Loading...
BCC Minutes 05/28/1991 RNaple~, Florida, Hay 28, 399! 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 ~peclal districts as have been created &ccordtng to law and having conducted business herein, met on th~e date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR BF~8IO~ in Building nF' of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the .following members present: CHATRMAN: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Patricia Anne Goodnight Michael J. Volpe R~chard S. Shanahah Max A. l{asse, Jr. Burr L. Saunders ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonko~Jky, Finance D~rector~ Annette Gusv~n, ~enda Arrlghl and Debby Fartie, Deputy Clerks~ Net2 Derrill, County ~anager~ Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager; Mark Lawson, Assistant County Attorney; Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney; Ken Bagtnsk~, Planning Services Manager; Bob Blanchard, Growth Planning Director; David Pettrow, Development Services Director; Fred Biosracket, Assistant Utilities Administrator; Ron Nine, Ray Bellows and Bob Lord, Planners; Sue Ftlson, Administrative Assistant to the Board~ and Deputy Byron Tomllnson, Page if, .f May 28, 1991 C4=11Ltml~one~ Sh~ ~ov~d, seconded by Com~sstone~ l~uae ~nd that th~ agenda b~ approve~ with the following Item #9D1 - Agreement betwoen the Orangetree Development, its Successor Utility and Collier County - Added. Companion to Item #6B2. (Requested by Staff.) Item #16B2 - Recommendation to approve an agreement with Liebig Investments for roadway and site improvements at the Regency Autohaus and Chrysler-Plymouth Dealerships on Airport-Pulling Road - Moved to #9B1. [Requested by Staff.) 3. Item #16H2 - Recommendation to approve the vacation on an existing access easement within Pelican Bay and to accept a -.revised grant of easement - Moved to #9H6. Requested by the " County Attorneyts Office.) Item #16D1 - Award contract for construction of water, sewer and effluent lines on Immokalee Road, Bid #9~-~674 - W~thdrawn. (Requested by Staff.) Item #16E! - Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to execute a work order under the annual contract for architectural services with Victor J. Latavish, Architect, for the design of a fire suppression system in Building F - Moved to #9El. (Requested by Commissioner Volpe.) Item #16L! - Recommendation that the Board approve an Amendment to the Agreement between Henderson, Young & Company, Inc., and Collier County for the preparation of Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Study and an Amendment to the Agreement between Henderson, Young & Company, Inc., and Collier County for the preparation of Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study - Moved to #lOB. (Requested by Commissioner Volpe.) APPROV'EDMm/ORM:)OPTED the Clerk'm ~et tm ~t~ ~ It~ / OO0:,,,: lO Page 2 Hay 28, 1991 ~te~.~l¥, t~at t]~ Nl~mt~ o£ t~ R~lar Meeting of lprll Commissioner GoodniGht congratulated the following Collier County employee and presented his servtce award: ~Byron ~Skipm Camp - Facilities Hanagement - 10 years '.i~: Xte~l ... I~::~M~&~-D~X~E&~X~G /~JLR 1992 A~ U~n reading ~d present/ng the proclamation to Nanc~ O/son and .TAns Osceola, ~es/oner Vol~ ~ed, eecon~ ~ Co~iseAo~r Page 3 May 28, 1991 ': *' I~ROI:~&M~T~OII '~G~ZIk~ZNG T~ ~ OF 3UN~ 2-8 1991, Jk~ N&~ZON&L ~ Upon reading and presenting the proclamation to Captain Alan Harsden, Florida ~artne Patrol, Co~mte81oner Saund~re moved, oeconded ~'~ .l~~i~e~ ~ and carrtml~nant~ou~l¥, to adopt the procla~a- the ~ o! ~'une ~-8, 1901, e~ ~&~tonal $&£e Bo~ting Page 4 :,.. .~ May 28, 1991 O~DIilI~I gl-42 1~ ~v~I'ZTZO~ R-90-37, G~ORGE L. VARHIDOE, YOUlll, VAN ~ ~TZOR, ~Q~ZRG A ~Z0~ ~ RT TO ~ ~ T0 81-25, ~ ~ ~ 0~ZN~ N0. eS 81-98 ~D 90-42 ~0VZDING ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ USES IN P~CEL ~, A~ A P~IN9 F~~ ~ P~ ~ ~R ~0~ LOCA~D 0N ~ SIDES 0F COLLI~ ~~ ~CO I~ - ~D ~ ~~ ~ ~ C0~ITION Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May i.- 2, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the ~ii.~Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition R-90-37, filed by George L. Varnadoe for Point Marco Development Corporation, requesting a rezone from RT to PUD and to amend the PUD currently referenced as Point Marco. Planner Nino explained Petition R-90-37 seeks to combine two pre- rious* Development Orders. He said one is a Site Development Plan for · Bristol Place for a 50-unit condominium building and the second pro- Ject',ts Point Marco which has been approved for 734 dwelling units on the.Spinnaker Point site. He noted the Bristol Place project directly across the street on the non-Gulf side of Collier Boulevard. . He asserted the purpose of the petition Is to make It possible to construct a parking lot with recreation facilities on the non-Gulf side 3.5 acre parcel while decreasing by 50 the number of dwelling units proposed. He said the trade off is an increase in the heights of buildings to be built on the Gulf side lot, while ~etatntng the same number of dwelling units. He mentioned the parking lot would be for the sole use of Marco Island residents. He indicated the height change being requested will increase the proposed lS story building to 22 stories and the 15 story building to 18 stories. He provided the Board with copies of an amendment to the proposal which removes language relative to granting administrative discretion to Staff. He said-the CCPC unanimously recommended approval of Petition R-90-37, adding that several civic organizations on. Marco Island spoke in favor approval. Saunders commented the pedestrian access in that area Page 5 May 28, 1991 tS described in Special Narranty O.R. Book 11630 Page 1358, which ~' provides for a 20 foot public beach access granted in November, 1985, l $unB~mk Southwest, Cape Coral, Florida and Collier County. He noted the issue the Board will be struggling with is the use of that proposed parking lot, because of its limited use. He read Into the record the following section of the warranty deed: "This conveyance Is made pursuant to Collier County Ordinance 81-98 to provide a twenty (20) foot public beach access along the north property line of the Point Marco Resort Complex. The acceptance and recording of this deed by the grantee shall constitute its acknowledgment that the obligation limpssad under Ordinance 81-98 to provide a twenty (20) foot beach access on the northern portion of the property has been satisfied. It Is the purpose and intent of the parties to thio deed to provide a pedestrian beach access to serve the general public so that they will continue to have traditional use of the beach. It is, however, not the. purpose and Intent of the parties that the pedestrian beach walk- way ever be used In con]unction with a public parking facility which, in the opinion of the parties, would drastically alter the character of the Intended use of the beach access. Accordingly, if a public parking facility is ever constructed or otherwise maintained on pro- party. adjoining or in close proximity to the public beach access, then the land conveyed by the deed shall Immediately revert to the grantor, its successors and assigns." (Copy on file with the Clerk to the Board.) He questioned if the language of the deed is enforceable and would control the pedestrian access way? County Attorney Cuyler Indicated he has no reason to believe that it to not operative language at this point In time. Commissioner Hesse suggested that the own,~r remove the reverter clause and donate the property to the County. County Attorney Cuyler stated that is a possible solution, however, has not yet been discussed with the developer. He said the realquestion Ie will the reverter clause become operative by the parking facility that will be established and deeded to the Marco Page 6 Island .Civic Association (MICA}. May 28, 1991 He reported the developer has indt- .(~ cared he will do whatever i8 necessary to emmre that for this parking lot, the reverter clause will not b,~come operative. , Coutssioner Volps estimated thnre are 518 total parking spaces in the entire unincorporated part of Collier Cmmty excluding Marco Island. He said Tigertail Beach hao 180 parking spaces and Residents Beach has 140 spaces, both of which are located on Marco Island, and approval of this petition will give Marco Island a total of 480 spa- ces.. ~.He co-~ented there see~8 to be an imbalance and reminded the ;i[.:;Board o£, their co~ltnent to taprove the ntmber of public parking pla- ces throughout the County. Co~isstonsr Shanaham pointed out that Collier County contributes several hundred thousand dollars to the ~aintenance and upkeep of the parking within the City of Naples, so that parking should be Included ,in the total number of spaces estimated by Coeuatsstoner Volpe as being available in the Coun~.~. Attorney George Varnadoe, representing Point Marco Development Company, summarized the history associated with the conveyance of the 20 foot pedestrian beach access. He said the developer has met with representatives of MICA and the Marco Island Beach Association (MIBA) and Norked out an agreement where the parking facility would be deeded to MICA who will then lease it to MIBA for $1.00 per year. He stated MIBA would operate and maintatn the parking facility in the same '-:~'i lanner they do the existing Residents Beach parking facility He explained the facility is proposed to be a turnkey operation built at the developer's expense and will include 160 parking spaces, plus four handicapped spaces and four RV spaces, a bathhouse changing facility with a lestlag room and a chlckee hut for picnic facilities. He added thelfaclllt¥ is proposed to have a gate house and landscaping. He asserted a conservative estimate of the value of that facility when completed will be approximately $2.5 million. He said the 2O foot · public access will not be changed by virtue of this proposal and his client te wtlltng to provide documentation th~at wtll not trigger the 000,, i7P"g' reverter clause. Hay 28, 1991 He Indicated the second issue is who will use the parking facility. He advised by providing more parking for the rest- dents of Marco Island, there will be more spaces available at Tigertail Beach for the remaining res/dents in Collier County. The following people spoke in favor of the proposal, stating the need during the height of the season for additions! parking spaces for residents of Marco Island; beach access for present and future reel- ~i~:(.; dsnta'.of Narco Island is a major concerns the County should aggressl- . . vely pursue access to some of the neighboring islands: Milton Leonard, past President, MrCA Maurice Metcalf, President, MICA Fred Burnham, President, Marco Island Taxpayers Association -.. Foster Harris, Vice President, MICA and Board member MIBA ;'] ~,. Andrew Wallach, President of Marco Association of Condominiums /C~ Frank Blanchard ~- . Joseph Chrlst~ :'~ Jan-Haduck, President, Isle of Capri Civic Association, suggested ;:/~'. that the residents of Isle of Capri should be included as part of the -~:* ~' deed or under a separate agreement. She tndic~ted they are very close i'?..to/~arco Island economically, socially and physically.. "i' : CoaLisotoner Haase etated he ~ante to ensure the 20 foot access re~atn~ available to the general public. Attorney Varnadoe, after consultation with his client, stated the developer is willing to release the reverter clause simultaneously with transfer of the property to MICA. Oemm/~i~n~ Ihanah~nmoved, ~econded by Oo~-iaaloner ~ and c~z~J~z~tmou~ly, to cl~ ~ ~1tc ~/ng. ~~t~ ~ ~d, eec~ ~ Cootseisner Hues, to ~ cl~s~ be tale&sad upon conve~mnce of th~ property to MICA, '-': Co. Ass/snot Sanders cemented he will support the motion, to Board has made a couttmen~ to increasing public access ~'., ud ~bltc parking wherever possible. lie noted when this parttalar Page 8 May 28, 1991 20 foot public access was approved in 1985, it was clear from the document transferring that easement, that the Intent of the Grantor wae not to provide for a public parking lot adjoined to or in the vicinity of that parcel. He stated the Board has an obligation to honorsthat coeitment, Oonieeloner Volpe oestioned the t~ etatue of the property, uktng.tf this 3.5 acre parcel will be on the assessment rolls and 'willbe paying ad valorem taxes? Commissioner Shanahah advised that once the property to transferred to MXBA, It will be tax exempt. :.' ~~1 f~' tt~ qu~wl:ion, th~ mot/on carried 4/1 (Commtemlgm~ V~*~.),'~~ ~t~ ~ ~dt~cm u ~r~ ~ tttl~ O~l~ 91-42 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 82-2, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY BY AMENDING ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBER MB9B BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN-DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "RT" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS POINT MARCO FOR APPROXIMATELY 3.056 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR PARKING AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH COLLIER BOULEVARD AND SWALLOW AVENUE IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND AMENDING PUD ORDINANCE NO. 81-25, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE POINT MARCO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AS PREVIOUSLY AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NOS. 81-98 AND 90-42, BY AMENDING THE PERMITTED USES SECTION TO ALLOW CLUB USES IN PARCEL I AND A PARKING FACILITY FOR MARCO ISLAND RESIDENTS ON PARCEL II; AMENDING THE MAXI}iU14 PROJECT DENSITY SECTION TO INCREASE THE TOTAL ACREAGE AND AMEND THE DENSITY DISTRIBUTION; AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY DELINEATING PARCEL I AND PARCEL II, AMENDING MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TO INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHT IN BUILDING AREAS 2, 3 AND 4 AND ADDING NEW BUILDING AREA 3 (a); AMENDING MINI!~M DWELLING UNIT FLOOR AREAS, AMENDING MINIMUM BUILDING SEPARATION, AMENDING MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS, ADDING FLOOR AREA RATIO, AMENDING RECREATION OPEN SPACE, PRIVATE - DOCKS, AMENDING BEACH, TO CLARIFY THE RESTRICTIONS ON CONSTRUCTION SEAWARD OF THE CCCL, ADDING SUBTITLE DOCKS, ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARCEL II; AMENDING MASTER PLAN SECTION TO DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF RECREATIONAL AND CLUB FACILITIES PERMITTED; AMENDING STREETS, INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS, TO PROVIDE RESTRICTIONS FOR THE INTERNAL STREETS WITHIN PARCEL II, AMENDING EXTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS, TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PARCELS I AND II; AMENDING FIRE PROTECTION TO SPECIFY THE LOCATION OF FIRE HYDRANTS IN PARCEL I; AMENDING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS TO SPECIFY THE REQUIREMENTS ON PARCEL I; AHENDING DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SECTION TO SPECIFY THE REQUIREMENTS ON PARCEL I; AMENDING THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SECTION TO PROVIDE SEPARATE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR PARCELS I AND II AND DELINEATING REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH PARCELS; MiENDING THE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AND WASTE WATER COLLECTION SECTION TO NUMBER THE PARAGRAPHS; BY ADDING A LEGAL DESCRIPTION SECTION; AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE PARCEL II; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Page 9 Nay 28, 1991 0~I:D'J:~I;BI~91"4~ 1~ IvL'"TZTZON PD&-89-26, BARB&R& H:~NDI~R~0N C,MILE~ OF ~-. FUD-Jd)OPT~D~CTTO PETITIONER'S &GREEKEI~ Legal notice having been published in the Haplee Daily News on Nay 8, 1991, and May 17, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication flied with the Clerk, public heartn,g was opened to consider Petition PDA-89-16, filed by Barbara Henderson Cawlay of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., requesting amendments to the Ormlgetree PUD. Planner Lord presented Petition PDA-89-16 requesting amendments to the Orangetree PUD, located on the east side of lmmokalee Road and north and south of 0tl Hell Road. ;Es noted as per add-on Item #gD1, an approval Is required for the utility agreem,~nt b~tween Orangetree and Collier County providing for eventual merger of the Orangetree utility-system into the Courttyre system. He reported the purpose of this a~end~ent ts to adopt a new ~aster plan to provide for expansion of land uses to areas formerly set aside as agriculture with intended pur~sea of residential, gol~ course ~d co~tty use. He s~artzed other mlscell~eo~ ch~ges as defining the R-2 and R-3 areas, thereby ;(/eltmtnattn~ the R-4 deel~atton~ reduce the ~tnlmum re~lred lot size for R-l, from one acre to one-half acre and change the site width from 150 to 120 feet; require that all permanent development be connected to .the wastewater collection and treatment system; increase in the a~ount of land reserved for co,~m~ntty use by 31 acres; provide for .