Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/09/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 1996 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 & #3A AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Call the county commission meeting to order. Mr. Dotrill, could you lead us in an invocation and a pledge, please? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning. We thank you for the cool, crisp air this morning and the refreshing feeling that it gives our community. Father, we pray as always your guidance and protection. You guide this county commission as they make important business decisions that affect Collier County. We thank you for its people and the wonderful quality of life that we enjoy. And we'd ask that you bless our time here together during this board meeting. We pray these things in Jesus' name. A/hen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Good morning, Mr. Dotrill. Do we have a few changes to the agenda this morning? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, commissioners. Just a couple of changes. Have one add-on under presentations, and it will be 5(A)(2) which is a proclamation proclaiming it Herchell Troutman day in Collier County at the request of Mr. Constantine. We have two other add-ons. The next one is under public works. It will be 8(A)(1) which is a routine water and waste water acceptance agreement for a project called Oak Colony at the Vineyards. The other item is 8(E)(2) on the regular agenda under the county manager's executive report -- excuse me, 8(E)(1) which is a contract with the Naples Area Tourism and Convention Bureau for certain category B tourist development taxes. There are executive summaries for both of those items. I have a request to continue two items. The first is item 12(B)(1) under advertised public hearings. It's requested to continue for four weeks till your regular meeting of February the 13th. That's petition PUD 95-3 for Avatar Properties as it pertains to Founders Plaza. I have two agenda notes this morning. The first is that item 9(A)(2) which was confirming certain action and authorization that you had given to me prior to the Christmas holiday pertaining to a refunding be heard at the end of the public hearings this morning. Mr. Ziev is here and if -- if we open -- they're actually opening the bids and receiving bids for the sale of the refunding of those bonds this morning but if we can hear those at the end of the public hearing portion of the agenda. And I have also been asked for purposes of the record, item 16(E)(2) which is the request by the clerk and my office pertaining to the effective date of payment for excess annual leave, for purposes of clarification they have asked that I indicate that that be for 1995. And that's all that I have this morning. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Matthews, anything further? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Nothing. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I'll have one item under communication but nothing else. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We need a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #4 MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1995 AND DECEMBER 12, 1995 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Need a motion on the minutes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move approval of November 21, 1996 (sic), regular meeting and December 12, 1995, regular meeting. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to accept the -- the approval of the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? That passes unanimously. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF JANUARY 14-20. 1996 AS PURPLE MARTIN WEEK - ADOPTED And we'll move on to proclamations. Mr. Constantine. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually I think Commissioner Mac'Kie is going to do the purple martin. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That has been changed to Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is indeed my pleasure to read a proclamation for purple martin week, and I'd like to invite William Dietrich to come forward and receive the proclamation. Is he here? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's out watching purple martins as we speak. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll read the proclamation anyways. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Read the -- read the proclamation for us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whereas, in a very short time thousands of our very beautiful feathered friends, the purple martins, will return from their winter home in Brazil; and Whereas, these birds will be searching for suitable housing to enable them to nest and rear their young; and Whereas, the Florida legislature has designated Collier County the purple martin capital of Florida; and Whereas, the Conservancy Purple Martin Society is desirous of urging the public to erect proper housing for these very valuable winged creatures by placing said houses on their property; and Whereas, during the period of January 14 through 20, 1996, the Conservancy Purple Martin Society will endeavor to alert the public to how valuable these birds are in helping to diminish the insect and mosquito population. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January 14 through 20, 1996, be designated as purple martin week in Collier County and urge all citizens to join with the Conservancy Purple Martin Society to show their concern for these valuable and friendly winged creatures and learn to protect and preserve them. Done and ordered this 9th day of January, 1996, Board of County Commissioners, John C. Norris, Chairman. I move we accept this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? That proclamation is accepted. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A thunderous round of applause. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And we will forward that to the recipients, Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Item #5C1 LINDA DENNING, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR JANUARY, 1996 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to skip 5(A)(2) momentarily? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We're going to skip proclamation 5(A)(2) for the moment. We're waiting on someone to arrive hopefully to accept that one, so we'll move on. And we'll ask Linda Denning to step forward. And, Linda, if we could get you to face the camera there, this is your -- your big television break here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your VCR at home is running. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have various scouts outside; right? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: As a 19-year employee of Collier County, Linda has gained a local reputation and statewide recognition. Supporting and training 4-H leaders requires both formal training that takes place at least three times a year as well as annual beginning and end-of-the-year interviews. In all, 405 volunteers served 4-H and last year donated 6,066 hours. Examples of activities included 28 teens completing the know-your-county-government program, 15 youths participating in county council, and 52 gaining experience in public speaking. Through these and other projects, 2,579 Collier County youth have completed at least one 4-H project all under Linda's guidance. Linda Denning is one of the best and continues to strive as the 4-H motto would have us all to make the best better. Without any reservation she was nominated and selected as employee of the month for January 1996. Linda, we have here -- we have a letter for your file. MS. DENNING: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a plaque that you may hang on your wall. MS. DENNING: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And we have the famous $50 check for you. MS. DENNING: Oh, great. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Congratulations. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Congratulations. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And those of you that attend the fair and go to the 4-H displays will see all the folks that Linda works with at work doing a great job this year, and I look forward to that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And that starts this weekend. Friday, Friday, yup. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DECLARING JANUARY 9, 1996, AS HERCHELL TROUTMAN DAY - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Item 5(A)(2), Commissioner Constantine. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You may recall when Lyle Sumac was here doing our little guidance and goal setting for the year one of the things he said is we should celebrate our victories. And we are lucky to have the hometown boy makes good story and have somebody from our own community who's done very, very well. Herchell Troutman, if you'd come on up, we wanna -- we have a special proclamation and come on up where everybody can see you, and also this is my big opportunity. I threw a pass. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No better has ever caught a pass from him I want you to know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I want to enter the following proclamation: Whereas, Herchell Troutman is a native of Collier County and a 1994 graduate of Barton Collier High School; and Whereas, he received high academic and athletic marks; and Whereas, in 1994 he was selected and received the Walt Disney's Doer and Dreamer's award which is a great honor, and only one individual from a district is chosen; and Whereas, in his senior year in football he was named the most valuable player, attained first team all state, played in the Florida-Georgia -- Georgia All Star Game, was selected as one of the top 33 players in the state of Florida by the Orlando Sentinel; and Whereas, he was the eleventh player in Florida history to rush 5,000 yards in a career and was selected for numerous all American teams; and Whereas, his athletic achievements were so outstanding that he received a full athletic scholarship at the University of Colorado; and Whereas, on January 1, 1996, he was recognized as the offensive most valuable player in the Cotton Bowl playing the position of halfback for the University of Colorado in a rout, I might add, against the University of Oregon; and Whereas, he carried the ball 13 times gaining 100 yards and scoring a touchdown. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the 9th day of January, 1996, be designated as Herchell Troutman day. Done and ordered this 9th day of January, 1996, John C. Norris, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation for Mr. Troutman. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Before we call this question, though, we need to recognize that there was one accolade that was left off. Herchell was a member of the Naples Junior Pee Wee Gators that went undefeated one year along with my son David. They were on the same team together. So all those in favor -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The highlight of your career. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: -- please say aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to get Herchell used to signing footballs. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll notice the football is NFL, so it's a little precursor of things to come. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to also recognize -- and I'm sure Herchell appreciates -- there are a couple people here that helped him in his -- his high school days. Coach Dave Tanner on football and Joe Consalino on basketball, Barton Collier, and Bill Broxton, the athletic director, are all here. And I appreciate their efforts. MR. TROUTMAN: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hand off, option play, Hancock. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. It's always good to recognize someone of our local community that's -- that's done well. We appreciate the opportunity to -- to honor the youth of our community when we do get that chance. Let's see where we are here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just for Herchell's information and you other folks, you don't have to stay for the rest of this, and there's probably some -- there's probably some media people that would like to talk to you. So again, thank you for being here. Item #SA1 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR OAK COLONY AT THE VINEYARDS - APPROVED WITH STIPULTIONS CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Item 8(A)(1), the water and sewer acceptance for -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Item #SB1 RESOLUTION 96-13/CWS 96-1 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION CERTAIN NON-EXCLUSIVE PERPETUAL UTILITY EASEMENTS AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER PIPELINE, WATER WELLS AND RELATED FACILITIES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT - ADOPTED Item 8(B)(1) is a resolution for the acquisition by gift, purchase, or condemnation of the Collier regional water treatment plant expansion project. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez from your office of capital projects management. This item is to acquire by gift, purchase, or condemnation certain utility easements and temporary construction easements for the water pipelines and water wells in connection with the north water treatment plant expansion project. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Gonzalez, can I interrupt? MR. GONZALEZ: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Again, I don't think this is anything different than anything that we've seen before related to the North Naples plant. And if the board doesn't mind, I'd like to make a motion we approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Gonzalez, is there anything different from the last time we saw this? MR. GONZALEZ: No, sir. You previously approved it. We made some corrections to errors in the -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. GONZALEZ: -- legal descriptions. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Fine. Thank you. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Item #882 FUNDING FOR THE BONITA BEACH ROAD PROJECT AND PROCESSING OF APPROPRIATE AGREEMENTS FOR FUND TRANSFERS - APPROVED And we move on to item 8(B)(2), recommendation to confirm funding for the Bonita Beach Road project. Mr. Archibald. MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. Agenda 8(B)(2) involves the construction dollars and construction phase for the Bonita Beach Road project. And as outlined in the agenda item, staff is in the process of finalizing agreements with Lee County relative to not only the dollar amount and the share of -- of both counties but also to address the transfer of funds. Accordingly, this agenda item is to provide the board a outline of the staff's recommendation of the allocation of funds for this project between both Lee and Collier and to obtain board direction on preparing agreements to include those necessary escrow agreements for the transfer of those funds and the amount of those funds. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the item. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Quick question. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just probably more for public clarification than anything, first of all, this is a 50/50 cost sharing construction program between Lee County and Collier; is that correct? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And have we reviewed Lee's estimates and construction work each step of the way so that we concur and agree that it's a cost-effective project? MR. ARCHIBALD: Yes, we have. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. If there's no further discussion, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? That passes unanimously. Item #BE1 CONTRACT WITH NAPLES AREA TOURISH AND CONVENTION BUREAU FOR $900,000 PREVIOUSLY COLLECTED TOURIST DEVELOPMENT REVENUE, CATEGORY B - APPROVED And we are already down to the county attorney's report. Oh, I'm sorry. We have one more add-on, item 8(E)(1), a TDC discussion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was there a handout on this? MS. GANSEL: Good morning, commissioners. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah, it was given to us this morning. It looks like this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't -- I don't have that with me. Thank you very much. MS. GANSEL: Good morning, commissioners. Jean Gansel from the budget office. The item that we're bringing forward to you this morning is for a contract with the Naples Area Tourism Bureau. You -- in September you approved the allocation of $900,000 in previously collected tourist tax for a two-year period for advertising with category B. What this item is just -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Terribly sorry to interrupt. This is just ratifying our earlier decision? MS. GANSEL: This is just the contract. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion -- MS. GANSEL: Nothing different. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we approve the item. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve the contract. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? MS. GANSEL: Thank you, commissioners. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That goes unanimously as well. And now we're off to the county attorney's report, item 9(A)(1). Item #9A1 RESOLUTION 96-14 DESIGNATING THE CLERK'S OFFICE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING LEGAL ADVERTISING SERVICES - ADOPTED MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9(A)(1) is agenda item prepared as a response to request from the clerk of court concerning legal advertising. The process is required by statute, by county ordinance, and some regulation for all matters that come before this board or some of its appointed boards such as the contract -- well, you have a few boards that handle their own functions. But the clerk had inquired as to authorization to perform the function. It has historically been performed by the clerk and predecessor clerks for many years without direct resolution authorization. Question was arisen -- had arisen in regard to the county attorney or other appropriate office performing that function. And I prepared with the agenda package that was distributed to you a resolution which preserves the status quo at least for the rest of this budget year which would be a resolution with the board directing the clerk to provide the legal advertising services that are required. And I'll respond to any questions if you have any. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I don't really have any questions, just a clarification, because the clerk -- the clerk initiated a letter on this back in what? November or late October? MR. WEIGEL: In October, yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And this -- his comment was that he could find nothing in the statutes requiring him to do this, to do the advertising for the board, and he's just looking for direction from the board that he continue to do that -- that which he has been doing for a number of years. And with that, I will make a motion we approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll -- third. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Fourth. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? And item 9(A)(2) we're -- have been requested to hear at the end of the public hearings. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So we are at the point of public comment. Mr. Dotrill, do we have a public comment this morning? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 96-1 RE PETITION PUD-82-11(3), C. DEaN SMITH OF Q. GR~DY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING AUDUBON JOINT VENTURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ~MENDING THE AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB PUD TO ALLOW ZERO LOT LINE SCREEN ENCLOSURES IN CONJUNCTION WITH PRIVACY WALLS ALONG SIDE LOT LINES, PROVIDED A MINIMUM SEPARATION TO ~N ADJACENT PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OF FIVE FEET OR MORE IN M_~INTAINED IN THE R-2 VILLAS SECTION OF THE AUDUBON COUNTRY CLUB PUD ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. 41 ~ND EXTENDING WESTWARD ACROSS V~NDERBILT ROAD TO LITTLE HICKORY BAY - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All right. We'll move directly into the advertised public hearings then, and we'll go with item 12(B)(2). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize for the public hearing we need to get things on the record and close it and so on and so forth. However, Mr. Hulhere, is this -- I'm sorry. We continued the one I was going to ask the question on. Nevermind. I'll withdraw my question, Mr. Hulhere. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Duly withdrawn. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nearly a motion to approve without -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to just make sure it was uniform with the others. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It don't matter none. MR. NINO: Good morning, commissioners. Ron Nino, planning services staff. This petition if approved would have the effect of amending the Audubon PUD with respect to land that is within the R-2 designated areas of the Audubon PUD which includes an area total acreage of about 43.6 acres of the 180 acres that are in the three residential type development areas. This amendment is driven by a builder who has acquired some 30 lots or so in the Audubon PUD on the west side of Vanderbilt Road and who has a marketing strategy that encourages the extension of a screen -- of the screened-in area to one side of the property line and actually sits on top of a privacy wall, a six-foot privacy wall, that is part and parcel of each of the developments. That is iljustrated on page 6 of your agenda package. I tried to iljustrate the effect of this amendment. It only -- it only relates to the screened-in areas of the lot and not the principal buildings. In other words, it does nothing to diminish the spacing between principal buildings which is ten feet. If this amendment were approved, it would allow the screened-in area to extend to one property line providing the residents immediately adjacent that zero lot line retains a five-foot side yard all the way through so that in terms of screened-in areas we would always have a five-foot separation with one extending to the top of a privacy wall. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: So you have room to get a lawnmower down through there? MR. NINO: Correct. We've had -- we've had numerous calls simply asking for an explanation. After we explained the effect of the amendment, no one had indicated that they were opposed to it -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are there -- are there -- MR. NINO: -- and the same stats prevailed at the planning commission, and the planning commission recommended unanimous approval. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Are there other zero lot line projects within Audubon PUD? MR. NINO: No, there aren't. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: This is the only one. MR. NINO: Yes. It's only four of the screened-in areas. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I wanted to clarify on the same line. I assume there are some vacant parcels that may become zero lot line. My concern is are there any zero lot line under construction at this point that this would change what the original purchasers would be involved in? MR. NINO: Yes, that was our concern as well, Commissioner. There were -- there are developed R-2 areas. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: And we did get calls from people and those -- some of who are currently in an R-2 area, and they -- they expressed no opposition to the possibility that then that would extend to them and their neighbors. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is in those developed R-2 areas where there may be a vacant lot that is not yet built, the person who bought next to them under one set of development standards would now be subjected to a more lenient set of standards. In other words, where that screen enclosure -- MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- was going to be ten feet from theirs -- MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it may now sit right on top of a wall, and I don't think that's -- that's good practice. MR. NINO: Well, that was -- we pointed that out to those people that called, and they expressed no particular concern over that possibility. And we have to appreciate that first and foremost there -- there could be a six-foot privacy wall, masonry wall, along there. For all practical purposes there is five -- the people enjoy a five-foot separation for all practical purposes when you think of looking at a six-foot masonry wall. All this does is allow one of those sides the discretion of extending the screened-in lanai to the top of the masonry wall. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh. But the wall would be allowed to be there under any circumstances, okay. MR. NINO: Irrespective of what we do, correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I -- I don't have really a problem with this. My concern is somebody six months from now who, you know, bought and the -- the lot next to them was vacant, they built a home, and all of a sudden the screen is on top of the wall, and, you know, I'm called every name in the book for allowing that to happen. And I -- I can see that -- that type of change occurring. It's -- it's happened in other developments where we change the development regulations during the building process and what they thought was going to happen doesn't. And that's -- that's a significant concern for me. Even though the folks who called you may not have expressed concern -- I'm sure you did a good job explaining it to them -- I would like to find a way to make this possible for undeveloped areas or areas to be developed. But those that currently have pulled building permits under the other regulations, I wouldn't like to see a change in midstream. Is there a way in the PUD to -- to cause that to happen? MR. NINO: Well, the only way that I could think of would be to specifically target those tracts that are designated R-2 that have no development in them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we were to take undeveloped R-2 tracts and designate them as R-2-A, for instance, and then provide these standards for R-2-A, we'd be exempting those that are currently under development. MR. NINO: Correct. However, I -- you know, I would again remind you that the thrust -- the thrust of open space -- side yard requirements, setback requirements, are for circulation of light and air. And I professionally personally have a -- I'm surprised at the proposition that says when you -- when you put a fence -- it's still open to the air, it's still open to circulation -- when you -- when you put a screen on it that somehow that changed the concept that there ought to be some extra spatial arrangements required. You know, you can -- you can play or recreate to the boundaries of your property whether you put a screen over it or not. And I guess that always drives the way I feel professionally about the issue of screened-in lanais extending to yards. I mean, I could put in a horseshoe pit right along my -- my property line, you know, and I could play and make all kinds of noise right up to my property line. But the minute I put a fence over it, a screen over it, somehow or other it changes. Quite frankly, I find that unique to our local situation. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, it's not so much I have a problem with the application. But the nature of folks who buy under a certain set of guidelines and those guidelines change are generally not happy people down the road. And it's a concern. I wish I knew -- is -- is the petitioner here? MR. NINO: I -- I don't think they made it. I -- I told them the earliest would be ten o'clock. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Oh, well. MR. NINO: But you're too efficient this morning. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do we have public speakers? MR. NINO: What you asked for could be achieved. I believe we could -- we could certainly do that, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean, there may not be zero lot line areas that are still under development. They may be built out and -- and my point is -- is moot. I don't know. But I do know enough that when you change these standards in midstream someone down the road is going to be unhappy if they're affected. And you -- what you talked about, open space and circulation, is true. But there's a visual difference between a six-foot wall and open air above it and a six-foot wall with an extension of six or eight feet of a screened lanai on top of it. It has a visual appearance of kind of penning in a little more. So, you know, I may be talking about one or two people in the entire Audubon development. I -- I don't know. But I'm -- I'm -- I would like to know the scope of it. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close the public hearing, I'll make a motion along the lines of what Commissioner Hancock has suggested with R-2-A because even if it is only one or two people, that's their home, and that's a pretty solid investment. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Absolutely. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve the item with the one change Commissioner Hancock has made with the R-2-A subsection district, whatever the appropriate name would be. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: To -- to clarify it so this change impacts only those areas that have not incurred development at this point that are to be developed, and with that, I'll second the motion. MR. NINO: Yes, I understand that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, same sign. That's unanimous. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 96-15 RE PETITION CU-95-3, ROBERT S. HALL OF PINE RIDGE AUTO PARTS AND SALES, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE OF THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT FORAN AUTO SALVAGE YARD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF C.R. 951 AND U.S. 41 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF U.S. 41, NORTH OF KREHLING INDUSTRIES (WITHIN THE KREHLING INDUSTRIAL PARK) - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES And we'll go to 13(A)(1), petition CU-95-3. Mr. Milk. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, this is a conditional use, and I don't know about other members of the board, but I have received significant numbers of letters regarding this -- this item, and I'd like to clarify for the record that I have received the letters, have responded to them, and feel quite certain my decision will be made based on the public -- public information developed today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise I've received the same correspondence or a fair amount of it and will base my decision on the information presented today. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I have also received correspondence and will base my decision on what we hear today. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any decision I offer will be based on today's public hearing. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Milk, you have the floor. MR. MILK: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting petition CU-95-3. Petitioner is requesting conditional use 2.2.16.3.20 in the industrial zoning district for an auto salvage yard. The subject property is located approximately three and a half miles southeast of the intersection of U.S. 41 and 951. The subject property is located in the industrial park commonly referred to as the Krehling park which is located north of the GTE Mobilnet tower, north of the Krehling concrete batch plant, and there's a contractor's construction yard situated in between there. Access to the site is provided on a 30-foot ingress-egress easement that is located east of Krehling and extends all the way north to the end of the petitioner's property boundary. It is currently paved at and to the north end of the Krehling batch plant. The petitioner is willing to extend this road further north for ingress-egress purposes making that a dustless surface. I have not personally received any letters of opposition. I received a couple phone calls of inquiry on the subject property. The planning commission voted six to two to recommend approval for the -- I'm sorry. Strike that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Eight to zero. MR. MILK: Anyway, the -- the planning commission recommended eight to zero to recommended approval. No one spoke at the public hearing in opposition. The phone calls that I did receive were worried about the opaque screening, the traffic, watch dogs, automobile salvage, and crushing and shredding. And I think if you look in the resolution, there is to be no auto shredding on site and that the auto crushing will be done by others with a portable compactor on an as-needed basis. And the stacking requirements for the automobiles shall not extend above the seven-feet fence requirement that is to be opaque. And then on the exterior of the fence it will be buffered and landscaped according with the Collier County Land Development Code. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Milk, take a moment and show us where any residential areas are in the nearby vicinity. MR. MILK: The residential area really exists approximately 500 feet to the east on what is called Trinity Place. Most of this property is five-acre parcels. The zoning is agricultural. Most of those folks are engaged in business-related activities such as landscaping, trucking, farming, nursery businesses. Yet it's established as a single-family neighborhood. Most of the area to the north and to the west is active agricultural land. The owner of this particular piece to the north and the property owner has spoken. She has indicated she may want to sell her property to Mr. Hall. This little stretch right here adjacent to the east is undeveloped as is the travel trailer recreational vehicle park. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Question from board members? Public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. MR. MILK: The only thing I can add is back in 1990 there was -- the previous owner received an approval for an auto salvage yard. It was extended yet expired in 1992 because there was no development or activity on the site. Approximately six months ago the staff granted a site development plan for what we call automobile storage on the subject property and received approval for a site development plan but no auto salvage or wholesale operation, just for storage of automobiles. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Mr. Milk, there -- you said that there are a number of visual safeguards, opaque screening seven feet high and landscape buffering on -- MR. MILK: The landscape buffering, the opaque screening, and the seven-foot fence and the height limitation of automobile stacking on the yard itself cannot exceed seven feet. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have a question. Mr. Milk, the crushing of automobiles you said would be done by a -- a contracted party? MR. MILK: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are there going to be limits on the hours of operation? Crushing automobiles is quite noisy. MR. MILK: The limits of operation is 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. as recorded in the resolution. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.? MR. MILK: That's correct. And according to Mr. Hall, it's really on an as-needed basis. So there's not a lot of cars that are skeleton relics or the frames that are left on site. They merely bring in their portable crusher which is quite an expensive machine. They crush them, they cube them, and they haul them off site. That would also keep the volume of car and car skeletons from being occupied on site. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Would -- would it be unreasonable for us to limit the crushing activity to areas that are purely within the day -- daytime, nine to five, ten to five, area so that we're not disrupting individual's sleep nor their dinner hour? MR. MILK: Sure, ten to two, something in that regards. I'm not sure when that crusher is -- Mr. Hall's here. He could possibly answer that. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It's -- it's just that they're going to do it on a -- on an irregular basis. MR. MILK: Right. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And the residents who do live within 500 feet of it don't know when it's going to happen. And the crusher may get there late one evening and they sit down to their dinner meal at 5:30 and they've got this hottendons noise going on which under the current agreement is allowed to happen until seven. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I just ask on that point, too, what are the -- what's the hour, Mr. Weigel, when our noise ordinance kicks in to a different decibel level? I mean, wouldn't the noise ordinance address this? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Six o'clock, isn't it? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it six o'clock when you have to stay below a certain volume? MR. MILK: I believe it's 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and then it kicks into a lesser decibel. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That might -- MR. MILK: Code enforcement -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually I think it's seven to ten. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: 10 p.m. MR. MILK: But there is a difference in decibel. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At different hours of the day. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It drops either five or ten decibels after a certain point. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That point's at 10 p.m. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it ten? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think it is at ten o'clock, yeah, sixty-five to fifty-five. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think nine to five is reasonable. That's business hours. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a question. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said -- I think you said a conditional use had been granted for similar use between -- 1990 and it expired in 1992; is that correct? MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What has changed in the area? How has the complexion of the area changed since that time? MR. MILK: I think the area or the complexion is relatively the same. The site itself is basically undeveloped as far as the actual five-acre site. However, it has been filled and has some fairly good sub grade on the particular site. There's some exotics on site that need to be removed. But Krehling was there. The construction yard was there, and GTE Mobilnet was still there. The only thing that may have changed now is there's a right- and left-turn lane on U.S. 41 for safer ingress and egress. I think that's been improved like in the last three, four years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because while I agree with Commissioner Matthews that we probably have to have some restrictions, if a conditional use passed in the past and we haven't had a whole lot of change down there, I think from a legal standpoint we have a hard time turning around and turning it down for the same use now. MR. MILK: I think what we tried to do on this one is limit the shredding, the storage above the seven feet, the opacity. And with the further regulations in the Land Development Code, it's become more stringent than the one previously approved. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Hall. Help me understand on a salvage yard what either state or federal requirements you have to comply with regarding removing fluids from vehicles that come on site such as oil, antifreeze, and other potential pollutants. What do you have to do when these cars come on site to ensure that we don't end up with a groundwater problem? MR. HALL: Okay. All the -- all the automobiles when they're brought on the premises must be removed -- the gas tanks that have fluid in them must be removed. The oil must be removed. Any gasoline that is taken out of the gas tanks must be put in containers. And we have a company that comes over from Miami and hauls that off. Also the tires that are taken off the cars that -- are not to be sold. You can only have a certain amount of tires on your premises and -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hall, could you identify yourself for the record, please? MR. HALL: My name is Robert Hall. I've been in Naples for 30 years. I've been in the automobile salvage business for 30 years here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the -- all the fluids are removed in a contained area to avoid any groundwater contamination? MR. HALL: It's all regulated by the EPA, everything. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Regulated to death I might add. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. I just -- I just wanted to know for my benefit. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one more question. Mr. Milk, the conditional use being asked for today is identical to the conditional use that expired in '92? MR. MILK: In somewhat -- yes, it is. On the framework of it's an auto salvage yard, yes. But there's stipulations with no shredding and compacting by others and the opacity requirements and the stacking requirements. It's much different and much stringent today than it was six years ago. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hall, earlier, though, is the question if you could still achieve what you need to achieve when those restrictions of hours are placed as far as crushing. MR. HALL: There's no problem with that. The crusher's only going to be in there probably once every three months or maybe once every six months. And the crusher makes less noise than one of Krehling's cement trucks so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the item with staff stipulations. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Anything about the hours of operation? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Yet limit hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's for the crusher. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the crusher. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We're just talking about the crushing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, for the crusher alone. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's fair. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? That passes. Thank you, Mr. Hall. MR. HALL: Thank you. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 96-16 RE PETITION CU-95-20, ROBERT L. DUANE OF HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING BOYNE USA SOUTH, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "17" OF THE "A" ZONING DISTRICT FOR A DRIVING RANGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ABUTTING U.S. 41 WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF ROYAL HAMMOCK ROAD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Item 13(A)(2), petition CU-95-20. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see Mr. Driving Range in the audience. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a golf driving range in the general vicinity of the petition you just heard farther east on 41 and to the south at the intersection of 41 and Royal Hammock Boulevard in what is referred to as the Boyne South Golf Course. The tract is zoned agricultural, and it's outside the urban area. Therefore, this is one of the uses that is allowed for agricultural as a conditional use. The traffic was studied and found that since the golf course entrance, the proposed driving range entrance, is before the single-family houses at Boyne South that none of the driving range traffic will have to pass any residential areas. The -- we did receive a letter from a gentleman who was concerned about an unsightly netting along 41 several tens of feet tall and lighting. The petitioner has proposed neither one. Staff was at first concerned about the netting and U.S. 41. And upon a site visit, there is a very large area between even the boundaries of the property and the actual pavement of U.S. 41. So staff -- unless it's recommended by Florida DOT, staff had no concerns about that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they're not proposing lighting? MR. REISCHL: They're not proposing lighting. We did put a stipulation in there concerning lighting in case they decide to in the future. But as of today, they have no plans for lighting. And as -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, would they have to come back if they wanted lighting in the future? MR. REISCHL: No, we did put a stipulation -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Oh, you put it in there. MR. REISCHL: -- concerning limiting hours and lighting in here, shielding lighting. With compatibility to the neighbors, they have proposed an enhanced type B buffer between the tees and the single-family homes over here. Instead of 15 feet as the code requires, they proposed a 25-foot enhanced buffer. And again, we have put that in the resolution. And with regard to the mobile home zoning on this section, it's densely forested cypress wetland, so that does not appear to be developable at this point in time. And the planning commission recommended unanimous approval. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, is it correct that Boyne owns both the single-family undeveloped lots and the golf course? I know at one time they were intending to purchase both. Is -- do we know if that ownership transition occurred? MR. REISCHL: The petitioner has stated that they don't own contiguous properties. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Of the single-family lots that are bordering this proposed range, are any of them developed? MR. REISCHL: There are two houses closest to the entrance on 41. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. REISCHL: I drove through the development. There's approximately eight or nine houses. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the petitioner has made no indication that they want lighting -- MR. REISCHL: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because of the proximity of those homes, I would be inclined to remove all reference to lighting from the application. And if they wanted it some other date, they can modify their conditional use. If they don't want it, let's not put it in there because the proximity of those homes is my thinking. You know, other areas we've looked at, we've located these next to ag. areas or -- or something like that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But just state the hours of operation -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Take the hours of operation for lighting out -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- daylight hours. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- out of the application and -- MR. REISCHL: Okay. We didn't -- we didn't have hours of operation for lighting. We had hours of operation. And then the stipulation on lighting was if lighting is installed, it should be shielded from adjacent properties including U.S. 41 right-of-way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it wasn't a part of their application, then -- MR. REISCHL: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- then I would -- I would be inclined to removed the lighting due to proximity of the homes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What did you have for hours of operation in there? MR. REISCHL: 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: During the summer that's -- MR. REISCHL: I'm sorry. 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's a little long. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What if we just altered that to say during daylight hours? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: During daylight hours? I would -- MR. REISCHL: I think that was the intent of the petitioner. I don't think he made it here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that would address the light issue and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. REISCHL: He was intending on daylight hours at summer being till 9 p.m. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's -- let's change that to -- my preference would be to change that to daylight hours and remove any references to lighting from the application. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I was going to say because my -- my preference rather than just remove reference to lighting would be to specifically say -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Operation is limited to daylight hours, and lighting is not a part of this approval or something to that effect. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Strictly prohibited by Major League Baseball. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Make a motion to approve the item with the changes being that operation limited to daylight hours and lighting is not a part of this approval. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Any further comment? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? And that passes five-zero. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 96-17 RE PETITION V-95-19, MICHAEL J. LANDY ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND ELIZABETH ENGLISH, REQUESTING A 3.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AND A 2.5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE BUFFER OF 7.5 FEET ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERN 50 FEET OF LOT 14, BLOCK B, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, UNIT 1 - ADOPTED. STAFF TO DEVELOP PARAMETER GUIDELINES 13(A)(3), petition V-95-19. MR. HULHERE: Good morning. For the record, Bob Hulhere with planning services staff presenting this petition on behalf of Martin Powers. This is a request for a variance from the required landscape buffer. This is a non-conforming lot. It was platted in 1952. The intention is to develop three livable stories over one story of parking. And in order to meet the ADA requirements and provide a pathway from the parking area and around the building to the pool in the rear, the applicant is unable to provide the seven and a half foot landscape buffer. The landscape buffer is seven and a half feet because the setback is seven and a half feet, and the landscape buffer mirrors the side yard setback there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, they're looking for 42 inches on one side and -- MR. HULHERE: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 30 inches on the other side? MR. HULHERE: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's to -- to be able to accommodate the ADA requirements. MR. HULHERE: And they will place the required vegetation within the remaining buffer area, that's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we receive any opposition to this? MR. HULHERE: There was a -- one person was at the planning commission, showed up, and his concern was relative to view blockage as he owned the adjacent property. But once he saw the plan and saw they had set the building as close to the front as possible to preserve the usable area in the rear, he did not have an objection. We did receive one letter from a William E. Marvin, 9517 Gulf Shore Drive North, who only provided at the bottom of our letter that he is totally against any variance with no reason or comment. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the reasons we're having -- we're starting to have problems in Vanderbilt Beach on -- particularly on variances, but as people come in, they have to build their homes to a -- an elevation for flood insurance that was not required previously. What happens is where we used to have a low level home and a pool deck, we now have retaining walls 10 and 12 feet high that are actually building out to the envelope and blocking any peripheral view from -- from these older homes that were built in the sixties and -- and some in the seventies. So I don't know if that's the case here. You have seen the plans, Mr. Hulhere? MR. HULHERE: Yeah. In this case it's -- it's gonna be a -- it's really -- it's really a triplex although not in the traditional sense. It's three living stories above one story of parking. And you're correct in what they're doing to -- to accommodate the required flood elevation and meet the parking on a very small site is place the parking underneath the building. However, the pool is -- you know, is elevated as it has to be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. HULHERE: So, therefore, to be able to get from the parking area to the pool for a -- a disabled individual, they -- there's no way -- the distance is too short. There's no way they can do it without bringing them out of the building and walking them along the walkway along the sides of the building. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's one of my favorites, raising the pool above flood elevation. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, you wouldn't want to get water in your pool, would you? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I don't see any reason for that. In this case is the pool, in fact, elevated to the first floor level of the building? MR. HULHERE: I believe it is. It's above the parking. The parking is below the pool, yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Wow, heavy water. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This -- this is part of some of the problem is -- is as you go down Vanderbilt Beach on these streets, you'll see these seven-, eight-, ten-foot retaining walls for the pool, you know, and -- and they're basically ditching the neighbor next door to build their pool up ten feet. And I've got a problem with that. Is -- is the architect or petitioner here on this today? MR. HULHERE: I don't think they are here. But to my knowledge it's based on FEMA requirements. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the pool? MR. HULHERE: Yes, yeah, and building code. MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HULHERE: I believe that is the case. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the -- wow. That's interesting. Okay. In case you want to live in your pool or you want to, you know -- MR. HULHERE: I -- I did also just want to add that the planning commission did recommend approval unanimously of this petition. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We don't have any public -- we don't have any speakers, so I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the item. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question before we continue. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is -- is this what you would consider a land-related hardship based on -- on the ADA? MR. HULHERE: I think it is based on the non-conforming size of the lot and the limitations placed thereon. It is a legal non-conforming lot. It is completely developable. And when you add the ADA requirements which they are trying to meet in providing a handicapped parking space and once you provide that, then you must provide access. I believe we can -- that it does constitute a land-related hardship. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. No further comment, I'll call the question. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Unanimous again. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We are a congenial group today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to ask on the tails of that if we could contact FEMA and put together some of these requirements. If we are requiring or FEMA's requiring pools to be elevated above flood elevation and that in turn is creating a difficult situation in some of these older neighborhoods, I'd like to begin some dialogue and see if we can't find a way to get around that. So if I could ask -- Mr. Dotrill would help me in directing staff in -- in -- let's develop the parameters where those guidelines are, and I'd be happy to be involved in discussions with -- with FEHA to try and find a more reasonable solution than what's being presented. MR. HULHERE: It does result in a number of variances being requested for that reason so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it just doesn't make sense to me. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's a good idea. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 96-18 RE PETITION CU-95-19, MR. TERRANCE L. KEPPLE OF BRUCE GREEN & ASSOCIATES, REPRESENTING ST. MARK'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "2" OF THE RSF-4 ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FORAN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF N. COLLIER BOULEVARD AND ELKCAM CIRCLE -ADOPTED Item 13(A)(4), petition CU-95-19. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning staff presenting petition CU-95-19, Terry Kepple representing St. Mark's Episcopal Church repre -- requesting conditional use 2 of the RSF-4 district to allow for an expansion of existing 200-seat church to 300 seats. The conceptual site plan indicates that there are three main additions to the parish hall, church office, and sanctuary and also -- plan also includes a bell tower and provides parking and landscaping. The traffic impact review indicates that the site-generated traffic is estimated to be 56 additional trips on a Sunday which will not significantly impact North Collier Boulevard or Elkcam Circle. The access point off of Bluebird Avenue will be signed, marked, and configured so as to direct traffic to turn left and proceed to North Collier Boulevard which will prevent residential cut-through traffic. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on December 7, and they have recommended approval by an eight-to-zero vote. Staff hasn't received any letters for or against this petition and recommends approval. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Questions for our staff? MR. DORRILL: No one's registered. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Letters of opposition, anything? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: No letters? This is -- this is not expanding the site but merely expanding the building within the site. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I make a motion to approve. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion by Commissioner Constantine I believe was first and Mr. Hancock second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Item #13A5 PETITION V-95-26, BURT L. SAUNDERS, P.A., OF WOODWAD, PIRES, ANDERSON & LOMBAARDO, P.A., REPRESENTING DEL H. AND NANCY ACKERMAN, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE OPAQUE FENCING REQUIREMENTS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF THOMASSON DRIVE AND BAYSHORE DRIVE FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 4825 BAYSHORE DRIVE - DENIED Item 13(A)(5), petition V-95-26. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this like a sign of things to come? Petitioners, be on notice. John Norris as chairman will be done by noon. MR. MILK: For the record, Bryan Milk. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Get here early. MR. MILK: I am presenting petition V-95-26. The petitioner is requesting a variance to the screening and opacity requirements from the landscaping code. The subject property is located at the southeast intersection of Thomasson Drive and Bayshore Drive. Currently Del Ackerman owns the subject property in question. At the corner there is Del's Grocery, the subject property. There is All Marine which is a marine repair facility and a boat storage yard. This petition requests a variance to the opaque fencing requirements that is required around the subject property. Property to the south and to the east is zoned RMF-6. It's currently undeveloped, and it's owned by Mr. Ackerman. Property on Cottage Grove Avenue typically consists of single-family dwellings. Property across and to the west of Bayshore Drive is a developed office building zoned C-3. The petitioner is required through a site development plan done in 1992 to provide an opaque fence around the subject property for the outdoor storage of recreational vehicles including boats. That has never been accomplished, and that's why we are here today. The petitioner claims that the equipment, electronics, hardware, and props within the boat are somewhat of a scope for criminals to provide criminal activity on the site. So throughout the last couple years and through the efforts of the Collier County Sheriff's Department, they have requested and approached the owner that the opaque fencing requirements be left as a see-through chainlink fence and that they provide the necessary double staggered hedge row and linear -- the canopy trees every 30 linear feet. Staff supports the subject petition. It was approved by the planning commission six-two with a request to waive the fencing requirements along the northern, southern, and western property boundaries, providing an opaque fence along the eastern property boundary. And if the residential property to the south were to develop, they would also have to provide an opaque fence there. Otherwise from the north and the western property boundaries, that was to be leave -- left as a see-through chainlink fence for visual security purposes. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: On the southern boundary, Mr. Milk, how far is it from that -- the fence in question to the nearest property owner -- or I'm sorry, the nearest resident? MR. MILK: The nearest resident is really on the corner of the subject property. What happens, Mr. Ackerman owns these subject lots. And I believe lot 22, there is a single-family house. Most of this property that abuts the southern end of the subject property is full of exotic vegetation at this point. So it's basically opaque in nature currently. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The opaque fence was initially required when? MR. MILK: When the petitioner came in for the site development plan for the outdoor storage yard. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which was -- MR. MILK: 1992. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 1992. MR. MILK: Right. Which is a requirement of the landscaping code for screening and buffering for outdoor storage yards. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have we been negotiating what the most appropriate way to deal with that fence is for almost four years, or has it just not been complied with for four years? MR. MILK: I think what happened is through code violations as far as the owner's concerned with landscaping and some of the requirements of the initial building permits, a CO was granted. They had some problems. I think something happened where somebody grabbed a lot of the landscaping off the site. There was just some things that weren't completed as required per the site development plan and the building permit. And through the last couple of years through code infractions and violations, it was brought to our attention. Staff has remedied a lot of the violations as has the petitioner. The only existing violation at this point is the need for the opaque fence. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many cases are on file with the sheriff's department of either theft or vandalism or any of the other suggestions that have been a problem or could be a problem with -- with the opaque fence in that four-year time period? MR. MILK: I'm not sure how many there are. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we know if there are any? MR. MILK: I don't know if there are any, no. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let's hear from the speakers, Mr. Dorrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Pires I believe is here representing the petitioner. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Just a reminder to our speakers, we ask that you limit your remarks to five minutes, and please identify yourself for the record. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Anthony P. Pires Junior, law firm of Woodward, Pires, Anderson, and Lombardo. Mr. Saunders was unable to be here today. I'm representing the petitioner. Just briefly, we support staff's recommendation with one request that since Mr. Ackerman does own the -- all the adjacent residential properties to the east and to the south that the opacity requirement be waived also on to the eastern portion, the southerly and eastern portion. Those parcels are owned by the petitioner. I'm available to answer any questions and also like to reserve the opportunity to also discuss issues before the board if there are any parties in opposition to the request. MR. DORRILL: Also have -- MR. PIRES: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: -- Mr. Gebhardt. MR. GEBHARDT: Good morning. My name is Robert Gebhardt. I'm with the law firm of Gebhardt and Miller, and I represent Bayshore Properties which has a substantial investment in a new office building across the street from this project. This would be across the street on Bayshore side. First of all, there was extensive evidence presented before the planning board. And for the record, I'd like to incorporate that by reference. Also I believe some pictures were presented to the planning board, and I believe they're here. Do you have -- Bryan, do you have the pictures? MR. MILK: Yes, I do. MR. GEBHARDT: I'd like the commission to take a look at these pictures while I'm speaking. MR. GEBHARDT: This is the fence in question. I'd like to give you a brief history of this. In August 1992 a site plan was developed for this property for the marina. The plan set forth certain conditions that were incorporated from the Land Development Code. On December of 1992 a certificate of occupancy was issued for the property. One month later a -- the certificate of occupancy was revoked. I have a letter here from the -- copy of -- code enforcement, Dick Clark, who says the certificate of occupancy has been revoked. It's still in the file. I don't understand why this business is operating at all. I'll show you this as well. In 1993, late 1993, the property was cited for code violations, and the order -- and the owner was given 60 days to rectify the manner -- matter. Nothing was done. After the 60 days expired, the owner was given another six months to correct the matter. Nothing was done. In November John Hadajewski who used to be head of site development planning in Collier County reviewed the property for code violations. He did this not as a -- as an employee of the county but as an independent engineer. Hr. Hadajewski found 14 code violations which were subsequently written up by the Code Enforcement Board. This was two years after the property had been developed. No corrective action was taken. Now, the staff maintains that everything has been cured on that property. I have an engineer that says that nothing was cured. I do know this: That what happened on the code violations was there are at least three of them where the staff cited the violations and then changed their mind. The owner did not do anything to comply with the code violations. In September the matter was put on the -- I'm sorry. The matter was put on the Code Enforcement Board in July. In August -- just clear the record, in August it appears that the owner went to the sheriff in August of 1995, two years after this -- almost three years after this property was approved. He went to the sheriff and said, do you believe that there should be opaque fencing here? The sheriff did not come to him from anything that I can determine in the record. And the letter is before the planning board. Do you have that also, Bryan? MR. MILK: It's in their packets. MR. GEBHARDT: It's in their packet? The letter you can see clearly is in response to a request. The sheriff is not banging the door down here saying you can't put opaque fencing here because there are no crimes. I will also say this: That we have done a study of all the reported crime -- crime reports, Commissioner Constantine, in that area for the past three years. And I can find -- and I do not recall any single instance of the some 250 to 300 crime reports reported out of Del's Delicatessen that involve the property behind it, in other words, where the owner reported something -- something stolen. Now, what we really have here is that the owner was required to put in opaque fencing by the Land Development Code and as a part of the site development plan. For two years he just plumb refused to do it. And when the code violator -- code enforcement got after him, then and only then does he go to the sheriff and at the same time make a -- an application for a variance. That's what happened. He just refuses to do it, and you can -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: That's it, Mr. Gebhardt. Could you wrap us for us, please? MR. GEBHARDT: Yes. I would like to read if I may take one more minute, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: If you could wrap it up. MR. GEBHARDT: Okay. If you'd take a look at 2.7.5.6 of the Land Development Code which are the requirements for finding of a variance, six of the seven requirements are not present here. This commission has no authority under the Land Development Code to grant this variance. And furthermore, opaque fencing is required for every single property like this under the Land Development Code. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Gebhardt, what is the one of those seven that you think applies here? MR. GEBHARDT: If you'll bear with me while I get back. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. MR. GEBHARDT: I think there's -- number 4, it says, will the variance if granted be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land or structure, I just don't see how that's applicable in this case. But the other six are clearly applicable, and there's nothing to differentiate this property from any other piece of property in -- in this zoning district. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a whole lot of questions that were raised by Mr. Gebhardt's presentation. Should I just let you respond? Are you prepared to respond to some of those about code violations and -- and what action was taken, or should I ask you? MR. MILK: About the historical sequence, I know there were code violations because some of the measures and violations that were spoke about weren't accomplished until it was brought to the Code Enforcement Board. When it got that far, then planning and zoning became involved. Things were delayed. They were delayed because there was questions on parking and striping and parking bumpers and parking boat trailers in the water management area. That took a few months to resolve. As time elapsed, then we -- we were asked to look at a variance for the opacity requirements. Some time has further elapsed. During this time a majority of the violations that were cited were taken care of in this probably last six-month time frame. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And by that do you mean things were changed or -- MR. MILK: Not changed. Just whatever was approved by the 1992 site development plan, that was brought into compliance fully. And that means water management retention, parking, striping, buffering as far as the bushes are concerned, the trees, landscaping, sprinkler. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it isn't that we decided we had cited them inappropriately. In fact, they corrected the -- the -- the cause of the citation? MR. MILK: The code violations that were brought forward to my knowledge to date are all concurred with and all corrected. The only violation that exists is the opacity requirement for the fencing and screening requirements for outdoor storage lots. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm trying to picture along that road what similar properties have opaque fencing. Can you help me? Do you know any? MR. MILK: In that particular roadway, no. Most of that zoning on that particular stretch is all C-3 and C-4 on Bayshore Drive. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So there are no other storage facilities of this type on that roadway? MR. MILK: Well, there's some marine repair businesses, but there's no -- for storage today it requires a C-5 zoning district or a designated marina. And what happened in 1992, 1991, the definition of a marina would allow this type of facility and did. Half the subject property is zoned C-5. Half of it's zoned C-3. At a particular point when the petitioner was coming in, it was going through the zoning teevaluation process. I'm not sure what happened, but it maintained a C-5 status on the northern part, C-3 on the southern part. Mr. Baginski, the zoning director, made an interpretation that that storage lot met the definition of a marina. Therefore, that became a point of the site development plan. That definition has since been changed to provide a navigable waterway for all marina-related uses. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if this were current -- if this were a brand new application today, it would not -- the use would not be permitted because it's not a C-5 zoning. MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if it were permitted in a C-5 zoning, would opaque fencing be required? MR. MILK: That's correct, opaque or landscape buffer, a combination thereof. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even in C-5. MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's pretty tough to get around. MR. GEBHARDT: That's my point exactly. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Any other speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: None -- none who are registered. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Pires, did you have one last comment here? MR. PIRES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if I may then. Mr. Ackerman may want to make a couple of statements for the commission. I think it may be helpful. On this I think the staff has stated and they stated vehemently and vigorously before the planning commission that the site is now in compliance with all Land Development Code requirements except for this issue involving opacity. That became -- it was an issue. I believe that's what Bryan said, that it is in compliance with all requirements. The issue with regards to the sheriff's department survey, in your packet is a survey dated June of '95 which is attached to the letter dated August of '95. And in the business security survey which is part of the package, it says -- under miscellaneous openings it says, maintain open and visible fencing with clear area around outside. So it is obviously a strong recommendation of the sheriff's department in the business security survey done in June of '95 to not have any obstruction for visibility. There is expensive equipment. The planning commission mentioned that about electronic and navigational equipment that's easily removed on this property that is attractive and would -- opaque fencing would provide basically a cover for thief, for burglars to do their work under the cover of this opacity. As I mentioned -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Pires -- MR. PIRES: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- if that's -- if that's the sheriff's recommendation, I would assume it's his recommendation generally that we -- we don't have an opaque fencing requirement even, you know, under any circumstances. MR. PIRES: I don't know. I know that in this area he made that recommendation for this property based upon the situation, I think both the neighborhood, the community, and the nature of the use. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And he also suggested, though, that a possible compromise might be a chainlink fence with privacy slats spaced so as to allow partial visibility. Is that something that would -- that would comply with our opacity requirement? I don't know what he means by privacy slats. I guess little plastic strips. MR. MILK: That's the individual slats that are weaved through the ports in the fence. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that satisfy the code's requirement? MR. MILK: It would satisfy, yes, it would. MR. PIRES: Two other brief comments and I'll -- and Ackerman may want to say a few things. There are other -- two other boat storage facilities along Bayshore Drive. And none of them have opaque fencing and that the staff has made strong recommendations supporting the variance. The planning commission did. And I haven't heard any substantial, competent evidence to the contrary to the staff recommendations so -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Those slats through a chainlink fence are considered an opaque fence? MR. MILK: As long as they are put together as an opaque fence. In other words, you can't have a slat, an open space, a slat. In other words, that whole fence would have to be woven with the slats to achieve the opacity that's required in the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So no peaking through spots. MR. MILK: There's no -- you couldn't put a design on there leaving one section opaque, one see-through, one opaque. It'd have to be a continuous slatting measure around the entire property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think -- other item. Gebhardt made the point that we're required if we're going to grant the variance to meet certain criteria, and I'm not sure that we do here. There are certain other ways in which you may be able -- I understand your concern about losing electronics and such. But, I mean, there are security guards, security dogs, security equipment. I mean, surely there are other ways to approach that other than simply leaving the fence open so if someone drives by and sees someone doing it, I've got to think that's not an efficient way at 2 a.m. of handling security either. So I'm not sure we meet the burden for a variance. And if I'm wrong, I need you to tell me that now, Mr. Pires, because up to this point I haven't heard where it does. MR. PIRES: Well, I think if you look at the -- the staff report that was to the planning commission, also to the board where they went through the criteria required by the Land Development Code and the answers to the questions in the staff analysis, your experts, is it does meet the criteria for a variance, that there are special conditions and circumstances existing peculiar to location size and characteristics of the land. There are special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, that the variance granted will be the minimum variance necessary and the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, basically, Mr. Pires, as I read them, the -- the staff -- and I think it's significant that the staff finds that the variance criteria are met. And that's frankly the most persuasive part of this petition from my perspective. And what I see that the staff's rationale is that special circumstances are the level of crime primarily. It looks like -- MR. MILK: In this vicinity. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In this vicinity. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I need an explanation of what all those are. I mean, what you've read is the boilerplate language of yes, it meets it. But it doesn't tell us specifically how. And again, you've said yeah, crime in this vicinity. Yet when I asked you 15 minutes ago how many incidents of crime have been reported on this particular property since it was approved three years ago, four years ago, you had no idea. MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: The other thing too is -- MR. MILK: I've had no idea from the sheriff's office. It's only been through Mr. Ackerman and the petitioners. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Well, but I -- I don't know and maybe you can correct me here but I don't believe that crime rates in localized neighborhood is a condition that's expressed within our Land Development Code. I'm not sure that it is. MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Perhaps it should be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, there's -- we're -- we're kind of getting away from something in that we believe there's nothing else Mr. -- just a second. There's nothing else Mr. Ackerman can do, he's at the poor will and mercy of anyone who wants to climb the fence and -- and take radios that anyone in their right mind removes when they park their boat. These Loran units, these radios have two little screws, one on each side, and you loosen them up and you pull it out and you put it in your pocket and you take it with you. And it saves you about $500 when somebody breaks in your boat. This is a classic argument between whether or not the functional characteristics of a business outweigh the benefit of screening of a -- an offensive appearance to the neighborhood. Whether Mr. Ackerman owns the property on two sides or whether traffic has to go by the front of this thing and look at it every day, I personally find chainlink fences right on the sidewalk fronting roads throughout Collier County offensive. I think they're unattractive. I think they take away from the community. And I think the reason for our screening is to say if you're going to operate that kind of business, we want it screened in a more aesthetic manner than a chainlink fence allows. And if that forces you, the owner of that business, to take additional measures and security to protect your customers, I would encourage you to do that. But to say that there's nothing else Mr. Ackerman can do, that this is a question of screening or not screening and the viability of his business rests alone on that I think is inappropriate. So, you know, we are in a position of saying is Mr. Ackerman's operational characteristic as it is more important than the reason why we require screening on these types of uses. We have to weigh that. The sheriff's office doesn't. The sheriff's office will tell you what is optimal for their patrols. But that does not take into account the community's interest in this area. So, you know, it's not as simple as is this Mr. Ackerman's only choice because I -- I don't think it is. I think there are other measures he could take on the property. I think there are other measures in the landscaping we could use. They talk about viewing ports. Eighty percent opacity means twenty percent of it you can see through. So two feet of every ten feet could be an open view. So, you know, there are -- you know, there are other graduated steps we can take to achieve both -- both results. And I think if we -- if you committed to a landscaping plan that -- that made eight of every ten feet opaque and gave two foot -- two-foot view ports, the sheriff's office would say, that's a little bit better. That helps us out. And the community benefits too, and we may achieve both sides of that. That's the kind of solution I'm looking for, not an either/or. This is no landscaping or all landscaping I don't believe. MR. PIRES: For one point of clarification, landscaping has been installed, vegetation, pursuant to the Land Development Code. Reference was made by Mr. Gebhardt that there was a code violation for that. The contractor in a dispute back in '92, '93 pulled the landscaping out while Mr. Ackerman was incapacitated in the hospital. That same contractor turned in the complaint to code enforcement just to give you some flavor of what's been going on. But I understand your concerns, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The contractor pulled it out for non-payment if I'm not mistaken. MR. PIRES: Probably. And I -- no, I understand your concern, but I think from the standpoint of the community's interest, the ability to suppress, prevent crime is also very positive benefiting aspect of allowing this increased visibility so it makes it easier for the sheriff's department, poses less of an attraction for someone to be doing their work behind that for equipment that is more expensive than $500 -- could be a thousand or more dollars -- worth of navigational and electronic gear. If I could -- and I don't want to stretch this out. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I think Mr. Ackerman has something to say. MR. PIRES: Mr. Ackerman wishes to say a couple items. But that's how I would respond to that. I understand your concerns. But with the vegetation in place coupled with the fencing, we have met that requirement of the land -- of the Land Development Code. There is vegetation there per the code. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We saw pictures, and I don't know how old they are. MR. PIRES: I think they were last spring. That's -- that's why I don't think those are relevant is staff has advised you the code compliance issues are all past, it's all taken care of. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: This is not a courtroom, Gebhardt. MR. GEBHARDT: I understand. I just want to clarify. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We don't -- we don't let -- allow you to speak from the audience. If you want to come up, you'll have to be on the record. MR. PIRES: And -- but understand vegetation is in place now. And if I could, Mr. Ackerman wishes to say a few things with the indulgence of the chairman and the board. So thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just while he's coming up, I wanted to say, too, that we're looking at a chicken and an egg issue here. The -- yeah, there's crime in the neighborhood. But what is -- what do we need to do for that neighborhood to -- to diminish some of that crime is improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. And -- and I -- I strongly oppose any efforts to diminish landscaping and beautification of that community. They're -- they're trying to pull themselves up by the boot straps, and -- and we ought to require the commercial property owners to support that effort. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I would say leaving radios in an open boat overnight will probably encourage some level of crime. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Ackerman, if you would, please. MR. ACKERM_AN: Yes. I'd just like to bring you up to date, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Could you identify yourself for the record? MR. ACKERM_AN: Yeah. Del Ackerman. I'm the owner of the property on Bayshore and Thomasson, 2802 Thomasson. The marina at the present time has been rented. We built it for somebody else. His name is Jay Allen, and we built it for him back -- or not Jay Allen. I can't think of his last name. But when I was being operated on, my wife built the marina. In 1992 we got our CO. Nancy and I did not go out there like Adam and Eve with a hammer and build this thing. We went through the county, through Jim Allen. We went through everybody to have it approved. This marina has been operating since 1992, gentlemen, and we have not -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about ladies? MR. ACKERM_AN: Ladies, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. ACKERM_AN: We have had not a complaint in two years on anything. The main problem is is when I was being operated on in Toledo, Mr. Allen who's the head of your zoning enforcement board, James D. Allen, decided that I did not pay my bills which I had it financed through Barnett Bank and I wouldn't do anything like that in Naples because I've been on that corner for 23 years. He pulls out all the trees. Everything that's wrong with this property -- you can ask the gentlemen over here -- Mr. Allen took it all out while I was in the hospital. Then all of a sudden Mr. Lanane, the next-door neighbor, said that I was tolerating prostitution, marijuana, and illegal drinking. So he hired Mr. Gebhardt. So Mr. Gebhardt moves in, and he wants -- there's a main reason why Mr. Gebhardt is so concerned about that fence. Now, we've operated that marina for two years with not one complaint. Have we had any crime? Yes, the police are called every week. We have two dogs back there. It's not my business because it's Jay's. I let him run it. But the reason that we're here today is because Mr. Allen stole all of that merchandise -- and I'm sure that the zoning department will tell you. They stole all the merchandise off of my property while I was being operated. I have a clean bill of sale from Barnett Bank from Bill Growl. Then all of a sudden Mr. Gebhardt says, well, this isn't right because Mr. Lanane tried to purchase my property when I was out of town, gentlemen, for a half a million dollars with no assets in the corporation. So Del Ackerman is put in the middle. I have done everything possible that I can. The two other marinas on my street do not have -- they have just a fence. You put those boats up as high as 30, 40 feet high, and they have not had any opaque fence. And when I applied for my license in 1992, I was the one that demanded an opaque fence in 1992 and was refused by the county to put one in. I thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I'm sure you won't object if we ask you to put one in now then. Mr. Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I appreciate that history. But the fact is the code requires an opaque fence. Your -- your CO as approved in 1992 required an opaque fence, hasn't had one regardless of whether there was a complaint between now and then or not. We've used the speeding analogy from time to time. If, you know, you speed every day and don't get caught and one day on the 30th day that you do, you can't say, well, I -- I sped the other 29 days and it didn't matter. MR. ACKERHAN: No. The only thing is I'm saying that I tried to put an opaque fence, and it was turned down by the Collier County. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, then we're -- we're all in agreement now then. We can -- we'll be happy to have -- MR. ACKERHAN: But I can't figure out why they brought it up two years later. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- again, my understanding and our paperwork shows that it's required as part of your development -- site development plan here. So as long as you're -- we're -- we're trying to put that in anyway, it appears we're all in agreement. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Appears so. I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have one question, Mr. Milk. It was brought up that I believe two other similar type of operations in the area do not have opaque fences. Are they in violation, or are they not required to? MR. MILK: I think there's probably actually three or four on the Bayshore corridor. One of them has -- has probably existed for twenty some odd years. It sits at the end of that canal. It's got a lot of building. It's got outdoor storage. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it in violation? And if it is, send the code compliance officers out there. MR. MILK: That's -- that's true. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, that's my question. Are they -- are they also in violation? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's been there 27 years. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If so, get them cited. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They're probably grandfathered in. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That could be. MR. MILK: The other two individuals do marine repair, and typically storage is not permissible on the site. So if there is storage, that's another code infraction. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Cite them. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, again, it's a moot point. Going back to my speeding analogy, if three cars are speeding and I'm one of them and he pulls me over and not the other two, I'm still guilty. So, if we got a violation here, yes, we should look at the others too, but that's separate from this public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've -- we've closed the public hearing. I'm going to bring this back to the item at hand which is a request for variance from the screening requirement. I'm going to make a motion to deny the variance -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and require the applicant to conform with their original permit requirements or CO requirements, excuse me. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion by Commissioner Hancock and second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. There's no further discussion. I'll call that question. All those -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do you have something? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: An enthusiastic aye. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? That is denied five to zero. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just on the related point, to the extent, Bryan, you could communicate with Mr. Cautero and encourage him to send out the code compliance officers if, in fact, we have other violations. I hope that this vote sends the message that it's a priority to this board to have that area comply with code. Item #13A6 RESOLUTION 96-19 RE PETITION V=95=27, J. DUDLEY GOODLETTE, ESQ., REPRESENTING GUS G. SCACQUA REQUESETING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FEET SIDE YARD TO -0- FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3078 TAMIAMI TRIAL NORTH - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. Petition V-95-27. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahran Badamtchian from planning staff. This is a side yard variance for property located at 3078 Tamiami Trail North known as Richard Geary's Interior. The existing building is built on the property line, and the petitioner is planning to add -- to expand the building. And they wish to expand on the existing building line and not comply with 15-foot side setback. The addition will be around 2,100 square feet and this variance if approved will allow 790 feet -- square feet of this addition be built within the setback area. The building next door adjacent on -- the adjacent property is also built on the property line. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt, but I -- the existing building already is on the property line. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Property line. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But any time an addition is done -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You have to comply. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- someone would have to comply. So in order to keep the building -- if they want to do the addition, in order to keep the building on the same line it already exists on, they need a variance. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: In order to build on the existing building line they need a variance, correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Chahran, if I may, what is currently -- where the proposed expansion is going, what is that current use? Is it vacant, grassed area? Is it parking lot? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It is a parking lot, parking area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's already -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are moving parking toward the front and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's already paved, impervious. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's already paved, yes, and there's also a fence between this property and the adjacent property, 75 -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There goes my sticking it to you for water management. Darn. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Planning commission reviewed this petition and recommended denial because there is no land-related hardship. However, building this 15 feet from the property line will not increase the green space area or open space area. Will just -- we will end up having a small yard in the back. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Staff recommended approval and found that the -- found that the conditions were met but the planning commission -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, staff recommended denial also. There is no land-related hardship. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm on the wrong page. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is merely an expansion of an existing building, so unless that expansion has significant or due reason other than more square footage for leasable, I don't see a hardship either, Mr. Goodlette. MR. GOODLETTE: Mr. Chairman, Dudley Goodlette with the firm of Cummings and Lockwood. We're representing Mr. Scacqua who's present in the audience today as well. Again, as Chahran has indicated, there are -- there are certain criteria found in your Land Development Code that -- that are the basis upon which the staff is required to review these and the planning commission is required to review and -- review these applications or variance petitions. The -- the criteria or most of the criteria under your Land Development Code are not met by this. But we do think that this is one of those unique circumstances. And as found in page 5 of your agenda materials if I -- if I may just point that out to you, are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to this particular property? And as -- as your staff has just indicated to you, yes, there are, and that is that the existing building is built on -- on the property line. And if you look at what Mr. Hulhere distributed to you, you can see that where it says proposed -- proposed addition, we are going to add and build all of that additional area. The only thing that we would ask this variance -- the reason for this variance is to build that additional 790 square feet really to square off the building. Otherwise you're going to have a 15-foot strip which is that hashed area there where it says proposed additional 790 square feet that's useless. So, I mean, this is a circumstance and this board has the ability to grant the variance that we've sought by finding that there are -- that this special condition does exist. And that's the reason why we're at your mercy this morning. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Let me ask you ownership here. From the property line in question that shows on this little map down to the south, there would be another property line with a second building attached from the original building. Now, who -- is this all under common ownership? MR. GOODLETTE: No. The -- the -- the property to the -- to the -- to the east if you will of this site is owned by the -- is the Casablanca Restaurant owned by the Townsend family. And I'm '- I'm -- I'm authorized to tell you that although they objected to this at the planning commission, they're with -- their objections have been withdrawn. And we have discussed -- their concerns were parking. And we have satisfied their concerns that we're not diminishing the joint parking that currently exists and that will continue to exist if this variance is granted because in the area in which we're going to build there would be no parking anyway. So, I mean, this is really -- the picture is what I had hoped would depict the -- the need and why it exists here. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Why would there be no parking in there? There is parking now. I was told earlier that it's a parking lot now. MR. GOODLETTE: But -- but with the portion of the building that we're going to build, there's no way to park in that additional 15 feet that we're asking the variance to build on. That's the point. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. So you mean there will be no parking if you only build the addition that you would be required -- able to do without a variance. MR. GOODLETTE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. MR. GOODLETTE: In other words, in that 15-foot strip which is the only area that this variance petition speaks to, there will be no parking because we are going to build the additional building out to that building line. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is the same property we issued variances for for your -- the patio and courtyard area on the front of the building? MR. GOODLETTE: For aesthetic purposes, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And you wisely have brought a variance in on a different date for a different part of the building. MR. GOODLETTE: If -- if you -- if you please, Commissioner Hancock, we were supposed to be here at the same time the same day on those petitions. And it was -- it was an advertising problem. So we're not trying to snooker anyone here in all fairness. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In -- again in fairness I wanted to ask that question. My question is the use is a furniture showroom; is that correct? MR. GOODLETTE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So your parking requirement is 1 to 600, Chahran? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Furniture showroom sales is 1 to 600? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One per six hundred square feet, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I notice you have -- at one point in the parking area you have a one-way area because you only have room for what I would guess is a 12-foot aisle there. That would require you in some way either -- I guess I'm looking for help on the circulation. I say one way going to the rear of the lot and one way south. Is there some type of shared access agreement or shared parking agreement that allows for circulation here? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is a shared parking agreement between this property and Casablanca Restaurant. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: So they are going to use their driveway. And they are sharing a driveway also. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I know they're sharing a driveway on the south. I just wanted to make sure that the circulation is -- is permitable and that that agreement's not in jeopardy of being changed at any time soon. It's in perpetuity. MR. GOODLETTE: It is not, and that's what I was -- was -- was alluding to earlier that we have -- have met with the Townsend interests and Carson HcEachern, their attorney, and we have -- we will continue to operate under a shared parking arrangement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So in essence you're asking for 800 square feet because you're going to build the other addition anyway. MR. GOODLETTE: Exactly right, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I may -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Yes. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I think this is one of those times that it makes sense to me why variances have to come to the board instead of just you go through a check off the criteria because this is a difficult one by the criteria. But if you're familiar with the property, it -- it would almost be silly if we didn't allow this. It's such common sense to permit this that I -- I encourage you to support it, lady and gentlemen. MR. GOODLETTE: I'll be happy to answer any other questions, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Do we have any other speakers? Commissioner Hancock. MR. HCNEES: No, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On here where you have indicated a gravel island on the southeast portion of the property, I'd like to see some commitment on the record of improvement and landscaping. This parking area is pretty ugly. And as you -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Except for that big tree, that big gorgeous tree. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's about it. And with what is being done here, it's not a real smooth transition to the parking area. And I'd like to see some softening of that. Where that gravel island is I'd like some commitment of -- of landscaping in that area to try and soften the overall appearance of that parking area. MR. GOODLETTE: When the city sewer is expanded into there, that will happen. That's now a septic tank under the gravel area. That's the reason that it's gravel. But -- but we will -- and it's my understanding that the Casablanca Restaurant, as you may know, is closed. That property is for sale. There are prospective purchasers who -- who are -- are going to be improving the site. And we are anxious to assist them in making the improvements necessary in that -- that you're -- that you're discussing, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the petitioner has no problem that at the earliest possible time the gravel island areas indicated on this drawing will be landscaped as -- as an addition to the parking area? MR. GOODLETTE: Indeed we have no -- no -- no problem with that, making that commitment on the record. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Chairman, for whatever it's worth, this lot is non-conforming. It is only 86 foot wide, and code requires a minimum of 100 today. And the existing building was built legally. In the past we had zero setbacks for commercial properties which has changed since. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the gravel island area will be landscaped the earliest possible time merely on the basis that not granting it leaves a void that makes no sense. So I -- I see no reason why the variance can't be granted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second and support the motion particularly considering staff's final comments there. I think that creates a special circumstance when one considers the requirements at the time the initial building was built versus the requirements that are required now. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? That variance is granted five to zero. Item #9A2 RESOLUTION APPROVING, CONFIRMING, AND R~TIFYING CERTAIN ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AS AUTHORIZED TO BE TAKEN PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION NO. 95-706 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE AND SALE BY THE COUNTY OF NOT EXCEEDING $5,250,000 AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL ~MOUNT OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PUBLIC PARK AND RECREATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE T~XING UNIT GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 1996 - CONTINUED TO 1/16/96 We have a request to go back and hear item 9(A)(2) at this time, but we will take a five-minute break and come right back. (A short break was held.) CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: We'll reconvene. And, Mr. McNees, I understand that we may want to talk about continuing this next item? MR. MCNEES: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. You're going to have a couple options. You've moved so rapidly this morning. You're a little bit ahead of us. We're accepting bids on what is a competitive sale for this refunding issue un -- until 11 a.m. this morning, and it will be a matter of probably an hour to an hour and a half before that information can be compiled and final sizing done on the issue. Your options will be to either continue this item until next week, the item being to ratify what you have already delegated to Mr. Dotrill which is the sale decision on the bonds, or to reconvene at approximately 1:30 or 2:00 this afternoon if you chose to do that ratification today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we continue the item -- continue the item for one week. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. HcNees, that doesn't cause us any particular problem since we have delegated the authority to consummate the deal with Mr. Dorrill; is that correct? MR. HCNEES: No, sir. We may not have the presence of some of our experts in a week. But we can do it with staff, and Mr. Ziev assures me that that's not a problem. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second to continue. Those in favor signify by saying aye. And those opposed? That will be continued until next week. MR. HCNEES: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Ziev, for the trip anyway. MR. WEIGEL: He's got work to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't bill us. MR. ZIEV: The bids are coming in in like five minutes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: He's got other work to do. Item #14A DISCUSSION REGARDING LEGISLATIVE AGENDA ITEMS CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: And to BCC communications, I have one item on there, and it's very simply just to -- to remind everybody that on the 19th we have our legislative delegation with the -- with the state legislative issues to discuss that we're interested in. And I just want to ask very simply each board member to supply for us by next Tuesday's meeting a list of those items that you as individuals feel that we need to push forward in our legis -- legislative delegation. And that's all I have for today. Commissioner Matthews, do you have something? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yes, I had one item, and that is by now we're all aware that the national park is open. Opened on Saturday. However, I did meet with the mayor of Everglades City yesterday for about three hours. And they are having an effect down there. Now, you know, granted, it's only been two days. But they are having an effect. Their business is down 40 percent or more. And they're anticipating a recovery similar to what they experienced with Andrew in that Andrew, yes, they had some damage, but nothing really put them out of business. But the perception across the nation was that they were out of business. And I was -- I wanted to ask the board if we could invite our disaster recovery group to take a look at this and see if it may be appropriate to do some advertising at least locally and regionally to get our winter tourists back -- back here and get that area functioning again up to -- up to the level they expect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a thought on that is after a hurricane people wonder if, you know, the -- the roads got torn up or if something's damaged so that, you know, they don't want to come here or -- or take a risk of coming and finding out that, in fact, all the trees were ripped up or something. But I'm so sick about hearing about the federal budget debate. I think there's a whole lot of advertising out there that people know, you know, government's back, hot dog. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, an interesting thing that -- that -- that goes along with this is that I believe the -- the government when it -- when it went back to work effective I think the 26th -- I'm sorry, it is extended to the 26th of January. But Mr. Hamilton has in his hands a fax from the National Park Service that even though the agreement with Congress and the President is only until the 26th, he has a fax that the park -- the park will not be shut down again prior to September 30. So there is something -- I'm sure there -- there is some ambivalence in our tourist group as to what the status of that park is going to be at any given time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think our disaster relief group are experts in the area of advertising and what the perception is out there. And I think it's a good idea to have them look at it. If they say, gosh, we don't think it's big, that's one thing. But I think they may come back and say, yeah, there has been an impact, and we need to address it. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Because I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I don't have any objection to them looking at it and then making a recommendation to us. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I'd like to do is have -- have -- have them look at it because that's -- it's my understanding too that this park closure has -- has affected the coastal hotels as well not to mention the bad weather. But -- CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't have any objection particularly in having them look at it, but I'm not sure I can -- I can agree that this is the proper group to do it. I mean, to -- to say that a budget shutdown is a natural disaster may be a stretch of the imagination but -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, it's not natural. It's very man made. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: I don't have any objection to at least looking at it and -- and seeing if there's something they may want to do. But I think there's plenty of advertising going on in the -- in the national news media that the parks are back open. So I don't know that we can -- we can do any local effect. Maybe we can. Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just likewise. I have -- I have some reservations about the appropriateness of that type of expenditure. But let's -- let's let the -- the folks who ask for the funds and ask them to be set aside determine its appropriateness, so I'm in agreement with that. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's fine with me. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have one item, and that's just a follow-up to last week's conversation on Florida Gulf Coast University. I've had a chance to talk with four of the five Lee County commissioners as well as their attorney's office. I have some comments in writing from some of them, most of which I just got yesterday which I'll assemble for you all. They've also asked if maybe they can have an opportunity to answer some of the questions at our joint meeting tomorrow. So that will be a good opportunity I guess to try to square away some of those and then decide -- we can decide where we want to go after we've got those answers. But I think at least we'll have some of the questions answered that we've brought up, and you may like some of them, and you may not. But we'll find -- at least we'll have answers because I don't think we did a week ago. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly I wanted to pass onto the balance of the board today is media day regarding the Intellinet challenge out at the Classics Resort. I think Bob Murphy, last year's champion, is in town to play the course and play with some media personnel or something. Gee, Steve, I don't know why you weren't invited. But that's -- that's today around noontime, and I think at one o'clock is a presentation to Mr. Murphy and so forth. Mr. Rasmussen asked that I pass it onto the rest of the board that you're welcome to come out and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I used to work in radio. Does that count? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He didn't say bring your sticks, but you're welcome to come out and participate in media day out at the Classics today while Mr. Hurphy's here today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One o'clock, is that what you said? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but I think noontime was -- was nibbles and questions and so forth, and there's a presentation at one I believe. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Not other than to say that your attorney and I look pretty dapper in our tweed coats that we never get to wear. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank God I didn't wear mine. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Is this a conspiracy that we're -- we're all wearing tweed coats? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I think tweed is warmer than the other. Is that the reasoning? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It looks warmer. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Pursuant to the board direction of I think November 30 in regard to the county attorney reviewing legally and then ultimately doing things appropriate for agreements or other method concerning the $500,000 consideration with Florida Gulf Coast University, the -- I'll look forward to either further direction tomorrow or conceivably could create an agenda item this next week if there's any official direction to come to the board as an agenda item for next week. The previous direction was for the county attorney to go forward and create the agreements for whatever's necessary. I have not officially been told not to go forward with those agreements. But I understand that there may be a change there. So I'll be looking for the appropriate forum to hear that or make any other alteration we can to respond to the -- the needs and desires of the board in that regard. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hopefully after we get some of those answers, we'll have an opportunity to move forward one way or another. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We kind of went past that a little fast for me just to understand. Some of the answers to the questions about a mall or other issues that have been raised are going to be discussed at the tri-county meeting tomorrow? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- the folks from Lee have just said if there are specific questions, and that's one of the ones that they'd like an opportunity to address those, and we don't necessarily have to take any action tomorrow. But at least they'll want to dialogue with us on that. And -- so if we have questions, at least we'll get the answer from the horse's mouth. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: When would you expect that we are going to make some final determination on this because I think it's important for us to make a decision and vote it up or down and make a definitive statement? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would depend on what all you are comfortable with. But I'm going to guess -- my conversations with the four commissioners from Lee and with their attorney's staff have answered for me a number of the questions. And they may or may not make me happy. But at least I understand what the answers are now. And so I think after tomorrow we'll be probably well informed enough to -- to move forward so we can hopefully do that in the next few days. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a comment on that is I -- my distress over this matter is that -- I agree we've got to put it to rest. But for my personal vote we went too fast. I went too fast the first time. I got excited about a concept and -- and -- and endorsed it without enough detail. And I'm determined not to do that again. So I'm going to be looking for some real quantitative, documented answers and not feel-good stuff and -- and continue to be anxious as I have heard all of us say to -- to form this partnership with Lee County and -- and build this bridge to the university, you know, to Collier County. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please don't say building a bridge. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think some of what I've gotten back in writing and again, just received some of this yesterday afternoon, but again, whether we like the answers or not, they are specific answers. And so I think some of those will be concrete in your hand in time for -- we can probably do that next Tuesday I'm guessing. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Can we get that discussion on the agenda then for next Tuesday? MR. WEIGEL: I'll create a discussion item if you'd like. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A quick comment as to Commissioner Constantine's comment that we -- we may move forward tomorrow or not and Mr. Weigel can help me with it, but since we're out of the county, I don't think we can make any legal decisions. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm sorry. My thought was we can probably put it on next week's agenda. But I think we can get -- move forward as far as answering a lot of our own questions tomorrow. I don't think we'll put it to bed tomorrow. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Okay. Miss Filson, anything further? MS. FILSON: Nothing further. CHAIRPERSON NORRIS: Then we're excused. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 PERFORMANCE BOND ACCEPTED FOR EFFLUENT LINE FOR HIBISCUS GOLF COURSE See Pages Item #16B1 AGREEMENT WITH HOME DEPOT USA, INC. See Pages Item #1682 - This item has been deleted Item #1683 AWARD BID #95-2461 TO LINDER INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE (1) VIBRATORY ASPHALT COMPACTOR Item #1684 CHANGE ORDER NO. ONE TO THE RAW WATER BOOSTER PUMPING STATION ELECTRICAL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND NEW 10% CHANGE ORDER See Pages Item #1685 BUDGET AMENDMENT RELATED TO RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD UTILITIES RELOCATION Item #16C1 REAPPOINT DR. HARTA U. COBURN AS THE DISTRICT 20 MEDICAL EXAMINER See Pages Item #16D1 REIMBURSE THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT FOR AN EMERGENCY UPS EXPENDITURE FOR THE TAX COLLECTOR'S UPS SYSTEM Item #16D2 RESOLUTION 96-7 AUTHORIZING CURRENT CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE DEEDS AND AGREEMENTS FOR DEED TO RIGHT OF INTERMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF BURIAL LOTS AT LAKE TRAFFORD MEMORIAL GARDENS CEMETERY See Pages Item #16D3 RESOLUTION 96-8 AUTHORIZING CURRENT CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS AND STATUTORY DEEDS FOR THE G.A.C. LAND SALES TRUST CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY AVATAR PROPERTIES INC. See Pages Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 96-9 ACCEPTING CONVEYANCES MADE TO COLLIER COUNTY AND COLLIER COUNTY WATER SEWER DISTRICT; RESOLUTION 96-10 DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CURRENT CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS INCIDENT TO PROPERTIES ACQUISITION, AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROCEED WITH PROPERTY ACQUISITION, AND WAIVING CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT OF THE COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN; RESOLUTION 96-11 DECLARING THAT A FEE SIMPLE INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY IS THE PREFERRED INTEREST SOUGHT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND SETTING FORTH THE RATIONALE THEREFORE See Pages Item #16D5 RESOLUTION 96-12 AUTHORIZING CURRENT CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENTS See Pages Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENT #96-185 See Pages Item #16E2 AMEND THE DATE FOR EXCESS LEAVE PERTAINING TO THE COUNTY HANAGER'S AGREEMENT Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES FOR CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1989 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL No. Date 313 12/20/95 1995 REAL PROPERTY TAX ROLL No. Date 122 11/27/95 127 11/28/95 138 12/01/95 145-147 12/20 & 12/18/95 1995 TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY No. Date 42 11/28/95 46 12/13/95 Item #1662 SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER See Pages Item #1663 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 STATUS OF SPECIAL DISTRICT'S COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES, CHAPTER 189 REQUIREMENTS Item #1611 NOTICE TO PROCEED TO THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR TAX DEED APPLICATIONS ON THE 1993 COUNTY TAX CERTIFICATES See Pages There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Shelly Semmler