Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/12/1991 R Naples, Florida, November 12, 1991 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and fo~ the County of Collier, alnd also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing boacd(s) of such special districts as have been created according to 1;~w and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. ~[n REGULAR SESSION in 3uilding "F" of the Government CompleK, East Naples, Florida, with th,~ following members present: CHAIRMAN: Patricia Anne Goodnight VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe Richard S. $hanahan Max A. Hasse, Jr. Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Cl~rk; 3ohn Yonkosky, Finance Dtx'ectoz'; Debby Farris, Anne'tte Guev]n, Ellie Hoffman and Wanda A~'ri~;hi, Deputy Clerks; Nell Dotrill, County Manager; 3ennifer Pike and Tom O1]iff, Assistants to the County Managent; Ken Cuy[]er, County Attorney; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Martha Skinner, Social Services Director; Bob B[Ianchard, Growth Plann~n{; Director: Bob Mulhe~-e anJ Ron Nino, Planners; Lec Ochs, Administrative Services Administrator; 3elf Walker, RJsk Management Director; Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator; Tim Glemons, Wastewater Dlrector: Thomas Kuck, Transportation Capital Pz'o~ects Manager; Ron Cook, Utili'ries Finance Dfrector; Sue Filson, Administ~ative Assistant to ~[he Board; and Deputy Byron Toml~nson, Sher~ff's Office. Page A(]'~]ID& - AI~:~ROV~D kT]:TH CHANGRS November 12, 1991 Following discussion, and after Attorney Donald Pickworth, repre- senting the owners and developers of Coastland Center, distributed copies of the Board of County Commissioners Agenda of October 22, 1992, wherein it lists Item #12B5 (Petition PUD-84-25(1) regarding Pine Air Lakes PUD) as being cont:.nued to the meeting of Noveraber 26, 1991, and after Attorney George Varnadoe distributed an item alleged to be an Affidavit of Publication regarding the item being advertised on October 23, 1991 (copy not provided for the record), Coll~i(lsioner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and carried unau-tx~ously, that Items ~12B1, #12B2, #12C5, and #12C? re Pine Air Lakes be con- tinumd to the meeting of November 26, 1991. Commissioner Volpe generated discussion regarding Item #12C9 regarding the Development Agreement between the County and Mr. J. D. Nicewonder. Co~llalonsr SI',.ax~.han mov,~d, ~econded by Co~,nisstoner Hassle and ¢~Fled 4/1 (Commissioner Vol].)e ol~posed) that the agenda be approved, w~th the following additional chaz~ges: 1. Item #8(D) (2) added .- Recommendation to approve and execute the notice of prom is,: to pay and agreem~nt to extend payment of sewer impact fees for Pinebrook Naples Limited Partnership. (Countl! Manager's request). 2. Item #8(D)(3) added -- Recommendation to approve and ~:xecute the notice of promise to pay and agreement to extend payment of sewer impact fees for R.0.P., Inc. (County ManageI''s request ) . 3. Move Item 816(H)(1) -.o #~(H)(2) - Recommendation for approval of a Budget Amendmenl fo~' Fund 159, Marco Island Beach Renourlshment MSTU. (Commissioner Shanahan). 4. Item #13(B) (4) continued to November 26, 1991 - Petition PU-90-31 requesting Provisional Use "b" of the Recreation Open Space Zoning Di:~trtc:t for a public boat ramp on that portion of the Conklin's Point Subdivision under County ownership in Section 17, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Item ~3B CONSENT A~ENDA - APPROVED AND/OR Z~OPTED T~ ~tton for approval of the. Consent Agenda is noted under Item #16. Page 2 ~ SKI~VICE AWARDS - P]~ESENTED November 12, 1991 Commissioner Shanahah congratulated the following Collier County employee and presented her service award: Polly H. Currte, Social Services - 10 years ~ &MENDI4ENT$ 91-486/487; 91-449/450; 91-452/456; 91-460/463; 91-472/482; 91-444; 91-459; 91-455/469: 92-14; 92-20; 92-15; &ND 92-22/28 - ADOPTED Finance Director Yonkosky reported there are thirty-six Budget Amendments listed today, thirty-one of which deal with cleanup for 1991 and five of which deal with 1992. Commissioner Haeee moved, seconded by Commissioner Sh~mahan and cmx'rte4 unanimously, that Budget Amendatents 91-486/487; 91[-449/450; 91-482/456; 91-460/463; 91-4,72/482; 91-.444; 91-459; 91-465/469; 92-14; 92-20; 92-15; and 92-22/23 t. adopted. BUDGET &MENDIKENT R~SOLOTION 91-3,; - ADOPTED Coniaaloner Hasse moved, seconded by Commtealoner Sh~m~an and C~Fied ~rianimousl¥, that Budget Amenctment Resolution 91-i~4 ~ adopted. Pa!]e 3 November 12, 199~ ADDITIONan FISCAL YEAR ENDING 9/30/91 BUDGET A~E~S - ~PRO~D F~nance Director Yonkosky explained that these Budge~ Amendments Fe~e BoaFd action to become effective. He pointed out that a ]Jst of the Budget Amendments and appropriate cost centers as well as a bF~ef explanation is l~sted on the second page of the Executive Sugary. He ver]fied that adoption of these Budget Amendments will have no effect on the adopted budgeted carry forward. He reiterated that the recommendation is f~r approval. Co~stoner H~se moved, se.~onded by Co~:~stoner Sanders ~d c~r~ ~i~ly, to approve the additional f~scal year ending 9/30/91 ~dget ~en~ents. Pa,~e 4 November 12, 1991 BUDgeT AI~I~K~TS P,~ALt-OCAT:£Na IONDS BY PROJECTS FOR FY 91/92 - Transportation Project I~anagement Director Kuck explained that in follow-up to Board action o,~ November 5th, Transportation Services is reallocating available revenues by activities, Including right-of-way acquisition, design permittl. ng, construction, and miscellaneous pro- JeCteo He concluded that the reallocated tran.-~portatton services FY 91/9~ budget spreadsheet identifies each of the funds, lnclud~ng the FY 90/91 carry-over and the 91/92 p~oJected revenue. He stated the Information contained on the spreadsheet establishes tndlvtdua] p~o~ect accounting budgets, identifies phases of projects to be under- taken by which fund du~tng the year, and allocates fund~ for the following special projects: btk~ paths, surfacing, construction, stgnallzatton, and numerous small[ projects current]y underway. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Kuck stated that of the ~e~t~ed $27,000,000, there Is approximately $25,000,000 cure-early available. He explained that should funds not come in FY 91/92 as anticipated, tt will result .In a delay of completion of certain aspects of the projects. ~~o~r S~~ ~red, seconded ~ Commissioner Hams,e ~d c~rt~ ~t~ly, to apprl~ve the Budget ~eni~ents retalloca'tlng ~ ~ ~oJects for ~ 91/92. It~ ~8B2 ~~TATION SERVICES' PRO~SED 5-10 ~ W0~: PROG~I - ACCXPTED ~ ~~D Transportation Services ~,dministrat:or Archibald announced that the plan is based upon the reven~es Just approved by the Boar. d of County Gommisstoners and the allocations of same by project and by phases within each and every project. H,.~ stated the 5 year reF.o~t it~elf is laid out identical to the prior y,~ar's report. He remark,;d that the plan is consistent with the AUIR ]~ecently approved by the Board of County Commissioners as well as the ClE. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Archibald explained that Page 5 November 12, 1991 pro,ram needs are still In tile netghbcrhood of $150,000,000 and reve- nues are still in the neighborhood of $75,000,000. He reminded everyone that staff was directed to look at the system and attempt to adjust the Impact fee. He vl:rtfled that staff, working in conjunction with the consultant, Tindale. Oliver and Associates, Inc., accountants and attorneys, have developed a whole series of different impact fee schedules based upon different conditi. ons and cr'iterla. He reflected that the consultant is addressing the system analysis. He concluded that program needs vary with growth rate, that elimination of some of the projects will result in not only an increase in the revenue picttire but also the gap between the needs, and revenue will hopefully be reduced, which In turn reduces the need for the assessment district. In reply to Commissioner Shanahah, Mr. Archibald stated staff is addressing the County's current deficiency through use of the County Gas Tax. He concluded that Gas Taxes are addressing somt: of the current needs as Impact Fees can only be used for growth related needs and, therefore, the County's future growth needs will be addressed throu[lh a combination of tmpi~ct fees and assessment fees of ~.~ome kind. In answer to Commlsslone]' Sha, nahan, Mr. Archibald stated that, as outlined in the AUIR preytoughly approved, staff is dealing with road- ways which are expected to b~: deficient in the upcoming years. He advised that those projects currently underway, from the standpoint of ~;etting under construction in 1992, will address the majority of the County road deficiencies. H~: commented that the State is also in the process of revising its 5 Yei~r Plan. He explained that, as the FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation) plugs it.~ dollars into their work plan for some of the Cottnty's deficiencies, It reduces the Gounty's deficit, and the problem then becomes one of being able to accompltsk the projects within the Growth Management window. He related that, in order to do so, it is necessary to either have the projects tI:to the constructJcn phase or have ability to approach DCA Page 6 November 12, 1991 with a systems approach rather than a 1fnk approach. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald reported that the latersection of Airport Road and Pine Ridge Road is part of a design concept staff is reviewing and involves proceeding with the design to improve all four legs of the intersection. In reply to Commissioner VolDe inquiring as to the #1 priorities for this fiscal year, Mr. Arc'htbald responded with Immokalee Road, Airport Road, Radio Road, which is under construction, and Pine Ridge Road. Com~tsatoner Shanahah ~oved, aaconded by Couaiasioner lia,~se, to approve and accept the Transport~ttton Services' Proposed 5-10 Year Work Linda Lawson, representing The Collier Building Industry Association, observed that Phase I Tindale 01ive~ cost was included as a prior expenditure of $175,0)O and questioned whether '~he Phase II cost should be considered at this time. Mr. Archibald answered th;mt the four party contract, which repre- sents the $175,000, will come in ~ay under that amount. He explained that the Phase I study does not include the effol:t to establish an assessment roll and will be b;.~ougist back to the Board of Countt Commissioners. In answer to Ms. Lawson, Mr. Archibald stated that questions regardinG; the assessment roll will be addressed by the Board of County Commissioners when staff make~ its presentation. He added tha~: the fundtag for same is shown in In reply to Ms. Lawson's inquiry regarding Phase II, Comm].ssioner Volpe stated there is now a q~.estJ.on about whether there will be a need to procegd with Phase II based upon the recent analysis performed by staff th;lt 9uggests perhap~ the. anticipated shortfall may not be as great as aDttcipated. Responding to Ms. Lawson, Mr. Archibald reiterated that one ache- dills addfeasted by staff appro~imately doubles impact fees and is drt- 'van prlmarily by basic impact fee data to Include lane all,; costs, Page 7 November 12, 1991 trip distance and credit faciors. He explained that reviewing the roadway system In terms of cl,pacity and basing Impact fees on a saturation of 70~ rather tha~; lO0~ results in a much higher fee sche- dule. He verified this is platt of the package staff is currently putting together for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. In response to Ms. Lawsor~, Mr. Archibald stated that the AUIR (Arlilua] Update and Inventory of Road System) identifies which roads are currently deficient and ~,htch road!~ will be deficient in what year, based upon a growth rate. He concluded that the AUIR comes close to combining four repol'ts into one document as it ,:/early shows the level of service, the d¢]lars for not only ~he project but over time, which projects will be constructed in the five year time frame, which projects will be destgr.ed, and wblch projects staff will acquire rights-of-way for. Ms. Lawson raised the isfue of accountability on existing defi- ciencies being paid for with funds other than impact fees. She requested that her association and any consultants they solicit to review this area have sufficient time for such review. ~ap~ #2 In response to Ms. Lawson, Co~.mtsstoner Volpe pointed out that the longer she or her organtzattcn wish to delay this matter, the more problem the Board of County Commissioners will have tn meeting its budget commitments. Ms. La~,son countered that nothing substantial has been uncovered In the work pgrformed by Tindale, Oliver and Associates, Inc. so far, and she is thetafore, concerned there will not be sufficient time for review by her orjanizatton prior to enactment of the Ordinance. Mr. Archibald stated that, with the approval of the offices of the ~ounty [4anager and County Attorney, his staff will provide a draft as early as possible to whosoever wishes to review same. Coml!ltssioner Saunders interjected that if the draft is available, it can be Identified as such and p~ovlded to the public. Upon call for the question, tht motion carried unanimously. Page 8 November 12, 199! Xte~OD1 CHA~G~ OItDER NO. · RE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH; D. N. HI(tGINS, INC. FOR ~ COU1TTY R~GIONAL WAI;TEWATER FACILITIES, PHASE I, COI~II~ACT NO. 4, MA~ER PUM1~ STATIONS, IN ~ AMOUNT OF $182,165.12, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR UTILITIES I~LMINISTRATOR TO EXI:CUTE SAME - APPROVED Wastewater Director Clem(,ns explained that the purpose of the Ghange Order is to purchase ~lnd have installed submersible mixers in The wet wells of the master pump stations, which are a part of this contract. He verified that project engineers have done a life cycle cost allalysis of the units a;ld the mechanical cleaning associated with them against the current method of manually cleaning these wet wells, and have determined there is a savings on both labor and chemicals by l~sing the submersible mixers. He relayed staff's recommendation for approval of the Change Order and authorization for the Utilities Administrator to execute sam.~. In response to Commtssto~er Shanaban, Mr. C~iemons related that approximately 35~ of the Change Order co:~t will be refunded through the EPA Grant. C4~l~iol~er Sh~nah~n ~o~d, seconded by Commissioner Hasee and C~ZTted ~ni~ou~ly, to appr¢.ve Change Order No. · to the construction contract with D. N. Higgins, Inc. for th~ South County Regional W~t~ter Facilities, Phase I, Contract No. 4, Naster Pump Stations, in the ~ount of $182,165.12 and authort:=e the Utilities A~iainiatrator Item ~D2 ~X~C~TION 01~ ~OTICE OF PROMIS ~ TO PAY A~,0 AGREEmeNT TO EXT]~RD PAYMENT O~ $~ IM~A~T F~ES FOR PINK,ROOK NAPLE:~ LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - This tta~, wa~J discussed i] conjunction with Item #8D3. Assistant Utilities Administrator Bloetscher explained that the development is looking at fln.