BCC Minutes 02/18/1992 R Naples, Florida, February 18, 1992
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
' following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
Michael J. Volpe
Richard S. Shanahan
Burr L. Saunders
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Patricia A. Goodnight
~;i.i ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance
D~rector; Debby Farris, Kathy Meyers, Ellis Hoffman and Annette
Guevin, Deputy Clerks; Neil Dorrill, County Manager; Jennifer Pike,
Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; MarJorie
Student and Richard Yovanovtch, Assistant County Attorneys; George
Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Brutt,
Community Development Services Administrator; Bob Blanchard, Growth
Planning Director; Dave Weeks, Wayne Arnold, Bob Mu/here, Bryan Milk,
Elly Soto, Planners; Kim Polen, Environmental Specialist; Tom Olliff,
P~bl~c Services Administrator; Bob Fahey, Director of Solid Waste;
M~ke McNees, Budget Director; Tom Donegan, Office of Capital Pro~ects
Management Engineer; Dick Clark and Bill Smith, Code Enforcement
Supervisors; Joe Magri, Customer Services Manager; Ed Maguire,
Development Services Compliance Supervisor; Jeff Perry, Chief Planner
of Transportation; Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant to the Board;
and Deputy Byron Tomlinson, Sheriff's Office.
Page
February 18, 1992
Ooo~leeioner Hesse norad, seconded b~ Conmiesioner Shanahan and
that ~hs agenda I~e approved w~th tha foll~eing
Item #8Gl - To receive a report and recomnendations of the
utilization of a materials reclamation facility to enable
compliance with the mandated 30~ recycling goal - continued
indefinitely. (Staff's request).
Item #IOA - A Resolution opposing any plan to redistrict
Collier County into a congressional district which does not
align predominantly with those adjacent counties on the west
coast of Florida - added. (Commissioner Volpe).
Item #9A - Report regarding Board procedures for
Compatibility Exception Appeals - added. (County Attorney
Cuyler).
NOTE:
Item #12C1 - Requested to be heard at 1:00 P.M. - CEX-00A-RF/A,
ID[A, representing Richard J. Aaron, Trustee of Manatee Road Land
Trust.
Item #13A2 - Requested to be heard at 3:00 P.M. -Petttton V-91-19
request for 22.4 foot variance from required 30 foot side yard
setback to 7.6 feet.
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS:
1) Discussion regarding authorization of NACO Awards.
2) Off-Campus Budget Workshops.
Conatssioner Saunders advised that the Board of Regents has
determined the Allco site ts the best site for location of
the Tenth State University.
~ A~gDA - APPltOVEDA~D/ORADOPTED
motion for approval of the Consent Agenda ia noted
~ OF BOARD OF COUNTY COI~/SSZ0)I~IIt~ R~GUT.&~ M~TII~ OF 10/15/91,
'~Mli:~E~O~ M~Tll~ OF 10/15/91 ~ SI~CZAZ. IJ~TZIG OF 10/16/91 -
Comm/~lo~r Sbanahan ~, ~cond~d b~ Commlaalor~ Ra~ and
c~r~tM ~&nlmm~l¥, to apprm u preHnted th~ Minutes of tb~
Of ~t~ Cg~m/eet~rs It~ul~ ~tln~ of 10/1s/g1, #ork~hop
of 10/18/g1 ~nd Sp~cl&! Memt/n~ o£ 10/16/gl.
Xt~m ~
Cowatsatoner Saunders congratulated the followtnG Collier County
employee and presented him with a Service Award Certificate and pin:
Jesse 3. Woods, Solid Waste Dept. - 5 years
Xtom d~SB1
:i,t°m. mlT~O~slsxml&Txn rnm2&Rv 20, 21 ~ 22, 1902 ~ -~ ~
M~m, ~ ~ ~ DX~ ~XW ~, CO~X~ ~
After reading and presenting the Proclamation to Ernle Oravoli,
Don Walters, Bud Korea and Bob Tacker,
~b~ Comm/mlon~r ~
~lmtl~ ~l~tl~ Feb~ 20, 21
Not ~', ~r~ ~ t~ Dt~bl~ ~rlc~
One o~ the representatives dtepla~ed a poster md e~latned s~e
~111 be seen at area ehoppln~ center~.
:LO
PaGe 3
February 18, 1992
DBBXgJLB, TXiI~ FB:BRUART 16-22, 1992 AS KI~JXIKI:RB ~ -
:~;.- After reading and preeenting the Proclamation to Dan Brundage,
~e~Am~oe~r ~hanahan ~oved, oeconded b~ C~lo~r ~ ~
~1~ ~1~, t~t t~ ~ocl~tl~ ~et~tl~ Feb~ 16-22,
000 P,,,~. 12
Page
February 18, 1992
Attorney Richard Sparkman, representing Diane Cabada, briefly sum-
smrlzed the sequence of events beginning with Ns. Cabada'a purchase of
a home on July I0, 1989 from Elaine and Frederick Nyetrom, her disco-
very of structural problems, consultation with the Nystroms, and the
discovery of Code violations. He requested the Board of County
Comisstoners direct officials tn Compliance Services to prepare and
present to the State Attorney's Office documentation of each criminal
violation on the Cabada house and other houses for the prosecution of
Klalns and Frederick Nystrom0 and make Collier County enforcement cre-
dible by filing a civil action against these owner/builders under
Florida Statute 125.01(b). He stated that to permit all unpermttted
structures, Ms. Cabada was to be charged $1200 by County officials,
while the Nyatro~s were only going to be charged $420 for those same
permits. He asked for mandatory Injunction to require the builders to
fix this house or other houses which are tn problems, that these unli-
censed builders be enjoined from further building activity in Collier
Cottnty, and that a damage suit be filed to compensate Collier County
for the ~ontee expended in investigation and engineering fees.
Co~uauntty Development Services Administrator Brutt gave a brief
analysis of the situation regarding issuance of Permits and the CO
(Certificate of Occupany) which was issued tn July of 1988. He
reported receipt of a statement from Mr. Nystrom dated this past week
verifying he is willing to pay one-third of the building costs. He
Page 5
February 18, 1992
:~conTir~ed that an engineering firm from Ft. Nyers has performed a
;rofssslonal survey of the site at the County's expense. He advised
that the three Issues being addressed by the consulting engineer are:
~hethsr the building was designed according to code, whether It was
built according to code, and whether the building was built according
to the designer's plans.
County Attorney Cuyler advised that, even though the County has a
process to check for Code and even though it is the County's respon-
sibility to assure that its Codes are followed, when there ts an error
the County does not have legal liability.
Co~tsstoner Saunders Interjected that the County has a respon-
sibility to make sure Its Ordinances are enforced, and Attorney
Spmrkman concurred.
Code Enforcement Supervisor Clark revealed the County prosecuted
Nr. Nystrom approximately eight months ago on an unlicensed contractor
':~ -charge, at which time he pled guilty, and was ftned, lie stated his
department wanted to seek prosecution on this matter several times and
was advised not to due to an attempt at reaching an agreement.
Ed Nagulre0 Compliance Services Supervisor, stated that, upon
inspection of the Cabada home yesterday, numerous discrepancies from
the plans and the actual construction of the home were found.
Nr. Clark acknowledged that his department Is conferring with the
State Attorney's Office regarding the possibility of additional prose-
cutton. He proposed that a resolution to Ms. Cabada's structural
problems be found as quickly as possible.
Janlce Elltott asked that the Board of County Commissioners
remember Me. Cabada needs a resolution to her problems, and work
towards a solution for her.
ltay Elltott requested the Board of County Commissioners put more
"teeth" into County Statutes and possibly make it a felony to do this
type thing, lie suggested owner/builders should be more closely
watched by the County.
Norman Petltte reported that in the summer of 1986 he hired Mr.
February 18, 1992
to help him build his home, and to this date everything works
f lnm.
Connie Stephenson indicated she hired Mr. Nystrom to build her
holm based on a set of plans drawn up by Mr. Sweatland reflecting a
later scale version of the Cabada plans. She explained she became
aware of problems with the Cabada house while In the process of
building her own and had another engineer check her house. She stated
there were some problems discovered. She announced her problem la not
with Mr. Nystrom, but she voiced concern that she purchased a set of
plans that had faults and the County approved same. She questioned
why the County did not catch that these calculations were not done
when her plans were first sent in.
In response to Commissioner Volpa, County Manager Dorrlll stated
that the plans in question were sealed by Mr. Sweatland as a licensed
irchltect. He advised there Is a subsequent complaint between some of
the parties present today with the Florida Department of Professional
Regulation resulting In an ongoing Investigation, but of which the
County is not a party.
Attorney John Clapper, representing Fred Sweatland, raised seven
points, one of which being that the County was involved at the
outset in reviewing Architect Sweatland'a plane, found them to be
acceptable, processed them through the plan review procedure and
~ranted a building permit based upon the plans. He concluded that
Fred Sweatland did not design the "as built" structure Diane Cabada
lives In as his plans were departed from very early in the construc-
tion phase in a manner that was not in compliance with the permit,
with the plans, or with the building code. He commented the April
1990 edition of Country Living Magazine contains a photographic essay
on the house that Is now owned and occupied by Diane Cabada, with com-
ments from Mr. and Mrs. Nystrom appearing throughout the article. He
pointed out that page 173 of the article states the plans are
copyrighted by H. R. Ray, Designer.
George Keller suggested an owner/builder should be required to
Page 7
February X8, X992
live in the house built under such a permit for at least a year.
Frederick ~stroa stated he cannot comment on the situation with
Ne. Cabada without his attorney being present. He stated he has a
full engineering report on another house he alleges was built
according to Architect Sweatland'a plane and which has major problems.
In response to Commissioner Hesse, Mr. Nystrom said he paid Mr.
S~&tl~nd for a set of drawings and the Cabada house is built
according to that set of drawings. He reported that the house went
through the permitting process and the inspection process.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Attorney Sparkman confirmed
tentative agreements have been made several times that the Cabada
house would be fixed by Mr. Sweatland, Mr. Nystrom and Me. Cabada but,
when time to reduce such agreements to writing, Mr. Nystrom would
shout at the compliance people and refuse to sign. He requested the
Board of County Commissioners direct Compliance Services to work with
himself and Ms. Cabada to pursue the prosecution of this matter;
direct County Attorney Cuyler to work with him in good faith~ and work
toward either a resolution or the prosecutions, both civil and crimi-
nally, of the matter.
Ce~Aeeloner maunders ~mv~d, ~econded bF Co~aimmioner Shanahan and
o~Tie~ ~ani~ousl¥, to direct It~ff to mt with the State Attox~e~'a
Office, M~. Sp~rk~an, ~nd anyone sin who h~ ~n tntarflt
mtte~ to determine wh~t Statutmm and Ordinances have been viol&ted
· z~d, if ~her~ ~r~ violatton~ for ~hlch there ~ra criminal ~anctlo~e,
that ~ he p~r~; to direr County Attorney On¥1ar to p~ttcipata
in ~sl~ns ~n~ purwue injunctive relief in civil cou~t to prohibit
l~a~e~vtelmttone of County 0rdln~ncas; direct staff to
~ ~ ~ to prohibit this type of thtn~ fro~
~ ~ ~ ~tately; ~ direr that the Cab~
¢onlsstoner Volpe requested staff bring back within a relatively
short period of ttme some spectftc information regarding the manner In
which the Issues identified through this process are being addressed.
