTO ASSIST IN FINANCING A BOZLDING FOR A FIXED B~srD OPERATOR, AIlDOTIIR AVZATZOll BOBZNESSE8, TO BE BO~LT IN THE ZRDOSTRZAL PARE AT Legal notices having been published in the Naples Dally News on January 19, 1992 and February 3, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Page 43 February 11, 1992 ~Publtcatlon flied with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- ~lder two applications for Community Development Block Grants, one in the category of Neighborhood Revitalization and one in the category of ~conomic Development. Co~sunlty Development Services Administrator Brutt explained that the first block grant application ie for $6§0,000 for water, sewer and street llprovements in the Cope/and neighborhood. Secondly, he reported there is a fixed based operator at the Immokalee Airport who desires to construct a facility with employment In the range of some thirty Individuals. He stated that, although the request for the [' ioney ts et&ted to be $200,000 in the Executive Summary, it should be increased to $350,000 with an increase in the number of employ~es from 15 to approximately 30. Be relayed staff's recommendation for appro- val of both requests. Regarding the Resolution itself, he reported two corrections need to be made, one on page 2 where the Econo=ic Development grant increases from $200,000 to $300,000 and the amount of administrative fees Increases from $10,000 to $30,000. He rt~ported the ~yoff of the Economic Development Grant gains the County approxl- Ilately $450,000 estimated over a twenty year period. Jane D. Bee, resident of Copeland and President of the current N&ter and Sewer Co-op, made a plea for help to the Board of County Co~tsstoners. C~ZT~~I?0 to close the public he~tng. o~met~ ~d~o~ly, to approv~ the ffrant applications and the ~ended llzlglll~l~ by staff, thereby adopting Resolution 92-102. Page 44, February 11, 1992 II~or,,UT/Og 02-10~ RI APPO/BTMEFr 01~ ROBERT 3. ~ ~ ~ ~y (::hmm~ootoner Shenehan moved, oeconded by Comntooloner lleooe and C~TTIodun~n/B~UOly0 tO accept the application from Robert 3. Meyoro for atppo~ntn~nt to the T~oly Golf Eot&too Beautification AdvtooL"y Cogm/ttoo, tho~oby ~doptlng Reoolutton 92-103. Page 45 February Il, 1992 FOR TI~ FIRST Q~JLRT~R OF FISCAL 1992 - COMTZMU~D ~ OF ~~ 18, 2992 continue this ires for one ~eek to the Besting of ~ T~ ~ ~ AT ~ING OF 2/5/92 ~ ~ITIO~ After considerable discussion regarding the intent of the Motion ,: made by Commissioner Goodntght and seconded by Commissioner Hesse at the meeting of Wednesday, February 5, 1992 regarding County Manager Dorrtll's proposed reorganization plan, Chairman Volpe announced he z.. i;~ will Bake a decision as to whether he, for one, wants to have the ,[,matter reconsidered by the Board. PUBLX~Sm~FI~OBJ6~RAL TOPI~ Victor A. Valdes proposed that the Board of County Commissioners appoint a committee to receive Information collected by himself over a period of five months regarding bids for telemetry maintenance ser- vice. He suggested the County has contracted to overpay for a certain lei-vice. County Manager Dorrtll clarified that a complaint was made to the State Attorney's Office about some alleged wrongdoing involving this particular bid and, after review, the State Attorney*s Office deter- " lined there was no evidence of wrongdoing. JTgm thai poln~ on, due to machine malfunction, thez~ il