BCC Minutes 09/25/1991 S Naples, Florida, September 25, 1991
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created accordinG to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in SPECIAL SESSION in BuildinG
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Patricia Anne Goodnight
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael 3. Volpe
Richard S. Shanahan
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Butt L. Saunders
ALSO PRESENT: Wanda Arrighi, Deputy Clerk; Neil Dotrill, County
Manager; Jennifer Pike, Assistant to the County Manager; Marjorie
Student, Assistant County Attorney; Frank Brutt, Community Development
Services Administrator; Stan Litsinger, Growth Management Director
William Lavetry, Barbara Cacchione, Jeff Perry, Diane Holling, and
Michelle Edwards, Planners; and Deputy Tomlinson, Sheriff's Office
Page
September 25, 1991
P!tOP1)~l~ OltDINlNC! FOR THIRD ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
ELEMENT - CONTINUED TO OCTOBER 1~ 1991
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
September 6 and 17, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication
filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Growth
Management Plan Amendments and changes in land use.
Commissioner Goodnight announced that a decision had been made at
the Board of County Commissioners' meeting on Tuesday, September 24,
1991, that the hearing today, September 25, 1991, would be held from
9:00 A.M. to 10:30 A.M. and at that time would be continued until
October 1, 1991.
Growth Management Planner Lavetry advised that this is the first
of two public hearings to consider the 1991 Growth Management Plan
Amendments. He informed that included in the the proposed amendment
package are two public petitions, staff's proposed amendments and the
amendments proposed by the Board during this past year. He added that
also included in the proposed amendment package is the annual update
to the Capital Improvement Element. He explained that the Board will
be taking action on the Capital Improvement Element which will adopt
the update by ordinance as well as submitting the Element to the
Department of Community Affairs as an amendment to the Plan. He noted
that the two actions by the Board are a requirement of the Department
of Community Affairs (DCA). He pointed out that the Board is to make
a motion for each element amendment and to make a final motion at the
conclusion of the agenda. He commented that the final motion will
include the adoption of an ordinance for the third annual update to
the Capital Improvement Element and the adopt/on of a resolution to
transmit FY 90-91 Growth Management Plan Amendments to the Department
of Community Affairs to initiate their review. He advised that the
amendment package will be brought back before the Board approximately
the first week in March, 1992, to review the comments made by DCA to
consider final adoption.
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Laverty repl]ed that the
Page 2
September 25, 1991
proposed amendments are new and the Board has not reviewed them
before.
~I¢ CI!tCUL~TIOM EL~I'!~NT
In reference to the Traffic Circulation Element, Planner Holling
informed that the amendments found in the "1991 Growth Management Plan
Amendments" are only annual updates to the current Traffic Circulation
Element and no major policy changes have been made. She noted that
the changes in the Growth Management Plan start with Part I,
Amendments to the Traffic Circu]atlon Text, on page TRA 1-11 regarding
Section C.2, Levels of Service; continues with page TRA 1-19 regarding
the elimination of the Traffic Count and Accident Frequency Data; and
part C. to amend all dates to reflect 1992-1996 proposed Capital
Improvements and amend population totals to reflect 1991 census
figures. She pointed out that in Part II, Amendments to Objectives
and Policies, revisions are made on page TRA 1-53 which amends
Objective 1; page TRA 1-56 amending Policies 3.1 and 3.2 pertaining to
a Right-of-way Protection Ordinance; and part E. to amend Policies
4.1, 6.5 and 7.1 to reflect 1992 target dates. She noted that Part
III, Amendments to the Traffic Circulation Element Tables, reflects
changes on pages TRA 1-14 through 1-16 which adds Tables 1C and 1D; on
page TRA 1-21 amending Table 2, Existing Unacceptable Conditions on
County Roads; on pages TRA 1-24 through 1-26 adding Table 3, Collier
County Transportation Planning Database Capacity Analysis; on page TRA
1-27 amending Table 4, Existing Unacceptable Conditions on State
Roads; page TRA 1-32 provides an update of Table 5, Collier County
Major Highway Network Future Traffic Circulation Improvements - 1995.
Part IV, she commented, notes the amendments to the traffic cir-
culation maps which reflect all text and table amendments.