000,, , 17
Page 8
February 18, 1992
A.M. to 10:50 A.N. at ~htch tim D~pu~ Clerk
replaced Dep~t~ Clerk Ferric ***
~T~FF ~ TO MAINTAIN EFTRANCE TO L~-COLLZ~R BEACH PA~ AT ITS
~ L~T~, AND TO INFfALL A ~ TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND ~
~ AT THI INTERSICT'TOI OF BOIITA BEACH ROAD AND LKLY BRACH BOULKVARD
Tom Olltff, Public Services Administrator, stated that Lee County
w~ anxious to begin their construction on the park, and that they are
budgeting $800,000 for the project, whereas Collier County is
budgeting $100,000. He reported that the other groups expressing con-
cern with this ~atter are Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association, CABB
' (Citizens Association of Bonita Beach), and the Bonita Shores Little
Hickory Homeowner's Association.
Using a ~ap, Mr. Olllff showed the Board the current entrance to
one hundred'space parking lot, which ts off Lely Beach Boulevard,
and shared with the Barefoot Beach Development as well as serving as
the entrance to the Barefoot Beach Preserve.
Mr. Olltff further revealed that there is a reverter clause within
the deed which states that if a second entrance ts constructed Into
this parking lot, the land (current entrance] would revert back to the
original owner, the Barefoot Beach Homeowner's Association. He
further explained that if Collier County's parking lot were connected
with Lee County's, it would be considered a second entrance and the
reverter clause would be intact.
County Attorney Cuyler confirmed that even though the current
access ts not temporary, if another access ts acquired, that current
· access would disappear.
Conlesloner Volpe stated that the main objective to to maintain
an entrance to the park within Collier County es that Collier County
res/dents do not have to enter the park through Lee County.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Olllff explained that the
proposal outlined within the Executive Summary is the only compromise
they could agree upon.
Page 9
February 18, 1992
· .:'. Xn answer to Co~,atesloner Volpe, Mr. Olltff reported that by reis-
'Caring the parking entrance Collier County would have an additional
16-20 parking spaces.
In answer to Commissioner Yelps, Mr. Olllff pointed out that
within the interim period of the proposal, the current entrance would
be for ingress only; egress would be through the parking lot to the
northern entrance, in Lee County.
Commissioner Bases stated that he felt the entrance should remain
an ingress/egress.
Mr. Olliff outlined that the first option is to maintain two
separate parks. He explained that Lee County currently has permits
from the State for this park, and that any modifications of the plan
would force them to go back through the DNR permitting process,
thereby delaying their construction start up for another year. He
disclosed that Lee County works on construction during the off-season
rather than the tourist season. He stated that the other drawback for
Lee County would mean placing a cul-de-sac at the Lee County end of
the park, .es they will lose some parking spaces. He verified that the
beach restroom facility would still be shared, and people will be able
to walk free one park to the next, along the beach.
The second option is the compromise that is proposed in the
Executive Summary.
Mr. Olltff outlined the third option as pursuing condemnation of
tho reverter language in that deed, to go ahead and try to condemn
thio to maintain the county entrance as the Board had originally
desired at Lely Beach Blvd.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Olltff responded that in the
DOT construction schedule for Bonita Beach Road the time frame is
:/ 1994.
Dr. Leon Eteenbud, President of the Lely Barefoot Beach Master
Association, read a statement prepared by him. He stated that the
Association generally supports Mr. Olllff's proposal, and added that
the Association Is willing to modify the easement In order to keep the
Page 10
February 18, 1992
entrance open (ingress only) so the construction of the proposed
Lea-Collier Park could continue; then when the four-lantng of Bonita
.;:i Be&ch Road ts complete, the easement would terminate. He said that by
providing Ingress-only at the current entrance, serious hazards in
cross traffic patterns would be avoided. He also stated that the
Aleoctatlon ~ould welcome the addition of turn lanes and a traffic
signal at the intersection of Bonita Beach Road and Lely Beach
:'.: Boulevard, as stated tn the proposal.
Dr. EIsenbud reported that the Association has been logging over
400 cars per day from the Preserve, passing through the entry~ay and
.; coming out. He mentioned also that many trucks use the road for the
condomtntu~ construction.
Conleetoner Hesse stated that he would like to see a Joint park
for~ed with Lee County, but presently the Board Is looking for an
agreement for now through 1994, to give Collier County an opportunity
to finish the entrance and exit across from the Bonita Golf and
Tennis Club.
Dr. Elsenbud further suggested that Collier County place a guard
It the entranceway.
Co~uaissioner Shanahan explained to Dr. Eteenbud that the traffic
*~ light at Lely Beach Blvd and Bonita Beach Road would be temporary,
and would be moved when the four-laning occurred.
Co~iestoner Volpe suggested putting up a temporary barricade,
requiring Lee County to use their entrance and exitway, and the same
for Collier County, until the four-lantng takes place. Mr. Olltff
stated that in order to do this, the bath house would have to be relo-
cated to accouodate a cul-de-sac with adequate turn around area.
Leo Salvatort, a partner with Quarlee & Brady, stated that he is
:.' an attorney representing the Lely Barefoot Beach Master Association.
He reiterated that the Association is willing to support Mr. Olliff's
proposal. Regarding the easement, he confirmed that the Association
il willing to modify the reverter language to provide that this ease-
,ent will be Ingress only, and will terminate when the four-laning of
Page
February 18, 1992
Beach Road Is completed. He stated that more Importantly his
clients were concerned about the safety Issue,
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Salvatort stated that as a
temporar~ solution to this problem, the access point off Lely Beach
Blvd. should remain as an ingress-only point from the time that the
easement would otherwise expire, (such as the Joining of the two
lots), until such time as Bonita Beach Road has been four-laned, and
& new access point Is Installed, and that land would be donated by the
Nmater Association to Collier County at no extra cost for purposes of
~netalltng that additional access.
:. Commissioner Hesse responded to Nr. Ialvatorl that the Board Is
for cooperation with the entrance and exit tn th~s area until a
n~e one is tn place. He stated that the Board has given Its share of
understanding to the Lely Barefoot Beach Development. He further
declared his opposition to the Ingress-only entrance suggestion, and
felt It would create a poor traffic pattern.
Lynne Parks, residing at 205 Lely Beach Boulevard, related that
her husband had a near accident - aa he was coming down Bonita Beach
Road he tried to make a left turn onto Lely Beach Blvd. when another
car pulled directly tn front of him, Ignoring their stop e~gn. She
commented that many people do not look when they pull out, and they
Ignore the atop sign.
John Neher, residing at 222 Lely Beach Boulevard, related that he
::.. &las ha~ had several near accidents. He asked the Board to resolve
this before a d~eaatroue situation occurs. He said that Lely Beach
BoUlevard should be ingress only.
Donald Dawson, residing at 46 9th Street tn Bonita Shores,
expressed that he Ia grateful to have free beaches. He stated that
the developers had asked that there be no beach access off Lely Beach
Boulevard for the public, and added that he resented being forced to
leave by the same entrance. He stated that the gatehouee should be
removed to allow drivers to see more clearly any oncoming traffic. He
urged the Board to place e traffic light at the Intersection.
Paga l~
February 18, 1992
Emily Maggie, residing at 250 Second Street West in Little Hickory
Shores0 stated that she is representing her Association. She said
that this should be considered a regional park. She believes that
what hinders a driver's view when pulling out onto Bonita Beach Road
from Lely Beach Boulevard As the fence and the plantings. She
stressed that people must exercise more driving awareness and safety
when using these roads, and that safety concern over this road is no
greater than for any other intersection. She stated that she Is
disturbed with Collier County for entering into this agreement with
the reverter clause, and that these two parks should be combined. She
· uggested that Collier County should get control over their o~n pro-
party either by condemnation or by the homeowners acquiescing, aa well
ma installing a traffic signal and turn lane, and between now and
1994, complete a study to decide where this entrance should be.
NarJorie Ward, President of CABB, said her organization's goal is
to sea the parks combined. She informed the Board that the CABB mem-
bers voted unanimously against Mr. Olliff'a proposal, stating they are
in favor of Lely Beach Boulevard's remaining ingress/egress even after
the Joint park ie created and before Bonita Beach Road ts four-laned,
guaranteeing Collier County a separate entrance and exit.
She ~x~uaarized that CABB is requesting the following:
a) the associated turn lane and traffic signal be placed at the inter-
section of Bonita Beach Road and Lely Beach Boulevard, with the
cost being borne by Lely Development, as It is due to Collier
County by the terms within the original development agreement;
b) the reverter clause should be removed;
c) the existing entrance should be continued as ingress/egress into a
Joint beach park, prior to the four-laming of Bonita Beach Road;
d) the Department of Transportation should determine the location of
the new entrance after Bonita Beach Road ia four-lmned.
David Ward, Vice President of CABB, mentioned that the primary
issue ia not safety, but ia the reverter clause in the agreement.
Dnrenda Valouaky, a Licensed Community Association Manager for
Page 13
February 18, 1992
Barefoot Beach Homeowner's Association as well as the Nester
Association, stated that she is at Lely Barefoot Beach ? days a week
~nd finds It difficult to enter and exit on Lely Beach Boulevard. She
ii stated that there is an average of 1000 vehicles per day total,
~ ~ 400-450 per day go to the Preserve. She Said she was surprised that
~j ~n accident has not already occurred.
George Keller, President of Collier County Civic Federation, com-
mented that when he has passed the Collier County Park, the parking
lot le empty. He stated that eventually this will be a large park,
and he ~uggested the following: move the gatehouse, widen Lely Beach
Boulevard, and add turn lanes and a traffic light.
In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Mr. Olltff confirmed that
16-20 parking spaces will be added if the property is deeded to
~ ~ Collier County.
Regarding transportation safety, Mr. Archibald commented that
gridlock occurs on Bonita Beach Road three days a week. He reported
that the transportation issue that needs to be resolved is access for
the following'- Lely Barefoot Beach Development, Collier County Park,
the proposed Joint Lee-Collier Park, and the Bonita Golf and Tennis on
the north side. He pointed out that most of the traffic comes from
the east, and there is a definite need for a westbound turn lane. He
a&id that by placing a traffic signal and creating an intersection on
Bonita Beach Road on an interim basis, it would improve conditions.
: In summary, Mr. Archibald mentioned that his office is currently pre-
....' paring a study for the Board that will identify current conditions of
the two lane road, projected conditions of the four lane road, and
three different signal scenarios for each of those.
Commissioner Volpe stated that he ts inclined to support main-
raining two separate parks, with Collier County continuing to provide
ee~er service across the county line to the beach restrooms and reel-
' dents from both parks sharing that facility.
Oes~ieei~ ~ ~r~d, ~econded by Co~lealoner ~x~night0 and
Page
February 18, 1992
~~ 12545 P.M. - bconvwn~dz 1520 P.M. et ~hlch tim
Clark ~ofr~n replaced D~puty Clark N~re e,e
~ TO FI~VID~ ~ ~tTC~ZI[G ~ FOR TR~ TI~U~ORTATZO~
DZ~DV~T~ (TD) F~Oal~l IX COLLI~ COU~r~ - ~PROV~D; ll~tL
AUDI'T~ TO R~'I~M FAR~ BO~ COLL~CTZON~ AND REPORTZXG PRACTZCES
MPO Coordinator Perry advised that this Item involves an agreement
between the Board of County Commissioners and the Training and
Education Center for the Handicapped (TECH). He explained that last
year the County embarked on this program, supporting the State's
~" fund.
Nr. Perry orated that during the five month period in which the
'~. Count~/ contributed the match of the state grant, the Comity
"Transportation Coordinator was able to deliver approximately 15,000
trips (48,500 billable miles) to the program utilizing the trust funds
;- estimated at 860,000, noting that the local match was $20,000, and of
that $12,700 was provided by the County.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Perry reported that
.complaints have been raised by the private sector transportation ser-
vices, i.e. taxi cabs and charter bus services. He Indicated that
those complaints have been investigated and staff to comfortable with
the responses received relative to same.
