BCC Minutes 01/29/1991 R Naples, Florida, January 29, 199!
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 REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F"of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Patricia Anne Goodnight
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe
Richard S. Shanahah
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Burr L. Saunders
ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance
Director; Wanda Arrighi and Annette Guevin, Deputy Clerks; Netl
Dotrill, County Manager; Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager; Tom
Olliff, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney:
George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Brutt,
Community Development Services Adm~nistrator; David Pettrow,
Development Services Director; John Boldt, Water Management Director;
John MadaJewskt, Project Review Services Manager; Ken Baginski,
Planning Services Manager; Wayne Arnold, Bryan Milk, Sam Saadeh, and
Robert Lord, Planners; Ron Lee, Long Range Planning Staff; Sue Filson,
Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Gary Young,
Sheriff' s Office.
Page I
APPROVED WITH CHANGES
January 29, 1991
Commissioner Goodnight noted the change to the format of the Board
of County Commissioners agenda, and called attention to Items 3A and
' .3B which will be approved as part of the first actions of the meeting.
She also pointed out that Items 14 and 15 have been added for
discussion purposes only, and the only action taken during these items
will be direction to staff.
Co~m/ss~oner Shanahah moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and
carr~ed'unanlmousl¥, that the agenda be approved with the following
Item #9H3 - Recommendation that the Board of Collier County
Commissioners direct staff to negotiate a contract between
Henderson Young and Associates, Collier County and the
Collier County School Board for the "Rational Nexus" Report
needed to support a proposed School Impact Fee - Added.
(Requested by Staff).
Item #6B! - Petition No. R-90-23, George L. Varnadoe of
Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Benton, representing OFC of
Naples, requesting a fezone from A-1MH to GC for a golf
course and accessory uses for property located ! mile South
of Immokalee Road and ! mile East of C.R. 951 - Continued to
2/12/91. (Requested by the Petitioner).
Item #9A1 - Recommendation to approve licensing a fourth
generation language (Powerhouse) from Cognos Corporation for
software development on the County office automation system -
Continued to 2/5/91. (Requested by Staff).
Item #16G! - Recommendation to approve consultant selection
and authorize a contract negotiation committee as per RFP
890-1651, engineering consultants for landfill development -
Continued, Date to be Determined. (Requested by Staff).
Item #16A3 Moved to 9A3 - Recommendation to approve the final
plat of "Paradise Pointe R.V. Resort Phase One". (Requested
by Commissioner Goodnlght).
Item #16E3 Moved to 9E! - Recommendation to sell that pro-
perty known as the Bluebill Site (Folio #2763?800009) to the
highest and best bidder pursuant to Florida Statute 125.35.
(Requested by Commissioner Volpe).
Item #?B! - Petition PU-90-20, Grace Bible Church - To be
heard at 10:00 A.M.
Items #7A2 and #7A3 - Zoning appeals to the Planning Zoning
Director's decisions - To be heard at 11:00 A.M. (Requested
by County Attorney).
Item #SA - Gary Kluckhuhn representing' Del's Convenience
Store - To be heard at the end of the regular agenda.
(Requested by Commissioner Shanahan).
January 29, 1991
CONS~[!ITAGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED
Thl.'mot~on for approval of the Consent Agenda is noted under Item
CLEREfS RK~C)RT - A~PROVED
Th~ ~otion for approval of the Clerk's Report is noted under Item
MIIiqFT~$ OF NO~ 2~, 1990 ~ DECE~ER 4, 1990, REGUL~ ~ETINGS;
~ N,~~ 27~ 1990~ SPECI~ ~ETING - APPRO~D AS P~SE~ED
C~ssAoner Sh~ moved, seconded by Co~lssioner Hasse ~d
?f~- c~t~ ~i~l~, that the Minutes of November 2~, 1990 ~d
~'/r ~c~= 4, 1990, re~lar meetings; ~d November 27, 1990, specLal
Commissioner Hasse presented a service award to the following
' Collier County employees:
· ~6~ Edward G. Snyder - Project Review Services - 20 Years
:,.. Frank A. Terilla - Util./Wastewater Ops. - 5 Yrs. - Not Present
Item #6B3
ORDINANCE 91-9, RE PETITION R-90-12, Q. GRADY NINOR OF Q. GRADY NINOR
& ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING JACK AND MARY FREEDMAN, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM MHRP TO PUD TO BE KNOWN AS LEAWOOD LAKES IV, FOR 53
RESIDENTIAL Df4ELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
RADIO ROAD, CONSISTING OF 13.?± ACRES - ADOPTED WITH SUNSET PROVISION
AND STAFF STIPULATIONS
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
December 18, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition R-90-12, Q.
Grady Minor of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing Jack
and Mary Freedman, requesting a fezone from MHRP to PUD to be known
as Leawood Lakes IV, for 53 residential dwelling units on property
located on the south side of Radio Road in Section 6, Township 50
ooo l0
Page 3
$anuar¥ 29, 1991
South, Range 26 East, consisting of 13.17! acres.
Planner Arnold provided to the Board a handout which addresses an
amendment to the PUD document regarding the sunset provision.
Mr. Arnold stated that the petitioner is requesting a fezone from
Mobile Home Rental Park (MHRP) to PUD for 53 multi-family units. He
noted that this will provide for a density of four dwelling units per
acre which is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. He
explained that the project is designed to share its primary access
point with the Lauren Pine PUD as well as internal circulation. He
informed that the project will be connected to the Collier County
water and sewer lines. He reported that all reviewing agencies of the
subject petition have recommended approval.
Mr. Minor advised that the petitioner is in agreement with the
amendment regarding the sunset provision as well as staff's stipula-
tions.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Arnold stated that the
petitioner is being required to file the access agreement easements
prior to plotting and filing condominium documents for the pro~ect.
Commissioner Shanahah moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and
carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed.
Colissioner Shan~han moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and
carried unanimously, that the Ordinance as numbered and titled below
be adopted, ~ub~ect to all staff~s stipulations and the sunset provi-
sion, and entered into Ordinance Book No. 42:
ORDINANCE 91-9
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 82-2, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 0606N;
BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY FROM MHRP TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS
LEAWOOD LAKES IV ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON RADIO ROAD (C.R. 856)
APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES EAST OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD {C.R. 31) FOR
53 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, LOCATED IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF
13.17~ ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Ite~'~6C1
P~ESOLUTION NO. 91-110 RE PETITION SMP-90-35, ROBERT A. McGINNIS
REQUESTING SUBDIVISION MASTER PLAN APPROVAL FOR BASS POINT, A PORTION
3anuary 29, 1991
OF TRACT 48, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 30, CONSISTING OF 5± ACRES -
ADOPTEDm'WITH STIPULATIONS
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
January 6, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petit/on SMP-90-35,
filed by Robert A. McGinnis, requesting Subdivision Master Plan
Approval for Bass Point located on Tact 48, less the North 150 feet
and portions described, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 30, Section 29,
~.; Township 49 South, Range 26 East, as recorded in Plat Book ?, (one
· quarter mile South of Golden Gate Parkway on the West side of 60th
Street, S.W.).
Planner Arnold noted that the subject property is located on 60th
Street, S.W., immediately east of 1-75, and a quarter mile South of
Golden Gate Parkway. He informed that the property is bounded on two
sides by Golden Gate and 1-75 canals and accounts for the irregu-
lar shape of the parcel.
Mr. Arnold stated that the petitioner is requesting an SMP appro-
val for two single-family building lots on the 4.7 acre site. He
explained that the SMP was necessitated by the need to create an
access easement to reach the western most parcel. He commented that
if the subject petition is approved each lot would be 2.27 acres in
size which does exceed the minimum 2.25 acre requirement for the
Golden Gate Estates area. He clarified that the petitioner has
requested three exceptions to the subdivision regulations which are as
follows: Reduction from 60 feet to 30 feet for the access easement; a
pavement width from 24 feet to 20 feet; and a waiver from providing
i sidewalks to these two lots.
Mr. Arnold pointed out that staff would like to modify the stipu-
lation under Water Management and Engineering, number 4, by removing
the term rights-of-way. He added that staff would llke to change the
wording of the first sentence of number 6, under the same section, to
read, "The access easement shall be a minimum width of 30' and shall
Page 5
January 29, 1991
be identified as a recorded ingress/egress easement on the plat."
In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Arnold noted that the
access to the parcel is off 60th Street; however, in order to get to
the second lot which is bounded by the canals, an easement would be
created across the first lot. He noted that the easement will be a
private entrance for the property.
Mr. Arnold stated that the third change to the stipulations would
be to add a planning stipulation which would reflect that all setbacks
are to be measured from the southern most portion of the proposed
access easement.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe's question regarding safety, Mr.
Arnold commented that this will be a private road and will be the
responsibility of the petitioner. He explained that the easement
will be recorded on a plat as Bass Point Court.
Co~issionsr Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasss and
carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed.
Commissioner Hasse moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and
carried unanimously, that Petition SMP-90-35 be approved, subject to
staff stipulations listed in the agreement sheet with staff's recom-
mended changes and additional stipulations, thereby adopting
Re~olution 91-110.
Page 6
Ztem ,~C2
01~D~ 91-10 CRE&TING THE COUNTY GOV~RNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
January 9, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordinance creating
the County Government Productivity Committee.
County Attorney Cuyler stated that there are a few changes to the
proposed ordinance. He noted the first change found in Section Two
is to insert the words "non-voting" and change the sentence to read
"... (2) non-voting alternate members ..." He advised that the second
change is in Section Three where the terms for the alternate members
need to be clarified by either having them as floating alternates or
by assigning them a one year term? He informed that this decision is
up to the discretion of the Board.
Commissioner Saunders indicated that this committee is one of
great intensity and suggested the terms of the members be changed
to a maximum of two years. He recommended that there be staggered
terms which will result in having five members appointed for one year,
six members appointed for two years, the alternates be appointed for
two years, and after the first year the members would be appointed for
two year terms. Commissioner Shanahan concurred.
County Attorney Cuyler noted that there is another change in
Section Seven C which will be to add to the sentence the words, "...;
provided, however, that such report and recommendation shall be s~b-
mirted to the County Manager's Office by May 10 of each year to pro-
vide an opportunity for staff review."
Commissioner Hasse noted that twenty days does not seem like
enough time for review. Commissioner Saunders suggested that the
report be submitted to the County Manager by May 1 and the Board of
County Commissioners by June 1.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler answered
Page ?
January 29, 1991
iJ' that by having the report to the Board of County Commissioners by June
1 will be in time for the budget cycle considerations to which County
Manager Dotrill concurred.
County Attorney Cuyler commented that the final change that he has
Is In Section Eight where It Is not clarified as to who will be
responsible for taking the minutes of the meetings. Mr. Cuyler satd
that the suggestion Is that the Clerk to the Board take this respon-
sibility and if there are night meetings a contracted stenographer
would be hired with the fee being paid out of the County budget. He
added that he will insert a sentence in this section indicating thts
responsibility. Commissioner Shanahah concurred.
County Manager Dorrtll suggested for clarification purposes in
Section Eight that the word financial be inserted into the second
paragraph reflecting the sentence to read, "... concerning financial
auditing procedures ..." He emphasized that this will clarify what
::i ' the.Clerk's intended role is.
Co~tssioner Volpe stated that in Section Two there is mention
of advisors and questioned who the advisors are to be and who would
appoint them. Commissioner Saunders explained that if there is the
desire to have outside advice available to the Board, this would pro-
vide the opportunity to do so. County Attorney Cuyler pointed out
that the advisors would be appointed by the Board at their discretion
and would make up the total of 15 members for this committee.
