BCC Minutes 11/03/1987 R
_.~,..".,-,-_._.",.~
-
-
..
Naples, Florida, November 3, 1987
L~ IT BE REMEMBERED, '~ðt 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 ðS
have beP.n created according to law and having conducted business
heroin, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSIOK in Building
"F" of the Government Cenler, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members presenl:
CHAIRMAN: Max A. Hasse, Jr.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Arnold Lee Class
John A. Pistor
Burt L. Saunders
Anne Goodnight
ALSO PRESENT: James C. Giles, Clerk; John Yonkosky, Finance
Director; Beverly Kueter and Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerks; Neil
Dorrill, County Manager; Ron McLemore, Assistant County Manager; Ken
Cuyler, County Attorney; Tom Crandall, Utilities Administrator; George
Archibald, Public Work I Administrbtor; Kevin O'Donnell, Public
Services Administrator; David Pettrow, Community Development
Administrator; Ann McKim, Planning/Zoning. Director, Dave Weeks and
Dwight Nadeau, Planners; Nancy Israelson, Administrative Assistant to
the Board; and Deputy Chief Ray Barnett, Sheriff's Department.
P8ge 1
lODe 109 r&r.~ 101
!
(J¡.
.1Jr~~'..;
~ ....'
,~
"'J;::
*, ~
J~.'..'.
~."
'f'J
,~
J,'
rf
,~.:.".".J.
.. >.\',.
, .
.1"
lDO( l09,J·.tl06
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
~ape '1 (unavailable due t~ ..1 functioning tape)
Item U
AGEØDA AND COØSEØT ~~EXDA - APPROVED WITH CHAØOES
Commiasioner Piator mOVe 1, .econded by Commissioner 01 ass end
carried unanimoualy, tbat tbe Agenda and Consent Agenda be approved
witb tbe following cbange.s
Item U2D
Recognition of the vested hotel use of a Var,derbilt
Beach Road proper ty (former 1 y known as Connc,rs
Vanderbilt Beach Project or the Windward Cove) and
conditions for is&~anc~ of a building permit reI
Building Permits '81-5268, 81-5579, 81-5580 and
81-5604 - Added.
Item U2C
Di&cussion of distribution of the race track funds
as it relates to the referendu:n requirement!1 _
Requested to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item 1l2B
Discussion on l.oning Ordinance re walls and fences
in Collier County - Continued tc November 17, 1987.
It_ UA
LEONARD SPIØDLE RECOGItIIED AS BMPLOYBE OF 'l'BE MOØTH FOR ØOVBXBIIR, 1987
Chairman Hasse recoçnized Leonard Spindle as r.mployee of the Month
for November, 1987, indicating that he would be receiving a $50 cash
award in his next paycheck~
It.. 158
KIWAØ78 CLUB PREREØTED $2,500 ~ THB COLLIER COQØTY FAIR BOARD
Commissioner Goodnight stated that Mr. William Hill was to make
this presentation, however, he has been delayed. She stated that the
Kiwanis Club has handled parking Cor the Collier County Fair over the
past 11 years and now that the Fair has moved to their new locíJtion,
:Page 2
-
-
..
.,......<q".~...-....">.,,.,,"~"",..> ,~.,.,,--_...~---'"'
--
·
their parking needs. She nO'ed that the check has already been given
to Mr. Ji. Giles, Treasurer of the Fair Board.
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
is presenting a check Cor 52,500 to assist in meeting
It.. Uc
PROCLAXATIO. DB8IOHATI.O ~ WEEK or ~BR 8 - 14, 1'87 AS "YOUTH
APPUCIA~IO. WEEK" - ADOP'rZD
Following the reading of a Proclamation re "Youth Appreciation
Week", Co..i..ioner Saunders aoved its adoption, .eoondeð by
CORai..ioner Pistor anð oarried unaniaously.
aDOC lUg r.'.1 107
Pðge 3
... j f
--.
1
~ '
~~ ~ j},
~' .~,~ ~,. fI,
:t ~ì~''W4.('
~~tJ:Jt&t';~fGD'1'IMQ 'I'D nB1t or IfOVDœBR 8 - 14, 1981 AS
. ~PUC'lIC niP - ADOP'lBD
'~'~;!Jðllc~ilkl~h. reading of It Proclamation re "Chiropractic Weelc",
...\ ~";'#, . :".
C~..iOD.r oi... aoved ita adoption, .econded by Coaaissioner
<....: J ..
QOOdDi9i_ aa4 carried UDaniaoualy.
,..,..:, ;
~ ~:
;i¡jì'. "I.
.,;~!
~~. .t '
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
a* IUn '''''¡ 109
Page 4
.1 i;
__,_.~__"".,.,",*'~..'~.>ó~."""",._,,,..
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
It.. "11
ORDlXAKCB '7-", PETtTIOØ Zo-.7-4C, AM ORDIØAMCB AKEØDI_O ORDIðAØCB
12-2, THZ COMPREHBØ8IVE JOØIØG RBGULATIOØS, RBGARDIØG 8TAØDARD8 FOR
BOAT DOC1tS - ÅDoP'l'ED WITH CHAJfOZ8
Legal notice having b~~n published in th~ Naples Daily News on
October 2, 1987 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider an ordinance amending
Ordinance 82-2, the Comprehensive Zoning Regulations for the
Unincorporated Area of Collier Cuunty by amending standards for boat
docks.
Planner Weeks gave the background of the proposed amendmP.nt and
advised how it was originally requested. He stated that the current
Ordinance provides that waterways of 100 ft. in width or greater may
have a boat dock which protrudes 20 ft. into the waterway. He otated
that if two docks are built across from each other, there is 60 ft. of
navigable waterway, providi~g that no boats are moored on the outside
of the dock.
Mc. Weeks advised that at the direction of the Board, Staff
completed an in-depth review of this subject, the canals in the
County, and had meetings with various groups and people intec~.ted in
this amendment. He stated that Staff's recommendations to the CCPC
wecer
1. Prohibit mooring of boats on the outside of docks.
2. Waterways of lOa ft. width or greater may have protrusions of
20 ft. into the waterway, to include structure and boat.
3. Increase the side setback from 7.5 ft. to 15 ft.
110( 109 'S'.! 111
Page 5
--""<4'-
-,....._----._"....,..,,,. .
NO( 109 '1'J.ll2
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
4. Include "riçarian rights" provision lo address lots aL the
end of a canal
S. Increase public notice requirements for boat dock extensions
to conform to other public petitions, such as variances,
zoning amendments, etc.
6. Add a definition of "dock facility"
7. Clarification of Section 8.46 - "Private Boat Houses and
Docks"
Mr. Weeks advis~d that at the CCPC Public Hearing on this proposed
amendm~n' five p~rsons spoke in favor of the petition; eight persons
spoke in opposition stating th~ amendment did not protect the rights
of present and future property owners, it will negatively affect navi-
gation and boat maneuvering, will allow boat houses and boat shelters
which may b!~ck the view of nearby prop~rty owners, is not aestheti-
cally desirable, and will negatively affect prop~rty values. He
stated that eight letters hav~ been received in opposition to the ori-
ginal amendment and one letter has been received in opposition to the
Staff'e proposed amendment.
Mr. Weeks advised that th~ CCPC recommended the followinq changes
to Staff's recommendation:
1. A 20 ft. prolrusion is allowable on c~nals with 105 ft. in
width, or greater.
2. Side setbacks should remain at 7.5 ft.
Mr. Weeks ~ated that several people point~j out during the CCPC
hearing that the canals are not exactly 100 ft. in width and vary to ð
little more Or a little less. He stated Staff has found some canals
Page 6
-
..
-
-""~·,","·,-",-,~·-",~----__ov ....."
"!1_" .___ # .-
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
at 101 ft. or 102 ft. He noted this also allows for 65 ft. of navi-
gable waterway.
Ch~irm~n Hasse stated that 100 ft. wide canals are prevalent on
Marco Island, however, there are other areas of the County where the
canals are 60 ft. or 70 ft. in width. He stated he has received a
suggestion from Miles Scofield, Scofield Marine, which he feels is
realistic. He read Mr. Scofield's letter which suggested the
following variationø be addressed:
L Canals less than 70 Ct. be 1 imi ted to dockf with a protrusion
of S ft.
2. Cana 18 from 70 ft. to 90 ft. in width be limi ted to docks
with a protrusion of 10 ft.
3. Canals from 90 ft. to 120 ft. in width be limited to dockl!l
with a protrusion of lS ft.
4. Canals over 120 Ct. wide be limited to docks with a protru-
sion of 20 f t.
Chairman Hasse stated that he feels it is import~nt to address the
narrower canals in the County.
In answer to Commissioner Goodnight, Mr. W~eks stated that a dock
of lS ft. would almost require that the boat be parked on the outside
of the dock. He noted that if the Board prohibits mooring on the out-
side of the docks, it would force those people to have smaller boats.
Commissioner Pistor stated that he is in favor of Mr. Scofield's
suggestion, however, he feels that the Ordinance cannot cover every
situation and anyone wanting anything different than the proposed
Ordinance may apply for a variance.