Mr. Perry communicated that the Transportation Coordinator provt-
',.dee transportation for: medicaid patients; veterans to Tampa and
Miami; Services for Seniors; and Trt-County Services for Seniors
Comlsstoner Hesse inquired aa to the number of people that bens-
'fit fro~ this program. Mr. Perry replied that he will provide the
Commission with a complete program summary of all the services pro-
vidsd.
Page 15
Pebru&~Z 18. 1992
Co.missioner Volpe noted that concerns have been raised with
respect to fare box collections. Mr. Perry stated that fares are
collected on board, which goes against the required local match of the
County and staff feels that it Is appropriate to make sure there are
adequate controls in place. He requested that the Coulssion
&uthorlze the County's internal auditor to review this issue.
In response to Co~uaissloner Shanahan, Mr. Perry advised that one
Issue that the coordinating board ts dealing with, is who ts eligible
to ride. He explained that currently, the state law is wide open,
i.e. the elderly, handicapped, and the economically disadvantaged. He
reported that the coordinating board Is attempting to narrow do~n
policy la.es relating to who needs this service.
Hr. Perry e~lained that last year, the Co~ty spent a 1l~tle less
~h~ $13,000 ~d staff would ~tke to keep those monies An the reserve
acc~ts for ~ssAble funding nex~ year, along with any additional
f~ds ~hat are not spen~ due to ~he fare box collection. He no,ed
that In order to maintain the s~e level of service ~o the
tha~ la presently riding the sys~em, additional local f~ds would be
needed, but those reserve not expended next year would be available
~d a~aff could come back ~d ask the Co.lesion to re-appropriate
those f~ds as additional County resources for tr~sportation to
au~ent the shortfall that ~ay arise from the site.
Co~lssloner Sh~ahan cited ~hat many people, with a real need,
~e ~tng tr~sported ~d ~here ~ay be a link between this progr~
providing ~blAc tr~sportatlon An the future.
Co~tssioner Volpe ~esttoned ~hether this ts ~ on-going co~it-
~nt. ~r. Perry replied that this is an on-going program, established
~ ~he sta~e. He dt~lged that the State Transportation Disadvantaged
Co~l~slon has a trus~ fund and unless At Is done away wi~h by the
Legislature, that trust f~d collects money from license pla~e fees
~d other sources of revenue and the money As distributed back ~o the
local governance on ~ ~ual basis. He reported that ~he local
g~e~ents are re. ired by law ~o deliver ~hts transpor~atlon through
Page
February X8. X992
the various agencies.
~t wi~h ~ to pr~i~ ~ for the Tr~rtat~
Dl~t~ ~~; ~ t~t t~ Clerk of C~te ~ t~ Inte~l
A~t~ ~t~ t~ 'f~e ~' collection ~ re~rtJng prac~ceo of
Page 17
February 18, 1992
~ ~ T~ )~TROPOLITJUI PI. MINING ORG&N/Z&TZO]I (NPO) FOR LOC&L
MikTQ~l]l~ ~ TO ~ A ]t~D~IUI~ GRMIT TO CO~DUCT A PUBLIC TI~U~ZT
141)0 Coord/nator Perry remarked that thio item Is s request by the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (HPO) for $9,375 In general revenue
to support a public transit feasibility study. He stated that the
~a~Jorlt~ of the money for this program would come from federal
tranwportatton funds in the amount of $75,000. He cited that the
Irate would also contribute $9,375.
Mr. Perry announced that the study would determine whether public
transportation ia warranted and feasible In Collier County, and tf
the l~PO would develop such a system.
Commissioner Volpe questioned whether the $13,000, ae requested to
be held In reserves tn the previous item, could be used to fund this
study. Hr. Perry replied that those monies could be used, however,
they My be needed to keep the program up and running.
Co~tastoner Volpe asked whether there should be an lnterlocal
a~rme~ent w/th the City of Naples. Hr. Perry advised if the amount of
the Grant ts large enough tt would be worthwhile to bill the City
separately. He noted since $9,000 ts being requested, the City's
amount would be 15~ of that figure and staff suggests that thts be
t~ken from general revenue which ia paid for tn part by City rea/dents
and they teould pay their fair share tn that manner.
Comm/mto~ ~ moved, ~econded t~ Comtsato~er ~ and
~t~le.] 4/0 (Comm/mtomer GoodntGht out of the room), to a~rovw
~'oSreLatton of $9,375 from General Fund Reserves to ~3~port i
Trln~lt Fee~LbllLty 8tud~ gr~nt.
92-132, JLIgE~IDZ~i R~SOLUTZON 91-T20 TO CORF~CT 8CRZ~
~ ZNTIE~ T,~GIkL DESCItZFTZONFOR LZ~:N ItlES0LUTZOR OF
S~Z(~ P,,ASS ]lC). 91-07-10678 - I~CORD OF ~ VILLAS O, ~FL~S, INC.
Community Development Services Administrator Bruit stated that
this /ten ts a request to correct a acrivener's error relative to
33
Page 18
February 18, 1992
Colplilnce Services activities. He advised that the legal description
of the latbJect property should have been Lot 636 rather than Lot 632.
~~lo~r ~h~mov~, s~con~ ~ Cmieei~r ~ ~
~l~ 4/0 ({leiur ~i~t ~t of t~ r~), to corr~t tk
~t~'l ~r, there~ ~t~ ~lution 92-232.
Page 19
February 18, 1992
~ea ~~ ~~t rm~ to the ~eet~ng at ~le t~
County Attorney Cuyler provided a five page handout relative to
Board Procedures for Compatibility Exception Appeal Hearings. He
explained the pre-hearing submittal process, hearing procedures and
general comments on competent substantial evidence.
County Attorney Cuyler called attention to Section 11, Page 5 of
the handout, noting that it should read "Thereafter, the Board shall
High the evidence..." rather than "Thereafter, the Board shall
discuss the appeal".
Xn response to Commissioner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler stated
that a simple majority vote ts required tn these matters.
Attorney Bruce Anderson remarked that the attorney representing
the petitioner should have the right to directly ask the questions.
In addition, he suggested that it may be a good Idea to ask the peri-
tioner to give an estimate of the length of time needed for his case
and the time could be allocated and subsequent hearings could be ache-
duled accordingly.
Hr. Anderson Indicated that when the ordinance was adopted, It
tracked fairly closely the case law at that time, however, there ts
no~ ne~ case /aw Indicating that stricter scrutiny applies tn a quasi
f.!, Judicial proceeding whereas the County has a burden of clear and con-
i!;.VLncLng proof. He noted In this context it ia a mlnl~u~ of a prepon-
derance of m~betanttal competent evidence and It may be clear and
convincing substantial competent evidence.
County Attorney Ouyler advised that the Commission will ultimately
be permitted to rezone these properties and appropriate the burden of
proof under the lowest circumstances.
~ M l~OIT, &FI'~ALZZ~3 2~Z gZtO~T~ NAXAGE~Z31T DX~C~OR'8
Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Dally News on
J~nuary 26, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of ~ublication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition
CEX-004/RF-A, filed by Robert Duane of Hole, Montes & Associates,
representing Richard Aaron, Trustee of Manatee Road Land Trust,
appealing the Growth Planning Director's determination for denial of
the Co~patlbtlity Exception application for property located on the
south e/de of Manatee Road and ± 1/4 mile east of S.R. 951 in Section
10, Township 51 South, Range 26 East (68 acres).
At this time, the pertinent parties offering evidence at this
hearing w~re sworn in by Chairman Volpe.
Growth Planning Director Blanchard stated that this is the first
appeal of a compatibility exception application which was denied
through the process established in the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance.
He detailed the contents of the Executive Summary as follows:
description of the property and location map; determination letter;
the appeal and explanatory letter to the appeal.
Mr. Blanchard explained that the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance
provides for the process of compatibility exception applications which
allows for zoning that is Inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan
to be retained on the property If the criteria in the ordinance is
~let. He noted that the criteria requires a review of surrounding
zoning and development and nearby traffic conditions to determine If a
zoning district which ts consistent with the Growth Management Plan
would be compatible with the surrounding area.
Mr. Blanchard remarked that the ordinance states that a com-
pmtibility exception shall be granted with or without conditions only
/
if an applicant demonstrates by substantial competent evidence that
zoning districts which are consistent with the Growth Management Plan
would be incompatible with existing land uses in the surrounding
ee 3"/
Page 21
February 18, 1992
~ Mr. Blanchard advised that the property subject to this appeal ts
a large 68 acre parcel located on the south side of Manatee Road,
approximately 1/4 mile east of SR 951. He indicated that the property
is currently zoned P~F-16 which is inconsistent with the Growth
Management Plan. He related that a maximum of 16 residential units
per acre Is allowed and the maximum allowable height is 75'. He
affirmed that setbacks are required to be 35' from the property lines.
He announced that the parcel is designated urban coastal fringe on the
Future Land Use Map which establishes a maximum density, according to
the Plan, of four units per acre except for a provision which allows
for affordable housing. He stated that the plan designation also per-
~its for conerclal development, subject to locatlonal criteria and
'i~ other non residential uses.
~. Mr. Blanchard referred to the locattonal map on Page 5 of the
~: packet and detailed the surrounding properties. He indicated that
after reviewing the submitted application tn light of the criteria tn
the ordinance, staff determined that the application failed to
demonstrate that a consistent zoning district would be incompatible
with surrounding land uses. He advised that staff has determined that
the RMV-6 zoning district with a density cap of 3 units per acre would
be consistent with the plan and compatible with the surrounding neigh-
borhood. He reported that the existing zoning district which is
RM~-16, if allowed to development prior to any additional road tmpro-
:.~ vements would add a potentially unacceptable traffic volume of over
3.5 times the traffic of a consistent zoning district to Manatee Road.
He explained that this would result in 6,?00 vehicle trips per day for
the RM~-16 zoning to around 2,070 trips per day at a consistent den-
att'y of 3 or 4 unite per acre.
Mr. Blanchard announced that Manatee Road empties all its traffic
onto 8R-951 which is a two-laned undivided state highway currently
operating at Level of Service LOS) "F" with an adopted LOS "E".
Page 22
February 18, 1992
Mr. Blanchard remarked that based on the analyets and findings
this application was denied and the applicant was advised that the
property would be recommended for rezoning to the RMF-6 zoning
district with a density cap of 3 dwelling units per acre. He stated
that following the notification and appropriate posting within the
allotted appeal period, an appeal was filed which is the subject of
today's hearing.
Mr. Blanchard explained that Section 10.5 of the Zoning
Reevaluation Ordinance establishes the Board of County Commissioners
as the sole authority to hear Compatibility Exception Appeals. He
noted that the ordinance states that "the Board of County
Commissioners shall adopt the determination on the application for
colpltiblltty exception with or without modifications or conditions or
~.:.rsJsct the determination. The Board shall not be authorized to modify
or reject the determination unless the Board finds that the deter-
mAnet/on is not supported by substantial competent evidence or the
determination is contrary to the criteria in Section 10.6 of the
ordinance."
Nr. Blanchard advised that the Board may overturn the deter-
of denial if it ia determined that there ts not sufficient
infor~ation to determine that a consistent zoning district is com-
patlble with surrounding land uses.
In response to Commissioner Saundere, Mr. Blanchard revealed that
the actual impacts of development will occur at the time of issuance
of building per. It, however, when looking at compatibility, it is
.' appropriate to consider traffic at this time because the impacts of
:,f.. traffic on surrounding properties should be analyzed.
~ Mr. Blanchard detailed the qualifications of his educational
background. There was no opposition to recognize Mr. Blanchard aa an
expert for purposes of this hearing.
Attorney George Vega referred to a wall map and questioned whether
staff took into consideration the expansion of the utility area. Mr.
