The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 02/13/1990 R Naples, Florida,, February 13, 1990 LET IT BE REME~.;BERED, that the Board of County Commissioners ~n and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special dlstrlcts as have been created according to ]aw and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REOULAR BE&SION ~n Bulldlng "F" of the Govornment Comp]ex, East Nap]au, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr. Michael J. Volpe Richard S. Shanahan Burr L. Saunderm Anne Goodntght ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkcsky, Finance Director; Ellte Hoffman and Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerks; Nell Dorrlll, County Manager; Thomas O1]iff and Jennifer Pike, Assistants to the County Manager; Ken Cuyle~., County Attorney; Gaol'Ge Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator; Bob B]anchard, Comprehensive Planning Manager; William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; Kenneth Baglnskl, Planning Services Manager; Russell Shreeve, Housing Urban imp~'ovements Director; Ronald Nlno, P!;~Jlp Scheff, Robert Lord, Ron Lee, and William Hoover, Planners; Sue Fllson, Administrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Tomltnson, Sheriff's Office. Page February 13, 1990 T&$~ #1 Item #S AGENDA ~ CONSENT AGE A - APPROVED W TH~~ Comteatonsr Shanahmn moved, seconded by Commtsltonsr Vol~ and carried unanimously, that the agenda and consent ag.nd& bm approved with the following changes: 1. Item 9A4 - Sponsorship of Carnival - Request for Permit - Added, (requested by Staff), 2. Item 9El - Discussion of Marco Island Airport - Added, {requested by Commissioner Shanahen). 3. Item gH2 - Fiscal Year lg9! Budget Policy - Continued to 2/20/90 (~equested by Staff). 4. Item 9}{3 - Discussion regarding Consultant Selection Interviews (Utilities Projects), Added (reque~ted by Staff). 5. Move Item 14D1 - St. Andrew Square, Maintenance Bond and Maintenance Bonds, General - Gontlnued (requested by Staff). Item #& ~I]~FTE~ OF BGC WORKSHOP OF JANUARY 15, 1990 AND BCC I~GU~ M~TING O~ J~Y 16~ 1990 - APpROVeD AS PRESENTED Co---tssioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Comissionsr Ooodntght and carried unanimously, that the minutes of the BCC Workshop of January 15, 1990, and the BCe Regular meeting of January 16, 1990, approved a~ presented. Item #S& EI~PLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Commissioner Hasse congratulated and thanked the following employees for their service ~,ith Collier County Government, and pre- sented them with Employee Service Awards: Donald Wheeler, Solid Waste - 15 years Ted C. Brtcker, Road and Bridge - 5 years PROCLA~tATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 18, 1990 THROUGH ~BROARY 24 1990 AS ENGINEERING WEEK - ADOPTED Upon reading of the proclamation, Commissioner Saundere moved. seconded by Coutsstoner Volpe and carried unanimously, that the proclaatatlon designating the .eek of February 18, 1990 through Iebruary 2&0 1990, as Engineering Week, be adopted. 0001 Page 2 February 13, 1990 Commissioner Saunders presented the proclamation to Water Management Director Boldt, 00(112 Page 3 February 13o 1990 Item #6B1 01'U)XNA~CI 90-12 RE PITXTION R-89-27, HXLLXAH R. VXN*g$, ! COUNTRYC~UB, XN.__~N_~_,C. R~ZONg I~.OH "aC" ~ "S "- - Legal notice having been publlRhed In the Napl,,~ Daily News on January ~5, ~990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publ%cat~on filed w~th the Clerk, public hearing wa~ opened to consJde~ an ordinance amend!ng Ordinance 8~-~, The Comprehe~%s~ve Zoning Regulations fo~ the untncom- porated a~ea of Collier County, Florida, by amending the official zoning atlas map number 48-~6-4 by changing the zoning classiflcat~on f~om "GC" to "RSF-~" for zoning boundary l~ne co~'~ect~ons of the herein described propemty ]ocated on the north ~lde o~' Immokalee Road (State Road 846), approxlmately 1/2 m~le east of 1-75 ~n Sectlon.~?, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, cup, tanning 316.0~ acre~, more less. Petition R-89-2?/W~]]lam R. Vlnes/V~ne8 and Associates, Inc., ~ep~esent~ng Quail Creek Country Club, Inc. Planne~ Hoover advised that the purpose of the proposed rezone to make m~nor ~.~justments to the boundary lines where the ~olf course abuts the s~ngle-fam~ly homesttes. He ~ndlcated that 15 nam~ow strips of land will be rezoned from the golf course to the single-family pro- pe~t~es, and noted that thls land ~s in excess of the needs of the golf course. Mr. Hoove~ stated that Staff feels that the subject ~ezon~ng have no ~mpact on the plan, and ~s consistent with the G~owth Management Plan. He explained that the Co]l~e~ County P],~nn~ng Comm~ssion held their public .~ear~ng on January 18, ~990, and unani- mously recommend approval of th~s petition. He reported that one son spoke In oppos~tlon to th~s petlllon and expressed disappointment that her homeslte was not one which would be expanded by the excess st~ps of land. M~. W~ll~am R. V~nes, of V~nes and Associates, Inc., t~m Petitioner, advised that .~ddlt/on~[ ]utm will not bm created. He noted that several of the ex~stJng lots w~ll be Increased Jn size by the transfer of the excess strip of former golf course land to the Page 4 00O14 February 13, 1990 single-family lots. There were no speakers. Conniseloner $hanahan aoved, seconded by Connifmioner Ooodnight and carried u~animoumly, that the public hearing b~, clomed. Co--iesioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Co~ais,JAoner Goodnight and carried unanimously, that the Ordinance aa numbs,red and titled belo~ b~ adopted and entered into Ordinance Book No. 38: ORDINANCE 90-12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDIN~ ORDINANCE 82-2, THE COMPREI{ENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIHR COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER 48-26-4 BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM "GC" TO "RSF-2" FOR ZONING BOUNDARY LINE CORRECTIONS OF THE H~REIN DE~CRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (STATE ROAD 846), APPROXIMATELY 1/2 MILE EAST OF ~-75 IN SECTION ]7, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONTAINING 316.O! ACRES, MORE OR LESS~ AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Xtea P~TXTXOR ZO-89-2~, AN ORDINANCE A~I~DING TRE CO~Plt~ll~R$XVE ZONING R~GULATIORS, SECTION 8~ RE O~-STREET PARKING - DENIED Legal not,ce hnvinG been published in ~he Naples Daily News on December 19, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publicatlo~ filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance 82-2, The Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the unincor- porated area of Collier County, Florida, by amendAnG Section 8. Supplementary District Regulations, Sub-section 8.12d, O~f-Stre~t Parking: location, to add provisions that prohibit direct access ~o private drives from parkinG lot spaces or in the alternative requlr~ design standards: by providin~ f ~r conflict and severabllity, and by providing for an effective date. Petition ZO-89-2§/Community Development D~v~on/P]anninu Planner Nino stated that this item ia ~enerated by Plannin~ Services Staff in response to concerns that the language in Ordinance 82-2 is unclear and could be interpreted to prohibit vehicles from backing out of parking lots into private streets and driveways. He said ~hat after evaluatinG this Issue, it is the feeling o~ Staff that the proposed ordinance is s Good one, since It does prohibit accessing Page 5 O0015 February 13, 1990 parking lots directly from a major project thoroughfare, either a street or a driveway. Mr. Ntno advised that this matter was heard by the Planning Commission, and was unanimously rejected. He reported that addi- tionally, representatives of the engineering and d~velopment com- munities are also opposed to the ordinance. Mr. Ntno Indicated that it is the opinion of St~ff that common sense would indicate that backing out directly into a project thoroughfare will create a traffic problem. He noted that many pro- Jects in Collier County have the intent of this ordlllance in effect, and noted that they look nicer, they have a higher quality charac- teristic, and they are safer proJect~ In wh!~h to circumnavigate. Commissioner Volpe questioned what prompted Staff to suggest the proposed revision to the existing ordinance? Mr. Nlno replied that during the past six months there have been a number of projects that contain driveways which really are private straets, and ~roposed parking conflgarations which would cause th~ vehicles to back out onto the private streets. He explained that Staff believes that this Is a cause for traffic conflicts and projects ]ess than the ideal quality that is essential to the goals of Collier County's developmelxt. Commissioner Hasse questioned whether this ordinance applies only to commercial projects? Mr. Ntno advised that the proposed ordinances addresses residential, commercial or industrial projects that a multiple of buildings accessed by a common parking lot a~d cot~mo~? thoroughfares. Commissioner Saunders asked why the CCPC was unanimously opposed to Staff's recommendation? Planning services Manager Baginskl replied that the CCPC felt that the ordinance would result in increased coats of development and this would affect the efforts to provide affordable housing. He noted that there were discussions regarding waivers for aflordable houslng project~, but it was then felt if waivers would be granted for those projects, why should other housing projects be sub- Jected to comply with the ordinance. 00016 Page 6 February 13, 1990 Commissioner Saunders indicated that recommendations have been made to waive various fees for affordable housing, but noted that safety oriented features are never waived. Mr. Baginski stated that part of the debate hinges on the the definition in the Zoning Ordinance as to what const[tutes a street or private drive. He said that Jf the definition of private streets were changed, there could be a set of universal codes to not allow direct access or parking off the rights-of-way. Mr. Alan Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Sol?. & Peek, Inc., stated that he feels that this ordinance is an exampl~ of a solution looking for a problem. He noted that the stated purpu, se of the ordi- nance is to improve safety and to improve aesthetics. He said that there is no data to support the safety issue, and this was one of the CCPO's primary concerns. He explained that the ordinance requires that in certain instances, the width of driveway isles ar;d parklng areas are to be expanded, so there is a line of sight to see the traffic movement. He indicated that the driveway width will be increased from 24' to 40', and people will be driving faster since there is the feeling of safety from the wider, unobstructed cc. rl'tdor. He noted that he does not feel that this ordinance support~ tP ? con- cern of safety. He remarked that the additional pavement will r~quire more clearing and fill, and less open space and these things do not improve the aesthetics of a project. Mr. Reynolds explained th ~t a typical 40 acre multi-family project with the proposed required paving area would result in an additional $600 per unit, or about $300,000 for the entire project. He noted that the cost per unit would increase in a lower density project. He stated that since this is a case where it cannot be demonstrated that there is a real safety Issue, it is not appropriate to try to regulate further a design scenario which is already very well regulated, and as a result, he indicated that he Is opposed to the proposed ordinance. Commissioner ¥olpe questioned how the proposed ordinance will improve the aesthetics of a project? Mr. Nlno replied that the Page 7 February 13, 1990 diagram as provided in the ordinance demonstrates that there will be a tree well every 12 parktng spaces minimum. Mr. George Mellen, of William C. McAnly & Associates, suggested that the aesthetic aspect, as propo~ed by Mr. Nlno, be discounted. He noted that the what is being discussed is tile ln"~ernal aesthetics of a project being constructed by a developer who hires a landscape architect, who's sole Job Is to make the project appealing for sales. With regard to safety, he Indicated that these are s~lf contained residential or commercial developments, and these drives are solely for the use of the residents and the guests, who will modify their own driving patterns based on the schedule of people comt[~g and going. He noted that there is a lot of heavy traffic In commerct~l parking lots, with many out of town drivers who are unfamiliar with the surroundings, but people ad,pt themselves to be on the look-out for these kinds of things. He stated that the problem that he has with the ordinance is that it addresses very carefully the definition of a street, but noted that Illustration #1 has no p~ovtsions to interpret a divided roadway system. He said that the number of trips per day that are 9anerated by a project is meaningful, but this should be at the Judgement of the design professional, and therefore, he recommends denial of th(~ pro- posed ordinance. Mr. Robert Duane of Hole, Montes m Associates, Inc., stated the proposed ordinance would have an impact on open space. He noted that currently there is the ~qulrement for 60% open space tn all zoning districts, and the ordinance will require more areas to be placed in parking areas. Mr. Marlo LaMendola stated that he is neither for or against the proposed ordinance, but noted that many of his project are smaller and involve single buildings and single lots. He said that he Is con- cerned about an In and out street with a 24' drive, and 90' parking on either side, and questioned when this is considered a public thorough- fare in a commercial project7 Transportation Services Administrator Archibald advised that Staff Page 8 February 13, 1990 is attempting to address a serious concern relative t:o a roadway and parking maneuvers that may conflict with thru moved,ants on that road- way. He explained that the intent of 600 trip ends Is a good basis In which to start, and noted that any roadway with 600 trap an,Is has suf- ficient traffic which will conflict with the backln!; maneuvers. He reported that from a design standpoint it makes good sense to address those backing maneuvers, the site distance, and the recovery zones In a policy. In answer to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Archibald explained that trap ends are traveled trips on the thoroughfare from which the backing maneuvers have to compete for space. Mrs. Charlotte Westman, representing the LeaOue of Women Voters tn Collier County, noted that It appears that Staff considers this as a valuable ordinance to be put in place. She noted that 'ihs purpose of the amended ordinance is to improve circulation and density tn resi- dential projects, and commercial projects. She explained that the League supports good Governmental procedures, etc., and this ordinance ~s one the Commission should approve. She said that ordinal%cas are not set in stone, and they can be amended, if problems are discovered at a later date. In answer to Commissioner Vo]pe, Mr. Nlno advised that th~ ordi- nance does not apply to single-family residences. There were no other speakers. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodntght and carried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Mr. Nlno called attention to Page 2 of the ordinance and noted that "...does not exceed five hundred (500) feet in length or the in~lvidual buildings have the potential for generating more than 600..." should be changed to "less than 600". Commissioner Goodnlght stated that after reading this ordinance, she has concerns with the sentence that reads: "Exceptions may be granted by the Community Development Administrator, or his designee, for low and moderate income housing projects as defined in this 00(} 1.9 Page 9 February 13, 1990 Ordinance." She noted that If there Is a safety a:~pect, these are the people who need safety the most. She said that th¢,~e types of pro- Jects will have the most vehicles In their parking lots. Commissioner Saunders Indicated that if the Commission hakes a finding that a certain type of parking arrangement is safe, and should be Imposed throughout the County, and then that requirement is waived for low and moderate Income housing, he questioned whether the County would have potential liability for damages which may occur due to that safety requirement being waived? County Attorney Cu¥1er indicated that there may be the possibility of liability, but this would depend on whether this Is classified as achieving optimum safety, as opposed to bare minimum safety considerations. Commissioner Saunders explained that he is not prepared to waive safety requirements simply to promote certain types of t~ousing, and noted that based on what he has heal'd, he does not feel ~hat there ts a safety problem since these are private drives. Commissioner Volpe stated that he does not feel that a specific finding is being made as to safety, and that by excluding lc,w and moderate housing that ftndin~ of fact is violated. He said that when an ordinance ts enacted it ts tn the public health, safety, an,! general welfare. He noted that tills Is a planning too] to redu.~e the possibility of conflict in vehicular movements. Co,missioner Volpe moved, seconded by Contlsloner Halle, to mpprov~ Petition Z0-89-25, a~anding Ordinance 82-2, to mdd provisions that prohibit direct access t:~ private drives from parking lot spaces or In the alternative require design standards. Upon call for the question, the motion failed 2/3 (Coutsstonere Shmnmhmn, maunders and Ooodnlght opposed). ese.e Recess: 10:30 A.M. - Reconvened: 10:40 A.M. et which time Deputy Clerk Kenyon replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffmmn PETITION R-89-9, DR. NENO J. SPAGNA, REPRESENTING DONALD O. CANNAN, REOUESTING A REZONE FROH ~E~ ESTATES AND PUD TO PUD ~NOWN AS RANDALL BLVD. CENTER TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF A PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER TO BE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANDALL BLVD., EAST OF BIO CORKSCREW ISLAND F~RE AND RESCUE STATION - DEHIED Page 10 February 13, 1990 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on January 25, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition R-89-9, flied by Dr. Neno Sl)auna, r-t)r,~s~nt lng Donald G. Carman, requesting a rezone from "E" Estates and PUD to PUD known as Randall Boulevard Center, for a commercial shoppin9 center, containing approximately 50,250 square feet of gross flonr area, located south of Randall Boulevard, Just east of the BI9 Corkscrew Island Fire and Rescue Station, and is further described as the east 180 feet of Tract 71 of Unit 23, Golden Gate Estates, the west 150 feet of Tract 71 of [Init 23, Golden Gate Estates, and the east 1/2 of Tract 54 ,)f Unit 23, Golden Gate Estates, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and consisting of 7.5 acres, more or less. Planner Scheff stated that the current Randall Blvd. Center PUD will allow construction of 21,000 square feet of gross area and is comprised of approximately 5 acres and the proposed rezone would increase the center by 29,250 square feet of Qross floor ar~)a and add 2-1/2 acres to the total site. He indicated that surround/ny lands are undeveloped with scattered trees, notin~ that Orangetree PUD is located further to the north across Randall Blvd. He indicated that Staff has found this petition to be inconsistent with the Futur~? Land Use Element and the Sanitary Sewer sub-element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. He stated that commercial development is allowed in the Estates distrl¢t providinG certain criteria are met, notlng that Petition R-89-9 is inconsistent with this criteria in two respects; the proposed project Is 2-]//2 acres oI' less in size and the project Is no closer than five miles to the nearest developed commer- cial area, zoned commercial area or designated activity center measured by a radial distance. He stated that this request would add 2-1/2 acres in commercial to 5.15 acres of presently existing commer- cial and this petition is located within one mile of the Oran~etree PUD which includes 22 acres of commercial land uses and is within 4 miles of G's General Store #l which is zoned C-2 and consists of O00al Page 11 February 13, 1990 approximately 2 acres, He Indicated that with regards to the sanitary sewer sub-element, the County Attorney provided assistance and clari- fication of this matter. He indicated that since the proposed rezone is for a parcel of property outside the designated urban area of the Future Land Use Element of the Comp~'ehenslve Plan and in an area where the County has no legal commitment to provide facilities or service as of the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Count%~ is not authorized to approve the additional rezone of land l~o be served by the expanded private package plant. He indicated that the approval of either a new private package plant or the approval of additional ]and uses which necessitate the expansion of a private package plant out- side the urban area would result in non-compliance wit%% the Growth Management Plan. He indicated that Staff did recommend denial of this petition, but the CCPC unanimously recommended approval sub3sct to all the staff stipulations. He indicated that at the CCPC h~'aring, two people spoke in favor of this petition. He stated that sfnce the CCPC hearing, the Petitioner has revised the PUD master plan to include 287 parking spaces instead of 224 parking spaces. He stated that the Petitioner also proposes to add the following language to the PUD document in order to allow for flexibility of the design of thu pro- posed commercial shopping center shown as the PUD master plan: "Design changes tn the location of a structure, road, ingress/egr~ss, off-street parking/loading or other required Improvements shown on the Master Plan is permitted provided such changes comply with all of the applicable County Regulations {nd are approved by the Planning Services Manager." He stated that also subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the Petitioner requested that the well for potable water supply that would be used to serve the proposed project be located on either adjacent property that the Petitioner owns to the south or the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Rescue District site located to the west. He stated that the language that Is proposed to be added to the PUD master plan is as fn]]ows: "At the option of the Petitioner, a well may be located on Tract 55, Unit 23, Golden Gate Estates which is 00O%'2 Page 12 February 13, 1990 owned by the Petitioner. The location of said well on Tract 55 shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Only the well shall be located on Tract 55. The water treating facilities shall be located on the shopping center site. 2. The Petitioner (and owner 3f Tract 5§) agreed to record an easement on Tract 55 providing for the main- tenance of said well. 3. Said easement shall be in perpetuity so long as the well is being used as a potable water source for the shopping center. In the alternative, the well may b~, located on the west 1/2 of Tract 54, Unlt 23, Golden Gate Estates, subject to a mutual agreement with the Big Corkscrew Island Fire R~,scue District; and, in comp/lance with all applicable County and State Regulations." He stated that based on past interpretation, accessory uses, such as potsble water supply wells, must be placed on property zoned the same designation as the permitted principal use, adding that ~tnce both properties on which the well is being considered for cons'tructton ts zoned Estates, those properties should not be used for accessory uses in association with the proposed commercial shopping center since the proposed rezontng is to Randall Boulevard Center PUD. He concluded by stating that the CCPC recommendation Is that the BCC approve Petition R-89-9 subject to the CCPC stipulations, and the additional requests proposed by the Petitioner that ts described above. Commissioner Volpe questioned if the existing Randall Boulevard Center PUD is Inconsistent with the Future [.and Use Element, to which Planner Scheff replied affirmatively. Mr. Scheff stated that uncer the 1989 Growth Management Plan, Randall Blvd. Center PUD ~s inconsistent and Is subject to the vesting criteria ordinance. He noted that the objective of the Petitioner Is to add the 2-1/2 acres to the 5 acres already zoned PUD to create a larger PUD, all of which is Inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan In the opinion of Staff. In answer to Commissioner Volpe's question regarding the vote of the CCPC, Mr. Scheff stated that the Petitioner's representative put forth the argument this site should be ruled by the 1983 Comprehensive O0023 Page 13 February 13, 1990 Plan rather than the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, notir~g that the CCPC agreed with this basis which Js why they recommended approval. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler stated that he looked at one aspect of the petition that dealt with the sewage treatment plant and he found it tc~ be inconsistent with the Plan. He stated that in order to serve the addttion.%l 2-1/2 acres, the sewage treatment plant would have to be increased, which would be incons~stent with the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Neno Spagna, representing the Petitioner, rea.~ a prepared sta- tement ~egarding Petition R-89-9 which ~s appended. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Dr. Spagna Indic&ted that according to the DNR there is no reason that the well cmnnot be put on the subject property, but they would still like to have the latitude to use the other two tracts that were mentioned. Commissioner Volpe questioned if a market analysis wa~ done on this property, to which Dr. Spagr~a rep]~{~c] negatively, lie indicated that a contract has been sl~ned fo~' a uasoline station at tke site. There was a discussion regarding whether the 1983 Comp~ehensive Plan or the 1989 Comprehensive Plan should apply to tht~ p~i~!on with Dr. Spagna's opinion being that portions of both plans should a~ply. Mr. George Keller, President of the Collier County Civic Federation, stated that wh~le he served on the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan Committee it was indicated that this property should be considered commercial in-fill, noting that the Petitioner is adding an additional 2-1/2 acc-es tn order to make the project financially feasible. He noted that the Pe%itioner has an anchor store for this project which will be compatible with tbs area. He indicated that there are no obJect~ons from [he neighbors and the CCPC unanimously recommended approval. He stated that this Is a project that Is needed in this area and will aesthetically Improve the area. Mr. Duane BilltnGton, resident of Go]den Gate Estates, stated that the Petitioner is prov~dinG ail the infrastructure that is needed and the area is no longer cornp~tible for residential. He stated that the 000 4 Pa~. ]4 February 13, 1990 committee that has been working on the master plan for this area favor of this project and he would request that th~, BCC approve this petition. Commissioner Volpe stated that thi, project can be developed under the approved 1986 PUD, adding that the additional 2-.1/2 acres Is going to make the project more economically feasible. He stated that this will benefit the people in the area. Dr. SpaGna stated that money ts needed for the e~tlre project and in order to Get the financing, he need~ the 7-1/~ ac~'es together. C~leelone~ S&u~dere moved, eeconded by Co~m~ee]o~e~ Goo~r~gh~ ~,~d car~ed m~an~moual¥, that the ~b~lc hearing ~ cloeed. Commissioner GoodnlGht stated that the Orangetree PUD Is Going have a commercial area and neac that, there will be a multi-family area which ~s the criteria for an activity center. Sh~ noted that there ts also a ~tre station and a forestry station that Is within this area as well as the County Fairgrounds and the County property that will probably house County facilities In the near futu?~. She Indicated that she feels that there Is .