no mudio ~ of tbs mooting mtlabls. ~:/'"~lOkl, llOl*~l~ C~MMXSSIOMERS* COMMUMXCATXOM~ Commissioner Goodntght advised she has asked questions of staff regarding the CRKW Trust and, additionally, that she has requested that staff return with a Resolution regarding a moratorium on burn Page 46 February ll, 1992 plants. She suggested staff look into the bid policy and install a stipulation that considerations will be given to In-county bids. She explained the Intent of her request is to promote the local economy. Commissioner Goodntght recommended that anyone not having seen a map regarding the reapportionment of districts should do so. Commissioner Volpe announced that the Board of Regents has asked iI for clarification of the Resolution adopted by the Board of County ~ Commissioners supporting the selection of the Altco site, and It was · '. the consensus that the "support" referred to was meant as staff sup- ::- port and not financial support. sa, ~mt~er Goodnt~ht moved, seconded by ~ FAczLrfz~:~ &CCBa~ZI~ FOR PAVILION LA]O~ TERRACES The water facilities to serve the project cannot, be placed Into service and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be Issued until the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation fur- nishes a letter approving the water distribution system for service. 2. Bacteriological testing has met the County's requirements. 3e The Fire Flow requirements of the project have been satisfied, and the Fire District furnishes a letter accepting the fire hydrant for ownership and maintenance. Receipt of payment of water usage from Utilities for bac- teriological testing. OR Book 1694 Pages 1420-1425 l~OY, lZ~Z0~l 92-70 FI~OVZDX~ FOR A~$~q~IT OF LIEN FOR THE COif OF A~AT~IIT OF FO~LXC NUXSJOIC~ ON T~)T NOS. 4 AND 5, BLOCE G, OF ROYAL ~OD~LFAND~CLUB, UNIT I~. TRRE~, BARCLAY BUZLDIN~ ~ 47 Fmbl*u&T~ 11, 1992 ~I~OLUT/OSI 92-72 PROVZDZMG ~OR &SSKSSMK~T OF LZKR fOR THE COST OF AB&TBM~rI O~ PUBLIC ~UZSM~'E OM LOT 29, BLOCK 210, URXT 6 PART I - 80T~I~IS&TI, RUS~KL~ ARD DORIS DKB~AULT See Pagee ~/- ~~ lJ~B~q~TXOBI 9J-73 PROV];DXI~3 Iq:)RASSKSSIqKWT OF LZK]I FOR Till COST OF ~O~lqBLX~ BIU~ OII TRACT mA' OF BLOCK A, See Page. Page 48 FebruaF¥ 11, 1992 II~l~.,l~'I~l 92-71 FROVlDING FOR ,I~S~SM~IT 0Y LID )'OR T]~ COST O! A~IkT~T O~ ~X~ NUX~k~'"~ ON ~ 34 ARD 35, LgLY ~ CLUB, ~&T,J~TTO ~ ~g~TION, &. PAUL GR~GG, ~ ,ce P.ge...~ /~,- .~./~ ~&~T'J:~ ~'~-"J'~ PROV/DI~ ~R ASSeSSMEnT OF L]:EM ~OR ~ COST 0F ~e. Page. .~/?-.~/~ 92-81 PROV]:DZJ~3 FOR ~S~S~ 0F L~ ~R ~ ~ 0F ~ ~IC ~S~ ON ~ 102, 106 ~ 111, ~Y ~ See Pages ..~ /~- ~c~(~ xram d~SAOO IlB:B~S&IT~I3g 92-82 ~D~ ~R ~~ OF LI~ ~R ~ ~ OF ~~ ~ ~lC ~~ ON ~ 93, 100 ~ 101, ~Y ~ See Pages B~O&UTX~-.SS PStOV/DXIB3 FOR ~ OF LXKB' ~ORI*KK COST OIP AB&I'~ITOJ'PUBLICB~/~ O~LOT 217, P~ ~ 8AII3TI3IS, LELY C~gM~{ITII~TI~,,gB, A. PAUL GR:EGG See Pages Page 49 February 1!, 1992 FIt0VXDXJl6 FOR A3S~S~XT OF LIKM FOR THE COST OF MUXSJLIKrl OM LOT 12, BX~CK 135, UMXT · PART -- AND JONANNA M. P~INDIVILLK ~4rflOI t2-1~ PROVlDZN6 FOR LSSESSNZNT O! LIEN for THI COST OF &BAThMaT Off FOBLZC MUXSAMCE OM A PORTXON OF PROPKRTY XM XJOe0KALKK, M.D. Jt0ll3tTS Rl~iirrxol 12-17 PROVXDIN6 FOR ASSLISIq~ET OF LXKN FOR TH~ COif OF AB&TB~ffT Off POBLIC ~ZSLW~ ON LOT 8, BLOCE 125, ~NXT 4, ~OLDKN ~&T~, See Pages 333 - 3 IW~Ms~rXOII 12-ee FROVXDI]~3 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKM FOR THE COST OF ~ eft PUBLIC IUXSJUF~ OW LOT 23 OF BLOCX 782 RKPLAT OF A ~ ~1' ~ I~ACH UNIT ~,~F~I, J0Sle A. BJtL&V~RRTA AND DORA See Pages J~BOLUTXOII 02°80 FJtOVXDIMCI FOR ASSESSMENT OF LXKM FOR THE COST OF &BiT.lilT OF PUBLXC MUXSAIICE ON LOT 698, UNXT 4 OF RXVXIIqJt 6OLF · ~T&T~, ~ILL~ OF NAPLES, INC. See Pages $37- J~OLUTX(~ 92-00 FROVXDI]~3 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKN FOR TH~ COST OF JLBJLTB~IIT O/ PUBLXC MUXSAIffCE ON LOT 699, UNIT 4 OF RXVXKJUt OOLF See Pages ~ 9t--91 FR~VIDZ~ FO~ ASSKSSMI3i'T OF LZ~ FOR THI ~:)ST OF AB&'FB~IT O!~ PUBLX~ Jfl2XS~ OW TOT THRIE (3), BDOC~ 2.26, ~I'XT rOq~R (4) eSI,BSI earl, IDSEL AB3) LORRAXXl ~ #&XSllZEY JW~0E. UTXOII OS"-O~ ffltOVXDX~ FOR LsmgMI3rT OF LXKII FOR THI COST OF auaTl~fr Off POBLXC W0XS&W~ OW LOT 28, B~)ClC *B" OOODL&WD XSLES, JOaW Februar~ 11, 1992 See Pages See Pages I~ *~&'*~4 I~IOVXDXIKI I*OR ~m~M~w'r o~ LXB:M ]'OR ~ ~ O~ &~~I~O~I~$,XOMI~UI~'IOMTIt&CT ~Bw O~ BLOC~A, 1~3~q~'r~ It~B~TX~ 0~-09 AFFROVXII~ ~ ZMXTXAL ~ OF OFFZC~ OF THE 'AII~mm~BLE mo~xlm ~~XO~ See Pages FLAT OF 'GREY Om, UFXT Ol~' AFFROVXD FOR RKCORDXM6 2o Accept the Performance Bond as security to guarantee comple- tion of the subdivision improvements. Authorize the recording of the Final Plan of "Grey Oaks, Unit One." 3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached construction mad maintenance agreement. 4o That no required Certificates of Occupancy be granted until the required improvements have received preliminary accep- tance. See Pages -~,~/-- .~ ~ 0 ~LITT~t OF CRKDXT ACCEPTED AS SKCURXTY FOR ~XMG FOR 8XTEB~ILOIq~MT PLAM MO. 91-127 *HI:RR.KRA COMVKMIKMCK STORI', LOCATED XWS'BCTXCIg 4, TOI~ISHXP 47 SOOTH, RAJlG~ 29 KAS~ ~1~~ 9~-94 I:~TABLXSllZNG T~ ~ FOR BOARD ~ OF T~ COXZ, X~ I~OOITT llX~TORXCAL/~LOGXCAL FKBS~RV&TXOW Page 51 :1992 See Pages '~ ~ RECE~'~ ~'4 CLER~ TO BOARD O~FIC~ I:XI:CV/~BI ~ A COJlBULTTRG KJIGIE~LRXIIG SKRVZCKS &~ WZTH JOH]ISOR ~ TO VAJlDKRBTLT DRIVE (PORSOART TO BOARD ACTZOJl Oil ROV~XB~ 26, 'tOO3., AGEIlDA TT'D! 8B5) - IN TH~ LOMP SON FIXL'D MllOOJ~ OF 0374,993 See Xtom ,16B3 continued 1:o 3/3/92 ~ TO KIL'OT~ A COIISTROCTZOR COIITRACT JUEARDKD TO PITTS~IKLD C~I~IIU~ZO~I, 11C., lq:)R SIL'ATE ROAD 29 ~IA]I OVXIq~ASS ~ PORSSAIIT ~O BID BO. 92-1830 (RE-BID OF 91-1797), COORTY CTE PRO3XCT IlO. 0~8 - Zig ~11 TOT&L BASE BID AMOO]FF OF 8526,578.60 ~ TO APPLY lq3R A GRAJIT TllROUGH THE DZOCKSI~ OF VKIZCKo CA~PAZGE JOlt BBBIMI ~'V'KZ~iqlBBT, TO IEKLP DKJ'RAT OPKRATZOIIAL COST FOR A SUIg4KR See Pages ~ ~ R~'~'rv~_ _~_ ~ TO ]~AP, D 0~iC~A~-~ ];tom drJ, OG~ B];D ~1---1910 /OR TIK)PH/KS, PT.,AQOKS AND AMARDS AMARDKD TO GOLDKII GAI"K TROPII' ~ - III THE AIqCX:JIFT OIP $13,7¢8.22 ~ TO BID ~91-1824, COIFFR&CT lq3R ~ COWSTRUCTZ011 OF PZJlK RIDGK I~ATER MAll PHASE ZV AMARDKD TO T.A. YORSBKRG, ZNC., Ill TH~ AMOOHT 301.40 AIlD BID ZRRL'GULARZ~ #AIVKD Ztem ~la ~ ~ ~ TO PROIP~SSZOHAL SKRV/CKS A~ WITH HOLE, ~ · ASSOCIATe:B, ZIIC., FOR ~ CARZCA TAI~ DKSZGW PROJ-KCT RBSOLUTZOII O~"g7 AUTHORXZZM6 THE CHAZIlMAM TO KXBGOTK DKKD~ ~ ~ lmOIt DB:KD TO RZGHT OPt ZIITKIq:MKI~ FOR TH~ PI:JRGHA3E OF BORXAL r, OT~ ~T ~ TRAFYORD Je:MORIAL 6ARDKIlS L'~I~I'~, FOR TI~ CURREMT CHA11NMI" S ~ ?.90 Page 52 February 11, 1992 See Page " ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~tS ~Z~ 225 ~Z~ ~ZT &UTBOi~ZI3) TO SZGN CKRTZFZCAT~8 OF CORRKCTZON TO TI~ SOLID SPECIAL ASSKSSMKMT ROLL Ztem 1002 2989 TAX ROLL 287 02/05/92 1990 TAX ROLL 305/306 02/05/92 1991 TAX ROLL ~ 000.