Page 7
111* lU9 rJ·.! 113
--
lOOC lC!),s'.! U 4
. NOV!:MBER 3,1987
Mr. Weeks advised th; a side Issue of boat houses ðnd shelters
and their aesthetic value was discussed ~t the CCPC public hearing,
and the CCPC recommended that they be deleted from the proposed
Ordinance and be allowed only within the propcrty line. He advised
they dl.rected Staff to bring back for review a mechanism by which boat
shelters and boat houses could be permittcd to protrude into a water-
way, such as ~ pcovision~l use, variance, or boat dock extension.
Responding to Commissioner Saundecs, Mr. Wceks stat(!d the only
corcespondence received from rp.sidents outside of M~rco Island was
from Mr. Scofield. ^lso respc'nding to Commissioner Saunders, County
Attorney Cuyler stated the intent was that whatever is applicable to
Marco Island would apply County-wide, ho~ever. if the Boacd can dIf-
ferentiate between the areas, the requirements could be different.
Commissioner Pistoc stated there cannot be too many variables
within an Ordinance. He pointed out that if the "riparian rights"
extends a lot at the end of a canal, the dock for that lot could extend
the full 20 Cl. in fronl of another person's lot. Mr. Weeks distri-
buted a sketch showing h0~ the "riparian rights" extend the lots, and
noted that the ~e"back requirements avoids that situation.
Commissioner Goodnight ask~d "what is the average width of a boat
on the canals?" Commissioner Class stated that is a very important
point, since the majority of the canals are water depth restricte,j and
sailboat peopl~ cannot usually gel into those aceas.
~ape 12
Page 8
-
-
-
--"'-,"..,,,".._,,,....,.,.,'.~_."
I.__~
... ."""'."'...,.-----....,
~IOVEMDER 3, 1987
The fOllowing Marco Island residents spoke in favor of Staff'.
recom.endationsl
Mr, Carl Froeming
Mr. Jere Hunt
Hr. ~onard Lewellyn.
The followIng Marco Island resident. spoke in favor of the CCPe
recommendations:
Mr. Bill Walters representing the Marco Island CIvic Associat.ion
Mr. Charles White representIng the S~iling AssocIation of
Marco Island
Mr. Thomas B. Kalbfus
Mr. Ira Ei."/tns
Mr. Frank Langford
Mr. Ed Clark
Mr. Ad Whittemore spoke in oPposition to any amendment of the
current Ordinance.
... RBClSS AT 10S30 A.X.
RECOØVBXED AT l1s45 A.X. ...
~ap. f3
FOllowing the recess, the public speakers continued with the
fOllowing Marco ISland residents speaking in favor of Staff'. recom-
IDendations:
Mr. Richará Haberlin
Mr. Ray paret
Mr. John SlocuØI
Mt. Jonathan Hondorf
Mr. George Keller representing the Collier County Civic
Federation.
Mr. Frank Zusc~lag, Marco Island resIdent, reque3ted the Board to
Consider water depth in this Ordinance since some people have boats
that must protrude 20 ft. in order to obtain the proper water depth.
aøo( 109 '1~~ 115
Page 9
"".<..;,~"..,",''''''''''_'''_'''''
l' .", "'''-'''''___._x
.... 1091'S'! 116
'NOVEMBER 3, 1987
~ape ,..
Mr. Miles Scofi""d, owner or Scofield Marine, advised that his
company designs m~rin~~ for 1~rge power boats and 40 ft. of navigable
wl!lterway is adequatl' r'or two boats to pal'S, 50 ft. is a lu~ury, and 60
fto is excellent. 'ie stated that canals outside or Marco Island range
in width fro~ 45 ¡to to 204 ft. and he feels it is imperative to pro-
vide for the var~ing widths. He noted that one standard will overbur-
den the Staff with variances and become very costly to the County, as
well as the public. He also stated tha~ a 15 ft. setback is accep-
table for the lot sizes on Mar '0 Island, however, the balance of the
County has some 50 ft. wide lots. He Buggcsted combining the
variation for the different canal widths and the Stdff's recommen-
dations for clearance and prohibiting parking on the outside of 20 ft.
docks.
Attorney David Bruner, representing the Sailing Association of
Marco Island, stated that the Board is considering an Ordinance which
intends to permit a person to use, as their exclusive private right,
that which is a public right-of-way. H( stated that the Plat of Marco
Island dedicates a 100 ft. canal, less a 5 ft. dock, to the perpetual
use of the public. He stated this is a covenant running with the
land. He asked the Board to request their Attorneys to prepare an
opinion as to whether or not the Board has the power to grant en
exclusive private use in a public right-of-way.
Mr. Cuyler stated that in his opinion the Boerd is consider'ing an
I'age 10
-
..
..
,-_.._~->_..~~, ,,. ._..."",........"""""-----'^,-
-.,."'....;""'-..." ..,..'
-
..
-
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
Ordinance that is going to be equally applicable for all waterfront
properties within the County and specific individual rights are not
being IIddressed. He stated that he ðgrees with Mr. Bruner in that the
Board cannot re9ulat~ or ðllow those rights which would be applicable
for waterfront lots to extend to the point or have the docks protrude
to the point where they violate the navigðble rights of other people
to 90 up and down the canals. He also stðted, that the Board does
have the right to have some reasonðble measure for docks and dock
extensions.
In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Bruner stated that he
believes the Board can enact any Ordinance they want to, but the
question is the lega 1 i ty of the Ordinance. /Je stated the permit that
would flow from the Ordinance is the issue and he is suggesting the
permit itself would be the violation of the rj9ht-of-way.
Commi..ioner ala.. aoved, .econded by Co~i..ioner Saunders and
carried unaniaously, tbat tbe pUblio b..ring be alosed.
Commissioner S~unders stated there ðre a number of people in favor
of the CCPC recommendation, however, he disagr~es because he believes
there is confusion on the difference of the issues of protocting
aesthetics and safety of navigation. He suggeeted that Staff should
return with a provisional use type arrangement for boat houses, limit
the protrusion of the dock and boat to 20 ft. into the waterway, limit
the setbacks to IS ft. and limit the application of the Ordinance to
Marco Island at this time. Answering Chairman Hasse, Commissioner
IOOC IG9pl"~ 117
Page 11
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
Saunders explained that his suggestion means the measurement would be
taken from the seawall and would extend 20 ft. into the waterwa) and
ia inclusive of dock, pilings, and boat.
Coaai.sioner Olass moved tbat tbe Staff's original recommendations
be approved witb the following cbanqess
1. Waterwayo 70 ft. or less are limited to a 5 ft. dockin; faci-
IHy.
2. Waterways greater than 70 ft., but less than 90 ft., are
limited to a 10 ft. docking facility.
3. Waterways grcater that. 90 fto, but less than lOa ft., lire
limited to a 15 ft. docking facility.
4. Waterways of 100 ft. or greater are limited to a 20 ft.
docking facility.
S. Boats and/or structures may not protrude further than 20 ft.
into the waterway.
6. Setback requirements are not to exceed the legal structural
setbacks required by the Collier County Building Code €!xcept
that on Marco Island a set~ack will be 15 ft.;
7. Staff i3 directed to return to the BCC with a recommendation
for a boat house construction or sh~lters to be subject to
provisional use with the exception of where they are comple-
tely contained w:lhin the property boundaries and are covered
by the eYisting building regulations.
8. The moratorium that was enacted in this issue is rescinded as
of the passage of this Ordinance.
During discu~sion of the motion, Commissioner Pistor stated that
there are some lots on Marco Island that are less than lOO ft. ~'ide
which are on waterways and the l5 ft. setback on those lots could be ð
problem. He stated he is in favor of the IS ft. setback lor lots that
are at least 100 ft. wide, however, on lots that are les. than 100 ft.
Ptlge 12
-
..
..
.'.. ~,'M''''''__"'. '~".'''''~.''''"__'''..~~~
.......---
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
wide, the building depart-.nts regulation of 7.5 ft. should be
followed.
Co~issioner Saunders stated that there is a possibility that on a
lot that is between 90 ft. and 100 ft. wide, there could be a protru-
sion that is greater than the protrusion on a canal over 100 ft. wide.
He stated he would like to limit this Ordinance to Marco Island until
Staff completes an in-depth review of other areas in the County.
~ape IS
After a lengthy discussion on p~otrusion on the smaller canals,
Coaai..ionnr ala.s ...nded hi. aotion a. followsz wat.rway. l.s. than
70 ft. are liaited to a 5 ft. docking facility; .liminat. tb. thr..
po.ition. in tbe aiddle to be bandIed on a ca.. by ca.. ba.i., water-
way. 100 ft. or greater are liaited to a 20 ft. docking facilitY1 and
tbe balance of tb. provi.ion. remain th. .....
In respcnse to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Weeks stated that the
Ordinance proposed by Staff states that for lots 60 ft. or greater,
there will be a 15 ft. setback. He stated the rationale is that this
is the minimum lot width allowed in the Zoning Ordinance. He stated
that lots with less than 60 ft. the ~etback will remain at 7.5 ft.
Co..i..ioner Saunders .econded Co.mi.sion.r ala.. aotion a.
..ended.
Mr. Cuyler pointed out that applications lor boat dock extensions
are heard and approved or denied by the CCPC.
Commissioner Pistor asked if the 15 ft. setback applies to the
'DOC l00"'f 119
Page 13
!' ,
".""-"""'"-.''''''''''--
"'""'"~-'._'._"""".'~-'
109~·), 120
NOVEMBER J, 1987
-riparian rights"? Mr. Wpoka atat.d that It does not because at, the
end of the canals, the lots have less than 60 ft. of frontage and
would remain at the 7.5 f', setback requirement. He atated there are
two procedures that may be followed in this instance: 1) boat dock
extension pet1cion which allow. a docking facility to be built further
into the w,3terway than the Ordinance would a llow; and 2) the var iance
procedure which allows the setbacks to be reduced.