~ ~f. ,.. cash distribution of $25,000 to the Corkscrew Fire District In lieu of ~'!' fire station site of 1.5 acres; provide for additional 11 acres for i~;J~" purpose of a co,unity recreational park; plus other minor revisions !. to the PUD document. He noted Staff recommends approval, subject to /. all stipulations in the PUD document. He concluded the COPC reviewed ifil: Petition PD&-89-16 on 12/~0/90 and by unanimous vote recommended approval subject to Staff's stipulations. Commissioner Volpe commented that Collier County should be able to -take credit for the additional 11 acres for the com.mntty recreational park;~ln the Parks and Recreation Element of the Growth Management Page 10 28, 199! Plan,'to which Planner Lord concurred. ~ats~t~ almnahan~r~ed, s~cond~ bT Co~iealone~ Ra~e ~ ~t~~~y, ~o clo~ t~ public ~ng. ~l~~~ly, to a~r~ Petit/on PDA-89-16 ~bJec~ ~o t~ ~1~---~ ~ ~t.~ into Ordlm~ ~ot ~o. 44: O~CB 91-43 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 87-13, ~ICH ESTABLISHED "ORANGETREE" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY ~MENDING LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES, TO AMEND NAME OF ENGINEERING FIRM; AMENDING SECTION I, PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND OWNERSHIP, SUBSECTION 1.01, INTRODUCTION, LOCATION, AND PURPOSE, TO AMEND THE APPLICANT'S NAME, ACREAGE AMOUNTS AND NAME OF ROADWAY; SUBSECTION 1.02, LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BY AMENDING THE AHOUNT OF ACREAGE; AMENDING SECTION II, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, SUBSECTION 2.04, BY DELETING FRACTIONALIZATION OF TRACTS SECTION AND ADDING SUBDIVISION MASTER PLAN AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL SECTION; A~ENDING SUBSECTION 2.C5, LAND USES, AMENDING THE NAME OF ENGINEERING FIRM; SUBSECTION 2.06 PROJECT DENSITY, TO AMEND THE ACREAGE AND DENSITY; SUBSECTION 2.11, EXCEPTIONS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, TO AME..ND THE TIME FOR SUBMITTAL OF EXCEPTIONS TO SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS; SUBSECTION 2.12, LAKE SITING, TO AMEND THE NAME OF ENGINEERING FIRM; DELETING SUBSECTION 2.14, CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL IN ITS ENTIRETY; DELETING SUBSECTION 2.15, DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL IN ITS ENTIRETY; AMENDING LAND USE SUMMARY TABLE I, TO AMEND AMOUNTS OF ACREAGES AND UNITS AND COMBINING CERTAIN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS; AIdENDING SECTION III, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, SUBSECTION 3.01, PURPOSE, TO AMEND THE NAME OF ENGINEERING FIRM; AMENDING SUBSECTION 3.02, GENERAL DESCRIPTION BY ADDING OTHER IRRIGATION TECHNIQUES; AMENDING SUBSECTION 3.03, PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES, BY ADDING RESERVOIRS/LAKES; AMENDING SECTION IV, RES£DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, SUBSECTION 4.01, PURPOSE, TO AMEND NAME OF ENGINEERING FIRM AND TO COMBINE THE R-2 AND R-3 DESIGNATIONS INTO A NEW R-2 DESIGNATION THEREBY ELIMINATING THE R-4 DESIGNATION; SUBSECTION 4.02, MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS, TO COMBINE THE R-2 AND R-3 DESIGNATION INTO A NEW R-2 DESIGNATION THEREBY ELIMINATING THE R-4 DESIGNATION; SUBSECTION 4.03, GENERAL DESCRIPTION, TO ~END THE NAME OF ENGINEERING FIRM; AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.04, PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES, TO COMBINE THE R-2 AND R-3 DESIGNATION INTO A NEW R-2 DESIGNATION THEREBY ELIHINATING THE R-4 DESIGNATION; SUBSECTION 4.05, PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES, ADDING GUEST HOMES IN R-! AREAS ON LOTS ONE ACRE OR LARGER IN SIZE; SUBSECTION 4.06, PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES REQUIRING DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, TO REFERENCE APPROPRIATE SECTION; AMENDING SUBSECTION 4.07, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ADDING SETBACKS FOR MULTI-FAMILY; DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS OF TABLE III A, TO REDUCE LOT SIZES AND WIDTH FOR THE R-1 DESIGNATION, AND TABLE III B, TO DELETE REFERENCE TO FRACTIONALIZATION; AMENDING SECTION V, CN - COMMERCIAL/NEIGHBORHOOD, SUBSECTION 5.01, PURPOSE, TO AMEND NAME OF ENGINEERING FIRM; AMENDING SUBSECTION 5.03, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, BY DELETING THE SDP SUBMITTAL PRIOR TO FRACTIONALIZATION REQUIREMENT; AMENDING SECTION VI, "GC" GOLF COURSE, SUBSECTION 6.05, SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS, TO AMEND METHOD OF SUBMITTAL; AMENDING SECTION VII, COMMUNITY USE, SUBSECTION 7.01, PURPOSE, TO ADD A 31 ACRE TRACT FOR CU AND TO AMEND NAME OF ENGINEERING FIRM; AMENDING SECTION VIII, "SP" Page 11 May 28~ SCHOOL/PAR~, SUBSKCTION 8.01, PURPOSE, TO ~J~KND NA~E OF ENGINEKRING FIR~ AND TO ADD ~ ~1 ACRE T~CT FOR A P~K, S~SKCTION 8.03, DK~LO~K~ STA~ARDS, TO AMEND THE METHOD OF SDP SUBMITTAL; ~ND~NG SECTION IX, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CO~IT~ENTS, SUBSECTION 9.02, DEVELOPMK~ CO~TMKNTS, PA~GRAPH C., ~SPORTATION SUBPA~G~PH 1), TO AME~ THE NAME OF APPBICANT, PA~G~PH D., WATER ~NAGKMENT, SUBPARAGRAPH 4), TO AMEND THE N~E OF APPL[CA~, A~ TO ADD SUBPARAG~PH 6), SETTING FORTH CRITERIA FOR RESERVOIRS/LAKES, PA~G~PH E., WATER ~ SK~R, ~KND[NG S~PA~PH 2], 3), 4), 5), 6), 7) AND 8), BY DELETING SE~R SERVICE KXCEPT[ONS, AND CERTAIN OTHER ~ROVISIONS, BY ADDING PROVISIONS GO~RNING THE OPE~TION OF ~LIW FACILITIES BY PRIVATE E~T~ES, RESERVING ~ILI~ EASE~S ~N FAVOR OF COUNTY ~ CLAR~ING CONDITIONS FOR THE PA~BNT OF I~PACT FEES; BY ADDING SUBPA~G~PH 9) ALLOWING TEMPO~RY ~LL$ AND S~R DISPOSAL SYST~S; BY ~ING PA~G~PH H.~ FIRE PROTECTION, BY DELETING SUBP~G~PH 1) PROVIDING FOR THE DONATION OF A 1.5 ACRE FIRE STATION SITE, ~D RE--BERING RE~INING SUBPA~G~PHS; ~ENDING S~SECTION I., FISCAL, BY ADDING RECITAL THAT $25,000.00 BE DONATED TO THE C0RKSCR~ FIRE DIS~ICT; BY A~NDING PA~GRAPH 9.03, DE~LO~ PLAN, PA~G~PH A, TO AMEND N~E 0F ENGINEERING FI~; BY ADDING COLLIER COU~ P~ING C0~ISSION RECO~ATIONS ~ STA~ STIP~TIONS~ ~ BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTI~ DATE. Page 12 May 28, 1991 D/s~ston relative to this item was heal. d in conJ~ctton with ltal'#6B2. Page 13 May 28, 1991 ~i~ .... ~.a~&c-Jleeeeoe4~ 10z45 A.M. -Reconveneds ll~00 A,M, etwhlch Co~lttee Member ~an Kantor Artformed that ~he ~rren~ Cou/ttee ~8 ~ on-going co~Lttee Formed to objectively ex~Lne polt- ~;,, cte8 ~d daily Catty gover~en~ operations which /ncluded the Count~ ~(' ~ager~s ~d Catty Attorney's Office. He explaln~d that the Co~tttee fo~med subco~lttees of two for the review of the two ces.. He advised that the subcommittees Found that 50~ of the July 31, ~.~ 1990,-.racesend&lions that were mada by the Productivity Task Force at ~%~ that time have been Implemented. B~ indicated that all committee mem- .~, bars. found County professionals to be sincere and helpful in their research. He stated that the Committee does recommend an expanded interpretation of the f/ndtngs during the budget workshops. Mr. ~:" Kantor specified that there were e12c different departments that were reviewed by the Committee members; however, the draft provided to the Board does not include the County Attorney's office review. Mr. Kantor reported that the overall recommendations for the Parks and Recreations Department include: 1. an Increased revenue pro- ,. ductng and entrepreneurial approach to the operation of the depart- i~~. Bent; 2. charging a standardized fee at all facilities which have been developed for a specialized user, fee revenue should equal the ~.i operating, maintenance and repair costs of the factlities; 3. requ/rtng accountability, marketing and promotion and an Incentive system for its staff; 4. standardization of park maintenance equip- · ment to minimize out of service time; and 5. developing additional sources of revenue to fund the park ranger program to pay for the Increased and sometime dupltcatlve oerv/ces the rangers offer or phase out the. program completely. :i~;.' "~,,Comm/sstoner Volpe questioned tf the Committee Is recommendJng the '~: ()', i Board~consider ~he establishment of s county-wide fee for parking at Page 14 ff :~/"~ May 28, Z991 the ,beach .as well as a fee for the use of the County boat ramps, to ~[.:i:'~whtch Mr. Kantor concurred. . ..Regarding.the Public Health Unit, Mr. Kantor informed that the ireco~endatlons.include: 1. the Unit continues to develop programs where-:tnttial costs, when appropriate applied, offset much more · ["significant later costs tf intervention does not occur; 2. a ~ore aggressive approach to acquiring public and private grants be imple- mented-including the creation of a not for profit corporation to apply for private grants not available to government agencies; 3. the net !~[i.lossbetng experienced in several environmental inspection programs conducted by the Health Unit be remedied with a supplemental fee ache- dule adopted at the County level; 4. well eyetams e,~rving four or ~ore dwelling units which are under no current Inspection program be regulated and inspected; and 5. new private wells for which tests are currently optional be required to have a ~andatory bacteriological and water quality test before certification of occupancy is issued. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Manager -McLe~ore mentioned that having the Hational Development Corporation help-in obtaining grants for the Public Health Unit can be tnvestt- The Utilities Division, Mr. Kantor stated, has done an excellent Job in augmenting ~an¥ of the suggestions ~ade by the previous Productivity Task Force of 1990. .Mr..Kantor informed that the current Productivity Committee con- curs.with the Productivity Task Force of 1990 and with the study co~pleted In December, 1986, recommending that a Utilities Authority be established to closely monitor the operations. Commissioner Saunders questioned what action has been taken the request by the Board in October, 1990, to establish a Water and Sewer Authority. County Attorney Cuyler responded that the finaldraft will be reviewed with the County Manager the week of May 1991, and then presented to the Board for their consideration. disclosed that in the Community Development Department Page 15 :~"" ~ May 28, 1991 Includes: 1. "rightsizing" the department by carefully rsvt~tng the staffing level; 2. improving department communications; 3. -better customer service response attitude &hi /nvolvementl 4. creating an Office of Zoning Director with authority to make interpre- tations of minor matters; 5. review of the fee structure; and 6. per- mir minor changes In the field with the inspector's approval. Recoaunendatlons for Fleet Management, Mr. Kantor cited, Includes: 1. reduction in the number of vehicles In the unasstgned motor pool by two-thirds or more; 2. handling minor repairs and some preven- tative natntenance tn-housel 3. a comprehensive review of the 24-hour assignedvehicle pool; 4. clarifying the relationship with the States Attorney Office regarding the County supply vehicles for thetr use; and 5.~-further exploration of city/county relationships regarding bulk purchasing of vehicles, and/or ~atntenance sharing, Administrative Services Administrator Ochs explained that there are 781 pieces of equipment maintained under contract with the County. He specified that 486 of these pieces are considered primary which consist of rolling stock, and 295 pieces are considered secondary con- elsting of tractor mowers and small hand held equip:tent. He further clarified that of the prtmary pieces 206 of tham are motor pool vehicles such as sedans and one-ton pickup trucks which are assigned to Individuals or specific departments and 23 are unassigned motor .vehicles for department's daily checkout and rental. He noted that in regards to the daily checkout and rentals the departments are charged back mileage to cover the cost of maintenance and fuel. Department include: 1. a more effective policy and procedure for the chain st command within the department; 2. a review of business tripact 'procedures while the department is doing improvements or repairs in order to minimize the impact on businesses while the Improvements are in progress; 3. implement the four-day, ten-hour work'week~ and 4. more attention be given to the airports and an 'agreement with the State of Florida DNR for the Marco Island Airport Page 16 May 28, 1991 iaggraastv~ly pursued because of the high potential for revenue "~:* ':14~u~.Frardg Baker reported that he worked with the Co~ty Attorney,s ;~. Office-on this review ~d provided the Board with a rough draft ~ the findthee. He stated that the co~tttee's reco~endattons Include: ",1.:.~1~tn~ a hiring freeze on County Attorney's office basing on ten attorney's ~d revtew/ng it over the next year. 2 re. ire the ~[; ..' · . ' C~ty e~l~ees r~est/ng legal advlse from the County Attorney's ,~.. :office to complete a form ~d have the/r ~pe~/sor and the department head ~t~ off on the form before ~bmltt/ng to the Attorney's offlce~ :.~d 3. ~rk out an agreemen~ ~lth ~he Utilities Department to be billed on ~ hourly basis. He added that the Co. Artec found the Atto~ey's office to have a good reputation in both the private and ~bl/c sectors. ~t~ ~ ~ ~ck to tb ~ wtth n t~lementmtt~ Zn* response to Co~tsstoner Volpe, County Hanager Dorrtll affflrmed ;,. that-he ~tll attempt to provtde a report on the Productivity Co~lttee~e reco~endattons prior to the budget workshop hearings. ~~ R~34 (~CO~ZD~TZON), LZ~ ~ON ~~ZNG ~ ~ C~ ~, ~Q~STZ~ A ~ZO~ ~ ~ C-6, C~CZ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~CO ZS~ ~ ~ ~T ~ZD~ OF ~O~ COLLZ~ · ~~ --~~LY 400 ~ SO~ OF S~U~ A~ug - D~D Legal notice having been published In the Naple~ Daily News on May 8, 1991, a~ evidenced by A~fldevlt off ~bllcatton f~led with the ~[ Clerk,. ~bltc hearing waa opened to cone/der Petition R-g0-34 ~d C~o1 Z~tng. :~; .:.;./~ P1~er geek~ referred to the zoning ~p ~rovlded ~tth the ~e~tlve S~a~ to indicate the location of the eubJect property Hay 28, 1991 ? .~whtch te being reconsidered at this time. He advised that the pro- .pe~tyiln question was previously zoned C-3, ~nd as part of the zoning reevalu~tlon program It was rezoned to the C~6 Commercial District at a,3~nua~y ?, 1991, hearing. He explained that the Issue was raised January ?, 1991, hearing that the property o~ner did not actually receive the proper not/f/cation of the razeming of subject property; however, the Board of County Commissioners chose at that time not to grant additional time to the petitioner for submission of the appllcatAon regarding the rezone. He added that subsequent to the Januar~ ?, 1991, rezonlng hearing, the Board of County Commissioners did GT~nt a reconstderatton hearing for Petition R-90-34 because of the notification Issue and the /ssue rsgard/ng a building permit that had beenesubmitted and was under review for the subject property at the ttma of the $anua~ 7, 1991, hearing. .... ~Lr,,Heeke explained that at the 3anuary 7, 1991 hearing, staff becm aware that there was a building permit under review for the ~' ~ub~ect property and l~medlately proceeded to have the permit pulled from the process per the Growth Management Plan, Policy 31~ of the · uture Land Use Element, which prohibits the County from issuing a building permit or any other type of development order for property that to:not zoned cone/stent with the Growth Hanagement Plan, He noted that the Executive Summary provides the surrounding land uses. He informed that staff finds that a C-3 zoning of the subject property to...not~coneistent with the County*e Growth Hanagement Plan; therefore, recom~endation cannot be made by staff to rezone the property back to C-3.