~,: ~.§1 Page 53 122/132 February 11, 1992 01/27/92-02/10/92 1991 TANGIBLE PKRSOItKL PROPERTY 1991-61/1991-62, 1991-64 69531 01/30/92-02/07/92 37603, 15848, 74271, 44344, S&T~~OM OF LrKll FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DKIt~NDKR iiA~-£::''- _2£ ~~-'~Jiu~i~;~ - FILI:D &IID/0R REYKRRKD The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated below: Certificate of Registration from The Arabian Horse Registry of America, Inc., for Collier Aladdinn. Filed. Letter dated January 21, 1992, to Producer from Shetla K. Abbott, County Executive Director, Hendry-Collier County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) Office, United States Department of Agriculture, enclosing 1990/1991 disaster ass/stance program stgnup forms. Copies to Ken Ptneau, Denise Coleman, Nell Dorrtll, and filed. From the Regulatory Division, South Permits BranCh, Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Public Notice re: Permit Application No. 199102217(IP-BB), application from Florida Cellular R.S.A. for a Department of the Army permit. Copy to Bill Lorenz, and f/led. Letter dated January 26, 1992, to Commissioner Volpe from Robert Pennock, Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, Department of Community Affairs, enclosing Objections, Recommendations and Conents (ORC) Report, re: proposed comprehensive plan amendment (DCA NO. 92-1). Copies to BCC, Bill Laverty, and filed. Dated January 27, 1992, from the Department of Community Affairs, re: Case No. 91-LDR13-02, Florida Affordable Housing, Inc., vs. Collier County, Order Dismissing Petition to Challenge County Land Development Regulations Resolution Nos. 91-339 and 91-399. Cop~ee to Nell Dorrill, Ken Cuyler, and f~led. Letter dated January 24, 1992, to Chairman, BCC, from 3on M. Iglehart, Environmental Special,et, Department of Hnvironmental Regulation0 re: Collier County - WRR; File No. 112074115; Application for Mangrove Alteration Permit from Little Hickory Bay Condom~nium Association, Inc. Copies to Bill Lorenz, Frank Brutt, and filed. Page 54 9e 30. 11. 12. 13. 14. February 11, 1992 Rule~aktng notices dated January 24, 1992, from the Department of Environmental Regulation, Notices of Public Meeting. Copies to Bill Lorenz, Frank Brutt, and filed. Letter dated January 22, 1992, to BCC from Tony D. McNeal, Engineer, Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation, Department of Natural Resources, re: coastal construction control line permit, File Number: C0-349, Permittee: Collier County. Copies to Frank Brutt, Bill Lorenz, and filed. Minutes Received and Flied: Minutes of Marco Island Beautification Advisory Committee Meeting of January 7, 1992. Minutes of Isle of Capri Fire & Rescue District Meeting of December 12, 1991. Minutes of Library Advisory Board Meeting of December De Minutes of Golden Gate Architectural Review Board Meeting of January 17, 1992. Minutes of Board of Supervisors of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District Meetings of November 21, 1991, and December 19, 1991. Minutes of Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board Meeting of January 27, 1992. Minutes of Local Emergency Planning Committee of Southwest Florida District IX Meeting of October 24, 1991. Notice to O~er dated January 