Ms. Holling concluded that the CCPC recommended approval of the
amendments to the Traffic Circulation Element.
In response to Commissioner Volpe's question regarding a delay of
the Right-of-way Acquisition Ordinance implementation for a year and
an half, Planner Perry informed that the date included in the policy
ooo. 05
Page 3
September 25, 1991
is a target date only. He advised that as soon as the ordinance is
adopted by the Board, action will begin for providing procedures and
standards for such Issues as recording reservation maps and notifying
property owners of the intent to reserve their ]and for future right-
of-way. He noted that staff will receive direction from the Board as
to which areas to proceed with first.
Mr. Perry answered Commissioner Volpe by affirming that the pro-
~ects added on page TRA 1-153 are funded under the Capital Improvement
Element (CIE) and are below level of service "d".
Mr. Perry explained in response to Commissioner Shanahan's
question that Table 5, page TRA 1-32, are projects funded by the CIE
and not the State. He acknowledged that he will change No. 51 on TRA
1-32 to read from New York Drive to Marco Island Bridge and adjust the
data appropriately.
After some discussion regarding what is included in each item on
Table § and the lack of information provided for grade separation, Mr.
Perry commented that the table could be modified, however, all the
information would not fit on one page. He informed that Table 5 does
need to be read in conjunction with other growth management documents
in order to get the whole picture.
Mr. Perry clarified for Commissioner Hasse that ClE #48 and #49 on
Table § regarding Davis Boulevard have been removed because they have
been added to the State's work program.
After realizing that the Board did not have a report prepared by
Mr. Perry regarding, "Level's of Service - The Right Choice,"
Community Development Administrator Brutt suggested that it be pro-
vided to the Board for discussion on October 1, 1991. Mr. Perry
advised that the CCPC made no changes to the subject report.
In response to Commissioner Goodnight, Assistant County Attorney
Student recommended that since a report is still to be provided to the
Board regarding the Traffic Circulation Element, this item be con-
tinued.
Commissioner Goodnight continued the Traffic Circulation Element
Page 4
until Tuesday, October 1, 1991.
CAPITAL ~ ELEMENT
September 25, 1991
Growth Management Director Litsinger commented that the CIE report
is a reflection of the Board's direction to staff to include the pro-
jects identified to maintain concurrency as well as the selected reve-
nue sources for financial feasibility.
In pointing out the key points of the Capital Improvement Document
(not provided for the record), Mr. Litsinger noted that page CIE-10
outlines the CIE policy development for financial feasibility. He
pointed out that on page CIE-11, Policy 12-9 and 12-10 have been
amended by the elimination of all references to the failed 7¢ sales
tax referendum and Policy 12-8 was changed to reflect the probable
date of adoption of the proposed stormwater runoff utility fee system.
He advised that on page CIE-12, former Policy 12-11 has become 12-9
and reiterates that the proposed policy for the County-wide road
improvement assessment district and Policy 12-10 regarding the County
jail is proposed to be funded by a general obligation bond referendum.
Continuing with page CIE-13, he informed that Policy 12-12 has removed
all references to the 7¢ sales tax referendum. He commented that
these are the changes to the financial policies.
Mr. Litsinger detailed under the Implementation Program, page
CIE-24, the capital improvement projects by facility type starting
with the Roads Projects. He reported that the projects listed reflect
the AUIR direction given to staff on June 25, 1991 with minor adjust-
ments resulting from the budget decisions. He revealed that the total
of the capital improvement projects listed in the proposed plan is
$295,338,000. He related that on page CIE-52 the reconciliation of
costs and revenues by type of facilities is shown. He specified that
Appendix F reflects the methods used to fund the proposed plan and
maintain financial feasibility. He noted that page 7 of Appendix F
provides a synopsis of the entire CIE by project type, existing reve-
nue and proposed revenues showing the balancing effect.
In response to Commissioner Vo]pe, Mr. Litsinger pointed out that
Page 5
September 25, 1991
there are no new policies only deletions.