County Attorney Cuyler asked if the two advisors were to be con-
sidered as part of the 15 members? Commissioner Saunders clartfled
that the intent Is to have 11 appointed members, 2 non-voting alter-
nates, and then if there is need up to 2 consultants.
In answer to Charlotte Westman's question, County Attorney Cuyler
stated that he recommends that the sentence in Section Four regarding
a member being removed from office with or without cause should stay
as part of the ordinance. Commissioner Saunders concurred.
George Keller, President of Collier County Civic Federation, com-
~ OOOP~,f-,E 20 Page 8
January 29, 1991
mented That there is no need for this committee.
Commissioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanaban and
c~rrtedunantmously, that the public hearing be closed.
Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahah and
carrted unanlmoual¥, that the Ordinance as numbered and titled below
be adopted subject to the changes recommended and discussed, and
entered into Ordinance Book No. 42:
ORDINANCE 91-10
AN ORDINANCE CREATING THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY
COMMITTEE; PROVIDING FOR APPOINTMENT AND COMPOSITION; SETTING
FORTH THE TERMS OF OFFICE; PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE,
FAILURE TO ATTEND MEETINGS: PROVIDING FOR OFFICERS, QUORUM, RULES
OF PROCEDURE; PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES: SETTING
FORTH THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE COMMITTEE; SETTING
FORTH THE DUTIES OF THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND THE CLERK OF
COURTS; PROVIDING FOR REVIEW PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND
SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
;:' Item#711
PETITION A-90-9, BUDDY EMI~INGER REQUESTING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF
THE PLANNING/ZONING DIRECTOR'S DECISION THAT A PERMIT COULD NOT BE
ISSUED FOR TEMPORARY SALES OF CHRISTMAS TREES ON RESIDENTIALLY ZONED
PARCELS - PLANNING/ZONING DIRECTOR'S DECISION UPHELD
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
January 13, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
· the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition A-90-9,
~ .~ filed by Buddy Emftnger, appealing the Planning/Zoning Director's
decision that a permit could not be Issued for temporary sales of
Christmas trees on property described as Block 1, Lot ?, Unit 1, Marco
Beach Subdivision, Marco Island.
Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator, stated
that the subject petition is a request for an administrative appeal of
the Planning/Zoning Director's decision that a permit not be issued
for the temporary sales of Christmas trees in a restdentfally zoned
~,~i.3~.' ;area. He explained that at the time of the first Inquiry in January
/:ii;i..'of 1990 for a permit for said sales, the Planning/Zoning Director
i:j[/!/,:informed the petitioner via letter of the general requirements for
· this type of sale and described the criteria under which a review
01 ooo. 2i
Page 9
January 29, 1991
would be made by the Planning/Zoning Director prior to issuing the
· permit. He noted that in late November or early December of 1990, the
petitioner requested the permit to sell the Christmas trees on reel-
denttal property, and the Planning/Zoning Director reviewed the
request and concluded that the permit not be issued because the loca-
tion was in a residenttally zoned area. Mr. Brutt stated that it is
the recommendation that the Board uphold the Planning/Zoning
Director's decision.
Commfse~oner Hasse questioned if there are any areas in Collier
County that allow for the sale of Christmas trees In residential areas
to.which Mr. Brutt remarked that to the best of his knowledge there
are none.
In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Brutt pointed out that
the Zoning/Director's letter to the petitioner states that a permit
!?. may be granted after revfew by the Planning/Zoning Director if all
criteria has been met; but added that there is no guarantee because of
~:'.,
the possible change in the use surrounding the property in question
~.? over a year's time. He noted that the application must be reviewed at
~'~" the time requested.
· Buddy Emfinger, petitioner, stated that he was going to purchase
the property in question for the purpose of selling Christmas trees;
therefore, the real estate firm contacted the County and received the
answer that the Planning/Zoning Director could grant a permit if all
criteria were met. He explained that there was no review of the
property, and added that it is a wide-open lot on Bald Eagle Drive
with no parking or traffic congestion possible. He advised that on
one side of the property there are approximately ten lots open, across
the back of the property is open, and on the other side there are two
late open.
.... ,In response to Commissioner Shanahah, Mr. Brutt stated that he
assumes that staff did review the site.
Mr. Bmfinger pointed out that he understands that the County can-
22
Page 10
January 29, 1991
permit a year in advance; however, he does have to plan
for the trees a year in advance and that is why he fnqutred as to
where he might be able to sell them. He explained that he did take
the letter he received from the Planning/Zoning Dtrector to the County
planning office and someone at the desk indicated that there should be
no problem and that he should come back when tt was time to sell the
trees and receive the permit then. He noted that the permit was not
granted and the only recourse is to appeal to the Board before next
¥ear's Christmas tree sales begin.
Commissioner Volpe stated that he is supportive of the
Planning/Zoning Director's decision not to allow this type of activity
In a residenttally zoned area, and pointed out that this is con-
sistent throughout the County. County Attorney Cuyler concurred that
he also Is in agreement with the Director's decision.
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Emftnger commented that
he has signed an agreement to purchase the land, but the agreement is
not contingent on this approval. Mr. Emfinger asked if there could be
an explanation as to why the permit was not granted, since the ordi-
nance states that It may be granted if the criteria has been met.
Commissioner Shanahan pointed out that this decision does not
preclude the petitioner from reapplying this coming Christmas season
for the required permit, and if it is denied the reasons should be
specified.
Mr. Brutt reiterated that it Is the practice of the County not to
.:i.;.'~' grant permits of this type In residenttally zoned areas; and, there-
fore, the possibility of a Christmas tree permit being granted next
year for the same property is most unlikely.
Commissioner Volpe emphasized that it should be clearly stated
that the sale of Christmas trees will not be permitted in any
.. residenttally zoned County area and will be permitted only in commer-
."i. ctally zoned areas.
Co~/sstoner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahah and
OO0 AG 23
Page 11
January 29, 1991
carrAed unanl~u~l¥, that the public hearing be closed.
C~ssA~ner 5sunders ~oved, seconded by Co~matsstoner Haese and
carried unanimously, that the Planning/Zoning Director's decision be
upl~ldz~9~rding Petition A-90-9.
Commissioner Volpe asserted that he feels that direction should be
given to provide legislation that the sale of Christmas trees not be
permitted in residentially zoned areas. After some discussion against
directing this type of legislation, Commissioner Shanahah stated that
the fact is that the County has not been granting this type of per-
mission, and when this type of request is applied for, staff should
indicate to the applicant that the request will probably be denied and
i.i~.stte the reasons why.
RESOLUTIONS. 91-111 RE P~TITION PU-90-20, PHIL LEE (TRUSTEE)
REPKESENTIN~ GRACE BIBLE CHURCH, REQUESTING PROVISIONAL USE "&" OF THE
E-ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR CHURCH RELATED FACILITIES ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON TH~ SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND 66TH STREET
SOUTHWEST, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 29 - ADOPTED WITH STIPULA-
TIONS
Planner Saadeh stated that the subject petition was heard by the
Board on December 18, 1990, and approved by the Board for'recon-
sideration on January 8, 1991. He informed that the subject peti-
tioner is requesting provisional use "a" of the E-Estates zoning
district for church related facilities on property located on the
southeast corner of Golden Gate Parkway and 66th Street Southwest. He
explained that the petitioner is proposing an extension to an existing
church to allow an existing structure to the east to be used as arec-
tory as well as requesting passive uses such as water retention, sep-
tic tank drain field, and parking in the southern portion of the
property.
He advised that all reviewing agencies have provided a
recommendation for approval, subject to the stipulations listed on the
agreement sheet.
Commissioner Volpe questioned if the statement on the agreement
sheet regarding all future expansions requiring a new provisional use
ooo 24
Page 12
January 29, 1991
would also apply to the expansion of the drain field, parking, and
~¥ uses of the rectory. Mr. Saadeh noted that the statement refers to
the 2-1/2 acre site, and clarified that the petition ie only for the
~':[:., rectory on the east side of the existing church, additional parking,
? and a drain field. He added that the existing church has its own pro-
i~. vietonal use.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Saadeh stated that this
petition would be Inconsistent with the proposed Golden Gate Master
Plan If adopted In its current plan, and no butldtng permits would be
granted.
: Commissioner Saunders pointed out that it was the consensus of the
Board at a previous meeting to grant provisional uses until February
5, 1991 based on the existing Comprehensive Plan until the Golden Gate
Master Plan is adopted; and, therefore, this petition is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan and should be approved.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Planner Lee related that Policy
5.9 states that expansion can be made to the boundaries of the
existing site plan. He commented that the provisional uses approved
before February 5, 1991 which are inconsistent to the Golden Gate
Master Plan and the subsequent development orders will be considered
under a policy to be added allowtng them under the existing
Comprehensive Plan.
County Attorney Cuyler clarified for Commissioner Volpe that the
provisional uses granted recently require that the petitioner commit
to a site plan, and there would not be any expansion beyond what is
shown.
Commissioner Volpe remarked that it does not seem that Policy 5.9
addresses the expansion of provisional uses, and something needs to be
added to cover the expansion of provisional uses which are incon-
sistent to the new Comprehensive Growth Management Plan.
Commissioner Goodnight suggested that Commissioner Volpe bring
this subject up for discussion at the end of the regular meeting, and
· ,r,;.,.,.U ,,
Page 13
January 29, 1991
direction can be given to staff as to how the Board would like this
addressed.
Dan Brundage, member of Grace Bible Church, pointed out on a
displayed map the boundaries of the existing 5 acre provisional use
and the proposed property for the provisional use being requested
today. He pointed out where the water retention area will be and the
septic tank drain field with the required buffer area as well as the
parking area. He explained that it will be important to be able to
use the additional provletona! use for expansion of retention facili-
ties, possible parking area, and a septic tank drain field. He noted
that since geotechnical surveys have not been performed, it may be
that the location planned for the septic tank drain field is not
sultable; and, therefore, will be required to be located elsewhere on
the site which will mean that parking would be moved to that area.
Commissioner Volpe stated that it is his understanding that there
will be no vertical construction on the 2.5 acres and any work done on
the site would be subterranean which results in no change to the
appearance of the property other than buffering Mr Brundage con-
cuffed that th s is a correct statement.
Commissioner Hasse asked if there would be any objection to having
grass parking to the back of the rectory if parking is required there.
Mr. Brundage agreed that this could be done.
Mr. Brundage informed it is h~s understanding after discussions
with staff, that since there is a provisional use on the existing five
acres, then any expansion of those facilities would be grandfathered
in and vested. Commissioner Saunders recommended that Mr. Brundage
follow the Comprehensive Plan amendment proceeding to make sure that
this is true and will happen.
Dr. F. E. Brown stated that he and his wife have been residents of
Collier County for one year and is in support of the petition. He
said that Grace Bible Church is a very positive impact on the com-
munity and does an excellent Job in meeting the needs of all the
Page 14
January 29, 1991
people it serves.
Susan Storter Informed that she is a resident of District Two and
is a member of Grace Bible Church and reiterated the comments of Dr.
Brown. She added that the provisional use is needed in order to unify
the church site and allow for future expansion.
Mr. Rob Buckel, resident and attorney of Naples, spoke in favor of
the petition and added to the comments of the prevtous speakers that
the congregation of Grace Bible Church is attempting to reach out to
the people with drug problems, and people that have been involved in
satantam and different culttc groups and help them to become a more
productive citizen of the County.
Dorothy L. Johnson stated that she lives dtrectly across from the
church and is concerned that the reason the church wants to put In
the drain field and parking is for the purposes of expanding their
facilities on the original five acres which is not allowable In the
Golden Gate Master Plan.