~He related that staff is concerned that to do so would set a potential precedent for other property o~ners whose property has been ~.~.~ razened under the County's rezontng p~an. He emphasized that staff has fulfilled the requirements of the Zoning Reevaluatton Ordinance and'rezoned the subject property accordingly. Linda Lawson, representing Andl Pearson and Carol Irving, stated that the subJect petit/on involves a retail cmmerctal project which :obtmlned'm elte plan approval on May 8, 1990, ~ehtch was prior to the Page 18 effective date of the ZRO; therefor., the project did qualify for a site plan exemption. She indicated that the petitioner has met with the County ~any tl~es regarding the questions on the setback lines for the property and was working with the Lee County Co-op during this time-:~regardtng an old easement on the land. She advised that at no ttma while the petitioner was trying to work out these specifics with the County was it brought to their attention that th~¥ would need to apply for a rezone exemption. In regards to the not~ftcation, Ms. Lawson advised that although the petitioner had recently moved from the address noted for delivery on the envelope and still owned the property at this address, she had filed a forwarding notice with the U.S. Postal Service; however, there is reason to believe that the mail was not being forwarded and that a workman at the prior residence may have signed for the envelope, but the notice leas never delivered to the petitioner. She emphasized that the owners had no notice of the down-zoning procedure until December l?, 1991, when M~. La~son Inquired as to an agenda item for that date. · ~ ~.N~.~Lawson noted that the ZRO ~mplements the Orowth Management Plan~: Policy 31K, in Section 8.1 which states, "any zoning district on ;f~? - unimproved property that ts not consistent with the Growth Management !!.~ Plan-shall not be permitted, applied for nor approved except in accor- ![~i..: - dance with an exemption., ." She pointed out that by ~hts language it ~ was Inappropriate for the County to accept the application for the '~. building permit. She stated that this case is a fairness Issue in that the petitioner has a bonaftde exemption with the site plan approval by the County. She commented that this reconstderatton request was made because the facts of the Count¥'s actions concerning the acceptance and a substantial processing of the building permit were not made clear at the January ?, 1991, hearing. She reported · that.~it.ia her position that the actions of the County's acceptance of the building petit application and beginning the processing of It outweigh.the relatively minor omission of failure to file the appllca- Page 19 May 28, 1991 Ns. La~son stated that she has brought with her a completed site plan exeaptlon application which she ~uld like to subair for accep- rance and have placed Into the record (provided to the Clerk) as well as a co,plated vested rights application (provided to the Clerk). :if-, Xn response to ComAsstoner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler Informed that the County cannot accept the proflared applications at this time without setting a precedent of accepting applications after the 120 day ti~e period. He affirmed that these applications can be submitted for the record; however, the Board should ~ake clear that they are not . accepted. r ~ :~.~'. ~ '~ .' Co~missioner Saunders suggested that one of the distinguishing issues in the subject petition ta the fact that the claim of no noti- fication was brought to the Board's attention tn a relatively ttmely ~anner. County Attorney Cuyler ar~ed that others will claim that this ~as the first they knew of the rezontng because they did not receive notification either nor did they happen to be at the rezontng hea~lng aa Ns. Lawson was. Xn response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Weeks confirmed that the Zontng-Reevaluatlon Ordinance requires the use of the address provided by the Property Appraiser's office; and although the n~.w address was .provtdad by the petitioner while working on th, sit, d,v, lop,ent plan ~d for the certification of public facilities he Informed that those are septate offices from the zontn~ office and does not alter the r~trement of the ordtn~ce to use the Property Appraiser's records ~ich did not re;fact the n~ address. Ns. Lawson pointed out that there ~as ~ incident ~here a property met. ~ ~ted additional tt~e after the 120 day tt~e pertod to "~" file the appropriate a~ltcattons for exemption. She clarified that In this Instance the notification was returned to the County because )//;or'non-delivery, and in her clients case someone did st~n for the 'envelope, although it was not her client. County Attorney Cuyler con- cuffed with this statement, and added that he had advised that Board at that time that aimliar Issues could be raised at a future time. Page 20 · "' * May 28, 1991 ~;:~-.< Ms.~ Lawson emphasized that she t~uld like the vote of January ?, 1991, to b~ reconsidered and acceptance be made of the exemption application as well as direction be given to Development Services to finish processing the building permit. In response to Commissioner Saunders. Mr. Weeks informed that If the Board fezones the property back to C-3 the property will be zoned inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. He noted that the Board would also need to grant additional time for construct/on to commence on this property since it should have begun by January 10, 1991. ~l~ ~mmd~ ~v~d, seconded by Contseton~r Sh~n~mn ~nd c~=TMun~ntm~usly, that the public hearing be clo~ed. ~le~e~ ~ ~oved, seconded by Commissioner Shanahen, :, t)mt-_~k~...~mb~rt 9ropm~ of IMtttio~ R-90-34 he r~m~ to C-3; that ;:~...-- * th~ ~4~*tte~w. be p~rmttted to film the ZRO e~e~ptton application the application, and if staff finds the then the C-S zo~tngwtll be ~alntmlned~ that tl~ ~l~mm~t~l ~t~ Dep~'~t cent/hUe to process th~ tmtldln~ the property is d~tezmtn~i to he ~mmpt, addt- .':,. tt~l~is~-bel~l~ttt~d to ~ co~str~tton, Commissioner Saunders stated tha~ the basis of his motion comes from the fact that the property owner had applied for a building per- mir, had an approved site development plan, and other information pro- vided by Ms. ~a~son. 0ommisstoner Volpe stated that he cannot support the motion. Commissioner Hesse Informed that he finds it difficult to go against the County's legal advice and, therefore, cannot support the the motion failed. (Co]~l~t~- Yelps County Attorney Cuyler clarified that the the zoning will remain C-6 for the subject property. '--e~...JBfUMmaa~d~ 12=15 P,M, - Reconveneds 1=00 P,M, at which ~a.~t~o-Dejmty Clerk !~r~lo replaced Deput~ Clerk J~Tlghi ess Page 21 Nay 28, I991 OI~)IIIIJCK 91-44 !~ ~0N R-90-6, CARL F. RBZCR OF SMALl, Y, MELLFORD ~, ~ ~0~ ~ X-~ I A-2~ ~ ~ Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on ~y 8,. 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of ~bllcatlon filed ~tth the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition R-90-6, filed by Carl ~..~tch of S~11y, ~ellford ~d Halyen, Inc., representing K. #tlltm, 3r. and Diane WillIns, requesting a fezone from A-1MR and A-2MH to PUD, to be known as Arrowhead PUD, for 900 residential dwelling units and 15 acres of commercial uses for property located in the southwest quadrant of the Intersection of Lake Trafford Road and the planned extension of Carson Road, in Section 31, Township 46 South, Range 29 East and Section 6, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, .~;:.~ consisting of 307+ acres, In Immokalee. ' ¥;,?.. ~" Planner Schell presented two items for entry into the record at ?~,* this time: 1} A memorandum dated May 28, 1991 from himself and addressed to the Board of County Commissioners regarding addendum to the Executive Summary on this Petition; 2) Copy of a letter dated May 15, 1991 from Carl F. ReAch and addressed to himself regarding this .Petition. He stated that this Petition is a proposed rezone for Immokalee, known as the Arrowhead POD. He explained the purpose of the requested fezone as outlined in the Executive Summary. He tndt- cared that staff recommends approval of this Petition subject to sti- pulations. He added that the State Department of Community Affairs, upon.being contacted, has Indicated no Interest in requiring a binding 'letter.for this proposed project. He relayed the Planning ('Co~ission~s recommendation for approval of this Petition by a vote of 8/O, subject to stipulations. He reported receiving correspondence, favorable in nature. He noted that the Dee County Cen~ral Cooperative wants t~ known that they have a high voltage transmission line on Mr. ''Williams property, located approximately 600 feet to the west of the subject property. He explained that the Collier County School Board May 28, 1991 ~'~ has been, in contact with staff regarding the proposed project tn an attempt to remain aware of the nature of same. a PUD. Referring to the standard that the configuration of the com- mercial parcel shall have no more frontage than depth unless othem~tse authorized by the Board off Catty Coatsstoners, he stated that staff a~r~s of this criteria. Referrim9 to agenda item page 11 therein He reported that the Petition is subject to,he Inskales Master Plan, which allows a maxi- ~u~ of four d~elltng units per acre, adding that the density for the residential portion of the proposed project equals three units per acre. He directed the Board's attention to pa~e 10 of the agenda sheet which deals with the criteria for commercial development within stating that commercial zoning or development shall be no closer than one-half mils from the nearest elementary school within a Neighborhood Center, he satd that staff has determined this criteria Is to be met. Referring to agenda Item page 5, he Indicated the language Is being a~ended based on the above-referenced handout with the final language to read 'The taming of the second phase will depend on market con- dAtAone and will not begin until re~identtal development has cam- Xn reply to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Schell reported that, under the C-4 category, day care centers are a provisional use, but staff is allowing It to be listed as a permitted principal use based upon the fact that the Immokalee Master Plan allows child care centers as a permitted use · ~,~l~farrJng to the aforementioned handout, page ! - #~ of Addends to '~.-.. ~ec~ttve Summary, Mr. Schell pointed out that "8.10 Merchandise Storage and Display" Is listed as an addition to the PUD document and will\..be governed by Section 10.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted tha~-:eoma uses such as garden supply stores all~ outside sales and dl~l~ within the C-i district. :,In response to Co~tsstoner Sanders, Carl Reich confirmed that the Petitioner a~rees with all the stipulations, as outlined by staff. as4 e~wz~/e4 ,nan/mouel¥, to close the public heart]~. M~y 28, X99! In answer to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Reich co~lftrmed that the Petitioner did indeed have an indirect phasing schedule contained _within the PUD, but that it ta not determined at this time how many .*nntts or. what will be built first. He etated that will be determined market etudtes. .,.Centsstoner Goodnight reported that it was Mr. Williams' tnten- to begin construction as soon as he can procedurally do so. Dalton D. Drake, Marketing Consultant for Petitioner, confirmed it is envisioned that ground breaking wtl! take place sometime this year with build out In approximately 10 years. In reply to Com~isstoner Volpe, Mr. Drake confirmed that construction of the residential portion of the project is anticipated to co--ence within the next twelve months. _,' - ot/p~lmttm~ 2/.ted on the agreement sheet, and that the Ordinance mm and enterS[ into Or4tnanco ~k 91-44 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 82-2 THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERS 46-29-9 AND 47-29-3; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A-1MH AND A-RMH TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNO~n~ AS ARROWHEAD PUB, FOR 900 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND 15 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL USES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD AND THE PLAHNED EXTENSION OF CARSON ROAD IN INNOKALEE, LOCATED IN SECTION 31, TOWHSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, AND SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 307~ ACRES: AND BY PROVIDING AN HFFECTIVK DATE. ~':~''I~ET/T~0~A--91-4, EAI~NA. 0RNOWSEI, R~3ENTIN~MILLI&MAND LOTTIE T~DIO, ~ D~LZ/!~STAURANT lt~QU~STING AN AIMINISTRATIFg APPEAL OF T~E ~/~ DII~CTOR'S DECISION THAT TH~ EXISTI~G PAREING TO ~3TT~T~ 40 ~T~T It~TAURA!~ IS INSUPTICIENT. ~AT ~ BUSINESS CEASED TO OP~HAT~ FOR & P~RIOD IN EXCESS OF 90 DAY~, ~ID FU~ U~ MUST CONFORM TO TR~ ~HRENT ZONING STAND&liDS OF THE COLLIKR COUNTY ZONING ONDll~C~ - ~PPItOV~DNITNNODIFICATIONFOR $5 SF~T RIISTAURANT Legal notice having been pabllshed in the Naples Daily News on · May 12, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Page 24 Hay 28, 1991 public.hearing ~ras opened to cons/der Petition A-91-4, filed by !taren 0rnowakt of Frost & Jacobs, representing I4tlliam and Lottie ,~:r~luesting an ad~alnistratlve appeal of the Pla~tng/Zon~ng D~=ector ' ~ decision. Pi~lng Se~lces N~ager Bag~nskl sta~ed tha~ he d~d no~ nor- ~11y ~e these presentations before the Board, ~ would be doing so ~. ~n ~he absence of ~r~ B~. He ~r~zed ~he clr~~ces of this-Petition by stating that there was a cessation of business acti- vities for the Alpine Dell while other personal matters were being addressed by the o~ner, said cessation exceeding tile 90 day limit allowable under the Nonconforming Use section of the Zoning Ordinance. He indicated he became Involved when an Occupational License was .requested, and he Interpreted that the 90 day period had expired and therefore, did not allow the issuance of the licenses for a sit down restaurant containing approximately 40 seats. He remarked that the building Me originally conerected so.eti,e in 1980, ~d is comprised of 47. condoatnt~ ~tts with T,200 sq. ft. of co=erctal located on the ground floor. He indicated that the co,mercial footage is broken down into nine approximately 800 sq. ft. units, a few of which have · been combined into areas of 1,600 sq. ft., one of which is the Alpine ?',' D eli. He reported that he could find no basis for the Issuance of the penIt during his review process. He expressed his opinion that the entire facility lacks the appropriate parking required by the Zoning ,-,:Ordinance. :.~cAttorney Eaten Ornowski presented photographs for entry into the reply to Cosmisstoner Volpe, County Attorney Cuyler stated the only.~ception~ addressed by the Zoning Code are censatlons that are a Of go~ental action. :~. ~gtnakl~ a~eed with Co~ty Attorney ~yler's couents ~d to read froa the Nonconfo~tng Use ~ectton ~der 6.