~ ne~d for this area, lrregard]ess if It Is tn compliance with the Growth Management Plan. She noted that this developer is Going to provide the nec:essl- ties for the travelers as well as providing water and sewer ~o~~ the fire station. She indicated that she is very much In favor of petition. C~O~ Goo~igh~ m~ 'ed, ~econded by Co~tmmionmr to ~ ~tit~on R-89-9, R~da~ Boulevard Cant~r PUD ~ion. Commissioner Saunders stated that the 1989 Comprehensive Plan applies and the appropriate way to obtain approval of this petition to amend the Comprehensive Plan. }{e stated that this project cannot be approved without Going through the procedures that have been established. He indicated that this project may be beneficial to the community, but the appropriate p~ocess should be followed. He noted that the County Attorney has determined that this project is Incon- sistent with the Comprehensive Plan and questioned If It wou~d be Page Febru&r¥ 13, 1990 appropriate for this project to be reviewed as a Comprehensive Plan amendment prior to consideration by the BCC, to which County Attorney Cuyler replied affirmatively. Mr. Cuyler stated that there are two inconsistencies; t;'~e sewer system and the land use element. He noted that the Plan will be changed sometime in the near future, but the current regulations do not permit such a petition. Commissioner Volpe stated that he has the same ccncerns as Commissioner Saunders, noting that he would like to a.pprove this peti- tion but he does not want to violate the Growth management process. He stated that this may be premature at this time. Upon call for tho question, the motion failed 3/2, (Commissioner $&undora mhd Yelps opposed). February 13, 1990 ORDINAI~CE 90-13 RE PETITION NO. ZO-90-2, CO~94UNITY D~VELOPMNJ~T DIV., RE AN ~ TO THE COLLIER COUNTY ZONING ORDIN~tNCE 82-2° BY AliE~DING ALL PHRASES IN ORDINANCE 82-2 WHICH STATE "IN SECTION 8.31" ANI) REPLACING THOSE PHRASES WITH "THE COLLIER COUIfrY SIGN ORDINANCE 89-60", AND REMOVING SIGN DEFINITIONS FROM SECTION 20 - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally ';ews on January 25, 1990, as evidenced by Affldavit of Public:etlon filed with the Clerk, public hearing was cpened to consider Petition No. Z0-90-2, filed by Community Development Division, requesting an amendment to the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2, by amending all phrases In Ordinance 82-2 which state "In Section 8.31" and repYaclng those phra- ses with "The Collier County Sign Ordinance 89-60" and removing sign definitions from Section 20. Planner Hoover stated that the purpose of this amendment Is to change references to signs throughout the current zonln:] ordinance, noting that where the ordinance refers the rea,tot to Section 8.31 it will now refer the reader to the SIGn Ordinance 89-60. H~ stated that this will also delete sign definitions from Section 20 the zoning ordinance, addinG that these minor changes were overlooked when Section 8.31 was repealed from the zonln~ ordinance and becamo Its own independent ordinance. He noted that the no one spoke In oppoilitlon to this petition at the CCPC meetinG and was it unanimously , acom-- mended for approval. Co~tssionmr Saundare moved, seconded by Couleetoner Goo~ltght ~nd cma'ried unmnimoualy, that the public hearing be closed. Commissioner }lasso questioned if all the billboards that are appearing on the sides of %h~ ~'oads are permitted, to which Community Development Services Administrator Brutt stated that he would get with Commissioner Hasse and then look Into any signs that are identified. Com~lssioner Saundere moved, seconded by Coutsetoner Shmnahmn and cvrl~d uz~tnimouel¥, that the Ordinance as numbered and titled below be adopted and entered into Ordinance Book No. 38: ORDINANCE 90-13 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER ~-~, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED ARE OF COLLIER COUNTY BY AMENDING SECTION 7 SCHEDUI.E OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, SUBSECTIONS Page February 13, 1990 7.6 GC - GOLF COURSE DISTRICT, 7.7 RO - RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, 7.8 A-I AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, 7.g A'-2 RURAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT, 7.10 E ESTATES DISTRICT, 7.11 RSF RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMII.Y DISTRICTS, 7,12 MRF-4 RESIDENTIAL HULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT, 7.13 RMF-12 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT, 7.14 RMF-16 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT, 7.15 RT RESIDENTIAL TOURIST DISTRICT, 7.16 VR VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, 7.17 MHSD MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION DISTRICT, 7.18 MHRP MOBILE HOME RENTAL PARK DISTRICT, 7.20 C-1 COMMERCIAL P,(OFESSIONAL DISTRICT, 7.21 C-2 COMMERCIAl. CONVENIENCE DISTRICT, 7.22 C-3 COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT, 7.23 C-4 COMMERCIAl, GENERAL DISTRICT, 7.24 C-5 COMMERCIAI, INDUSTRIAL DISTRICt, 7.24.1 C-6 COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL IN,ILL DISTRICT, 7.25 IL INDUSTRIAL LIGHT DISTRICT, 7.26 I INDt;5~;~IAL DISTRICT, 7.27 PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, TO DELETE ALL REFERENCES TO "SECTION 8.31" AND REPLACING THOSE REFERENCES WITH REFERENCES TO "COLLIER COUNTY SIGN ORDINANCE NUMBER 89-60": BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 7.19, TTRVC TRAVEL TRAILER RECREATIONAI, VEHICLE CAMPGROUND PARK DISTRICT TO ADD NEW SUBSECTION 7.19d. TO REGULATE SIGNAGE IN SAID DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WIT}{ THE COL[.IER COUNTY SIGN ORDINANCE NO. 89-60: DELETING SIGN DEFINITIONS FROM SECTION 20, DEFINITIONS; BY PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. I%E$OLU~IOH 90-65 RE PETITION S~P-89-16, 3HFFHRY NUNN~R (IF HOLE, NONTE$ & ~lA~S, ~S~ING A~ON JOI~ ~lE, ~ SUS~HISIOI ~ ~ ~~ ~R A~N C0~Y CL~ ~CT E, O~ ~ ~T SIDE OF V~BILT DRI~ ~ SO~ OF THE LEE C0~ LI~ - A~D Legal notice having been publlshed in the Napless Dally News on January 28, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition SMF-89-16, filed by Jeffery Nunner of Hole, Montes & Associates, represe~.ttng Audubon Joint Venture, requesting Subdivision Master Plan approval for Audubon Country Club Tract E, for property located on the east s3de of Vanderbilt Drive and approximately one-quarter (1/4) mile south of ~he Lee County Border in Section 9, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, con- slating of 6.78 acres. Planner Lord stated that the purpose of this petition is to obtain subdivision master plan approval in order to subdivide the 6.78 acre tract Into 22 lots and to develop them as single-family housing. He noted that Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objections sub- Ject to the stipulations contained In the staff report. He noted that there was no public comment for or against this petition at the CCPC hea~lng and they unanimously recommended approval. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Co~tmmloner ~oodntght 000[ P&g~ 18 ~'mbru~ry 13, 1990 ·nd c~rrt~d un~ntmouml¥, th&t the public hearing be clomsd. Commissioner Volpe stated that Whitney Lane and Vanderbilt Drive are next to each other and questioned what 1~ separating the two roads, to which Planner Lord stated that there is a 75 foot landscaped buffer between the road and the right-of-way of Vanderbllt i;rive. Commissioner Volpe stated that there are plans to widen Vanderbtlt Drive and questioned when this is done will there be any separation between Vanderbtlt Drive and Whitney Lane, to which Mr. 3elf Nunner of Hole, Montes & Associates stated that the 25 foot ri!Iht-of-way allows for the widening of Vanderbllt Drive. Mr. George Hermanson of Hole, Montes & Associates stated that the additional right-of-way required for the wid.ning of V,lnderbllt Drive has already been dedicated to the County, adding that when Unit One of Audubon Country Club was recorded, it added 25 feet of right-of-way on the east side. He stated that the 25 foot buffer ts measured from the new right-of-way which means that there Is the original Vanderbtlt Drive right-of-way, plus the addition, plus 25 feet of buffer. Commissioner Volpe quesiloned if there would be access from Lot 22 onto Vanderbllt Drive, to which Planner Lord replied nGgattvel~{, adding that all access will be onto Whitney Lane. Co~l~loner Volpe ~d, seconded ~ Co~lllionlr S~ and cvrl~ ~insly, that Resolution 90-65 re Petition S~-89-16 t;e ~cpt~ subject to the Petitioner's Agreement. j, Page 19 February 13, 1990 Om)I~Scl 9o-14 ~J~DI~G 0RDI~CZ .~-~5 AS A~NOZD - ~o~ ~c~ Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on January ~5, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearinG was opened to consider a proposed ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance 85-55 as amended, Road Impact Fees, by revising Development Fees, by revising provision- for Traffic Impact Statements, by addinG ~equl~ements for payment, and by pro- viding for an effective date. Transportation Services Admlnlstrato~ Archibald stated that this Item Is to consider the County Impact Fee Ordinance which Is Ordinance 85-55, addinG that there a~e a numbe~ of amendments that have been discussed and outlined In the agenda packet. He Indicated that the first major change is In the fee schedule, noting that they will be substantially Increased except for one case, where they will be reduced. He noted that clarification ts also beinG provided in the ordinance relative to collection of fees. He stated that there ts a detailed analysis on the submittal of traffic Impact stat-n~nts as well as an outline of the procedure on how this should be do[ ;~. He indicated that an affordable hollsln~ section has been added which has two major elements; an impact fee exemption, and an appllcatto~ for ~elmbursement. He noted that there is a provision in the ordinance for collection within the City as well as a revised district map. He stated that there ts a p~ovis~on to assu~e that excavations that a~e ~emovlng material from site comes unde~ this ordinance also. He noted that he Is proposing an effective date of March 1, 1990, which will be fo~ all permit applications submitted fl'om March 1, 1990, nottn~ that all the permits that are In the system o~ the permits that have been Issued will be grandfathered in under the existing ordinance and the existing fee structure. }{e noted that there are some corrections that need to be made to ~he Ordinance, noting that at the top of Page 6, one sentence was put In twice, therefore, one should be deleted. He Page 20 February 13, 1990 stated that on Page 19 of the Ordinance the Affordable Mousing section should be identified and he would request that this be Section Nine and then all other sections after that will be retitled. He Indicated that there are typoQraphlcal errors that also need to be corrected. County Attorney Cuyler stated that his office w~ll go over this document to be sure that It is correct, Mr. Archibald stated that the driving force behind the increase in the fees is the cost of constructing the roadways in Collier County, adding that when the fee system was established in 1985, the average fig,/re of $300,000 per lane mile was used, but the current cost for building a lane mile of road in Collier County Is now $647,000. He stated that as time goes on and the County becomes more urban]zed, the cost of acquiring rights-of-way will increase as well as the cost of constructing the roads. He indicated that gasoline taxes have been revised, noting that the tax has been reduced that applies to county road improvements which in turn has increased the fee, but a port]on of Federal gasoline tax has been added which reduced the fee. He noted that this will always change with time. He indicated th~Jt the trip generation rate utilized for all land uses has been taken, from the ITE manual, the Institute on Traffic Engineering, noting that there has been a reduction relative to capturing trips consiste~t with the ITE manual. Commissioner Saunders referred to a chart titled Background Computation of Proposed Road ['mpact Fees and stated that if the Impact fees are to be increased to what ts being recommended, the column that Is titled Less 15% should either be reduced by a certain amount or ~t should be eliminated. He referred to the column that is titled Gas Tax Credit and stated that fz'om a legal standpoint, he is not sure that this amount of gas ta× credit h~Js to be 91yen. He stated that if these two columns are dealt with, it could increase tile proposed fees to a level that more accurately reflects the actual cost of acquired rights-of-way and constructing roads in Collier County. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated that the Page 21 February 13, 1990 driving force behind the 15% reduction in the fee was to encourage use of the fee schedule rather than encouraging developers to use a traf- fic impact statement. He stated that the records indicate that more than 90% of the payers of impact fees are using the fee schedule because they are relatively low, adding that the BCC can take out the 15~ incentive for using that fee without any problem which would increase the fees for the County 15%. Commissioner Saunders questioned if Mr. Archibald feels that the gas tax credit column should be left the way It Is, to which Mr. Archibald stated that the gas tax credit column Is one that addresses County gas taxes which he would not recommend changing, but it also addresses State and Federal gas taxes and that may be an area that would be worth pursuing. He Indicated that one of the leading econo- mists has indicated that an ordinance should have in it a provision for giving a percentage of Federal gas tax and a percentage of the State gas tax to reflect the amount of dollars that are coming back to Collier County that are used for road improvements or improvements to the Infrastructure. Commissioner Saunders stated that he would suggest that the credit be eliminated which would mean that the Net Fee column ~ould be used as opposed to the Impact Fee column less the 15% column. He r~ferred to Page 22 of the proposed ordinance noting that there is reference to Appendix "A" for the definition of what is Affordable Housing for the exemption, bu~ ti~ere is no mechanism in the ordinance for the numbers to Increase automatically. County Attorney Cuyler stated that this would be handled tn the yearly review. Commissioner Volpe questioned if road impact fees are going to be collected within the City of Naples, to which Mr. Archibald stated that the City Is planning on adopting the County ordinance and collecting the fees and then developing a plan in accordance with the State or County to use those funds within the City for capacity lmpro- 00040 Page 22 February 13, 1990 vements. He indicated that if the County collected them, those dollars would still have to be used within the dlstrtct where they were collected. Commissioner Vo]pe stated that Goodlette-Frank Road is a County Road as well as Golden Gate Parkway and there are no Impact fees being collected presently in the City of Naples yet, those roads are being impacted. He stated that even if the City does adopt an ordinance, the County still has the obligation at the present time to maintain those roads. Mr. Archibald stated that the County will still have that obliga- tion tn the future under a functional classification system, noting that Staff will be checkinG with the City to see where they plan on using those dollars because they can only be used fo~' capacity impro- vements. He noted that whatever the City uses the funds [or would probably be the same thinG that the County would use the funds for, noting that if the City elects not to collect these fees, th,n the County would have to pursue collection. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald stated that the e~ffecttve date applies to application from March 1, 1990 on, I~otinG t~at any buildin9 permit or application underway would be gran$- fathered in. County Attorney Cu¥ler stated that there was an ordinance that was previously adopted that had an effective date immediately, and there were people in the process th ~t had not received their bu]ldinG permit and were required to pay a fee. He stated that if it is handled as it is written at this time, then as long as the application ts tn prior to March 1, 1990, then there is no Increased fee. He stated that this would re~olve a lot o~ problems that had previously arisen. He stated that the language concerning this matter is on Pa~e 11 o~ the proposed ordinance, notinG that he does hav~? a little problem with the interpretation of it. He stated that he would like to have some flexibility to change th~s language with the understanding that buildin~ permits a~e In the application process and applied for prior Page 23 00041 February 13, 1990 to March 1, 1990, they will continue through the process without having to pay an increase and applications after that date will be subject to the increase. Commissioner Volpe stated that he does not understand why the State should be e×empt from having to pay impact fees, to which Mr. Archibald stated that the rea] intent is to have the ability to recognize what the building improvement will be and what the service will be and then for the BCC to make a Judgement as to whether the impact fee would apply in that case. *** D~mty Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clerk Kenyon at thtm Mr. George Keller c¢)mm,~nt~)d that the people that are moving Into Col]ie~' County are the per~ons creating the problems, and they should be paying for same. He indicated that he feels that the proposed impact fees are not sufficient, and they should be higher than pro- posed in order to pay for future growth. He suggested that Staff con- duct a 2 months study to see what the shortfall in roads is, .:nd then determine who should be bearing that responsibility. Commissioner Volpe stated that when the 3otnt meeting was held with Lee County, there was a discussion relating to impact leos beinQ $~,700 on one side of Bonita Beach Road, and $600+ on the other side of the road. He questioned the disparity on the same road7 Mr. Archibald replied that many counties have numerous districts within their county, aud they compute specific data for those districts with different Impact fees for eac'~ district. He said that Collier County has both urban and rural districts, and those need~ vary. He indi- cated that there is credence in takinQ a look at those ten districts in the County, and determining whether or not an impact fee district specific is a good move or not. He affirmed that that same thought process can apply to the district which lies along the Collier/Lee boundary. He explained that Lee County's fees are district-wide, and they are driven from the urban roadways that they need. He noted that if Lee does something similar to what Collier County is planning on doing in the future In looking at district fees, their fees in the Page 24 February 13, 1990 southern part of their county may be different than those in the urba- nized area. He reported that the disparity on a district basis may not be as large as it appears from looking at the fees that are pre- sently in place. Attorney George Varnadoe called attention to Commissioner Volpe's comment relative to the difference in the impact fees of Collier County versus those of Lee County. He said that he does not want to have inadequate impact fees If they will defer development. He stated that there needs to be a policy decision as to whether these fees should be applied to the State roads. He noted that the Commission has always been fairly active in acquiring at no cost to the County, right-of-way which is adjacent to arterial or collector roads on the various projects. He noted that the ordinance should have a mechanism for acquisition costs, and credits against the impact fees. Mrs. Charlotte Westman, representing the League of Women Voters In Collier County, referred to Page 46 of the ordinance relatln~ to ren- tals for affordable housing, and questioned where the numbers came from7 County Attorney Cuyler advised that these figures are identical to those reflected in the Library and Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Ordinances. Mrs. Westman questioned the time span for a development to be cre- dited as "affordable housing"? Mr. Cuyler reported that the time span is 7 years. Mrs. Westman stated that ~he agrees with Commissioner Saunders suggestion of eliminating the 15% and to include it with the flli~g fees. She commented that ~he would like to see the investigation of gas taxes, and the equit~ble subject of same. She noted that growth and densities In Cc!3t,~' County have been escalating and there has been goodwill on the part of developers with regard to easements, etc. She indicated that she believes that the amended ordinance should be adopted. County Manager Dorrlll advised that Collier County charges $700 for water; $950 for sewer: an additional $420 for a two bath residen- 00O4 February 130 1990 ce; $414 for parks; $179 for libraries; and $730 for roach impact fees. He explained that the total ,impact fees are approximately $3,400, and these are some of tbs highest fees on the lower west coast of Florida. There were no other speakers. C~lsstoner Goodntght moved, seconded by Conismioner Sh~nahan m~d cmrrted ~t~usly, that the public hearing ~ closed. O~lsston~r Sh~ ~d, seconded by Coutsston~r Goo~l~ht ut cvrt~ ~t~usly, that ~1~ ~ adoptsd, ~b]sct to tbs ~lt~lnatton of th~ .n~st~ ~ Co~tsston~r S~dsrs, the chan~es to the S~ctton n~- ~rs, tbs corrsctton to Page 6, r~lattv~ to th~ duplicated that ~l~s~nts will not bs 9tvsn for ~y p~st afford, bl~ housing, ud slso t~t applications that are n~ In process ~d ftlsd prior to ~rch 1st, ~uld not ~ subject to tbs n~w f~ss, ~d snt~rsd Into Ordtmce Mk No. 38: ORDINANCE 90-14 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 85-55, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION THREE, INCIDENCE OF ROAD IMPACT FEES, BY REQUIRING PAYMENT OF ROAD IMPACT FEES FOR PROPOSED CONSTNUCTION WITHIN MUNICIPALITIES AND PROVIDING FOR COLLECTIONS WITHIN MUNICIPALITIES; AMENDING SECTION FOUR, COMPUTATION OF AMOUNT OF FEES, BY INCREASING THE ROAD IMPACT FEES AN[) REVISING THE LANE-MILES; AMENDING SECTION FIVE, PAYMENT OF FEE; AMENDING SECTION SIX, USE OF FUNDS, BY REVISING THE EARMARKING DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION SEVEN, REFUND OF FEES PAID, BY PROVIDING A REFUND PROVISION; AMENDING SECTION EIGHT, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, BY AE; ][NG DEFINITIONS; ADDING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING SECTION; ADDING A ~EVIEW HEARING SECTION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Recess 1:00 P.M. - Reconvenad 1:30 P.M. Itm ORDINAN~[ 90-15. AMENDING ORDINANCE 72-1 BY ADDING CERTAIN EXISTING LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNITS AND DISTRICTS TO THE COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Legal notice having been published in the Naples Dally News on January 25, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordinance amending Ordinance 72-1 by adding certain existing street lightin~ municipal Page 26 000,14 February 13, 1990 service taxing units and districts identified as. Berkshire Lakes Units 1 & 2, Corporate Square, Countryside 1,2 & 3, Ooodland, Mutrfleld Subdivision, River Reach, Riviera Colony Golf Estates Unit Two, Riviera Golf Estates Unit 1, Phases 1,2, and 3, Royal Wood Golf and County Club Units 1 & 2, Tall Pines, and Victoria Park, to the Collier County Lighting District; providing for repeal of Ordinance Nos. 68-110, 87-11, 88-14, 84-74, 88-15, 87-50, 79-75, 80-116, 88-104, 82-13 and 87-90. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald stated that Ordinance 72-1 established the Colliez' County Street Lighting Municipal Service Taxing Unit. He advised that currently, on an annual basis, a number of the smaller lighting districts have been added into the major Collier County District. He noted that this is done at the time that the individual district millages are w~thin 1/4 mill of the Collier County Lighting District millage. He explained that if the ordinance is adopted today, the actual collection and uti- lization of those dis: ~'tcts will not occur until 1991. Mr. Archibald read into the record, the districts to be included, aa indicated In the legal notice above. Mr. Archibald stated that Staff is recommending that the section of the proposed ord!naDce be deleted which repeals the prior ordinan- ces under which the districts operate. He said that there will be 2 years between the time that the new district is created, and Staff wants to ensure that the existing districts continue until the beginning of October, 199]. There were no speakers. C,o~llioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Co~iss~oner Shmnmhmn m~d c~rried unanimously, that the public hearing be closed. Cm~lseloner Goodntght moved, seconded by Co~lssioner Shanahan ~ carried unanimously, that the Ordinance as numbered and titled below I~e ~dopted, as m~ended by deleting Section Two, and entered Into Ordinance Book No. 38: ORDINANCE 90-15 0004 5 Page 27 February 13 1990 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 72-1 BY ADDING CERTAIN EXISTING STREET LIGIITING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNITS AND DISTRICTS IDEN- TIFIED AS, BERKSHIRE LAKES UNITS 1 & 2, CORPORATE SQUARE, COUNTRYSIDE 1,2 & 3, GOODLAND, MUIRFIEi,I) SUiIDIVISION, RIVER REACH, RIVIERA COLONY GOLF ESTATES UNIT TWO, RIVIERA GOLF ESTATES UNIT 1, PHASES l, 2 AND 3, ROYAi, WOOD GOIoF AND COUNTRY CI,iIB UNITS 1 & 2, TALL PINES, AND VICTORIA PARK, TO THE COLLIER COUNTY LIGHTING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR CONFI,ICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. lt~ Legal notice havinG t)een publist%ed in the Naples Dally News on January 25, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public h~mrlng was opened to consider an ordinance creating the Collier Park of Co:~merce (A/K/A East Naples Industrial Park) Street Lighting Munlcf~;tl Service Taxing Unit; setting fortL the boun- daries of th. tnxlr, g unit; designating the governing body of the unit: providing for purpose a~a powers; providing for annual esttma':es of expenses and taxation rate; providing for tax assessment and collec- tion; provldin9 for construction and providing an effective date. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald explained that the Collier Park of Commerce has petitioned for the establishment of a special taxing district for lighting. He reported that the subject area Is located on Airport Road, south of the Golden Gate Canal, and opposite the Naples Production Industrial area, Mr. Archibald noted that the ordinance provides for that district to be created, but explained that there Is a concern as to when the taxes would be collected. H( indicated that currently, this is proposed for October 1. 1991, and in light of the timing, he requested that the effective date of ill. ordin~nc~ b~ Dec.mber, 1990, which would allow a budget to be prepared. Itc stated that th~ annual coet will be $8,500 to operate 29 street lights. Mr. Archibald said that Finance Director Yonkosky would like to establish a specific date so there is the flexibility of establishing a budget for this dlstric~ in the upcoming year, and in order to do that, the ordinance would have to be adopted aa It la currently read. Page 28 O0O46 February 13, 1990 He requested that tha ordinance be epproved as written, without any effective date. There were no speakers. Co~ieeloner Goodntght moved, seconded by Co~mleeion~r Shanahan m~d cmrrt~d unanl~ouely, that the public h~rtng ~ cloa~d. C~tm~ion~r 6oo~tght ~oved, .~conded ~ Coat,.toner Sh~ ~d c~rig ~t~usly, that the Ordln~ce as n~red ~d titled ~1~ ~ adopt~ ~d entered Into Ordtnmce Book No. 38: ORDINANCE 90-16 AN ORDINANCE CREATING TIlE COI,[.IER PARK OF COMMEItCE (A/K/A EAST NAPLES INDUSTRIAL PARK) STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT: SETTING FORTH TIlE BOUNDARIES OF THE TAXING [INIT; DESIGNATING THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE UN!T; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE AND POWERS; PROVIDING FOR ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF EXPENSES AND TAXATION RATE; PRO- VIDING FOR TAX ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION; PROVIDING FOR CONSTRUC- TION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on January 28, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition AV-89-26, filed by Westinghouse Communities of Naples, Inc., requesting to vacate a portion of Greentree Drive between two plat alignments, Unit 6 and Unit 9. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald said that this petition has been submitted for vacation of a portion of Greentree Drive tn Pelican Bay. He repot%ed that in attempting to align Greentree Drive, both Unit 6 and Unit 9, there was an overlap of rights-of-way. He stated that the vacation Is for aligninG that right-of-waY and removing a sliver of right-of-waY of approximately 1,240 SF which will be the remaininG area. Commissioner Hasse questioned whether the proposed vacation will have any Impact on any propert [es7 Mr. Archibald advised that the vacation will add property to one single-family lot. There were no speakers. Page 29 0004? February 13, 1990 Ooe~tsoloner Shanahan ~oved0 oecondsd by Co~uaissioner aoodnAght and carried unanA~ousl¥, that the public hearing be closed. Co~lssioner Shanahan ~oved0 mecondsd by Comale~toner Ooodnlght and carried unanimously, th&t Petition AV-89-026 be mpproved, and tha~ lteeo~lon 90-66 be ~dop~ed. Pa~ 30 OOO4 ~ebz'~az'y ~ 3. ! 990 ~OI, MX~, ~TON, SOLL A~ PKKK, INC., RKP~SK~NO STRAIN TAVIL~i "~OKN~ VIL~OK,,OF_~APLES" - A~KD, SUBJECT TO STI~T~ONS Legal ~otlce havin9 been Dublish~d In the NaDIe~ Daily New~ on Nove~ber R3, 19B9, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publlcatton filed ~lth the Clerk, public hearing ~as opened to consider Petition DRY-88-1C, filed by Nllson, ~iller, Barton, Soll& Peek, Inc., representing Stephen Tavllla, requesting Development Approval of "Regency Village of Naples", a mixed-use Development Of Regional Impact containing com- mercial, residential, and ~olf course components, for property located In the northwest quadrant of 1-76 a~d lmmokalee ~oad (CR-846) t~ Sections 18 a~d 19, Township 48 ~outh, Range 26 East (200 acre~). Commissioner Volpe advised that he has a conflict of tnt,~reet In this item. He noted that he has a minor lnterest In a piece of pro- perty in the subject location, and he therefore ~111 be abstaining. Planner Nlno advised that he ~ill be presenting this tte~ in the absence of Planner Necks. }~e reported that this application io entirely consistent ~lth the Growth Nanagement Plan, and noted that this property ~as rezoned some years ago as a PUD, and subsequently, because of State la~ relating to the DRI process, it flnd~ itself here today. ~r. Nlno reported that the Co]lief County Plannln9 Commission reviewed this petltlon on December 21, 19~9, and are foswardln9 same ~lth a recommendation of approve1. He affirmed that these ~ese no speakers at the CCPC hearing, and no correspondence has been received. He said that subsequent to the CCPC ~eetlng, he has been advised that plpellnlng 1~ ~ot an option available to the applicant, and Staff Is reco~ending approval of the petition, subject to the conditions con- tained ia the Petltioner~s A~reement. Hr. Alan Reynolds of Nil~on, ~lller, Barton, So11 ~ Peek, Inc., representing Stephen Tavllla, ~tated that tn ~984, ~1~ firm ~a~ approached by the applicant to plan a lo~ density mixed-use project, in conformance ~lth the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the 0005,1 Page 31 February 13, 1990 necessary studies were done and a PUD application was flied in 1985, and was approved on October 15, 1985. He indicated that during the time this petition was being processed, there were changes to the State law regarding DRI threshholds: a new standard for hotel develop- ment. He advised that a portion of this project is within the Activity Center and includes a hotel, th~ noted that this law was changed 14 days prior to final action by the Commission, and it took nearly two years of discussions with the State to resolve whether or not those provisions would apply to the project since it was filed prior to adoption of the rule changes. He explained that it was learned that the petitioner would have to y,~ thr,nlgh ihs DRI process and obtain a Development Order, and those applications were prepared and filed In 1988. He reported that the project was deemed to be con- sistent with the Growth Management Plan, and all issues were ;'esolved and it appeared to be a fairly routine process. However, he ~aid that it took until August, 1989, before this petition went before the Regional PlanninG Council, and it was approved unanimously, and for- warded on to Collier County. He stated that the first public hearinG date was to be October, 1989, but due to a numbe~ of factors, all out- aide of the control of his client, and primarily due to Staff workloads and scheduling, this project was continued. He indicated that this has been an extremely long and frustratinG process. He noted that a Development Order draft has been under review by Collier County for 4-5 months, and he umderstood that all issues were resolved, and the discussion ceniered upon whether or not a provision could be incorporated that would allow this project to pay for certain road impact mitigation, and be allowed to proceed, i.e. pipelinin~. He explained that It has he,m his position, that if State law still allows pipeltning as an alternative for providing funds necessary to mitigate road impacts, there should be a provision in the De~;elopmen~ O~der which states this. He informed that he found out yesterday that perhaps there may be other traffic related Issues which comes down between the Region's Policy for DRI transportation mitigation, and the Page 32 00O55 February 13, 1990 County's Policy with respect to concurrency and DRI's. He advised that he will accept either alternative, but he does not want to be caught In a "Catch 22" situation. Attorney George Varnadoe explained that because of the time that has elapsed, DCA has adopted a new transportation policy rule, and they now test p~pelinln0 on consistency wtth approved Growth Management Plans, or Rule 935. Mr. Varnadoe offered language which would allow the petitioner to do mitigative measures, as long as he abides by the criteria for Development Agreements which calls for two public hearings and requires consistency with the Growth Management Plan: The transportation Impacts to tile roads and ~ntersect ~onN above shall be appropriately addressed consistent with Southwest Florida Regional Plannin0 Council Policies, an{] the deter,.lnatlon of proportional share, Dipellning, or oth,~r mitigative mellsures shall be in accordance with Section 163.3220 - 163.3243, ~'lorlda Statutes, which authorizes Local Government Development Agreements and requires consistency with the Growth Management Plan. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Varnadoe advised that the only roads that ~lll be Impacted are certain portions of Immokalee Road, U.S. 41 from Bonita Beach Road to Immokalee Road, a certain segment of Airport Road, and a certain segment of Goodlette Road. He informed that by agreeing to comply with the County's Concurrency Management System, if the ~oad segments do become deficient, the peti- tioner will be bound by whatever the County does In terms of deferring development rights improving the road. He indicated that this DRI will be treated the same as say other development In that area. Commissloner Saunders asked if Staff concurs w]th the language as suggested by Attorney George Varnadoe7 County Attorney Cuyle~ replied tha~ he has revl~wed the la~]gu~Ge, and he does concur. There were no other speakers. O~eeloner Sa~nder~ moved, seconded by Com~miaeloner ~oodnt~ht and carried 4/0 (Connieaioner Volpe abstained), that the public hearing b~ clo~e~. C~lsioner Sanders moved, seconded by Co~tsmtoner $~ ~d c~rl~d 4/0 (Co~ls=toner Vol~ abstained), to approve Page 33 february 13, 1990 Tlon~ u provided by Nr. Varn&do~ and that Devalopmnt Order 90-1 and ~lutl~n 90-6? be adoptad. February 13, 1990 I~ISOLOTION 90-68, 1~ PETITION CCCL-89-7, BLAIR A. FOLEY OF COASTAL ENOINE~IqlN~, REFR~SE.~TING BAREFOOT BEACH ASSOCIATES, LTD., REQUESTING V~RI~W~'~ FRO~ Tl~ COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE TO ALLO~ ~OR CON~I~UCTION OF FOUR DUNE WALKOVER STRUCTURES IN THE BAREFOOT BEACH DH~EI,OPg~3~T - ADOPTED SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS Legal notice havinG been published In the Naple~ Daily News on January 7, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication f~led with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CCCL-89-7, filed by Blair A. Foley of Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc., representing Barefoot Beach Associates, Ltd., requesting & variance from th= Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL), as required by Ordinance 75-19, to allow for the construction of four elevated dune walkover structures and to enhance the dune system in the Barefoot Beach Development, for property described as Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Planning Services Manager Baglnski informed the Board that Staff has reviewed the existing PUD and has found documentation which provi- des for this request, subject to variance approval. He indicated that Staff is recommending approval, subject to the conditions as contai~ed in the proposed resolution. Mr. Blair Foley, representing Barefoot Beach Assoclates, Ltd., advised that the dune walkovers are proposed to serve the residents of the private development, and are not intended to provide public access. He stated that there is public access to the beach within a mi].~ of the subject property. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Foley disclosed that the siting criteria for the multi-family buildings has been agreed upon by the Conservancy and DNR. He said that the requirements for a final site development plan for Phase 1 have been completed, and preliminary approval for Phase 2 has been approved. Tape #4 There were no other speakers. O~tmeloner $&undere ~oved, seconded by Co~imelonar Shanahan ~nd carrt~ unani~oual¥, tha~ the public hearing be closed. O0.t09 13, 1990 Comm/ssAoner Sh~nahan moved, seconded by Co--teotoner Voll~e ~nd Page 36 001! 0 February 13, 1990 P~TITION V-89-18, LI~I$ ANDKRSON RKQU~$TIN(i A THREK 1~O? N~IVER Or ~ ~t~l~D T~ POOT RL~ Y~RO s~ra~cK FOR A POOr. ENCr.OSU~S aT S?S ~X DU CIRCLE - DENIED Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on January 28, 1990, as evidenc~d by Affidavit of Publication flied Kith the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition V-89-18, flied by Lewis Anderson, requesting a variance of 3 feet from the required rear yard setback of 10 feet to ? feet for screened pool enclosures In a Planned Unit Development zone (Fox Fire PUD), for pro- perty described as: Lot 32, Block F, Fox Fire, Unit 3, according to the Plat thereof, 373 Fox Den Circle. Planner Hoover stated that the requested waiver of 3 feet Is requested to allow the petitioner to extend his screened-in pool enclosure to accommodate a 5-1/2 foot wide hot tub and a large grill. He informed that the granting of this variance will result tn a 3 foot encroachment into the dedicated utility easement. He advised that all pertinent utility companies have indicated no objection to the request. Mr. Hoover Indicated that the common area abutting to the ea~* is dedicated for drainage, and large power lines run in a north to south direction just east of this area. He stated that both abutting neighbors said they do not object to the variance request. Mr. Hoover affirmed that the Collier County Planning Commission held their public hearing on January 18, 1990, and forwarded this petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of denial by a split 4-4 vote, and there were no speakers at the CCPC meeting. Mr. Hoover stated that Staff Is recommending denial of this request, based on the criteria set forth In the Zoning Ordinance. He disclosed that the lot is not Irregularly shaped, and all conditions are self-Imposed. Mr. Lewis Anderson, Petitioner, stated that there are two other pool enclosure areas on Lots 38 and 39 that measure 27' and 30'. He advised that his enclosure will be 27'-4", and he feels that he is Page 37 00117 February 13, 1990 conforming to the area. Mr. Hoover replied that the lots referred to by Mr. Anderson con- rain smaller homes and, therefore, the lots can accommodate larger pool enclosures. Commissioner Volpe noted that Staff has Indicated that this lsa self-created hardship, and there is no criteria indicating otherwise to g~ant this waiver. There were no other speakers. and carried unanimously, ~hat the public hemr~ng ~ closed. C~s~ioner Vol~ moved, ~econded ~ Coo~oner 8a~de,re ~d ~ ~usly, to deny Petition V-89-18. O~I~ gO-l?, NOIS~ ORDIN~C~, ~ALINO ORDIN~0& T?-4 - Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on January 25, 1990, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an o~'dtnance to regu- lat~ noise within the unincorporated area of Collier County. Assistant County Attorney Wilson advised that the proposed ordi- nance, tf adopted, will repeal Ordinance 77-4. She stated that ordinance provides objective criteria to measure noise levels that was not provided for in the present ordinance. She informed that there a table in the proposed draft which sets out use categories for the land, decibel levels and tim~ p~.riods for which those ]~vels apply. She explained that ~he ordinance provides permitting and waiver provi- sions which allow the Commission discretion in varyln~ from the table, and noted that the permitting procedure is one which the County Manager's Office may grant or deny the permits. She said that the ordinance also includes a provision where a citizen may continue to make a direct complaint to the Sheriff's Office, and it is anticipated that the Code Enforcement Board can become involved in enforcing the ordinance. Page 38 February 13, 1990 Attorney Wilson affirmed that a workshop was held on August 17, 1989, and input was received from a number of people. In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mrs. Wilson advised that one officer with the Sheriff's Office has been trained on the sound meter. She indicated that the Sheriff's Office currently owns one sound meter, however, at various times it works, and there are other ttmeo when It does not work. She suggested that the cost for more sophisti- cated equipment may want to be considered In the future. Mrs. Wilson called attention to the first full sentence of the draft on Page 6, relating to mult l-story structu~'es, and suggested that the language be changed as follows: "If a complaint arises from a multi-story structure, the sound level meter measurement ~a'f be taken at the location from which the complaint originated." She stated that there was also a suggestion to put tn considerations for other factors as to what the measurement Is In a multi-story struc- ture. She noted that she feels that this may make the ordinance more complicated to enforce. Commissioner Shanahan stated that most of the complaints that he has received are due to pile driving, and questioned whether the o~'dl- nance covers that type of nuisance? Mrs. Wilson advised that thc ordinance does provide for people at construction sites to use barriers when possible, to protect the people In the surrounding area. Sh~ informed that if they do not meet the decibel levels, those viola- tors will have to come to thc C~,mmtssion for a waiver. Commissioner Volpe Indicated that it appears that if the County does not have the appropriate equipment to enforce the ordinance and there Is only one deputy trained to do this type of work, it seems that there is another part of wh~t should be don,. Mrs. Wilson con- curred, noting that the current equipment ts riot the latest state-of- the-art. Commissioner Saunders stated that if this ordinance is approved, perhaps the Commission can direct the County Mana9er to come back within the next couple of weeks with a proposal of what type of equip- Page 39 (19.! ! 