Linda Noonan, restdent of Golden Gate City and a member of Grace
Bible Church, pointed out the need for a church such as this which
reaches out to the youth of the County and is available for them when
they need help. She noted that there is a parking problem at the
church which has resulted in the members having to park on the street.
George Keller, President of Collier County Civic Federation,
stated that he feels that this petition will have a direct effect on
the existing five acres which makes It illegal, and the petitioner
should be required instead to request a fezone for the whole 7.5
acres. He noted that according to DER regulations the drain field
cannot be permitted In the area proposed. He also pointed out the
possibility that the 5.5 acres of church property may become non-
conforming after the Golden Gate Master Plan is adopted.
Mr. Saadeh explained that if the church wants to expand, they will
need additional parking which will require the 2.5 acres to have a
000. . 27 Page 15
January 29, 1991
provisional use.
Phil Lee, resident of District Two and member of Grace Bible
Church, clarified that the plan is to add an additional building for
educational uses on the existing five acres and the 2.5 acres will be
used for additional parking and a drain field facility. He reiterated
the comments of the speakers who are members of the church and added
that the church is a real asset to the community. He suggested that
an analysis be made as to how the community can provide more zoning
and encourage more churches and church growth in the County.
~e~atsgioner Saunders ~oved, seconded by Conissioner H&see and
carried unanimously, that Petition PU-90-20 be adopted, ~ubJect to the
CCPC's ~tAlmlation~, thefebF mdoptAng Resolution 91-111.
Page 16
January 29, 1991
$$$ !~e~ed: 10:45 &.N. - Reconvened: 11:00 A.M. at which
ttBe De~ut~JClerk ~uavin replaced Deputy Clerk Arrigh! ***
Xtea~/A2
N~SOLI~'ION 91-112 UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING/ZONING
DII~ECTORREGARDING FACTOK~ B&YMARINA AND THE TERM SHOPPING CENTER,
IT~ AI~PLICATION AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ADOPTED AND THEREBY
DEN~"A~R~ APPEAL OF PETITION A-90-7 PAMELA S. MAC'KIE, REPRESENTING
O'SHIA$ R~STA~RANT
County Attorney Cuyler reported the Board of County Commissioners
Instructed him at a previous meeting to retain the services of an
attorney in Collier County with expertise in land use. He said most
of the attorneys in the County with experience in that area have done
work for either of the parties involved in this issue, necessitating
him to retain the services of Attorney Russell Schropp from Ft. Myers,
who has provided his written recommendations to both parties and to
the County.
Commissioner Saunders requested that Mr. Schropp briefly summarize
his expertise in land use. Mr. Schropp advised that for the past six
and one half years, he has been involved in a basic land use environ-
mental law practice in Ft. Myers. He said he has primarily repre-
sented developers in land use and zoning matters before the Lee County
Board of County Commissioners as well as State and regional agencies.
He added he holds a Masters of Science degree in Urban and Regional
Planning and functioned as a city planner for a short time in
Hillsborough County, prior to obtaining his law degree.
County Attorney Cuyler pointed out that Mr. Schropp is one of the
proposed hearing officers for Collier County for the vested rights
proceedings that have come out of zoning re-evaluation.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Schropp responded that he has
not visited the subject site, however, has reviewed the records
established by both parties and has also met with the attorneys for
each party as well as with the County Attorney and Collier County
Planning and Engineering Staff. He indicated his concern with the
vested rights arguments, because the issues involved in that area
ml 000. 35
Page 17
January 29, 199!
hinged primarily on the good faith of the developer in relying on the
approvals and what he knew or should have known going into the deve-
lopment approval process.
Commissioner Volpe commented that since this is the fact-finding
hearing, perhaps the vested rights 18sue should be developed.
Mr. Schropp stated if the Board this date is able to make the
assertion that there is evidence Indicating the developer may have
acted in bad faith, that would affect his recommendation with regard
to that particular aspect.
Commissioner Volpe asked if It is a fair assumption that there is
no dispute amongst the parties with regard to the facts? Mr. Schropp
replied that with regard to what was approved and when it was
approved, the parties agree. However, he said, the parties are
putting different emphasis on the facts. He asserted one of the three
or four ultimate issues the Board must resolve is the interpretation
of the terms "shopping center" and "marina".
Pam Mac'Kte with Cummings & Lockwood, representing O~Sheas
Restaurant, reported there are two main issues. She said one is the
issue of equitable estoppel and whether or not the County is estopped
from Issuing certificates of occupancy to the developer of Cypress
Landing a/k/a Factory Bay Marina. She stated the burden is on the
developer to show he acted tn good faith and because he acted in good
faith, he has the right to rely on what the County's action was. She
reminded the Board of the County's approval process, which includes a
preliminary site plan review and a final site plan review. She said
this developer never disclosed his Intention to develop a restaurant,
and only after he had completed the phase of the process where the
County must count parking spaces did a restaurant appear on his plans.
She communicated the Importance, on the Issue of good faith, of care-
fully examining the extent of disclosure made by the developer and the
point in time when the developer made that disclosure. She stated the
second major Issue is the interpretation of "shopping center", which
Page 18
January ~9, 199!
the ordinance defines as five or more retail outlets, She said, in
this case, the developer first attempted to have Staff say the
restaurant would satisfy the requirement for the fifth retail outlet
because that would solve their parking problem. She reported Staff
did not agree with a restaurant being a retail use, therefore, the
developer literally added one line to the existing site plan indi-
cating an additional Interior wall, and labeled that "retail". She
said as a result of adding that interior wall, they now have five
retail outlets.
Commissioner Hasse commented that he does not like the idea that
someone Is attempting to circumvent the County's parking ordinance.
He said a restaurant requires one parking space for every two seats
and marinas and retail outlets require a certain number of spaces. He
stated looking at the practical approach of this Issue indicates
something te wrong.
Commissioner Saunders stated if someone has found a way to utilize
the zoning code in a lawful manner and it results in lessening the
requirement for parking, that Is one Issue. He said, on the other
hand, if someone has found a method by trickery for circumventIon to
avoid parking, that is entirely different. He said the question
remains, was there something done differently in the treatment of this
shopping center than for other shopping centers which clearly have
restaurants and parking issues to deal with? He asked that the
discussion focus on that issue which will resolve all other questions.
Ms. Mac'Kte asked the Board to remember that the shopping center
issue came up well after the fact, because the developer did not
originally request to build one. She said their original proposal was
changed.only in order to obtain a certificate of occupancy.
Commissioner Saunders asked what policy has been applied to other
shopping centers with regard to parking spaces?
Ken BaginskI, Planning Services Manager, replied that to his
knowledge, the policy has been to include restaurant in the normal
OOOP,G 37
Page ! 9
January 29, 199!
q parking calculations for shopping centers. He said parking for
%,~.. shopping centers is calculated on the gross square footage of the
'~ii?i' structure because in most cases, the uses within that building are not
i'(~i identified when the site plan is submitted.
? Commissioner Saunders inquired if this project had originally been
~ubmttted with the five retail uses plus the restaurant, would it have
been determined to be a shopping center, to which Mr. Bagtnskl replied
in the affirmative.
,':.* .-Commissioner Volpe Indicated It seems the restaurant. which occu-
pies approximately 30~ of the square footage, may be the predominant
use and the retail is actually accessory to the restaurant. Mr.
BagInet! agreed, adding Staff has identified that as a problem and is
attempting to make changes on the proposed parking regulations.
However, he said, under the current ordinances there are no restric-
tions or limitations regarding what percentage of a shopping center
can be used for restaurant purposes.
Commissioner Hasse asked what the original application requested?
Mr. Beginski responded the identified uses on the original site plan
showed a marina and with it was the shell of a structure with no
actual uses identified. He said a small note Indicated four or less
retail shops.
' In answer to Commissioner Hasse, County Attorney Cuyler com-
sn~nicated that there is nothing in the regulations that prevents an
applicant from converting four retail outlets Into five outlets.
Ms. Mac'Kte agreed that Staff's Job is to find out what the regu-
lations say, but it is the Board's Job to set policy for the County by
considering the extent of the law. She said the law says an ordinance
cannot' be interpreted in a way to produce an absurd result. She
asserted in this case the parking requirements have been reduced from
approximately 150 to 78 by adding an interior wall, which is an absurd
result. She said the responsibility of the Board is to direct Staff
how to interpret Collier County ordinances.
0oo. 38'
Page 20
January 29, 1991
County Attorney Cuyler remarked that in Staff's opinion the
shopping center te less Intense, because of the removal of 30 docks
from the marina use, than the site plan that is the basis for the
equitable estoppel. He said It is In the best Interest of the
County that Staff reco~nize the plan that is less intense if there are
two arguments.
Ms. Mac'Kie concurred that Staff has attempted to eliminate some
of the uses, however, to resolve the problem and protect the safety of
people on the street as well as the property rights of the adjacent
owner, more significant changes must be made. She said those changes
can be made by calculating parking spaces for the restaurant in accor-
dance with the number of seats, and the developer can decide how many
seats to have in the restaurant.
Commissioner Saunders asked If the Board has the authority to
limit the number of seats in the restaurant, based on the number of
parking spaces provided? Mr. Cu¥1er stated that determination cannot
be made if the Board approves the Zoning Director's decision that the
restaurant falls under shopping center criteria.
Me. Mac'Kte said that question can be answered differently if it
is determined a restaurant is not a retail use, therefore, does not
fall under the shopping center definition.
Commissioner Volpe questioned if the proposed changes made within
the definition of shopping center Impact in any way on Ms. Mac'Kte's
argument? Ms. Mac'Kle responded in the affirmative, adding that Staff
has gone so far to keep this from happening again, they have added to
the definition that a marina and some retail uses is not a
center. She suggested that Staff does not have to go to those
lengths, because the Board can prevent this occurrence under the
current regulations.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Beginski affirmed that under
the proposed definition of shopping center, this project would not
qualify. He said the proposed language will define a shopping center
Page 21
January 29, 1991
as a group of unified commercial establishments consisting of eight or
more retail business or service establishments that have a minimum of
20,000 square feet.
Commissioner Hasse communicated that something should be added to
the criteria to require identification of the proposed uses within
shopping centers. He said when a restaurant is proposed as a use
within a shopping center, it changes the parking requirements drasti-
cally and there should be a method to address that problem.
Mr. Baginski indicated Staff has identified some problems in that
area and is taking steps to prevent this from happening in the future.
He pointed out, however, that this administrative appeal is due
to Staff'e interpretation of the current regulations.
Commissioner Goodnight asked what happened to the first site dave-
lopment plan? Mr. Baginski replied that between approval of the pre-
liminary plan, that did not include a restaurant, and submittal of the
final plans, additional notations and breakdowns were added iden-
tifying the intended uses. He said the second half of the review
team, -in their review of the final plane, did not pick up the explana-
tion of the intended use of the facility. Subsequently, he said,
final site development plans were approved and building permits were
issued. He stated some time later It came to the attention of the
Planning Services Staff that changes were made to the plans, which
instigated communications to the applicant regarding parking problems.
He advised after a series of meetings, the applicant chose to submit
an amended plan, which was subsequently approved according to Collier
County ordinances.
Commissioner Goodnight expressed that the applicant had no choice
other than submitting a second plan to which Staff could agree.
Commissioner Saunders remarked that the petitioner has found a
loophole in the ordinance to avoid parking requirements. He said
because Staff is now attempting to close that loophole does not mean
they were wrong In their Interpretation that this project is a
l0
Page 22
January 29, 1991
shopping center. He disagreed with Ms. Mac'Hie that the result ls
absurd, although it may be one that is not the most desirable. He
said this problem occurs many times with regulations, and methods are
Initiated in those circumstances to correct the problem.