~s by the County of $150 per day. He confirmed that the only thing needing to be done is for the Impact Fee Agreement to be approved. He expcunded that thence items were pulled from the Consent Agenda at la,~t week's meeting of the Board o~ County Commissioners ,due to an error contained in the E;{ecutive Summary, said November 12, 1991 errors having now been corre,:ted. In response to Commissloller Volpe, Utilttte~ Finance Director Cook identified the location of tile proJecti~. He vel'ifted thl~ is a deferral of the impact fee c{~11ecttons for the r~ext seven years with monthly installments to be p~Ltd to the Utility D/v/sion. O~tmsloller Sh~nahan mo~,ed, seconded by Colu~tsstoner Hasse and ¢m~Ti~ una~li~onsly, to appr¢~ve the Notice of Promise to Pay and A~~t to ][x~mnd Payment ¢~f Sewer I=pact Fees~ for Pinebrook Nap/es r-iHit~ l~l'tl~rmhtp and auth~,rize the execution of sa~e. Page 10 NovembeI' 12, 1991 ~O~ OY NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGRE~MXNT TO EXT~I~D PAYM~J~T OF ~ ~qPACT 1~$ FOR R.C.P., INC., OWNING AND OPERATING RIVER OAKS This Item was discussed in conjunction with Item #8D2. Com~ssionsr Shanaban moved, seconded by CoHtsstoner Hassle and cma~r~d u~mn~mously, ~o approve '~he No~ce of Promise ~o Pmy A~t to ~tend Pm~ent of S~e~ Im~c~ Fees fo~ R.O.P., Inc,, ~ng ~d o~ra~ng R~ver O~s Condo, ~d authorize ~h~ exe~- ~of ~. Page 1 1 November ~2, 199! FLEXlBL~ B~NEFITS PREMIUM C0]IVERSION P~N OUTLINE, (125 CAFETZRIA PLI~I) ~~ P~ DESCRI~ION ~) BR0~R 0F RKCO~ LKTTER N~ING ~LI~ ~O~ INS~CK SERVI(~KS A~ S~ - APPRO~D Administrative Services ,%dmtn~strator Ochs stated that Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Serv,ice Code allows employees to purchase cer- tain clualtfled benefits with pre-l:ax dollars, thereby reducin!~ the ~ndividual's federal income ~:ax and social security tax liability while simultaneously reducin{l the eraplayer's FICA contribution. He related tha~ the premium con~,ersion portion of the program is sche- duled to begin January 1, 1992. He advised that benefits to be offered under this program al'e detailed in the Executive Summary. He distributed a one page handout entitled "Collier County Flexible Benefits Plan". Risk Management Director Walker exp]alned it is staff's goal to: allow employees to pay less in income and social security taxes; increase their take-home pay; reduce the County's social security contribution; broaden the choice c.f benefits to employees; and to offer these benefits without cost to the County. He related that, based upon current enrollments in terms of dental and group health, it is estimated that next year the County can save approximately $70,000 by Implementation of this plan, without increased cost to the County. He emphasized these are voluntary benefits. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Walker related The County ,toes ~ot have the resources in-house to determine the markets for these various coverages. Mr. Walker stated the amount saved in income and social security taxes is a permanent savings as employees will never be asked to pay these monies back to the government. In reply to Commissioner Saunders' Inquiry regardtug the five ele- ;ments of concern contained in the Finance Director's Report, Mr. Ochs .~xplatned that the first item deals with the question of the Eroker of Record Agreement and, as there is no cost to the County in the first phase of the program, staff did not put together a formal agreement Page 12 November 12, 1991 but added one could be prepared. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Ochs explained that the Coqant¥'s self-insurance program is administered by First Benefits Inc. of Florida, a Miami company. He stated that Phase II is called "Flexible Spending Accounts', is currently being analyzed by staff for preaent~kion to the Board of County Commissioners in early summer, and wtl! involve some administration costs should the County contract for administration services. He added that the option would be to attempt to administer it interna].ly at no additional cost. Regarding Point 2 of Finance Director Yonkosky's report, Mr. Ochs explained that for existing benefits, the Group Medical Benefit and the Dental Program are already placed, and the Broker of Record will not benefit in anyway through commissions on these two facets of the ~rogram. Finance Director Yonkosky conf~rmed that he and Mr. Ochs did discuss Point #2. He relayed his belief that there is a possibility of get~tng additional dependent health room rate coverage. He questioned whether this is the equivalent of the depenJent health tion of coverage, to which Mr. Ochs an~wered in the negative. Mr. Ochs acknowledged that coverage is available ~o those indivi- duals wanting to provide additions/ cash benefit durinG hospitaliza- ~ion. Me added that this is separate from the County's medical program. In response to Comm/sstoner Vo]pe, Mr. Ochs pointed out that Workers Compensation only covers one for an injury ocourring durinG the course of one's employment, while disability can be off the Job as well. Ooamsaiseioner Shanahen moved, seconded by Commissioner Hesse, to ~ the propoeed flexible benefits premtu~ conversion plam ont~, ~ary plan description, and Broker of Record letter, based upon z~olving the issues dtecuss,ed today. Commissioner Volpe questioned the possibilities of participation tn the plan by the Shertff's Department and School Board. Page 1 3 November 12, 1991 Mr. Ochs reported that the School Board already has a cafeteria benefit plan In place. Byron Tomlinson of the Sheriff's Office stated that his depart- ment is reviewing several plans, with a decision to be made and a cafe- teria plan in place by January, 1992. ~ c~11 for the question, motion carried unanimously. es~ [%e~me~¶: 11:00 A.M. - Reconvened: 11:20 A.M. at which time De~ut'f Clerk Guev~n repL,ced Deputy Clerk Farris ADDITION HEALTH~NOREF~.CE AWARD FROM DAVi[D LA~][ENCE CENTER TO GU~' CARLTON AND TAX CO~J~ECTOR OFFICE - PRESENTED David Pfaff, President of the David Lawrence Center Board, pre- sented its first Healthy Workplace Award to Collier County Tax Collector Guy Carlton. He said the healthy workplace concept salutes org~lzations with active program%s in four of six categories which identify a healthy workplace. He congratulated Mr. Carlton on behalf of the David Lawrence Center, addling his belief that his leadership will prompt healthier workplaces to be encoura~]ed throughout Collier County. CO~ PILO'~ POSITION TO BE CO~FFERTED INTO A REGULAR PART-TIME ~ POSITION AT ~ ~DITION~ COST OF $7~115.64 FOR ~ 92 Jay Reardon, Emergency Services Administrator, explained that due to recent activity and concerns from State and federal auditors, a ~est~on arose regarding whether the contract p~lot position can be considered an ~ndependent contractor rs. a part-time employee. He sa~d during discussions w~th the County Attorney's 0fflce and the County's Finance Director, it was decided to bring the issue to the Board of County Commiss~oners for direction. He communicated there is ~rFently $16,900 budgeted in the helicopter's budget to pay for a contractor type pilot position. He stated that position covers the open areas when the County's other' two full-time career pilots are off for s~ck leave or vacation, as well as functioning as the primary n~ht pilot. He remarked if that individual is left as an independent Page 14 November 12, 1991 contractor, an auditor might interpret him as a part-time employee at which time the County could encu]aber up to an additional $100000 in liability, paying for back salar.tes, various insurances, retirement contributions, etc. He indicated if the pilot is reclasstfi,~d as a part-time employee, therefore avoidin9 any discrepancy in the audit, it would cost an additional $7,115.64 to pay for a part-time employee's position at the salary range of $16,900. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Reardon stated seFvice demand and medical evacuation fl:~ghts have both increased by 30~ during FY 1991. He stated there is a need for another full-tlme posi- tion, however, due to budget constraints, he is maintaining The contract part-time position. In answer to Commissioner Sallnders, Assistant County Attorney Raidire Manaltch stated his legal advice is to convert the contract pilot Into a part-time employee position. Gottnty Manager Derrill advised, in response to Commissioner Volpe, that the part-time employee will be paid only for those hours he works or is required to be on standby. John Keschl asked how far from the helicopter hangar does the pilot live? Mr. Reardon stated 'the County requires a.]l pilots to live within 10 minutes driving time from the Naples Airport. Mr. Kegchl stated in an extreme emergency 10 minutes is very cri- tical. He suggested when pilots are on standby, they be at the air- port. Commissioner Volpe asked if the possibility exists to share an employee with the Mosqulto Control District7 Mr. Reardon indicated he wtl[L prepare a report for the Board that covers these Issues. ~tssioner Shanahen moved, seconded by Commissioner Salmders and oma-~lg~ni~ou~ly, to direct Staff to convert the contract pilot into · ~lar pmrt-tt~e e~ployee posttton at an additional cost of $?,11[.~4 for FY 1992. ~DDITIO~AL TASK TO BE PERFORMED I~Y THE SOLID WASTE CONSUL?AN~, POST, ~D'ELA"F, $CRUR & JERNIGAN, INC. -' APPROVED WITH REPORT DUE BY JANUARY Page 15 November 12, 1991 Bob Fahey, Solid Waste Director, presented a Staff recommendation for approval of an additional ta,~k to be performed by the solid waste consoltaints. He explained the p]?esent contract was approved 1n May, 1991, and during the budget work~hop in August, he was given direction to analyze if implementation of a Materials Reclamation Facility (MRF) would allow the County to meet recycling requirements mandated by 1994. He said the work involved will be to examine and include the various other tasks now being pePformed by some of the vendors at the landfill, including construction/demolition debris, recyclables ~e¢laimed from mining, yard trash, tires and white goods. He indi- cated the yard waste is tmportan~ because the County has recently received a denial from the State for the petition to be exempted from that reqlllrement. He concluded k.y asking for approval, indicating monles are available in the Solid Waste Department funds to pay the $68,065 for the additional tasks. Con~mtssioner Volpe asked why this function cannot be performed by employees in the Solid Waste Department7 Mr. Fahey advised at the present time, there is not adequate Staff to perform the work. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Fahey stated the con- sult~nts will evaluate a MRF against a curbside program as one element of the study. He said they will also look at including the various other activities currently in existence at the landfill to possibly fold into the operation of a MRF. He Indicated the hone is to put all the actlvitie~; together in a single facility which wi21 be more cost efficient than utilizing separate vendors. Mr. Fahey indicated the waste recycling goal is div:[ded into two parts. He said input to the landill] has been reduced by 30%, however the type of materials being recycled, yard ~;aste and construction/ demolltion debris, can only account for one-half of the material the Co%Inty is allowed to claim as being recycled. He stated the other 15% must come from the residential, cDmmercial and high rise waste which constituted as of last year, a total of 140,000 tons. He said approximately 48,000 tons of that portion of the wastestream must be Page 16 November 12, 1991 extracted to meet State requirements. He said the County is not suc- ceeding with the present program of curbside collection, .indicating less than 2% of that goal is being contributed. He stated the only way to me~t the requirements is to treat the entire wastestream, by collecting it into one truck and separating all the material in a fac- tory. Commissioner ShLn&han moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse, to ~lt~t, ~mt, ~ckley, Sch~ a Je~a~, Inc., who wtll pro~'~de the ~d w~ m m~rt ~ J~ua~ 28, 1992. Co~lss~oner Saunders asked !f Staff has explored reports and stu- dies prepared for other commun~ties fo= the same type of facility? He ~nd~ca~ed he Is no~ convlnced that all al/ernati~es have been con- s~dered before spending this amount of money on an outside consultant. Co~ssloner Volpe commented he will support the motion Fahey states there is no alternative, and this is the way the County needs to go in order to have any hope of meeting the mandates of the State. Mr. Fahey stated th~s is the most likely way for the County to achieve those re~irements. ~ call for the ~est~on, the motion carried 4/[[ (Co~iss~oner IrOn SSH1 FI~ Pi~ ~R DKSlaN S~VICKS ~ ~OHS~UCTION ADNlNlST~,TION FOR Tom Conrecode, Office of Capital Projects Management Director, asked the Board to approve final payment to Odell Associates for their work on the Health and Public Services Building. He Indicated Staff is asking the payment be made in Two different ways. He said $45,188 out of liquidated damages will be paid to the architect for costs incurred associated with delays caused by the general contractor. He stated the second amount of $34,g92 will be paid from savtng~; derived from architectural changes made on the project. Page 17 November 12, 1991 ~o~oe~or~Jr Shanahah ~ovsd, seconded by Couissioner Hasme and cal-rted unani~ousl¥, to ~pprove final pm~ent for des~ seduces ~d ~ ~~ ~R ~ 159, ~CO IS~ B~GH ~NO~IS~HT M.S.T.U. - ~t~ IN ~ ~O~ OF $41r000 Mr. Conrecode p=esented a recommendation for approval of a Budget ~en~ent in Fund 1~9, the Marco Island Beach Renouri~hmen~ M.S.T.U. He sa~d the acttv~ties consist primaril%' of monitoring and maintenance :~unct~ons associated w~th the beach renourishment project. He men- ~oned on Au~st 27th, the Board a~pointed the nine-member Marco Island Beach Renourtshment Advisory Com~ttee ~o prov~e recommen- dations related to satisfactory performance of a~l the sl~eclal permit conditions and othe~ activi~ies. He said in order to ~rovide funding for those act~vities, this ~ransfer of $90,000 in rese~'ves within Fund 159 ~O being proposed by Staff and the Advisory Committee. Co~ss~oner Shanahah ind~ca~ed ques~ions have been raised by con- cerned c~t~zens as to the legality of taking money out of Fund 159 and moving ~t ~nto another M.S.T.U. budgeted area. The following people objected to ~he transfer of funds, s~ating beach access should be the priority for use of the funds; the transfer ~1] p~ov~de a very specific benefl~ to beachfront p~operty owners at ~he e~ense of in/and owners; a concern that a beachf~ont committee dr~v~ng ~he po21cy for expenditure of funds from the lslsnd-w~de J~.S.T.U.; ~t ~; inappropr~ate to take funds from the ~{.S.T.U. for transfer to ~he beachfront M.S.T.U. that was turned down by the vo~ers: ~ Brunet Jesse Walton Oharlotte Westman Dan Head etated It is appropriate that the public pay to maintain the ~aches and also have the right to use them. With regard to beach ~ccess, he suggested that a coalition task force be formed to devise a long r~ge plan regarding the need for access and usage problems. Page 18 November 12, 1991 Ta~e ~S Commissioner Sh~ ~oved, !~econded by Couimmioner Hesse and caz~ted ~i~ly, ko ~r~sfer ~4~,000 for ~ach C~Ang fro~ ~d 159 with th~ reminder of f~ds for A~inis~ra~ion, ~lsce~l~eous ~Ac~, Sea ~r~e Noni~oring and ~e Fer~AlAza~ion ~o~al~ing ~49,~ ~o co~ fro~ ~d 318, ~he ~each Renouris~en~ ~nd. ~y Clerk Hoff~ replaced ~ty Clerk Guev~n lt~10A ~~XON 9~-~8~ ~STING COLLIER CO~'S P~CINCT ~U~ARIES - Co~issioner Shanahan moved, second,~d by Couiesioner Haeee and oazTi~ unaniml¥, that Resolution 91-~8 ~ adoptel, adjusting the ~i~ in ~ctn=ts 001, 101, 102, 103, 10~, 109, 110, 111, 115, 118, 1~0, 208, 209, 223 ~d 226. Page 19 November 12, 1991 Ztm ~J.