9 February 13. 1990 ment should be used to enforce the ordinance. Attorney Pam Mac'Kie, representing the Hotel/Motel Association, stated that she was requested by Mr. Jess Perry of the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce, to present his position paper relative to the Noise Ordinance. She stated that the Chamber's position is that the table, used by St. Petersburg, be adopted, rather than the table which is now provided in the draft. Mrs. Mac'Kle stated that Section 11 of the proposed o~dinance is almost Identical to the existing ordinance, in that it allo';,s for a totally subjective approach to noise complaints. She divulged that the Chamber is requested that this be deleted. Attorney Mac'Kie informed that the Hotel/Motel Associatlon does support the adoption of an ordinance, but the draft is vague and unen- forceable. She suggested that technical corrections to the ordinance by made, as suggested by Robert Tanner, Acoustical Expert. Mrs. Mac'Kie called attention to Section 6B of the draft, and suu?ested that one additional change be made to the language as suggested by Assistant County Attorney Wilson: "If a complaint arises from a multi-story structure, the measurement will be taken at the location where the complaint originated with appropriate adjustments for either the decrease in sound or the increase in sound." She noted that as sound Goes up, it can either increase or decrease. She indi- cated that as small as these ch,,nges are, they will have a serious effect on hotel/motels, industrial employees, manufacturers, and many other businesses In the community. Commissioner Saunders que~{~loned what it would take for a viola- tlon of the residential use category from 7 A.M. - 9:59 P.M. 70 db for 0-3 hours. Mrs. Mac'Kte stated that she believes that this would be 10% of the amount of time that was measured using the community noise analyzer. She indicated that the ordinance as proposed, prohi- bits a noise at 61 db for or~e minute, but ~ r~OJN, that is at 59 db for ~4 hours ts permitted. Mr. Robert Tanner, Consulting EnGtneel' in acoustics and noise Page 40 00 20 February 13, 1990 control stated that the current ordinance is unworkable. He noted that he attended the workshop, and made many suggestion~. He said that if you take a 3 hour period, an average would be made over that time period; if a 6 hour period were being considered, an average would be made over the entire 6 hours. He noted that as an example, if a band took a break for 5 minutes at the end of a 3 hour period, this would not have any effect ot~ the average hours being measured. Mr. Tanner stated that if tt is desired to change the time Inter- vals to 1 hour, 3 hours, 24 hours, he would be In favor, b,%t ha wants to avoid the Idea of however short the time Is which is exceeding the arbitrary limit, the ordinance la being violated. Commissioner Shanahal~ questioned whether the three cate~oriaa: 0-3, 3-6, and over 6 hou~'~ are most successful ways to measure? Mr. Tanner replied that this is to some extent, an advance over every other ordinance. Commissioner Saunders stated that he does not fee] that 0-3 hours would be enforceable, and noted that there may be a way to soften the lm~ct of a violation that occurs for a very short period of time. Mrs. Wilson Informed that St. Petersburg is having problems enforcing their ordinance. She noted that their periods of time are less than 10 minutes, 10 minutes, 2 hours, and in excess of 2 hours. She explained that their decibel levels are much lower than those that are proposed by Mr. Tanner. She noted that the h~ghest end of the scale for the less than lO m}nu'.es is 75, and the lowest end is down to 40. She stated that in a residential area between 10 P.M. and 7 A.M., less than 10 minutes ts 60. Mr. Tanner stated that if there was a limit of 40 db over 2 hours, every homeowner in the County would be able to complain about the compressor of the air conditioner of the next door house. Mr. Steven Wheeler, Genera] Manager of the Vanderbilt Inn, stated that entertaining tourists is very important to the economic balance, He indicated that that he would like to see an ordinance in place that ia enforceable, and noted that 1 db below the established level for a 00i21 Pa~e 41 February 13, 1990 24 hour period of time can be more annoying than exceeding that db level for a fraction of the time that Is measured. He noted that he had hired Mr, Tanner to help resolve problems In North Naples, and based on some of those rea(llnun, terminated the services of one of the bands that were performing at his hotel. He advised that he was then sued by that band, ruled against, and had to pay that band for not performing because the ordinance was so vague. He stated that he would like to see levels be established, and then the entertainers would bear the burden if they did not turn down their vol~%mee. se* i)~lmty Clerk Kenyon replaced Deputy Clerk Hoffman at this tin ese The following people spoke in favor of the proposed nols~ ordi- nance with the exceptions that there should be some relief given on Sundays and the waiver period In the ordinance should be 10 days Instead of 90 days; Mr. Charles Campbell, Secretary of the Board of Directors of Vanderbllt Gulfside. Mr. Robert Doody, Resident of Vanderbl]t Gulfstde Arthur 3acob, President of Vanderbllt Beach Property Owners Association G~orge Keller, President of Collier County Civic Federation Anthony Sowyer, Resident of 10951 Gulf Shore Drive Commissioner Saundera ~ved, meconde4 ~ Oo~tmmtoner Vol~ ~ 'c~Ti~ ~t~uly, that the public hearing ~ close. ~tssioner Vol~ moved that the proposed notme ordln~ce ~ ~pt~ with the deletion of Section 11; that on Page 10 ~der ~aph 3 reg~dtng waivers;, Lt should state that they will ~ is~ for no loner t~ 30 days ~d then the ~C will ~ to deter- Erie at t~t tt~ tf they should ~ ten--d. ~tml or Tourist adjoining a residential zone on Page 6 should ~ 60 s~d leal limit Instead of 65. Coutsston~r ~o1~ stated that ~ld accept this chugs and include this In his ~otton. ~mlssioner Sanders stated that on Page 6, It should read 'If ~lalnt vises from · multl-sto~ st~cture, the height of the sold 1~1 mter usd for measure~nt ~y ~ t~en from the ~int ~ere the O01k~ Page 4~ February 13, 1990 co.pi&Iht has originated. Commissioner Volpe concurred with this. &~letmnt County Attorney #llson stated that she would also like included in t~ ~tton the correction of ~y t~graphtcal errors. Cstssia~r Vol~ con~rred with this re.est, Commissioner Saunders stated that he ts concerned about reducing the noise level from 65 to 50 without knowinU what effect that will have. Corporal White, Sheriff's Department, stated that the difference ~tween 60 and 65 ts a lot 9reate~ than what appears on paper, adding that if there Is a question he can set up a demonstration In o~de~ for the Commission to actually hear the dlff.~ence. He indicated that decibels Is not much noise, noting that tn an average llvln~ room In someone's home, 45 decibels can be generated easily Just from background noise of the house. ~lonlr Vol~ Itl~ed that he ~uld wt~h~ t~ ~~t ~, ~tl~ r~lrdlng the Co~rctal or Tourist adjoining m residential t~i~lon, r Sanders seconded the ~otton ~d u~n call for the ~tton, the ~tton carried ~mi~ovsly, that the ordinmce as ~rd ~ tttld ~1~ ~ adopted ~d entered into Ordtn~ce Mi 38: ORDINANCE 90-17 AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE NOISE WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY; SETTING FORTH FINDINGS AND PURPOSE; PROVIDING A TITLE AND CITATION; SETTING FORTH APPLICABILITY, PROHIBITIONS AND DEFINITIONS; SETTING FOR-}{ ~IAXIMUM PERMISSIBI,E SOUND LEVELS: PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS. PROVIDING A RIGHT TO APPEAL; PROVIDING FOR SPECIAI, PERMITS AND WAIVERS; PROVIOING FOR PENAl,TIES; PROVIDING ADDITIONAL REMEDIES; SETTING FORTH ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS; PROVIDING FOR USE OF I.OUDSPEAKERS: PROVIDIMG FOR CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 77-4; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. RI$OLTflOI 90-69 RI PETITION FDPO-89-7, RICK #AOO~IR 0! NARITINI VEWI'UF~ I, i~EqUESTII~I A VARIANCE IeROM THE NININUM BAS1 F~OOD ~LEV&TION AS R~I~IRED BY THE FLOOD DANAGR PREVENTION ORDINANCE ON PROPERTY D~C~BED AS GOODLAND MARINA - ADOPTED Legal notice having bets publ l~h{:d In the Naples Daily News on December 24, 1989, .~ ,;vldt~nc,,d by Affld~v[t of Publication filed with Psgs 43 February 13, 1990 the Clerk, public hearinG was opened to consider Petition FDPO-S9-7, ftle~ by Rick Wagoner of Maritime Venture I, requesting a variance from the minimum base flood elevation as required by the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance on property described ss Goodland Marina. Planner Hoover stated that ti%la l'equest is to permit the construc- tion of a dry boat storage area with a boat work and service area at an elevation of 7 feet NGVD instead of 12 feet NGVD as required by Flood Damage Prevention Ordinancl~ 87-80. lie noted that this is an undeveloped 15.O2 acre parcel of land that is mostly occupieO by mangroves with a channel entra~ce at the southeast corner to Blue Hill Creek. He indicated that the lot l~ located in a high hazard flood zone. He stated that the site development plan approved for Goodlsnd ~arina is for 92 wet slips; dry storage for 250 boats; a boat work area; service, sales and marina shops; a commercial marina building and a future marina commercial yacht club/restaurant site. He stated that the applicant has acknowledged that the grantin~ of this variance may cause a significant increase in the costs for flood insurance. He noted that the Petitioner has indicated that a hardship exists because the gl"~de difference between the boat ramp elevation and the dry storage finished floor would create a slope so steep that a fo~k lift carrying a boat could not negotiate the incline. He stated that the FDPO allows enclosed space to be used only for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage; therefore, the boat work area and boat service area needs a varianc~ while the dry boat storaQe area does not. He concluded by statinG that Staff is recommending approval of this variance. Commissioner Volpe stated that there will bo a c~rtain type of activity taking place at a lower level and questioned if there is ~ny potential problem for pollution, to which Planner Hoover stated that this would be taken care of under other ordinances that ars in effect. Mr. Todd Turrell, representing the Petitioner, stated that this is not an unusual request, noting that every other marina operates this same way. (3 01 ~-t Pags 44 February 13, 1990 In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Turrell stated that the boat maintenance area is next to the boat storage area and to go from 7 feet to 12 feet would be a tremendous slope that could aggravate environmental c¢~ncerns an w,~ll a~ the problem of sar.ry. Mr. Bud Kornse, representinG the Goodland Civic Association, stated that the purpose of the flood ordinance is to protect ]ives and properties and by allowing this petition to be approved is creating a safety problem. He noted that this petitioner should conform to the flood ordinance. Mr. George Keller, representing the Goodland Civic Association, stated that they will be working on boats and if there Is goin~ to be cleaning fluids to clean boat parts in this area, there ts ~ good potential for polluting th~, water's. Commissioner Volpe stated that the dec~sion of Staff ~s based on c~ta~n criteria and questioned why the BCC does not receive that cri- teria in order to make their decision, to which Planner Hoover stated that ~n the future, he could provide the Board with the criteria in the executive summary. CoL~issioner Shanahan questioned if this variance wil~ cause potential problem~ in pollution or flooding, to which Planning Services Manager Baginksi stated that th~s would depend on what materials are stored at what locations. He Indicated the Board can place additional stipulations on this petitioner that would indicate that materials with a potential for pollution must be elevated or stored above the flood plain. }h~ noted that this situat~on is fairly common, adding that the facility can be constructed without the variance; they simply want the variance in order to have the work space at that location. Commissioner $aunders questioned if there is any other area on this land that would be more appropriate, to which Mr. 8aginsKi stated that the Ground is relatively flat throughout the area. He noted that there will be other shops and other facilities that will be elevated and this Is the only variance that has been applied for In terms of (/().! ?5 February 13, 1990 flood elevation. Commissioner Saunders stated