Commissioner Volps Indicated this project does not meet the deft-
? nitton of a shopping center within the existing ordinance because in
his view, a restaurant is not a retail establishment.
County Attorney Cuyler pointed out the amended site plan shows
five retail outlets, not including the restaurant.
Attorney Bruce Anderson, representing the property owner, stated
he assumes that he will have an opportunity to address the issues.
Commissioner Goodnight communicated her belief that the petitioner
is not involved in this issue. She said typically, the appeal process
involves Staff and the person asking for an appeal of their decision.
County Attorney Cuyler stated he cannot recall a similar case in
the past, however, the property owner has a significant Interest in
the outcome of this appeal, Just as O'Sheas Restaurant has a Sight-
ftcant interest in the site plan that was issued for the neighboring
property. He suggested it is up to the Board's discretion how to
handle this issue.
Commissioner Saunders suggested following the normal procedure of
conducting a public hearing.
Joseph Torres Indicated he is speaking on behalf of O'Sheas
Restaurant as well as for himself as a resident of Marco Island. He
stated his concern with the Inadequate number of parking spaces for
the proposed use. He said if Staff's decision is upheld, a dangerous
situation will be created because of the traffic. He advised the
ultimate question facing the Board is, to whom does their duty lie;
Factory Bay Marina, O'Sheas Restaurant or the community? He pointed
out that the Board of County Commissioners has consistently in the
past been very concerned with Issues relating to the safety of the
community.
Page 23
January 29, 199!
Commissioner Saunders asserted the Board's obligation is to the
community as well as to the two affected property owners, however, as
elected officials the Board must comply with existing law. He said he
may not want to recognize that the petitioner has found a loophole In
the ordinance, but he feels compelled to follow the legal interpreta-
tion as given by the County Attorney and special counsel.
Attorney Bruce Anderson, representing Cypress Landing Corporation,
stressed that the Board Is not dealing with a site development plan,
rather, a fully constructed building. He also stated that equitable
estoppel is not an issue in this appeal; it is, however, a point In
question In the appeal by Factory Bay Marina the Board may hear,
depending on the outcome of this case. He reiterated previously made
objections, stating OtSheas has no more right to appeal the Zoning
Direcrofts decision regarding his cllent~s property than they do to
file a rezontng petition of that property.
Mr. Anderson continued that Staff's decision to approve his
cltentts alternate site development plan is based upon long
established, solid precedent. He provided for the record, 12 site
development plans to the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk
to the Board. He said the language of the ordinance is clear and his
client must be treated the same as any other shopping center. He
requested the Board allow Alan Reynolds, Director of Planning for
Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., to speak as an expert In land use
and planning, and asked Mr. Reynolds to summarize his experience in
those areas.
Commissioner Goodnight stated It Is the finding of the Chair that
Mr. Reynolds Is considered an expert.
Mr. Reynolds directed his comments to four spectftc areas; 1) the
rationale for having a different set of parking requirements for
shopping centers than for individual uses; 2) whether Factory Bay
Marina meets the definition of a shopping center; 3) whether or not
Page 24
January 29, 1991
this site could have been re-designed in Its present confi~uration to
accommodate additional parking; and 4) whether or not the parking
being provided by this plan is adequate. He concluded that the alter-
native plan, when evaluated independently from the Zoning Ordinance,
provides adequate parking to meet its demand.
In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Reynolds replied that his
client is~Factory Bay Marina.
Ms. MactKte communicated her objection for the record to Mr.
Reynolds testimony as an expert, because it is not appropriate in this
forum, has not been done before, and she was not given notice or an
opportunity to prepare a cross-examination of him as an expert.
Attorney George Varnadoe, representing Factory Bay Marina, stipu-
lated that Mr. Reynolds! client is the law firm of Young, van
Assenderp, Vernadoe & Benton, and not Factory Bay Marina.
Mr. Anderson noted that Factory Bay Marina has an economic incen-
tive to find additional parking in the future, because the alternate
site development plan removed 30 boat slips from the rental pool. He
said that Is nearly 40~ of the slips that cannot be rented. He added
that he continues to argue with Ms. Mac'Kie's reference to equitable
estoppel, therefore, provided for the record copies of the equitable
estoppel which the Board would be receiving during his cltent~s
appeal, should it be heard this date.
George Keller, President of the Collier County Civic Federation,
presented his concerns with regard to Factory Bay Marina, stating the
opinion that the developer has been given preferential treatment.
Charlotte Westman, representing the League of Women Voters, Indi-
cated her concern with the lack of parking on the subject site.
Ms. MactKie pointed out the distinction that a restaurant is not a
retail use. She reiterated that the law requires the Board to
Interpret ordinances to protect the public Interest and to avoid
absurd results. She said if the Board upholds the interpretation made
by Staff, a parking requirement is cut in half by adding an interior
00o,, 43'
Page 25
January 29, 199!
wall, which Is an absurd result. She stated equitable estoppel cannot
be Ignored in this Issue because the shopping center designation arose
as a result of the original project being turned down. She said the
motives of the developer must be considered.
Commissioner Volpe questioned how parking is calculated for non-
retail facilities within a shopping center? Mr. Bagtnskt replied
parking calculations are based on the square footage of the shopping
center. He said there have been situations In the past when a site
plan has been submitted for a shopping center with the facilities
Identified as purely a professional office or service that is pro-
vided, and they have been calculated Individually. He reported' tn
most cases, however, shopping center plans are submitted without any
identification of the Intended uses and the parking is calculated on
the square footage of the building.
Commissioner Volpe asked if parking is re-calculated based on a
change in use? Mr. Bagtnskt responded that does not happen unless the
shopping center has been determined to be non-conforming based on
current parking requirements. He said the normal procedure In that
case will require additional parking to be provided.
Commissioner Volpe Inquired when the site plan was amended to show
the additional retail outlet, to which Mr. Bagtnskt replied the plan
is stamped as amended on November 8, 1990.
Co~iestoner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanaban and
car~te~un~nl~ously, to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Saunders noted for the record that neither of the
property owners involved in this case has complained about treatment
they have received from Staff. He commented that in his opinion, this
project was properly handled by Staff and appropriately defined as a
shopping center with the appropriate parking requirements established.
He said he feels compelled under the law to uphold Staff's interpreta-
tion, although he does not necessarily want to.
Commissioner Shanahah agreed and added, under the basis of pro-
ooo. 44
Page 26
January 29, 1991
tecttng the Integrity of the Zoning Ordinance and Staff, Staff's deci-
sion must be upheld. He Indicated his hope that a compromise can be
arranged between Mr. Shea and the developer of Factory Bay Marina,
to develop more suitable parking facilities.
Co~ieeloner Saunders moved, seconded by Co~alesioner Shanahen and
carried $/2 (Co~aissionere Volpe and Hasse opposed) to deny Petition
A-90-T,- thereby adopting Resolution 91-112 upholding the zoning direc-
tor's d~cielon re~arding Factory Bay Marina and the ter~ shopping
cente~-~ndparking require~ente.
Page 27
January 29, 1991
!tecemsmd,: 1:40 P.M. - Reconvened: 2:00 P.M. at whtch
time DmputF Clerk Arrlgh! replaced Deputy Clerk ~uevAn ***
PETITION A-90-4, ~EORGE L. VARNADOE, REPRESENTING CYPRESS LANDING
CORPORATION, REQUESTING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING/ZONING DIRECTOR'S
DECISION TO WITHHOLD CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR CYPRESS LANDING
A/K/A FACYOR~ BAY MARINA (SDP-89-80) UNTIL ADDITIONAL PARKING IS
PROVIDED, LOCATED AT 1079 BALD EAGLE DRIVE, MARCO ISLAND - CONTINUED
INDEFINITELY
George Varnadoe requested that this Item be continued indefini-
tely, and he would readretries for a public hearing date.
Com3mieeloner Sh~na.h~n moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Hasme mnd
carried unanimously, that Petition A-90-4 be continued indefinitely.
ltem.PgR3
STAFF TO DEVELOP AN AOI~E]D~ENT BETWEEN H~NDERSON YOUNG AND ASSOCIATES,
COLLIER COUNT~ AND THE COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE RATIONAL
NEXUS RH~ORT TO SUPPORT A SCHOOL IMPACT FEE FOR COLLIER COUNTY AND
A IqANDATOI~f LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE. SAID AGREEMENT TO BE BROOG*HT
BACK FOR FINAL AUTHORIZATION - APPROVED WITH AMENDMENTS
Assistant to the County Manager Olltff stated that this item is
for direction for the Staff to negotiate an agreement between Collier
County, the School Board and Henderson Young and Associates to begin a
Rational Nexus Report for the development of a proposed school impact
fee in Collier County. He advised that the School Board has submitted
a Mandatory Land Dedication Ordinance which they would like adopted as
soon as possible. He noted that the Nexus Report is needed to deter-
mine the rate for an Impact fee or amount of exaction for land dedi-
cated. Mr. Olliff informed that a meeting between the Chairman and
the School Board regarding the funding arrangements for the study
resulted in the School Board agreeing to a 50/50 funding arrangement,
but not to exceed $25,000. He pointed out that the proposed cost of
ithe study is $35,000.
Commissioner Saunders related that he does not feel that the
Collier County taxpayer should pay for any of the Nexus Study because
the Land Dedication Ordinance and the school impact fee only benefits
the school system. Mr. Olliff concurred.
Commissioner Volpe commented that the benefit is to the taxpaying
000P~f~[ 50 Page 28
January 29, 1991
public and is in support of this direction Including the County
funding $10,000.
Commissioner Saunders stated that the question is whether the
County should use its budget to pay for a legitimate School Board
expense. He agreed that the County should cooperate completely, but
not spend County funds for this purpose.
Commissioner Shanahen deemed that it is Important that the
Commission move forward with both the ordinance and the impact fee,
and supports spending $10,000 on the basis that it benefits everyone
involved.
Jim Stesky, representing the Collier County School Board, com-
mented that the Mandatory Land Dedication Ordinance and the School
Impact Fee is something that the School Board has considered for some
time. He Indicated that the meeting between the Chairman and the
School Board resulted In an agreement that Collier County and the
School Board would participate in the funding of the Nexus Report on a
50/50 basis up to a maximum of $25,000. He noted that if there is a
different arrangement, he will take it back to the School Board for
action. He pointed out that the Collier County School System antici-
pates a $10 million shortfall in State revenues this year. He added
that the School Board is limited in the amount of local taxes it can
raise. He stated that he believes that this proposal wtll benefit all
taxpayers. He mentioned that if the Commission so desires, it could
request reimbursement of the funds expended for the study at the time
of commencement of the collection of Impact fees.
Commissioner Saunders stated that the offer for reimbursement is
appropriate, but questioned from what source of revenue would the
County be reimbursed because he thought it was not possible for the
County to be reimbursed from Impact fees.
County Attorney Cu¥1er advised that he has asked his office to
research this action on reimbursement, and will report back to the
Commission with an answer.
Page 29
January 29, 199!
C~e~tsl~oner Saundsrs ~ved, seconded by Com~lssioner Shanaban,
thatch a9Tee~ent be negot~at~ ~en Collier Co~, Collier
Sch~l ~d ~ Hendarvon Y~ ~d Associates for the
~rt to ~rt a School lapact Fee ~d a ~dato~ L~d ~d~catton
~d~mce for Collier C~, ~th the stl~lat~on that the C~W
w~11 ~ re~eed their costs for th~s report.
In response to Commiss~oner Hasse, Commissioner Goodni~hk noted
that the $35,000 ~e the cost of the report for the impact fees;
however, bein~ added to the report is the Mandatory Land Ded~cation
Ordinance which will chan~e the fee. County Manager Dotrill noted
that the lowest possible fee will be negotiated.