$A2 FKI"I~O~ A-9:t-6, GEORGE VEGA OF V];GA, BROWN, STANLEY & MJ~:TIN, P.A. ~ PORTOF/NO ASSOCIATB$. REQUESTING AN AD!~INIST"F~TIVE APPEAL 0~ T~ PE~.£NG/ZONIRG DIRECTOR'S DECISION RE RECRKATIONJ~, AREA #5, VAIID~BTLT SIIRF COLONY - APPEAL DI.q~IED; PLANNING/ZONING D! R~CTOR ' S DEC~ION UP~['LD Legal notice having been publ:.shed in the Naples Daily News on October 27, 1991, as evidenced b~! Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was op~.~ned to consider Petition A-91-6, filed by Attorney George Vega of Vega, Brown, Stanley & Mart:in, P.A., representing Portof/no Assoctate~, requesting an Administrative Appeal of the Planning/Zoning Director's decision to rescind the SDP, (Site D~ve~opment Plan) with its RMF-lf zoning for Recreational Area #5, Vl~derbilt Surf Colony, located it. Tract "A", Baker Car:oll Point. Community Development Servtce~ Administrator Bruit communicated that thfs tte~ is an admtl~/strative appeal of the Planning/Zoning D].rector's decision relative to V.~nderbilt Surf Colony, filed by Attorney Geor[[e Vega. Attorney George Vega advised that this matter involves property located at Ba~:er-Carroll Point, a..=Jacent to Del-Nor Wiggins Park. He revealed that his client is the Pcrtofino Club. He indicated that his client, under estoppel, received ..-'~ site development plan and 'went to work to sell ~,roperty, borrow mon,:'.y, and expend money on engt:neering fees, based or.. the site developme;~t plan. He affirmed that 331 days later, hls client was advised tha' the site development plan was issued in error. Attorney Vega presented a cha:'t depicting Vanderbilt 5. urf Colony $ectlons I through V and Recreati,mal Area #5, Indicating that staff agreed that Pcrtoflno has derelopement rights at 16 units l>er ;acre. ~.{e noted that the final site plan apl~rova] for the SDP was obtained on May 4, 1990. He explained that m~,ney was borrowed from the bank, the property was ~,urchased and contra~:ts were given to 21 peo[,le. He affirmed that 312 days later, on ][arch 12, 1991, Mr. Baginski advised that the County was revoking the :!:DP due to an error. Mr. Vega divulged that the Co'u.nty's vested rights standards state: IB 55 Page 20 November 12, 1991 '...some act or omission by the County .... the property owner relying on good faith has made substantia.t change in his position and reliance on the change in his position". He revealed that: his client was not advised for three months ~;hat he had no development rights, tnlt during that time he moved for~;ard spending money, etc. based on the County's approvals. Attorney Vega pointed out thai: In 1978 when this project's prede- cessor applied for zoning, staff :.ndtcated that the Count'f could not force him to place recrea'.tonal filciltttes on the land once the zoning was grailted. He explained that this property was zoned fc, r "~r~lti-famtly" at 16 units per ac]'e. Mr. Vega stated that the pred~cessors have gone bankrupt and this matter has been challenged in cou]'t. He affirmed that 3udge Blackwell has rifled against the persons coni:esttng the zoning. He I'evealed that he does not believe that his client is bound by the Master' Plan ini- tially since it was a phased cond()mintum, and there was an intervening mortgage foreclosure on the adJac~nt parcel, and therefore,, they are unable to attack his cltent's pos.~tion. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Attorney Vega replied that his client's predecessor did not part:.ctpate in the master pla. nning of this property, however, he did apply for the rezoning of ~hts parcel from commercial to multi-family ai~ reflected in Exhibits "A" and "B" as provided. County Attorney Cuyler advised that Mr. Vega's position is that Rec Area #5 is entitled on its owr, to 16 units per acre. He indicated that staff's position is that the density for this entire project allocated and the units were spread among those five buildings: three which are built and two remaining to be built. He explained that the density that Mr. Vega believes his client is entitled to has already been allocated to other portions of the property. He repo]?ted that Attorney Vega's estoppel argument is one of law but is not kased on Mr. Bagtnskt's Interpretation. AttolTney Vega called attention to a memo to County Attorney Cuyler November 12, 1991 from Ron Nino, as reflected in his hand out Exhibit "S", which states: "...If memory serves me correctfly, it was optnloned that the subject property stood on its own and because of its RMF-16 zoning, qualified for 16 units per acre. Bob Mulhere in reviewing this petition reminded me of the circumgtance~J and the fact that your office was contacted regarding this sf,~c~fic application. Mulhere further reminds me that based on a verbal communication from your office that the subject property was entitled to a development right consistent with its zoning status, and therefore we accepted and ultimately approved a site plan ...... We are advising Customer Services not to issue a buil,~ing permit until such time as this matter is resolved." He pointed out that the original position of staff was that his client was entitled to 16 units per acre Co~m~ssioner Saunders stated ~hat case law is very clear in that ar~ applicant does not have the r.ight to rely on permits that are approved or issued improperly. Cou/%ty Attorney Cuyler decla]'~.d that the Commit, sion need~ to determine whether the zoning ~nterpretation is correct as to whether there is density that may or not ke used for this parcel of property; and secondly, the estoppel argument needs to be addressed. Attorney Timothy Parry of Ha~'ter, Secrest & Emery, state([ that he supports Mr. Vega's appeal. He Indicated that he represents Mr. Robert Kilpat~ick, Trustee and the F~rst National Bank of Bonita Springs. He explained that the reinstatement of the SDP approval will not create any excess density prcb~ems In the Vanderbllt Surf Colony Master Plan project area. He affi~:med that Mr. Baginski's decision ~o originally grant approval was corr,~ct. Attorney Parry reiterated the ~equence of events that have transpired since lg78 relative tc ':he subject property. He pointed out that Sections I, II and III co~tain 65, 66 and 66 dwelling units res~ectively, noting that at no title did either of the developers com- mit the land owned by Pottorino to the condominium project unless and until all five sections were built by the developer. He communicated Page 22 November 12, 1991 that the contiguous parcels, $ect:.ons IV and V were abandoned by the second successor developer in 198{i and its lender, The Broadview Savings and Loan Company cbtain title through foreclosure in 1986. He noted that that lender never encumbered Rec Area #5 and never obtained collateral assi?nment of development rights and never required its borrower to enter into a development agreement with the County as a condition of the loan for a future assignment of the development rights affecting Rec Area #5. Mr. Parry called attention to Page 5 of his memorandum, as pre- sented, noting that "...under Florida law such an agreement is only valid for five years unless extended in writing by the parties." He Indicated that he believes that Resolution Trust Corp., which now owns Sections IV and V is only limited to RMF-16 zoning units that the underlying acreage would support, ~htch would res'~lt in the develop- ment of 96 units. Mr, Joel Whtttenhall, Vice Pre~tdent, Sun Bank, advised that in September, 1990, his lending tnstttuttc. n issued and closed on a loan to Portolimo Associates. He annou%ced that the purpose of that loan was to purchase the property in qu~sticn. He divulged that a major portion of the commitment letter w,~s the requirement of receiving a copy of the final site development plan.. He explained that the ulti- ~mte affects of the land loan was a six month maturity and during that time, the borrowers were to turn ~eservations Into contracts so that another lender could consider a de'telopment loan to Portolimo Associates for the construction of Building "A" which totals 24 units. Re announced that the final site d,~velopment plan was in plac~ at the time of closing, and now that site development plan is being ~escinded. He revealed that at th~ ti~.e of closing, the borrowers had 15 ~eservattons out of 24 units and it appeared that this would be a viable p~oJect for construction fJllanc]ng. He noted that rell. ance on the final site development plan, a[.lowed Sun Bank to fund the land loan since the borrowers met the c.(,ndttions in the commitment letter. He questioned what the lenders ~n Collier County are to do to protect Pac.[e 23 November 12, 1991 land loans if they are fearful that development orders that have been approved will be reversed 3/4's of a year later. Assistant County Attorney How,~11 addressed the estoppel argument which contains three elements: good faith reliance; act or omission of the government and good faith :~eliance on that action; and a detri- mental change in the person's pos:[tion based on that reliance. She axlllolallced that staff's position 1~ that the dollar amount expended by the developers of Portoftno may not constitute detrimental reliance. She noted that Mr. Vega submitted a cost list amounting to approxima- tely $102,000. She reported that Portofino did not own the property until September 7, 1990, and most of the costs occurred before that time. She Indicated that the dew~loper was notified on March 12, 1991 that the SDP was to be rescinded and there are actually a small amount of costs that could be included f(,r purposes of detrimental reliance, noting that excluding $38,000 in (:losing costs, that amount is $12,000. Assistant County Attorney Howt.ll explained that when Recreational Area #5 was rezoned in 1978, the 7.ezontng application stated: "...to conform with the zoning of the balance of Baker Carroll Point, the area of the property will be tncl~.ded in the Surf Colony site plan for density calculations. Uses desirtd which are not permitted by the present zoned classification: pI'Jvate recreation facilities for the apartment owners in Vanderbilt Towers I, II and III and future Surf Colony buildings on the property." Mrs. Howell stated when the Zonln~! Ordinance was adopted in 1982, the RM-2 zoning designations were no longer applicable, however, in 1983 when the then owner of Parcels III through V came to the County to develop the third building, staff gave approval and that developer constructed the third building in ~ccordance with the previous RM-2 zoning and the previously approved master site plan. Mrs. Howell advised that staff's Interpretation is that there had been ~ood faith continuance of coni~truction of this project albeit there was a gap between 1983 and 1989. She pointed out that the peri- M C[~]'~'~'! 59 Page 24 November 12, 1991 ttoner stated that the developer never committed since there was no ownership interest in building out the recreational facilities on the Rec parcel. She advised that the condo documents state: "...provided however that the developer does not with tills declaration commit to the construction of Rec Area #§ and the commitment to construct Recreation Area #5 is conditioned upon completion of each of the five sections of Vanderbilt" She reported that the commitment to use that parcel for recreational purposes was made as part of the rezoning application, density transfer, approved unified plan of development and reaffirmed after Ordinance 82-2 was adopted and when the third building was built. Assistant County Attorney Howell called attention to the chart as presented by Attorney Vega, and noted that there are some inac- curacies. She explained that there is no documentation to support the entry, "Broadview withdraws petition over density transfer issue, 11-22-89". In addition, Mrs. Howell noted that Sections I and Ii were built by Vanderbilt Surf Colony Assoctat,~s and acquired title to Sections I through V in 1977/78. She reveale¢! that in 1978 and 1980 Sections I and II were built. She remarked in 1982, WSC Associates bought Sections III, IV but were unable to complete the pro3ect. Assistant County Attorney Ho~ell stated that in 1987, Vanderbilt Surf Colony conveyed the Recreational parce) to Bluebill and they con- veyed the Rec parcel to Mr. Ktlpatrtck and he conveyed same to Portof.Inc Associates in September, 1990. Attorney John Passtdomo, representing Broadview Savings & Loan and the Re(~olution Trust Corporation, stated that his clients own Vanderbilt Surf Colony Sections IV and V. He indicated that he will restrict his comments to the effect of the approved master site plan, notin~ that he renders no legal opinion with respect to the question of equitable estoppel, noting that this should be decided by the Circuit Court. A~torney Passidomo explained that his client has a substantial ~age 2§ November 12, 1991 interest in the approved master si':e plan and has been ].oaned close to $4 million in reliance on that plan. He indicated that the develop- ment rights on Vanderbilt Surf Colony Sections IV and V are well established. Mr. Passidomo urged the Commis:~ion to support staff's deter- mination and re3ect the challenge ~nd integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. He stated that he fee]:l that his submittal of exhibits sttbstarltiates the facts recited as part of staff's presentation and will provide a general overview of the adoption and historical imple- mentation of the approved master s.[te plan governing the development rights at Vanderbilt Surf Colony. Attorney Passidomo explained that in 1978, Vanderbilt Surf Colony Rec Areas 4 and 5 were rezoned for the expressed purpose of accommo- dating recreational facilities. He affirmed that shortly thereafter, the approved master site plan was adopted and all rights for zoning evolved f~om that plan. M~. Passtdomo stated that the i~pproved master site plan provided for recognition and authorization of a unified plan of development for a 66 unit 12 story condominium on Sections 1 through [l served by recreational facilities in Rec Arei~s 4 and 5. He noted that Section I has sufficient acreage to accommodnte 53 units under RMF-16, however 66 units were built since they wer~ authorized by the approved master site plan. He indicated that Sect:,on II has sufficient land to accom- modate 37 condominium units, howewer the County approved a, nd 66 units were built. He divulged that Sect:.on III has sufficient ]and to accommodate 48 units, but 66 units were permitted and constructed pur- mumlit to the master site plan. Attorney Passtdomo referred to Page 1! of his submittal, noting that Sections II and III were deve~.oped based upon a transfer of deve- lopment rights from Rec Areas 4 and 5 and that all residential deve- lopment wights otherwise en3oyed hi, Rec Areas 4 and 5 have already been exhausted. In addition, he rc~lated that ignoring the approved master site plan by applying RMF-16 zoning standards to Rec Area 5 Page 26 November 12, 1991 might prevent Collier County from prohibiting development of residen- tial · rulti-family units on Rec Are.