~c of the :~Code. ::Atto~ Oneski provided a brief htstou of the Tedlos tulgra- Page 25 · '*~ May 28, 1991 it:[on~to',~:ht~ country, their opening of the A/pins Delt, the subsequent permits Issued therefor, and their ea]e of tht~ business. She etated the ne~ owners brought In seats tn excess of 70 which antagonized some of.the condominium o~ners, who proceeded to file complaints. She made reference to a letter dated July 11, 1988 addressed to Mr. Hughes from Barbara As Cacchlone wherein it was determined that the maximum seating capacity for the Alpine Dell was 40. She explained that, because tt was a food service establishment within a mixed use, · Including residential units permitting overnight stays, credit was given and an appropriate decis/on was made for parking, She stated the tenants felt they could not survive only having 40 seats and proceeded to sue Mr. and Mrs. Tedto, She explained that ultimately there m also a dispute with the condominium association which has no~ been resolved in that the Condominium Board of Directors have sti- pulated to permit 40 seats. She reported that, prior to January 29, 1991, the date of the revised purported Ordinance under which this decision ~as made, Mr. Tedto made several unsuccessful attempts to ~..secura ~n Occupational License. She added that Mr. Tedto was not i,aware.of a problem with the 40 seats until March when he was advised he had lost his nonconforming use. She reiterated that Mr. TedIs never intended to abandon the use. She said that the case law, not- withstanding the Zoning Ordinance, clearly states that, where a use is : not- intended to be abandoned but presents a gap In time for the pur- '~.: poses of repatr, maintenance, or reasons beyond control, then there is ~:: no abandonment or loss of use. She stated she believes that, under purported Ordinance, there is another Interpretation to Mr. Bagtnokl'e Interpretation that there is Insufficient parking. She stated that Section 8.14 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for credit being!given for spaces in some Instances. She alluded to pictures which have been entered into the record stattn~ they show that the parking ~paces are underutilized. She added that it seems a shame that no seating at all to being permitted in this case. She expressed her belief that permitting seating will not be repugnant to ~he Intent Page 26 May 28, 1991 ~... of Sect/on 8.23. She contended that there la adequate parking to sup- ,r,¥?.,..port seating for at least 24-40 seats. Commissioner Saunders questioned what tame periods are generally ~'[.. found contained An Ord/nances dealing with abandonment of a noncon- :: forming use in other communities. Ms. Ornowsk/ answered that, from her study, Collier Count¥'s ninety day period was atypical. '...:' ,::;~ Commtss/oner Saunders queatton,~d whether Ms. Ornowskl has speci- fic cream which she can cite, and which County Attorney Cuyler can take a look at, regarding the Intent of the parties to abandon the *Lisa. :~%. * : MS. OrnowBkt replied that she could provide a F2ortda Supreme Court case that deals with the Issue of repairs and another that is a First District case, and proceeded to do 80. William Tedto stated that he Immigrated to this country in 1956 from HungafF and that, since residing here, has not received so much as a i~rklng ticket He acknowledged operating the dell from 1980-1986 wtth 50 seats, durtng which tame he had complaints from neither Collier County nor the condo association. He reported being rated b~ the Collier County Health Department as the finest and cleanest dell In the county. He reported selling the dell business · due to.hts wife's health and leasAnG~ the building for three years. He Indicated the new owners remodelled the delt after t~eo years, adding more seats. He stated that the Zoning Department th(:n issued a ctta- tion.~nd Barbara Cacchtone, Zoning Director, determined that the maxi- mum seats for the dell was 40. He stated that the tenants proceeded to file ~uit against him. He added that the tenants moved out at the ~/, expiration of their lease. He stated that, with the help of famtly,~he reopened the dell receiving a permit from the health department and fire department as well as a state department beer and ..~ wine license without any problems. He stated it was a shock to be AnfoFBed. by letter dated March 28, ~99! that he was not allowed any seats whatsoever. He stated he had ~ccessfully operated the dell for Page 27 i~: ' Nay 28, ~99! years with fifty seats and without any parking problems what- ,soever.-- He.indicated the Condominium Association ts in agreement to have the Alpine Dell back with 40 seats. In response to Commissioner Hesse, Mr. Baginsk! reported that they have been able to determine only that there apparently was a ver- bal approval of 40 seats in 1986. 'Co~ualssloner Saunders referred to the letter dated July 11, 1988 from Barbara Cacchione to Michael Hughes wherein it established that the ~axi~um number of seats for the Alpine Dell/Restaurant was 40. In response to Commissioner Ha,as, Mr. Bagtnskt stated that the condominium Itself has 47 residential units requiring 1.5 parking spaces per unit and that there is 7200 sq. ft. of commercial which, even calculating at straight retail as required under the Ordinance for parking, requires 29 or 30 parking spaces without any provisions for.&~restaurant, emch less one with 40 seats. · .Commissioner Sam~ders pointed out that the Issue at hand is whether. there was an intent to abandon the restaurant operation and whether there is parking available. Mr. Beginski stated that he is aware of the letter which was issued in 1988 from Ms. Cacchione and that he has been contacted by members.of the Homeowners Association since 1988 complaining that there is inadequate parking. He indicated there was nothing that he could do subject to the aforementioned interpretation until the busl- ness ceased to operate for a period of ninety days, at which time it would lose its nonconforming status. Ms. Ornowski stated that the Board of Directors of the con- dominitm association has now agreed to permit parking for 40 seats. :"-, She referred to a letter from M~chael Hughes, one of the tenants of the Alpine De/i/Restaurant, alleged to be contained in the county !11-";ii[ftle;~i~.that concedes the point that part of th,, dispute with the ho~mers was during a time when the tenants were operating the Alpine Dell/Restaurant. She mentioned the tslme of estoppel. reply to Cootseisner Shanaham, Mr. Beginski indicated he has Page 28 ' ' ' "'~ May' 28, 1991 !.?.'.inet been contacted by the Homeowners Association to confirm that they have no objection to this new structure. He stated he has been given a piece of correspondence from Mr. Tedis wherein It said that the Homeowners Association~ae willing to accept whatever determination ~.'~[f.~sudaby the Zoning Director regarding appropriate parking. He !'[ : remarked that, if there is additional correspondence and agreements, · he has-not been provided copies of same. :.Attorney Frederick Kramer represented to the Board of County Commissioners that the agreement reached with the Homeowners Association allo~ed up to 40 seats, subject to the Board of County Co~iaaloners' approval, but added that he could not provide documen- tation of that fact at this time. Mr. TedAs presented something to Commissioner Saunders, copy not provided for the record, which Commissioner Volpe later referred to as a letter from the President of the Homeowners Association verifying that they have no objection to 40 seats. Ms. Ornowskt reflected that the letter was prior to the actual .stipulation edited by the attorneys. · ~..-Bruce McLaughlin proflared his creditAais qualifying him as an expert capable of performing the Parking Utilization Study which he prepared for the Alpine Delicatessen, a copy of which Is entered Into the record at this time. He referred to a letter addressed to Mr. Mulhere regarding the methodology for the report and presented something alleged to be a copy of same, however a copy was not pro- vlded for the record. He proceeded to discuss the contents of his Parking Utilization Study stating that, based on what is occurring now, there Is sufficient parking to support 39 seats, and that 54~ of the Alpine Deltcatessen's patrons arrive on foot, with 5.4~ arriving i+;:,,by bicycle, and the balance driving. He remarked that approximately 13~ come from within the building and are tenants of the other retail uses..,. He stressed that the Parking Utilization Study was done on a seasonally adjusted basis. He reported that the Deli's use peaked at :?.'between.i2:00 noon and 1:00 P.M., at a time when the other uses had Page 29 May 28, relatively little demand. He expressed concern with the fact that Mr. Baginsk! applied the general retail across the board. He stated that problem in doing so is that there is 2,400 sq. ft. of office space and the requirement of parking for an office is only one per three hundred, which is less than the requirement for general retail. He i i.remarked that there needs to be a 8mall adjustment to pick up the fact that 2,400 of the 7,200 sq. ft. is actually the use ,Ith a lesser parking requirement. He speculated that the 61 spaces assigned repre- sent a conscious decision to say that half of the residential units will provide parking at 1.5 spaces as a standard residential unit and the other half will provide 1.1 spaces as a standard hotel room. He added that a consistent application of the Ordinance frees up addi- tional p~rktng spaces and, that if the whole thing is reflected as a ;hotel,.::.there are 21 spaces available to the Alpine Delicatessen which is adequate for 42 seats. He directed attention to pages 25 and 26 of the Parking Utilization Study commenting that this part of the study reflects work performed by one of the natIonia leading transportation consultants for the Urban r.and Institute. He referred to the table .contained on page 30 of the study and stated that an additional 10 spaces can be picked up by restriping the spaces to 9t in width. He stated that addition of these 10 spaces along with the 4 spaces not presently used would total 105 spaces, adding 11 to the 6.4 that staff has calculated as available for the Alpine Dell, for a total of 17.4 spaces, or 35 seats. .;Mike Hughes Identified himself as one of the persons which bought the Alpine Delicatessen approximately five years ago. He stated that ~;'~ at the time of his purchase, the Delicatessen had 56 inside seats and 12'outside. He pointed out that he started getting complaints regarding the Delicatessen from zoning, health inspectors, etc. He Indicated that, upon inquiry as to who was the source of these co.plaints, Mr. Tedto'8 name came up. He stated that his attorneys -the records of the Delicatessen and found that originally allowed to have 6 seats~ which soaehow escalated to 56 plus 12. Page 30 May 2B, ~991 He reported they went to arbitration and found that Mr. Tedto was not ~ .ln compliance with respect to the seating, which was in conflict to a : - clause contained in the agreement with Mr. Tedio. He commented that parking laa eerieus problem and that he experienced it when he was operating the Delicatessen. He stated he witnessed customers parking on the street as well as on the grass. He Indicated that Barbara Cacchione'a letter regarding permitted seating was written at a time when they were trying to ascertain whether or not they were going to court,...: - ~'.:Com~lssioner Saunders reiterated that the two teeuse to be dealt with here today are whether there was an Intent to abandon the restaurant business by the Petitioner and what impact such abandonment has, and whether there ie sufficient parking for a restaurant there. In reply to Commissioner Shanahen, Mr. Hughes stated that they moved out of the Alpine Delicatessen three years to the day after purchase of same. :~;;:-~-~;~. :~,-Jmaem McGregor Identified himself as Mike Hughes' partner in the Alpine Delicatessen. He indicated that the lease expired In September of 1989. He questioned the fact that Mr. McLaughltn's Parking ~tlltzatlon Study was not done In February and March when there is nearly five times the number of people there as compared to the other tides, of the year, and for which Mr. Mcr. aughltn only allowed a 1~ adjustment. He stated that Mr. Tedio actively voted against parking for the Alpine Delicatessen at a board meeting of the Condominium Association In 1988. Mr. McGregor held up a sign that was proposed to be put up following the outcome of the 2/17/88 vote. He reiterated that. his point is that Mr. Tedto actively cast his vote to allow the ~Alplne Delicatessen only four parking spaces in 1988, but is present · today.requesting 40. .-.~",,:~Com~ieetoner Saunders again reminded everyone that the issues at : hand-a~e Whether there was an intent to abandon and, if so, what that ~es_ns and whether there is adequate parking. Mr. McGregor stated that San Marco Residences is not primarily a m ooo.,o, 55 Page 31 Nay 28~ 199:1 l.* .... Re stated there are 47 parking spaces of which the County requires 1.5 8pots per untt which equates to 72. He reported that there are 10 conetotal units in the building and that, by giving each 2 spaces, It brings the total to 90 out of a maximum of 99 existing spaces. He ateted that although their lease frith Nr. Tedto expired ..in September of 1989, he did not try to reopen the Alpine Delicatessen until 1991. Dr. W. Reich Identified himself as the developer of the San Narco Residences and stated he is representing the otmers. He remarked that there is a problem with parking as well as with the restrictions of the condomtnlu~ documents. He stated that during 'season' even the o~ners and their guests have to hunt for parking. ' He recalled one instance where a doctor was su~aoned on an emergency and could not ftnd. p~rktng on the lot. Lucius Carter, Otmer of the San Narco Gifts, stated he has been at the site fro~ the time construct/on commenced and saw facilities for a restaurant being built. He recalled only two occasions when there Nasa problem with parking, once during a tennis tournament and one Sunday morning when there was a bargain brunch breakfast being offered by the Alpine Delicatessen. He reported that parking is pre- sently adequate and always has been. Ns. Orno~skl emphasized that Mr. McLaughltn~s Parking Utilization Study was based upon using adjusted seasonal figures. She stated that said 'report points out that there is no rational basis and no data to .support a determination of no seating. Coatesloner Shanahen questioned whether County Attorney Cuyler :: ....' had finished reviewing the cases provided by Ms. Ornowskl and could render. an opinion concerning the issue of abandonment. ~J· .,County Attorney Cuyler stated that the cases dealt with repairs .' and discontinuance for repairs and that he did not disagree with the premise held by the case. Re added that, even in light of the 90 days -- contained in the Zoning Ordinance, if someone ccmld establish that It ~:~.-was not possible to complete repairs within 90 days they could pro- bably ~ake a case that their nonconforming status was not lost. He Indicated he has more of a problem extending that to an Inability to lsue ones property. He cautioned that, when discussing things that 'are subjective, anyone can come In and declares there was not an intent i..i to abandon. · He reiterated that the intent to abandon has to be deter- mined,on the facts presented to the Board of County Commissioners. He ,~ saidi;~tt was probably possible to establish a case extending beyond the : 90 d~ys but that he did not kno~ that this was necessarily the case. In reply to Commissioner Shanahen, Hr. HcLaughlln referred to ~... - page 30 of his handout and coamentea that there are 98 spaces on the .ground today, of which 94 are in use, He reiterated that restrtptng leould. provtde additional spaces. Commissioner Volpe questioned County Attorney Cuyler regarding the limited common elements and Hr. McLaughltn~s suggestion that all i~:~the parking places are available for those In the building, whether "¥"/?~i,!,!resid.entlal_or commercial users. i;..'.':.' ,~.Countylttorney Cuyler replied that he feels the answer to that is flunotion .of whatever the internal documents say and whatever their iil arrangements are. ;~..-~In/~replyto Commissioner Volpe, Hr. NcLau~hltn confirmed that he did not.review the condominium documents to verify whether the spaces ~:~,,:...-indicated for residential could, In fact, be u~tltzed by the commer- ~,....!;'; ctal.