Mr. Oll~ff suggested that the Nexus Report be funded from Fund
l~S, and reco~ended that the County consider Henderson Young as the
sole source for this study.
C~~e~ S~ders ~ded h~ motion, seconded ~ Co~ss~oner
S~, to ~nclude that the Ne~ Report ~ f~ded fro~
~d t~t H~dere~ Yo~ ~ considered the sole source for th~s
report.
~ call for the ~estt~, the ~ot~on carried
It~-~A
~ ~U~ ~SE~ING DEL~S CO~NIENCE STORE - CO~I~D TO
2/~9/0~
Gary Kluckhuhn stated that he is before the Board to present the
latest draft on the settlement regarding Del's convenience store.
Transportation Services Administrator Archibald distributed to the
Board the Comparison of Improved Parcels statistics and the Settlement
Conditions.
Mr. Kluckhuhn informed that he has worked with Mr. Archibald to
develop this information. He advised that the information provided is
based on the idea that a vehicle of trade could be used for a settle-
ment on the subject issue. He explained that using this vehicle to
convey the property would eliminate the need for public sale;
Page 30
$anuary 29, 1991
however, would still require two weeks of public advertising before
the Board could take action on this. After highlighting a few points
from the agreement (not provided for the record), Mr. Kluckhuhn com-
mented that there is approximately $90,000 in land that is involved in
this issue. He added that the Improvements as outlined are to remove
the metal building within 60 days in order to clear the land for the
widening of the road. He noted that the convenience store operation
would be moved Into the ?-1! building, after making all the necessary
renovations. He advised that in order to keep the County from
incurring any costs, his client would pay the County $50,000 as part
of the final settlement. He noted several other improvements men-
tioned in the agreement. He reported that he has had several meetings
with Community Development Services, and they have sent a letter indi-
cating that his client will have the same vested rights as before.
In referring to the agreement, Mr. Kluckhuhn pointed out that if
the Board is in agreement with Section I then Section II could be
eliminated. He explained that Section II is a cash settlement, and
would be used if Section I is not agreeable to all parties.
Commissioner Saunders stated that he has two concerns regarding
the petition which are that the item is appearing today under public
petitions and should be under the County Manager's report with more
staff input provided; and secondly, is the fact that the information
that has been provided has only today been received, allowing no time
for the County Attorney to review it. He explained that there is
desire to have staff work this out with the petitioner, but this item
will need to be continued until further review can be made of the pro-
vided information. He asserted that when this item does come before
the Board again, it should be placed under the County Manager's Report
section.
Commissioner Saunders indicated in response to Mr. Kluckhuhn that
there is a basis for further discussion, but he is not willing to com-
mit in principle to this agreement. Commissioner Volpe concurred.
53'
Page 31
January 29, 1991
Transportation Services Administrator Archibald informed that
the two stipulated final Judgments can be brought back before the
Board with a report of the applicable values involved and the relative
merits.
C~ss2oner Saunders ~oved, seconded by Co~m2ssioner Shanahan,
that the 2s~ue regarding Del"s Convenience Store ~ continued
Feb~ ~9, ~99~, ~d t~t ~t ap~ar ~n the appropriate section of
~ ~ ~ ~11 ~ staff pr~d~n~ the Board w~th ~
for a ~ to ~e a d~c~on.
Mr. Tob~n, attorne~ represent~n~ the owners of the business that
~e ~ocated on subject property, stated that h~s client would
th~s resolved as ~lckly as possible.
In response to Comm~esioner Volpe, Mr. Kluckhuhn noted that the
letter from the Co,unity Development Services department indicates
that the vested interest would entitle the property o~er to have the
ri~ht~ they previously had which would allow for the sale of gasoline.
County Attorney Cuyler etated that staff will provide an analysis
of the uses for the property.
~ ~ fo~ the ~eet~on, the ~ot~on carried
Charlotte Westman, representing herself as a residen~ of Marco
Island, questioned how much longer the existing Del~s would be usable
to which Commissioner Shanahah explained tha~ the road project w~11 be
awarded in A~r~l, 199~, and started by June, 1991. In response to Ms.
Westmate co~ents regard~n~ the surplus property sale, Mr. Archibald
noted that at the t~me this ~tem comes back before the Board that
dete~nat~on will be made.
~I~CA~ OF ~TAIN STI~TIONS OF ~ ~IN A~O FACILI~
~~ ~. 90-50 ~ ~Q~ST ~R P~ISSION TO CO~I~ SI~
AT ~ ~O~ - ~Q~ST D~IED ~ DIRECTION TO STA~ TO DEFI~
· ~~ ~ ~I~ WALL ~ B~
Planner Lord commented that the subject project is located on the
west side of U.S. 41 North and approximately 450 feet south of Wiggins
54
Page 32
January 29, 1991
Pass Road and was approved by the BCC on June 5, 1990. He explained
that the paros! was zoned A-2 and O-4 which was then rezoned to a PUD
when a site development plan was approved along with a tree removal
permit to clear the site and install fill. He noted that on October
2, 1990, a Collier County Stop Work Order was issued because the
eagle neat on the subject property had evidence of activity. He
pointed out that one of the stipulations in Getmain Ordinance No.
90-50 states: "All heav~ ec/~/ipment operation and other activities
necessitating excessive noise shall be restricted to the non-nesting
season (May 15 through October 1)."
Mr. Lord cited that a letter received from the Florida Game and
Freshwater Fish Commission dated January 9, 1991, indicated that the
sub~ect eagle nest will apparently not be active this year allowing
activity in the vicinity of the nest to continue. Mr. Lord affirms
that the County Environmental Staff agrees that the eagle family has
not occupied nor /aid any eggs in the sub~ect nest. He continued that
staff feels that construction may proceed based on these facts.
Mr. Lord stated that clarification was asked for regarding a wall
which was to be constructed in the 1.9 acre eagle preserve area at the
southwest corner of the site. He noted that Ordinance 90-50 states
that the subject 1.9 acre site be kept in its natural state along with
the statement: "at least a 25 foot wide naturally vegetated buffer
along the western boundary of the site shall be retained and enhanced
with native plantings within the already established Water Management
area, (after the berm and/or wall is established);". He added that
staff and the petitioner are of the opinion that a two foot high wall
in lieu of the berm would be preferable as the wall would impose less
of an impact on the eagle preaerve area.
Mr. Lord related that staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners allow Getmain Auto Facility to continue construction
based on the stipulations in the approved PUD.
Commissioner Volpe stated that he has a report that the nest is
55
Page 33
January 29, 1991
active and there are eggs present tn the nest.
Mr. Lord noted that in a letter dated January 9, 1991 from Don
Wood, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, it is Indicated
that there are eagles in the area, but are not using the subject nest.
The following people spoke against allowing construction to con-
tinue at this time:
Eileen Arsenault
Chris Straton
Gary Beardsley
Philip D. Manor, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
James Farkas, II
The explanations given for not wanting construction to continue at
this time are as follows: Stipulations included as part of an ordi-
nance should-not be allowed to be changed; this stipulation
restricting construction and excessive noise between the time of May
15 through October ! was put in place to protect an endangered spe-
cies, and there is documented evidence that eagles will lay their eggs
as late as February and March; the eagles have been sited flying over
the nest and are in the area; Getmain Auto Facility is not being
Jeopardized by this stop work order; a pair of eagles have success-
fully, since 1978 when records were first kept, nested at the subject
location and still may this year; the subject nest is the most suc-
cessful producing nest in the area; this could be in violation of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973; the Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish
Commtssion~s guidelines must be followed or there is the possibility
of a suit against the County; Endangered Species Coordinator Don
Woodts revised letter of January 28, 1991 stating that there is an
adult pair of eagles frequenting the vicinity of the subject nest; and
allowing construction to continue now would set a precedence for other
developers and could negatively ~mpact nesting sites.
Commissioner Volpe questioned who generated the request to begin
construction at this time since the Board of County Commissioners did
not as the executive summary suggests, to which Community Development
Services Administrator Brutt stated that the request came from Getmain
Page 34
January 29, 1991
Auto Facility.
David Pettrow, Director of Development Services, stated that there
is the issue of the berm that needs to be clarified. Mr. Pettrow
stated that since there is a reduction of 2§ feet of water storage on
the east side, the water needs to be contained in another area, hence
the need to have a berm or a wall to channel the water to an outlet.
Commissioner Volpe pointed out that substituting a wall for a berm is
a change in the stipulations.
Planner Lord Informed that Section 4 of the PUD document states
that 1.9 acres located in the southwest corner shall be kept for water
management purposes which Is the eagle preserve area. In order to
manage the water, he stated a berm or wall is needed, and a berm would
have an approximate 50 foot Impact on the stte because of its sloping
sides, and a wall would impact the site about 15 feet. He noted that
staff agrees with the petitioner to accept the wall instead of the
berm.
Mr. Farkae, County resident, cited that the ~utdelines from the
Federal and State level indicate that no structures are to be placed
in the primary eagle zone so why not have the wall on the other side?
Mr. Lord pointed out that the Corps of Engineers did allow the
approval of the SDP'for this project. Eric Woreham, Project Review
Services, noted that staff did contact the Florida Game and Fresh
Water Fish Commission to inform them of the possible wall in the area,
and there was no indication from them of any objection.
Tape ,5
Commissioner Volpe remarked that the PUP states that the berm will
be around the western boundary of the 1.9 acre site, and questioned if
it has always been assumed that the berm would intrude onto the site.
Mr. Worsham confirmed that this was the assumption; however, in the
process of the PUD conflicting stipulations were made. Mr. Woreham
explained that the environmental staff is in favor of the construction
of a wall, if all the natural vegetation remains and only the exotic
Page 35
January 29, 1991
vegetation is removed, and with both these actions completed during
the non-nesting season. He added that there is to be no more distur-
bance to the area after this is completed. He commented that the
developer would have to redesign their plans if the wall or berm was
to be placed outside the 1.9 acre site.
Mr. Woreham admitted that staff has not communicated as completely
as it should have with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission regarding the use of the 1.9 acre
eagle preserve site for water management or the construction of a
wall. He explained that written confirmation has been requested from
both, but not received as of this date.
Tim Cabral, Project Manager for Getmain Auto Facility, stated that
this project will take three years to build because of the restricted
time allowed for construction. He stated that there is no clarifica-
tion of heav~ equipment. He informed that he did contact Don Wood of
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to see if it was possible
to start construction earlier which would have allowed the project to
be almost completed by October 1, 1991, and all heavy equipment would.
be out of the area which would be in the best interest of the com-
munity and the eagles. He explained that the wall will be two feet
high with a three foot footing, and will be covered with a vine and
other plant buffering. He reported that he his asking to begin
construction as soon as possible.
Commissioner Hasse pointed out that the dates for construction
have been established and commented that the berm should be moved to
the edge of the eagle site.
Commissioner Goodnight noted that the developer did sign an
agreement that there would be no heavy equipment used at this site
from October I through May 15; therefore, she indicated that she would
have difficulty permitting a change in the dates.
Commissioner Volpe suggested that a clarification be made by staff
as to a specific definition of heavy equipment and excessive noise.
January 29, 1991
Commissioners Shanahah and Saunders concurred. Mr. Lord stated that
he would work with the petitioner as to a definition of heavy equip-
ment and excessive noise.
$*$ Cm~isaionar Saunders left the meeting at this time. ***
Co~miasioner Volpe moved, seconded b~ Commissioner Hasse and
carried 4/0 (Co~issioner Saunders out of the room), to deny the
request to chan~e the stipulation requiring all heavy equipment opera-
tion and other activities necessitating noise to be restricted to the
non-nesting season (Nay 15 through October 1)~ direct staff to review
the construction of a wall versus a berm with the appropriate state
and federal m~nciea and report back to the Board, and work with the
developer to define what t~ype of activities can take place on the site
durin~-nesting season.