~ 4 under the same RMF-16 zoning standards even though it, like Rec Area 5, was restricted To recreational facilities and transferred its development ri~]hts to the balance of the Vanderbilt Surf Colony development under the Approved Master Sfte Plan. He reported that ignoring the approved master site plan by applyinG RMF-I~ zoning standards to Rec Area 5 might render S~f Colony Sections I, II and III nonconforming since they only have sufficient land area to accommodate 138 condominium units under RMF-16 development density standards. Mr. Passidomo reported that in 3une 1982, Broadview loaned $~,985,000 to the developer of Vanderbilt Surf Colony Sections III, IV and V, and the loan was based on a~ expressed warranty from the prior developer that the "Seller warrant~{ that the property is zoned for ptlrposes of condominium constructi)n for not less than 195 condominium tinits." He revealed that the President who signed the purchase agreement on behalf of the corporation was Mr. Donald Corselli and he is the same developer who was the ~ommon source of title who submitted the fezone petition, approved master site plan and then submitted the application for building permits f,)r Sections I and II, implementing the approved master site plan and taking advantage of the transfer of development rights. Assistant County Attorney Howell summarized by citing that staff believes that the original site pl.~n issued on Rec Area #5 was issued in error. With regard to the esto[~pel argument, she remarked that staff feels that there is a possible issue relative to the Good faith of the Pottorino group after examining the terms of the real property transactions as each parcel was transferred to different parties and different companies with the same aames coming up. She stated that if the dollar amounts on Mr. Vega's list are considered between the time the Po~tofino Group purchased the property on September 7, 1990 and before March 29, there is a small window with only $12,000 in expen- Page November 12, 1991 dttures and $38,000 in closing costs. Attorney Robert Menztes stated that he is representing Surf Colony l, II and III unit owners and Vanderbilt Surf Colony Recreation and Maintenance Association that own Recreation No. 4. ae affirmed that he supports staff's determination and the opinion of County Attorney Cuyler's office with regard to the master site plan. He remarked that his clients have 191~ existing units and the RMF-16 zoning would only support 138 units. He noted that there are noncon- forming uses and if there is damage to his clients exceeding 50% of the value they may not be able to rebuild. In addition, he indicated that his clients paid value when lhey purchased their units origi- nally, noting that part of the value paid was that of Recreation Areas · and 5. Attorney Menzies revealed that he is the attorney of record with respect to the lawsuit and Judge Black~'ell agreed with the defendant's position and that matter is now being appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals. He noted that he believes that 3udge B]ackwell's decision will be overturned. Attorney Menzles urged the Co~ission to reject Portofino's posi- tion and to leave in tact Mr. Bagt:aski's determination. Mr. William Ftnkbtner reiterated many of the remarks made by the previous speakers. He asked that the County Attorney's opinion be ~pheld with regard to Portoftno's :?equest to develop on Baker Carroll Point. He axlnounced that in the late 1970's when Vanderbilt Surf Colony was first beln9 developed, ':he tract of land being proposed as the site for the 38 unit Pottorino Condominium prolect was originally set aside by Collier County for the exclusive use of all Surf Colony owrlers as a recreational unit only and not to be built on at time for condominiums. He noted when he pu:?chas!~d his condo, he paid for the right to have this property reserv,~d fol~ that purpose. Mr. George Keller, President, I;ollier County Civic Federation, urged the Commission to uphold staff's decision. He revealed when Broadview foreclosed, they only acquired Sections IV and V but they Page 28 Novemb(~r 12, 1991 did not acguire the Rec Area which was promised to the people occupying the entire five sectiont~. He announced that those involved with Portofino are aware of this and they had a right to this pro- perty. Dr. Samuel Cohen advised that he was the first person to purchase & condominium at Vanderbilt Towerf~ I. He indicated that nany changes were made after three condominium. were built. He explained that Rec Areas 4 and 5 were given to the unit o~ners of Surf Colony l~ 2, 8 for recreational purposes. Attorney Parry pointed out thnt the only promise given to the unit owners was that Rec Area #5 was always conditional upon all five pha- ses bein~ completed by the same o]' successor developer. Attorney Parry remarked that ~;ections IV and V have nothing to do with Sections I, II and III and there is to be no sharing of ameni- ties. Attorney Parry called attention to :Page 7 of his memorandum, noting that after development of '~he initial phase, foreclosure occurred and title was transferred to another developer. He advised that the County took the position that 'the second developer had no transferred ~nit status and was h~ld to RMF-15 zoning. Attorney Passidomo related that the approved master site plan is a document from which zoning and the allocation of development density rights were derived and the Growth Mana{;ement Plan recognized same when it granted a ZRO exemption for this property on the basis of it being a 'unified plan of development. There were no other speakers. Oo~immioner Shanahan moved, second~d by Commission~r Saunders and cm.t'F~d '=nm~i~ou~ly, to close the Imabli¢: hearing. ~o~mimmioner Saunders moved, seconde~d by Commissioner Hasse and ¢~ri~ ~~¥, to deny Petition A--91-6, and that ~tm~f's re¢om- · m~d~tim~ b~ uph~ld. Commissioner Saunders explained that he is not persuaded that all of the elements of equitable estoppel have been met. He indicated Page 29 November 12, 1991 that it appears that there is record notice of the deficiency of staff's position of a year ago, and noted that he questions whether it is legally Justifiable for someonE: to rely on a staff recommendation that is incorrect in its inception. ~~d: 3:30 P.M. - Reconvened: 3:35 P.M. at ~rhich Deputy Clerk Arrighi replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffman Xtmm ~13B3 PETITION 1~-91-18, ~ MUREUX REPR~:SENTING FLORIDA CEI,LULAR RSA, LTD. PJI~., I~-~STING A PROVISIONAL USE "b' OF SECTION 8.10 (ESSENTIAL SERVICES) OF THE E-ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW A COM~flJNICATION TOMEI~ FOR PROPKRT~ LOCATED 8.5 MI£ES EAST OF INTERSTATE 75, SOUTH OF II~!OKAL~ ROAD (CR 846) ON PROPER~Y KNC~TR AS THE BIG C0}~SCREW ISLAND FIRE CONTIrOL AND RESCUE DISTRICT PIREHOUSE NO. 2 - DENIED Planner Milk stated that the objective of the subject petition is to obtain a Provisional Use "b" of Section 8.10, Essential Services of the E-Estates zoning district to allow a communication tower. He advised that the subject property received a Provisional Use approval for a fire station on December 23, 1986. He informed that the site is home to the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District Firehouse No. 2, and the surrounding land uses are zoned E-Estates. He explained that a majority of these properties are undeveloped and contain 2.5 and 5.0 acres. He poi.~ted out that there are approxima- tely nine homes exiting along 24th Avenue Northeast. He noted that located to the east of the fire st~tlon ~s the Randall Boulevard ~enter PUD, which is presently und,~r construction for commercial related land uses. Mr. M~lk reported that although staff has received one letter of opposition to the sub3ect petition, staff feels that the said petition is consistent with Ordlnance No. 9~-84, Section 13.1d, and is com- patlble with the surrounding land =.ses, and, therefore, recommends approval of this petition as did the Planning Commission on October 17, 1991. Mr. Bruce Anderson, representlng the petitioner, stated that after hearing from the public, he asked that 'this item be continued in order to address concerns raised by the citizens. Mr. Anderson pointed out by reading from the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners Page 30 November 12, 1991 meeting of July 30, 1991, that this item be delayed to allow for further negotiations between Mr. ~eaton and the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Gontrol and Rescue District .and these directions have been followed. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Milk noted that the Provisional Use is for the communication tower on an E-Estate pro- perty. Mr. Milk answered Commissionel- Has~e's question by stating that the requested height of the subject toi~er is 280 feet. Mr. Mark Lamoureux of Mark Lamoureux Engineering, representing the petitioner, indicated that the neilotta~lons requested between the petitioner and the Big Corkscrew }'Ire !;tatton have been successful and the proposed site appears satisfactory to both sides. He pointed out on a display site plan where the tower Is proposed to be located on the subject site. He added that there will be an eight foot fence constructed around the entire slte. Mr. Lamoureux affirmed to Com~Issioner Hasse that the site will still have land available for an emergencY substation. Commissioner Hesse noted that there is a petition with 478 signs--. tures which indicates opposition to this petition. Commissioner Volpe responded that the petition indicates that these people are in opposition to the way in which the f'ire District is conducting its business and not the tower directly. Mr. Lamoureux and Community Development Services Administrator Brutt asserted that they had not received a copy of the sa.ld petition and this is the first that they ha']e learned of it. Mr. Harold C. Thomas, represen':ing the Citizens of BiG Corkscrew Island Fire District, commented thnt they are concerned with the manner in which the Fire District has been conductinG business and feel that they are not properly represented as residents in this district. He noted that they do not fe,~l the Fire District had the right to enter into an agreement with a private entity without first bringing it before the District menlbers as a referendum or a public Page 31 November 12, 1991 hearing. He provide background on the property in question and requested that the Commissioners vote no on the subject petition. Mr. Milk clarified for the record that the subject property is only authorized for a fire station and that any other use such as an emergency substation, etc. would ]lave to apply for a provisional use on this property. Mr. Jim Fox, representing the Citizens of Big Corkscrew Island Fire District, reported that the l:ower will be a benefit to the area. He referred to the display site pi.an with the location of the proposed tower and the dimensions of this ].ot and indicated that the tower is being requested to be built at a Letght of 280 feet which the citizens feels is too much for that size lot. He noted that there appears to be no certificate of liability Infurance in the lease agreement for the County in case of possible dtfaster such as the tower fallinG. He provided to the Commissioners a packet of information regardinG the proposed petition (not provided fcr the record) which ind.[cares the citizens' concerns. He declared that the proposed location is not a proper site for this tower. Mr. George Keller, President of Collier County Civic Federation, noted that a majority of the people in the area of the BtG Corkscrew Island Fire District have st~ned a petition a~atnst the construction of a comlaunication tower in their area, and their voice should carry a ~reat deal of consideration in the Commissioners' decision. Karen Acquard, speaking in favor of Cellular One, stated that the Citizens of Big Corkscrew Island Fire District were knowledgeable of the proposed petition, and she claimed that the information passed out by them is Incorrect. Co~missioner Shanahan expresse.t his concern with this petition because of the number of stgnature:~ on the petition which indicate that th,~ citizens of this district do not want the communications tower. Co~aissioner Volpe concurred that he too has concerns regardinG this pe'tition; however, it seems that the concern from the citizens is ~age 3 2 Novt:mber 12, 1991 regarding the negotiations tb, fire commission made fo~' them in this district. John Cunnton, citizen of the County, stated that he ts totally against the construction of the proposed communication tower. He reported that the advertising of this proposed petition was poorly done and many people were not informed. Co~tssiormr Huse moved, sec,~nded by Co~tsatoner Goodnight, to · ~zry Pmtttion PU-91-18 in light o[ the fact that there is strong oppo- sition fro~ th~ citizens of the p:~oposed area. In response to Mr. Anderson, Commissioner Hasse pointed out that the motion is based on the destre~ of the residents of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire District area who do not want the tower placed in their area. Coamissloner Volpe noted that it appears that the concerned citi- zens have an issue with the Fire Commission and not with the peti- tioner and offered for consideratLon that this petition be continued to allow the petitioner to addres!~ the concerns of the citizens. County Attorney Cuyler asserted that if the petition is being denied, it needs to be stated in lhe findings that this decision is reached based on land use. Commissioner Hasse concurred ~'tth the statement by County Attorney Cu¥1er that the motion is based on incompatibility of surrounding land uses. After some discussion regarding the issue of the citizens versus the Fire Commission and Cellular One being caught in the middle, Commissioner Saunders noted that the Board of County Comm:issioners cannot pick a site for the t(~wer and that a vote needs to be made on the proposed motion. He commented that he will vote against the motion since he feels that the proposed site is an appropriate loca- tion for the communication tower. Further discussion ensued rega:~ding other possible negotiations with the citizens of the Big Corkscrew area who indicated that they Page 33 Nov,ember 12, 1991 did not want to negotiate further any other possible l~cations for the tower. ~ call for the question, the aotion to deny Petition PU-91-18 C~-Tied 4/1 (C~i~toner Sanders: opposed). sss ~~: 4:40 P.M. - Reconvened: 4:50 P.M. It~ ~1~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ CP-91--DRI2, ~R ~[I~f~ TO ~~ ~~ OF C~I~ ~FAIRS RE ~5ION OF ~{~ I~STATE A~ ~ AT I~A~ 75 A~ I~O~EE RO~ ~ C~ ~ ~ - Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on November 4, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map series to redesignate property from Urban Residential to Activity Center at the Immokalee Road Interstate Activity Center and to approve transmittal of the Amendment to the Department of Community Affairs. Conu~issloner Goodnight request~d that the members of the audience representing soccer, stand so that their appearance can be registered before they have to leave. Assistant to the County Managel' Olltff advised that the subject Item, #12A1, will be presented along with Item #12C9, the Development AGreement between the County and Mr. J. D. Nicewonder relating ~o the commercial development of 60 acres of land on what is now the Carlton Lakes PUD. Growth Planning Director Blanchard stated that the requested amendment to the Growth Management Plan is to specifically expand the Future Land Use Map for the Interstate Activity Center located at Immokalee Road and Interstate 75. He indicated that the naterial pro- vided for the Commissioners is the same material presented to the Plannirlg Commission. He acknowledged lhat the subject property is located on the site of the current Car]ton Lakes PUD which is directly west of Regency Village DRI, approximately 1/2 mile west of the Page 34 Novembe]r 12, 1991 interchange of Immokalee Road and 1-75, on the north side of Immokalee Road, and directly east of the proposed Livingston Road right-of-way. He advised that if the proposed amendment is approved the intensity of development will include 60 acres of commercial, 400,000 square feet of retail commercial, 50,000 square feet of office uses, and a 150 unit m. atel/hotel. Mr. Blanchard reported that in reviewing the proposed amendment, staff evaluated how thfs amendment fits with the County-wide inventory of coMuercial land; what the surrounding land uses pattern are including the amount, type, and location of existing zones in deve- loped commercial uses; what the market demand in service is for addi- tional commercial; are the public facilities capable of handling the potential uses in the amendment ar~a; is commercial use compatible with ad3oining properties; are theme environmental constraints to possible development of the amendment area; and how does this request specifically relate to the idea of developing the property to the north as a recreational entertainm.