Commissioner Volpe expressed concern regarding the use of the term
adoption of the stormwater utility ordinance. Mr. Litsinger indicated
that the language can be changed to indicate an intent to fund through
this mechanism. Assistant County Attorney Student related that
because of the requirement of the Growth Management Plan for a finan-
cially feasible CIE the language needs to remain as stated.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Litsinger explained that
the County-wide road assessment can be used as a financially feasible
revenue source because it does not require a referendum before imple-
mentation.
Commissioner Volpe argued that he was under the opinion that a
decision to implement a County-wide road assessment would be made
after the Consultant's report was completed.
Mr. Litsinger recommended that the report be submitted to DCA as
written to provide financial feasibility; and when it is returned in
March, 1992, for final adoption, additional information will be
available and an alternate funding mechanism can be substituted.
Assistant County Attorney Student concurred, but added that if a
change is made in March there is the possibility of DCA requesting an
administrative hearing.
Mr. Litsinger admitted that by submitting the report as written,
there is pressure on the County to provide a revenue source of some
sort.
Mr. Litsinger concluded by saying that staff and the CCPC recom-
mended adoption of the CIE Update. He informed that the CCPC recom-
mended the consideration of beach assess cross-overs be included in
future CIE's as part of the facility inventory sources; and staff will
review and report back to the Board rega-alng this consideration.
Co~imm~o~mr Shanahah moved, seconded by Commiss~oner Hasme and
¢mXT~ed S/l (Coeualeeloner Volpe and Commissioner Saunders opposed), to
aclopt the Cmpitml I~rovement Element - $rd Annual Update and
Page 6
September 25, 1991
After some discussion regarding the requirement of at least a 4/1
vote for submittal, Assistant County Attorney Student advised that
four votes are required for final adoption in March. She clarified
that a majority vote only is required for the adoption of the Third
Annual Update to the Capital Improvement Element ordinance and the
resolution transmitting the 1991 Growth Management Plan Amendments to
DCA.
USE ~L~I~NT
Planner Edwards presenting Petition CP-91-1 stated that Barbara
Cawley and Alan Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peek are
requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element text to modify
the language within that future land use designation description sec-
tion of the Growth Management Plan on page LUI-27 to allow support
medical facilities within a quarter of a mile of hospitals or major
treatment centers that are existing as well as those that will be pro-
posed for development in the future. In referring to the section
indicating CP-91-! of the "1991 Growth Management Plan Amendments",
dated September 25, 1991, Ms. Edwards noted the changes and additions
the CCPC made to the proposed language of the Petitioner"s request.
She commented that staff agrees with the language proposed by the
CCPC. She cited that the proposed language will allow for additional
opportunities to place a medical support facility within the County
other than the areas provided for by the designated commercial land
use and activity centers.
Gommisstoner Volpe questioned what type of zoning would be
required to allow a support medical facility within a quarter of a
mile from a hospital or major medical facility7 Ms. Edwards explained
that if the property is not zoned commercial it would need to be
rezoned as such and be submitted to a compatibility review, but would
not require Plan amendment. She affirmed that outside the quarter of
a mile a Plan amendment would be required.
Commissioner Goodnight left the meeting at this ties.
Commissioner Volpe requested that the petition be put in the con-
Page 7
September 25, 1991
text of the specific request that this amendment would cover. Ms.
Edwards advised that there is currently a proposal for a Community
branch hospital off C.R. 951, and upon approval of this proposal sup-
port medical facilities would be able to locate within a quarter of a
mile of that hospital.
Ms. Edwards answered Commissioner Volpe by informing that a walk-
in clinic does not qualify as a major medical facility.
Commissioner Volpe suggested that further definition of a major
medical facility be provided and Commissioner Hasse concurred. Ms.
Edwards agreed that this can be added.
atms~o~er Hasse left the meeting at this time.
Ms. Cawley emphasized that the proposed amendment is Generic.
~o~utoner Shanahah moved, seconded by Co~missioner VolDe and
c~a-~md S/O (Co~ssioner Goodnight and Commissioner Hasse not
present), to continue the -mendment hearing to Tuesday, October 1,
1991 ~d continue CP-91-! until Tuesday, October 1, 1991.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 10:35 A.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BCARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
-- ATRIC~~ CHAIRMAN
JAME~'G. GILES,, CLERK
These minutes a~pproved by the Board on
as presented L--~'/- or as corrected
Page 8