FINAL PLAT OF 'PARADISE POINTE R.V. RESORT PHASE ONE" - APPROVED WITH
Commissioner Goodnight stated that she requested this item be
removed from the Consent Agenda because people from the subject area
wish to speak on this item.
Mr. Lewis Mangum, resident of Imperial Wilderness, related that he
does not feel that the applicant has provided the proper water and
sewage lines for this project which will result in imposing on the
Imperial Wilderness project.
Community Development Services Administrator Brutt advised that
the developer, the County, and Rookery Bay Utilities need to provide
a three party agreement approved by the Board prior to construction
permits being granted as well as utility agreements with the County
Sewer District and the property owner being finalized.
John MadaJewski, Project Review Services Manager, informed that
Phase One of the subject project does not connect its sewer line to
the property of Imperial Wilderness, but rather it connects to the
existing Rookery Bay facilities in the U.S. 41 right-of-way. He noted
59
Page 37
January 29, 1991
that there is the potential in Phase Two to connect to a utilities"
facility which is located in the Imperial Nilderness project but will
be conveyed to the County under the mentioned three party agreement.
He pointed out that the approval of the subject petition should be
conditioned on the added stipulation that the construction permit for
Paradise Pointe RV Resort Phase One wJ]! not be granted by Development
Services until the three party agreement has been presented to the
Board and approved.
.... *** Co~Asmloner Saunders returned to the ~eettng ***
Mr. Mangum stated that his main concern is the proper reconstruc-
tion of the canal which is proposed to be built for water drainage.
He explained that there is no provision for a berm to protect his pro-
perty which is along the canal from the rising waters. He noted that
the difference in elevation Is approximately 18 inches.
Mr. MadaJewskt commented that there will be a berm installed along
the western boundary of the 65 foot County easement which has been
granted for the construction of the canal, and th~s berm will be for
the protection of Imperial Wilderness. He clarified that the deve-
loper will be constructing a County facility in accordance with County
approved plans on a County easement at no cost. He advised that this
construction will be monitored by a County compliance officer to
assure that there is no damage incurred to Imperial Wilderness and
that the work is completed to the satisfaction of the County*s Water
Management Department. He noted that the elevation problem will be
addressed when the construction takes place.
Mr. Mangum questioned where the water will go at the end of the
canal system? John Boldt, Water Management Director, stated that the
facilities being discussed are part of U.S. 4! Outfall Swale Number
One which will eventually drain south and west into the fresh water
marshes. He reported that the lower end of the canal system should be
completed within two years. Mr. Boldt suggested that he sit down with
Mr. Mangum and show him the plans for the canal.
8o
Page 38
January 29, 1991
In response to Mr. Mangum, Mr. MadaJewski advised that the
Paradise Pointe project will have it own perimeter berm system as
required by the water management district to retain its storm water
retention prior to discharge. He added that the additional berm would
be part of the County's master water management design for the canal
system.
Diane Mangum, resident of Imperial Wilderness, reiterated her hus-
bandts comments regarding the possible flooding of their property.
She noted that the utilities company is suing Imperial Wilderness
because the developer has not paid a $57,000 bill; and added that the
developer for Imperial Wilderness ie the same as for Paradise Pointe,
therefore, she doss not feel any assurance that her property will be
protected from flooding.
Richard Lash, resident of Imperial Wilderness, clarified that
Imperial Wilderness is not involved in the mentioned lawsuit. He
added that he is satisfied with what the County is proposing with the
Paradise Point project.
Lawrence S. Williams, Vice President of the Board of Directors of
Imperial Wilderness, stated that the Board of Directors is in con-
curfence with the proposed project.
9ASMOV'KDFROM 14A3
$e. Deput'F Clerk Guevin replaced Deputy Clerk Arrighi at this time
Dick Carey, Secretary of the Board of Directors for Imperial
Wilderness Condominium Associated added his support for Paradise
Pointe.
Mr. MadaJewski clarified that the issues of water management
problems raised by some of the speakers are internal to the Imperial
Wilderness project and are not associated with Paradise Pointe, which
is a separate operating entity.
C~telioner $hanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Hasse and
¢az-rAedun~nAmously, to approve the final plat of "Paradise Pointe
R.V. Re8o~'~ Phase One= w~th the following stipulations:
81
Page 39
January 29, 1991
That the final plak not be recorded until the required impro-
vements have been constructed and accepted or until approved
security is received for the tncompleted improvements and
that construction shall be completed within 36 months of the
date of this approval.
Authorize the Chairman to execute the Construction and
Maintenance Agreement.
That no building permits be issued until the final plat is
recorded.
A temporary drainage and access easement to allow for
drainage flow across the adjacent property and access to the
water management control structure and a utility easement to
cover the utility lines outside the proposed plat shall be
recorded prior to approval by the Board of County
Commissioners to record the plat. The temporary easement
shall be between the property owner and the maintenance
entity with allowance for automatic vacation upon recording
of a separate plat providing the permanent easements.
The construction permit for Paradise Pointe RV Resort Phase
One will not be granted by Development Services until the
three party agreement has been presented to the Board and
approved.
Receis: 4:35 P.M. - Reconvened: 4:40 P.M. ***
ooo 62
Pa~e 40
3~1:;1~/~ 29, 1991
John Witchget, Chairman of the Homeless Advisory Committee,
reported this Committee has been in existence for 18 months, but
because of the high turnover rate, It has been difficult getting a
quorum for the monthly meetings. However, he Indicated his belief
that the present group is now interested in developing a plan. He
advised one year ago, the Committee conducted a survey through the
agencies who have contact with the homeless. He said at that time the
homeless surveyed were 503 adults of which 88~ were male, 12~ female
and in addition, there were 284 homeless children in Collier County.
He mentioned there are 20 private or public agencies serving the home-
less or near homeless in the County. He said a final report is
planned for completion within the next four months. He advised the
plaru~ed outline will include goals, objectives, and policy recommen-
dations that the County can follow through.
Commissioner Volpe questioned if the 503 people surveyed are chro-
nically homeless as opposed to those who are temporarily without
shelter? Mr. Witchget replied that it is very difficult to get in
touch with the numbers of chronically va. transitionally homeless. He
said the bottom line is the lack of affordable houstng in Collier
County that keeps both groups out of housing. He pointed out an
interesting fact that the average length of time in the State of
Florida of those surveyed ts 8.8 years, and 4.2 years in Collier
County which Indicates that people are not Just passing through.
Commissioner Volpe suggested that there should be a llnkage bet-
ween this group and the Affordable Housing Task Force.
There was no action necessary for th~s item.
STAFIPAFFHORIZKD TO PURSUK THE SALK OF THE BLUKBILL SITE TO THK
HTGHKST AND BEST BIDDER PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE ~25.3~
Commissioner Volpe stated he asked for thls item to be removed
from the Consent Agenda because ftnaltzation for purchase of the
OOOPA , . 66 :Page 4].
January 29, 1991
Conklin Point site will not occur until March 15th. He said until
that purchase has been concluded, he is concerned with declaring this
site surplus property. He suggested giving consideration to alternate
uses for the Bluebill site, specifically for beach access. He said
another consideration is the deficiency in Parks and Recreation within
the CIE of the Growth Management Plan. He asked if there is any way
this site could be a passive recreational area in the County's inven-
tory.
County Manager Dotrill advised the adopted budget was predicated
upon the sale of this site as surplus property.
Commissioner Saunders indicated if this land is not sold to reim-
burse the County for the purchase of the Conklin Point site, there
will be a $2 million deficiency.
Comalesloner Volpe argued that $2 million will need to be spent In
any case because of the deficiency in the Parks and Recreation ele-
ment.
Sandra Taylor, Real Property Management Director, reported this
item has been brought to the attention of the Board of County
Commissioners in order to have ample time to market and advertise the
property so the money needed to pay for the Conklin site, which was
purchased in lieu of this site, can be compensated. She suggested
being allowed to advertise the site, come back with bids and, at the
same time, advise the Board on the needs for Parks and Recreation and
beach access.
ComL~sio'n~z' Sa~rs ~oved, seconded by Commissioner S~~ and
c~ledun~ni~ously, that Staff be authorized to pursue the sale of
the Blabill mite mfter N~ch 14, 1991, and that Staff be directed to
tnv~tt~te litemarlys rises of the site in the interim.
ADDITION OF TWO CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE POSITIONS AT THE
NAPLES ~&NDFILL SCALEHOUSE - CONTINUED TO
Bob Fahey, Solid Waste Director, re9orted an audit was performed
in September, 1990, which recommended an increase in Customer Service
67
Page 42
January 29, 1991
Representatives and also recommended providing a system or procedure
to assure the funds are kept correctly and that errors do not occur.
He advised the growth in the County's waste stream now provides
approximately 360,000 tons of material coming into the Naples
Landfill. He noted revenues in excess of $5 million passed through
asking for approval of two additional positions to enhance the
assurance that all money is being collected and that the books are
correct.
the scalehouse in one form or another last year. He indicated those
revenues are expected to approach $6 million in 1991. He stated the
current employees are working 12 hours each day. He concluded by
Commissioner Saunders noted that the County Manager will be
returning in two weeks with recommendations for a formal hiring freeze
and it will be inappropriate to create two new positions this date,
pending that report. He suggested that this item be delayed until
after the report has been received.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, County Manager Dorrill replied
that two-thirds of the funds coming into the landfill are in the form
of checks, however, on an average daily basis, an employee can handle
over $1,000 in cash. Commissioner Volpe commented that cash should
not be accepted.
Commissioner Shanahan communicated that the internal audit report
did not recommend the addition of new employees, but it does recommend
that two employees count the cash together.
Mr. Fahey responded that two employees are now charged with this
responsibility who, because they are working 12-hour shifts, only see
each other on one day. He said in order to have two people in atten-
dance at all times requires the additional positions he is requesting.
Saunders ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Haasa and
:: .- calTted mmnt~usl¥, that this ite~ be continued to the meeting of
BUD~ZT~ FOR qUALITY PLUS, qUALI~Y IMPROVEMENT PROCESS
AMOUNT OF ~41~767 - APPROVED
January 29, 1991
Douglas Gorham, Quality Improvement Coordinator, reported the
pilot implementation of the quality improvement process has been very
successfully implemented nine months ahead of schedule. He said
currently, 53 individuals have been trained and seven operating
quality improvement teams are working on problems in their workplaces.
Gordon Kelly, Facilities Management, summarized what his team has
been working on with regard to standardization of County expenditures
on light bulbs and fixtures.
Mr. Gorham requested approval to purchase the second part of the
Quality Plus program, stating the $41,767 needed will come from
current operating budgets.
~o~mAaaAoner $h~ ~3ved, aeconded by CouAssionsr Hasse to
appr~Jvo the ~ld~et A~endmmt for the Quality Improvement Process in
'~-. the-~t O~ 041,767.
Con~iesioner Volpe communicated his concern with approval of this
project, because the Board has been discussing reduotion of funds from
eve~, budget.
County Manager DofFill indicated that employees are so enthu-
siastic about this project that they are willing to find the money
from each division, based on the employees enrolled in the program.
He said for that reason, he is encouraging this expenditure in order
that employees do not lose their interest in this cost savings
program.