Blanchard replied that he understands there is a proposal to consider
Page 23
February 18, 1992
that mite &e a treatment facility In the future, however, this was not
considered tn the application.
Xn response to Attorney Vega, Mr. Blanchard acknowledged that a
plant on the site could be compatible with residential. He Indicated
that t~ptcally, residential units are cjustered further away from the
~oat Intensive uses.
Attorney Vega recalled that Mr. Blanchard stated that there would
be no access to the subject property except through Manatee Road. Mr.
Blanchard replied tn the affirmative, noting that additional access
could be provided through one of the adjacent developing parcels.
Xn response to Mr. Vega, Mr. Blanchard explained that the apart-
~ente that are adjacent to the large part of the "L" are developed at
12 unite per acre and compatible to surrounding land uses.
Attorney George Vega stated that he represents a person whose pro-
per~ has been rezoned, however, if he loOses this hearing, he will
loose his R~F-16 zoning and will end up with three units per acre. He
cited that he has an objection to the burden of proof. He related
that hie client would agree to eight units per acre.
Mr. Vega introduced Mr. Robert Duane, who wall serve In discussing
the adjacent lands.
~Wion~ ~madere moved, ~econd~d by Commissioner Goodnight
amd ~t-~l~d ~imou~ly, to accept ~. Robert Duane a~ an e~ert, for
~ of this hearing.
~r. Robert Duane announced that he is a certified member of the
A~eric~n Institute of Land Planners.
Mr. Duane celled attention to Policy 3.1.K of the Growth
Plan, which speaks of retaining appropriate zoning or
Changing Inappropriate zoning. Re Indicated that Mr. Blanchard stated
that even if a determination ts ~ade that the existing zoning district
te co~patible, the zoning may be changed if a less Intensive district
ts determined to be more compatible. Re reported that a generally
accepted planning principle ts that not all sites are equally suitable
for develol~aent. He explained that access and Infrastructure are
Page 24
February 18, 1992
i~portant, but equally important Is the Influence of existing land
~ uses, ho~vsr, the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance does not accept that
principle very well.
Mr. Duans stated that staff's recommendation for three units per
acre allows the petitioner to place 200 units on his property. He
noted that assu~lng 10 units per acre ts the average density for a
~ultt-fmmlly project, the 200 unite could be placed on less than 20
acres of the 68 acres of the subject property. He Indicated that some
essential services could be placed on the remainder of the site
Mr. Duana explained that the petitioner needs to compete In the
Mrket place with the nearby condominiums, and noted that the numbers
of the costs associated with three units per acre do not work.
Mr. Duane questioned whether this Is a suitable location for
single family uses or suitable to develop 1/3 in multi-family housing.
Ha affirmed that three units per acre with the densities spread
throughout the property would result in a higher Income housing at
this location. He indicated that given the influence of the utility
site, ~obtle home parks and the shopping center, a higher Income pro-
~ect ts not likely to happen.
Mr. Duane displayed a rendering depicting eight units per acre,
noting that it exceeds the open space requirements of the Zoning
Ordln&nca ~nd could be developed less densely than the adjacent con-
dominimaa and rental apartments.
In conclusion, Mr. Duane cited five points of disagreement with
staff: size and configuration of property Is not of sufficient size
· to screen ~nd buffer the Impacted noise and adjacent land uses; County
did not fully consider the expansion of the County,s utilities;
Influence of land uses to the north, west and east establish a
character that is not conducive to supporting low density uses on the
· ubJect property; development standards of the RMF-16 district limited
to eight units per acre and two stories in height Is a more suitable
land use designation than 3 unite per acre since this property Is
clearly transitional tn nature; and lower density uses should be
Page 25
February ~8, 1992
oriented to the south of thts property based on all the factors of the
existing land use and zoning characteristics.
Couutssioner Volpe questioned how the property, If it is developed
at eight units per acre, would buffer the single family residences
from the commercial property on the west and from the utility location
on the east. Hr. Duane advised that there would be a 100' buffer
around the southern and eastern edges of the property in order to
create a separation between the subject site and neighboring proper-
In response to Co.missioner Goodntght, County Attorney Cuyler
advised if the Board determines that three units per acre are not sup-
ported by competent evidence, the Growth Planning Director's decision
may be modified in some way and it becomes relevant as to what ts a
compatible district.
cie lil(NJeeed: St20 P.N. - ltecOl~tened: 3:30 P.N. at uhich time
BepltTelerrk Ouevin replaced l)epqty Clerk Hoffmim cee
Attorney Vega presented the deed to the property which he indi-
cated shows an easement located generally tn an east-west area. He
said the deed establishes for the benefit of the subject property, a
60-foot easement of ingress and egress which provides access to S.R.
951.
Fred Bloetscher, Assistant Utilities Administrator, was sworn in
by Coltsstoner Yelps at this time.
~, Attorney Vega asked Mr. Bloetscher to advise the Board on what
~lans the County has for the area marked as expansion of utilities.
Mr. Bloetscher stated the referenced site ts the old Isle of Capri
waterworks site acquired by the County approximately 10 years ago. He
said the site consists of 40-acres and has a 2-million gallon tank and
repu~p station located In the northwest corner. He reported the
County Water-Sewer District has plans to expand the tankage and ultl-
;! mately, the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant will be at
that location.
Co=-lssloner Shanahan co~u~ented the discussions regarding a
Page 26
~eb~ary 18, 1992
12-million gallon per day reverse osmosis plant were not commitments,
~umd many things must happen before that construction.
Nr. Bloetscher agreed that it will be at least 10 years before
that project Is contemplated. He added the plan la to mirror the
North County plant, using the same basic design.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bloetscher stated the uti-
lities master plan approved in 1986 does not extend to that point in
time, therefore, the proposed expansion on this site Is not shown on
that plan.
N~. Blanchard asked Mr. Bloetscher the size of the property, where
the County Is tn the application process, if there Is an accomplished
site plan, what ts proposed for buffering, and what kind of develop-
mens Is directly adjacent to the Foxftre water repump plant and the
Lely sewage treatment plant?
Mr. Bloetscher replied the size of the property is 40 acres, there
is no application being processed, the site plan ts conceptual,
existing heavy vegetation will be used for buffering, and both the
loxftre and Lely plants are located directly adjacent to residential
neighborhoods.
Attorney Vega presented Ray Carroll as an expert witness.
Ray Carroll stated he Is a real estate appraiser with the firs of
C~rroll & C~u~-oll ~aal htate in Collier County. He said he has b~en
· qualified in the Circuit Court as an expert, and holds the
designation with the Appraisal Institute.
O~A~iad~m~nt~ou~ly, to accept Ray Carroll as an expert witness,
Nr. Carroll stated real estate appraisers utilize the concept of
]:.: highest and best use regarding the feasibility of alternative zoning
"ii: densities. He said when applied to land, that concept ham several
tests, He said the first teat questions what alternate uses are phy-
sically possible on a piece of property, and the subject site has
: i~portant physical characteristics. He mentioned this la relatively
low land at an elevation of between three and four feet. He said
Page 27
February 18, 1992
roughly three feet of fill over the entire 68 acres will cost approxi-
.~ataly 820,000 per acre before any development commences. He tndt-
cared the second test concerns what is legally permissible on the
site, while the third test deals with what uses are financially
feasible after meeting the physical and legal tests. He advised it ts
not financially feasible to locate low density, single-family uses on
this property.
':~'-'- Co~tssloner Volpe asked if the Board ts able to consider the sca-
no. lc issues Involved?
County Attorney Cuyler reported the Board always has an overriding
..constder&tion aa to beneficial use of property, however, the position
· would have to be taken that the Board finds the rezone to be a taking
-of the property.
Earl Frye stated he has been a resident of Collier County for 30
years, and during that time he has been a realtor and developer and
has served as Chairman of First National Bank and C&S Banks. He asked
if the Board or Staff would pay 850,000 for a single-family lot in
this neighborhood? He indicated when the property was purchased,
there was no question that tt was zoned for 16 units per acre which is
fairly compatible to the area. He said as a realtor, developer and a
banker, there ts a right to believe there 18 some consistency in the
community. He said he ts not asking for anything Inconsistent In the
area, because high density already exists whether It be mobile homes,
condominiums or commercial property. With regard to the 60-foot ease-
lent, he mentioned the property was purchased three years ago from
B~ncFlorida and the easement was negotiated in the purchase.
Co.missioner maunders couented It appears there Is a range of
what Is compatible. He said there has been testimony that eight units
per acre tm a density for which the owner could realize a reasonable
rm~urn on his Investment.
Mr. Frye stated that is correct, but equally Important is for the
development to fit into the community and be marketable. He said he
~i.'would be very happy to agree to eight unite per acre.
Page 28
February 18, 1992
Oo~ieaioner Volpe asked, for reasons of consistency and com-
patibility, If allowing this project to develop at more than three
Mits p~r acre will be Inconsistent with policies of the Growth
Nanagemnt Plan?
Co~ty Attorney ~yler advised tt ts not Inconsistent ~tth the
Oo~he~lve Pl~ if the Board finds that three units per acre la not
coapattble.
Attorney Ve~a asked that certain photographs be entered tn~o evi-
dence as ~rt of the record. (Not provided to the Clerk to the
~d. )
In m~, Attorney Vega s~ated the Board has the authority to
c~slder division of the proper~y. He added when talktn~ abou~
pattbtltty, feasibility must also be considered. He concluded
~ests. He said the first test ~estlons what alternate uses are phy-
sically ~sstbl~ on a piece of property, and ~he subject site has
t~rt~t physical characteristics. He aenttoned this ts relatively
1~ l~d at ~ elevation of between three ~d four feet. ~e said
r~hly three feet of fill over the entire 68 acres .111 cost approxi-
~ely ~20,O00 per acre before ~y development co.encee. He Indi-
cated the second test concerns what ts legally permissible on the
site, ~tle the third test deals .tth ~hat uses are ~tnactally
feasible a~ter ~eetln~ the physical and legal tests. He advised
not ftn~ctally feasible to locate lo~ density, single-family uses on
this pro~rty.
' Co~lssloner Volpe asked if the Board ts able to consider the eco-
n~tc ts~ee involved?
Cowry Attorney Cuyler reported the Board always has ~ overriding
c~ideration as ~o beneficial use of property, however, ~he position
~:~ ~ld ~ to ~ t~en that the Board finds the rezone to be a t~lng
of the pro~rty.
Earl F~e sta~ed he has been a resident of Collier County for 30
years, ~d during that time he has been a realtor and developer and
~s ee~d as Chatr~ of Flr~ National B~ ~d C~S B~a. He asked
February 18, 1992
tf the Board or Staff would pay $50,000 for a stngle-fa=ily lot in
this neighborhood7 He indicated when the property was purchased,
there ~aa no question that it was zoned for 16 units per acre which is
fairly compatible to the area. He said as a realtor, developer and a
banker, there is a right to believe there is some consistency tn the
community. He said he is not asking for anything inconsistent in the
area, because high density already exists whether it be mobile homes,
condomlniu~ or conercial property. With regard to the 60-foot ease-
Lent, he mentioned the property was purchased three years ago from
BancFlorida and the easement was negotiated in the purchase.
Conissioner Saunders co~uaented it appears there is a range of
what is compatible. He said there has been testimony that eight units
~er acre is a density for which the owner could realize a reasonable
return on has investment.
Nr. Frye stated that ie correct, but equally important is for the
dev~lOl~eent to fit into the community and be marketable. He said he
would be very happy to agree to eight unite per acre.
Co~aisetoner Volpe asked, for reasons of consistency and com-
patibility, If allowing this project to develop at more than three
unite l~r acre will be inconsistent with policies of the Growth
Management Plan?