that he does not recall any situation where a variance has been granted where there could be a pollution problem and questioned if Mr. Lorenz could state that he does not see an environmental hazard with this storage and work area below the flood plain. Mr. Lorenz stated that the concept would be desirable that there w<~uld t~ot be hazard~u~ m,,terlals or c~,ntam[nattnq materials near the water tn the case of a flood event that would have some return frequencies associated with lt. He stated that it would be desirable to locate the material elsewhere, but there ia nc uriterla Or county regulations that controls this. Mr. Bagtnskl stated that the petition~r can do the same thing Inside the boat storage area at floor level if he chose to without vaI'lance, adding that they want a variance to do this work outside the dr%' storage area. Mr. Turrell stated that the storage of hazardous waste material ts covered by DER and the petitioner will abide by all those regulations. Mr. Frank Visconti, representing the architect, Mr. Andrea Brown, stated that all buildings on the site are conforming except for work area which is a 40' by 60' structure that ts attached to a larger building. He noted that they will implement the necessary controls for potential pollution purposes. ~ssionsr Saunders ~oved, seconded by Co~mlsetoner Volpe and cmxried unanimously, that th~, public hearing ~ closed. aission~r Sanders moved, seconded by Coatsston~r ~o~lght ~t c~rrt~ ~i~usly, that Resolution 90-69 re FD~-89-7, ~rlttm. V~re X, ~ adopted based on the statements by Staff that they ~t ~rcelvl there to ~ ~y environmental proble~ associated with t~ls ~4 t~t the ~ttttoner agrees to comply with ~he varl~ce ~t~ts ~der th~) Federal repletions ~d the Co~ ordt~cee. Page 46 February 13, 1990 RESOLUTION 90-70 RE PETITION PU-88-21C0 NENO $. SPAGNA OF FLORIDA URBAN INeJTITUTE, INC., REPRESENTING THE BETHESDA CHURCH OF CHRIST, REQUP~TING EXTEN~ION OF PROVISIONAL USS "A" OF THE "E" ESTATES ZONING ~ISTRICT FOR A CHURCH &N._DD CHURCH RELAT~_FACI~ITiE$ _ ADOPTED Commissioner Saunders stated that this is simply an extension of an existing provisional use. Commissioner Volpe questioned if it is essential that a one year extension of tills Provl~lonal use be granted, to which Plann,~ Scheff stated that the Board has the rluht to grant an extension of one day to one year. Commissioner Volpe stated that it appears that a year Is not required as they have the plans, the financing is In place, and they are waiting for the mortgage loan commitment to be issued. Planner Scheff stated that the Petitioner will also have to submit for Freltmtnary and final site development plan approval after the fina~ctng has been approved, noting that Staff does not have any problem with regards to the one year extension. Commissioner Saunders stated that he does not feel that it would be fair to change the time limit on this extension, adding that if the time limit needs to be changed it should be done through the ordi- nance. Dr. Spagna stated that the bank suggested a smaller church to reduce the overall cost and they are in the process of re-evaluating the mortgage. He noted that at this point the bank is waiting for finalized plans which had to be ~edrawn and once they are submitted to the bank, it is anticipated that closing will take place wlth]n 30 days. He stated that he ts riot aware of any reason that the bank would turn this down. a~d c~t-rted unanimously, that Resolution 90-70 re Petl~lon 1~-8~-2! be mdopte~. Page 47 00131 February 13o 1990 se, lksputy Clerk Hoffman replaced D~puty Clerk Kenyon at this ttmeese Item #?C! CRITERIA RE REVIEW OF FEE WAIVER REQUESTS FOR CARNIVAL AND ~JIIiIBITION ~ERMITS - APPROVED Planning Services Manager Baginskt stated that at the request of the Commission, he invest igated the ordinance to provide reasonable criteria for reviewing requests relating to the waiver of sure~y bonds and other fees required for carnivals, exhibitions and other .vents. He stated that he Is recommendinG that the following criteria be approved: :. Whether there is County Involvement In an activity or event such a~ a carnival, fair, or exhibition, which will be located on County prop,~! ty and Is therefore in a position to guarantee permit compliance, 2. Whether tile carnival or exhibition is conducted on an annual and recurring basis such as the Collier County Fair, Sea Festival, Immoka]ee Harvest Festival, Golden Gate City Frontier Days, or Marco Island Christ:mas Island Style which would imply a greater incentive to con,ply with all require- ments of the permit. 3. Wheth~r the carrl[val ~I' exhibition I~ sponsored by a chari- table or non-profit orgaalzatlon and Is conducted on their own property implyinG a greater Incentive to comply with all requirements of the permit. 4. Whether the carnival, exhibition or event is conducted on an annual and recurrln~ basis and the County has experienced no past difficulties tn the form of violations. Co~tssloner Goodntght moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and carried unanimously, that the criteria for the waiving of surety bonds mild application fees for certain carnivals, ew~hibttions mild mvents be approved, as recommended by Staff. Item PUBLIC PETITION, DES FARRELL RE CHURCH PARKING - STAFF DIRECTED TO DRAFT ORDINANCE AND BRING B~__TO___T_H__E BCC Commissioner Volpe staled that h~? knows that Commissioner Shanahan has suggested that this Item be cont[nued until next week, but he suggested that the considerations tn parktnU be reviewed by the Collier County Planning Commission. County Attorney Cuyler advi~ed that If the Commission has any interest in doing this, it will have to go back through the system as aR amendment. February 13, lggo Commissioner Saunders indicated that if the Commission is in favor of having an ordinance drafted, Staff could be directed to do so. Commissioner Shanahan ad~;ln~d that one of the suggestl.~ns was that the ordinance be consistent with the City of Naples' ordinance. Co~seioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Shzxl%ahmn and cmrried unanimously, that Staff be directed to draft mn ord&~ance, ~o through the public hearln~ process, and brin~ back to the Comimtaalon. $. WAYNK FALBKY RKPRKSKNTING PELICAN LAKE PUD, RE INTKRPRETATION OF .BOARD ACTION O~ DEC__~~ 1~89- ~O_9_.~TiON Attorney 3. Wayne Falbey, rePresentinu GMA Dt~velopment of Pelican Lakes, stated that in Decembeu, 1989, the PUD was approved, and It was contended that 4 units per acr,, weald bt? ails;ed. He noted that there have been uncertainties between the County Attorney's office and his off,ce as to exactly what was decided upon. Mr. Falbey advised that the Density Rating System affords 4 units per acre an a hans residm~ial dennfty, and c(~rta~n criteria for adding units, ~,~.' .... laln criteria for subtracting units. He informed that 1 unit per acre wan subtracted upon rec(~mmendatlon of Staff because the subject project on Davis Boulevard is adjacent to the traffic congestion area. On the other hand, he Indicated that the criteria for adding 1 unit per acre ts based upon project commitment for lnterconnectlon of roads ~;lt:~ existing or future properties. He stated that tile property has access to Interconnect with the existing properties to the went. He noted that the westerly boundary of Pelican Lake contains a 30' wide right-of-way to benefit Moon Lake, and Moon Lakes's road connect~ to Fox Fire arid connects to Radio Road and Davis Boulevard. Commissioner Volpe reported that it appears that the motion at the December 19, 1989 meeting was made to allow the property to be deve- loped at 4 units per acre, Pr°vldin9 that evidence could be shown regarding the legal ~'lght to lr~terconnect with the Moon Lake 00135 £age 49 February 13, 1990 Subdivision. Mr. Falbey explained that the Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan only says to provide for lnteuconnectlon. He noted that as far as the leGa] right to use It, the petitioner du~es not have a declaratory Issue against Moon Lake. Commissioner Hasse stated that he recalls that at the m6etln9 in December, Commissioner Saunders stated that there should be an lnte~- cot~nectton, and he concurred, but If he could not obtain this, he would only be allowed 3 units per acre. Commissioner S.3underet lndic,,tcd th~)t r,,~] [ty Is that th. re Is not the legal right to use the lntet':onnectlon, and that possibly, Fa/bey may need to file suit. County Attorney Cuyler advised that at the meetinG In December, M:'. Vega Indicated that he had the right to drive on the roads, and the Commission stated that as long as he could prove that he had that right, 4 units per acre would be allowed, as opposed to 3 units per acre. Commissioner Saunders questioned whether the other party has tmal- cared that the petitioner does not have the right to use the road? Mr. Falbey replied that a letter was written by an attorney, on behalf of Moon Lake Development, saying that they wanted to maintain their system as a private system, as opposed to interconnectlon. Commissioner Saunders suggested that Mr. Falbey provide whatever documentation he has to County Attorney Cuyler to determln~ If there ts sufficient evidence. Mr. Falbey advised that he did submit a legal memorandum with the case ]aw and statutory law, but ran into a disagreement relative to the Interpretation of that. No action was taken on this Item. Item DANIEL E. CONLEY REPRESENTING PARADISE POINT PUD, REQUESTING THAT SMP PROCESS BE SOLELY AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BY STA ~ ...................................... FF - NO Mr. Daniel Conley, repre~mntlnG Paradise Point PUD, stated that the petitioner submitted a preliminary SDP to Staff In June, 1989. He 00.13G Page 50 February 130 1990 stated that the plan was returned to the developer, and noted that the plan Is to sell the lots, hut the developer believed that he would be building and renting the lots. He acknowledged that there was an error made by the Petltir)ner In mubmtttlng the wrong plans. M~. Con]ey Indicated that aPProxlmately one ago the petitioner submitted his SMP to staff, at%d they pn]nte,] out that this wa.~ not a p~.~per submittal since the appropt'late procedures for review by the val'ious boards did not take p]ac,. He requested that the Commission authorize Staff to be the reviewing agent for the SMP, as opposed to the Commlsslon. He indicated that his request ls due to the t/me Involved, since the petltlouer has already gnl%e through a lengthy pro- CeSS. Project Review Services Manager MadaJewskl advised that Staff is at a point where they are not administratively capable of taking the action as requested hy the P,~tltioner. }l,3 informed that Staff ]s making a recommendation that if tile unified land code is utilized, this process will be created by an administrative procedure, with some changes to the zonin~ end of the project, but noted that at this point, Staff does not have the ability to do this. Commissioner Hasse stated that he does not feel that he could be comfortable tn approving this request. County Attorney Cuyler expleined that as presently written, the Commission makes final approvals of SMP's, and he has not seen a posi- tion where the Board has de]euated that authority to Staff. Mr. Conley questioned whether, the Board would authorize fast- tracking of this project without vllmlnatlng the review process? Mr. MadaJewskl advised that Staff has fast-tracked ]ow-Income housing projects, and he would be glad to assist, if so directed. Mr. Cliff Vernon, Unit 143 Imperial Wilderness, stated that he ia speaking in behalf of Mr. 3elf Dane. He affirmed that Mr. Dane is opposed to any attempt by Paradise Polnte to streamline their construction permits; the developers track record as far aa County O0.t 3? February 13, 1990 regulations is appalling; developer has been fined for violations: red-tagged for zoning violation of storage area built witl~out any permitting, and conti~u~e their operation in spite of th~ red tag. He recommended that this developer be scrutinized carefully before he is allowed to proceed with another TTRVC. Mrs. Doris Bachand of Imparts] Wilderness stated that the owners In her park who are tr¥i~g to sell their units are very upset because the salesman is already selling In the new park. She indicated that the only way that the unit owners of Imperial Wilderness w~thdrew thais objection to the building of Paradise Points, was the signing of the agreement, and divulged that: the septic system was removed; the storage area was never moved to the new area; the percolator ponds have been partially removed; the sludge Class #! was removed in viola- tion of DER ordinances, and the rest was buried; the existing storage area was enlarged and topped with coral and compacted, and has been red-tagged and ls ~n the hands of Code Enforcement: the South Florida Water Management site plan for Imperial W~lderness calls for this area to be a low area. She advised that she does not see how the Commission can allow any bypassing of control on this project, and she does not understand how they are being allowed to proceed with any building on this parcel of land. Commissioner Hasse requested that Mr. McLemore check into the red tag s~tuation. There was no action taken on thee ~tem. Item CARNIVAL PERMIT C-90-1, RE PETITION CP-90-1, BARBARA MAINSTER OF THE REDLANDS CHRISTIAN MIGRANT ASSOCIATION, REQUESTING PERMIT TO CONDUCT CARNIVAL FROM FEBRUARY 26, 1990 THROUGH MARCH 4, 1990 ON THE IMMOKALEE CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER SITE IN IMMOKALEE - APPROVED SUBJECT TO WAIVER OF SURETY BOND Commissioner maunders moved, seconded by Comm~ssioner Ooodnight mnd carried unanimously, to approve Carnival Permit C-90-~, in¢/ud~ng the waiver of ~he surety bond. Page 52 February 13, 1990 A(IIV..~;~M~3rrWXT~ ~ COLLI~,R COUNTY CONCER/~ED ClTXZEN~o XNC. RE ~eJtA~rJ~'U~'U]~ AT COLLIKR VILLAGE, AND AMKIt'DMKRT TO ,TONg 12, 1989, ~VED Housin9 Urban Improvements Director Shreeve stated that when the agreement was made with Collier County Concerned Citizens, Staff became aware that the County was tn violation of their old agreement of June 12, 1989. He Indicated that there Is an amendment to that agreement, to bring the two Into agreement. Commissioner Goodnlght moved, seconded by Com~ltlltOnlr Shall~.