~ call for the ~eation, the motion carried unanimou~l¥.
eee Cmimaloner Goodnight noted for the record that the Board of
Co~ty Co~ismt~ra 5:05 P.N. Nearing will begin Auediately
foll~A~ co~t~letion of this agenda. ***
I~E~OL~TIO~ 91-113 APPOINTING MEMBERS AND ALTERNATES TO THE PELICAN BAY
NONICIPaL TAXING AND BENEFIT tINIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED
Commissioner Saunders commented that a letter has been received
from the Pelican Bay Property Owners Association with their recommen-
Page 44
January 29, 1991
dations for the nine members to the Pelican Bay Municipal Taxing and
Benefit Unit Advisory Committee. He suggested it may be appropriate
to appoint those people as the first advisory board.
C~tea~one~ Saunders ~ed, seconded by Co~misstone~ Hasse to
appoint l~r~ertck H&rdt, John Hoyt, Irving Kahn, Russell Mudge, Cora
Obley, 6~h&rlee Popper, August Rocco, St., Eugene Woolley and Bernon
YOUn~%O the Pelican B~FMunictp&l Taxing and Benefit Unit Advisory
Commissioner Volpe suggested giving consideration to the many
other people who have expressed an interest in the Committee. He com-
mented that there should be representation from each of the interests
in the Pelican Bay community.
County Attorney Cuyler made aware the fact that the Board will be
looking for advice from people who are involved in litigation with the
County, specifically Messrs. Mudge and Hardt.
Commissioner Shanaban recommended rep3actng Mr. Hardt with Thomas
Garltck and Mr. Mudge with Daniel 0tNeal.
Commissioner Saunders stated his belief that there may be advan-
tage to having Messrs. Hardt and Mudge as members of this Committee,
because their interests are for the best for Pelican Bay.
tlpon call for the q~leetion, the motion passed 3/2 (Commissioners
~oo~l~i~ht ~n~ Sh~n~/~an opposed), thereby adopting Resolution 91-113.
Co~iaaloner $~undere moved, seconded by Commissioner Volpe and
=~ZTi~ ~nt~l~l¥, that Tho~a~ Oarlick and Daniel OtNeal be
appotntg u alternates to the Committee.
70
Page 45
January 29, 1991
Zt~ ~OA
RHsor~uTIOI~ 91-114 AND 91-115 RE-APPOINTING MARK P. STRAIN AS A MKMBKR
OF Tl~COl~ ~t~tCI~NT BOARD AND THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES CZTZZEN$
ADVI~"I'CO~MITTEERESPECTIV'ELY - ADOPTED
County Attorney Cuyler recalled that the Board asked him to
research the advisory board ordinance for any prohibition to Mr.
Strain being involved in both the Code Enforcement Board and the
Golden Gate Estates Citizens Advisory Committee. He reported finding
nothing in his review against allowing both appointments.
Co~e~islioner Hawse ~oved, emcondad by Commissioner Shanahah and
c&rr~edun~nl~ou~ly, that Reaolution 9~-114 be adopted re-~oint~ng
~k P. ~tra~n u a mea~r of the Code Enforcement Board.
~~r H~ee ~d, eeconded ~ Co~sstoner S~~ ~d
c~ ~~ly, that Resolution 9~-~15 ~ adopted re-appointing
~k P. ~n ~ a ~r of the Golden Gate Estates
72
Page 46
January 29, 1991
BUDGHT ~ 91-81 ~nd 91-82 - ADOPTED
C~tssi~ner Sh~nah~n ~oved, ~econded ~ Co~issione= H~sse ~d
c~t~ ~~ly, ~he ~d~t ~en~ent8 91-81 ~d 91-82 be adopted.
lt~
~O~ 91--116 A~ORIZING ~ I~S~I~ D~LO~ A~ORI~ OF
~~ ~ ~ IS~ ~I~ ~ HOUSINO ~ ~ING
~tsston~r Shanahen moved, seconded by Co--isotoner Hesse and
c~z~tedlmant~l¥, that Resolution 91-116 be adopted, authorizing
· the I~iml Development &uthertry of Collier County to tmsua
refunding bonds fo~ Lely PalB in ~n ~mount not exceeding $12,000,000.
Page 47
BOM~DOF~CCSe!ISSIO~RS' CO~mNICATrONS
January 29, 199!
Commissioner Volpe asked that Staff be prepared to discuss how
Provisional Uses will be addressed under the proposed Golden Gate
Master Plan on 2/5/91. He requested the County Manager to look into
alternatives to the handling of cash at the Naples Landfill.
Commissioner Saunders requested the County Manager to investigate
Lee County's proposed fishing pier at the Lee/Collier line. He also
asked the County Attorney to inform the Board when the water/sewer
study will be available, as well as give a report on the status of the
independent zoning appeals board study.
Commissioner Shanahah asked for direction from Staff regarding the
Marco Island Beach Renourishment and Beach Maintenance fund. He said
the Board needs to take action on what to do with the money collected.
Commissioner Goodnight indicated that Commissioner Hasse has asked
to step down from the Bay Management Organization, and she will recom-
mend a replacement at the next meeting.
County Manager Dotrill indicated he and County Attorney Cuyler
will survey other Counties with regard to what issues they present at
night meetings. He suggested Collier County may have taken too
liberal an approach.
Cm~i~toner Shanaban moved, seconded by Conissioner Voll~
~nd carrted unani~ously, that the foll~tng itm ~der the
~t I~ ~ a~r~d ~d/or adopted: s,s
BUI~]~T~ TO INCREASE FUND 121, SECTION 8 VOUCHER PROGRAM, IN
TH~0~TOF ~46,700.00
A~PTI~CH OF ~U~I~ FOR "CRY~TAL LAKE RV RESORT,
IN~I~ON26~ TO~N~HIP 48 SOUTHr RANGE 26 EAST
See
PHASE I", LOCATED
/ OOOPI~"E 80 Page 48
January 29, 1991
RESOLUTION 92-84, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
ABATeMEnT OF FUNLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-06-03093, LOTS 43 AND 44, BLOCK 70, NAPLES PARK, UNIT NO. 5, OWNERS
OF RECORD GIU[rEPPI ALONGI AND VANCERE ALONGI
See Page~ ~.___~_~
~SOLUTION 92-85, FROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
ABAT~DITOFFUBLIC NUISANCE RE COWI~LIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-0~-4~4042, LOT 24, BLOCK 210, UNIT 6, GOLDEN GATE SUBDIVISION,
OM]I~R~ OF RECORD MARIO BONAQUIST AND MARY A. BONAQUIST
See Page.3~~'~
Item,l~Jk4C
R~SOLUTION 91-66, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
ABATJD~ENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SEETICKS CASE NO.
90-06-04048, LOT 19, BLOCK 210, UNIT 6, GOLDEN GATE SUBDIVISION,
OMNEF~ OF RECORD MARIO BONAQUIST AND MARY A. BONAQUIST
See Pag~~
Item#16A4D
RESOLUTION El-S?, FROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR TRE COST OF
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90--O~-03646, LOT 14, BLOCK 352, OF MARCO BEACH UNIT ELEVEN, A
· UBDIVISIONf O%INER OF RECORD MICHAEL DENICOLA
See Page.~ q~',' .~. ~
WOL~TXON gl-88, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
AB&T~M~]Ff OF PUBLXC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
g0--0~-0S560, T~3T 19, BLOCK 395, MARCO BEACH UNIT 12, A SUBDIVISION,
OWNER
See Pages /~'~ ' /~ /
RESOLUT/ON 91-59, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMERT OF LIEN FOR TH~ COST OF
ABATeMeNT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90°06-0S555, UNIT NO. 101, WEST WIND MOBILE ESTATES, A CONDOMINIUM,
OM~IERS OF RECORD KENNETH W. HOGE AND JEAN M. HOGE
RF.~OLUTION 91-90, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
ABAT~NT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-06-03506, LOT 4, BLOCK 88, MARCO BEACH UNIT FIVE, A SUBDIVISION,
CRINER OF RECORD LEONARD J. BUBRI, REGISTERED AGENT FOR MARCO MEDIA
Item ~l~lk4W
Page 49
$anuar¥ 29, 1991
RE~OLUTXO~ 91-91, PROVXDIRG FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKR FOR THE COST OF
JLBAIIMI3ET Off FUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMP~IANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-06°03264, TOT ?, BLOCK 235, GOLDKR GATE, UNIT 4, OWRKRS OF RKCORD
HUG~R. ORTEGJkANDEVELTRC. ORTEGA
See Pages
RK~OLUTIOR 91-92, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKR FOR THE COST OF
ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-05-035?6, LOT 1S, BLOCK 395 OF MARCO BEACH UNIT TWELVe, A
SUBDIVXSIONr OWNERS OF RECORD STEPHEN 3. PALL AND SANK M. PALL
I~KSOLUTXON 91-93, FROV/DXRG FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
JkB&TBIEKIT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-O6-040S?, I~OT 21, BLOCK 209, UNIT S PART -- OOLDKR GATE, OWRKRS OF
RBCt~D 3~SgP~ A. PINTER~ 7R. AND NARY 3. PINTER
See Pages ' ///
Xt~B d~S&4K
Iq~OLUTXON 91-94, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
AB&TKMI3rT OF PUBLIC NUISAJEUK RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-06-03305, A PORTION OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 4? SOUTH, RANGE 29 FAST,
IIOJOEALKEr OWNER OF RECORD WILLIAM D. ROBERTS
See P.g / //3
~SOLUT/C~ 92-95, PROV~DING FOR &SSESSMERT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
~~ ~ ~L~C ~IS~ ~ C~Z~C~ SE~ICES CASE NO.
90-06~3656, L~ 12, BL0~ 2~6, ~CO B~CH ~IT ~8, ~S 0F ~C0~
~Z~ R. SKZ~ ~ ~R~ C. SKI~
Itn#lSA4#
See Pages
RKSOLUI'XON 91-96, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
JtB&TKMBSTf OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-06-03623, LOT 35, BLOCK U, C0H1FER~S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, UNIT
3~ OMSIKItS OF RECORD PKTKR 3. ~AICHUNAS AND DOLORES ~AICHXTRAS
ltnJl$&41
See Page, l.l&- 117
91-97, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSI~'NT OF LIEN FOR ~ COST 0F
OF ~1C ~lS~ ~ C~Z~ S~ICKS C~E NO.
~~5644, ~ 22, BL~ 173, ~T 5 P~T -- GOLD~ GA~, ~S OF
Y~~ ~G~ ~DA~ ~ ~O~S BALDA~
See Pag~ //~- //9
Itm' tl~A40
R~OLUTXO~ 91-98, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LZKN FOR THE COST OF
AB&TIMKIffTOF L~SBLXC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SKRVXCKS CASE NO.
29, 1991
LOT 13, BLOC~ 136 0F H ARC0 BEACH, UNIT FIVE, A
(MNBRS OF P3~CORD BNRRNTT, gAYS, AND SCHOLLY, I~RSONAL
]~Pt~FfATI~B OF TH~ 30~R B~RYW~ISHIL~ER ESTATE
See Pag /
91-99, ~RO~J:DING FOR ~SESSHER? OF LIaR I~)R lq~ COST OF
ABA~B~:II~O~:rBT, IC~I~ISA~C~P~ COMI~IANC~ S~7IC~S CASE NO.
90-O?-O5697, ~:~ 17, BLOC~ 132, OF ~CO BEACR URI? FOOR, A
~I:7~D/~SIO~m OWJI~S OF R~CORD GISELA GASI~RO &RD ROSA GINJ~RT
See Page~ /~ ~"' /~3
~ESO~O~ZON 91-~00, FROYIDING FOR ASSESSMENT O~ LIEN FOR THE COST OF
ABAT~NT OF POBLIC NUISANC~ ~E COMPLIANCE SERVIC~-S CASE NO.