23, 1992, to BCC from F/re Industrial Pipe Co., under an order given by E.R.C. General Contracting, for rental of fusion unit, technician, freight, polyethylene pipe and fittings for Collier County Landfill, Cell 6. Copies to Steve Carnell, John Yonkosk~, and fi/ed. Notice to Owner dated January 14, 1992, to BCC from Sun Coast Underground Utility Constr., under an order given by Fourlico, Inc., for spread and compact drainage sand for Cell Six Drainage Sand, Naples Landfill. Copies to Steve Carnell, John Yonkosky, and fi/ed. Preliminary Notice to Owner dated January 21, 1992, to BCC from U.S. Foundry & Mfg. Corp., under an order given by Rocket Industries, Inc., for aluminum fabricated access doors for East Golden Gate Wellfield Exp., Project #91-1768, Contract SI. Copies to Steve Carnell0 John Yonkosky, and filed. Notice to Owner dated January 21, 1992, to BCC from Raeta Sod Company, under an order given by Florida State Underground, for delivery and installation of sod for Pine Ridge Road from Livingston to Goodlette. Copies to Steve Carnell, John Yonkosky, and filed. Notice to Owner dated January 21, 1992, to Collier County from Sahara Cabinets, Inc., under an order given by D.L. Porter Construction, for firestatton cabinets and counter tope for East Naples Fire & Rescue Facility. Cop/es to Steve Carnal1, John Yonkoaky, and filed. 293 P.g. 55 February 11, 1992 15. 16. Nemorandu~ dated January 2?, 1992, to Chairmen of Boards of County Commissioners, Florida, from Norm Wolftnger, State Attorney, 18th Judicial Circuit, re: Additional Costs to Counties of Proposed Changes tn Sentencing Laws and other dangers pending. Copy to Ken Cuyler, and fi/ed. Letter to Commissioner Volpe from Guy L. Carlton, Col//er County Tax Collector, requesting $4,4?§ to refund mullet fishermen who purchased safety permits pursuant to Ordinance 91-19. Copies to BCC, and filed. Letter dated January 23, 1992, to Commissioner Volpe from Robert L. Patton, Controller, Collier County Tax Collector's Office, enclosing distribution recap showing year to date totals of taxes collected. Copies to John Yonkosky, Mike McNees, and filed. 18. Dated January 24, 1992, re: Case No. 92-0008-CA-0! tn the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit tn and for Collier County, Florida, Albert and Anne Stanko vs Collier County, Florida, and Collier County Board of Commissioners, Suggestion of Death. Copies to Nell Dorrtll, Ken Cuyler, and filed. 39. Dated January 21, 1992, re: Case No. 92-0007-CA-01 In the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit tn and for Collier County, Florida, Vincent P. and Carol A., Ocuto, vs Collier County, Florida, and Collier County Board of Commissioners, Notice of Hearing. Copies to Nail Dorrtll, Ken Cuyler, and filed. 20. Dated January 21, 1992, re: Case No. 92-0008-CA-01 tn the circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit tn and for Collier County, Florida, Albert and Anne Stanko vs Collier County, Florida, and Collier County Board of Commissioners, Notice of Hearing. Copies to Net] Dorrill, Ken Cuyler, and filed. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the ·eettng was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 7:45 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD{S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROr~ ~roved by the Board on or as corrected Page 56