~nt facility. He added that his analysis was based on two assumptions which include that on the remaining ~80 acres of the PUD which would be donated to the £ounty there would be a recreational faciEity developed; and a market Justi- fication study which assumes that ])art of the commercial property will be developed specifically as a pla::a ox' shopping center which contain two anchors such as a department s'lore and other tenants which will be able to draw from areas other than the immediate surrounding ones. Commissioner Volpe questioned ~[f Mr'. Blanchard's analysis would be the same if there were to be no sp]~ing training facilities to be constructed to the north? Mr. Blanchard responded that the analysis would be the same as the market study indicates that the:re Is a need and desire for the types of development proposed for 60 acres of com- mercial. Mr. Blanchard explained in further detail each of th(~ findings of the criteria used to evaluate the proposed amendment which are attached to the Executive Summary. He stated that based on these Page 35 November 12, 1991 findings, ataff recommends approval of the proposed amendment for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). He pointed out that the Planning Commission uoted 4/3 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the proposed amendment. He explained that the transmittal of the proposed amendment is possible with three votes; however, the adoption of t~e amendment after DCA returns it with their comments will require four votes to pass. In response to Commissioner V.~lpe, Mr. Blanchard noted that the p~blic benefit is with the donated land which will be discussed by Assistant to the County Manager Olllff. Assistant to the County Manag,~r Olliff presented the development agreement relating to the commercial development of 50 acres of ]and on what is currently the Carlton 'Lakes PUD. He interjected that the agreement does not ~nclude a baseball stadium to be constructed. He explained that the property known as Carlton Lakes is a 240 acre site and the proposed agreement would have the County receive 180 acres of the northern portion of this property and Mr. Nicewonder would receive a commercial zoning of C-4 status for 60 acres at the southern portion of the property affronting Immokalee Road. He noted thal~ the County will be agreeing to fair share commitments such as roads that service the central entrance and transpor'tatton needs which will benefit the County. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Olliff informed that the highest f~scal impact for the County's fair share could be $2.5 million and more likely will be $2.1 million. As requested by the Board, Mr. Olliff reported that the proposed agreement has been negotiated with no property tax moneys to be used fo~ improvements on this site. He added that the improvements can be funded from the regional park lmp~ct fees. In response to Commissioner Shanahan~ Mr. Olliff stated that main- tenance will be paid from the Parks and Recreation's operating fund. Mr. Olliff responded tc Commissioner Volpe by statinG that the proposed agreement would provide to the County 180 acres, 30 of which Page 36 November 12, 1991 are identified as preserve, leaving 150 acres of which the Board will make the determination of use. Mr. Olliff affirmed that port:ions of the 30 acres of preserve can be used for a passive park such a~ nature trails. In a discussion with Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Olliff confirmed that the acquisition of the proposed l~.nd would provide an access of regional park land. In evaluating the proposed agreement, Mr. Olliff stated that staff recommends approval. Responding to Commissioner Shanahan's question, Mr. Olliff com- mented that it is his understanding that there are no immediate plans to break gro~%d for development, and that development will be phased in over a two or three year period. In further discussion regarding through trafflc from the regional park area, Mr. Olliff affirmed that the residents will be protected from the traffic. In respon~3e to Commissioner Vo.[pe, Mr. Olliff stated that the Gounty will be responsible to build its fair-share portion of Livingston Ro~ld which would serve ~s a secondary access to the park facility only, and only if it is r,~quired as a stipulation for deve- lopment approval for the entire pr~Ject. $$' £"~%'F Clerk Fartic r~plac~d Deputy Clerk Arri~ht at this time *'* Commissioner Volpe expressed h~.s op~[nion that staff ha:~ not nego- tiated the best possible deal in t~rms of public benefit when el{pending 2.5 million dollars for roads° box culverts and various development commitments assisting J.n a DRI process while young people a~e wanting to have a soccer field by December 15th. He voiced con- c~rn over the lack of legal authority to enter into a Development A{;reement. He stated it makes no ~.ense when, after giving away two- thirds of his property, Mr. Niceworder ends up with something more va~luable than what he began with. He pointed out there is a 26 acre parcel of land located on Goodlette-Frank Road which can and should be Page 37 November 12, 1991 considered for soccer fields. Regardtnil the late proposal m.~de on the City Gate property, Assistant to the Manager Olltff relayed staff's interpretation that in order to build either a stadium o:~ regional park facility, both a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and an Amendment to the Development Order are required. Commissioner Volpe stated he $~ants the record to reflect that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) Is recommendinG dental of this item and staff Is recommendinG approval. Commissioner Hasse interjected that the vote was 4/3. $ergto Montes with Hole, Montes a Associates, Inc., representing Petitioner Nicewonder, confirmed lhat at Development Agreeraent and Amendment to the Growth Managemenl Plan have been submitted and reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). Robert Duane with Hole, Montes & Associates, Inc. stated there are many steps to Go before ftnalizatJon of the plan for the subject pro- perty, which should afford ample cpportunity for the public to become involved in the DRI review, zonin~ reviews, subdivisions, and site plans. He displayed an aerial phctograph of the subject property, stating that most of the land uses, particularly to the east of the project, are vacant with single family subdivisions developing on the west side of Livingston Road. He verified that the right-of-way width for Livingston Road Is 275' and is coupled with an FPL easement comprising an additional 235' He rela~ed that the distance from the edge of the subject property to the edge of the Turnbury neighborhood is almost 600'. He stated a fundamental point is the fact that the subject site affords access to an interchange and to a major arterial. He pointed out there are ? acres of commercial zoning presently approved but subject to zoning re-evaluation at the intersection of Immokalee and Livingston Roads, which will support approximately 75,000 sq. ft. should that zoning be retained. He summarized the existing conditions. In responme to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Duane stated it is his Page 38 November 12, 1991 understanding that, upon coming :forward with a DRI, it will be treated similar to Regency Village in their it will have to meet the County's concurrency management re~tirement as we71 as the policies imposed by the Regional Planning Council. ]{e explained that, basically, both local and regional entitles must be dealt with on transportation issues. Mr. Duane stated that approximately 50 acres of net usable acreage is b{~tng requested, after allo~ing for right-of-way, wetlands, ~tc. He confirmed that one 80 acre retail tract, one 17 acre retail tract and one area approximately 7.5 acres for office or motel use is being requested. He commented petitioner is not committing to any access at this point in the planning process, adding that the access points will be subject to further review at the time of zoning. He summarized that petitioner is requesting C-4 uses and has agreed to two anchor tenants for the larger of the two commercial tracts. Mr. Duane agreed there is an ;~bundance of commercial property in the County, but added that a lot of it is not in the right location. Commissioner Saunders referred to paragraph 2, Access through Commercial Property, of the Devel¢,pment Agreement, commenting it is assumed that the right-of-way will be [,rovided by the property owner. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Duane indicated there is approximately 4 acres of right-of--way. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Duane related that, assuming something is constructed within the Livingston Road right-of- way, the developer of the commercial property will pay his fair share of costs for construction of the right-of-way up to the access, should one be permitted into the commercial tract, without reimbursement through impact fee credits for the developer. Mr. Duane related that the tra~]fic consultant retained by peti- tioner was of the opinion that, wh~n looking at the entire network, the impacts w.ere not dissimilar between residential and commercial, particularly ,west of Livingston Ro~,d. He concluded the proposed Plan Amendment meets the criteria outlired in the Comprehensive Plan Page 39 November 12, 1991 re~;arding activity centers, i.e. they should be focal points of acti- vii-y, there should be mixed use, and ~hey should be located at major intersections. Referring to the last paragraph on page 4 of the Executive Sugary, M~. Montes ~e~ested cla:rtfication of the $265,500 for impact fee c~ed~ts to M~. Nicewonder. Oo~ssioner Saunders stated ~:he~e a~e two ~efe~ences to allowable ~oad ~mpact fees fo~ ~nte~nal roadway ~mp~ovements. He ~elated that, unde~ the O~dfnance, M~. N~cewonde~ w~11 not be allowed to have any fropact fee allowances, although the AGreement does state that should they become allowable under the Ordinance, Mr. Nicewonder will be afforded the beneflt of same. He concluded it makes sense to delete that lan~aGe from the AGreement. ReGa~dinG the construction cost of the road Going to the commer- cial a~ea, Mr. Montes concluded that staff included the cost for water and sewe~ and, therefore, an adjustment must be made in staff's o~iGi- nal calculation. He suggested coLstderation should be ~iven to ~eductfon ~n the fi~es ~eported fo~ construction of the one mile as the~e ~s no stadium at the p~esent t~me and, therefore, no need to Go the ent~e mile. He concluded the ~eal cost is $~,08~,000 instead of the p~oJected $~,500,000. He confirmed that M~. N~cewonder has agreed to donate the ~fGht-of-way, at no cha~ge to the County, through the cente~ of his p~ope~ty. In ~esponse to Oo~]ss~one~ Volpe, Bryan Weber, on behalf of the Petit~one~, stated that the $400,000 f.l~re projected f~r the right- of-way cost and included in the Execut ~ve Summary is the County staff's calculation. M~. Montes stated that, if the County uses petitioner's road for access ~nto .its pa~k, they are asked to pay their p~opo:rt.ionate share for construction of same. Kevin Coleman, attorney for Petitioner, stated that the changes ~d ~rk out~ contained in the draft of the Agreement were initiated Page 40 November 12, 1991 by the Cot~nty Attorney's Office to further protect the County. He confirmed that his client has agreed to the proposed changes. Referring to paragraph 3 on page 13 (Access to Comnercial Property), Commissioner Saunders questioned whether there is a problem with deleting the language alluding to impact fee waivers for the Petitioner. County Attorney Cuyler announced he is the one which suggested the language regarding impact fee waiuers for the Petitioner. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Cuyler stated it Is not allowable, under the Ordinance, f.~r the County to give Petitioner cre- dits for building their proportiomate share. Arty. Coleman confirmed that, because the Agreement reads "fair share", his client agrees to the deletion of the language regarding impact fee credits. Commissioner Shanahan pointed out that the two references are found on pages 13 and 14 of the Development Agreement. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Coleman stated the acquisition language contained in the Agreement can be deleted. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Coleman stated the only reference to Impact fee credits r~maintng in the agreement is the one found on page 11 of the Executive Summary, Item D(1) . Commissioner Saunders stated that Impact fees are likely to go up in Collier County, and this development will be subject to whatever impact fees are at the time of development. Arty. Coleman Interjected that his client could also be entitled to road Impact fee credits under the terms of subparagraph 4 on page 13 of the Development Agreement. Commissioner Saunders stated he has no problem with the impact fee credits for expenditures for that link of road as it is purely'for the spring training complex. Commissioner Volpe read paragraph #9 of the report, found on page 3, regardin~ road impact fee credltu. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Chuck Mohlke confirmed he Page 41 November 12, 1991 agrees with the Plantec Study done in 1988. A representative from the firm of David Plummet & Associates concluded there will be no changes necessary in the future traffic circulation map for the year 2000 due to the proposed Plan Amendment. He explained the criteria used in performing the analysis. In res~,onse to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Duane confirmed that the subject development is, In fact, a DRI. The following persons spoke in opposition to the commercial deve- lopment of 60 acres of land on what is now the Carlton Lakes PUD: * Ed Trahan, Turnbury resident '' Nino Allegretta, Vice President of Willoughby Acres Homeowners Association Jim Springrose, President of Qlail Creek Property Owners Assoc. Betty Matthews, resident & member of Advisory Board for Long Shore Lake Unidentified man read a letter frola Ed Erpelding, President of the Palm River Homeowners Assoc., copy not provided for the record Marie Sourbeer Bob Gutbridge Bill Wemple *$' Jerry B:~ow~, President of Turnbury Homeowners Assoc. Harry G. Purdy Hans G. Meyer, officer of the Incorporated Naples Park Assoc. 'Read a letter of opposition f;?om Art Jacob to Commissioner Goodni!lht, copy not provided for the record. ''Presen!:ed a Petition of oppos:[tion with 213 signatures. He stated he has not included the signatures of those that are not residents of Willoughby Acres '''read excerpts from a letter alleged to be from the Chairman of the Citizenll Political Committee, copy not provided for the record. Reasons cited for opposition include: A change of zoning will destroy the quality of life en3oyed when the homes were purchased; problems with noise; "a bad deal" lot not only the county but also for the people living in the area; objectives should be focused on what kids need for a soccer field instead of on rezoning property; existing vacancies ir~ existing commercial centers; by extending the interchange activity center, the other three quadrants of that lnters~ctlon will be opened u~, to additional commercial development; traffic being a ma~or Issue; conversion of another 60 acres into concentl'ated concrete and asphalt will exacerbate storm drainage system; problems associated ~{lth delivery traffic, waste removal, and landfill problems of addl- Page 42 November 12, 1991 riohal co~,aercial property; non-compatibility with residential area; 40 acres contained in the Veterant~ Park which are hardly developed but which incl~ldes existinG soccer fields and can accommodate more; Ismskales Road is an evacuation route and should be developed as a limited access highway; Mr. Nicew¢.nde]: does not own the land; and a fezone froll residential to commercial can adversely affect the quality of life and threaten property values. !~e~'*~e~: ?:20 P.M. - Reconvened: 7:35 P.M. at which ti~e ~a~'~ Clerk (]uevin replaced £mputy Clerk Fartie ''' The following people spoke in favor of the petition. stating the dire need for soccer playing fields in Collier County; there are 80 soccer teams with 1,500 participating children with no place to go; there are .~any undesirable alternatives to children than organized sports; the: community was promised in 1979 that community parks would be geared toward separate sports ta each park, which has not happened; the inability to schedule sports activities other than on a day-to-day basis due ~o the lack of playing fields; and the project will create Jobs and promote economic developm,:nt: John Freshwater Tape ~7 Jim Meerpohl Garrett Richter Peter Miles Peggy Smith Dout; Baird 3ack Pointer Scott Browne Rick Dykman The following people spoke against the petition, stating neighbors have not been contacted for their input; an agreement should be made with the School Board for the use of their playing fields; the possi- bility should be explored for expandtn~ the existing parks to include additional playing fields; the iss~.e should be put back on a referen- dum with a vote on each individual item; and developing soccer fields sometime in the future on the propcsed property wl]l not help the curren~ situation: George ]~eller C. R. Rues Wtmer Gilbert Erlichman Pat Ptlcher Sharon Condon Bill Kerrlgan County Attorney Cuyler advised the Board that the Development Agreement r~quires three votes for approval, however, a provision has I U~.~{)~": 78 Page 43 November 12, 1991 been included which states if it i~J not passed by a super majority, Mr. Ntcewcnder has the right to te:rminate the Agreement. He explained that final approval of the Growth Management Plan amendmerit will require four votes, therefore, thence would be no point in going for- ward with the project without a super majority approval of the Development Agreement. Com~tmmioner Volpe moved, secollded by Commissioner Sh~nmhmn and carried ~i~ou~ly, to close the Imbltc hearing. Co~tssioner $hanahan moved, a~conded by Commissioner Hasse to delay final decision on the Growth Management Plan amendment and Development A~reemnt, and direct !~taff to discuss with Mr. Nicewonder the possibility of a better deal ozt box culverts, roads, turn lanes, etc., ~n~ provide an Knvironmental Impact Statement to ascertain wllel:heT or 1%ot the proposed land w~ld be suitable for m regional park. Commissioner Hasse commented the discussion has Indicated the need for further evaluation of the propc,sal, while at the same time he is not ready to turn down the offer o! 180 acres for a regional park. He stated other land alternatives aisc need to be investigated. Commissioner Goodnight remarked the current Board of County ~ommisstoners has been burdened by a decision made by a former Board, when parkland was purchased in East Naples which turned out to be s~ampland. She indicated she does not want the same situation to .Dccur again. She asked that Staff advise the Board if soccer fields can be built Immediately on the proposed land. She stated she cannot s%lpport the proposal until a better deal. is made for the County, however, she. is willing to postpone a final decision until Staff has ~rovided anf~ers to the many questions raised. Commissioner Volpe reiterated his position that the proposal does not seem to be a very good businees deal for the community. He con- ellfred with the suggestion of looking more closely at other alter- listives. He. also suggested the Board begin exploring alternatives for soccer fields separate from the Nicewonder proposal. Page ~ November 12, 1991 Commis~ioner Saunders communicated in his opinion, the proposal is asking the Board to sell zoning for a 180-acre park and although that may be appe. aling, he is not sure it is the right thing to do. He said continuing a decision on the proposal will not be in anyone's best interests. He stated his personal commitment is to do what must be done to acquire the needed socser fields. and to do ~o, much more quickly than would occur with thi~ proposal. Upon call for the question, tlle motion failed 2/3 (Commissioners $~z~, Volp~ mu~ Goo~night opposed). Csiest~er Vol~ ~ved, seconded ~ Conisotoner Sanders ~d carrt~ 3/2 (Co~tssioners S~lm ~d Hesse opposed), to deny ~~t PI~ ~n~ent CP-91-DItI2. I~ ~12C9 D~~ A~~ BE~EN 3. I). NICI~ER, TRUSTEE, ~ ~E ~0~I~ ~ ~ O[ CO~ C~ISSIO~RS RELATING T0 PItOPER~ T~T Legal notice having been publl.shed in the Naples Daily News on November 4, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was oper.ed to review a Development Agreement between J. D. Nicewonder, Trustee, and ~he Collier County Board of County Gommissioners. Discussion of this item was heard In conjunction with Item #12A1. Co~tsei. oner Volpe ~oved, seconded by Cootsstoner Shanahen and carried unanimously, to close the public hearing. Commissioner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and carried 3/2 (Commissioners Shan~an and Hesse opposed) to deny entering into a Development Agreement between J. D. Nicewonder, Trn~tee, ~nd the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Item 912C4 I~SOLUTIO~ 91-?79 RE PETITION 0SP-91-1, ~OHN W. EMERSON, REPRESENTING G.F.G., INC., D/B/A $PANKY'S SPEAKEASY, :REQUESTING APPROVAL OF OFF-$IT~ PAK£IN~ ON LOT 25, COCONU~ RIVEiR, UNIT NO. 1, ZONED RSP-4, TO SERVE TR~ ~X£STING C-3 ZONED BUSINESS, LOCATED ON 6126 COCONUT RIVER, UNIT NO. 1, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND LONGBOAT 0RIVE .- ADOPTED SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT SHEET AND ~W) PARKING' SIGNF TO BE ERECTI!D IN SWALE Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 27, 1991, as evidenced by .%ffida~;tt of Publication filed with Page 45 November 12, 1991 Khe Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition OSP-91-1, flied by John W. Emerson, representing G.F.G., Inc., d/b/a Spanky's Speakeasy, requesting approval of off-site parking on Lot 25, Coconut River, Unit No. 1, zoned RSF-4, to serve the existing C-3 zoned busi- ness, located on 6126 Coconut River, Uni% No. 1. Commissioner Goodnight noted Companion Petition SPA-91-1 will be discussed in conjunction with this item. Planner I~llhere explained the requests for off-site and shared ]garktng will provide adequate parking anti safe ingress/egress for patrons of Spanky's Speakeasy and will alleviate an ongoing problem since 1976. fie reported the petitioner purchased the property in 1985 at which time patrons of the restaurant began using the subject lot for overflow parking. After receiving complaints, he said, the County determined the parking was in violation of the Zonin9 Ordinance and the petitioner was required to install concrete parking blocks to pre- vent automobiles from using the residential property. He advised at that time, the petitioner initiates a fezone request to allow parkinG on the subject site, but subsequently withdrew the application due to concerns of neighboring residential property owners. He said the petitioner is now requesting off-site parking which will not allow any other commercial uses on the subjert si%e and which has alleviated the concerns of area residents. He mentioned the CCPC has recommended approval, subject to the Board of ~ounty Commissioners authorizing the erection of "No Parking" signs in the swale, which will resolve the remaining concern of neighbors. H~ indicated the petitioner will pay for the cost of the signs. Commissioner Hasse asked if th.~re i~ a possibility tha't the adja- cent residential property will be '~sed for restaurant parking at any time? Planner Mulhere advised any parking to support a commercial use will be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. He said all parking ~rust be done on the lot that is pact of the subject petition for off- site parking. He mentioned the colnpanion petition, SPA-91-1, allows for shared parking. He explained 'the petitioner has a ]ea~e, Page 46 November 12, 1991 renewable up to 25 years, for a s~:rip of land adjacent and to the north of the subject property, which is under the ownership of Bear's Paw Country Club and which is par': of an easement for the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for the Golden Gate Canal system. He said the 25-foot strip of land currently has six parking spaces which will be increased to 12 spaces by approval of the peti- tion for shared parking. John Emerson, representing the petitioner, provided the Board with photographs of the subject and ad2[acent properties. (Copies on file with the Clerk to the Board.) He explained the existing and proposed plans for shared and off-site parking. Planner Millhere advised before the proposal is finalized, the petitioner must submit a final Site Development Plan (SDP} because the off-site and shared parking petit::ons require a SDP. As part of that, he said, the County requires the agreement be recorded %~ith the Clerk of Courts which will require the (:hairman's signature. 0(~i~!~r $]~mnahan ~oved, iseconded by Com~issioner Volpe and ¢mXTt~ ~l~amt~l¥, to close the ~ubltc hearing. ~~i~r Shanahan ~oved, ~econdisd by Cow~tssloner Hasee and ¢mXTi~ ~nl~mz~l¥, to approve 0!lP-91-1, allow "No Parking' st~ns to ~ e~t~ in the ~wmle mt the ex~nse of the ~etltloner, and the ~h~l~ he ~thorlzed to execute the final &~reeBent, thereby ~tin~ ~lntton 91-779. Page 47 November 12, 1991 Item ,12C5 R~OLUTIOl[ 91-780 RE PKTTTION SPA.-91-1, JOHN M. KNKRSOH, RIKPRESENTING G.F.G., INC., D/B/A SPANKY'S SPE~;EASY, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF SHARED P~ ON A STRIP OF LAND ZONED (IC, LYING ADJACENT TO THE NORTH PROFERT~ LIH OF, AND TO SERVE THI.~ EXISTING BUSINESS ON LO~.~ 26, COCO]IUT ltl~R, UNIT NO. !, ZONED (:-3, WHICH BUSINESS IS LOCATED ON THE NO~ CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND LONGBOAT I~IV~ - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 2?, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the Clerk, public hearing was oper.ed to consider Petition SPA-91-1, flied by John W. Emerson, represer.ting G.F.G., Inc., d/b/a Spanky's Speakeasy, requesting approval of shared parking on a strip of land adjacent to the north property line of the existing business on the northwest corner of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Longboat Drive. Discussion of this item was heard In conjunction with Petition 0SP-91-1. Commies:loner Shanahen moved, seconded by Commissioner qolpe end carried ~,imously, to close the public hearing. Coum/~:ioner S~ moved, seconded by Conisotoner Hesse end cmrrledunml,tmou~l¥, to approve SP~-91-1 and authorize the Chairman to execute the finml 8greement, thereby adopting Resolution 91-780. Page 48 Novembe.~' 12, 1991 ~O~ 91-781 R~ P~TXTlO![ FU-91-9, £~)RIS K. ~, ~II~STIN~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M~T R;O~, ~R D~I;CRZBED ~ LOT T, ~ 1~, ~ ~ S~DIVISlON, I~ll, CONSISTXNG OF ~~~Y 0.34 A~S - ~D S~CT TO AGRE~ S~IET AS Planner Scheff presented Petition PU-91-9 requesting Provisional Use "c" of the RMF-6 zoning district for an owner occupied child care center. He said the property is located on the northern corner of Hendry Street and New Market Road in Immokalee. He noted the peti- tioner wishes to continue using the dwelling as a single-family home with the additional provision that It be allowed to be a,n cwner occupied child care center for up to 22 children. He reported neigh- boring properties include single-family homes and vacant lcts. He indicated because the proposed use will be located in a single-family residential area, Staff recommends only 12 children be allowed to be cared for, with the addition of three employees. He stated the CCPC unanimously disagreed with Staff and is recommending the petition be approved as presented for 22 children. He stated the CCPC also stlggested revisions to the Agreement She,~t, which has been changed as follows: deletion of Stipulation "b", d,ffletlon of the second sentence of Stipulation "f" and the revision of Stipulation "g" to read as follows, "The road Impact fee if applicable shall be waived." He com- mented the previous Staff recommendation was, "The road impact fee if applicable shall be based on a site specific analysis", inowever, the CCPC felt if the Board approves this petition, the road impact fee should be waived. Commissioner Volpe inquired if there is any legal au'~hortty for waiving the impact fee under the circumstances7 Transportation Services Administrator Archibald advls~d the ordi- n~ce does not allow for the Board to waive those fees for that reason. He commented, however, the Board can direct Staff to do a Bite specific analysis which will probably indicate that th.~ grand- Page 49 November 12, 1991 lathering effect of the existing house will result in a r.