~ll and carried unanimously, that the Agreement with Collier County Concerned Citizens and the A~end~ent to the June 12, 1989 Agree~nt with Collier County Concerned Citizens be approved. 00166 Pa~e G3 1990 &GR~I~ #ITB J~CROR ENGIREERIRG AND APPOINTMENT 0~ 0F ~~E 8~VICES AS "CO~ ~AGER" ~ DI~R AS 'PRO.CT C~RDIRATOR ~~ BL~K G~ AND ~CKET ~R~ PRgG~ _ APPR0~D Coati. loner G~lght moved, seconded ~d c~t~ ~t~usly, to approve the agreement with ~chor ~gln~rtng, ~d that the Section N~mglr of Complt~ci a~lnt~ as 'Contract ~ager' and the Housing ~d Ur~ I~r~ant Dt~tor ~ a~lnt~ as 'Project Coordlnntor,. for the Co~tw ~l~t alxk Orut ~d ~cket of P~srty Page 54 O0.178 February 13, 1990 lt~ ~4 C~Le~V~ la~lqlqlT gO-2, RE PKTITION CP-90-2, COLLIER COUNTY SH~RX~F~"S OFI~C~CleT~S/J~. DE~CA~IVAL TO BE HELD ON O~I~~~ Commissioner Goodnl9ht moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan and carried u~animously, that Carnival Permit 90-2 for the Sheriff,s Office be approved, subject to revie~ of the application by Staff aad the County Attorney' NOTE: A PERMIT DOCUMENT WAS NEVER ISSUED ON THIS PETITION 00~! 6 Pa,se 55 February 13 1990 · TJt~ TO EXTEND AN I~VITATIOR TO DNR AND INSIST T~T ~CO A~ ~IN OP~ ~IL CONS~T~tS ~STKR P~ IS C~L~KD ~N~ D~ISIOR I~ ~DK RK L~SOR County Manager Dorrlll advised that it appears that DNR has fumbled ~he ball on their or~uinal intent where they were go]nO to retain a consultant to do a master plan analysis and develop options relative to the Marco Island Airport. He noted that three part,es had expressed an interest In the alrport: the Board of County Commissioners, Bar Harbor, and the Conservancy. Mr. Dorrlll indicated that ~he Commission ham adopted resolutions ~n the past expressing an interest tn the alrport being conveyed ~o the Department of Transportation, and leased back to the Board Cou~:ty CommJssloners. He explained that he bel]evem that ]t the desire to express that to the Department of Natural Resources, but unfortunately, the consu]tant,m ~eport will mot be completed until April or May. Mr. Dorrtll advised that he Is proposing to extend an invitation to the Department of Natural of Resources through the Governor and Cabinet to Insist that the airport remain open until the consultant,s master plan 15 completed and a final decision is made relative to the lessoI-. Re affirmed that the current lease wt11 explre on March 14th. Commissioner Sbanahan explained that this will be an opportunity for the Commission to support the two resolutions which were forwarded to the Governor and the Cabinet, indicating that Collier County would like the Jurisdictional operl tional authority for the Marco Airport. In answer to Commissioner Volpe0 County Manager Dorrlll reported that current financial stat~m~nts and operatlno budgets show a posi- tive cash flow. He noted that he believes that the easiest thing for the DNR to do would be to extend the ]ease w~th Bar Harbor, but they do not desire to continue their lease, he suggested that the Commission propose the interim operating obligation unttl the f~nal decision. Commissioner Shanahan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnlght, Februaz.¥ 13, 1990 that Staff be directed to take the action as suggested by County Manager Dorrlll. Mr. George Keller advised that the reason that Bar Harbour desires to get out of their lease ts that It Is costing them $60,000 per year to 1,~ase the airport from Deltona. He noted that there are about 100 airplanes at the airport, and there Is no other place tn the Naples area to accommodate them. call for the question, the action carried untntaousl¥. '$Co~tutoner Sh~nahan and Goodntght left the meeting at 5:45 P.N.ee BID 89-1510, I~RIAL TOPOGRAPHIC NAPPING TO ABRAI~ AERIAL SURVEY · CORPOR~T!0N IN TRE AHOUNT OP ~81,895 - AHAR.ED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on December 29, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received until 2:00 P.M. on January 19, 1990, to consider Bid m89-1510, Aerial Topographic Mapping. C~lutoner Saunders norad, seconded by Coulselonsr Volp~ and CaLrrted 3/0 (Comnteetonere Shanahan and Goodnlght not present) to award Bid #8~-1510, &ariel Topographic Napptng, to Abrm &ariel ~rv~y Corporation in the amount of $810695. Item ~1 ~0MTRA¢? FOR CRIMINAL SUS?ICE CONSULTING S~_VICES - COI~INUED It was the consensus that this item be heard next week. Xt~ ~1H3 lmtO~;Xs) - cowrxw~o o~ k'~E~ It was the consensus that this item be heard next week. lt'mm~ ~llA · lib Commlmslonmr Saunderm moved, seconded b~ Com~lsmloner Volpm and cmx*rAmd 3/0 (CommAeelonere Sl~anmh~n and GoodnAght not prement) thmt Blzdt~et ~nte 90-103/105; 90-108; 90-110/111, be adopted. Itn Jll¢ R~SOLUTXON$ 90-10 11 - ADOPTED Con--ASsiGner Saundere moved, meconded by Commissioner Volpm and cmrrlmd 3/0 (Commlmsloners Shanmhan and Ooodnlght not pr~mmnt) thmt 00231 Fsbru~.~y 13, 1990 ~dget /~end~ent Resolutions 90-10/11 b~ adopted. ' 00~32 February 130 1990 Commlo~Aoner Volpe moved, seconded by Comuiseionsr ~aundere and c8~ried 3/0, (Commissioner Shanahan and Ooodnight absent), that the following Item on the consent agenda I~ approved: Item ~lill RK~OLUTION 90-71 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS KXPK]FDKD BY COUNTY TO REMEDy A HAZARDOUS AND DANGEROUS CONDITION - J.B. GAD~DEN_._~~. AND ALTH~& GA~__SDKN See Pages ~ Ira el/A2 RISOLUTION 90-72 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS KXPI3IDND BY COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 13o BLOCK 164, GOLDEN G&TK UNIT NO. 5 - EVA ANGELITA AMKY, ESTATE OF V~.ATRIES N. See Parjes Its el4&3 RESOLUTION 90-73 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED TJY COUIITT TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 23, BLOCK 164 GOLDEN G&TE UB!T NO. 54 - BY& ANGELICA AMEY ESTATE OF VKATR KS M. WKKMS RESOLUTION 90-74 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED BY COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NOISANCK ON LOT 26° BLOCK 231 GATE - CHARLES B. BOLTON · UNIT 7, GOLDEN Item ~14A5 RI~OLUTION 90-75 FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS KXPK]IDKD BY ~ ?O A~ATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT, BL~K 331 ~CO B~ ~IT ~ - ~I~. E~ ' , See Pages Item ~14&6 P-Zsor'UTIOW 90-78 FOR ASSESSMENT 0Z LIEN To RECOVER rom~ ~u, zNDEu BY comrrY TO AN~TE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON r.O? 13, BLOCK 128, or aamco BEACH IT~---~!~__- HAY AND AC~HO__L_L_Y B_E~TT~__E.~TATE Itn ~14&7 SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.~72 "SOUTHPO K ACHT CLUB" See Pages _~__~ ~ , OF uHKRON INTK AT TH CCC~NGS- _ M S 1. Accept the Escrow Agreement as security to guar&~tee comple- tion of the subdivision Improvements. 00 35 P~ge 59 February 13, 1990 2. Authorize the recording of the Final Plat of "Heron Points at the Crossings". 3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the construction and maintenance agreement. 4. That no Certificates of Occupancy be granted until the required improvements have received preliminary acceptance. 5. That future development of the recreation parcel~Tract "A" to comply with the Site Development Plan section of the Zoning Ordinance. BID ~9-1475 S~ING C0~ ~R RIG~-OF-WAY CONS~U~ION ~I~ ~ N. ~ ~RS, INC. IN ~ ~~.00 PER HOUR Legal notice having been published in the Naples Da~ly News on September 5, 1989, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, bids were received for Bid 89-1475 for a surveying contract for right-of-way construction. Zt~ ~4AI0 ~OL~ION 90-77 ~OVIDING ~R ASS~SS~ OF LI~ TO ~CO~ ~ ~~ ~ CO~ TO ~TK ~LIC ~IS~CE ON LOT 15, BL~ ~93 OF ~ B~ ~IT S~N - VASHI P. ~I Xtem #14All R~OLUTION 90-7~ PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS KXPE~DKD BY ~Uf~ TO ~TE P~LIC ~IS~CE ON LOT 7, BLOCK 2, ~~ ~IG~S - S~R~ CLE~ A~ ~ISE CLE~O~ It~ ,14&12 RESOLUTION 90-?9 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKR TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPE31DED BY COUNTY TO ABATE POBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 25, BLOCK 189, UNIT NO. 6 PART -- GOLDEN GATE - DAVID A. ELDRIDGE It~ #14A13 HSOLUTION 90-80 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FURDS EXP~3~DKD BY COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 7, BLOCK 74, GOLDEN GATEr UNIT NO. 2 - HARTLEY'S VARIETY STORE INC. See Pa0es ~ P. KSOLUTION 90-81 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS EXPENDED BY COONTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 15, BLOCK 156, GOLD~ ~A. TE~ UNIT NO. 5 - SERGI0 JIMENIZ See Pages Paz~ 60 February 13o 1990 R~OLUTION 90-B2 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSNENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER ~ ~ BY COUNTT TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 20, BLOCK 1, SOUTH ~[I~O~LEE HEIG~I~ - NARY JOHI~30N See Pages I~ESOLUTION 90-83 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSN~NT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER ~ EI~I~D~D BY COU1TI~ TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 5, ELOCI~ 389, NARCO BEACH UNIT TNELVE - LYNN D. NANN Ira#Ii&l? PROVIDING FOR ASSESSNENT OF LIEN IN O~ER ~ ~CO~ ~ ~ TO A~TE ~LIC ~IS~CE ON L~ ~, BL~ 352, ~IT ELaN - LEON~D J. BUBRI ~CO DIA I8 See Pages ~~ It~OLUTIOE 90-85 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSN~NT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECO~illt ~ EI~FE~D~D BT COUNTY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 8, BLOCK 0F ~ BE~C~,__.UN~!~ ONE - VERA HALLNER See Page~ ~ Ita,14&19 R~SOLUTION 90-86 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSNENT OF LIEN IN ORDER TO RECOVER FUNI~ ~m~NDED BY CO~ TO ~TE ~LIC ~IS~CE ON LOT 1~, BL~ ~L~S P~ $~IVI$I~~ - JO~ H. BRISTER ESTATE OF ~.H. See Pages _~~ It~ ~14&20 RE~OLUTIOE 90-8?, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS ~ BY COi~l~l~ TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 29 & 30, BLOCK A, BOE~UIt~T SUBDIVISION-ALPHONSO CANPBELL, EXECUTOR OF TH~ ESTATE OF It~J14~21 RI~OLU~IOE 90-86, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSNENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER ~II~D5 ~ BY ~ TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOT 2, BLOC~ 230, OF ~ ~ ~XT SIX-D~IEL CH~U ~O~E, SUrE CH~U ~ ~ ~ILLE CH~EREAU ~E Item R~:~OLUTION 90-B9o PROVIDING FOR ASSESSNENT OF LTEN TO RECO~'ER ~[F~D~D BY COUI~TY TO ABATE PUBLIC NUISANCE ON LOTS 32 & 38, BLOCK 12, ~ ~OR L~S-.DELEON JOSE It~ #14A23 See Pages Fa.gm 61 ooa3.7 ~brumry 13. ~990 90-90, FROVIDING FOR ASSE$~RT OF LIEN TO R~COVER FU~D8 ~ ~ ~ ~TE ~LIC ~IS~CK ON S~HI~ P~ ~B~LE fl, BZ~&~D IN SK~ION 12, T~SHIP 518, ~g 26E. ~ See P~ge, ~~ R~SOLUTTOR 90-91, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO ~CO~ ~ ~~ B~ CO~ TO ABATE P~LIC ~IS~CE OR LOT 2, BL~ 362, ~CO B~ ~T EL~-LEOR~RD J. B~R~ ~CO ~D~A ENTERPRISES Itn 114125 ~OL~ION 90-92, ~OVIDING ~R ASSES~ OF LIEN TO ~CO~ ~S ~ ~ CO~ ~ A~TE ~LIC ~IS~CE ON LOT 21, BL~K 209, ~ ~~IT NO. 6-~OSEPH A. PI~KR~ JR. ~D ~RY J. PI~KR It~a ~14~26 RE~OLUTION 90-93, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN TO RECOVER FUNDS ~D ~Y CO~ ~ A~TK ~BLIC ~I$~CE IN T~HIP 47 SO~, ~ 29 ~ST~ SK~ION ~. D. ROBERTS See Pages ~~ Itu~ltl~7 ~OL~ION 90-94, ~OVIDING ~R ASSKS~ OF LIEN TO ~CO~ ~ ~ CO~ TO ~TK ~LIC ~IS~CK ON LOT 16, BL~K 409, See Pages ~ ~ ~ CO~ TO ~&~ ~B~C ~IS~CK OR ~OT 13, Item #I&B1 EX~q3TION OF PURCHASE AGRK~NT WITH JA~ES VANAS A~D PHILIP PUGH ~R ~ ~CE ACQUISITION OF ROAD RIO~-OF-~AY ~R THE ~ AI~RT ~N~ NO~ OF I~LEE ~OAD See P~e~ ~~~ B. It~ J14D1 coattn~ tnd~ftnit~ly JkCC~FT&~3~ OF EMERALD LAKES, PHASE IIA, (LOT 28 THRU LOT 42) AND PHASE liB, (LOT 36 Iq~RU I~T 50) WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES - MI/q] The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation furnishes a letter approving the water distribution system for service and the bacteriological testing has met the County's require- ments. P~ge 62 February 13, 1990 2. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation furnishes a letter authorizing to place the sewer system 1nrc service. Recorded in OR Book ~ Pages ~ JkCC~P~AMCE OF AMB~tI, Y VILLAGE AT ROYALNOOD GOLF A.ND COUNTRY CLUB ~ ~ CILI~ES - NI~ STI TI0 1. The Florida Deparfment of Environmental Regulation furnishts a letter placing the sewer sys%em into service and approvin~ Bacteriological test [nE has met the County's requirements. 3. The Fire District furnishes a letter acceptin~ the hydrants for ownership and maintenance. O O~ 9~96 E~T~LXSHI~ ~ ~ PAY TITLES ~&FF TO COMIR3CT &LL SOLID WASTE PUBLIC RELATIORS ACT/V/T/ES IR-HOUSE ~ comrrY ~z~$o~ RKSOLIFTXON 90-97, &CCEPTJLRCE OF EASK1RKHTS TO, AND THE INCLUSION IN TH~ MAXIITIIAI~E FROGRAIR, TMO LELY ERTIRARCE MORUI'iKNTS INTO THK LELY GOLF KSTATK$ BKAUTIFICATIOR MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT See Pages ~& Item ~l&I1 R~OLUTION 90-98 APPOINTIN6 LES DICKSON TO THE CONTRACTOR~' LICKRSXRG See Page ~__ Xt~#1~31 C~I'XFXCA'I~ IN3R CORRECTZON TO ~E T~ ROLL~ AS ~S~D ~ ~ IS ' K~ 1989 T~ ROL~ No. 1989-~02 Dated 2/~/89 0 CO~~CE FI~OR RZFK~D The follo~tn~ correspondence ~as filed and/or referred as indi- cated below: 1, Letter dated 1/26/90 from Conrad, Scherer ~ :ames, to Records Cu~todian, re Ronald Madaffer v. Managed Log/stlcs System's Inc., Our File No: 89-475. Referred to Clork ~0 the Board, Sheriff's Office, and filed. T',.,a e 63 Cf'~3,9 February 13, 1990 1/90 Survey to BCC, "Annual Nonutility Power Producer Report", from Department of Energy. Referred to County Manager and filed. Memorandum dated 2/2/90 from James C. Giles, Clerk, to County Attorney Ken Cuyler and BCC re Performance Audits. Opinions requested. Filed. Minutes A. January 9, 1990 Immokalee Airport Advisory Board Letter dated 1/31/90 from Florida Department of Transportation to BCC Chairman, re Notification of Changes in Traffic Regulations. Referred to Cnunty ManaGer, George Archibald and filed. There being no further bu,[n~ for th,' G~d of the County, the meet~n~ was adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 5:55 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX' OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S).OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDErtOWS CONTROL ...> . .... .."~ ATTEST: ', :. '" "~" JAMES C. GILES, CLERK "." " he Board on as pre~ented ~ or as corrected Page 64