~sers ~tthln the pro~ect. ~e stated that the actual utilization ~:~' and the Urban Land Institute Study indicate thief res~rtping in order to' acquire additional spaces was not necessary. He added that .:.' restrtping would, however, provide additional a~paces contributing to a total of 105 spaces, which is 11 more spaces than presently available. :?:. He indicated that the ~! spaces plus the 6.4 that Hr. Bagtnskt reports :.~: .are ~v~llable to the site totals 17.4 spaces which in turn supports ~e~, ~ by Co~at~t~ Volpe to clo~ th~ public May 28, 1901 ,,~ '?.?(Comnlealoner Saunders expressed his feelings that there was no Intent to abandon the restaurant use and that 40 seats would, there- fore,.. b~ permissible. ~e said staff was 100~ correct In the action :they took in this matter. to ~ l~tttlou A-91-4. Cou~lsstoner Volpe commented that there is sufficient evidence ]:(~.... in the record to support 35 seats. Conmtsstoner Hesse stated that he could support 35 seats. Connieeisner Shanahas concurred with Commissioner Hasse's cam- i, ~. nests.- . .::~ounty, Attorney Cuyler suggested that, If the Board of County Canisstoners to going to uphold the Petition, they do so on the narroweat set of circumstances possible, ...~-;~Oenmd~o~ ~nm~erswtthdr~ehi·~otton. Co~niosioner ---~t~ Bas~e moved. oecm~ed by C~tiooi~r Vol~ ~ carrted unao/eonsl¥, to approve Petition A-91-4 with modification for Project Planner Phillip Schell stated that this Petition is for one year extension for the provisional use previously granted for i. th~"Habttat for Humanity, Inc. He reported that staff has no problem with.this Petition and recommends approval of same. ~-John Keschl stated that the same Individuals representing the ]i!i::/:'.-people of Inskales are also in Dads County. He suggested affordable -housing should be provided for those In need of same, but In the form of single family homes. · ..N~,: Schell commented that this was approved as a part of a sub- :.division master plan and rezone for 2I single family homes. ;-'-':' Resolution 91-422. Co~imaloner Goodnight reported that the majority of the houses are under roof,.but there has not been ~ufftctent time to work on the provisional use currently intact. ~vwl~ettttonl~-90-1, thereby adopting Page 35 May 28, 1991 BO&~D &!~PItOVAL OF THE PROPOSED SALE SIP THE LESTER HORSE - FOUND MITKR.T.&~ B!q~,,ACH OY SKTTLKMK1TF AO'RKK!q'A*HT BY MR. LKST1ER: COUNTY ATTOIEIIi'Y*S OFI~CK TO RRTUI~R WITH AM~B'DKD AGREEMENT TO I]~.,UDK REGULAR Z'IrSI~KCT~OrS OF HORSES FOR 12 MONTHS AFTER TRANSPER AND COUIFT'Y TO lq~CK~'V~ ~ ~ ~ UPON ~X~CUT~0N OF AM~IqDKD AGRE~q~qT Assistant County Attorney Wilson summarized that the terms of the settlement agreement negotiated between Mr. Lester's attorney, the County Manager"s Office and the County Attorney's Office mandated sub- mission of documentation showing the registration and lineage of the horses. She Indicated that thts Information was required to be received by the County on May let, and that the attorney for Lester proflared same to the County Manager's Office on April 24th by letter. She verified that the requested documents ~ere received by fax at her office on Friday (May 24th), She stated that receipt of the ~um of $27,384.9? is another of the conditions of the above referenced agreement and represented the cost of care for the horses. She reported that Mr. Lester'a attorney has requested the chance to address the Board of County Commissioners regarding this particular point. She stated that neither the County Attorney's Office nor the County Manager's Office has received the funds directly, but added that-there is an Escrow Agreement that was faxed to her office addressing the release of Escrowed funds. She reported that the Count~Zmuat also receive confirmation that the proposed buyer has satisfied the requirements of the Agreement that the transaction be an 'arms length" transaction. She confirmed receipt of a copy of an Affidavit-executed by Elaine Leslie, the proposed buyer, wherein it states that Me. Leslie ts not Involved with Mr. Lester at the current time nor with any corporation for which he to a principal or any member of his family involved with, and representing that the proposed male Is-an ar~s length transaction. : Conissioner Hesse questioned whether Ms. Leslie had ever been ji':,:':involved in any business dealing with Mr. Leslie. ~-,' Ms. Wilson stated that representations have been made to the - County Attorney's Office, both in person and by telephone, that there ~. ~. May 28, 1991 *were, business dealings between Ms. Leslie and Hr. Lester in t~e ~ast. :;b'Bhe're~rted that As one o~ the reasons the Co~ty Attorney's Office fel~ l~ appropriate ~or the Board of County Commissioners ~o make de~ermAna~ion whether ~his was~ in ~ac~ an arms length ~r~sac~ion. 8he I~ated ~ha~. facially. ~ha AffAdavl~ Is su~ficAen~ ~der ~he of ~he a~eemen~. She Andica~ed l~ ~s the opinion of ~he Co~y A~o~ey'a Office ~ha~ ~hey do no~ ~hA~ l~ appropriate ~o rehash some of ~he allega~ions and representations ~ha~ have been made in ~he regarding either ~r. Les~er himsel~ or ~he character of ~he proposed ~yer. She race.ended ~he Board of County Commissioners caution ~oday'o spedera ~o limi~ ~he~elves ~o ~he Issue of informa~ion regarding whether ~he ~r~sac~lon As an arm8 ~eng~h ~ransac~Aon. .Co~looloner Hesse ~ea~loned whether ~he County has received .do3en~a~Aon o~ ~he ~tneage of ~he ~wo horses which wall be renAning An ~he ~ooeosion of ~he Co~y. informed the Board of County Co~uaissioners that it is her understanding that application is made to the Arabian Horse Registry by .the owner and then they can be recorded. She assured the Board of Ms.' Wilson reported having in her possefmion copies of the appli- cation for the foal and mare that the County will be receiving. She County Co--lesionera that she has checked the lineage of the stallion and the ~are and, as they are represented on the Application, they are correct and are recorded. Coatseisner Haase questioned whether she was positive that they were the horses that had been bred together. Me. Wilson stated she would not be positive of that represen- tation, Ms. Wilson indicated that, until thte transaction has been concluded, neither the County nor Mr. Lester would be in a position to send...the applications off as the transaction has not actually . . occurred. She reported that Mr. Lester used the Collier County Parks and. Recreation Department as the recipient of the ownership of the J-and she suggested it be Collier County instead. Page 37 *~'*~, Nay 28, 1991 :[t/~'~i; In reply to Commissioner Hasse, He. H/leon verified that In add/- [~'i'tton to the 627,384.97 due by the 24th of Nay, an additional $26 per day ts due for each day thereafter. In reply to Commissioner Shanahah, He. Wilson r~capped the provl- mton~ of the Agreement between the County and Hr. Leoter. In response to Commissioner Hasse, ~s. ~11son suggested the Board .~.::-:ofCounty Cou~tselonere might want to consider whether the con- ' dttt0ns have been substantially met and, if so, may not need to ;~proceed. further. In answer to Commissioner Haese, Assistant County Attorney Wilson the horses are moved to Bendry County and the new owner 'neglects them, It is Hendry County*s responsibility to protect the 'horses. She mentioned, however, that any citizen in the State of Florida can make a complaint to the State Attorney*s Office if the animals are mistreated, and the new o~ner would be criminally ltab~e. Co~tssloner Volpe asked tff there will be a retirement tha~ the tr~feree report periodically to Collter Co~ty~e Animal Control as to the condition of the horses? ~s. Wilson replied that Is not part of the a~eement. She satd tf Nr. Leste~ con,rs, the agreement could ~ ~e~ed to include that retirement. Fr~ B~er responded to a ~estton raised by Con~lssloner Sanders, stating ~hat the term ~arm~s length~ ts clearly defined to mean that Hr. Lester will have no association with the horses after they,are aold. He indicated his belief that everything the Board set · out-:to.do In this situation is being done and tf not, Collier County is tna much better position In a lawsuit, should it be relnstttuted. Co-~isstoner Goodnight questioned if Hr. Baker is able to advise the Board on whether HrSo Leslie ts the person ~ho sold the horses the first t/me after Nr. Lester moved to Collier County, and because she did not collect the money, Hr. Lester repossessed the horses, lttng in the horses' condition at which point Collter County Page 38 )~ay 28, 1991 beclle'.tnvolved?. Hr. Baker Indicated he could not answer the ,.,,Zn.answer to Commissioner Goodnight, Nr. Baker stated the sales price for the horses is $27,000. Co~mtssioner Goodnight cautioned the people intending to speak on this subject that the Board will only hear statements regarding the "arm's length" provision of the proposed contract. The following people voiced their concerns with the proposed contract, stating this case should be tried in a court of law; the proposed purchaser has had horses on her property In unffavorable con- dltions in the past; suggestion of an alternative sealed bid proposal; the proposed purchaser does not have the facilities or the financial ability to provide for the horses; and there is insufficient area on .'~i,:!Pa~ Ptlcher Patricia Schley ,~),f,,rFFed.P~wards Jack Stanley ,: Jim Mc~rath Tom Morgan Toni L. Martin-Williams Commissioner Goodnight Indicated her concern with the financial ability of Mrs. Leslie to care for the horses. Commissioner Shanahen commented that the conditions of the settle- ment agreement have not been met to his satisfaction. Commissioner Saunders asserted that Mr. Lester has materially breached the agreement by virtue of the fact he has not paid the /. County. $23,878.9~ within the 30 days required. He also suggested that >'...the agreement be amended to provide a mechanism to Inspect the horses h period. :.::(~.~,~,,l~.~{.Baker Indicated he will recommend that stipulation to Mr. :.:j-MI.>Wilson requested the Board set a date for receipt of the '-fundarts be delivered as part of the amended agreement when tt is · ~,-.~" Commissioner Goodnight recommended that Kevin Hill and Dallas Page 39 1991 livestock agents for Collier and Hendry Count/es respec- ttvaly, be requested to participate In regular Inspections of the hot- along with a representative of the Humane ~ ~ ~~ TO ~ ~~ Office of Capital Projects ManaGement Director Conracode stated (./?].[:. that pursuant to Board act/on on November 15, 1988 th~ Wiggins Pass maintenance dredge project was established. He advised that an a~ee~nt was reached be~een the Wtggtns Pass Conservancy and the pending the ~ccessful co~let~on of the project. He noted tha~ sub- 8e~ently the proJec~ was b~d and awaraed to Ener~ resources, Inc. He pointed out ~ha~ ~he contractor has no~ eubs~antlally completed the project ~n accord~ce with the contract documents, and should be found ~n ~efault by the Board. He reco~ended that the Board terminate the contractoreo r~ght to perform ~der the contract and lnst~c~ ~taff to j~[[~:~j.~. ~e e~lable remedies through the Perform~ce Bond which ~ part of the c~tract. He disclosed that the Performica Bond re~res that the Co~ty a~ree to pay the bal~ce of the contract price to the Sure~ ~n accor~ce w~th the terms of the const~ct~on contrac~ or to '/.~.:~contractor eelacted ~o perform the conerection contract ~n actor- P-g- ,o May 28~ 1991 dance with the ter~a of the contract. He related that since the contractor Is in material breach of the contract, all outstanding applications for payment and retainage In the approximate amount of $68,613 be refused. He explained that since there is still a need for the co~pletion of this project, staff will proceed with rebiddtng of the construction if the Board directs. Be added that staff will do --i~.this in the event the surety does not respond In time to complete the ~<.-''work during the next environmental window. :/: Nr. Conrecode advised that funding for the project was provided ';717:for tWough contribution. from th. us.r. and boat.r r.gi.tration fee.. · and the continuation of the project w~11 cost an estimated additional $114,060. He commented that this amount could come from the Tourist Development Tax, Boater Registration Yees or Fund 196 with repayment from the Tourist Development Tax, subject to review by the Finance tonitree and approval of the Board. Mr. Conracode reported that it is recommended the Board declare Energy.Resources, Inc. In default under the contract documents for Bid No.. 90-1538 and accept the stipulations provided by staff as noted in the Executive Summary. In response to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. Conracode remarked that the project has a performance bond, but the attorney and the surety will have to determine the value. Conisstoner Volpe questioned what the basis for nonperformance is? .Mr. Conracode advised that there are a number of issues the contractor can be found In default for, with the delay in completion being the major concern. In responding to Commissioner Volpe, Assistant County Attorney · Manaltch stated that in his review of the contract documents con- s/sting of general conditions, technical specification, supple,~entary -.conditions and a form agreement as well as bidding documents, the .County~s position is that there was not substantial completion in accordance with the time f~ame set forth in the contract documents. lie reported that a conference was held between staff and the Page 41 May 28, 199! .v -contracting party to try and reach a resolution, and the resulting [~ )'- memorandum of understanding reduced the scope of the project substan- ~.. ttall¥ in order to accomplish it within the last environmental exten- sion which was from April 12, 1991, to Nay 1, 1991; however, this was -not accomplished. He cited that for these reasons the County feels that-legally there has been a material breach, and suggests declara- ~..~r Hion of-default. He related that if the Board does decide to file a declaration of default, it will be so indicated with the surety com- pany, and they can then either pay the County ~hat they determine to be proper or arrange for the completion of the project as long as the County pledges the balance of the contract price of approximately $68,000. Znresponse to Commissioner Hesse, Hr. Hanalich informed that · there are provisions contained within the contract documents under which the County could claim damages for delay; however, a remedy must first be pursued through the surety. He noted that it is the contrac- tors,responsibility as part of the bidding process to acquaint himself with the stte, the documents, the legal requirements, and the time the contract. Another responsibility of the contractor, Nr. Nanallch cited, is to have adequate equipment to complete the work. He com- mented that the original environmental window for the project was to start work on November 1, 1990, and finish by December 31, 1990; however, the County was delinquent in providing the Notice to Proceed which Ms not furnished until November 12, 1990; but the contractor still had a 45 day calendar window in which to proceed with the work. He specified that the first dredge did not arrive at the project site until December 20, 1990, which is when work actually began. Mr. Nanmitch, in answer to Commissioner Vclpe, asserted that there two material breaches which are the delay in performance under the 'contract and the non-acceptance by the engineer for even the first of '.:.. two 'sections of the maintenance dredging for a navigational pass, as 4;.:: ~t~.' Conracode indicated on the display map. [~r. Nanalich summarized I Page 42 Nay 28, 1991 ~that.:thsre .Is no navigable pass nor performance ae required within the frame of 60 calendar days and the extension of time that was .i.?~i~?:.