~lattvely small fee. Commissioner Goodnight questioned why a SDP is necessary on an existing house? She said the petitJenner will install the necessary parking, and there will be no impact to the neighbors. She Indicated If Ms. Graham is required to pay an engineer $2,500 for a SDP, it will defeat the purpose of her expanding hel' child care center in order to support herself. Planner Scheff advised the SDP Ordinance of the Zontn!] Code requires a SDP for anything other than single family home:~ and duplexes. In this case, he said, the petitioner is conve:rting a single-family home to a business. Ken Beginski, Planning Services Manager, concurred that a SDP is required under the ordinance, however, Staff has the abll~[ty during the pre-appltgation conference to go through the list of i:riterta and determine what is necessary to submit. He said perhaps i~t this situation when dealing with an existing structure, much o1' the requirements of the site plan may be waived or not determined impor- tant for this particular situation. Ken Rogers, with the the North Naples Fire Control & ~escue District, advised that his agency is now doing the Immoka]ee inspec- tions on new and some of the existing buildings. He indicated the day care center must comply with the State'~ Jn]form Fire Code. He pro- vided the Board with a list of req'lirements he suggested be added as a stipulation to the Agreement Sheet. (Copy on file with th5 Clerk to the Board.) Planner Schell indicated if approved, ~he Uniform Fire Code requirements would be added as Stipulation "h" ~me~ter Hm~me moved, seconded ~ Co~lsstoner Sh~lahan rand carried ~n~ntlmly, to approve Pe':ttion PU-91-9 with the ltmendments to the Affr~t Sheet as noted a~)ve, t:hereby adopting Re.olutton 91-781. 121 Page 50 Novea!~er 12, 1991 ~OL~]TIO!I 91-782 R~ PETITION AV-91-014, FERMIN A. DIAZ, AS AGENT FOR ~ ~ S. HARDY, REQU~STINO TO VACA~ A ~RTION OP ~ 'A', A ~I~ ~ ~I~CE ~S~ LOCA~D ON ~E PLAT O~ QUAIL CREEK ~ ~ I - ~D Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 27th and November 3, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to con- sider Petition AV-91-014, filed by Fermin A. Diaz, as agent for owner Robert S. Hardy, requesting to vacate a portion of Tract "A", a drainage and maintenance easement located on the plat of Quail Creek Plaza, Phase I. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald indicated the pro- ~ect in question is located on Immokalee Road near the entrance to Quail Creek. He said the area is currently developed a~ commercial and has a PUD overlay with a commercial use. He advised the area in question has a large drainage basin which, due to the design, has been relocated allowing the applicant to request a vacation of the drainage easement. Based upon letters of no objection from Development Services, he said, the drainage capacity can be handled elsewhere and as a result of the vacation of the easement, the owner will be able to better utilize that property and increase the building area in the commercial development. He added letters of no objection have been received from FPL and UTS with stipulations. He concluded with $taff's recommendation that the Board approve Petition AV-91-014. Coufssioner Volpe commented the request for vacation is for over one acre of land, and he is concermed with water manage~ent issues in the area as they relate to Quail Creek. He said he is reticent to tamper with a system that currently is not working. Mr. Archibald indicated Staff has analyzed the drainage aspect and ~n so doing, have indicated approval of this vacation. He said the outfall concerns in the area are not site specific to this project. Fermin D~az with Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., representing the petitioner, explained his client has submitted to the South Page 51 Novem'3er 12, 1991 Flortda Water Management District (SF%~MD) and Collier County a revised plan and has obtained an easement to (train to the Longshore Lake water management system. He said the petitioner will be utilizing their retention area and outfail which has been permitted by the $FWMD o ~~r S~der~ ~ed, eeconded ~ Co~leston,e:~ Sh~ ~d ~~ ~l~ly, to cloee the ~b~ic hearlng. C~l~i~er Sanders ~, seco~ded ~ Co~sstone:: Sh~ ~d c~r~ 4/1 {Cm~.~loner Volpe oppoe~d), to approve Petition AV-91~14, t~re~ ~optlng Resolution 91-~82. Page 52 Noveml~er 12, 1991 lt~ ~12¢2 R~SOL~TON 91-783 R~ P~"~ITTON NO. SHP-'90-10, 3~1~ DAVI~()N, E.I., OF ~, ~, ~N ~ PK~, INC., RK~S~ING O~~K ~S~~, ~~ING ~SION 0F SUBDIVISION ~ST~ ~ FOR O~ ~E B - ~D Legal notice having been published In the Naples Daily News on October 27, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition SMP-90-10, filed by Jeff Davidson, E.I., of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., representing Orangetree Associates, requesting extension of the Subdivision Master Plan for Orangetree Phase B. Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator, pre- sented a request for a one-year extension of SMP-90-10 for Orangetree Phase B. C~m/~to~r Smunders ~oved, seconded ~ Co~tssloner Sh~ ~d c~ri~ ~l~ly, to close the ~blic hearing. ~st~r S~~ ~ed, seconded ~ Co~tssloner Sanders ~d c~Fi~ ~i~ly, to m~r~e P~tition S~-90-10, there~ adopting ~lutt~ 91-783. Page 53 November 12, 1991 Clerk Roff~an l-eplaced Deputy Clerk Arright at this Itss#ll%'~ I~T~I 91-784, R~ PETITION 0SP-91-2, HARI0 LAN~NDOLA ~PRESENTING ALIbi SJJ~ITMA'T'B:R'S ~ ~ ~ILLK, INC., ~Q~STING O~-SlTE P~ING ~R ~ ~a~ ON ~ ~SIDK~IAL ~RTION OF ~ ~0P~ ~'~A~ AT ~ SO--ST CO~R OF ~CIS A~ ~ AIRART ROAD - ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ED AGRE~ S~ET Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 27, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition 05P-91-2, flied by Marlo Lamendola, Architect, representing Deborah Orr, D/B/A Alice $weetwater's Bar & Grille, requesting off-site parking, in a RMF-6 Zone, which includes C-4 zoning, for property located at the southwest corner of Francis Avenue & Airport Road. Planner Badamtchian announced that the petitioner is requesting approval of off-site parking on the residential portion of the pro- perty located dlrectly to the south of Alice Sweetwater's Bar and Grllle. He indicated that the petitioner purchased the property to the south of the restaurant, however, when application was made for the SDP, it was determined that a portion of that property is zoned Residential which necessitates an off-site parking agreement in order to construct a parking lot. Mr. Mario Lamendola, representing the petitioner, advised that parking will be added to the rear of the restaurant and proper buf- fering will be provided to the residential area to the west. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Lamendola advised that it will not be necessary for vehicles to enter the parking lot from Walker Lane, noting that shrubbery will be placed along the driveway that the vehicles would exit. Com~issioner Vo/pe suggested that shrubbery be placed on the sides of each driveway in addition to the placement of same along Airport Road. Mr. Lamendola agreed to place shrubbery along the driveway of Walker Lane in addition to Airport Road. There were no speakers. Cos~dntm~r Volpe moved, seconded by Conicsloner Shanaban and Page 54 Noveml>er 12, ~99! carrleduaant~nm~¥, to close the lmblic hearing. Cc~a/~ton~r Vo~pe ~ed, ~econded ~ Co--Isotoner Sanders ~d c~rt~ ~tmly, to ~r~e Petition 0SP-91-2, with the ~t~t~ t~t l~c~ptng ~tll ~ provided to ~ffer ~lker L~e with litto~l l~scaptng arid the entire ~rtsster of the pro- ~r~ nttl tt is d~elo~d, ~d that Resolution 91-~84 t~ adopted. 137 Page 55 Now:tuber 12, 1991 RE~OLOTIO~ g1-785, ~ PETITION $NR-91-5, CARl, B. S?OY~ REQUESTING A ~ ~ C~Gl FRO~ IHR~T ~ TO OLD MARCO LANE ~{ICH I$ PART OF T~ O~D ~t~tCO VI~LAGE SUBDIVISION, LOCAT~D W~ST OF LEE AVEI~UE ON MARCO Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 27, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petit[on $NR-91-5, filed by Carl B. Stoye, requesting a street nane change from Ehret Lane to 01d Marco Lane, located in 01d Marco Village Subdivision, West of Lee Avenue on Marco Island. Commissioner Saunders noted that this item is a street name change from Ehret Lane to Old Marco Lane. There were no speakers. Co~mtssioner Smunders ~oved, seconded by Coatesloner Volpe ~d c~i~ ~i~ly, to clo~e ~he ~blic hearing. ~lmi~ S~ ~ed, seconded ~ Cootsstoner Sanders ~d ~lmti~ 91-785. Page 56 November 12, 1991 PETIT~ P~-90--5, FLANNIN~ SERVICES STAFF ~Q~STINfl DI~ION Rg ~X~ ~ "~" 0F ~ C-4 ZONIN~ DIS~ICT DR A U~D C~ LOT FOR ~~ ~A~ ON ~ NOR~ SID~ 0F ~T T~I~I ~IL, ~~Y 200 ~ ~ST 0F S~~ DRI~ - STA~ TO COSINE ~ ~ SI~ D~0~ P~N TO D~I~ ~E~ IT ~S AP~OVAL Planner Scheff requested direction from the Commission as to how staff should proceed with the subject petition which was approved on August 7, 1990, to allow a used car lot. Mr. Scheff explained that on July 30, 1991, a 90 day extension was granted until October 28, 1991, subject to all conditions as reflected in the original Provisional Use request and three additional conditions. Mr. Schell advised that one condition provides that w~thin 90 days from the date of approval of this Petition, all conditions shall be completed to the satisfaction of Collier County. He remarked that on October 24, 1991, the Petitioner submitted a site development plan for review and approval, however s~nce the timing of the submittal left only three days for staff review, the plan was not able to be approved by October 28, 1991. He requested direct/on from the Commission as to how staff should proceed with this petition, noting that the following are two possible alternatives: ~. Permit the Provisional Use to continue and the site develop-- ment plan to proceed forward for staff review and approval. 2. Rescind the approval for this Provisional Use and instruct Compliance Services to enforce the discontinuance of this Provisional Use. Mr. Robert Lockhart, represen~ing the Petitioner announced that at the time the 90 day extension was approved, two issues were to be addressed: provid~ng the dedicat~on of a 15' easement adjacent to U.S. 41; and providing the SDP submission. He remarked that at the time of the extension, he received a letter from the property owner iDdicating that he intended to fully comply. He noted that one of the stipulations of the pre-application meeting of the SDP required that a copy of the lease agreement be provided between the property owner and the pet~t~one:~. He related that the County has received the easement, Page 57 November 12, 1991 bUt noted that as of November 1, all sales have ceased pending direc- tion from the Commission. O~tm~ion~r Volpe ~oved, seconded ~ 0outsstoner S~ ~d c~tg ~t~ly, t~t staff ~ directed to continue the revt~ of th~ stt~ ~l~t pl~ ~d proce~ fo~rd to d~temlne whether it ~ts with ~ITI~ t-91-8, ~ CON$~B~, ~Q~STING ~ BINIS~TI~ ~P~ OF ~ ~~/Z~NG DI~R~S DECISION ~T A ~ V~I~CE ~Y Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on October 13, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition A-91-8, filed by The Conservancy, Inc., requesting an Administrative Appeal of the Planning/Zoning Director's decision that a dock variance may pre- cede approval of a primary structure for p.~operty located in the Southern portion of Key Island, including seven lots of about 5 acres each, with A-2ST zoning. CoMuntty Development Services Administrator Brutt advised that The Coneervancy is appealing the Planning/Zoning Director's decision whereby he would grant permission for the construction of a dock to a piece of land surrounded by water prior to the time of construction of the main and primary building. Mr. Bill Branan, Director of Environmental Protection for The Coneervancy, stated that the County's rule has been and should con- ttnue to be that primary structures are permitted before secondary structures. He remarked that the argument relative to the subject petition is that this is a barrier Island and the only way for access is that the property owner should be able to get to his property by way of a dock, but noted that The Conservancy opposes same. He indi- cated that the reason to construct the primaries first is to enable the planning/zoning board to know what is coming before they began to permit piece meal. He related that dock extensions which would accom- Page 58 November 12, 1991 modate 40 foot yachts in a narrow channel would put the environment and the boaters at risk since large boats create more bottom disturbance. In addition, he noted if the County allows docks on the Key Islarld side docks of equal length would have to be allowed on the Little Marco side. He reported that the pass is 300' wide and the docks requested are proposed to be 70' - 105' He pointed out that to allow docks invites live a board vessels and if this precedence is set, others who have lots not accessible by ]and will apply for a variance to construct a dock and will live on their boats but there will be no ability to regulate sewage discharges from that boat. He noted that seven docks, averaging 90' in length over a shoreline of 2,700 feet results in the removal of five acres of public recreational waterway from the publtc's use. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether a primary structure has to be completed before a dock could be constructed. Planning Services Manager Baglnski advised that the normal proce- dure is to request a dock permit at the same time or after Issuance of the building permit for a primary structure. He announced that it is his opinion, on a case-by-case basis, that when there is an Island property not accessible by normal means of transportation, to allow the Issuance of a dock prior to any other construction on the site. Co~missioner Vo]pe asked how soon after the permitting of the dock the applicant would need to obtain a permit for the primary structure, to which Mr. Baglnskl replied that he would not be required to apply for a permit for the primary structure. Mr. Branan replied that this position would be promote live-a- boards, noting that this area is on the edge of Rookery Bay which is an estuarine reserve. ~s. Nancy Stroud, representing the Audubon Society, stated that she supports The Conservancy's poi~ltion. She advised that she is responsible for suggesting the appeal due to a statement that was made at the Planning Commission meetiniI which is consistent to a statement in Mr. BaginskI's letter of July 25, 1991. Page 59 November 12, 1991 Mr. Branan advised that The Conservancy is appealing the verbal Interpretation which was given indicating that dock extensions could be done prior to a primary structure; and Mr. Bagtnskt's letter of July 25, 1991 states that the first 25' of the docks could be built without a primary structure. Attorney Bruce Anderson, stated that he represents Mr. Andrew Wolfe, who ow~s 113 acres at the southern end of Key Island. He related that The Conservancy does not have standing to file this appeal, regarding his cltent's property. He advised that they have not alleged, nor do they have a special injury as a result of the decision that is different from any other member of the community. He called attention to Section 11.