Count~ Attorney Cuyler advised it ia not Inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan if the Board finds that three units per acre is not
compatIble.
Attorney Vega asked that certain photographs be entered into evi-
dence u part of the record. (Not provided to the Clerk to the
Board. )
In wu~tary, Attorney Vega stated the Board has the authority to
consider division of the property. He added when talking about com-
patibility, feasibility suet also be considered. He concluded from
Co~seloner Goodnlgh~ disagreed wASh S~aff's determination tha~
three ulte per acre ~e compatible w~th the eurro~d~ng area. She
Page 30
February 18, 1992
i nid with ~bIle homes on t~eo sides and comaercial on another, the
Board should consider a mix of multi- and single-family homes. She
indicated she does agree with Staff, however, that a density of 16
~ntts per acre is too high.
Conissloner Hasse suggested that six units per acre seems to be a
reuonable density for the area.
Co~tsstoner Shanahan communicated his concern that If the Board
~upporte the decision of Mr. Blanchard, a compromise Is not allowed.
Commissioner Saundere stated In looking at the surrounding deve-
lopment, a density from three to eight units per acre would seem to be
compatible.
Co,missioner Volpe indicated that based on the evtdence he has
heard and the criteria of the ordinance, he ts satisfied with Staff's
determination. He questioned how the Board would be able to approve
RNa-6, RNF-7 or RNa-8 without Staff having had the opportunity to pro-
vide Input on that designation.
In response to Commissioner Hesse, County Attorney Cuyler
clarified that the Board has the ability to overturn the dectston of
Staff or modify the decision. Re said if the decision is overturned,
there ~ould be a good argument that the petitioner would retain
RN~-16 zoning. He suggested that the dectston be modified to the
cap the Board thinks appropriate, and have Staff return with that
rezone at a future time.
~~lo~er ~unde~ moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahan, to
~t tia~ ~ for htltton CEX-OOi-R~/A, with the p~op~rty appointed
fo~ · dmmoity not to exceed eight units per acrm.
~Lr. Blanchard asked for clarification that the maximum density
being proposed does not exceed the average density and Intensity of
surrounding properties. He explained that ts a specific requirement
in the ZRO.
Commissioner Saundere stated he cannot make that finding without
/: knowin~ what the average is.
County Attorney Ouyler asked if the petitioner ts willing to
Page 31
February 18, 1992
.?.&ccspt &e a stipulation baaed on the wording of the ZRO that it cannot
exceed the average density and intensity?
Mr. Duane responded in the affirmative, adding that he agrees with
Mr. Blanchard that the ZRO limits this petition to the average tnten-
~ie~ ~aunder~ nodlfied t~ ~tl~, ~~ ~
~A~ ~, to. p~A~ t~t t~ ~lmt c~t ~
~ ~ ~t~i~ of ~i~ p~rtiem.
Contsetoner Ooodntght commented she agrees with the Board's
find/ng, however, does not think the procedure 18 fair to Staff. She
asked if these items can be handled in a different manner?
Mr. Blanchard indicated in the future, Staff will be prepared for
m second level of being able to calculate the surrounding intensity
and density and provide guidance as to what Staff considers the maxi-
um~ averaging. He said he will have that information available, but
At wll! only be presented should the Board find that his decision is
not based on ~ubstantial and competent evidence.
Page 32
February 18, 1992
II:IO~,~F~OII t$-154 !~ FI'TIT*rOI V-91-19, ..T&MI.~ C. ~f'gMART OF ~ &
ITOITll, AT"I'~IIITI IT L&M, II::I~I~IITZIG D&V*~D ,lid CJLROL~II
~ I ~.4 lq3OT VART,II~C~ ~It0M ~ REQUIRED SO iq:K)T ~I'D~ YARD
~ TO ?. 6 ~ /*OR A a~tGs/womsoP, FOR PltOI'E~IT LOCaTeD AT
$~50 22ST AVZ]II~ ~.#., GOLD~ GAI'I l~STATg9 - ADOP'I*gD
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
January 26, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition V-91-19,
filed by Jmes C. Stewart of Stewart & Storter, Attorneys At Law,
representing David and Carolyn Ryan, requesting a 22.4-foot variance
from the required 30-foot side yard setback to 7.6 feet, for property
located at 3350 21st Avenue S.W., in Golden Gate Estates.
Pllnner Arnold explained the petitioner received a building permit
to construct a garage on the subject property, which indicated the
20-foct setback from the property line. However, he said, upon
construction and submittal of a survey, the garage structure was
actually built 7.6 feet from the property line.
Cow~tastoner Hesse Inquired if the garage was constructed to
replace an existing building?
Planner Arnold Indicated it is his understanding there was a shed-
t~fpe structure somewhere near the property line.
Coutastoner Volpe asked how did this situation occur?
Planner Arnold replied he has reviewed the building permit appli-
cation which contained a plot plan that showed a garage 20 feet from
the property line. He said the applicant, Is required to submit a spot
~urvey within 10 days of pouring the concrete slab on which the garage
would be built. He stated If the spot survey Is not submitted, the
applicant ts held responsible for any improvements from that point
forward. In this case, he said, the spot survey was not submitted
until slx weeks after construction commenced.
Coutestoner Hesse asked If the structure impacts neighbors?
Planner Arnold Indicated the Staff Report Includes a notarized
letter from the adjacent neighbors to the east who are immediately
Page 33
February 18, 2992
&ffected, which etatee they have no objection. He advteed the pro-
per~ owner to the rear has stated an objection in a letter, however,
he linde it hard to believe that neighbor can even see the property
that is affected.
Co-mteeloner Haeee asked how far is the structure from the rear
propert~ line, to which Planner Arnold stated approximately 270 feet.
Attorney Janes Stewart, representing David and Carolyn Ryan,
explained that the Ryans asked Cowry Staff for an outline of the
things they needed to do to build the structure. He said they were
given ~it application re~irements for single-family and duplex
e~cturee with the matters they needed to address highlighted. He
a~taed the highltgh~ed areas were a site plan with ~tldlng plans and
electric, but the spot survey retirement was not highlighted. He
~ld they located tn the site plan the property line at the spot where
they ~d their next door neighbor thought the property line was
located.
Co~lssloner Hasse asked how far ts the building fro~ the closest
nelgh~r*s home?
Atto~ey St~ar~ stated a distance of approximately 100 fee~
Co~eeloner Sanders asked If there ~s any Indication of ~
~nten~ to avoid the setbacks by not providing ~he spo~ ~rvey until
altec the garage was const~cted?
Plier A~old stated there to nothing tn the ~tldtng file that
~uld lead ht~ to believe that. He said It apparently was ~ honest
~tstae on the part of the Ryans that they did not how the spot sur-
ly ~s r~tred. He noted, however, on the Inspection card given to
with the ~tldtng ~mtt, it lists the Inspections re.ired which
· lncluted the spot ~ey as well as footings, slab and frying tnspe=-
ttons.
Page 35
February 18, 1992
J~BXBSlBIIBi.T/O~I'TO&M, fLR.D BID dJ'91-16~8 FOR 2,600 CURB~IDE Jl~C'l'~'~lJl~
~: ~ AT & TOTAL COST OF 011,414 TO LEWIS SYSTIMB - APPROVED
County Manager Dorrill explained the Board previously awarded an
Initial order of recycling containers two years ago, and there ie the
need for additional containers for the residential curbside recycling
program. He Indicated only 2,600 containers are being ordered,
because at some point the Board will need to reconsider the need to
aaintain the residential recycling prograa over the larger Materials
Reclamation Facility (MRF).
In response to Commissioner Volpe, County Manager Dorrill stated
these containers are for new customers. He said the County does not
purchase replacements, but will sell container8 to customero in the
event they are loot or stolen.
0mem/Nlm~ ~mmd~r~ moved, aeconded by Co~mtsatoner bN ~nd
gl~t'td ~ly, to Ise~d Bid ~91-1818 for 2,600 curl:~tde
· ~c~ll~ ~tn~ at a total coat of $11,414 to Le~tl ~Z~tm.
Itel ~
~O~~T~ TO I~,AI~MITX~ATXON 0BLXGATXON~ F~R~OODLETT~-~
~ FUItSUAF/ TO FD~t~T NO. 111916658 AS A VALXD
i~0J~CT~, ~AIVIN~ ~FP/BXD PROCEDURES FOR CONTRACT SERVICES TO
~ OBLIGATIONS, AND THEREIN AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PROCEED
~fH~ N~eOTIATIO~ NITH TURRELL AND ASSOCX&TES, XNC. (CXK
019) - APFROVED NIT~ CONDITION~
Transportation Services Administrator Archibald explained this
1tam involve8 environmental mitigation of land for the Goodlette-Frank
Road project to extend Goodlette-Frank Road from the southern segment
of Carlca Road, north to Immokalee Road. He said off-site mitigation
ie required concurrent with undertaking the construction, and the
Board ts being asked to waive the bidding process to consider a
contract which will allow the CountY to meet the permitting require-
ments established by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER}.
He reported Staff has worked out an agreement whereby the mitigation
can occur tn the Big Cypress Preserve which Involves creating a
wetland area from a six-acre fill site. He advised Staff is proposing
Page 36
February 18, 1992
to utilize the sub-consultant currently performing work for the prime
Consultant on the design project. He added Staff has completed the
design ~nd permitting of the construction project and Is in the pro-
cess of closing out the prime design contract. He Indicated included
in a contract with the sub-consultant will be not only the permitting
work, but also the cost of monitoring over three years and the actual
site work, aa well as possible creation of additional wetland plants.
In response to Commissioner Hasaa, Transportation Services
ld~tnietrator Archibald replied Staff can do some of the work tn-
house, however, it will be more cost effective to have a contractor
undertake so~e of the site work because of the equipment Involved. He
amid the majority of the earth work would have to be done with equip-
~ent the County does not have in Its fleet or the people to run It.
In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Transportation Services
Ad~Inistrator Archibald stated part of the reason Staff is asking to
declare ~n emergency concerns permit conditions from the State which
require the mitigation activities to be concurrent with the construc-
tion of Ooodlette-Frank Road. He said It ts Staff's recommendation to
uae the sue sub-consultant under a direct contracting basis, to
include work on a unit price basts to be brought back to the Board for
approval of the total dollar amount.
Responding to Co.missioner Volpe, Transportation Services
Ad~tnistrator Archibald stated the not-to-exceed amount of $39,900 Is
bmmed on the expectation that the mitigation portion and re-vegetation
of the w~tland area will occur as outlined in the permit, and the
County will not have to re-vegetate during the three-year period.
~ZT~~~ly, to ~1~ the mtti~tion obli~tion~
in ~ Pm~m/t Mm. 11191666fl a vml/d project mr~mncF~ mppro~ the
~ivew ~ I~P ~d bidding p~ocedu~em; authorize Staff to proceed with
finui c~tr~'~ fe~ negotiations with Tu~rall ~n~As~o~late~, Inc.~
~o~nt e£ $S9,~0~; ~mi to tz~ to ~o se ~ch of the work tn-house u
Page 37
Februar~ 18, 1992
TO AMi.qD& COMTRACT FOR BID MO. Ol-17Ol, COMBTlt'UCTZOM
OIP MIB~JB~LIJ~, BAarZTARY BIIeKRS, ROADA]ID DRAXMA(II IMPIqOVBM~IMTB l'M Till
~ IsBaUUtL'TXOMPABX X'J~vROVIM~WTASmHMIMT DISTRICT TO T.A.
~, Z]IK~. OF FLOR~ZIA ~MTll~ AMOOIlT OF 04,853,396.05 - APPIK)VI~
Tom Conrecode, Office of Capital Projects Director, indicated it
ts Staff's recommendation to award a contract under Bid No. 91-1791 to
.consist of the construction off watermatns, sanitary sewers, road and
drainage Improvements within the Naples Production Park Improvement
Assessment District to the low bidder, T.A. Forsberg, Inc. of Florida,
tn the amount of 84,853,396.05.
Coumtestoner Hesse asked if any local firms responded to the
advert/moment for b/ds?
Mr. Conrecode said a number of the nine responding firms were
local. He said T.A. Forsberg Is from Punts Gorda and has done work
for the Collier County Utilities Division tn the past.
Commissioner Volpe asked tf the amount of the contract came tn
blow the engineer's estimate?
Mr. Conrecode Indicated the low bid ts $700,000 below the eett-
B~te.
c~z~Jodumesiimouoly, to asgard a contract for Bid No. 91-1791 to T.A.
Foz~Jo~g, Y~c. of Ylortdm for tho total project coot using AlternAte
'A° ~n tho ~mount of $4,853,396.05; approv~ tho naceogo~y budget
~to; end nthortzm the Chmtrmmn to ex, cute the contract.
J~3~RT ~ C~KTZON A~D PRELIMINARY ACCEPTA~CI OF THE LIBRARY
~ADDI'TI~~D~Z~ FRO,,T~CT - ACC~I'~D
It was the consensus to accept the report as presented In the
agenda package.
It was the consensus to accept the report as presented tn the
agenda package.
Page 38
February 18, 1992
~ ~ CtX:ll~,rl'ZOZl' &X'D PRELZNZ~ ACC~PT~ OF TI~
-~:i &~tZCt~I~ZUL~ CEr/~t PRO.TEC:T - ACCEPTED
It was the consensus to accept the report as presented in the
~!':.: ' agend~ package.
It ~s the consensus to accept the report as presented in the
agenda pacl~age.
.. ~ W ~ FOlt TI~ ~R~T (~ART~R O, FZ~qL 1992
M~ke McNees, Budget Director presented a report on the state of
aaJor revenues for the County for the first quarter of Fiscal 1992.
He said major intergovernmental and enterprise fund revenues as well
as ilpact fees ars on target for what was predicted. He said the only
exception is in ambulance fees, which are down approximately
however, that shortfall is already being dealt with through the recent
rate increase and by no~ filling certain positions. He reported sales
tax revenues are ~ below prediction while gas taxes ars fro~ 0-4~
behind, but it is t~portant to note that the County only appropriates
95~ of revenues, so tn real terms, the County ts slightly ahead in all
those revenues.
In ~e~ponse ~o Co~misstoner Volpe, Mr. McNees stated landf~ll
tipping fees are slightly low at this point, and Staff will watch
those figures carefully so if the situation worsens, budgetary changes
l~¥ be recommended. He said the recent Increase in tipping fees was
no~ fully represented in the first quarter, but will help bring the
figures ~n line for the rest of the year.
J'. A OtZlI~I~ZOI;&Z, DZrFRZCT ~l~lCZl DO~,~ NOT ALZG]~ ~~tT~LY ~T~T~
JI, D3Z~IIT~tXrleTZI~ OI'T]lZ ~ COJl,~T OF FLORZDA - AIX3~
Page 39
Februar~ 18, 1992
Co~tssioner Volpe asked the Board to publicly acknowledile that It
not ~upporttve of the current plan for redistricting which will
divtte Collier O~ty in t~, ali~tn~ It with Monroe ~d Dads
Co~ttes on the east coast.
~~ ~ly, to ~t ~lutl~ 92-135 ~t~ ~ pl~ to
~~1~ ~llle~ ~ into a C~sl~l D/strict ~tch ~ ~t
~t~ ~tel~ ~tth thm ~Jamt C~tt. on tbs mt ~t of
FI~i~.
Page 40
February 18, 1992
~ ~-156 i~ lv~TXTX01I CC~-92-9, ~ C. ~E, Ik~, COIJ, X~P. COOIITT
~ ~ CiPIT~r- PR03~"I~, ~Xl~O A CO&ST&T, C0113TRUCTXO~ ~F~IkCIC
T,11~ V&~T&IIC~ TO I~TAXII JOf B::XZSTXIIIi CUL-DK-SAC, G&TB PJID CO~"Rrl~
&DD ~ AT ~ V&IIDIEI~XLT B:E~I~CR COOlITT P~R]~ - &IX)PT~D IllTH
Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on
31nuar¥ 26, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication flied with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition CCSL-91-9,
filed by the Office of Capital Projects for the Board of County
Commissioners, requesting a coastal construction setback line variance
to ret·in an existing cul-de-sac, gate and concrete posts, to
construct minor structures, and to re-vegetate the dune and add
landscaping at the Vanderbllt Beach County Park.
Klm Polen, Environmental Specialist with Pro~ect Review Services,
explained this request Is required by Collier County Ordinance 91-102,
to allow the retaln~ent of an existing cul-de-sac, gate and concrete
posts, and to allow the construction of minor structures consisting of
· dune walkover, sidewalk, fence, an outdoor shower facility, benches,
bicycle racks and a flag pole. She said the request also seeks appro-
val to re-vegetate the dune and add landscaping at the Park. She
reported as a result of foot traffic, approximately 40~ of the dune
system ts devoid of native vegetation, therefore, re-vegetating is a
very Important ·spec· of this petition. She Indicated all aspects of
this petition have been found to be consistent with Ordinance 91-102
Is well as objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. She
concluded Staff recommends approval of CCSL-91-9 subject to four stl-
ca,Tied unamlno~el~0 to cloma the lmbltc hearinG.
C~L~TtiNI~Ia/WI¥, to id·pt Resolution 92-136 approving Petition
(~C~-~14 esakJeot to 8tm££ Itipulltton~.
Page 41
Februar~ 18, :1992
BJ:BQLIFTX~8I 9~-1:97 B:I PITXTIOJl CCSL-gl-7, WKSTI'J~HOUSK COI~ItJN1T'X~ iFF
It&PLIB, 33lC., J~II~qFISTZJ~J & COASTAL CONSTI~I~TZON SETBACK LI']II VARXJklI~E
LATIR&L UllLKMIY W'ITH];N BAY COF.,OIF'Z~ PKL];CAN BAY i~D~ ~WFT 8~ TRA~ Bo
C, D <d · - ADOPTB:D ~TH ST:IPULATIONB
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
January 26, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to' consider Petition CCSL-91-7,
filed by Susan Hebel Watts, representing Westinghouse Communities of
Naples, requesting a coastal construction setback line variance to
construct six accessory east-west dune walkover structures and one
lateral walkway within Bay Colony, Pelican Bay PUD, Unit 8, Tracts B,
C, D and K, in Sections 5 and 8, Township 49 South, Range 25 East.
Klm Polen explained the petitioner has removed many exotic species
free the dune systea, and as a result, approximately 40~ of the dune
8¥steR ia devoid of native vegetation. She said according to provi-
sions of Collier County Resolution 91-13, Petition CCSL-90-13, the
dune SyBteR iS tO be re-vegetated in those areas. She said the pro-
posed location of the six accessory dune walkover structures is in an
area where a primary structure exists or is being proposed, and where
the least impact will occur to the dune vegetation. She added the
proposed accessory lateral walkway structure located directly seaward
of the Coastal Construction Setback Line (CCSL) may have a cumulative
impact over time, resulting in the general degradation of the beach or
dune system. She advised Staff finds the construction of the six dune
w~lkover structures to be consistent with the Ordinance and the Growth
ldanagement Plan, however, the lateral walkway is inconsistent, because
other alternatives are available to provide access to the dune
walkover structures. She concluded Staff recommends approval of
Petition CCSL-9I-7 only for construction of the six accessory east-
west dune walkover structures ~ubJect to eight Staff stipulations.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Polen provided the Board
with drawings of two scenarios as alternative8 to the proposed lateral
000 65
Page 42
February 18, 1992
~ walkway. {Copies not provided to the Clerk to the Board.)
~u~n Hebel Watts, representing Westinghouse Communities of
Naples, explained the overall request is based on a comprehensive
beach access plan as well as a comprehensive dune protection plan.
She uid B~¥ Colony is 200 acres in size, located directly south and
ammt of the Ritz Carlton Hotel. She said when built out, the project
will have 1,000 homesites which will generate approximately 2,000
residences. She stated there will be a series of highrtse con-
domintumo, a clubhouse and single-family homesites. She reported the
lateral walkway is proposed to provide a disbursement of the 2,000
=eeidences to the beach as opposed to bringing 1,O00 residents along
one dune crossover and one location on the beach. She mentioned the
j~etitioner entered into a Development Agreement with the Department of
NaTural Resources (DNR} in 1989 which was reviewed by Collier County
and which set forth ver~ rigorous parameters for how development
occurs in this area. She said a specific requirement of DNR was for
dune crossovers from each building as a means of protecting the
existing dune system from pedestrian impacts. She stated another
Feq31irement was preparation and permitting of a dune enhancement re-
vegetation plan, and two of the three phases of that plan have been
completed. She noted part of the proposal for the lateral walkover is
to provide access within the dune to protect that vegetation. She
maid the petitioner looked at the alternative of a trail connecting
the decks, however, it would have to be constructed at an elevation of
· 15-16 feet and the ground elevation is three feet. She said that
!i. would be considered by DNR to be a major structure as opposed to a
'minor structure.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Ms. Watts stated other alter-
?? natives were explored, however, the petition as proposed is the only
v~able way to accomplish the task within the rules of DNR and Florida
Statutes.
Ms. Watts provided the Board with three letters in support of the
pet~t~on.
Page 43
February 18, 1992
Cmieatoner Saundera co~ented one of the reasons for the lateral
walk'w&y ts to provide handicapped access to residents not directly on
the b~ach. He questioned if those people could have handicapped
access at one point and not at each of the six ~alkover structures?
Brett Moore, consultant to the petitioner, responded the current
design will have one handicapped access along the north side of the
conservation area which will provide access to the lateral walkway and
have handicapped accessibility throughout the entire segment of the
~ne az-ea.
Co-~teeloner Saunders communicated under the Orowth Management
Plan, the lateral walkway is allowed only if it provides handicapped
access. He stated he would prefer such access to be provided not only
at the end, but at each of the walkover structures.
~. Watts stated she believes the lateral walkway te in confor-
mance with the Comprehensive Plan, whether or not it is accessible to
the handicapped. She added there te nothing tn the Florida Coastal
Zone Protection Act prohibiting the proposed walkway.
Coulseloner Volpe asked Ms. Polen for clarification of her belief
that the walkway is inconsistent with Policy 11.4.? of the Oro~th
~4anageNnt Plan.
~. Polen explained there are no existing adjacent structures in a
aiatlar line on Pelican Bay Beach in that area.
~. #arts advised the Ritz Carlton ia only 600 feet to the north
of this project and has decking 90 feet seaward of the CCSL, and
Vanderbilt Beach Condominiums are 13 feet to the north with decking
ranging from 90 to 110 feet seaward of the CCSL. She said this pro-
Ject ta proposed to be 45 to 90 feet seaward with an average of 60
feet. She added the Pelican Bay North Beach facility to the south ts
%10 feet seaward.
""- Co--Iastoner Shanahan asked if the petitioner will consider pro-
riding handicapped access in the aiddle and at both ends of the walk-
way structure?
M~. #arts Indicated she will be happy to meet with D~R to deter-
Page 44
February 18, 1992
if that can be accomplished w~th~n their struckura! requirements.
~ ~~ ~~1~, to ~~ ~tltt~ ~-91-~ for ~t~-
1~ ~, ~J~t to start stt~latt~ ~d with t~ ~ltl~
~ ~ ~ttt~ ~t f~ ~ t~ ablll~ to c~t~ct ~-
~~ ~ ~ t~ mt~l~ ~ ~th ~ ot the ml~ st~c~,
February ~8, 1992
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
Januar~ 26, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider adoption of e
Resolution designating areas surrounding the Wiggins Pass Waterway as
Mo #~ke-Idle Speed Only zones for the purpose of regulating boat
Thomas E. Conrecode, Director of Office of Capital Projects
Management, explained this item is before the Board of County
Co~missioners due to Stipulation ,3 in the Dredge Permit for the
Mlggtns Pass dredge project. He confirmed that the area in question
has been designated a Manatee protection area within the Collier
County Seagrase Protection Plan. He reported receipt of a letter from
Pelican Bay Development as well as a letter from the counsel for
Island Marina.
Comtsstoner Volpe questioned whether there is any problem with a
consideration of expanding the "No Wake" zone due to the manner in
which the advertisement appeared, and County Attorney Cuyler responded
~i' that advertise~ent is appropriate subject to DNR (Department of
· N&tural Resources) signing off on this.
Michael Langella, representing Westinghouse Communities, agreed
the 'No Wake" zone as proposed should be expanded to include ali areas
eastward to the Vanderbllt dry bridge and also areas surrounding
i Conk/tn Point, Wiggins Pass Marina, and Shelter Is/and.
~te~ ~IF, to close the public he,ring.
Oo~mt~tO~ ~ ~oved, seconded bF Cow. lesions= Sh~u~h~, to
M t~ ~ I~tdg~ o~ Vm~d~rbllt Drive, ~ubJect to ~pp~ov~l ~ D~R
Page 46
February 18, 1992
Coealastonsr Saunders stated he cannot support the motion as he
. doe~ not know the full Impact of such actions without benefit of staff
input.
Mr. Conrecode expressed a beltef that extension of the "No Wake"
zone would add to the public safety of the area.
County Nanager Dorrlll revealed that DIfR (Department of Natural
Resources} initially gave reason to believe they wanted an expanded
area. He suggested a eubsecluent request may be received from the
Bonita Shore area.
call for the question, the ~otlon carried 4/1 (Commissioner
e~ed), thmb~opttngResolutlon Si-leS.
:%?.
Page 47
Februar~ 18, 1992
~ & ~ ~ T~ NIIIIIlI~ WI ll~:~OD ~L~VATXON FOR
Legal notice having been published In the Naples Dally News on
J~nuar~ 26, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition FDPO-91-4
fAled by James McKAnney, Jr., requesting a 2.73 foot variance for pro-
pert~F located on Sunset Drive, Good/and Isles.
Planner Bob Mulhere explained the nature of the petition As that
the PetAtloner is proposing to replace an older existing mobile home
wAth a new one. He advised that the Petitioner provided a petition
signed by all the residents of the street supporting this variance
request. He recommended approval of this request.
C~mm/~lo~er ~ moved, ~econded by Co~iealoner Ooodni~t mhd
c~=ried ~an/mousl¥, to close the public hearAng.
~z'z'~-e4~lF, to m~pFovm Petition FDPO-91-4, the~bF Idopttn~
February 18, 1992
0'1"18, RI PKTZTZON CU-gl-15, DAVZD S. WZLKZSOSI
~ g:lLZfZL,&R R:B,&, LTD. PAR., ~Zlrg A CONDZTZOBE&L UBE TO ALLOW
a S'80 JqMJT (:XJIIIIDWZC&TZCFff TOWIER FOR PROPI:RTY LOCATID APPROXZIG&TKLY TWO
~ ~ OF I]FFB:RSTATK 75, MEeT OF AND ADJACKNT TO ~.R. 29,
CO~BT:BTZII~ OF AFPROXZMATELY 3.5 ACRES - ADOFT'KD/STAJ'F DIRECT'KD TO MORK
WITH VARZOOB AGI3eCZKS RE KNFOR~, KTC.
Legal notice having been published In the Naples Daily News on
January 8, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an Ordinance pro-
riding for the establishment of a communication tower conditional use
In the mA" zoning district for property located south of Interstate
75, w~st of and adjacent to S.R. 29.
Planner Bryan Milk identified the location of the subject property
and advised it t8 currently zoned agricultural. He announced Cellular
One has requested a shared use of the tower site from GTE Mobllnet
baaed on a January 22nd letter. He summarized that GTE will accom-
modate Cellular One to the extent possible, but they cannot accom-
Bodato all the antennas required by Cellular One.
In response to Commissioner Hesse, Planner Milk explained that the
~ Mobllnet tower to the only one tn the area suitable to accommodate
antennas of the sort required by Cellular One.
David S. Wtlkison, representing Florida Cellular ReA, LTD. PAR.,
confirmed Attorney Bruce Anderson and Frank Heaton are present.
Commisatoner Volpe questioned whether there has been a commitment
regarding shared use with Cellular One, and Attorney Anderson answered
in the affirmative.
Paul Rodineky stated he has a cellular tower tn his back-yard, and
co, firmed that he has animosity only for GTE Mobtlnet. Ne stated the
only one to check the electromagnetic fields for towers In Collier
Co12nty le the Industry itself, I.e. Cellular One and GTE Mobilnet. He
questioned why there are no standards tn Collier County to have
:!souieol~e privately check these towers. Ne recited problems he has
experienced such as clocks running fast, ringing in his ears, profa-
nity on hie television, radio and telephone, etc.
Page 49
February 18, 1992
Xn response to Co--lesioner Saunders, Hr. Rodlnsk~ confirmed he
~.has no objection to this Petition.
St&fl directed to research with various agencies which might moni-
tor ·nd enforce regulations relevant to towers, and to keep Mr.
~:Rodlnsky apprised of their status.
~r~~t~ly, to cl~ tk ~bltc ~tq.
~ ~ ~ ~ tltl~ ~1~ ~ gopt~ ~d ~te~ into
87
Page 50
[:/:' ~OJU~ O~ OOOlIT~ CO~IZSSZOM~I~' CO~UMZCATION~
February 18, 1992
Commissioner Goodnight reported receipt of a letter from Ross
0ble¥ regarding the 1990 Cost Control Productivity Committee's report,
and suggested a response to same is in order.
Conisstoner Volpe stated he will follow-up on the matter.
Commissioner Shanahan suggested the horticultural pickup program
should be addressed and brief comments ensued, resulting In County
Nanager Dorrtll stating there will be an analysis of the program
reported at the conclusion of the first thirty days of the program.
County Attorney Cuyler communicated he is going to amend the pro-
cedures he set out regarding the Compatibility Exception hearings.
County Nanager Dorrtll advised that, pursuant to staff's request,
the Chairman has et~ned the annual applications for the NACO
Achievement Awards.
Regarding off-campus budget workshops, County Manager Dorrtll
relayed the Clerk's request to coordinate a cost for either having a
court reporter at the workshops or look Into buying acme t~pe of por-
table recording device with enough microphones to record each Indivi-
dual' a comments.
Commissioner Volpe stated the State Senate will be debattng on
February 20, 1992 the remedial legislation dealing with the bed tax,
and County Attorney Cuyler responded that Assistant County Attorney
Wilson will talk with each Commissioner after the meeting.
I~ smd carried unanimously, that the follo~ing lt~ under
~ ~t ~nda ~ a~r~ed ~d/or ~opt~:
Zt~l~&~
~T~ ~ FACZLZTZI8 ACCePTeD FOR B~I~RZR~ LAI~$, UNZT 6 - NZTH
The water and sewer facilities to serve the project cannot be
placed Into service and no Certificate of Occupancy shall be
Page
February 18, 1992
Issued until the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation furnishes a letter authorizing the placement of
these systems into service.
2. Bacteriological testing has met the County's requirements.
3. The Fire Flow requirements of the project have been
satisfied, and the Fire District furnishes a letter accepting
the fire hydrant for ownership and maintenance.
4. Receipt of payment for water usage from Utilities for bac-
teriological testing.
OR Book 1709 Pages 1836 - 1841
~OY~FTXO~ 92-104 R~ FXI~tL FLAT OF "B~XIq~HXR~ LAIC~$ ~XT ~XX" ~
~ ~ - ~~ ~ STI~TIO~
Accept the Irrevocable Letter of Credit as security for main-
tenance of the infrastructure until the Board of County
Commissioners grants final acceptance of all Improvements.
Authorize the recording of the final plat of "Berkshire Lakes
Unit Slx".
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Maintenance
Agreement for Preliminary Acceptance and Resolution authori-
zing preliminary acceptance.
Preliminary acceptance of the improvements will not become
effective until water and sewer facilities have been conveyed
to Collier County Water-Sewer District.
s.. P.g..-
~.,UTX~I' 92-105 F~0VXDZI~ FOR ASSES~Sf~T 0F LX~II FOR T~ CO~T OF
A~AT~I~FF OF P~IC ~UX~CE ON LOT 5, B~OCX 54, OF NAPLES PAF~
~UBDI'VXSXON UNXT NO. 4, NOeL M. NXLLIAM~, OV~ggR OF R~CORD
' ~OTl~e~ 'Z-I0~ FROVXDX~ FOR A~SESSN~NT OF LX~I~ FOR T~ CO~T OF
:A~AT~BIOT OF I~YB~ZC IfUXSAI~C~ ON LOT IS, AND ~ ~AST 01g~-NALF OF LOT
l', ~ ?, UlfXT 1, IfAFL~S NA~OR, JOSE VZC~FI~ ~R~RA, ~ OF
&~AT~rf OF I~YBLZC NOX~I ON LOT~ FOUR ~ Igllg~TY FXV~ (495)
A~D F~qFA~ ~ ~gl~ggTY SXl (496), ZSL~ OF CAPRI, BUSZ~SS ~eCTZON,
~XCHAKD J. D~WXTT AND MARIA E. DEWITT, OMNERS OF ~gCORD, CIO CO~,
Page 52
February :18, :1992
///
JI:~OLIJT~OJI g2-10e FROVZDZNQ FOR ASSESSM~MT OF LXI3I FOR THI COST OF
ABATB~T OF POBLX¢ ~Z~I31~I ON PART OF LOT 56, MAPLES ~
O0'ELZTTLI ~, THZ FIRISTOIFJE TXRI & RUBBKR COMPAMY, ~ OF
92-109 PROVZDZMG FOR ASSESSMKMT OF LIKN FOR TH~ COST OF
OF ~lC ~Z~CK ON ~ 0F L~ g, B~ 85,
~~A ~ ~ZA I. FZ~OA
JI:IBOLUT/OSI OJ-ll~ PROV/DXMO FOR ABSESSMI31T OF LIKM FOR TH~ COST OF
~ OF PUBLXC lrffXB&MCK OM LO~ 8, BLOCK 122, M&RCO BI&CH OM/T
FOUR, ALBZOM-COLI ~ & LLII~ZMQ, ZNC., ~ OF R~CORD, 3AM~S A.
JI~OLUT~OI 92-113 FROVXDXMG FOR ASSESSME]FT OF LIEN FOR TH~ COST OF
AB&TBI~:MT OF FOBLXC IqUXSAMC~ ON TOT 8, URZT 4 OF R~V/KRA COLONY GOLF
ELBA DIYKLO~ CORPORATZOM, 0WRKR OF RECORD, KLZ BARON,
`'age 53
February 18, 1992
~:F~FTZOII 92-115 FROV/DZNG FOR ASSISSi~NT OF LZ~I FOR T]~ COST OF
A~ATBMB~T OF IKTI~ZC NUZBA31C~ OW LOT 20, URZT · OF RZVZ~RA COLONY GOLF
~TAT~, ~ DBV~~ CORPORATZOR, 0NR~R OF R~CORD, ~T,T BARON,
II~8Z~ID~D AS~T
02-119 I~OVZD~ FOR ASS~Sl~]IT OF LI~I FOR T~ CO~T OF
· F ~R~I~,ZC ]IUZ~LIIC~ ON ~T 21, UNIT · OF RM~tA COT~I~ GOLF
~ DIEtt~LO~ CORPOI~ItTZON, ~ OF R~CORD, ~T,! BARON,
UNIT · OF RZVZ~A COLOiPf GOLF
OM]I~R OF I~CORD, ~LT BARON,
Itea
'~)LOTZO~ 92-119 FROV/DZRG FOR ASS~SiQDIT OF LI~]I FOR T~ COST OF
. *JL~A/1M~IT OF I~BLIC )IUI~JIC~ ON LOT 13, URIT · OF RZV/~Jk COLONY GOLF
· ITAT~:~, ~ D~t~LO~ CORPOR&TZON, 0NR~R OF R~CORD, ~L! BLRON,
~:]~IT~011 92-119 FROVIDZNG FOR LIS~S:S~IZ]IT OF LIaR FOR T~Z COST OF
&~lk~ ~ I~LIC NU/S&]IC~ ON T~ 5OUT~ 55 lrENT OF THg NORTIS 180
~ ~ ~ ~ 22~.~0 ~ OF ~ RO~ 0~-~ O~
~~ OF ~ ~-~~ OF ~ 50~ ~~ OF
~~ 4, ~~ 4T ~, ~ 29 ~T, DASD H. ~D~ ~
L~ I. ~ ~STA~, C/O q~l~ ~D~, ~ OF ~CO~
~ebz"uaz'~ 1~ ~992
Ztem
92-123 FROVZDZNG FOR ASSKSSHz]rf OF LZ~]I FOR ~ C08T OF
OF PIYB~ZC NUZ~JIC~ ON LOT 15, BLOC~ 243, NARCO B~BAC~ UIIZT
D43[l"*'~L C. MCGRATil, ~GZSI"~:R~D AG~]I'T FOR HCGRATB RO0Z'ZRG, lNG.,
R~O&gTZOII '~-125 FROVZDII~ FOR A~'SX~ZlT OF LIaR FOR T~ CO~T OF
AAL-'II~ZlTW~X¢ IIUZ~C~ 0W LOT 26, BLOC~ 82, UNZT 3 PART --
8OZAI~AT~, 31~,Z0~ RO~IBAOI~JLRD ~Ie. A WgXRB~G, ~
Iteu ~1SA4v
FOR ASS~S~(Z2rT OF LI~]I FOR T~ COST OF
llUZ~ ON LOT~ 19 AZlD 20, BLOC[ D, DICI~R
S~tIIABARG~ AgD &]~lL,1, K. S~,gJI~ARGI~, ~ 0Y
See Pages
~T~ '2-127 FROVZDZNG FOR J~SU~I~ZlT OF LZ~I~ FOR T~ CO~T OF
~ ~ ~ZC ~~ ~ ~ 624, ~ZT 4 0F R~ ~
~~, ~~L ~ ~, l~., ~GZ~ ~ ~R ~
robruary 18, 1092
ROAD (¢.Z.I. PROJECT BO. 006) AXD S&TXSrACTIOX OF ORD~
See Paeco
dam
iMIBIBIIBIITOIP lq:XYR PARTY TRANBPORTATZON FZNAJICZNG STUDY AGRIIMINT TO
I~ZIO~ATIFIJlIDIBi'FWKKXCOBBULTANTSIPORTHBFURPOSKSOFPROVIDXJlG
~B~TI~A~DIXBCUTZONOFCOFfRACTCHAI~3EORDIRADDRK~13~
Z~
II:~BOLUTXOII OZ-126 PROHZBZTZNG TH~ OP~R&TXON OF TR~CES AIFD OTHI3q
~8~8BSXAL TllX~ IL~VXI~ A R&TrD LOAD-C&RRYZJ~3 CAPACZTY XN ~CC~88 OF
FTVB (6) TOIB FRGM THROUGH MOVIMIITB ON KlJfl3S #AY AWl) IgXJ~38 LAXI BLVD.
See Page /7/
RISOLUTZQg 02-129 RL'VXSXIM SI'ElD LI3~XTB ON PORTXONB OF C.R. 961 (XSLE
OF CJLPRX ROAD) BKTWqKEN Z-75 AWD C.R. 846 (Xl'I4OKALKK ROAD) AT 46 N.P.H.
AIlD 88 N.P.II. coJrsZSTEXT WZTII STATE AND FKDKRAL HXCmleAY CRZTKRZA
Xteu ~16Cl deleted
See Page
See Pages / '7~"'""- /2~:::>
BOTXCl OF PRQNXSI TO PAY AND AGRKEMEFF TO EXTI3FD PAYMENT OF SIWKR
ZI~SACT FIBS FOR LTli~A N. DAVX$ - IN TEE AMOUFF OF $6,600.00
,-- 177- /oca
IIOTXCI OF PRGNXSl TO PAY AND AG1t/Z)IZ3~ I"O ~ PATMEFf OF SIWKR
Z~I~C~ FOR ~ ~'r_,ORZDA Z~/Z~3rT~, INC., & //,ORZDA CORPORATION -
Z~'ZlB&MIXTi~O~ $~,800.OO
Februarv 18. 1992
~ do].e~od
J~SOLUTZ~ 02-131 ADDZJIq3 UNZTS TO TH~ 1991 COLLZKR COUFfYMAND&TORT
COJ~t~BP~I~ZJI~ CKRTZPZC&T~8 0F CORRECTION
~ Lzm'TED lmR $11.200/CLOSrIM COS~ IO'1' TO gxczm:~
see Pages
i,'.' ~ ~ II'D COlTRACT 91-1689 FOR PROV/BZOI OF S&MPLI COLLICT/OII
-''lid 1111~~ 113t~F/CI~ TO ]ICLUD~ TEl PKLICAI BAY SERV'J:CI:S DI'V]:S:ZON
DIED COIFE~I~ Z~ D~ IO ~
C~I~ETZOII OF ~ PZII RZD(~ PRO3'IG~
See Pages
~ 44~NDM~DIT 'rI~IJ~FERRZNG 04,120 FROM A FORD FOOND&TZON
~.__-~...----~ PO~ WORK P/"tOV/D~D BY 0CPM DEP~ FROM
ACGO~IT ~1-110401 TO All EXPENN~ A~
Se. P.g.. m/o - ,2/,S-
1989 TAX ROLL
Page 57
February 18, 1992
288/289
TAX ROLL
02/10/92-02/12/92
307/308
1091 TA~OLL
02/10/92-02/12/92
133/135
02/10/92-02/12/92
19~1TAI~XBLE ~
1991-63, 1991-65/1991-66
02/05/92-02/12/92
The following Itscellaneous correspondence was flied and/or
referred to the various departments as Indicated below:
The Department of Community Affairs Notice of a fourth series
of workshops re rules that Implement growth management laws.
Copy to Start Lttstnger and filed.
2e
Letter to Recipients of Recycling and Education Grants dated
1/28/92 from John M. Ruddell, Director, Division of Waste
Management, FIorlda Dept. of Environmental Re0ulatton, re
Temporary Operating Subsidies, Unused Equipment. Copies to
Bill Lorenz, Frank Brutt and flied.
Letter dated 1/31/92 to Chairman, Board of County
Commissioners, from Jon M. Iglehart, Environmental
Specialist, Florida Dept. of Environmental Re~ulation, re
Collier County - WRR, File No. 112077605 and accompanying
application Involving dredge and fill activities north and
south of Alligator Alley. Copies to Bill Lorenz, Frank Bruit
and filed.
Hems to Governor's Office of Planning and Budgeting dated
1/30/92, from Annette D. Phillips, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Florida Dept. of Transportation, re
Notification of Proposed Budget Amendments/Work Program
Amendments to the FY 91/92-95/96 Adopted Work Program -
92-1009, 92-1010, 92-1011, 92-1013, 92-1014, 92-1015,
92-1016, 92-1017. Copies to George Archibald, Commissioner
Shanahan and filed.
Letter to James C. Giles, Clerk dated 1/27/92 from Mary Ellen
Hawkins, Florida House of Representatives, acknowledging
receipt of Resolution concerning regional planning councils.
Flied.
Copy of letter to Steve Trtbble, Director, Division of
Records and Reporting, Florida Public Service Commission
dated 1/31/92 from the Office of B. Kenneth Gatltn of Gatltn,
Woods, Carlson & Cowdery, re Application of Florida Cities
Water Company, Golden Gate Division, for an Increase In Water
and Wastewater Rates in Collier County, Docket No. 911194-WS.
Copies to Nell Dorrlll, Rich Yovanovtch and flied.
February 18, :1992
Letter to Board of County Commissioners dated 1/31/92 from
Timothy J. Jesaltts of Henderson, Frank/tn, Starnes & Holt,
P.A., advising they have been employed to defend the workers'
compensation claim filed in Manuel Rodrtguez, Jr. v. Collier
County Board of Commissioners, Clatm No.: 265-13-8081, D/A:
5/8/91. Copies to Nell Dorrtll, Ken Cuyler and filed.
8. Minutes Received and Flied:
Agenda and Minutes of the Environmental Advisory Board
Meeting of 1/8/92.
Collier County Planning Commission Agenda of 2/6/92 and
Minutes of Meetings of 10/17/91 and 11/7/91.
Ce
Agenda and Minutes of the Pelican Bay Advisory Committee
of 2/4/92.
9e
Notice to Owner dated January 31, 1992, to BCC from Allan R.
Popper, Attorney and agent for Bristol Flberltte Industries,
for Skylights furnished for the Carlca Rd. Water Storage &
Repump Facilities0 under an Order given by Cardinal
Contractors, General Contractor. Copies to Steve Carnell,
John Yonkosky and filed.
Preliminary Notice to Contractor dated 1/29/92 to Collier
County Board of County Commissioners and Fidelity and
Deposit Company of Mary/and that, pursuant to contract with
Mitchell & Stark Construction Co., Inc., Apac-Flortda, Inc.
furnished 4" limerock base prtmed, :1" Ty~e III asphalt and 1"
overlay (Ty~e III asphalt) for Willoughby Acres Subdivision
Right of Way. Copies to Steve Carnell, John Yonkosky and
f/led.
11.
Memorandum to Council Members from Wayne Da/try, SWFRPC
Executive Director, dated 2/4/92 re Council Appropriation
from State of Florida with accompanying list of names, phone
numbers and addresses of legislature delegation as well as
Governor and Lieutenant Governor. Copies to BCC and filed.
12.
Letter to Commissioner Volpe from Guy L. Carlton, Collier
County Tax Collector, requesting a check in the amount of
$4,475.00, to be refunded to 179 Mullet Permit holders from
FY 1990-91, with accompanying copies of Commissions account
detail general ledger, memo to Guy Carlton from Brenda C.
Wilson, and Emergency Ordinance temporarily suspending enfor-
cement of Ordinance 91-19.
BID PROCESS &ND IMSTAL~IkTION OF A CARD
ZIIBCI/LDINGS 'A' AND 'J' - $12,727.00
:..UI~.~G~ THIRST ~ FOR SHERZFI'eS OPFICI TO PROCURR
BQUX:lqlBi~ TO AID IN ~ m XIIYK:STIGATIOII' AJrD :BUSPIECT
X~I3ITIT2C~TI'QM - $28,0OO.00
Page
February 18, 1992
There l~elng no further business for the Good of the County, the
~eeting ~aa adjourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 6:25 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSXONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
~ · PE, CHAIRMAN
mtnuf~m approved by the Board on
:'~Ji.'.' Z'"/
am~reaented or as corrected
Page 60