90-07-05474, ~OT 5, BLOCK S, NEWMARKET SUBDIVISION, OWNERS 0F R~-CORD
M~LLIAN G. HART AND .TULI~'TE I~LRT
See Page~
F~SOLUTION 91-101, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LI~N FOR THE COST OF
ABATBMBNTOF PUBLIC NUISANCE R~ COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-O?-O54??, LOT 22, BLOCK 3, NEWMARKET SUBDIVISION, OWNERS OF RECORD
M~LLIA~IG. NA~fAND 3ULIL"I'I~ H~RT
Itm..l~A4S
See Pages
/a&- 7
I~B~O~UTION91-102, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR TH~ COST OF
ABATEN~NT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE N0.
90-O~-O4039, LOT 12, BLOCK 268, UNIT ? PART -- GOLDEN GAT~, 09~TERS OF
I~P~'O~DLE~ R. HERRING AND ADELE O. HERRING
Itm ~16A4T
See Pages
91-103, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKN FOR THE COST OF
ABAT~!~NTOFFOBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO. W89-6602,
OF S~Y~I~ON 9, TOMNSH/P 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, OWNER OF
R~CORDBFBLTN GAIL LEWIS
It~#16A4U
See Page,
R~SO~UTION 91-104, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
ABAT~R~NT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-0?-05490, LOT 1, BLOCK 20, NEW MARKET SUBDIVISION, ONNER OF RECORD
RE~OLUTIO~ 91-105,PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF
ABAT~N~]IT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE RE COMPLIANCE SERVICES CASE NO.
90-0?-O436?, ~ 13 ~nd 14, BLOCK B, JOYCE PARK SUBDIVISION, OMNERS
OF R~t~)~D O. L. SNYDER AND LUCILE E. SNYDER
B 83
Page 51
January 29, 1991
]~t~ 4~J. 6A4W
91-106, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR TH~ COST OF
OF PU~LIC ~S~ ~ C~~C~ S~ICES CASE NO.
9~T~5206, ~ 9, BL~ 110, ~T 3 P~T -- GOLD~ GA~, ~ OF
~~OLD W~
RES0LUTIO~ 91-107, PROVIDXRG FOR ASSKSSM~ OF LIEN FOR T~E COST OF
ABAT~M~TOY PUBLIC ~UISANCE RE COMPLIANC~ SERVICES CASE NO.
90--07--0~47S, ~ 4, BLOCK S, ~ SUBDIVISION, OWITERS OF RECORD
WILLIMqG. !~tRTAND JULIETTE HART
~O~O~A ~ ORDER A~ WITH THE FLORIDA D~PARTM~NT OF
~~ ~TION, l~I~ WAI~ OF BID ~E~S ~R
~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ORIGIN~ ~T OBLIGATIO~ ~TING TO
RESOLUTION 91-208, FLORIDA DEPARTMEITF OF COMMERCE GRANT APPLICATION
FOR ROAD lq~Plt~ AT TH~ I~OKALEE AIRPORT
ACCKPTANUK OF THE FLORIDA ~ FOR THE ~U~NITIES ~ DR
~Cr~ O~C0 IS~ND~DPl~ISSION FOR CHAIRNANT0 SIGN
ASS0ClATEDCOJlTRACT
T, EASE*~WZTH RKOPOLITAN KITFKRPRISES FOR HOUSING LIBRARY
~ ~ THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE KXPA/~DKD
FACl~XTYAIrD PK1qM/SSION FOR CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ASSOCIATED LEASE
Item - ~I~D1
See Page3
~Olq/~R NO. 2 TO TEE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH D. N. HIGGINS,
rlIC. !~RTH~ "SOOTH COUFI~RKGIONAL WASTEWATER KFFLUKNT STORAGE
YACI~I~I~KS"r I~THE AMOUNT OF ~59f986.90
See Page, /~& =' /7~
ltem#16E1
AUTI~O~IZATIO~ FOR TH~ GOLDEN GATK KSTATKS CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO HILlASK THOSE PROPKRTIKS RKTAINKD FROM SALES PURSUANT TO THE
3ar/ua/-F 29, 1991
-,'~-: ....E~X~FEI~ ~ APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF COURTY C0t~IISSZ~S 0R
I~.,~T~O~I 91-109, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF PUNCHASK AGREEMENTS
F~R TH~ g*A.C* T, dLND BALKS TRUST CONVEYED TO COLLI~R COUNT~ BY AVATAR
P~FI~, ~N~. (AGR~EIRNRT DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1983), BY THE
CHAII~&N OF T!~ BOARDr FOR THE CURRENT CHAIRMAN*S TENURE ONLY
See Page
Ite~-~2~F2
CHA/I~ANTO $IGN A LETTER TO FLORIDA CITIES WATER COMPAN~ TO OBTAIN
NATER~CE T° TH~ GOLDEN GATE EMERGENC~ SERVICES COMPLEX
Ira el~F2
See Page /7~
FINA~IZATIONOF AllOW BILLING AND COLLECTION PROCEDURE FOR COLLIER
COON~H~ALTE ~?~ATED SERVICES AND FINAL DRAPT ORDINANCE TO BE
PR~PJLI~, A~V~]~/~SED, AND SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION BY
TH~ BOARD OFCCR3BT~CO~91I$SIONERS AT A PUBLIC REARING
Cont/nued to · date to be determined
SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR
&quaTicl, r, Jurrcowr~oL z~coum~cANAL
See Page~ / ?~'' /
AN ~ ~FZC~ FROPOSAL TO $ATISF~ FDER CONSENT ORDER ~90-7880
See Page
~m ~CTIoN TO T~ TAX ~O~.LS aS PRZS~ BY
1989
NO. 256 Dated 1/15/91
N0~s. 179/183
NOts.
NO'S. 69/7
1990
Dated
TANGIBLE P~SORAL PROPERT~
1990
1990-69/1990-71
85
Dated 1/18/90-1/22/91
Dated 12/18/90 & 12/22/90
Page 53
January 29, 1991
EX'A'RAallTXlI~FOR INMA'X~NOHB~,S 66699, 68872, 49984, 41427, 38564,
6s5o2, 27~o6.
SATI:BFACTXONO~LI~NFOR SE'RV'ZCES OFT HE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Page,
The following miscellaneous correspondence was filed and/or
referred to the various departments as indicated below:
Letter dated 1/10/91 to Chairman, Board of County
Commissioners; from Michael W. Dentzau, Environmental
Manager, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation; re
Collier County - WRR, File No. 111911035, Big Cypress
National Preserve. xc: Neil Dotrill, Bill Lorenz, Frank
Brutt, and filed re dredge & fill activities.
2J
Letter dated 1/1§/91 to Michael K. Arnold, Utilities
Administrator; from Phtltp R. Edwards, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation; re
Collier County - PW, Copeland Water and Sewer Company AKA Lee
Cypress Water and Sewer Co-Op Inc., PWS ID 5110058. xc:
Nell Dorrtll, Frank Brutt, and filed.
Memo dated 1/11/91 to Florida Counties and Cities; from Don
W. Berryhill, P.E., Chief, Bureau of Local Government
Wastewater Financial Assistance, Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation; re Fiscal Year 1992 Revolving Loan
Priority List. xc: Nell Dotrill, Mike Arnold,
and filed.
Memo dated 1/10/91 to local Governments and Interested
Parties; from Don W. Berryhill, P.E., Chief, Bureau of Local
Government Wastewater Financial Assistance, Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation; re State Revolving
Loan Program Rules. xc: Neil Dotrill, Mike Arnold, and
filed.
5e
Letter w/standard form application dated 1/10/91 to
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners; from Trudte D.
Bell, Environmental Supervisor, Wetland Resource Regulation,
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation; re File No.
111911599, Southfield Farms Ltd. xc: Neil Dotrill, Frank
Brutt, Bill Lorenz, and filed.
6e
Notice of Permit Issuance dated 1/16/91 from Philip R.
Edwards, Deputy Assistant Secretary, South Florida District,
State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation; re
Collier County - WRR, DER File No. 111898935. xc: Neil
Dotrill, Frank Brutt, Bill Lorenz, and filed.
Letter dated 1/10/91 to Collier County Board of County
Commissioners; from Tony McNeal, Engineer, Bureau of Coastal
Engineering and Regulation, Florida Department of Natural
Resources; re Request for Public Comment File Number:
C0-300, Applicant: Curt J. and Carol J. Richter. xc: Neil
Dorrill, Frank Brutt, Bill Lorenz, and filed.
~ OOOPAG[ 88 Page 54
January 29, 1991
10.
Memo dated 1/11/91 to Clerk of the Collier County Board of
County Commissioners; from Thomas G. Cannon, Chairman, East
Naples Fire Control and Rescue District; re Annual Schedule
of Regular Meetings and Workshops. xc: Filed.
Letter dated 1/17/91 to Collier County Board of County
Commissioners; from John Charles Beekin, Attorney at Law; re
Collier County Road 951, Project No. 560. xc: Neil Dorrtll,
Steve Camell, John Yonkosky, Ken Cuyler, and filed.
Memo dated 1/11/91 to Parties of Record; from Kelly A.
Tucker, Florida Land and Water AdJudtcatory Commission; re
Case No..APP-90-016, Regency Village Development Regional
Impact. xc: Filed.
11. Minutes Received and Filed:
12.
13
14.
15.
Ae
Collier County Homeless Advisory Committee Minutes,
dated 11/14/90 and 1/9/91; and Agenda, dated 12/13/90
and 2/20/91.
Be
Marco Island Beachfront Renourlshment Advtsory
Committee Minutes, dated 10/3/90, corrected copy; and
1~/?/9o.
Marco Island Beauttftcatton Advlsoy Committee Minutes,
dated 10/2/90, corrected copy; 11/6/90; and Special
Meeting Minutes dated 11/20/90, corrected copy.
Big Cypress Basin Board of the South Florida Water
Management District Agenda, dated 1/25/91.
Preliminary Notice dated 1/14/91 from Denise J. Walker,
Southeastern Municipal Supply, A Division of Clayton Group,
Inc., to BCC and Better Roads, Inc. advising that they have
furnished water, sewer, drainage pipes and other related
materials; under an order given by T & S Utilities, Inc.;
for "Placid Lakes" C.R. 951, 4-lining improvements Junction
23rd Ave. S.W. to Golden Gate Blvd.; Bid #89-1508. xc: Nell
Dotrill, Steve Camell, John Yonkosky, and filed.
Notice to Owner dated 1/18/91 from Irene Oliver, Ajax Paving
Industries, Inc. of Florida; to H. D. Rutledge & Sons, Inc.
and the BCC advising that they have furnished asphalt
materials, equipment, trucking and labor; under an order
given by Carter Contracting; for the Collier County Health
m Public Services Building; Bid #88-1301. xc: Nell Dotrill,
Steve Camell, John Yonkosky, and filed.
Notice of Hearing dated 1/10/91 to All Investor-o~ned
Electric and Gas Utilities and all other interested persons;
from Steve Trtbble, Director Division of Records and
Reporting, Florida Public Service Commission; re Docket No.
910001-EI, Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause with
Generating Performance Incentive Factor; Docket No.
910002-EG, Conservation Cost Recovery Clause; and Docket No.
910003-GU, Purchased Gas Cost Recovery Clause. xc: Neil
Dotrill, Mike Arnold, and filed.
Budget Transfer/Amendment dated 12/11/90, from Guy L.
Carlton, Collier County Tax Collector. xc: Netl Dotrill,
Budget, John Yonkosky, and filed.
Page 55
January 29, 1991
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 5:40 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
u ·: ~ <~-'7. , -' PATRICIA ANNE GOOD}
,
'
88
Page 56