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: "An appeal of a Zoning Ordinance interpretation must be filed within 30 days; failure to timely file an appeal results in the interpreta- tion becoming final and binding to the property owner who requested the Interpretation." He remarked that Mr. Baglnskl's interpretation that a dock can be constructed without any other structure on his client's Island property was issued on July 25, 1991. He reported that the Planning Commission hearing on his client's boat dock exten- sion request was held on August 15, 1991, well within the 30 day time period within which an appeal wou.ld have to be filed of the written Interpretation. In response to Commissioner Saunders, County Attorney Cuyler advised that the Zoning Ordinance does not contain a standing require- ment. He stated that Mr. Anderson has cited the general standing pro- vision. He noted that that provision cannot preclude an appeal by someone who is unaware of the decision. C4~s~uiwl~ner Saunders ~oved, seconded by Contsstoner llasse and c~/-rl~d~i~ou~ly, thmt The Conoervanc~ does have standing to file thim ~mml w~tch has been filed in m timely ~anner and that the ~o~mtwim ~ the mrtts of sue. Attorney Anderson stated that his client is entitled to build at least one dock to provide access to his 113 acre holdings on Key gO0 .-.! 159 Page 60 November 12, 1991 Island. Me reported that he is willing to stipulate that in order to build any other dock for the six lots on that property that a building permit for another principle structure must be pulled either con- current or prior to a boat dock. At this time, Mr. Anderson introduced Mr. Jim Smiley, who prepared aerial photographs of the area in question. He noted that he inspected the area as shown on the photo ten days ago. He reported that two docks have been added since he did a detailed inspection at the end of August. Commimsioner Masse asked whether there are any residences or structures on this segment of the island, to which Mr. Smiley replied that there are 36 docks and ll structures. He indicated'that some of the docks extend 100' into the waterway. Attorney Anderson provided for the record, a copy of the 3uly 23, 1991 Planning Commission packet wlth respect to his client's request for an 80 foot boat dock extension. The following persons spoke in support of The Conservancy's appeal: Sandra Nelson Linda Douglas John Douglas Those persons speaking in support of the appeal, cited the following: seven additional docks will be hazardous to recreational boaters; environmental concerns due to the close proximity to Rookery Bay; in the past the County has looked hard at people pl~:lng docks on properties that have no structures and the same ruling should apply in this matter; and secondary structures should not be allowed prior to the construction of primary structures. Mr. Baginski remarked that it is unknown what will be done on the Island, but it is known what may be done. He stated that the agreement with the purchaser of the property from the state indicates what can go on, i.e. single family homes, tennis courts, swimming pools, etc. Commissioner Volpe remarked that he feels that Mr. Baginski is not Page 61 November 12, 1991 lnterpretimg the ordinance, but Instead, he Is rewriting it. He indicated that the ordinance does not allow for these types of struc- tures to be built simply because this is a barrier Island. Attorney Anderson explained that Mr. Bagtnski's interpretation is based on established law regarding riparian rights which are defined as follows: "Riparian rights are those incident to land bordering upon navigable waters. They are rights of ingress, egress, boating, bathing, fishing and such others as may be or have been defined by law." Mr. Anderson called attention to the case of Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission vs Lake Island, Ltd. He advised that t. he Florida Supreme Court gave recognition and approval to the long established rule in Florida that a riparian property owner has the right to construct a dock on the bed and shores adjacent to his property, sub- ~ect to the rights of the public regardinG navigation, commerce, fishing, bathing and the like. He noted that any restriction on a riparian right to construct a dock for purposes of ingress and egress must be based on a threat to the public's equal right to use the waterway, but not based on what might or might not or what is forced to be built on the uplands. In addition, he recalled the long established Florida rule that riparian rights are property rights which cannot be taken without Just: compensation. Attorney Anderson advised that the DNR and the Army Corps of Engineers have issued permits for his client to construct a dock and DER has determined that the dock in question is exempt from their per- mitting requirements. He indicated that the Agreement approved by the Governor and Cabinet specifically authorizes the construction of docks. He stated that his client will be required to provide a dune enhancement program which Includes removal of exotics and the planting of native vegetation. He indicated that in order to perform the dune enhancement, Mr. Wolfe would need to bring equipment by boat to the Island and a dock will be necessary to moor the boat and unload the eq%lipment. He related that one of the principle uses In the Page 62 November 12, 1991 agricultural zoning district which this property lies within is a conservation use. He Indicated that there is nothing within the A-2 Zoning District regulations that requires a structure, noting that it permits uses or structures of a principle nature. In closing, Mr. Anderson urged the Commission to uphold the Zoning Director's interpretation which Is based on law and fact. He noted that In view of the fact that there are many other docks in the sub- Ject ·re·, it must be presumed that they were lawfully permitted. Assistant County Attorney Student announced that a rlparlan right is an unqualified right and is subject to reasonable governmental regulations and restrictions. She pointed out that the Commission needs to consider the circumstances presented In terms of the ingress and egress riparian rights and make findings as to upholding or not upholding Mr. Bagtnski's interpretation and whether it would have an · ffect on those riparian rights. Attorney Anderson stated that his client is requesting one dock to serve 113 acres. There were no other speakers. Co~tmioner $4~nd·rs ~ov~d, seconded by Couisstoner Shanaban and c~rrt~dun~ntmou~ly, to close the public hearing. Cstsstoner Volp~ ~oved, seconded by Coutseloner H·sse to grant the appeal, thereby, reversing the Planning/Zoning Director's triterproration that w~uld allow for a dock per~lt to be Issued prior to th~ issuance of · per~att or development order for a prlury struc- ture. Commissioner Shanahan concurred that he believes that the pri- mary structure before the accessory permitting rule should stand. UpO~ call for the question, the motion carried unanimously. ss~ Co~lssioner Shanahah moved, seconded by Commissioner ~d c~rried unanimous/y, that the following items under the con- ~t ~ be approved and/or adopted: It~a,16A1 ACCEPT~ OF NATER AND S~R FACILITIES FOR MONTCLAIR PARK - WITH Page 63 November 12, 1991 The water and sewer facilities to service the project cannot be placed into service and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation furnishes a letter authorizing the placement of these systems into service. Bacteriological testing has met the County's requirements. 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 for water usage from Utilities for bacteriological testing. ~SOI,~I'X~ 91-767 ~%NTING PRELIMINARY ACCEPTANCE OF TH~ ROADWAY, ~~, ~ ~ S~ I~O~S FOR ~E FINAL PLAT OF "~~~ P~" - WI~ STI~TIONS See Page. ~IT~ F~ EXCAVATION PE~IT NO. 59.408 "GREY OAKS PHASE I GOLF ~, ~A~ IN SE~ION 24, T~SHIP 49 SO~, ~ 25 ~ST - IN ~ ~ OF ~1~,000.00 AC~EPT~ OF S~ FACILITIKS FOR LAKE SAN MARINO/CARIBBEAN PARK - WITN STX~TI~ 1. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation furnishes a letter authorizing the sewer system to be placed in service. 2. That the Board of County Commissioners accept as surety the Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit No. SB-16257 in the amount of $8,007.90. See Page /75 RECORDED IN 0R BOOK 1693 PAGES 100& ~ 1019 91-768 FROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKN ~R THE COST OF OF ~LIC ~IS~ ON LOT 10, BL~ 21, N~L~S P~ ~D~SI~, ~T 2 CAS~ NO. 91-06-09140, D~IEL R. G~CIA, ~R OF See Pages /?d- It~ ~16ASb RE~O~UTX~N 91-769 ~OVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR TH~ COST OF A~AT~T OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 17, BLOCK 2?7, GOLDEN GAT~, UNIT 8, PA~T 1, CASK NO. 91-08-11395, EMILE ACHOUR AND MICHELE ACHOUR, OWK~ OF ENCORD Iteli ~18&5c See Pages / 7~-- / 77 Page 64 November 12, ]99] P~OV~DING FOR J~SZ$SMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF RUISANCR ON LOT 1, BLOCK 353, MARCO BEAC~ UNIT 9,1-08-11423, JOHN RICHARD WILSON, OWNER OF RECORD See Pages !t~OLUT~ON 91-771 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF AB&T~0g]FT OF P~BLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 12, BLOCK 232, MARCO BEACH, UNIT 6, C~I~ NO. 91-08-11165, MARLIN B. REISHUS, FRANK B. CERNIGLIA AND ~ J. CERNIGLIAi OWNERS OF RECORD See Pages / FO ' If/ RESOLUTION 91-?72 PROVIDING FO~A~~NT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF ABATB~IIT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 2, BLOCK 54, MARCO BEACH UNIT 2, CAS~ NO. 91-O7-09513, WILLIAM J. RITCHIE, SR. AND DOROTHY L. RITCHIE, See Pages 91-773 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 2, BLOCK 250, UNIT 7 PART - GOLDEN NO. 91--07-10962, FLORENCE O'CONNOR AND GORDON SHERWOOD, See Page. I~L~OLUTION 91-774 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF A~AT~M~NT OF I~UBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 21, BLOCK ?, NAPLES SOUTH, UNIT 2, 91-O?-10917, WILLIAM BIERMANN AND PATRICIA BI~%NN, OWNERS OF RECORD See Pages I~SOLUTION 91-?75 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR ~ COST OF ABATI~NT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 12, BLOCK F, NAPLES VILLAS, CASE NO. 91-0?-1096Ot BONITA LUMBER & SUPPLY CO., INC., OWNER OF RECORD AN~]I~II~IITOF PI~3RAM DESCRIPTION OF THE RENTAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM, ~ ~R-19-11g122-0247, CHANGING TH~ 3~ IRTEREST TO 0~ INTEREST FOR ~ COUIITT'$ RH]ITAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM LOAN Item ,16C1 ~ ~07 (LIBRARY CAPITAL IMPROVE~ENTS) AND FUND 355 (LIBRARY I~PACT ~) ~ ~ RECOGNIZINO CARRY FORWARD FROM FY 1991 AT ~~BLIC NKA~.ING Itet #16D! &M&RD 0~ PURCNASE OF NETWORK COJOfUNICATIONS KQUII~rENT FOR COLLIER comrm, rtn zYx s DIVISION OL ZES ROUP ooo Page 65 November 12, 1991 ~ ~ FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AN ~ASEMENT ON PARCEL 117 FOR T~ ~OL~EN ~T~ E~TATES WKLLFIELD EXPANSION PP. OJ~CT - PHASE III See Pages ~ ~ BIg ~91-1735, #AT~R ~ FOR TI~ UTILITIES DIVISION, TO K~BT~, ~. - ~TIMATED TOTAL A~OUNT OF $180,000.00___ Its ~1~D4 c~mttnned to 11/26/91 ~ITEI~I~[ TO &~ TO FUND ARD OPERATE THE IMMOKAL.EE URGENT CARE ~I'!~C ~ MARCH 31, 1992 A~RE~T ~NEE][ COLLI~ COUNTY AND TH~ DEPARTMENT OF C~I~ ~AI~ ~ T~ ~A~ OF ~ ~~US ~IAL ~S~NSE HL~ OF It~16~ }~ ~ A~~ B~ COLLIER CO~, A ~LITIC~ S~DIVISION OF ~ ~A~ OF ~IDA, ~ ~ CI~ OF NAPLES AI~RT A~ORI~ FOR ~E ~I~ -- ~ ~ ~7,434/~Y AT $619.50 ~ ][~ ~ ORDER FOR CON:~ULTINO SERVICES ON U.S. ¢1 OUTPALL _ m aT.s , INC. · I--?T6 APPROVXNG ~ND CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESS~RT ROLL SOLID WAST~ C0LLEC~ION AND DISPOSAL FEES FOR TH~ 1992 See Pages mov~ ~o #8H2 91-777 ~TABLXSHINI THE ~ OF O~XCE ~R ~ 11 ~ERS See Pages ltm d~1631 C~1'I'1~C,~I"~ OF CO~ION TO P~~ ~IS~'S O~ICE November 12, 1991 284 4],6 276 289/291, 294 1/22 28/33 36/39,42 ~0- 1991-1/1991-19 1984 TAX ROLL 1987 TAX ROLL 1988 TAX ROLL 1989 TAX ROLL 1990 TAX ROLL 1991 TAX ROLL Date 11/6/91 11/6/91 ~o/2~/~1 10/25/91 Date 10/25/91-11/6/91 [)ate 11/1/9! 11/1/91 11/2/91-11/6/91 1991TANGZBLK PKRSONAL PROI:rERTY 1[/1/91-11/5/9! ~~ CORReSPONDS'lICE - FILED AND/OR R~II~RR~D The followIn9 miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated below: Memo from James C. Giles, Clerk of the Circuit Court, to Board of County Commissioners dated 10/31/91, re Excess Fees for Fiscal Year 1990/91 and accompanying Form LGF-3. Copies to Netl Dotrill; John Yonkosky, Mike McNees and filed. Memo from Mary W. Morgan, Supervisor of Elections, to Board of County Commissioners dated 10/28/91, re Excess Fees for Fiscal Year 1990/91 with accompanying Form LGF-3 and copy of Office of Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Name, Address and Telephone Verification. Florida Department of Community Affairs, Elderly Homeowner Rehabilitation Program, Notice of Extension of Application Deadline from 11/1/1991 to 12/6/1991. Copy to Russell Shreeve, Frank Brutt and filed. Page 67 November 12, 1991 5o Letter to Hon. Patricia Anne Goodnight from Robert Pennock, Chief, Bureau of Local Planning, dated 10/93/91 re submission of proposed comprehensive plan amendment(s). Copies to Neil Dotrill, Frank Brutt and fined. Letter to Chairman, Board of County Commissioners, from Jon M. Iglehart, Environmental Specialist, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, dated 10/25/91 re Collier County - WRR, File No. 112039435 with accompanying copy of Application for Mangrove Alteration Permit for Applicant South Seas Northwest Condominium Inc. Copies to Neil Dotrill, Harry Huber and flied. 8o Letter to Mrs. Anne Goodnight from Wallace A. Hibbard, Superintendent, United States Department of the Interior, dated 10/28/91 re General Management Plan/Final Environmental Assessment (GMP/FEIS) for Big Cypress National Preserve. Copies to Bill Lorenz and filed. Artificial Reef Development Program Call For Applications from Virginia A. Vail, Environmental Administrator, Florida Department of Natural Resources, dated 10/16/91 reporting applications must be received in her office by 5 P.M. 1/17/92. Copies to Neil Dotrill, Harry Huber and filed. Minutes received and flied: A. Pelican Bay Advisory Committee agenda of 11/6/91, Minutes of 10/22/91. B. Collier County Planning Commission Agenda of 11/7/91. C, Library Advisory Board Minutes of 9/26/91. Letter to Board of County Commissioners from Abe Skinner, Property Appraiser, dated 10/30/91 with accompanying Form LFG-4. 10. 11. 12. 13. Letter to Board of County Commissioners dated 10/25/91 from Bruce Lawrence Scheiner, Esq. re his client Stephen Moore, his file #07656-91, regarding chemical spill. Copies to Nell Dotrill, Ken Cuyler and filed. Copy of letter from Sheriff Don Hunter to John Yonkosky, dated 10/24/91 re: Interest earnings. Memo from Sheriff Don Hunter to Board of County Commissioners dated 10/8/9! re Sheriff's Confiscation Trust Fund, Third Quarterly Report - 1991 Letter to Patricia Anne Goodnight, Chairperson, from Sheriff Don Hunter dated 10/30/91 re: Fiscal Year 1990-91 Surplus Funds and accompanying LGF-3. Copies to John ¥onkosky and filed. 14. Letter to Hon. Anne Goodnight from Robert L. Patton of the Collier County Tax Collector's Office, dated 10/28/91 re distribution of Current Ad Valorem Tax. There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 10:50 P.M. Page 68 November 12, ~991 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST~ -' ~, JAMES O;' .$ILES., 'CtLERK ~The~e'm~n~tee~,approved by the Board on ',. .~.~' ~, as prese~;-,' X or as corrected PATRICIA ANNE GOODNIGHT, CHAIRMAN March 10, 1992 Page 69