Coaaissioner alass re.tated bi. aotion tbat tbe ordinance as nua-
bared and titled below be adopted and -ntered into Ordinance Book øo.
29, per th. Staff's original reco..endations with tbe following
obange.s
1. Waterways less than 70 ft. will be limited to~ 5 ft. docking
fltcility.
2. Waterways 100 ft. or greater will be limited to a 20 ft.
docking facility.
J. Boats and/or structures will not protrude further than 20 ft.
into the waterway.
4. Sp.tbacks not to exceed the legal structural requirements of
7.5 ft. on lots of less than 60 ft.; and lots 60 ft. or
greater will have a lS ft. setback.
S. Waterways greater than 70 ft., but less than 100 ft., will be
subject to a variance for a docking facility greater than 5 ft.
6. Staff is directed to return to Board ~ith recommendation on
boat house construction or shelters being subject to a pt"ovi-
siona~ use, except where those structures are completely con-
tnined within the property boundaries and covered by existing
building regulations.
7. Moratorium enacted on this issue is herewith rescinded upon
pnssage of this Ordinance.
Pa'ge 14
-
..
..
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
ORDI~CB RO. 87-88
f\N ORDI;lANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 82-2, THE Cor-IPREHENSIVE
ZONING REGULATIONS F'OR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA Of COLLIER
COUNTY BY AMGNDING THE TABLE Of CONTEUTS, PAGE VII; AMENDING
SECTION 8.2, LOCATION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, TO ACCOMMODATE
CHANGES TO Sf:CTION 8.46; AMENDING SECTION 8.46, PRIVATE BOAT
HC)USES AND [~KS, TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES, TO
INCLUDE SPECIfIC ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS, TO INCLUDE
ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA REGARDINC DOCK EXTENSIONS, TO
PHOVIDE fOH SPI::CIFlC PRCYTRUSION Of BOAT AND DOCK STRUCTURE
COMBINATIONS, TO ALTER SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND TO PROVIDE
OVERALL CLARITY; AMENDING SECTION 20, DEfINITIONS,
"nOATDOCK", TO PROVIDE CLARITY, AND ADDING "[JOCK fACILITY";
MID n I PROV ID I NG AN EffECT I VF. DATE.
Co..isøioner 8aun~er. restated hi. .econd, an~ the motion carried
unani.ously.
coaais.ioner Saunders aoved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnigbt
and carried unanimously, tbat a aoratoriua be i_posed on tbe construc-
tion of boat hou.es and abelters until Statt's recomaendation to regu-
late is received; this moratoriua i. to apply to any applicaticn.
wbicb do not currently bave a building permit as of tOday's date.
Mr. Cuyler advised that today will be the notice date on the mora-
torium, however, additional paperwork must be prepared and brought back
to the Board.
In answer to Me. Weeks, Commissioner Glass stated that this mora-
torium only applies to boat houses and shelterø which are to be built
into the waterway, because the Building Code regulates those built
within prop~rty boundaries.
Responding to a question by Mr. Weeks, Mr. Dorril1 stated that
there i8 no procedure for extensions of docking facilitieb in canals
with width. Ie.. than 70 ft.
aDO( 109r¡·.,121
Page lS
"'.""""."_.~'-~_._~--
__e'"""__,....~__~~"_·...".,,_"'''''''~~''' ..
'DOC 109,.,..122
NOVEMBER 3, 19 87
... RECZSS A7 lls45 A.M. IlBCOØVBØED A7 11:5~ A.M. ...
Deputf Clerk KenyoD replaced Deputy Clerk Kueter
It. U2C
_%CB8. IACB TRACK Ft1Jm8 '1'0 BB GIVD '1'0 8CHooL BOARD BACH nAR BBT1fBBØ
MOW AØD 7BB nAR 2003 APTER THW DIB7 SERVICE OBLIOA7IOK IS XE7t APTER
'1'HA'1' ~IIf., '1'HB 8BARB WILL B2 50/50. LBGISLA7URB '1'0 BB MUD '1'0 IlBPBAL
SCHEDUlED RBnRBØDUM
Mr. Rex Ashley, President of Naples Area Chamber of Comm~rce,
etated that he is requesting that the Race Track funds alloceted by
the State each year be equally shared between the Board of County
COrlllliesione,'s and the School B~ard of CoIl ier County beginning wi th
1988-89 fiec:al year.
CommiesJ,oner Pistor stated that the money is obligated to bond
issues and this money cannot be used for anything else until the bonds
are paid off which will not be until 2003. He stated that some of the
bonds will t~ p~id off in 1996 and that excess money could be given to
the School Board and then after the year 2003 when there is no further
obligation, tIle money could be split equally. He noted that according
to state la~s, this money Is obligated to pay the bonds and is secured
that way, which means that this money cannot be used for anything else
unless an ordinance was enacted that would create a special tax levy
to pay for th~ bonds for which the pari-mutuel money has been obli-
gated.
Mr. Ashley stated that he thought that the committee had worked
out a ,olution to this problem.
County Attorney Cuvler stated that the suggestion was that the
Page 16
-
..
..
",.----...,-....-....,.. ,..
-_..
. """"'....._,_r--........__....__
---,.
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
I:~unty replace the 50\ of the race track funds with funds from some
lIther source. He noted that this would not be a split of those funds,
It. would be ~atching funds from some other source. He noted that the
~'ney for the bonds could not be diverted, adding that the County
.',mld negate a donati~" from other sources.
Clerk Giles questioned if the County can legally donate money to
I h.' School 8·:>ard, to which County ^ttorney Cuyler stated that this
'4..uld have to be investigated.
Commissioner Saunders questioned how much money is involved, to
I.hich Mr. Ashley stated that it is aboul $450,000 on an annual basis
,tlHi the Scho<)l Board's share would be approximately $225,000. He
1I.'led that the intent ion was to avoid the necess i ty of going through a
'~ferendum process, adding that the State has mandated that in lieu of
:~ming to a mutual understanding, in March this would go to a referen-
.!'.lm on an all or nothing basis. He stated that with these funds being
':~~itted to a bond issue, a secondary legal problem comes up, and tn
'rder to aVOId problems, it was hoped that a solution could be reached
so that a referendum would not be necessary.
County Attorney Cuyler stated that if the Board of County
Commissionern does not ma~e a decision on this matter, the County is
going to havE~ to proceed prior to that election to enjoin the election
to keep this situation from ~rising, adding that whether the Legiu.la-
tur~ has ðllClwed for the election or not, those funds cannot be
impaired le9~lly. He stated that this is the beginning of this deci-
& )(JI( 109 ra·.I123
Page 17
-
100( 109rJ"~ 124
,NOVEHB!R 3, 1987
.ion, adding that if the Board of County Commissioners are interest.ed
in trying to replace the pari-mutuel funds with some other kind of
funds in the spirit of cooperation and to give those to the School
Board, thEn he can be directed to determine if this 1s legal and how
it should be done. He noted that if the Board decides not to do that
and takes the position that those funds lire committed to the year "pe-
cified in the bonds, then there is no need for research.
Commiusioner Saunders stated that regardless of what is done with
the race trðck funds, someone is going to have to r~ise taxes to make
up half the money, adding thet It is simply a question of who raises
the taxes.
Commissioner Pistor stated that the School Board is not allowed to
raise tax~s, adding t~~t if the County decided to do this, an ordi-
nance would have to be enacted and the number of mills would have to
be put on the tax bill to collect the money to payoff the bonds.
Commissioner Saunders stated that ad valorem taxes cannot be
raised to payoff the bond issue, adding that the race track money
would be used to payoff the bond issue and the ad valorem taxes "'ould
be raised to pay ~he School Bo~rd and Mr. Giles is questioning if this
can be done? He staled thal he does not know if this can be done
either, but there would be no savings to the taxpayers no matter which
way it ifl done.
Mr. Ashley stated that if the referendum can be eliminated, the
taxpayern "'ould benef i l more from that.
Page 18
..
-
'_'·_',·.,·.,,=~....._.,.o_'.'.._";'"'''''''''''''--'<~_''''_'.''''""''''''''''''''_~.__."____,_'"--~
1'1·_·,·t
HOVDmER 3, 1987
In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Mr. AShley stated that the School
Board is not in a po&ition to raise taxes, adding that the Florida
Le9ls1atur~ has stated that the referendum is legal and jf it is to
take place, considerable expense of both time and money will be
incurred in the legal fight to enjoin the elp.ction or the proposition
of actually dealing with the referendum and both sides taking therir
individual positions. He noted that this is the area that they ere
trying to avoid.
Commissioner Pistor stated that he discussed this with Mrs.
Hawkins and Mr. Dudley and they are trying to determine if this
referendum can be legally held in view of the fact that this monE~y is
alreadY co~mitted. He stated that he feels that th~ Board of County
Commiasloners needs to wait before any Dction is taken.
~.p. tIS
Commissioner Gla~s stated that he concurs with Commissioner
Pistor, adding that it needs to be determined if this is legal. He
indicated that he is not incllned to give the School Board the money.
County Manager Dorrill stated that there is opportunity to have
this repealed during the special session of the Legislature on
December 3, 1987, adding that there should be some action that would
show intent so that in the event that Mrs. Hawkins and Mr. Dudley want
to repeal what was admittedly a bad bill, they will have to advertise
it 30 days in advance of its consideration. He stated th~t the
Chamber of Commerce has made a proposal to the Board and some action
&DO( 109 FJ'.{ 125
Page 19
¡ :
'DOC 109rJ.: 126
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
should be taken on it. H~ noted that there could be a motion made
that would agree to share the money at such time that funds are
available and if in any given year, there is an excess in pari-mutuel
funds, that could be given to the School Board. He stated that
staff's position is that this money is pledged and committed as the
sole re,venue for those bonds and, therefore, even if the election is
succes~ful on the part of the School Board, bond counsel does not feel
that they could be given the money.
cOJrØd..ioner Piator aoved that if there are ex.,e.. pari-mutuel
funds in any given year over and above tbat obligateð to ðebt .orviee,
tbe county will abare the. vith the School Board fro. now until tbe year
2003.
Finance Director Yonkosky stated that the final debt servico
payment on the small issue is a large amount, adding that there is
going to be a shortfall in 1996 and if the County gives the excoss
fees tel the School Board, the County is going to have to COIM up with
that S3S0,CÜO from something other than race track revenues in 1996.
Clerk Giles stated that it appears that between now and 1996 there
are no excess funds.
Commissioner Saunders stated that qenerally when there is a pledge
of .ome re'venue to support a bond issue there is usually a pledge of
additional revenues as coverage.
Count\' Manager Dorr i 11 stated that this is uni~ue as there are no
..condnry revenues pledged at all.
Page 20
I.'
-
..
NOVEP1BER 3, 1987
c~is8ioner Saunders seconded tbe motion.
Clerk Giles stated that with regards to the referendum, Article
III of the Constitution says that there shall be no Special Act paswed
which impairs obligations of a County, adding that it may be that this
legislation is not legal in the first place.
County Attorney Cuyler stated that he would request that if this
deter~ination is to be made, then the Legislature should be asked to
make that determination and if it is illegal, it should be repealed.
Commissioner Glass stated that the reference to Article III of the
Constitution should be incorporated ~nto the motion.
c~i..ioner pistor ..ended biB .otion to read that in view of
Article III, section 11(a) (9) of tbe Conatitution, the Board is
agreeable to sbare witb tbe School Board anI Doney in exces. of tbe
..ount of pari-mutuel funds required to pay debt service on the two
bond i.sue. between now and the year 2003 and at tbat tiDe, the County
will be glad to .bare the race tract revenue on a 50\ b~si., and that
tbe Leqislature be asked to repeal tbe scbeduled referendum of tbi.
matter. Seconded by coaai..ioner ala.. and carried unanimously.
It_ ,7Al
PBTITIO. A-87-1 APPEAL OF PLAKKIHO/IOøIøa DIRECTOR'S DBCISIOØ THAT A
1918 PROVI8IOØAL USE APPROVAL O~ A PRESCHOOL FACILITY (KIDDIB OARDZH)
IS LIMITED TO ØO HORE THAJf 100 CHILDREN - CONTIIWED FOR TWO nEItB
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
October 18, 1987, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consid~r Petition A-87-1 filed
P8ge 21
100« 109 Fa'.! 127
aooc 109ra'-! 128
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
by Ro~rt G. Hines representing Patricia M. ðaisley, appealing an
Administrative Decision to deny the expansion of a provisional use
which was ðpprovcd pursuant to petition PU-78-9C.
Community Development Administrator Pet trow stated that in 1978 a
provisional use was approv~d for Kiddie Garden prcschool then known
as Early Childhood Care and Learning Center on the south side of
Colden Gatt! Parkway. tie noted that documentation submitteo:! at that
time specified en enrollment oí 100 children and the Board approved
this provisional use, but the enrollment of ]00 children was not a
ccndition stipulated. He indicated that the current owner desires to
enlarge the facility which was sold 8ut~~quent to ~he original provi-
sional use. He noted that an occupational license was issued for 103
children, adding that due to the growth in tile area, the owner "fishes
to increase the enrollment. He indicated that the Planning and Zoning
Director'ø opinion is that the facility's enrollment cannot be
increased beyond the 100 children based on what was represented to the
Board at the time the provisional use was heard and approved. He
stated that the option of applying for another provisional use to
increa5e the number of childrcn is not now permissible, as the ordi-
nance was amended in 1982 and the Estates Diatrict was changed nnd it
will not permit child care centers unless they are owner-occupied and
limited to 25 children. He noted that if the appeal is upheld, then
there is a question of how to allow more than 100 children when that
provision is no longer in the ordinance, adding that staff's opinion
Page 22
...
-
-.
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
i. that the representations !lade to the Board at the time the original
provision~l use was heard was pert of the consideration end deter-
minati·:)n process in approving the preschool facility and, therefore,
supports the decision that an enrollment beyond 100 children would
constltut~ a violation. He stated that staff's recommendation is to
support the decision of the Planning and Zoning Director, addin9 that
staff is not objecting to an enlargement of t~~ preschool facility or
an enllJrgement in enrollment, but the process to ðccom~li8h thi:!l does
not exist due to the existing provisional use limitations for such
facili~ie. in the Estates. He stated that staff ie bound by th~
curren~ ordinance.
Hr. Russ Baisley stated that his wife iø the owner of this Bchool,
adding that he did some research on provisional uses that are similar
on Colden Gate Parkway that have been put in place in the last few
years. He noted that David Lawrence Center has a two step provisional
use, adding that they are on five acres of land. He noted that
Step-by-Step was granted a provisional use for a 4,000 square foot
facility about 300 feet from him. He noted that that provisionÐl use
does not require an owner-occupied provision nor is it limited to 2S
children. He not~d that he does not understand how Step-by-Step got a
provisional use for 4,000 square feet in 1987 in the Estates. He
noted that Learning Together is the only one that makes reference to
student capacity and il has a capacity of 240 ~hildren by provisional
use. He stated that it is his contention that limited capacity is not
aooc 109 ~J',[ 129
Page 23
-_...._-,~--_.........';._.."---"~""'...,'--......,,.,"'~""'..,.,.
,~...~.,.,.""'~,~,.~..,..._~*.,',q.~-~-.,._,.......,.~~.-
'* 109".01 130
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
. proper function or the provisional use document as HRS has a very
specific formula for lhe number of parking spaces, square footage, age
of childr~n, etc. He stated that there i! a clear need for additional
child care of quality nature. He indicated that his wife's facility
is on approximately 3 acres of heavily wooded land and is consistent
with the needs of the area. He stated that he does not know how to
obtain such approval for additional children.
Planning/Zoning Director McKim stÐted that the original approval
was granted to the David Lawrec,ce facility in 1977 which would fall
under th6 same provision~ as the Kiddie Carden, adding that David
Lawrence has been back twice since their original approvðl. She
stated that Step-by-Step is not the typical child care, adding that it
is for handicapped children. She stated that this come in under a
rehabilitative services type of facility.
Mr. Baisley stated that that facility is for both handicapped
children and normal children.
Commissioner Saunders stated that he is very sympathetic with the
petitioner, but their hands are tied. He noted that when an applica-
tion comes in, the contents of that are part of the approval, odding
that it does not appear that there is anyway that this facility can be
enlarged without making some amendments to th~ zoning ordinance.
County Attorney Cuyler stated that the number of children is the
issue as opposed to enlargement or expansion, adding that ther~ is no
objection to the expansion of the building.
Page 24
-
..
-
'~,._.... '"...."".~.... ""·,·_~·~w,.,.,"",,,,,,., ~... _""n""·.·_ ....""^_..._
...,'-~-"..--,.....---.._,,_._-_.. '" ....
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
Commissioner Saunders questioned what it would take to amend the
~rdinance to permit more children, to which Planning/Zoning Director
'kKim stated that the owner-occupied child care provisional use would
have to be changed to simply child care in the Estates. She indicated
that she does not know the reasons for changing this in 1992 to owner-
occupied child care, adding that in all single-Camily districts it is
owner-occupied with a limit of 25 children but, in the Estates, the
lots are larger and in certain locations a larger child care than 25
could not have a negative effect on surrounding properties which is
the teet for the provisional use. She stated that in a residential
area if it is not owner-occupied, then it would be considored commer-
cial. She noted that the other option is to look al the number of
children that are allowed in the owner-occupied child care centecs and
either leave it up to HRS or ~or different districts, allow a dif-
ferent number of children.
Commissioner Saunders stated that what is contained in the appli-
cation is relevant to this petition, but there needs to be a way to
resolve the probleø without reversing the decision of the zoning
staff. He indica~ed that amendments to the zoning ordinance takes
quite some time.
Mr. Ro~rt Hines, coun6el Cor Mr. Bai.ley, questioned whether the
repre.entations made in the application do become a part of the per-
mit, to which County Attorney Cuyler stated that stipulations are
always incorporated into the documentation, adding that at that time
IDOC 109 r&r.( 131
Page 25
i ;,
, '
~
...
--
... l09~·pl32
, NOVEMBER 3, 1987
all the stipulations were not incorporated into the documentation. He
stated that a position that the Board can take is if the petitioner
supplies ei~her papcrwork or makcs repr~senlalion as to whal the use
and intonsity of the property is going to be with regards to a provi-
sional IJse, then that is somet.hing that the Board could consider as
being a requirement of the property.
Mr. Hines stated that with regards to Step-by-Step, the Board
approved this facility ðnd it is in the f.sta~cs and is not owner-
occupied and is serving more than 25 children and questioned what the
difference lS between Step-by-3lep and Kiddie Garden?
Planninu/Zoning Di rector McKim stated that th is peli lion cafllt! in
as rehabilitative service facility and not as a child care.
Mr. Hinns stated that this facility is control]ed to a large
degree by HHS and the number of children that can be served is based
on a formulll that HRS establishes. He indicated that he would Like
SOllie clarification as to what the difference iJ.
Planning/Zoning Director McKim stated that it is not whether it is
controlled by HRS, but a child care for children is basically a baby-
sitting typ~ of service and sometimes has sChooling with it and is
considered under kindergarten age children, and is not accredited by
the State of Florida as an educational institution. She stated that
when Step-br-Step came in, they wanted a facility where they could
work with hðndicapped children, which was a rehabilil.ative type of
facility. She stated that it is limited to handicapped children.
Page 26
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
Mr. Baieley stated that that facility is serving 35 children at
this time, and there are both handicapped children and normal
chlldren.
COllnty Attorney cuyler stated that if Step-by-Step is in violation
of what the Board approved, this is an entirely separate issue.
Mr. Boinley stated that Step-by-Step contacted him when he was
trying to buy the lot on either side of their present facility for
expansion, odding that Step-by-Step asked him if he would object to
them building a facility beside his facility because they talked to
the County Planning Department and it was indicated that there would
be an additional need in Colden Gate for this type cf facility.
~ape '7
Mr. Baisley stated that there was a sign posted for a provisional
us. for 4,000 square feet which is child care for normal children
also. He stated that he does not want to limit Step-by-Step to just
handicapped because those children should be with normal children and
someone made a wise decision when they started that operation.
Mr. Hines que1tioned if Mr. Cuyler has any sugq8stion other than
amending the zoning ordinance, that would allow his client a way to be
able to serve more children and expand the facility?
County Attorn~y Cuyler stated that if the Board of County
Commissioners has no ~bjection, he will research the matter and come
back in two weeks.
c~i.~ioner ala.s .oved, .econded by coaais.ioner launder. that
Page 27
aooc 109u"\ 133
.......
--
,_"".~, <'·.~'_'·"_,n~~··'
,. l(j'9n~ 134
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
this item be continued for two weeks in order to find a resolution for
this problem.
Mr. Paul Muenser stated that he is part of the Step-by-Step foun-
dation, noting that this is a facility for the handicapped children.,
He stated thðt the amount of square footage and the classrooms needed
ie larçer thðn what is required for a normal day care center because
of the children and the apparatus they need. He noted that this hðs
been the only purpose of thið facility.
Mr. George Keller stated Step-by-Step and Kiddie Garden are two
separate iIJsues, but Kiddie Garden would not have go~ten the zoning if
it had not been restricted to 100 children and it should not be
expanded all it will be a commercial operation. He stated that if this
is approved, the Board will be compounding the problem.
County Attorney Cuyler stated that he would check into the matter,
adding that he does not think that he will be able to come up with a
mechanism, but he will be happy to talk with the petitioner and check
on some of the other situations.
Upon call for tbe question, the aotion carried unaniaou.ly.
zt_ "1'1
PROnSSIODL PERSO!fØEL COØSOL'1'AØT '1'0 ØB RB'1'AIHED '1'0 DBVBLOP A
PBRFORKAKCI BASED PERBOKØBL MAKAQEHZMT STß'1'E" AND COnTRACT '1'0 8B
DGO'l'IA'1'ED
Assistant County Manager McLomore stated that this is a request
for authority to retain the services of a compe~ent personnel con-
sultant to address the personnel management system, adding that there
Page 28
-
-
-
NOVEMBER 3, 19ß7
are three needs that they are trying to serve. He stated that they
are in the process of initiating a performance management system for
the County, adding that the County is in need of a personnel manage-
..nt system that is compatible with that effort, as the one that
exists is not compatible to address the issue of productivity by means
of a system that gives pay and rewards for performance. He also noted
that the existing system has not been reviewed in 9 years and maximum
time within the profession is 7 years, adding that five is the normal
time frame. He stated that a consultant IS needed because someone
that has a track record in productivity manage~nt :' s n'_'9ded and also
in pay for ~~rformance type systems. He stated that the legal
standing within the system needs to be stl'e~9thened or enhanced,
adding that there are a number of loopholes that should be closed in
dealing with fair labor standard type issues and also the civil rights
related issues. He reported that staff is not equipped at this Ume
to undertakn this project as it would take about two full man year's
of work and a professional consultant could do it in 9 months which
would meet the deadline of October 1, 1988. He indicated that there
will be a gr.eat deal of staff participation in this project in order
to keep the cost at a minimum. He stated that the Constitutional
Officers have been asked to participate in this project which will
help spread out the cost.
Mr. Ja~!s Blue, Florida Relations Attorney, stated that this is
something that is long overdue, adding that the County is probably
Page 29
IOOC 109 Plr.~ 135
---....--..--¡.- .,.....
... 100 '1''.136
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
fortunate that they have gone this long' without a serious problem. He
atated that there are jOb descriptions that must be rewritten in order
to be sure that they are job related. He noted that this is well
.pent money and if someone has to be hired to defend the existing
system, it would cost a lot more than the consultant will. He
concluded by stating that it would be a wise expenditure of funds.
Coaaisslcn.r Pislor .oved, seoond~d by Coaaissioner Glass and
carried unanimously, tbat tbe county Manager be autbori.ed to solicit
the servioes of . co.petent personnel .anagement consultant fro.
either the private .ector or tbe university .7stem and tbat be aloo be
autbori.ed to impanel a selection committe. for tbe purpose of
reviewing proposals and providing tbe Board of county Commissioners
witb a r.c~.nded con.ultant, and subsequent autborit.y to negotiate a
contraot wltb the autbori.el consultant.
..... Rece.ss 12:50 P.M. - Reconveneds ls30 P.M. .....
It.. '781
RBSOLUTIOØ 87-262 RE PETITIOØ PO-87-5C, WILLIAM BLACKWBLL,
RBPRBSElf'l'IØG CARL DEAR, HELD COPLD AND 8ANDRA S. HOLDEKAIf,
RBgOESTIWO PROVISIOØAL 08B "e" OP THE RMP-12 DISTRICT POR A
RBJ!ABILIT~TIOØ CEØTER TO BE DO" AS "MAVERICIt ROOSE" AT 2922 SJUlfTA
BARBARA BOOLEVARD - ADOPTED SUBJBCT TO STIPOLATIOIfS
Planner Nadeau stated that this request is for a rehabilitation
center cr half-way house for men. He indicated that the surrounding
zoning i. primarily residential, adding that to the ',orth and south is
RMF-12 and ~MF-6; to the west of Santa Barbara is Estates; and to the
east is residential and vacant land. He noted that this request is in
Pago 30
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
cOtlpUance with the Compreh~nsiv(! Plan. He indicated that this half-
way house would be for alcoholics, adding that the proposed facilit.y
is an exinting 6 bedroom duplex residence and this petition is a
result of a zon~ng violation as this house has been in operation at
this location without benefit of County npproval. He noted that this
violation dces not detract from the merits of this request. He stated
that based upon the site location, existing and permitted development
of the surrc~nding properties, the characteristics of the use, the
recommended mitigation measures, staff finds this use to bp. compatible
with surrounding properties. He stated that staff a'ld all appropriate
County agenc:ies reviewod this requcst and havc no objection to its
approve! suhject to staff stipulations. fie indicated that the CCPC
heard this r~tition and based on their Finding of Facts, the recommen-
dation was for approval sub~ect to staff stipulations and with the
directive that the County Attorney's office research to see if
Maverick House is required to have State certification. He noted thðt
HRS did a site visit and through their evaluation, it was found that
they did not need a State c~rtification and Lherefore, the CCPC recom-
..nded approvðl. He noted that three people spoke against this peti-
tion at the CCPC due to the location for this use, adding that 9
peoplo .po~e in favor of this petition E!xpressing the need for this
type of facility in the community. He stated that 3 letters have been
received by the Planning Department expr'ellsing opposition to the pro-
posed location of the Maverick H')use. Jle noted that a petition with
PlIge 31
,DO( 109 rJ'.1 137
_ 100 ,...: 138
, NOVEMBER 3, 1987
177 signatures in favor of this request was received. He steted the
site plan ohowed l2 parking spaces and it was not the petitioner's
intent to include those 12 parking spaces, therefor~. staff and the
petitioner mitigated it d~~n to 8 parking spaces, adding that all
8gencies reviewed this parking request and there was no objectic)n to
it. He noted that there will be 6 parking sp/.lces off the alley and 2
.paces in the existing asphalt driveway. He noted that the
Engineerinn Department requested that the alley be paved and there is
no objection to that. He noted that one of the stipulations is that
there be no more than 14 resid~nts at one time. He concluded by
stating thnt the recommendation is for approv/.ll.
Mr. William Blackwell, representing the petitioner, stated that
thi. is a non-9rofit corporation under the laws of Florida and
receives bp.neficial contributions from various sources. He stated
that this!s a residential home for recovering male alcoholics, adding
that the average length of stay for the residents is 14 to l6 w~eks.
He notod that there /.Ire also two weekly "AA" meetings held on the
premisos. He indicated that this house has been operating since
August, 19~6 until the present time, adding that it is in a duplex
apartment In a multi-family zoning /.Irea and the operation of this
house was limited to the south half of that duplex until March of this
year when the north half of the house became available, at which time
the capacity was increased. He noted that the house area is 3,072
square feet in both duplex units, which is an average of 219.5 square
Plge 32
-
-
..
-
--
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
feet per person. He indicated that the residents come from a var.iety
of sources like the Immokalee Rehabilitation Center, Naples Research
and Counseling Center, Charter Glades C~nter in Fort Myers, and the
DeTox Center in Southwest Florida. He rioted that there has been a lot
of community support which they could not operate without. He nQted
that the Board of Directors contain a mixture of professional and lay
people, adding that Frank Reske is the director of the house and imme-
diately responsible for its day to day administration. He noted that
Robert Helin, Larry Br~wn, Rev. Ted KIens, John Renal d, and hims,!!!
make up the Board of Directors. He stated that approximately 40" of
the people that leave this house ach~eve permanent sobriety and
become functional members of society paying their own way. He noted
that while they live at this house; they also pay their own room and
board to the limit of their financial resources. He noted that ~fter
a short time, they become employed and then contribute to their own
support and maintenance while they are there. He indicated that the
rehabilitation center is a p~ovisional use permitted by the zoning
ordinance, adding that staff has approved this. He noted that they
have e9ceed to all the stipulations. He noted that they havo per-
lDis.ion for off-site parkinq from some of the churches if it is
necessary when they hold the "AA" meetings. He stated that they have
been endorsed by several churches and other ins~itutions in the
area. He indicated that he received two letters; one from Mr. , Hrs.
Bryan, and one from Anna Ri~ota who r..id. in the immediate nei9h-
lDO( 109 Pl'.r 13.9
Page 33
.d
.. 109w-!1!O
. NOVEMBER 3, 1987
borhood next to Maverick Houte, which otates that they are both in
favor of this provisional use.
!'ape ..
Mr. Blackwell stated that the residents of the house are screened
and there is no medical treatment taking place at the facility. He
noted that these people are paøt the initial hurdle and are medically
authorized to be out of the clinical environment area, adding that
they have a vocational screening, emotional screening, and criminal
screening. He noted that to his knowledge there has only been two
incidents in the entire history of the house where any law enforcement
officer had to be called and one of them was when a particular resi-
dent oegan to drink again. He noted that the rules of the house are
strict anð strictly enforced and if drinking occurs again, the resi-
dent is removed. He presented pictures showing the general location
and the surrounding properties as well as two articles that app(!ared
on the editorial pago of the Naples Dally ~Iews.
In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Blackwell stated that these
people come by way of a referral and do not simply come in off the
atreet. He noted that there is a compelling need in the community for
such a facility as this one. He indicated that when a person gets out
of a treatment canter, he is not ready emotionally or physically to be
put in the main stream of society. He indicated that these people
need a place where they can build themselves up again and a place that
ia supportive of their problem while they are trying to work th.ir way
Page 34
-
-
..
__II
-
..
..
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
back into society.
In ~nswer to Commi.sioner Ha.se, Mr. Blackwell stated that this
house is for men only, adding that women may be seen at the home as
there are "AA" meeti~gs twice a week which involves men and women.
The following people spoke in favor of the Maverick House citing
the fact that this home has been improved since the "en have been
usin9 this house, which is an improvement to the area; that there is
no noise and the men are all very considerate and helpful in the
neighborhood; and that such a place is needed for support,
understanding, kindness, and love prior to going back into society to
be a responsible individual:
Michael Power
Terri Brooks
rather Ja..s Schulthess
Johh Renard
'lap. .,
Dave Ellett
Ti. Bixby
Melanie Hawson
Annette Holdemøn
'lap. 110,
Thomas Connelly
Terry Gilroy
Gerald Burek, Jr.
Shana Banson
Frank Reske
Rev. Ted Klees
Robert Melin
Larsen Brown
Dr. Ildefonao Cabrera
Fred Sasportas
April Boucher
The following people spoke against t.his petition citing the fact
that these people are not properly screened; that adolescents live
there: that this should not be in a residential area; that there will
be a need for this facility to expand in the future; ar,d property
values will depreciate:
'lap. It
Doris Cirou
'1'ape '10
George Keller
Richard Braun
Page 35
100« 109':1',1141
.. 109,.·~ 142
NC''EHBER 3, 1987
Commi.sioner Saunders stated that he i~ impressed with the number
of people that have come out to admit that they have had problems end
have benefitted from this house. He noted that these people should be
very proud of themselves and he is very supportive of this program.
C~i.sioner Saunders aoved, seoonded by Commissioner Ooodnigbt
and carried unaniaoualy, tbat .eaolution 87-262 re Petition PU-87-5C,
tor a Rebabilitation Center to be known .s "Maveric~ Bouse" on Santa
Barbara Blvd. be adopted witb tbe stipulation tbat every 12 aontbs,
the Board of Directors of the Maverick Bouse come before tbe Board of
county Coaaisaioners witb a report on the statu. of tbe Bouse, tbe
nuaber of people tbat bav. gone tbrough tbe facility, and an overall
report on wbat ia bappening in order to keep the publio aware of wbat
tbi. facility does.
In answer to Commissioner Hesse, Mr. Blackwell .tated that the
owners of the property are Carl Dean, Uelen Coplen and Sandra Holdeman
and they rent the space to Maverick House.
Page 36
..
-
..
--~,---.
~.. ÞOC 109,.,,,148
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
..... n.c....s 3s15 P.M. - a.oonv.nedl 3:25 P.M. at wbicb
time D.puty Cl.rk ~uet.r replaoed Deputy Cl.rk K.nyon .....
Ita t7A2
PBTI~IOØ A-87-3, APPEAL or PLAHWI.O/IO.Iøa DIRECTOR'8 DBCI8IOØ oø
Orr-SITB PARKIøa rOR TBB UHIrED CHURCH or MARCO - PLAXHIØO/ZOØIØO
DIUCTOR' 8 D8CISIOlf UPJlBLD AIm 8t1ILDIØO PERMIT '1'0 88 I8St1JID WI1'II
STIPt1LATIOJrS
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
October 18, 1987 as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition A-87-3,
tiled by DlIvid L. McE] rath, Attorney for John ðnd K,'lther ine Prout,
appealing nn Administrative Decision thðt Site Development Plan origi-
nally issued in 1982 is still valid and the issuance of a building
per.it in 1987 pursuant to said Site Development Plðn io valid for the
United Church of Marcu Island.
Community Development Ad.inistrator Pet trow stated that this
matter concerns an appeal of the Planning/Zoning Director'. decision
that a Site Development Plan approved in 1982 for off-street parking,
but not implemented to date, does nOl have a time restriction and
remains valid. He stated the site of the approved off-street parking
Is located at the intersection of North Barfield Drive and Briarwood
Court, for 33 parking spaces on 1/3 of an acre.
~ape '11
Mr. Pettrow advised that the building per~it was issued in June,
1987 to construct parking facilities on a residentially zoned lot
Page 37
-
-
-
",-,,-
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
ecroes the street from the churr.h. He stated the approval for the
off-street parking was granted originally in 1982 by the Zoning
Department following the submittal of a required Site Development
Plan, which is consistent ~ith Section 10.5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
He said approximately five years has lapsed since the Site D~vel( pment
Plln WIS issued and the church is now ready to construct the par.:ing
lot. He said as a result of the Building Permit being issued an
appeal has been filed to prevent the use of the vacant lot as a
parking facility. He advised the basis of the appeal is that thp. pro-
posed u.e ia not in compliance with the current Zoning Ordinance beca-
use a 5 year delay has occurred since the Si te Develq)ment Plan "a.
originally approved. He said the appellant contends that by applying
the policy of legislative intent, the SDP, w~ich does not have an
expiration date, should be adm:nistered the same as provisional usee,
which do have expiration dates. He noted that in addition the appeal
questions the Building Permit application which states the purpo~e of
construction is an addition, when the prooosed parking lot is on an
adjacent block and separated from the existing church facility by
Briarwood Court.
Mr. Pettrow stated that in response to the concern over the time
lapse, Staff finds no basis to invalidate the SDP, because there is no
time limit or clause which addresses this matter in the Zoning
Ordinance. He stated it is Staff's opinion, concerning off-street
parking, that Section 8.12 specifically addres~es and adequately
Page 38
'OG( 100,S',r 1'49
--
109",o! 150
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
allows for parking faciliti~s within 600 feet of the principal use
lot.
Mr. Pettrow stated Staff recommends that the Phnning/Zonin9
Director's decision that the Site Development Plan approved in 1982
for off-street parking for the United Church of Marc~ remains vlllid
with regard to location and that a time limit or expiration datu on
the Plan does not apply.
Commissioner Glass asked Planning/Zoning Director McKim if the
request for the parking lot were presented today, without the bf!nefit
of the old Site Development Plan, would it be approved? Mrs. M,:::Kim
stated that under those circumstances she would recommend that the
church apply for a provisional use. She noted that none of the
churches on Marco Island are provisional uses, but rather are provided
for on the Subdivision Master Plan which supersedes the need for a
provisional USe.
Mrs. McKim stated that if a provisional use were necessary it
would undergo the entire re~iew process. She stated that the church
did apply for a p~ovisional use, which was withdrawn, and included
other properties. ~ ",e stated that it is her opinion that with
appropriate mitigation, a parking lot could be appropriate on that
site for a church in light of the limited use a church gets.
Attorney David McElrath, representing John and Katherine Prout,
Petitioners, stated that this is the first opportunity for the citi-
zenry of Marco Island to contest the proposed issuance of a building
Page 39
-
-
..
-",.._.,-~.......<"".."'."".~,-"._--'"
NOVEMB!:R 3, 1987
per.it for the United Church of Marco's parking lot. He said the
parkin~ lot was approved without public notice, hearings or notifica-
tion of adjoining residents. He noted that the application for the
parking lot on Barfield and Briarwood is for a non-adjacent, sin9le-
family residential lot located across the street from the church. He
advised they feel the SDP was approved in error or inadvertently in
1982 by an Administrative Assistant in the Zoning Department.
Mr. McElrath stated that Section 10.5(b)(5) of the Zoning
Ordinance states that SDP must be commit ted to "permit ted utles". He
said those permitted uses are spec if ically Olltl ined as single-family
residences, public parks, public playgrounds, public playfiE!lds, and
commonly owned space. He said parking lots I!re not addressE!d anywhere
in the single-family Zoning Ordinance. He noted that becaufle it is
not mentioned, Section 7.11(b)(4) must be followed. He quoted, "a
prohibited use and structure is not permitted to be built."
Mr. McElrath stated a church is a permitt~d provisional use in the
District, and since the parking lot itself is a prohibited use, the
church may cia im it is to be used in conjunction with the church. He
said if this is the case, the parking lot must be applied for
according to Section 13 of the Zoning Ordinance addressing provisional
uses, including written petition, public notic~ and public hearing.
He said Section 10.5(c)(9) states an SDP general development must be
compatible snd harmonious with the propertieD in the general area and
with other '~evelopment in the area as to not cause a substantial
pege 40
aDIII 109 WI 151
._-_._~.~, .-.
aooc 1U9,a',f 152
NOVEMBER 3, 19 8 7
depreciatic·n of property values.
Mr. HcE:lrath stated that permitting a parking lot in a single-
family residential area will result in a tremendous devaludtion of the
property 01 the neighboring land owners and Marco IBland as a whole.
He then ree,d a letter dated July 28, 1987 addressed to County Manager
Dorrill frc,m the residents of Briarwood Court and Piedmont Circle
requesting that the United Church of Marco be required to submit a
1987 provitlional use petition and a public hearing '1cheduled before
the CCPe alld the Board of County Commissioners on this matter.
Mr. Mcl:lrath continued by stating that Mr. Pet trow cites Section
8.l2(d)(3) which permits the Zoning Director to approve an SDP per-
mitting a parking fad li ty to be erected within 600 ft. of the
building OJ· use it it! intended to serve. Ife said that Mr. Pettrow
fails to ~~ntion the remaining requirements of that section which sta-
tess "when practical difficulties prevent the placing of the required
off-street parking facilities on the same lot as the building or use
it is intended to serve". He said there is nothing shown that there
were pract,ical diff iculties at the time of the application for the SDP
in 1982 wh,¡ch prevented the parking lot from being built on the same
lot as the church, since in 1983 the church expanded to nearly double
i'.5 originnl size. He also noted that Sectiol" 10.5(e) requires that
any change to a SDP requires a complete review.
Mr. Mcglrath pointed out that the church applied for a provisional
use permit in 1986 (Petition PU-86-19C) for the construction of
Page 41
-
-
..
._,-,~-,"~,,,,--~--...~....,,,,,,.."_---.
_.",_.,·~__"<O."'"...,,.o, ..,. . .,."...
-
-
-
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
parking lot~ that would entail filling in a portion of the Briarwood
Canal and p~ving over 9 or IO residenti~l lots to construct parking
lots, which was later withdrawn by the church due to public outcry.
He stated it is their contention that the church abandoned the 1982
SDP approval pursuant to Section lO.5(e) and should be required to
reapply for a new SDP. He stated the 1986 applicetion is prima facia
evidence of the church's intent to abandon the origir'al SDP. He then
requested the Board to order the 1982 SI>P invalid and prohibit the
issuance of the building permit.
In answer to Commis5ioner Pistor, Mr. McElrath stated he did not
research the Board minutes, but rather relied on the Planning
Department records. Commissioner Pistor stated he was on the B08rd in
1982 and he remembers a public heering and the church applied for more
than one lot: one on Barbados and Barfield which was denied and the
one at Briarwood and 1arfield which was approved. Mrs. McKim stnted
there is no provisional use for the church because it was platted as a
church aite which negates the need to apply for the provisional use
process. She said that in reviewing the rile on tho site plans, there
were two plan applications requested, aft described by Commission(lr
Pistor, and only the site on Barfield and Briar.lood waR approved under
the sito plan. She elso noted that site development plans are
approved at the administrative level. She said they could not find
where the Board took any action on this plan, and they usually do not.
County Attorney Cuyler stated that he sees no me~tion of the issue
Page 42
lOb 109 FA~~ 153'
f!
" .
..
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
of the 1982 approval in his pftperwork, and asked if this issue is
being r8ise~ for the first time today? Mr. McElrath said it is their
position that in ord~r to review the validity of the SDP, the basis
and circumstances must be viewed.
Mrs. Katie Prout, Petitioner, submitted a petitiol :n opposition to
the United Church of Marco's parking lot. containing approximately 300
signatures. She als~ suÞ~itted copies (If letters received on this
issue, and two original letters which she received just prior to the
meeting. She also distributed copies of a booklet containing her sta-
tement on this issue and copies of the npplicable sections of the
Zoning Ordinance (Exhibit No~ II filed in the Clerk's Office).
Responding to Mr. Cuyler, Mrs. Prout stated that she first became
aware that a SOP existed a couple days before her meeting with Planner
Weeks on July 13, 1987.
~ap. f12
Attorney James Karl, of ~rost , Jacobs, representing the United
Church of Þ!arco, stated they feel there is a very narrow issue at
stake and requested the Board to refer directly to the appeal docu-
ment. He etated the issue is a question as to wh~ther or not a limi-
tation, in this case ð one year limitation, should be imposed upon the
Site DeYe1(~ment Plan issued in 1982. He sta,ed that until a few
minutes ag(1 there were no documents or anything that indicated that
the SOP itf~lf was going to b~ challenged.
Mr. Karl stated the SOP was issued and relied upon by the church
pege 43
-
-
..
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
after it .,as issued. He sa id there were two lots which were being
considered for purchase by the church and both contracts were made
expressly contingent upon obtaining the npproval for use of those Lots
as parking faciJlties. He said they obtnined the approval for one lot
and did not obtoin approval for the other lot and the purchase was
cancelled on the lot which was not approved.
Re.ponding to Chairman Hasse, Mr. Karl stated he believes the
church owns other lots in the surrounding area, however, this appeal
is for thE! lot on BarfiElld and Briarwood. Mr. Karl stated that in
reviewing tho file on the purchase of the lot, they obtained copieB of
letters notifying the adjacent property owners of the purchase and a
description of what was intended for the lot.
Mr. Xerl stated that the appellants would like the church to irnpose
an after-thE!-fact time limitation, when the church could have no
possibility of ever thinking that a time limitation would be imposod.
He stated such action would create a very disturbing precedent for the
citizens of Collier County who rely on Zoninq Ordinances and rules.
He noted that to have a specific affirmative obligation read into nn
Ordinance io something that does not come within tþe scope of legißla-
tive intent and could not have been the legislative intent or it would
haye been expressed.
Hr. Karl continued by stating that the appellant is also claiming
that the building permit application was submitted as an addition and
since it Is not contiguous with the church property, the 1982 SDP is
Page 44
~OC( 109 F&'.l155
--"'.....
","""_,_"""._,o."_",,,,",,,.,~,,_,,-,,,,...._____,,,."·.,,.,.~.,,"_."
,~ I_·_-_",~,.,~=-,.,-
':;'
¡J-".i
, ':
~.
riOt,
~''':
'u
{.
~ -Inn 156
,:'... ~,....
NOVEMBER 3, 19 8 7
invalidated. He pointed out that the building permit application
offers three choices: n~, alteraticn or addition. He said in this
case, aince the church already uses the lot as a parking facility,
they are merely going to landscape and put in the parking area, and it
ill closer tCI an addition than an alteration or new facility. Mr. Karl
stated he d~fers to the County Attorney and agrees that Section 8.12
of the Zoning Ordinance provides for SDP approval of' parking facili-
tie. that al"e within 6CXJ ft. of the aervicing building.
Mr. Knr:l stated they agree with the Plar¡ning/Zoning Director's
Decision, the Executive Summary, ðnd the interpretðtion of the County
that the action in 1982 properly supports the building permit in this
case. He stated the collateral issues on other lots, the church,
people and /,eighborhood were all deal t with in 1982 and relied upon by
the church.
Attorney Fred Kramer of Frost & Jacobs, representing the United
Church of Marco, stated that he would like to ðddress the emotional
issues brought up today. He reminded the Board thðt the emotional
issues of expansion of the parking lot, the luture plans of the
church, saving the neighborhood, and the concept of property valucs
are not th~ issues today. He stated thp. the ~hurch is not seeking
anything bE!yond the bui Iding pcrmi t at issue.
Mr. Cu~'ler pointed out that whi Ie the Board is interested in the
future plans of the church, it does not strictly have a bearing on
whether tho Site Development Plan is an appropriate basis for the
Page 4~
-
..
..r
HOVDIBER 3, 1987
i.suance of a building permit today.
RespondJng to Commissioner Glass, Mr. Karl stated that there is no
doubt at al] that in 1982 it was clearly the intent of lhe church not
to buy the property unless they had the U9P.. He said the church Js
run by a Board of Directors and changes occur and there ~ay have been
purchases since that time that were made without the contingency on
zoning.
Continuing to respond to Commissioner Glass, Mr. ~arl stated that
the provisional use petition was withdrawn because of opposition and
the church decided to proceed with the lot which was already approved.
He atated that the church has made attempts to deal with public oppo-
sition because they are concerned about the aesthetics in the
community.
Mrs. McKim stated that the reason the lot in question wa. included
in the 1986 provisional use was at Staff request. She sðid that at
that time she was nct aware that a SDP existed for off-site parking on
the Barfield 8!,d Briarwood lot.
Mr. John Prout, Petitioner, and Ms. Rùth Kempf spoke in opposition
to issuance of the building permit for the parking lot.
Mr. Cuyler, defining the issue, reminded the Board that the i.sue
is not a provisional use petition, and the Board is not in a legal
position to determine whether the parking lot is a good use or a bad
use for the property. lie stated the issue is dn appeal of the Zoning
Director's decision to allow a building permit to be issued under an
Page 46
IOOC 109 m.t 157
_~..,."._"__"^,......",,,,,. ..,. ....""k.~'.""..,"__
-~~"-_..._",--
"''''"'''''~'''''''.'''''''''_'''_>O'.';""",_,."_~_,,_...."~.,
_ 109".J 158
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
exi.ting Site Ðevelcpment Plan that was issucd in 1982 and which the
church claims is valid today and the appellants claim should not be
valid today. He said the eppellants have raised two legal issues: 1)
the SD~ was illegally issued in 1982, and 2) there has been a 5 year
delay in construction of the Site Development Plan and are asking the
Board to find that it is no longer valid and no building permit should
be i.sued. He stated that a lot of the discussion will probably be
heard from the public about the use itself, and that i8 not the
question. He noted thc Board is to decide whether they uphold or
overturn the Zoning Director's decision.
ttape'13
Responding to Commissioner Pistor, Mr. Cuyler stated that normally
when regulations changc, as long as someone has a previous approvnl,
they will be grandfathered. He said if regulations change and thcre
was no expiration on the approval, it does not expire.
Mr. Cuyler stated that although he has not given his opinion yet,
this type of issue normally will not appear before the Board unles.
he has sUpported the Director's decision. He noted that he has not
heard the allegation that the approval in 1982 was not proper until
today. He stated his opinion is that the decision that is being
appealed is the building permit on the SDP and the primary ar9umen~
would have to be the 5 year delay; there is no expiíation provision;
the SDP hns not expired; and a building permit can be issued under
that SDP. Answering Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Cuyler stated that his
Pag_ 47
-
..
...
~ .,.....
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
opinion i8 that the church is correct.
Mr. Cuyler also noted that the Staff must take its lead from the
Board and the Board, in the past, has been very cognizant of rel~ance,
expenditures of money, and good faith on County approvals that hßve
been iusued.
... RlClSS A~ 4135 P.M. RBCOMVBØBD AT 4145 P.M. ...
Deputy Clert Kenyon replaced Deputy Clert lueter
planning/Zoning Director McKim stated that she would like to
clarify one issue which is the original approval of the site develop-
JDent plan and if it was done in error. She noted tl.at et that time,
the interpretation was that off-site parking could be permitted and
approved through the site development plan process on residential
lots. She stated that this interpretation held until she became
Zoning DirE~tor and she does not feel that this is the intent of the
zoning ordl,nance. She stated that subsection (d) provides for parking
to be on the same lot and in the same zoning district, adding that
when the ordinance starts to address the off-site parking, it does not
.ake reference to having to be in the same zoning district. Sh~ indi-
cated that her argument is that residentiLII distr icts do not allow
parking lots. She reported that according to the interpretation in
1982, that aite development plan was issued correctly and that
interpretation was nevcr appealed at that tima.
Mr. David McElrath stated th~t the reliance by the church was
based upon the interpretation made in 1982, and at the present time
P/1ge 48
IOOC 109 pa'.! 159
. I I l.
, .', '
---,..
_"'__'~_"~"''''i~''.._"''''''''''''"'''''';~'.''··"
109,.·.! 160
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
there is no paved parking lot pursuant to a building permit issued
pursuant to the 1982 SDP.
The following people spoke in opposition to this parking lot being
located in a residential area citing the fact that it will degrade the
property, depreciate the property values; be a detriment to the neigh-
borhood aesthetically; set a precedent; create further expaneion of
the overall church facilities; deny the neighbor's rights; creat.
increased traffic and would not be harmonious with the neighborhood:
Ed Clark (pictures and a map presented)
Robert Morris
Dorothy MacLean (pictures presented)
Valerie Morris
"ape 114
Robert Stiers, Director of the Marco Island Taxpayers Assoc.
Blane Oblak
The following people spoke in fav~r of the parking lot citing the
1982 interpretation of the zoning ordinance, the need for the addi-
tional parking that will be limerock with top soil and grass and will
be used 3 ~ours a week and will be nicely landsca~ed and will have
picnic tables available for people in the neighborhood to use, the need
for expansion of ~he church in future years:
Earle Davis
Darrell Brown
Paul Tateo
E. Arnold Lewin
Commis:,ioner Saunders stated that he feels that it would be
appropriabt for the church to bring in their overall plans for treir
future expllnsion under a provisional USe so that the Board will know
what is be,lng approved versus coming to the Board with one piece at a
Page 49
-
..
..
~~-~"._._"""""".~""'''~'-'-'' ....,~.,....~"'"'''''"~'''......_--,
II _____........
_.~_..,..._""....-_....."-,,
-
-
-
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
ti.., adding that he is having a hard time making a decision based on
one piece at a time.
Mr. Tateo stated that the church does not know what the plans will
be in five years, adding that they will monitor the project because if
growth slows down, they will not build, but if grO¥th increases, they
aay have to build larger than what they may originally be thinking_
Comnissioner Saunders stated that assuming that the Board approves
the staff reconunendation, the Board of Trustees of the Church
recognize that this in no way is ftn indication that provisional use
applications for other lote would necessarily be favorably considered,
to which Mr. Brown replied that the Church knows that they are at risk
for the other lots.
... At 5s30 P.M. Deputy Clerk ~uoter replac~d Deputy Clerk ~eDyoD ___
Mr. George Keller, Collier County Civic Federation, stated his
opinion that the Board is bound by previous Commissions and anyone who
bought in that area after 1982 knew the parking lot existed.
'tape U5
Mr. McElrath and Mr. Karl each gave a summation of their argu-
ments. Mr. Cuyler stated that thct Board has hoard some eloquent
discussions of the issues and restated his opinion that the church has
establIshed a chain of legal rights, the SDP was appropriately
approved in 1982, there was reliance on the approval by the church,
and there is no expiration provislon.
C~issioDer Saunders aoved, øecoDded by Co.-issioDer Gla.. and
.age 50
aooc IOn ,ar.( 161
--~-.,....._..",.",",,--,-. . """"~~;,,~,,,.,".,,~..~-,.,,~,"-~-,","",._--
"''''-"''-~^''''.''''.,"''^--'"''
.. 109,.<·\ 162
MOVEXBER 3, 1987
carried unanimously, tbat tbe p~Þlic hearing be closed.
Commissioner Saunders stated that this is a very difficult issue
and the reason is that there is so much emotion from the neighbors
concerning the impact. He said he is not completely convinced that
the single parking lot will have as drastic an impact as the neighbors
feel it wi 11 have. He stated th.:! County Attorney has stated that
Staff is correct in upholding th.!! bui Idíng permi t and and he does not
feel the Board is in a position to do anything to the contrary. He
noted, however, that if he votes to uphold the Zoning Director's deci-
sion, it in no way implies that he will vote for anything else.
Responding to COMnissioner G>Odnight, Mrs. HcKi. stated that even
if the other lots owned by the c1urch are contiguous to this par-
ticular lot, they would need a provisional use for the other lots.
Answering Commissioner Pistor, Mrs. McKim stated that their plans
today must comply wi th the Site l)evelopment Plan that was issued in
1982, whIch included asphalt and landscaping. She stated that any
change to that Plan would requir.!! them to go back through the Site
Development Plan process. Chairlnan IIasse stated that even though the
church Bays they will put gras8 in the parking lot, they will not be
able to.
Mr. Cuyler asked Mr. Brown ir the church has to use asphalt on the
parking lot, will they proceed? Mr. Brown stated they will do wha-
..I!J' T ~.. __' ~J' _::.::-.::;p. .r -~ ~
co..la.ioner Saunders asked If tne building permit .s approved, why
Page 51
-
-
..
NOVEMBER 3, 1997
can't the Staff or County direct or change the Jesign to conform with
what Mr. Brown would l.ike to do? Mr. Cuyler stated that the SOP is
either c~lied with or it ia not.
Mr. