Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/22/1992 R Naples, Florida, September 22, 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 I~EGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe VICE-CHAIRMAN: Richard S. Shanahan Burr L. Saunders Max A. Hasse, Jr. Patrtcia A. Goodnight ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance Director; Annette Guevtn, Kathy Meyers and Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerks; Nell Dorrlll, County Manager; Jennifer Edwards, Assistant to the County Manager; Ken Cuyler, County Attorney; David Weigel, Dennis Crontn, Ramiro Manaltch and Tom Palmer, Assistant County Attorneys; George Archibald, Transportation Services Administrator; Frank Brutt, Community Development Services Administrator; William Lorenz, Environmental Services Administrator; Tom Olltff, Public Services Administrator; Mike Arnold, Utilities Administrator; Leo Ochs, Administrative Services Administrator; John Boldt, Water Management Director; Russell Shreeve, Housing Program Analyst; Ken Baginskt, Planning Services Manager; John MadaJewskt, Project Review Services Manager; Peter Comeau, Stormwater Utility Manager; V/ad Ryz~w, Transportation Engineer Project Manager; Ed Kant, Senior Traffic Operations Engineer; Ruse Muller, Transportation Project Management Engineer; Dick Clark, Code Enforcement Supervisor; Ed Magutre, Compliance Services Supervisor; Wayne Arnold, Planner; Sue Filson, Ad~inistrative Assistant to the Board; and Deputy Byron Tomlinson, Sheriff~s Office. Page I To:po 91 Af31]l*~& - APPROVED WITH CHARGES September 22, 1992 Co---/mmtoneF Hawse moved, xconded by Contaatoner Shanahan and that the qenda be approved with the chan~em u d~trlltt oa tha Agend~ Change Sheet ~nd the additional changes u d~t~tled helo~ Item #16H2 - Recommendation for approval of the stipulated final Judgment relative to the easement acquisition of parcel number 609.0/806 as utility easement located in the Naples Production Park, M.S.T.U. - Moved to #8H2. (Requested by Commissioner Volpe.) Item #16H4 - Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a work order under the annual agreement for professional engi- neering services (Forest Lakes Roadway & Drainage M.S.T.U.) - Moved to ~8H3. (Requested by Commissioner Volpe.) Page 2 (:s2o) X~:e,Ja c~rsl~f ~ - APPR~ AI~D/OR ADOPTED September 22, 1992 The motion for approval of the Consent A~enda ie noted under Xtem #16. (328) MlXlrf~S OF ~ R~ULARMXITII~ OF SKPT~SiBKR 8, 1992 - APPROVKD Commissioner Shanahan ~oved, seconded by Co~aleeloner llasee and carri~dun~ni~ou~ly, to a~r~e the NAntes of the ~1~ ~tl~ of ~~ a, 1992, ~ present~. (s4o) ~ ~X~ ~ - ~S~ Coasleeloner Shanahan congratulated the following Collier County employees and presented their Service Awards: Charles R. Crews, Probation Judith Marks, Social Services ltn fib - 5 years - 15 years PROCLAMATION NAMING THE OVERPASS BKTNEEN VILLAGE OAKS AND FAI~4 WORKER VILLAGE "PANTHER PASS" - ADOPTED Upon reading and presenting the proclamation to Fred Thomas, Commissioner Goodnight moved, seconded by Conteeloner ~asee and carried m~ant~ousl¥, to adopt the Procla~ation naming the overpass between Village O~ks and Far~ Worker Village 'Panther Pass". Page 3 September 22, 1992 (¢~8) ~TIC)N~C~IIXG ~ C&T~OL~C RE~IONAL COLLEGE BOYS SOCCER Upon reading and presenting the proclamation to Graham Ritchie and Michael Mandalis, Co~dee~oner S~=ndere ~oved, ~econded by ~ocl~t~lc~lng the Clt~l~c R~onal College ~ Soccer Te~ fr~ ~~, A~tral~l, to Nap2el, Florida. Graham R~tch~e, Coach for the Catholic Regional College Boys Soccer Te~, presented the Board with ~wo books on Australia for the Colller Co~y L~brary. Page September 22, ~992 (877) ltm ~A1 & d~A2 ~UI:~T~S 92-448/92-4551 92-457/92-462; 92-465/92-4671 92-4E9; AND 92-4?5/92-476 - ADOPTED Co~alseton~r l~sse ~oved, meconded by Cow-teetoner Sh~mhan c~rrlN ~tmly, t~t ~get ~n~nts 92-448/92-455; 92-45~/92-462; 92-465/92-467; 92-469; ~d 92-475/92-476 ~ adopted. (~) /t~D1 ~ ~ ~~ZXG ~10,000 ~ ~~ ~R CO~I~CI~S ~ ~ ~ 410310, O~ICI~ CO~T ~R~ - ~0~D Finance Director Yonkosky requested that Items #6D1 and #6D2 be heard together. He indicated Item #6D1 ts a request to move $10,000 froa reserves Into the Court Reporter's Cost Center and Item #6D2 ts a request to move $50,000 from General Fund Reserves, and place $45,000 into Circuit Court costs and $5,000 Into County Court costs. He recalled several months ago, the Board was presented with a request to move approximately $161,000 into these Cost Centers because of increased costs. He said the majority of this request for $60,000 deals with two major trials in the County in the past few months. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Finance Director Yonkosky reported the Chief Administrative Judge in the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court has recently ordered the County to pay the normal monthly Court Reporter costs that are generally paid by the State. He said the State does not have the money, therefore, the County has been ordered to pay those costs. In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney stated he does not see an alternative to Collier County covering these costs due to Statutory obligation as interpreted by case law, other than suing the State. Commissioner Shanahan recalled a recent long debate relative to these mandated expenses, and the Board agreed that the best course of action ts one of legislative pressure. He said if that has not yet beg%tn, It should. Page 5 September 22, 1992 Cc~aiut~r Shanahan ~oved, meconded by Commissioner Saundero ~d c~i~ ~~ly, to a~r~ a ~get ~n~nt tr~ferrAng $10,~ f~ ~ for Contingencies to Co=t Center 410310, Official (~o~) ~ ~ ~S~I~ ~50~000 ~ ~~ ~ ~S~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ CO~ ~O~ ~ ~gO ~ ~3~5g0 - This item was heard in conjunction with Item #6D1. Co~teeloner Sh~ ~oved, seconded by Co~mtesioner Saunderl and carried un~nt~ou~l¥, to approve a Budget A~end~ent tra~ferrtng 850,000 fro~ G~nerll Fund Reserves to Circuit Court and C~unW Court, Cost C~ntere 421190 and 431590. (1130) BKJ~I:SH:I~ T~kl:E$ - M~STKR DRAINAGE ~ RKV]SIOHS - STAFf TO MORE MiTH DKVI:LOFI:R OI DRA~I&~E PROBLEM3, WITH VARIOUS STIPOLAT~OIS ATTACH:KD Commissioner Volpe communicated this item was brought to the Board on September 8th and in the Interim, the County Attorney's Office has met with the developer, and notices were sent or posted to advise residents in the affected area of the discussion this date. John MadaJeweki, Project Review Services Manager, noted a memoran- dum is attached to the Executive Summary, giving a history of this 'situation, which specifically relates to the grading of individual sing/e-family lots within this project and how that grading has been done, either in compliance or in non-compliance with drainage plans which were prepared for each phase. He commented the drainage plans of the first four Units of this project will be called an imp/ted plan. He advised the plan shows no grading specifically on the lots, but has a master water management system which collects the water and, therefore, creates an implied plan where the property must drain from the rear to the road, which is the master collection system. He ~ndi- cared Staff has requested more detail on the drainage plans of Units Page 6 September 22, 1992 Five and Slx, requiring any properties that are going to grade to show implied grading plans. He advised in March of this year, Staff began 'to find problems with the grading of lots which were not consistent with either the implied plans or the actual plans approved by the County. He mentioned Staff began requiring something be done regarding those lots that were not draining properly, and has attempted to work with the developer and builders to come up with a provision to correct the situation. He communicated Staff has received a revised plan that has met all requirements for an engi- neering, workable solution to the problem. However, he said, to implement such a plan creates a legal problem, because an additional easement that is not sho~n on the plat is needed over properties. He stated Staff will not approve a plan condoning the developer placing additional easements on properties that have been sold. He concluded Staff is looking for guidance and recommendations from the Board on accepting a revised plan with the caveat that the developer demonstrate that he obtained the additional interests to make the plan workable. Co~tssioner Hasse asked who will bear the costs for the addi- tional drainage syetem7 Mr. MadaJewskt stated the cost will be born by the developer, Ooast Communities. Co~issioner Volpe mentioned he has received phone calls from individual property owners who have received a notice indicating that the costs of grading that may have to take place on Individual lots to accommodate a revised plan are going to be borne by the individual property owners. County Manager Dorrill advised the representations that have been ~ade to the County by Mr. Higgs are that he would work with his builders in conjunction with the amended drainage plan and that they will incur the costs to reshape, regrade or Install culverts and catch basins as required. John Yonkosky clarified that he provided each property owner with e, OOK ~OOPA?'E 16 Page September 22, 1992 that notice. He Indicated the proposed amendment, which has already been executed by the developer, states very clearly that the indivi- dual homeowners will pay for the grading of those lots. Commissioner Shanahan referred to a letter from developer's attor- ney, which questions the existence of any actual drainage problem in Berkshire Lakes and states the County Staff concedes that point. Mr. MadaJewski responded if problems had not been found by the County's Compliance Services personnel, this item would not be before the Board. Tom Maloney, representing the developer, stated this issue is the result of a disagreement about the need for a drainage easement to drain property. He contended there ts no need for an explicit ease- ment. He said over the years, the County has not been involved in deciding how an individual grades his property. He advised it has been a question of whether or not an individual has adversely impacted his neighbor and if so, it has been between he and his neighbor to work out the problem. He noted the County did not require a drainage plan for Units 1 through 4. He mentioned although Coast Communities is the developer, they have neither graded nor built on any lots. He suggested there ts no drainage problem, although there are individual situations which are inevitable, even when there is a plan that everyone has agreed upon. Commissioner Volpe referred to Units 1-4, asking if the proposed agreement attempts to address those individual problems? Tom Maloney responded in the affirmative, adding for the most part they have already been addressed, because as problems developed, Coast Cosum~ntttes has corrected them. Commissioner Volpe referred to the term "implied plan", asking if such a plan deals with only Units 5 and 6, or Units I through 4 as well? Mr. Mada~ewsk! responded the Implied plan deals with Units 1 through 4, because there is no grading and nothing is contained on the subdivision documents to show how those lots will drain. He said the Page 8 September 22, 1992 revised plan does address Units 1 through 4, but without knowing which lots have been built on and which have not, it Is very difficult to respond. He also pointed out In some of the earlier Units when a problem came up, additional Infrastructure was put tn place that was never reviewed by the County. Commissioner Saunders inquired if enforcement of such an implied plan ia reasonable? Assistant County Attorney We/gel replied there were no directional arrows on the developmental plan approved by the County for Units 1 through 4, showing where the drainage was to occur. However, he said, the blueprints did show the infr~structure to be used for the drainage. He said this has resulted tn infrastructure being placed at the rear of lots on an individual lot-by-lot basts and without any general comprehensive planning. He concluded with his opinion that the County does have a general responsibility to see that what ts being done works. Mr. Maloney suggested tf any responsibility exists, it lies with the person who received the building permit or Certificate of Occupany. Assistant County Attorney Dennis Cronin asserted the developer ts In control of the comprehensive water management plan for the entire development. He said It was the developer's choice tn the design stage to locate the facilities that handle water runoff. He stated those facilities have been located tn the streets at the front of lots, which triggers the implied plan. He also mentioned the archi- tectural review committee, which ts part of the developer's master association, ts specifically charged with the review of grading ~stems on Individual lots. Mr. MadaJewski referred to a drawing on the bulletin board, which he said is a revised plan submitted by the developer's engineer tn June, 1992, and which shows numerous places where remedial actions are necessary to properly allow surface drainage to be conveyed to the master system, which is the lakes. He Indicated Staff is prepared to Page 9 September 22, 1992 approve the revised plan; however, to Implement the plan, corrective work ~ust be done on already improved lots, which causes the issue of easements. Commissioner Shanahan questioned if the revised plan is approved by the Board, ts the developer responsible for the corrections? Mr. MadaJewskt responded that is the commitment Staff has been working toward with the developer. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney Weigel pointed out the revised plan provided by the developer purports to utilize property rights they do not have at the present time. He cautioned that the County Attorney's Office Is not endorsing the means the developer may utilize, which may be doubtful from a legal stand- point, to achieve the easements or rights necessary to physically t~plement the revised plan, although the plan ts acceptable to Staff from an engineering standpoint. Commissioner Hasse asked If the developer lo willing to provide the drainage in the areas needed, without any expense to the property owners and without Impacting them to any extent? Mr. Maloney responded In the affirmative, stating that is part of the agreement whereby the County will Issue building permits without regard to whether or not the developer has easements. He said tn that Instance, the developer will Install the improvements to make the plan work and will also indemnify the County. However, he said, if the County is now saying the developer must first obtain easements, there is no agreement. Commissioner Hasse inquired what is Mr. Malone¥'s solution to the problem? Mr. Maloney expounded with regard to Unite ! through 4, that the issue ie between the owners of properties, and the County should not be Involved. He indicated the developer has voluntarily stated they will Insure the system works. He said with respect to Units 5 and 6, the County should take the position there is a drainage plan, which ~ust either be complied with or express easements must be shown in Page 10 September 22, 1992 order to drain in a different manner. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Maloney stated the remedial action needed in all Units can be accomplished in 90 days, unless a property owner does not allow the developer on his property. Tape ~2 The following people spoke regarding this Item: Tom McCaughna John Yonkosky George Keller Stace¥ Basist In response to concerns raised by Mr. M¢Caughna, Brian Paul, representing the petitioner, stated when a piece of property ts sold to a builder, they take on the responsibility from that point on. He said the developer did not impose on Mr. McCaughna a ditch tn his backyard. He indicated U.S. Home has agreed that is their problem, and they will pay the costs Involved. Commissioner Saunders asked how the problem will be addressed by U.S. Home? Joe Grimes with U.S. Home, explained how Mr. McCaughna~s situation occ~lrred. He said they agreed to put in a culvert and pipe, which will be covered to return the lot back to its original condition. Attorney Michael Ctccarone with Goldberg, Goldsteln and Buckle¥, representing U.S. Home Corporation, stated he is present at this hearing mainly to ascertain what problems exist. He mentioned U.S. Home Corporation did not have notice of these proceedings, which came to their attention when a building permit was refused. He pledged the cooperation of U.S. Home Corporation, which wants to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. He requested they be allowed to obtain Certificates of Occupancy on the 11 homes they are ready to close on, while moving forward in finding a more comprehensive solu- tion to the problems. eec Receemed: 11:20 A.M. - Reconvened: 11:35 A.M. $$e Mr. MadaJeweki summed up Staff's position by stating there is a specific drainage problem tn this project and a workable solution must be found. Referring to remarks made during the public comments, he Page September 22, 1992 asserted County Staff did not direct U.S. Home to cut a ditch in Mr. McCaughna~s back-yard. Commissioner Saunders agreed with the need for a modified drainage plan, as we1! as to deal with the Certificates of Occupancy in a reasonable way. He i~dicated, however, he ts more concerned with not necessarily what is the appropriate solution, but how it may be imple- mented. He questioned if there ts any legal basis upon which the Board Lay say to the developer and builders that no building permits will be issued until the problem ia corrected? County Attorney Cuyler answered the County may not be able to hold building permits, because the grading and drainage aspects are taken care of after the building permit stage. However, he said, in his opinion Certificates of Occupancy may be withheld, particularly ~n Units 5 and 6, ~f an identified, approved drainage plan is not being complied with. Commissioner Saunders inquired what can be done about Units ! through 4, for which there is an implied plan rather than one reduced to writing? Mr. Mada~ewski stressed at this point in time, Staff needs from the developer a specific master plan which clearly ind~cates which lots are constructed on, tn order to see the extent of the undeveloped lots. He sa~d Staff w~ll then better be able to ascertain on a case- by-case basis, whether permitting construction on a new lot will ~mpact a neighbor. In response to Commissioner Shanahan, Br~an Paul indicated that infor~ation can be provided to Staff within the next few days. Commissioner Volpe questioned if granting a building permit may be cond~tioned upon identification that the revised drainage plan will be implemented, to which County Attorney Cu¥1er responded in the affir- mative. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Maloney stated the deve- loper will agree to the modified drainage plan for Units 5 and 6. He reiterated there was no drainage plan for Units 1 through 4, and he Page 12 September 22, 1992 does not understand how Staff can now say there was an implied plan. Co~immioner S~undars ~d, to direct Mr. MadaJew~ki to work with 6~ ~t ~ificat~ of Oc~~ continue to ~ to.ed, ~t with or will ~ t~ c=s of tn ~ ~roprtate ~r to the of St~f~ ~t the d~l~r ~ ~t on notice t~t it Is the tat~tton of ~ ~ of C~ C~lssto~rs t~t the pro~rW ~rs not ~~ with t~ cost of ~tng t~r~e~n~s to the ~t~ t~t ~ld ~ ~ t~l~nted prior to the ts~ce of ~tldtng ~mtts ~ C~rttftclt~s of Oca~ t~t tn reference to the I~lsttla of e~nts ~d things of t~t u=e, the ~d ~stm of si~ · process of negotiation t~e place ~n the ~l~r ~ pr~rW ~ers ~d t~t the ~ard does ~t ~t to see I st~tta ~ the d~lo~r st~ly g~s tn ~d trt~s to c~i~ ~ts to ~c~trs t~s~ ~u~tsl t~t the to ~ ~t e~h pr~rW ~er, tf ~uting u eu~nt, =1~ ~t tW u~ ~ttng ud mctly ~t will ~ d~ with pl~ of ~~ th~ ~e ~uttng u eu~t on. Coaissioner Volpe mentioned the need to address the indem- nification agreement. Co~tsstoner Sanders explained he specifically left the indem- nification agreement out of the motion because, although tn his opi- nion there is no responsibility on the par~ of Collier Cowry, if there ts, the CounTy should bear ~ha~ responsibility. Co~tsstoner Volpe ~esttoned if It is Co~tsstoner Sanders' intent to Include th~ ~llders as well as Coast Couuntttes tn the solution? Co~tsstoner Sanders responded the motion by its very nature will involve the ~tlders, because ~hey are getting building permits and are In need of ~ving Certificates of occupancy issued. Asstst~t County Attorney Wetgel co,anted an informative note on Page 13 September 22, ~992 the building permit could indicate the recipient of the permit would be expected to conform to the revised drainage plan. He said that information should also be included on the Certificates of Occupancy, even if there ts very little the County can do once the property owner has taken residence. He advised the Board that Attorney Ctccarone would like the record to show that U.S. Home Corporation is looking forward to working very carefully and comprehensively with their owners, both the ones already in residence and those soon to have Certificates of Occupancy, to take care of the problem from their standpoint. Co~missioner Volpe asserted his desire that the County and the developer come to an agreement with regard to indemnification to the County. Co~iesioner Saunders asked Mr. Maloney if there is any oppor- tunity for the County to negotiate an indemnification agreement tn light of the motion that was made? Mr. Maloney responded there is no point in directing Staff to come to an agreement, because the developer will not agree to it. commissioner Goodnight recalled that a drainage plan was adopted by the Board in 1985, when a modification was made to the Berkshire Lakes development to allow them to reduce the amount of fill needed for the lots, She said at that time, the Board was very concerned about the drainage in this area, and was assured there would be an adequate drainage plan. She said if there are no drainage plans tn Units 1 through 4, she wants to know why. Tom Peek with Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., commented it is important to distinguish between an overall water management system and a localized backyard drainage problem. He said the water manage- ment system, which was originally designed, reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District as well as County Staff, was adequate for the original design and is adequate for the current design. 2:3' Page ~4 September 22, ~992 Comtestoner Goodntght questioned how an overall water management system can be in place, if the Individual lots are not draining pro- perly? She said from what she was told and shown, the individual lots did not need an individual drainage plan because the overall master plan was to take care of all the drainage tn the area. Mr. Peek gave the opinion that the overall drainage plan did take care of everything, but the responsibility goes to the individual builder on the individual lot to tie into the overall plan. Commissioner Shanahan suggested the motion include that the deve- loper is to provide Staff with a map identifying the improved and unimproved lots. Opon Co~tssioner Saunders a~ending the ~otton to include the &bov~, ttw~e ~econded t~FCo~tmstonmr Shanahan. Mr. Mada]ewski proposed that as part of an application for a building permit, approval of the developer's architectural review com- mittee must be shown. C~tmi~e~ S~mders ~mended the ~otlon, seconded ~:~r. Co~immioner ~ %~ ~u~cl~de the above. U~/1 f~ the qu~tton, the ~otton carrted unant~ousl¥. (710) OIt~ZIABCI 02--60 PROHZBZTZWO THE RZ~ZWO OF · NOPPIN~ CENTER IN UNINCORPORATED COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED NITH Legal notice having been published In the Naples Daily News on September 2, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Assistant County Attorney Tom Palmer recalled Mrs. Lisa Paul came before the Board of County Commissioners on June 16th to discuss problems regarding skateboards on certain sidewalks within shopping centers. At that time, he said, the Board directed the County Attorney's Office to research this matter and return with a proposed ordinance. He explained the draft ordinance now before the Board is Page 15 September 22, 1992 limited to sidewalks within shopping centers in the unincorporated · re· of Collier County. He said it does not apply to public sidewalks that are ad3acent to the shopping centers. He mentioned it also pro- vides when a sign is placed, it will not be disobeyed, however, does not require a sign to be in place to be in violation of the ordinance. He noted the ordinance contains a penalty provision of $50 for the first offense and up to $100 for the second offense by the same person at the same shopping center. Com~issioner Volpe inquired if any consideration was given that violating the ordinance, now characterized as a misdemeanor, may be changed? Assistant County Attorney Palmer indicated a revision may be made to characterize it as an ordinance violation. A discussion ensued with regard to the County's authority to enact this type of ordinance over private properties. The following people spoke regarding this item: Lisa Paul Paul Stanford SeeDelmty Clerk Meyers replaced Deputy Clerk ~uevin at tht· The following persons spoke to this item: Bill Hanford John Anderson Ben Johnson Brian McKenzie Judy Wicher Lisa Lag·man (k~i~io~e~ Sammdmrs ~oved, s·conded b~ Conisstoner Shanahan and carried ~antmousl¥, to close the public hearing. Commissioner Hasse suggested that the term 'roller blades' should be changed to 'in line skates'. Co~tsst~ Saund·rs moved, seconded by ¢o~tsstoner Shanahanand carried 4/1 (Co~ie·ioner Volp~ opposed), to adopt Ordtnanc· Io. 91-69 .ith t~e fsllowingchange·: a) 'i~ lin~ skates' t· to be used instead of 'roller blades'; b) ~ectlon X(A) is to be au~nded to read: '~operson shall operate · cycle, skateboard, roller ·kate, in line skate, coaster, toy vehicle, or similar conveyance upon, or croe· any ·id·walk within any shopping center and adjacent to · tmfront· provided for ingress and egress for the public'; c) ~ne first offense ts · fine of $25 and each subsequent off·n·· wo~ld be · fine of $80 with no requirement of an advanced war- P·ge 16 Septnber 22, 1992 4) Tbs word 'mlm~meanor' ia to be changed to 'ordinamce viola- am4 that ~ Io. 92-69 ~ ~tered Into ~dimce ~k ~o. 55. as~ ~ at 1:30 P.H. - Reco~ned at 2:10 P.N. ese (2~s) Ztn~2 ~~ 92-519 ~~G ~ FZ~ ~T OF "L~Y ~S~ ~ F~, Frank Britt, Community Development Services Administrator, reviewed that this item would normally be on the consent agenda but was moved to the regular agenda so the Chairman could abstain from vottng. Co.~tuiona~ $~1~ ~ved, seconded ~ Co. lssi~r ~. ~d ~tH 4/0 (~islt~er Vol~ a~tained), to a~r~e the final plat of ~ly ~ ~ Ft~ (~ el.sics Golf ~t ~1t~ ~c~t~c~ of the t~ts ~J~ to t~ sti~lltia c~tatng tn ~ ~tt. September 22, 1992 (2H~) ~ZSO~ZO]I 92-520 Lt~O¥ING ~1~ fINAL FLAT OF "LELY ]~SO~ P~tK FOUR, (~ CT. LISIC~ OOLFCOURSE EAST ~F)' Jd~ ORANTING PKELIMINARY ACCEFTAI~ OF TH~ DRAINAGE AND WATERMANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS - ADOPTED NIT~ ~TIPOLATIONS Coe~tuloner Shanahan ~oved, aeconded try Comaias~oner Ha~le ~ ~~ 4/0 (~ee~r Vol~ a~tatned), to a~r~ the f~l plat of ~ly ~ ~ F~ (~ CI~o~c~ Golf C~oe ~ ~lt) ~d ~t ~A~~ iccept~ce of the ~at~ md uter ~~t ~, ~~ ~tt~ ~lutton No. 92-520. Page 22, 1992 ][~DI~ O~ F~E&Y, FL~T OF 'L~LY R~SORT, PH&SI SIXn - &FPROV~D~ Cmmm/ulo~er ~h~nah~n moved, seconded c~rrt~d 4/0 (Comm/~ion~r Volpm abstained), to approve the record/n~ of th~ f/hal plat of 'Lely Resort, Pha~e Six' ~ubject to the stipula- tton~ conta/n~d tn the ~xecutlve Su~mar~. C~t~.~on~r Sh~ noved, seconded b~ Concessioner Hawse ~d ~~ 4/0 (~~l~r Vol~ abstained), to a~r~ the acc~t~ce of ~ f~l~t~ for ~ly ~ort ~lco~ C~ter, Trac~ 6 ~ ~tattn. P~ 20 Michael Arnold, Utilities Administrator, reported that this is an administrative adjustment of some of the assessments associated with the East and South Naples Project. Mr. Arnold distributed a handout to the Board, which referred to property owned by William Connelly, and pointed out that there ts an encroachment Into lot 14 which ts caused by Haldeman Creek. Mr. Arnold noted that Mr. Connell¥ ts requesting that hie assessment be adjusted, rather than be charged for two front footage assessments on the two lots. Mr. Arnold mentioned that the Mr. Connell¥'s house ts approximately at the center of the two lots. Mr. Arnold summarized that Staff recommends an adjustment downward on the Petitioner's assessment to compromise the encroachment of the canal. William Connell¥, owner of the two lots, stated that lot 14 ts not a butldable lot because of its shape. In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Arnold confirmed that Mr. Connelly ts being treated equally as other property owners with In response to Commissioner Vo]pe, Mr. Arnold confirmed that Mr. Co,nelly is requesting an additional assessment of approximately $2,000 downward. Mr. Arnold stated that the total tn recommended adjustments to be funded is $25,664.99. Comadoe~oner Volpe Boved, ~econded by Coca, smasher (k~dn~ght and cI~*~LOd unln:lBou~ly, to a~prove Staff ti recomB~ndmtton to adjust cer- tain eoeeoe~wn~l with m total reduction of 925,664.99. (~?O) Itel e~lki ~T~OII TO APPROVE RESOLUTION TO KSTABLISH FINAL PAYMENT TO THE t~OSITRACTOt (N. COLE CONBTRUCTION) AND KN~IIFKKR FOR CONSTRUCTION IN COLLI~R VIT. T~(IZ IN I)MOKALKE - STAFF AND COUNTY ATTORNKY D~I~CTKD TO Page DI~"U~ ~ ~ EVaLUaTE E~I'ITLEME~ITS UNDER COlrTRACT AIID REPORT Russell Shreeve, Housing Urban Improvement Analyst, noted that this is a recommendation to approve a resolution to determine the amount of the final payment to be made to N. Cole Construction for the work they completed in Collier Village. He reviewed that the County is entitled to liquidated damages in the amount of $22,400, and addi- tionally, the contractor is liable for additional damages to the County aea result of the work not being completed on time, in the a~ount of $10,359.82. Assistant County Attorney Manalich recommended that this issue be returned to the Board in two to three weeks for a final recommen- dation. Albert Cole spoke to this Item. Col~tulonerShanahanmovsd, seconded byCo-~lsstoner Saunders~nd Clrrlld=iloll~ly, to direct Stiff and the County &ttO~*l Office to wvaluatl the entitlements under the contract and discuss this aattew with the trnst,e an~ general contractor and report back to the (sss) Xt'~m ~ Ken Baginskt, Planning Services Manager, referred to the details of the Executive Summary regarding this Item (copy not provided to the Clerk to the Board). He reviewed that the property's zoning was changed from commercial to agricultural, making the existing use non- conforming, and when the establishment was destroyed in November, 1991 it stood vacant for more than ninety days and therefore has lost its status as a non-conforming use. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Bagtnski confirmed that an administrative appeal to develop all the facts in order to make a determination is appropriate for this matter. Page 22 September 22, 1992 Walter Rose, the property owner, explained that the zoning for this property was changed in 1985 and grandfathered in. He reviewed that after a fire occurred at the Circle R Club, there was smoke damage and roof damage. He said that he was prohibited from entering the Restaurant b~ the Fire Department because the fire was of a suspi- cious nature and under Investigation. Dick Clark, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated that he investi- gated this matter and has further Information to provide to Staff. Mr. Bagineki indicated that he could provide a determination at the end of the week after reviewing Code Enforcement's additional infor~ation. Comaissioner Volpe reviewed that a determination will be provided to the property owner by Staff, and if the property owner is not satisfied he can appeal the decision to the Board of County Commissioners. ~A~]~END~TION THaT THE BOARD 0F COUNTY CO~ISSIONERS REVIEN AND CO~Sl~ ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL #ARRANTY DEED N~TIN~NO~S~ CO~K~ITIES OF NAPLES, INC. FOR A FIFTEEN [15) ACR~ PARCEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PELICAN BAY ~ ORDINANCES (COLLIER COU~T~ ORDINANCE NO. 77-18, AS AMENDED) - DEED TO BE PLACED IN ESCRO~ UNTIL CERTAIN CONDITIONS ARE MET Assistant County Attorney Cronin discussed the details of the Executive Summary regarding this item. County Attorney Cuyler distri- buted a copy of the proposed deed regarding this item (copy not pro- vided to the Clerk to the Board}. County Manager Dorrill reviewed the conceptual site plan of the park 8its, which was displayed on an overhead projector. He indicated that a portion of the park site encroaches into the School Board*e site. Co~m~ssioner Shanahan discussed that he perceived the language in the warranty deed to be adequate. Dr. Kane spoke to this item. Co~-sissioner Saunders questioned if any action taken at this time Page 23 September 22, 1992 with respect to the proposed deed would Impact other requirements of the PUD, specifically the obligations of Westinghouse within their PUD. Mr. Cuyler responded it would not. Commissioner Saunder$ requested a copy of the report prepared by A~nolI. Barber & Brundage. Commissioner Volpe read a letter to the Board faxed to him from Debbte Cook with the School Board. Commissioner Saunders mentioned that the viability of the site as a park site ts tied to the viability of the adjacent property as a school site. He suggested that the Board postpone acceptance of the warranty deed until the school board has rendered a final decision on the site. T~pe~ Bob McClure, with Westinghouse Co~munities, spoke to this Item. George Keller spoke to this item. Cobb/niGher Volpe ~ov~d, seconded by Co~uatssioner Shanahan ~nd C~rTied ~ni~cn~ely, to h~ve the deed signed by the appropriate ~t~ ~tmttv~ ~nd placed in escro~ for ninet-F d~ys with the Clerk ef Courts until the following conditions are ~et: ~t is reached with the concept-aa/ plan: 2. ~ pl~ ia approved and signed-off by the School Board; A~ar~e that recreational ~entttes that are Identified tn the col~ceptlzal plan, i.e. shelter, hethroo~ facilities, lt~tingar~ included; 4. Assurance that the p~rk will not negatively t~p~ct on the l~ir~el~tS within the PUD for the neighborhood ~ if the~e conditions are not ~et within ninety d~ys, the deed will he deliv~red from escrcse to the County. ese Deputy Clerk Hoffman replaced Deputy Clerk Mey~rs mt this ti~e It. ll (ssa) OONSIDS~ATIC~I OF FROFESSIONAL S~K~ICES F~0MCONSULTANTS RE ZI~T~I~IT&TZONOPTHE COUNTY'S STOi~INAT~ ASSESS14~IT P~OGRAM CX~ITZ~IUB3) TO & D&T~ L~TE~ THAN 22/2?/92 Stormwater Utility Manager Comeau recalled that the Commission directed staff to move forward with the Stormwater Utility Program. Page 24 September 22, 1992 He ~ndicated that the Board directed staff to develop a non ad valorem assessment roll capable of being merged with the Tax Collector's ad valorem roll for collection. Mr. Comeau requested authorization for the execution of the Agreement with David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG) to provide pro- feselonal services to ~mplement the Stormwater Assessment Program. Mr. Comeau announced that the fiscal impact, approved on June 2, 1992, in the amount of $324,426 includes provisions for temporary labor and first cla~s mailing expenses. Mr. Comeau referred to Page 3 of the Executive Summary, which outlines the DMG and Roy F. Weston portions of the contract in the amount of $175,429 in addition to legal services tn the amount of $83,99?, for a total of $259,426. Mr. Comeau advised that direct cost savings to the County by pro- riding staff ~upport services will result in professional fee savings of 540,000 and $25,000 for hiring temporar~ staff. Mr. Comeau reported that the final proposed contract being sub- mitred reflects a negotiated reduction in non-legal professional fees of nearly $?5,000. He requested that professional services agreement be executed; that the County Attorney and the Water Management Department be directed to engage specialized legal and consulting ser- vices as contemplated by the agreement; and that staff be authorized tO h~re the necessary temporary staff. The following persons spoke with respect to this item: Mr. George Keller Mrs. Charlotte Westman Mr. Earl Mar/in Mr. Btll Branan A discusslon ensued with regard to deferring this ltem until a date after November 17, 1992, at which time new members of the Commission would be sitting on the Board. C~mmm/eeJoner kme moved, mmconded by Com~ise~oner Sau~derm and cat, ted 3/2 (Co~mi~tonerm Shanahan and Volpe opposed) that this item be ~t$~~ttl after November 17, 1992. Page 25 September 22, 1992 (1000) FINA~~CONTRACT FEEN~TH~LSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PKKK, SKRVICES lPU~SAB'T&BARBARA BOULEVARD SOUTH TO RATTLKSN~r~-HAPBqOCEROAD - ~ Z]I I'VE ~ OF 8273,661.64 Ladd Ryziw, Engineering Project Manager, indicated that this Item concerns the planning/design of the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake-Hammock Road for a pro- Ject length of approximately two miles. Mr. Ryztw explained that the Commission approved a short-listing of consulting firms to undertake the design of Santa Barbara Boulevard, noting that Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek was ranked the number one firm. Mr. RyzIw reported that staff has completed contract negotiations with Wilson, Miller. He recommended a two phased contract approach, noting that the first phase addresses environmental requirements of the pro,eot. Mr. Ryztw called attention to Exhibit "A", Page 5 of the Executive S~r~, which outlines the costs associated with the various services for environmental engineering. Mr. Ryziw stated that staff is recommending that the Commission approve and accept the final negotiated consulting fees with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek, Inc. in the total lump sum amount of $273,661.64; direct staff to Implement the minimum basic services and optional additional contingent services; direct staff to proceed with the appropriate public workshops and informational meetings at the conclusion of the preliminary engineering and environmental assessment aspect of the pro~ect; direct staff to submit a cost-feasible report to the Board at the conclusion of Phase I activities; that staff from Transportation Services and Utilities Division Interface and coor- dinate with respect to infrastructure that could be placed within this corridor; that staff be directed to proceed with the preparation of. the design contract with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek; and that the Page 26 September 22° 1992 contract be returned for final ratification and execution as a consent agenda item. Co~tui~ner ~oodnight ~ov~d, seconded by C~tssioner Ha~e ~ 0'0 ~1 4:50 P.M. - ~con~ 5:00 P.M. 00' (20~0) ~TX~ ~ ~ Z.r. J0~O~, ~SC. - C0~D ~ ~0/S/02 Co.missioner Saunders announced that the Sheriff's Office is requesting that this item be continued for two weeks. ~ ~t~ ~t~ly, t~t this itel ~ cmtlnued to Octo~r 1992. It~ (28~) ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~G~IA~ ~ L~ BIDD~ ~ ~ ~D~ ~ ~~ P~ AQUATIC FACILI~ (BID ~92-1948) - Public Services Administrator Olllff stated that this item ts a request to obtain Board approval for staff to negotiate with the low bidder, Weller Pools, for construction of the Golden Gate Community Park ~ool. He indicated that the total budget for this project ts $1.5 million, however, the bids that were submitted ranged in price from $1.9 ~tllton - $2 mil/ion. Mr. Olltff explained that under the County's purchasing policy, staff is allowed to negotiate with the low bidder. He reported that after negotiations, he believes that staff will be able to come up with wuffictent deducts to reduce the price of the pool to $1.6 million. County Nanager Dorrtll advised that Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek has submitted a letter indicating that they may be requesting an amended contract for extra expenses associated with the negotiations or value engineering. Page 27 September 22, 1992 Mr. Tom Peek, of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., revealed that his ftr~'s contract ts for design services only, but does not include bidding or construction phase services. He noted that bidding phase sex~tces have been provided without a contract since the project went out to bid. He stated that because staff will be doing extensive negotiations, there may be some additional costs on an hourly basis, for whatever those are. Mr. Peek related that in order to lower the cost of the pool, cer- tain services will need to be provided by the architectural con- sultant and the mechanical/electrical engineer. He reported that he estimates that additional costs may range from $2,000 - $2,500. Mrs. Charlotte Westman spoke with respect to this item. C4~tulo~er ~a~se ~ov~d, seconded by Conissloner ~oodnight and carried ~l~lF, that staff be authorized to negotiate with the lo~et bt&~r on tbs ~3olden Gate Co~unlty Park Aquatic Facilit~ and that t~ a~e~r?proJect fund~ be carried forward into Fiscal Year 1993. Xteea~l R~x~Err I~t Till caAx~ TO SXeW THZ nas CRAFt Ex'rE~szo~ A~ - Diane Flagg, EMS Education & Quality Control Manager, requested that the existing grant be extended. She explained that the manufac- turer was unable to deliver the ma.litor/deftbrillators by the grant deadline. She advised that she communicated with the state office, requesting an official grant extension, and this has been granted. C~osion~r S~undmra moved, seconded by CoBRissioner Shanahan and carried ~nan~l¥, that the Chairman sign the Grant B~tension Page 28 Septenber 22° 1992 (~6~) THAT CHAIRMAN mCUTE A ~ORE ORDER UNDER THE ANNUAL A~REEMENT PIKYJ,~SS][ONJLL ENC~I]g~ERIN(~ SERVICES WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & FO~ T~ FORZS~f LAEiES ROADWAY AND DRAINA(~E M.S.T.U. - APPROVED Commissioner Volpe revealed that a number of people within the Forest Lakes area questioned whether some of the preliminary work under the scope of services has previously been done. Capital Projects Management Technical Services Supervisor Huber advised that up to this point, the only preliminary work that has been done is surveying work in the field, however, this is not a part of the preliminary investigation. In answer to Co~miesioner Volpe, Mr. Huber stated that the con- ~ultant's work, as outlined tn the scope of services, has not been done and there ts no duplication of work. Co~mA~lo~r Volpe Iov~, ~econded bi/' Commilsioner Shanlhln and carrted~i~ously, to approve the ~ork Order with Wilson, Miller, B~rton & Peek, Inc. for profssmional engineering sarvtces for the For~st L~kes ~~ Drainaga M.S.T.U. in an ~ount not to exceed Page 29 September 22, 1992 K~I~II~LOFTH~ CO]ITZ]IUI]I~ COFII~CTS FOR COIlS~LTINH $~u~'IC~S (RYP'S 91-27~1 AID 02-2722) - AFFROVED County Manager Dorrtll advAsed that this item ia a request to approve a pre-quallffAed l~st off consultants. He indAcated that, i.e., the County no longer has land surveyors and .those services are priva- tlzed. He reported that ~nd~v~dual contracts will be brought back to the Board. C~tuAo~erVolpe ~,~ed, ~econded b~Co~Aos~oner Shanahanand Ca~Tle~a~ly, to approv~ the renml of the exlsttn~ agreements roi- ~os~eulti~ ~ervt~ for Page 30 September 22, 1992 (e33) J~TIOBITO APPROVE AND KXZCUTK PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGRKEMXNT lEITH J~JII~CIPAL CODE CORPORATION TO CODIFY COLLIER COUNTY*S LJU~3, CODES AID ~ - APPI~OY~D; S'T'AFF KNCO~.AGKD TO GKHKR.ATE ORDKRS IN Aaststant County Attorney Wetgel explained that on September 8, 1992, the Commtaaton recognized, as top-ranked, the Municipal Code Corporation and authorized the staff of the County Attorneyfa Office to come back with a finalized agreement. Mr. Wetgel atated that the agreement ts completed and provtdea for a coat of $47,815 for complete codification of the ordinances, laws of general application, including PUD ordinances. He noted that the contract provides for three yeara of service beyond the initial pro- duct that will be provided. Commissioner Goodnight auggeated that orders be taken in advance for the Code Booka, aince the printing for same would be leaa Instead of reordering additional volumea at a later date. Comulesloner Volpe concurred, noting, that thia ts an excellent suggest/on. ~~~ly, to ~ the ~ofeoot~l Se~tcfl ~~t with ~ct~l ~ Co~ratta, nd t~t staff b enc=~ to Page 31 September 22, 1992 Commissioner Saunders announced that in recent years, the City Council has been dealing with an increase in the number of issues that are of great importance to Collier County and vice versa. Commissioner Saunders suggested that the City and County formalize the meeting schedule and advertise same and conduct those as regular meetings of the C~t¥ Council and County Commission, He revealed if an item comes up that is of importance to the City, they could take a vote on that item and the County could do the same instead of pre- senting a recommendation at a separate meeting. He indicated that this would give the City slid County Managers the impetus to develop an agenda for those meetings and concrete problems could be resolved. c~r~le~i~lF, to formalize the meeting fomt with the City Cgnm~tl, allo~iz~g the Com~isston to ~aks decisions at those ·nd that t3~e County Manager d~velop a quarterly schedule. esso) ~,0~I0~ 92-821 APPOI~TINO MEMBER~ TO THE ENVIROIIMENTAL JUT~IEORY Administrative Assistant to the Board Fi/eon stated that the terms for Environmental Advisory Board members Susan Hebel Watts and Fred Vtdzes will expire on September 30, 1992. She Indicated that John Nartln has resigned, and his term is to expire on September 30, 1993. Mrs. Fl/son Indicated that a press release was issued and resumes have been received from ten applicants. She divulged that staff recommends the re-appointment of Susan Hebel Watts, and the appoint- ment'of William Branan and David Wtlktson, however, the Elections Office has advised that Susan Hebel Watts is inactive on the elections roll. She stated that staff ts requesting that John S. Gregory fill the vacant term which will expire on September 30, 1993. Page 32 September 22, 1992 Comisstoner Shanahan suggested the appointments of John Gregory, Wlllta Branan and Michael Saadeh. Co~isstoner Volpe suggested the appointments of Christine Straton, Wtllta~ Branan and Michael Saadeh. Commissioner Goodntght remarked that she would like to see someone on the ~B w~th ~ agricultural background, and noted tha~ David W~lk~son ~e the only appl~can~ w~th an agrl~ltural backgr~nd. Mr. G~e~ S~pson, member of E~AB, stated that there Is the need for a ba~ce off all the Dlstr~cts, and the members need the underst~dlng ~d experience ~o evaluate the various projects. ~~~ S~r~ ~, ~ec~d~ ~ C~~er ~~ ~d [t~t~, ~lllta B~ ~d Ntc~el 8~h to the ~vt~t~l Page 33 September 22, 1992 92-522 APPOI~ING I~B~RS ~ THE ~IVIROIO~F~ ~LI~ T~'EII~CALADV~I~Y~ARD -AD Old'ED Administrative Assistant to the Board Filson stated that this item is a request to appoint three members to serve four year terms on the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board. Mrs. Fl/son remarked that on September 30, 1992, the terms will expire for David Land, Michel Saadeh and David Wilkison. She related that a press release was issued and resumes were received from eight applicants. Mrs. Filson advised that staff is recommending the appointments of Nancy Anne Payton, Robert Duane and the re-appointment of David Land. Cea. Lt~toa~r Sttanahan ~:nmd, ~econded b~ Co.~tsstoner Ra~.e and CaZTte4 ~ma~l¥, that Nancy Anne l~on, Robert Duane and D~vid ~ ~ a .~bers on the Environmental Policy Te=hntcal Advisory Boa.rd, ~ a4opttn~ Resolution 92-522. Page 34 September 22, 1992 (13.78) Administrative Assistant to the Board Ftlson revealed that there are three vacancies on the Collier County Planning Commission. She indicated that the terms for Jackte Williams, Raymond Link and Franklin Baker will expire on October 1, 1992. Mrs. Fllson affirmed that a press release was Issued and resumes were received from eight applicants. She stated that staff recommends the appointments of Russell Priddy and George Fogg and the re-appoint- Bent of Frankltn Baker. Conlsstoner Volpe recommended the re-appointment of Frank/tn Baker and the appointment of Mary Lee Layne. Commissioner Hesse recommended the appointment of James Coletta. County Attorney Cuyler Indicated that the members from District,5 are to come from the Immokalee area. Commissioner Goodnight recommended the appointment of Russell carried~~ly0 that Russell Priddy, Nary I~e Layne md Franklin B~ke~ ~pp~inted to sem on the Collier County Plannlng Con,lesion, tbel~, ~l~g ]te~olutlon 92-~23. Page 35 September 22, 1992 92-824 R~ PETITION AV-92-017, THOMAS R. BROMN, AGENT, H~LTN CJLRE, Z~C., ~Q~TIRG VACATZOR OF A ~ZON OF A 30' ~ ~A~ ~ A ~ION OF ~ ~T O~ P~ ~T ~. 4 - ~D Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Dally News on September 13, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, l~ublic hearing was opened. Russell Muller, Transportation Services Engineer, explained that this item is a request to vacate a portion of a 30 foot roadway ease- ment located in Palm River Estates Unit No. 4. He indicated that this easement is located along the north side of Palm River, immediately east of the Palm River Boulevard bridge near Viking Way. Mr. Muller reported that 20f of the 30' roadway easement will rematn as a drainage and utility easement. Mr. Muller revealed that Letters of No Objection have been received from all authorized user utility companies and staff with the stipulation that the 20f will remain. Mr. Muller stated that the petitioner desires to construct bl/ild~ngs over a port,on of this easement. He d~vulged that the agent for the petitioner has agreed to dedicate th~s easement by a separate document to be brought back to the Board for approval at a future. Mr. Muller advised that staff is recommending approval of the petition. Mr. Muller affirmed that one letter of objection has been received by the President of the River Royale Condominium Association. Commissioner Volpe announced that he has received a letter of objection from J. Chester Pierson, resident of Palm River Estates, citing that this is an already crowded portion of that street; the hospital has already built one apartment building in that location; and environmental, water, sewage and drainage concerns. Mr. Tom Brown, representing Community Health Care, advised that the hospital does not pla~ to build at the present time. He noted Page 36 September 22, 1992 that anything that would be done in the future will be under a PUD. ~r. George Burkholtz spoke with regard to this item. Mr. Brc~n, addressed Mr. Hurkholtz'e concerns relative to the ~aintenance of the present apartment buildings in Palm River o~ned by Naples Co~mmnit¥ Hospital. He stated that the maintenance of these apartments will be upgraded. Co-~isetoner Volpe suggested that Code Enforcement staff investi- gate the area to ascertain whether the minimum requirements of the ordinance are being met. ~A~e~ ~aunder~ ~c~ed, ~econded b~ Commissioner Sh~nah~n and c~r~ied~i~o~l¥, to clo~e the public hearing. Cce~Lt~ioner ~m~dez~ ~oved, seconded by Commissioner ~oo~ntght ·nd c~z~tedm~nt.ou, l¥, to approv~ Petition &V-92-Ol? subject to the · xchas~ ef e~nta, and that Resolution 92-~2i be adopted. Page 37 September 22, 1992 KE~3T. OTZO~ 92-525, PETZTZON V-92-19, G~O~rKEY G. PURSI~, REPRESENTING ~ ~Z~Z~ ~~TZON, ~~ZNG A 2.9 ~ ~-~-~A~ V~ ~ ~~ ~A~ 0N ~~ CO~T, ~~ ~ GOLF ~ ~ ~ AT ~~ P~, ~g O~ - ~D S~ TO Legal notice having been published tn the Naples Daily News on September 6, 1992, as evidenced by Affidavit of ~ublication fi/ed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened. Planner Arnold explained that the petitioner te requesting a 2.9 foot variance from the required 5 foot rear yard. He reported that the property is located in the Embassy Woods Golf and Countr~ Club. He indicated that the applicant currently has a home with an accessor~ i~ool and the encroachment was identified at the time of the survey, prior to the sale of the property. He affirmed that both structures received building permits and Certificates of Occupancy from the County, however the encroachments were not noted until this time. Mr. Arnold stated that staff is recommending denial, based on the fact that there does not appear to be a hardship, but do acknowledge that there are some circumstances since the structure ia existing. Mr. Arnold revealed that the Collier County Planning Commtsslon recoemends approval of this Petition, subject to the stipulations in Agreement Sheet. There were no speakers. Onmmleet~ ~nahan moved, ~econded t~F Co.mteatoner S~m~ders ~nd caz~te4.~anlmmzel¥, to clo~e the public hearinG. carrte4~lmm~l¥0 to approve Petition V-92-19, theret~ adopting ]~oJ.tton 92-525, ~ub~ect to the .ttpulmttonm contained tn the AgT~.~nt Page 38 September 22~ 1992 Zt~14 BOJLII~I~FOO~rfT' COI~IISSZONEI~~ CO]~B~XZCATZONS Commissioner Volpe stated that he has circulated copies of the County Attorney's evaluation form and suggested upon completion, that the Cosm2ssion forward same to Mrs. Fi/son. Co~isaloner Shanahan requested that the County Attorney provide a status report relative to the potential eminent domain proceedings and/or PUD a~endment regarding the South Beach/Antaramian development. Co~m2ss~oner Shanahan suggested that a discussion be held within the next 2-3 weeks with respect to the Lely High School Road. A discussion ensued relative to proposed dates for scheduling Strategic Planning Workshops. County Manager Dorrtll advised that based on last year's workshops, approximately ten hours will be required, i.e., two days 4-5 hours each day. The consensus of the Commission was that the first Strategic Planning Workshop be held on October 9, 1992, at 9:00 A.M. a.. Cc,mmd~i~er Shxnahan ~oved, seconde~ b~ Commissioner ~ ewx4 cs~ried 5/0, that 1he follo~ing lte~ ~u~de~ the Con- ~t~emmda b~ ipprove~ and/or adopted: eec ~O~fZO~ ~2-507 ~PPRO~'ZXG FOR P~CORDZRG ~ ~ZR&L pT.&~ O~ ~BOC~ Zt~l ~.6A2& See Page R~.~TT~ON 92-508 FROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF ABAT~I~)rf OF ~KT~Z. ZC NUISANCE ON LOT 6, BLOCK 225, OF MARCO BEACH UNIT DANIEL M. T~TI AND JOHN SLIWINSE! See Pages ~OT,~%rIOll 92--~O9 FROV/DZNG FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR ~ COST OF A~&T~r~ OF FUBLZC NUISANCE ON LOT 2, BLOCK 8, MARCO BEACH UNIT ~ ONe, LA~AT C. AND ANN M. RYDBERG See Pages Ite~lA2c I~4~,~T~ON 92-510 ~ZDZMG ~R~SKS~ OF LX~ ~R~ ~ OF ~~ ~ ~lC ~S~ ON ~ 3, BL~ 252, ~ B~ ~IT 6, Page 39 Septeuber 22, 1992 ISA&C PJJtSMll, IIIURIDO SOTT0~ AND IlIIlA SOTTOII See Pages ?tern ~16A2d Rl~(~f~O~ O2--511 FROVIDING FOR ASS~SSMKNT OF LIKN FOR THE COST OF ABITB~rr ~F I~BLI¢ NUISAJ~CE ON LOT 7, BLOCK 135, GOLDKN GATE, U~IT 4, T~MSIBr~P 47 BOOTH, RAIIGE 29 KAST, OAKHAVX]I' AP~, LTl). See Pages /~_~_ Item ~l~2f Ite~ ~l~g ~~ 92-513 ~IDZ~ ~R ~~ OF LI~ ~R ~ ~ 0F ~~ ~ ~C ~ZS~ ON ~ ~3 IN BL~ 294 OF See Pages J~ESOLUTT~ 92-514 FROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIKN FOR ~HE COST OF AB~TB~IrT OF P~B~Z¢ NUZSAICK ON LOTS 17, 18, 19 & 20 ZII BLOCK "Em OF See Page. 92-516 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT Or LIKI~ FOR THK COST OF OF P~BLIC J~UISAJlCE ON A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 17, 80 SOOTH, RA~ 26 EAST, AVA BEATRICE JONES ~ 4O CON~L~ K~GINEKRING SEK~ICE$ AGREEMENT WITH AG]lOLl, BAR~ER AND ~, I~., ~ JOI~ ~IO RO~ ~-~IN~ I~~ ~ MA~ DI~~I~ FACILITIES (J~. S~A ~~ ~~ T0 J~. S.R. 84), CIE ~. 016 ~ 855, ~S~I~LY - IN ~ ~X~ CO~ ~ ~ ~ ~354,780 See Pages Item ~I,D1 Itu J1G~ NOTI~ OF FROI~IS~ TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMenT OF SENER IMPACT ~ FOR MARTIN ROOS, AS ~ OF TH~ BAY HA~EN TN~T Itu ~DTIC~ See Pagee to ~D1 EX~'~TIV~ RISE CONS~LTANT~, INC., FOR GROUP HEALTH PARTT ADI~INZ STRATIV~ See Pages to ~E1 Page 41 September 22, 1992 ~ OFNO~I~ TO MATC~ T~E $'fA~'E ~ ~LtTC~I~G (~J~T FltO~ FU~D 301 TO FO~D 4~1 F~R T~E FURCHASE O~ ~DICAL E~UII'~r~T - IN T~E ~ O~ $12,640 R~,~I~ ~2--517 C~RTII~Z~G TN~T TI~ APPLICATION FOR AND U~K OF ~!~ ~ F~ ~0~Z~ ~ZLL ll~FItOVE AND ~XP~D PRE-HOSPITAL B~ ACTI~ZTI~ Zteu e161~J continued to g/29/92 II:I:SOLIT~OI ~2-8:t8 iOTHOR~2:Z]I(3 T]~ ACq~:[STTION Or PROPERTIES BT (3ZFF OR CJ3JLL BFfl/I:Z]I RJLTTLB:S]IA]~ ~ ROAD AND DAVZS BOI~,KVARD Zt~2~4 ~ OF ~ ~A~ I~ S~IOW 25, ~SHIP 49 ~, ~ L~) - ~ ~ ~ OF 840,500 ~US ~ZW9 ~ W~ ~ ~ ~3~ See Pages IRYJ~"'B[&SE OF FROFERTY LOCATED IN Sg~ON 25, ~IP 49 SO~, ~ ~) - IN ~ ~ OF ~40,500 ~US ~0SZNG COS~ N~ ~ ~ LOCATED ZN SE~[ON 2~, ~SH~P 40 ~, ~ Pm~ 42 fl 0 , 136 Sept~ber 22, 1992 - 1~ T~ ~ O~ $20,600 PL~S CT~::rSING ~ lOT '1'0 ~XC~D $¢0o IR:FRL"B&~ OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN S~CTION 25, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, R&RGE 26 g&~T, FOR K~:PAI~ION OF THE N&PL~S L&RDIPILL (PDt3. ETHKL S. SI~G~dLRN) -- Il ~ ~ OF 810,250 PT, US CLO~ING COS/'~ NOT TO ~XC'~gD $250 ~ OF ~ ~:~C&T'L'D IN $~CTION 25, TCR~SHIP 49 5OUT'Bo RJ~G~ 2~ ~1', ~ ~I,J~WIO! OF ~ I~,,.~gS ~LL (HOMX,R,D AND T,,~UR,& · DMAI]~) -- /]1 ~ J41OUIT OF ~10,250 PLUS CLO3IIG COSTS lOT TO KXCEED $200 ST'XFgX, ATI[D lrZIAL ~ ltlZLATXV~ TO ~ EA.IEMB:NT JLCq<;XSXTXC~I OF PAItL"I:L ~ 1g.O/806 AS U'J'XLITY ffJ~X~]IT LOCATED XN PI~OIXP'~"~ P, MIZ NS'TO SEE PAGES 349 - 353 Xt~ ~1~2 moved to ~]~2 Xtm~ ~J. 1~3 ~ ~ T~ FI~3V~Dg FOR ~ FURCH&Sg OF &DDITION&L I~JtT~RX&L II~l~l~J:]l~"/"O ~ FXII:LD COIDXTXOI'~ ON ~ PINg RIDG~ I~D~I'RX&L F&RE FSK)3ZCT - 11 ~ Jaloolrf OF $29,898.18 See Pagee ~ - FXLEDAND/ORREFERRED The following mtscellaneoue correspondence was f/led as presented by the Board of County Commiestoners, with the following correction: 1. That Item ?B should correctly read Valewood Drive rather than P/per Boulevard. Page 43 September 22, Z992 60194 A]~D 37820 There being no further bueinees for the Good of the County, the meeting ~s adjourned b~ Order of the Chair - Time: 6:15 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY C01~4ISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD (S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS ..-:~.0r" ,' · t . %2 ~.F, ~ ~z 4.., , / · MICHAEL ~e~.,~l~t~a~r. oved by the Board on as pre=~t~'~'~ or as corrected Page 44