~granted into April with a reduced scope of work. Mr. Manalich reported that the Conservanc¥ is very concerned about the project as they have pledged substantial sums toward the comple- .: .i:tlon of the project, and have Indicated their willingness to continue ] committed to the project to accomplish at least a minimum navigable ;:-",:;Attorney Allan Gallup, representing Enerpy Resources, Inc., pro- · - vtded to the Board and the County's counsel background material that '~>~':~substantiates his clients position. He advised that the contractor ':~. · requests that the Board rule that a termination for the convenience be issued on one of three basis: I. the contractor and the County nego- :':timting I settlement; 2. the emplo'/ment of a mediator for non-binding mediation with some sort of an accord reached; or 3. binding mediation between the County and the contractor. He acknowledged that i.i~i ' the County has taken the approach of default termination, which, he added, the contractor feels is not a Justified action. Mr. Daniel Flippen, construction consultant, representing Energy Resources, Inc., stated that his expertise is based on 30 years of experience with the Army Corps of Engineers. He Informed that his .i~:i~.'report indicates that there is a lack of understanding by the County · :' '~ and their engineers as to what constitutes a contract award. He noted that :the actual Notice to Proceed was issued on November 15, ~990. He claimed that the extension of the environmental window to April 1, 1991,: was never officially told to the contractor. He evaluated that ~ fro~.hta construction experience the pro,ecrUs design c~ot be 'contacted to provide the desi=ed chapel. He added that although Energy Resources, Inc. requested It, neither the County nor their engineer visited the dredging at any time during the extended contract to observe the operations; and originally the engineer accepted sta- !?i. :.,ttons 0+00 through 6+00 only then to withdraw the acceptance and ~efusa to make payment. Be explained that severe shoaling occurred May 28, 1991 during the life of the subject contract, a fact that the County and engineer refuse to accept. He disclosed that the shoaling as well as .... ~ weather. have been cause for concern regarding safety during the opera- tion of the project which have led to the extensive delays. He concluded that the contract is defective because it was not awarded ~:~;i;?~-within the time frames set forth In the Counties own documents, nor do these documents describe accurately the shoaling conditions as they exist, a~d the dest~n as contained in the contract makes it Impossible to ~atntatn a channel at this location. He asoerted that the centfRo- tot has exceeded his duty in trying to Inform the County of the noted issues,.but has been ignored. He recommended that rather than proceed with default action, the County should resolve the dispute through arbitration or one of the other for~s of resolution offered by ;:'.;'~"..;, N~, N ark Allen, registered land surveyor In the State of Florida, :~'~:.representtng Energy Resources, Inc., informed that in January, 1991, he~a contacted by Ener~ Resources, Inc. to layout the alignment offshore for the dredge which resulted in obtaining plans from Coastal · Engineering. He explained that tn laying out the plans for the dredging it ~ca~e apparent that the northern line of the dredge was on the southern tip of a large 8andbar, and as the dredge began to cut through the sandbar the sands from the north came Into the twelve foot cut. He specified that in February, 1992, half the channel was cut, but by April, 1991, It was closed. He advised that the pass in Its present condition cannot be dug without the removal or retaining of.the sandbar to the north. Mr. Allen Indicated on the display map where the sandbar Is located relative to the pass. He confirmed that the-~eather ~as a substantial factor in February and March in delaying the. project. -'M~a~ Paul Reinhardt, President of Energy Resources, Inc., confirmed [11.;' that:~.~he dredging cuts are filling In tuedlately after dredging, and ;"~ ;': "' added ·that the contract does not address this condition making section May 28, 1991 14.2.2 of the contract a defective specification. He advised that a meeting was held at the request of ~nergy Resources, Inc. with Collier County on March 7, 1991 to Inform the County of their findings and recommend termination of the contract for convenience in order to allow the problem to be further evaluated by the engineer. He related that the Wiggins Pass Conservancy President, ~who was at the March 7, 1991 ~eettng, threatened at that time to pull their funding from the owner and because of this action the owner and engineer refused to recognize that the sandbar problem existed. He explained that the J.: outcome.of the meeting was a change order which did not address the problem. ,He declared that twice since the March T, 1991, meeting additional evidence regarding the sandbar has been presented to the owner and engineer; however, they continue to ignore the issue. He added that if the engineer had gone out on th~ dredge, the surveyor could have proven that the issue of performance had been met. He disclosed that he thought if there was an issue regarding the contract, it would go to arbitration and did not realize that when the contract was signed that the possibility for arbitration had been crossed out. Mr..Manaltch Informed that the County Attorney's office routinely re.oyes the arbitration sections from the boiler plate general con- !11/[ dltions of the contract, and tt 1. the respon:slblllty of the contrac- /':.?, · tot to read the contract before signing. Another point made by Mr. Manalich is his statement that In 1984, Wiggins Pus was dredged successfully and perhaps if the pass had been dredged in a timely manner in 1990 the probless would not have become the issue it has. He commented that the Conaervancy and staff have tried to be as reasonable as possible with the contractor in order to 'achieve the ~ompletlon of the pass. ''<.Mr. Reinhardt noted that there was a period of time at the end of ~=h<when no work was conducted for safety reasons. He emphasized 'conditions in the pass were extremely unsafe to operate the d~edge. ~'- ' Page 45 28, 1991 Inge Johnstone, a Director of the Wiggins Pass Conservanc¥, stated that the Conservancy is not threatening to withdraw its support, they want the project completed as Indicated in a letter from the Conservancy to the Capital Improvements Department. He expressed con- cern that the pass now with the work that has been done appears to be navigable where it did not before, and someone may try to go through It, resulting in injury. He affirmed that the weather had been a problem, however, there were a number of good days that would have allowed the project to proceed. He commented that after the compro- mise was agreed upon, the Conservancy was told by the contractor that the reduced pass could be completed in ten days; but during this ten day period, he did not observe th~ dredge running at all. Ed Buckler, President of the Wiggins Pass Conservancy, Informed that.during the March ?, 1991, me,~ting with the contractor there was .-., : no threat of withdrawing funding. He remarked that everyone has been trying to find a solution in order to complete the project in the best 'i([';, :: possible manner; however, to date the project is not complete. He ~:':~::':;'~': noted that the County has done their part as well as the Conservancy · but the contractor has not done their part. He advised that the Conservancy has $105,000 In escrow for the completion of this project; f'~'": ' however, the contribution will have to be paid back to the contributor i!~),-', Mr. Conrecede pointed out on at display map the volume that has been removed from the pass and the amount left to be removed in order to have a completed paso. · ..Ken Hummeleton, original proJ.ct engineer from Coastal Engineers for the Wiggins Pass project, informed that the reason the project was ~plAt Into two acceptance sections was to allow the dredge to be main- ??- ' rained long enough to have it surveyed and accepted. He added that it was anticipated that the dredg~ could achieve a production rate of ~:~::. - 1000,oubtc yards in a 24 hour period which would have resulted in the ~ l~SSbeing complete In a months t~ms. He acknowledged that there Hay 28, :199:1 :::,-.' would be shoaling which is natural in a pass such as this one and will require that the pass be redredged every two or three years; however, the pa~s could have been accomplished with the given design if it had been done in a timely manner. He concurred that there were days of bad weather when the dredge could not work, but there were days when work could have been performed and ~)~a not. He Informed that when it was realized that there was lack of performance by the contractor, careful documentation of the weather conditions were kept. ~~ ~ ~, Inc. in ~f~lt re~d~ Bid ~538 Hr. H~elston reiterated in response to Co~/s9/oner Volpe 'Co~Z~91oner Sh~ that the proJec~ c~ld be completed An accor- d~ce ~tth the original desl~ by December 31, Z991. Mr. HAke ~mbr~k/, the current mn~/neer for ~he project from Hr. Buckler stated that with a good faith effort by the County and the contractor the support from the Conservanc~ could be extended beyond the December 31, 1991 date. Attorney Larry Cook, representing Amwest Surety Insurance Company, which is the perform~ce bond surety company ~nvolved in ~he subJec~ project, ~es~ed th~ If Ener~ Resources, Inc. ~s fo~d ~n deffault, a. formal letter of notification be written to the surety comply and ~n t~n the .ure~ comp~ ~111 respond ~tth~n five to ten da~s of receipt of the ~etter as to wha~ procedure w~l~ be followed. He advised tha~ ~he bond Indicates tha~ ~he sure~y comply will make a cla~ made firon bo~h s~des and then make a d~ernlnat~on from ~hese f~nd~ngs as to which way ~o proceed. He suggested that tf the County d~s .f~nd Ener~ Reo~rces, Inc. ~n default, a rebid of the project ~gln as soon as ~ss~ble. ~ e~11 ~ tl~ qu~cto~, tbe motion c~t~d u~tm~u~ly. Page 47 ,.Gl~k-~lo ~ltc~d De~mty Clork J~lghi ot thio tim sos 11:~OM~TXOII-.g1-423, RE PEI~T/O~ &V 90-00T, WJ:!~JCO BUILDERS, ~/~1~. & V~C&TXOR OF · DR&I~IkG~ EJ~T~I~IT LOCATED ON · PORT~O~ OF LOTS--34 ~ 35 OF YR~ PIJkT OF ~.T,T PI, ItZ~ - ADOPTED Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on Nay 12 and 19, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petit/on AV-90-007, flled by Winsco Builders, /nc., requesting to vacate ttons of certain easements so Petitioner can avoid future title problems due to the construction of a building across an easement, dedication of a replacement easement. and Transportation Services Administrator George Archibald identified the location of the subject property. He stated that ~hat is being : ~ considered today 1s the rolocation of a drainage ditch and the vaca- ~' t/on of-a platted easement. He revealed that the Petitioner has ~]?~!~. agreed to not only the conditions established by the Resolution pre- ?~/:~-:~: '.-~r~ ~ the Co~ty A~orney~s 0ff~ce but ~o undertaking certain t~provementa within that area, most of which have already been co~pleted. He Indicated letters of no objection have been received. He stated that this is an after-the-fact condition as the building has already been constructed. He recommended approval of the Resolution pureuant to both the vacation and the dedication stipulation. Mott~n ~ ~ Co~ml~tonex. Volpe, seconded by Co~mmloner .: ~h~r~i~aamd ~led~tmously, to clos~ th~ public h~tn~. mM~rted~n~a~ly, to ~ P~ttttonAV-90-OOT ~;]~rdlngv~c~- · . tiea-.ot-theee~e~e~t ~nd acceptance of th~ d~dtcatton of th~ ~ub~tt- / OOOP,tG£ 80 Page 48 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on ~La¥ 12, 19, and 2~, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavits of Publication f/led with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition ;~i:~?'-:AV 91-001, filed by C. Perry Peeples, requesting a vacation of a pot- .., tton of the ten foot drainage and utility eam~ment for the purpose ,'~ / of Clearing any future title problems caused by a house built across a ~-'drainage,and utility easement. -Transportation Services Administrator George Archibald identified the location of the subject property and reported that two single family villa type units encroached within a drainage easement located thereon. He stated sufficient area remains to ensure that the drainage and utility provisions are Intact. )Is Indicated letters of '-.no Object/on have been received from the appropriate utilities and that staff recommends this vacation, as prepared, be approved. In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Archibald commented that the porch area on the buildings themselves produces a small encroach- merit *and the solution is to vacate the silver of property being ,encroached by same. .:' ~..~-:~)elmtlet~m~V~lpemoved, ~eco~dedbyC~mtmmtone~ Sh~mhan ~_,~ -? ce~r~l~am/mmael¥, to close the p~bltc hearing. :~~io~ Shamatmn mommY, slconded by Co~m/metoner VolJm and ~'~.~. - g~ZT~lNl.'~Umlr~l*~ll~, to &~ove ~etttlon &V 91-001 regaz~ln~ vicatlgm .:~;.. ~d 4ed/citt(~ of · drainage Ind uttltt~ suemerit, theret~ adopting .,_~ml~ ~oodnl~ht ~nn~unc~d that the Bo~d of Coun%~ ~:l. oaerr~ woo3.d p, rocee~ to ha~z' u laury of thele ttm am ttme the late hour, dtlcul~ton enlued re!~3~tng continuing ~al, 9&2, 9B1 (moved £rcm Consent Agenda 16B2) 9Zl (moved Paoe 49 Nay 28, 1991 Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on May 12, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the · ' Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition SMP-89-28 f/led '~:: ' by Steven Sodsmann of Hole, Montes and Associates, Inc. representing Radio Road Joint Venture, requesting Subdivision Master Plan approval .. for Collier County Production Park, Phase 2, for property located west [ii;;i;. f of Commercial Boulevard and north of Radio Road, consisting of 9.58± ',: acres. Planner Raymond Be/lows Identified the location of the subject ::i~:: property as well as the surrounding land uses. He stated that all : required county agencies have reviewed and approved this Petition, subject to stipulations contained in the Agreement Sheet. He put- ..? ported that the project is estimated to generate approximately six '"'- hundred trips, which does not exceed the 5X significance test for any roadway within the proJectts radius of development Influence. He reported the 1991 peak season traffic count for Radio Road is 15,490 vehicles per day, resulting in a level of service "A" operation. He {'f~ stated the project ms deemed consistent with the Growth Management 'iiilf[ Plan'as well as the County Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision .i-.~Regulattons. He stated that no letters for or against have been received by staff. -Co~-issioner Volpe questioned how off site mitigation for the 3.2 · acres. of Jurisdictional wetlands will be done and who will do it. -Planner Bellows replied that the land in question was dedicated ~?,'::!- - to a state agency as a preserve area. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether any part of the CREW lands can be included for off site mitigation. -Planner Bellows responded he would need to check with the Page 50 envlrou~entaltats regarding this Issue. In response to Commissioner V!~lpe, Nay 28, 1991 Planner Bellows confirmed that this is part of the Naples Park NSTU but there is currently no service and staff has therefore addressed this situation in their stipula- tions.: ~~,~ly, to cls t~ ~blic boutS. Contssioner Volpe requested that staff follow up on the Issue regarding lands in the CRE~ Trust being used for off site mitigation. -Upon c~11 for the qmmstlon, motion carries unanimously. Page 51 Nay 28, 199! I~:BSOLUT~O~ 91--426, RE PETITlOB' SMP-~-34, DWIGHT HADEAU Xe~'?!t~5'~!ETING HIGHWAY PAVI:RS, X~l~. RKI:~IKSTll~G SUBDMSXONMASTKRFLA!IAPFROVAL FOR KATHLI:KICOqFAP'f, LOCATED ON TH~ SOUTH SIDK OF SKWARD AV'KNUK, BKTWKKN ~ STI~:ET AID y~_l:~ STRKET - ADOPTKD SUBJECT TO STII:'UT.,ATZONS Legal notice hav~ng been published ~n the Naples Da~ly News on May 12, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition SMP-90-34 filed by Thomas Kuck, representing Highway Pavers, Inc., requesting Subdivision Master Plan approval for Kathleen Court, located on the South side of Seward Avenue, between Shirley Street and Yah1 Street, in Sect:ion 11, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. Planner Robert Lord reported the project involve8 7.07 acres con- slating of 16 Industrial lots hav~ng a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. each and served by roads having a 60~ right-of-way. He stated that the land use and road patterns are harmcn~.ou8 :in funct.ion. He Indicated that staff ts satisfied that all concerns relative to the development of this land have been addressed and that appropriate stipulations have been drafted to insure compliance with county standards. He relayed CCPC's recommendation for approval, subject to staff*s sttpu- He stated no correspondence has been received regarding this -.Commissioner Volpe pointed out that this Petition Involves sewer and water Issues and that the Board of County Commissioners has been Informed there is not sufficient flow to issue building permits in certain areas within the Naples Park area. Transportation Services Administrator Archibald reported that the ,.'... · developer has brought in a water line from Pine Ridge Road on the adjacent road to the south of the pro~ect and water Is, therefore, "~: ava:ilable to the subdivision as it develops and sewer will be provided ':. a8 a-result of the MSTU. '' :~In re~ponse to Commissioner Shanahan, Planner Lord responded that ' Project Review Services has approved waiving sidewalks on the property. Page 52 May 28, 1991 '~t~" S!~mah~n sov~d0 mcond~ by Co~tssioner ~m~ g~z~t~ ~1¥0 to close the public bering. Commissioner Volpe referred to page 20 of the agenda package, Item ,3 under Utilities, and questioned whether that translates to mean that no CO~s will be Issued until 1993 and, if so, how purchasers will be informed of the statue of the property. Dwight Nadeau reported that the subdivision is subject to the concurrency requirements of the Growth Management Plan, therefore CO~s will not be issued until adequate public facilities are available to each of the sixteen lots. Commissioner Volpe reiterated his concern about forewarning purchasers regarding CO issuance. Commissioner Sau~.ders responded that everyone is on notice that .... before there Is a CO Issued, they have to establish that services are available. -.. :-/~r..Nadeau added that for a site development plan to be approved by Project Review Services, facilities to serve that development must be available. i'.~Countylttorney Cu¥1er reported talking to Project Review Services Manager MadaJewski and being told that Mr. MadaJewekt was comfortable that everything is working and will continue to do so. *~g~11 £o~ the~estton, t~e~ot/on cazTtedun~nt~l¥. Page 53 May 28, 199! Legal nottce havtng been publi:shed In the Naples Daily News on May 22, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public heartng was opened to consider Petition CCSL-91-4 filed by Harry Huber, Office of Capitol Projects of Collier County, repre- senting the Collier County Board of County Commissioners, requesting a coastal construction setback line variance for time extension of libeler''Resolution No. 90-580 approving renourtshment, revegetation, and construct/on of dune walkovers, tn Township 52 South, Range 26 East, /?':' Marco Island. " .Environmental Specialist Retschl reported that the Petitioner ts ~.(.; ·requesting an extension of time to allow activities related to the ii**i'~i*~.Marco /s/and Beach Renourtshment Project to continue during sea turtle '; nesting eeaso:~. ~ cv~zTt~g~mtmou~l¥, to cloe~ the ~ubltc hearing. .~t~r Shanahah moved, e~condedbyComniastoner Saunde~ and c~l-tod~na~tmou~l¥, to al;~rovo CC8~-91-4, ~ubJect to all etlpvla- 000 105 Page 54 Nay 28, 2991 !I~90L~I"X(]~I 93.-428,, 1~ P~I"rT:[0M SMP-90-38, 3~FF ~ OF ~ ~ ~,~ ~-, ~ ~-~ C~TZON, ~~ ~~0~ ~ ~ ~ U.S. 43, ~ ~ ~I.~ ~Y ~ BL~., - ~~ Legal not~ce having been published In ~he Naples Dall~ Ne~s on April 28, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit off ~bllca~lon filed with · he Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition S~P-90-38 f~2ed ~ ~eff ~se o~ Eve~8 and ~r~e, Inc., representing Dev-Tech Corporation, re~es~lng subdivision master plan approval for "[mperlal S~are' for proper~y adjacent to and easer of U.S. 41, North of Imperial Golff Course Boulevard, In the ~ou~h~est 1/4 of section 15, T~sh~p 48 south, Range 25 east, consisting of ~2.36 acres. Senlot ProJec~ Planner N~no, ~n lieu off Bryan Nllk who Is on vacation, reported ~h~s pet~on Is one ~ha~ ~as continued by lhe ~ard. of Co~y Coules~oner8 at l~s prev2ous meeting for several re~ons, one of which was ~he ~es~lon of ~he application of ~he 30~ o~n ~ce r~rement ~d ~he o~her belng a concern that some uses permitted In ~he ~rrent zoning d~str~ct should be precluded from developmen~ ~n ~hl8 subdlv~olon, when approved. He confirmed ~ha~ ~he ~es~2o~ revolving aro~d approval of a subdivision ~s~er pl~ that ~rt ~o 2lml~ uses ~o which the Pe~l~loner 2s entitled ~o ~der the ~derly~ng zoning dlstr~c~ have neve~ presented themselves for con- 8ldera~on a~ the S~ s~age and, therefists, 9~aff does no~ knoll ho. to deal w~th ~he Issues. Co~ty Attorney ~yler relayed his ~ders~and~ng ~ha~ ~here was ~ offer on the par~ of the developer ~o 8peah ~o the residen~s. ~r. Nlno sta~ed that the representatives of ~he Imperial Ho~ers bsoc~atlon have gotten together wi~h the developer and have ~en ~ccessful In ~each~ng certain agreements, ~o which h~ ~t ~n prl~ ~o nor officially a~lsed of. He re.fred that ~here ~8 a letter on f~le of proposed amendments, ~ added ~ha~ o~- clal c~flrmatlon that the developer ha~ a~eed to same ~8 lacking. He confl~ed that Hr. ~ree has ~nd~cated wlth~n the last hour that 000 P'¢,~ 108 ~age 55 Nay 28, 1991 they had, in fact, agreed to the conditions described by Richardson in his correspondence to the Board of County Co~Jalssioners. Jeff Purse reported numerous meetings having taken place with the representatives of Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners Al~sociation since the last Board of County Commissioners meeting result.ing in agreement to the modifications that the homeowners have brought up. He referred to a letter addressed to the Board of County Commissioners from Mr. Richardson, copy of which is not on file with the Clerk. He confirmed that-the existing developed tract currently has 30~ open space, adding that, if the project is developed witIt Tract I and I! combined, it will be 30~ over those remaining parcels, and, if developed as a single tract, Tract II! goes first and will hold its 30~ and Tract will hold 30~, the net being that the whole project will have the required 3.7 acres of open space when built out. Regarding the second item of the above-referenced communication relating to the relocation of trees from the areas to be disturbed by the development, he stated this is primarily the palms located in Tract III and that it has been agreed upon to relocate said palms within the project. He requested that said trees be allowed to be relocated now In advance of receiving a building permit to facilitate working with the Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners Association in landscaping around the entrance to the sub- division. He reported that the Petitioner and the Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners Association have agreed that there ~s neither the need nor the room for a sidewalk along Imperial Golf Course Boulevard, but added that a sidewalk will be provided along U.S. 4! and down the access road into the project. · . ~ :.M~purse confirmed for Commissioner Volpe that the lnten~ is to provide trees where the s~dewalk wo~d have been located. Mr. Purse referred to page 4 of the above-refer~nced letter, second paragraph, and stated that uses were limited ~rom a point of working with the community and not setting a standard where the SMP process is used to restrict use. }[e added that the owner agrees there w~ll not be an automobile service station, qu~ck change o~1 and lubri- Page 56 May ~8, 1991 ca~:ton facility, self-service laundrte,~, dry cleaning shops, or car- wash facilities. He stated that the fast food restauran~ and dr~ve thru facilities on Lot 3 wtl! be similarly prohibited. He reported that, on Lot 2, fast food restaurants may be a permitted use if the fast food restaurant has a minimum of 1,000 sq. ft. of interior dining space. Regarding Item #5 of the first page of the. above-referenced "letter, he stated that Xt is agreed that the Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners As$ociatlom wlll be part of the SD? review process. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether staff has any problems with the proposed additional stipulations, to which Mr. Nino replied no. Dwight Richardson confirmed that he agrees with the proposed carrJ~d~l~ed~mml~, to clo~e the Imbltc bearing. :-Cemm.tsnslonew Volpe moved, seconded by Commtmstona= Has'me ~ g~Tfl~a~l¥, to ~ Petition SMP-90-38, sub~ect to St~Lt'f'a , m~/~-,.~t~al~tton~, ~ adopt/n~ We~olution 91-428. Page 57 ~ay 28, 199! PETITlOB[ FDPO-91-1, ROBERT JOC~LYRE R. AND BORNI! 3KAR D~KST~G ~~ A V~I~CK ~ ~E MINIJ~ B~E ~D EL~ATION ON ~ ~A~ AT 1281 B~IR CO~, ~F ~R, D~ - ~OL~ 91-429f ~.~~~l~ ~K ~R SAID ~0~ A~D Legal notice having been publt~hed in the Naples Daily News on May 12, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition FDPO-91-1 filed by Robert Jocelyne N. and Bonnie Jean Dalestang, requesting a variance ,,~ from the m/n/mum base flood elevation on property located at 1281 Belair Court, Gulf Harbor. i:..~ Planner Badamtchlan reported that the Petitioner is requesting an after-the-fact variance of 7.4 feet from the required flood elevation of 12 feet in order to obtain building permits for an addition to an existing single family home built on st/Its in 1973. He reported that the previous owner enclosed the area under the house and equipped it with a bathroom and a kitchen. He reported that staff has determined there is no hardship and applicant has not provided sufficient Justi- fication for the granting of a variance and, therefore, staff recom- mends denial of the Petition. · Robert Gebhardt of Gebhardt and E~lte, representing the Petitioners, reported that, although the house was originally built in 1973, the downstairs portion for which an after-the-fact variance is being requested was completed in 1975, some16 years ago, with ownership of the property having since passed four different times. He stated that the downstairs renovation was completed in its entirety three years prior to adoption of the Flood Ordinance. He presented a handout alleged to be a letter from Guy Carlton, a neighbor down the street from the subject property, copy of which was not provided for the record. He referred to the appraisal performed in 1990 prior to the Petitioner's purchase of the subject property. He reported that Mr. Dalestang decided to move the outside entrance stairs to the second floor from the left side of the house to the right side, ~.~,'thtnkingth·t · building permit would not be necessary as the cost was Page 58 28, 199! not anticipated to exceed $500; that a neighbor apparently complained about the noise created by moving the stairs; that a County Inspector informed Mr. Delestang that a building permit was required, which he acquired; and that in the process the Inspector also Informed Mr. Delestang that the downstairs is completely Illegal and will have to be torn out in its entirety. He used a flip chart to represent '. various stages of completion in the neighborhood, stating that only by house to house Inspection can you determine whether the Interiors of said houses have been Improved, adding that the houses are being sold with. Improvements that may have taken place many years ago and that there is a good indication a number of others will be faced with the same situation the Petitioner is cu:rrentl¥ facing. H~ outlined three alternatives available to the Petitioner as: 1) tearing out the improvements, Incurring substantial cost to do so as wel! as deva- luation of his property; 2) pay a fine of $250 per day and continue as he is; or 3) apply for a variance. He reported that the North Naples Fire Control originally objected thinking It was new construction but, upon finding out it was existing construction, withdrew their objec- tion. Mr. Gebhardt stated that the Petitioner's differentiating factor ts that the construction has existed for 16 years. Commissioner Hasse questioned what staff is doing about the other houses that are In the same situation as the Petitioner's, to which Mr. Badamtchian replied that Zoning Enforcement has to address that Issue. · In response to Co~tesloner Saunders, County Attorney Cuyler atated that if the Board of County Co~atsstoners finds that the struc- ture was constructed prior to the date of the Ordinance, then the Petitioner does not have to comply. Nr. Gebhardt reported unsuccessfully attempting to locate the :,,~ ownar of the property at the time the construction was done. -~Ooutssionar Ooodnt~ht stated that the Property tppratser~s Offioa should Indicate when the construction was first placed on the Page 59 · : *~.. ~}.~ff)!' Nay 28, :1991 ?l~ii~',i a hian commented it must be established that the 'ddt- " grandfathered in If the variance Is proved to be okay. Commissioner Volpe stated this requires proof on the part of the Petitioner that, in fact, It is a nonconforming use and documenting whether there was a building permit issued, etc. Mr. Gebhardt presented pictures to be entered into the record. Commissioner Hasse stated that, according to the letter from Guy Carlton, he was aware of the building being enclosed in 1975. Planner Badamtchian commented that he never received the letter frol Mr. Carlton and therefore is unaware of Its contents. Robert Jocelyne N. Delestang stated that he told staff about the i letter but never actually showed it to them. · County Attorney Cuyler questioned if the Petitioner could testify !(; , frol his own knowledge as to when the facilities: went in for the downstairs. Mr. Gebhardt stated that the serial numbers; of the appliances appear to date them in 1977 or 1978, but the documentation of the inside of the downstairs presents a real probleal. .~'.Oomm~t~w Saunde~m ~v~d, seconded by C~mtsstoner Stmnahan -.- ssd mled sagatsously, to close the public he~=tng. ::~m~t~t~ Smmdsrs moved, s~conded by Ccmmtssione~ Bsmse, to ~ tb~ varis~e~ ~t~ ~ Pstttton FDPO--91-1. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether that was made on the basle that this Is a nonconforming use and that the sl:ructure was improved prior to 1978. · ~ounty Attorney Cuyler pointed out that It is not necessary to grant a variance for a structure grandfathered :in. Commissioner Volpe questioned whether the !totton addresses granting the variance or finding that this Is a nonconforming use. Commissioner Saunders stated that he suggei~ted to the Petitioner Page 60 Hay 28, lgg! that the Board of County Com~lssioners establish that it was a noncon- forling use but the Petitioner did not seize upon that as a so~ution, and no~ his motion is to approve the variance. Nr. Gebhardt responded that there in 8ti3] the ~atte~ of the after-the-fact Co~tsstoner Sanders said that the point Initially being made m for the Petitioner to ~eet with staff to work out the noncon- for~ing ~e. El Page 61 · ~ Nay 28, :1991 i~(~,IFf~ON ~1-430 1~ PETITION ~-8~26, B~ ~. ~ O~ SCA ~, ~. ~ ~~ OF ~$~ON~ U~ "B" OF ~-12 DX~X~ ~ A ~ILD C~ ~ ~R ~0~ L~A~ ON ~-~~ ~ (C.R. 31), ~ OF PX~ RZ~ RO~ (C.R. 896) Planner Ronald Nino reported that this is a request for an exten- sion of a provisional use for a Day Care Center in conjunction with a multi-family project on the east s/de of Airport Road, due to expire on June 19, 1991. He relayed staff'13 recommendation for approval of sa~e. In answer to Commissioner Shanaban, Mr. Nino explained that the purpose of the request is that the Petitioner has been unable to erect the child care center. He commented that the multi-family project is in place but added he did not believe the site plan has been approved to-date, although the Petitioner Is actively pursutn~ approval of ~.'~t~ S~md~z~ toorod, ~conded by Co~mt~oton~z. Volpe ~ · .-~ ....c~r~iM~,.~lse.sly, to ~ l~ttttoner !q:I-89-26. contlnutn~ the thereby adopting Resolution 91-430. 125 Page 62 Nay 28, 199! - ADOPTNO THEREBY Chairman Goodnight explained that this Petition is to request an extension for one year. C~.d.~io~e~r ~ ~ove~, ~econded by Co~s.i~er Page 63 "'I Page 64 ';i*?-.'"* 1tin ~B1 (m~m~ ~ 28, 199! ~ ~X~ LT~BTG IR~E~I~N~S FOR ROA/~AY &RD SI~ IMlq~~ AT Transportation Services Administrator Archibald reported that the proposed agreement deals with Pug 86-19, which is the Regency Autohaus properties, which is better known as Liebig Investments, Inc. He reported that the agreement makes provisions for right-of-way dona- tions in addition to utility relocations, roadway improvements, turn lanes on Airport Road and along Westview Drive as part of the recent construction of the Chrysler-Plymouth Dealership. He reported staff's recommendation that this item be taken off the consent agenda served two purposes, one being to change th.~ provision of th~ bonding requirements as staff preferred that the County Attorney's Office be allowed to add verbiage requirln~ a ]~etter of Credit in lieu of the bond requirement, the reason being that construction of Airport Road will probably include some of this work and the provisions need to assure that pa~rment would be made to the County at that time. He reported staff recouends approval but with two revisions, to change the bonding requirements to a Letter of Credit, acceptable to the County Attorney's Office, and that a payment clause be included to allow draw do~rn of the money as quic]:l¥ as possible at commencement of construction. Herb Savage, Architect of the project, stated that everything has successfully been worked out and that he is in agreement. He ~ug~ested that language be included, acceptable to the County Attorney, be it performance bond, pe=sonal guarantees, or Letter of Credit. He indicated the owners are willing to pay up front at the time the contract is let by the Count~ but, if acceptable, to use the words Letter of Credit or performance bond with personal guarantees without limiting it specifically to Letter of Credit. Assistant County Attorney Manaltch voiced agreement to providing flexibility, but added he wi21 have to see what is provided. Commtes2oner Shanaban questioned whether the intent was bonding, Page 65 Nay 28, 1991 Letter of Credit and/or performance bond. Mr. Manalich stated that a Letter of Credit is the County Attorney's usual preference because of ease of drawing on the security but that, depending on the bond terms, they are willing to look at that. County Attorney Cuyler Interjected that as long as his office has ultimate say, they have no problem with the proposals. ~i~~l{, to ~~ t~ ~~t with ~ ~ ~ a ~t clam ~cl~g acwtable to the Page 66 May 28, 1991 t sumnrr mnmsr 01-107/leo, o - oe/ oo - ~M-~Iy, to .d~t ~t ~t. 91-187/188, 91-192/ ~-~ (~) - ~D A~tnts~ratlve Assistant Ftlson ~epo~ted t~e intent ts to appotn~ nine membeF8 to the EPTAB BoaFd which ~ao established on ~aFch 12, 1991. She referred to pages 4 and 5 of the agenda backup con- slating of a spread sheet containing each applicant's name and exper- tise. She pointed out that an asterisk ts placed next to the names of those being recommended by staff for appointment. Commissioner Hasse requested that Mike Davis and N. Michel Saadeh be added as alternates. He. Fllson reported being Informed by the County Attorney's Office that alternates cannot be added. County Attorney Cuyler stated that it is usually incorporated into the Ordinance when there is an alternate simply to identify what their responstbtlit~es are. _ Commtsm~oner Goodnight suggested expanding the Ordinance to allow an 11-member board. ~mm/~/oner ~ moved, ~ma~ed ~ ~1 ~lm ~ N. MAche/ S~deh for ~ ~ ~ ~ staff, nbJ~ to tb C~ A~~'80fft~ ~~ ~ ~t to tb ~d~ce, tbre~ ~tiw ~lutt~ Lar~ Richardson identified himself as one of those nominated ~e~e on the E~AB Board. He voiced his opposition to having an 11-member board. He predicted problems tn getting ll persons to arrive at a concensus. Coatsstoner Rases co,anted that he felt those reco~ended were 157 Page 67 Nay 28~ 199! cospat lble. ..~. ~11 £~ t~ ~ftion0 ~otton c~isd m~mt~o~sl¥o P~ 68 #ay28, 1001 · .: _ORaB1' !'OR eltalrT YE&R lggl/3002 - COI~T'~lmED TO 6/4/OX It was the consensus of the Board to continue this item to June 4, 1991. -- Item:J9~l moved from Item #16E1 ~M~D&TION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY CO~D~ISSION~RS AUTHORIZE THE ~TO EXECUTE &WORK 0RDERUNDER TH~ ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR A~'H/TEC'I~IP~ SERVICES WITH VICTOR J. LATAVISH, ARCHITECT, FOR THE DESIGN OF & ~ ~IPI~$ION SYSTEM IN BUILDIN~ F. It was the consensus of the Board to continue this item to June 4, 1991. Item R~COMg~AT/ORTHAT TI~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPT A R~SOLITTION TO CERTIFY A SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR MANDATORY GARBAGK COLLecTION FKKS FOR TH~ 1991 SERVICE YEAR It was the consensus of the Board to continue *this item to June 4, 1991. DISCI~35ION I~GA~DING STATU~ OF PALMER CABLEVISION l~~ It was the consensus of 4, 1991. the Board to continue *this Item to June ~TZON TNAT TR~ BOARD OF ~ O0~$$IONERS NOT ENTER INTO TH~ ~ ~ A~ FOR LEASED G~0MTH NANAItEMENT DEPARTMENT OFFI~ SPJI~ ~ TH~ CO~LI~R DEF~_~ CORPORATION It was the consensus of the Board to continue this Item to June ~ IN ~q, OYEES, COUNTY POLICY I~'V'~SIOWS FOR It was the consensus of the Board to continue this item to June 4, 1991. from ff16H2 R~'~IID&TZOII TO APPROVH THE VACATION ON AN ~ISTI][G ACCESS EASEMENT ~ P~LICAN BAY AND TO ACCEPT A REVISED GRANT 0Y KAS~I~IIT It was the consensus of the Board to continue this item to June 4, 1991. Page 69 May 28, 1991 It was the consensus of the Bo~rd to continue this item to June 4, 1991. i . APPO~ OY J~MBERS TO THE HOMELL'SS ADVISORY CO~#ITTE~ It was the consensus of the Board to continue this item to June 4, 1991. DI~XO~ R~11)11~ ~]?PORT FOR 2U~ION RI AI~IUISITION OF lflS~ It was the consensus of the Board to continue this Item to June 4, 1991. ~TtEN~ ~1¥, that th~ following ttffms under the c~nsent ~ he mpprovEd ~/or adopted: The water facilities to serve the project cannot be placed Into service a.~d no Certificate of Occupancy shall be issued until the Florida Department of Environmental Rep~llation fur- nishes a letter approving the water distribution system for service. 2. Bacteriological testing has met the County's requirements. 3. The Fire Flow requirements of the project have been satisfied. See Pages /70 - / 7 ~ RECORDED IN OR BOOK 1626 Pages/82 - 187 Item,16A2 ~ OF TH~ FINAL PT, AT OF 'CAXAMBAS KSTATES - RKPF~T" See Pages /?~' -/?? 162 Page 70 Nay 28, 199! ~ 01--391PROV~D~ FOR ASSESSIW~ OF L1~NFOR TH~ COST 0F AL~T~MEIrl' OF Pq:JBLIC ]I~J~SAMCK OR LOT 14, BLOCK 66, MARCO BEACH UITXT ROBERT RALPH AWl:) CAROLYN A. ATEINS ]I~SOI,~O~ 91-392 ~D~ ~R ~~ O~ LI~ ~ ~ ~ O~ 13, ~P 52 ~, ~ 29 PAR~ 73 ~ ~K ZR ~Y R~F-WAY 73r 3AY A. See Pages 91-393 PROV/DING FOR ASSKSS14~llT OF LIKR FOR THE COST OY I~BLIC RUISARCE ON ~ 11 0Y BLOCK mAU TR THE BORDURART STT~DZV/SIC~I, KIqV&MAK AND PARSYMAK GRAHAM See Pages .If'4 It~ ~16&Se 91-394 PROV/DZNG FOR ASSKS.~3q~3~T OF LTKR FOR THE COST OF OF P~BLIC II~SARCK ON LOT LOTS 12 ARD 13, BLOCEA, BOB3~RANT 5'UI~IV~SIONf PIC~E GI~~ ~]~VA 3~HG*S Itt~-~16&Sf See Pages,, ' ~ 91-39B PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMK]IT OF LIEN FOR THE COST &B&TII~I~F OF /RYBLIC RUZSAN~,*K 0N LOT 4, BLOCK 88, MARCO BEACH U1FZT FIVEr LEONARD J. BUBRIr RKGIS'L'KI~KD AGKRT FOR MARCO MEDIA ESrl'KRFRISKS See Pages /,?'0/ ' //o~? ..... 91-396 PR(T7IDING FOR ASSE$SM~RT O! LIEN FOIl THE COST OF OIP IR~BLZC NUISANCE CHLOT 9, BLOCK 424, MARCO BEACH UNIT DO~ AID KARKNIIr~TU'~rISON See Pages ,/~? "__,/~'&) . r Iteu J'l 6ASh Iq~$oLuTZON 91--397 PROVIDING FOR ASSES~ 0Y LIEN FO~ THE COST 0Y JkB&TENEB'T OF POBLIC NUZSARCK OR' LOT 36, BLOCK 240, GOLDEN G&T'K, UNIT NO. 7, ~ J. ~ LAVERDA L. PKLC See Pages J~ES;r~U'I'ZOW 01-398 PROVZD/llG FOR ASSKSS34KIFF OF LIK~FOR TH~ COST OF &B&T~II~T OF PUBLIC NUISANCE OR A PARCEL OF ZJLRD CORTAIJrZNG &PPROX/llATKLY THREE ACRES, HORK OR LESS, IN SECTION 4, TOW!FSHIP 47 SO~71*H~.-p.&WSK 29 K&STf W. D. ROBERTS se. Page.,/ GT, OR/A 3. AJlD!qBWS CAWTY, ~ Page See Pages May 28, 1991 · ~OLUTIO~ ~1-400 I:~ROVIDING FOR ASS'~-~SPI~lqT OF LIEN FOR TH~ COST OF ~lt.~ Ole P~Br~IC NUISAN'C~ ON' LOT ?, BLOC~ C, JOYCE PAlelY, BLANCA M. ADORNO Pages Item#lSJk51 RI~Yl;UTIOII 01-401PROVIDIWQ FOR ASSESSNEFF OF LIEH FOR T!~ COST OF JLBITBI~SIT ~ ['~BLIC NUIS&I~'E 0R LOT 20, PINE ~ROVE $u~Di¥1$IC~, SILAS Pages .-. R~LUTZO! 91-40~ L~VI~DZ]~ ~ J~I~ITT 01~ LIEN FOR THE COST OF . ,:. ~ O~ I~B~IC NUISA!f~ 0R LOT ~, BLOCK 2 ~UBDI~rI~]O~,, !t0BZll RILEY BURC~, PER~)]I~ REPIt~S~A?ZV~ OF TB~ 3U~ZOR See Pages ~0~ - o~o/ SuuuivzSI~, ~ RILE~ ~, ~(~ ~S~AT~ 0F ~ ~0R See Pages ~0.2o o.~ 91--404 PROVIDING FOR AS~;SI~INT OF LIEN FOR T!~ COST OF FUBLZC HUISAWCK 0N LOT ~0, BLOCK 7, CARSOHS ADDITION, ; --- It~ #1515p See Pages A, BATBMKFf OF FOBLIC NUISAHCK OR LOT LOT 7, BLOCK F, LAKE TRAFFORD See Pages &~ll~ olP FUBLZC NUISAIfCE ON LOT ;; ZN BLOCK 1 OF THE MAZN LINE '-' ~ 91-40'/ I~OV/D/II~ ~ J~S~,~N~RT OF LZKN FOR TI~ COST OF :: &B&T~MEITOI'!q3BLXC!fi2/SA!IC~OA'LOTT', BLOCK 1, P~SUBD/VTSZC~, See Pages Page 72 Nay 28, 1991 Ires .trl~ RI~OLUTiO!I 91-408 PROVIDING FOR ~$~JIIENT OF LIKNFOR T!~ CO~JT OF ABAT~!~f OF FUBLIC NUISANC~ O~I~T 48 IN BLOCK 2 0FNARC0 NZOHLA!0~, WILL!JL~ D. COT, LI~I~ III~ ~~ FOR I~LORID& Sq~ITB~LT PRO!~q~TI~ TRUS~ See Pages It# ~l&lSt 91--409 PROVIDING FOR ASSRSSMERT OF LIEN FOJt T~E COST OF OF PUBLIC NUISANCg OR ~ ?, BLOCK 5, N&TI~LIN~ uobDiviSZON, CORP. C/O ER/~EST~r Sit. See Pages !t~30LWION 91-410 PROVIDING FOR A$$E$$~IlT OF &B&T~Ii~T OF PUBLIC NUISANCE 0N LOT 6, BLOCK COPSlimTT~ CO~P. C/O ~ I~L~iA~, S__~R. See Pages ~/~ "~/? It~lilSv ~U'f~ON 91-411 PROVIDING FOR ASSESSMENT OF LIEq FOR ~ CO~T OF ABATEI~]qT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE ON A PARCEL OF LAND IN $~CTION 33, ~P 46 SOUTIf~ R&NG~ 29 ~-~qTr ISMA~L AND NIDI& CRUZ See Page ~:~:~:'~: N~SOI.UTION 91--412 PROVIDING FOR ASSeSSglINT OF LI~]I FOR TH~ COST OF :.L,~". &~kT~IIT O~ F~BLIC ~IS~ ~ ~ 19, B~ 2, N~ ~R, ~ ~, See Pages lq~3OL~TIO~ 91-413 PROVIDING FOR A$$l~.~lq~ OF LINN FOR TH~ ~ 0F It~ ~~ 91--414 ~IDING ~R ~SE~ OF LI~ ~R ~ ~ OF ~~ ~ ~IC ~~ ~ ~ 1, B~ 19, OF ~ B~ ~ See Pages ~W ~2 ~ ; ':'**. ' ~~ ~1-41~ ~DZ~ ~R ~~ O~ LI~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~~ ~ ~ZC ~S~ ON L~ ~2, ~ 138, ~ ~ ~T See Pages ~ ' ~ 7 Page 73 ~:', [tem~16J~bb See Pages May 28, 1991 R~:SOLUTION 91-417 PROV/Di'"RG FOR ASS1ES~q~T OF LXER FOR THE COST OF ABATENENT OY FUBT, XC I~]/SARCE ON LOT TE/RTEER (13) ZN ~T, OC[ 'B' ~ ~OTC~ PA~ SUBD~rI$101~, O. L. ~ LUCILE SqTTDER See Pages Ite~ -~16A5cc ~KSOLUT~O!g 91-418 P~tOV~DI~G ~ ASSKSSMK~T OF LIKN F~R TH~ COST OF A~LTB~JKIFf OF P~B~IC NUISANCE ON LOT 15, BLOCK 795, OF & !q~PLAT OF A PORT/O~ OY It~RCO BK&CH UH~T ~-FI'VK, ZBIGRI~W ~ DORILJt M. TOI~7.,AY !I~;~3T. UT~OB* 91-419 PROVIDING FOR ~SM~:RT OF LZKRFOR TEE CO~T OF A~A~ OF' FIFBLIC NUZSANC~ ON LOT 2, BLOCK 333, OF )Uklt~O B~AC~ ~ T~N, AL~X~ISENBAC'B~R, PATRICIA R. ~OR, ARD ROB!g~T' lI~, See Pages SECURITY ACC~I:'TED FOR EXCAVATION PEI~IT NO. 59.420, "P~LICAN BAT SYST~M'~ LOCA'FED IN $EC?ION 33, TOMNSHIP 48 SOUTH, See c0oP~-zv~ ~ TO MASTER PLAN BARE]t'CXYr BEACH PARK (COLLIE:R) .AND BOB/T&~ PAB~ (LEE), ~AT., ~ PLA~APPROVt'D0 ~rAI~TO ~ I'1~'0~ ~AL &GB:E'BIq~T'I'W'~THLBE COUNTY, A!ID COASTAL I~SOLUT~ON 91--420 &PI:vROV~RG & UTILITY F~SE~ENT BKTWKEH' THE BOARD OF C~THTY COgg~SSIOJFKI~ AND THE COLLIER Coolq'I'YWATKR-S~I~R DZSTR~CT AS ~TO~ A UTILITY EYYLUt~T L~ TO TIFK PEL~CAWBAYARKA lt#J1Ol~J See Pages 000,, , i66 Page 74 May 28, 1991 See eages lte~,16G1 ~D-YP~R ADJD~T~ TO #ATHlt MANAGt3~qT 01~ATING BUDGET (FITND 110) C~TIFICATE~ OF ~O!~R~CTION TO ~ ~M~DATO~f SOLID #~ST~ SPECIAL ~ ROLL Item $UBOI~DINA?ION OF UTILITY INT~R~T$ ACCEPTED FROM FLORIDA POWER LI~ G~IPIII~' 0! FLORIDA CONCERNING THE NAPLES PRODUCTI011 PARK PIUNICIPAL SERVICE~ TAXING UNIT See Pages ~ TO TH~ eltAWT OF EASEMENTTO PROVIDE ACCESS TO AND FItO~WATER ~ FACILITIES L~JCA'I'KD IN ~t%:ICAII BAY UNIT "2", CONSISTING OF A PORTION OF PARCELS M, N & Q AS WELL AS A PORTION OF PELICAN BAY UNIT '12', P&~CEL 'G-C" WITHIN TH~ PELICA~ BAY DEVEL0~ IN ACCORDANC~ WIT~ T~E PELICAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPgTENT ORDINANCE 77-18, AS AMENDED FF O~INANCE 82-9~ Itm~lGJ1 ~ ~ :' FRO~ APPttAI~'S OFFICE 1990 TAX ROLL 1.990-102 252/258 5/15/9! 1990 TANGIBLE PEI~0NAL I:rROP~RT~ 5/14/91 · , The following miscellaneous corr(:spondence was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated below: Copy to BCC of letter dated 4/12/91, to Honorable Eugene C. Turner from James C. Giles, Clerk of the Circuit Court, re: cooperation in setting court dates for outstanding Orders to Show Cause. xc: F~led. 167 Page 75 Nay 28, 1991 Letter dated 5/13/91 to Chairman, BCC, from Jori M. Iglehart, Environmental Speclalist, , Department of Environmental Regulation, re: Collier County - WRR, File No. 111966?45. Coplea to Nell Dotrill, Harry Huber, and filed. Letter dated 5/15/91 to Ck.alrman, BCC, from Jon M. Iglehart, Environmental Specialist, Department of Environmental Regulation, re: Collier County - WRR, File No. 111967885. Copies to Neil Dotrill, Ha:try Huber, and filed. Letter dated 5/13/91 to Chairman, BCC, from Jon M. Iglehart, Environmental Specialist, Department of Environmental Regulation, re: Collier County - WRR, File N. 111966585. Copies to Neil Dotrill, Harry Huber, Frank Brutt, and filed. Letter to Dear Sir or Madam, from David B. Allan, Acting Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior, advising of FY 90 refuge revenue sharing payment to Collier County in the amount of $71,796.00. Filed. Letter to Dear Sir or Madam, from Alan C. Bonsack, Acting Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior, advising of FY 89 refuge revenue sharing payment to Collier County in the amount of $59,754.00. Filed. Letter to Chairman Goodnight from C. O. Morgan, P.E., District Project Development and Environmental Engineer, Department of Transportati<m, re: approved State Environmental Impact Report' U.S. 41 (Tamtami Trail) from Laurel Oak Dr~ve to Gulf Park Drive in Collier County, Florida, State Project Number: 03010-1573, Work Program Item Number: 1114164. Copies to George Archibald, BCC and filed. 8o Letter dated 5/8/91 to BCC from Stuart L. Santos, Ph.D., Natural Resources Director, Division of Environmental Services, Natural Resources Department, an,] enclosed Marco Island Sea Turtle Monitoring (NR-SP-91-01) Report. xc: Filed Memo dated 5/3/91 to BCC from O. George Yilmaz, Pollution Control Director, and enclosed Sand Dollar Island Monitoring Project Annual Report (PC-SP-91-O1). xc: ]Filed 10. From the Department of Hea.ith and Rehabtlitattve Services, the Florida HIV/AIDS Surve.illance Report, Disease Control & Aids Prevention, State Health Office, Number: BO, April, 1991. xc: Filed. 11. 12. Minutes Received and Filed: Marco Island Beachfront Renourlshment Advisory Committee Minutes of May 1, 199!. Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board Minutes of April 1, 1991. C. Pelican Bay Advisory Committee Minutes of May 1, 1991. Notice to Owner dated 5/14/91, to Collier County from Bonita Limestone Transportation, Inc., under an order given by Yahl Underground Construction, for materials, eq~ipment, trucktn~ related service for South Naples Waste Water Collection, Bond #4595582, Contract #3. Copies to Netl Dotrill, Steve Camell, 3ohn ¥onkosky, and filed. 13. Notice to Owner to BCC from Wade's Heating & Cooling, under an order given by Armon, Inc., for }IVAC work for Lots 20 to Page 76 May ~, 199! 30, block 53, New Market Subdivision. Copies to Neil Dotrill, Steve Camell, John Yonkosky, and filed. There being no further bu$iness~ for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair - T~me: ?:30 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL --' PATR/~, CHAIRMAN Page 77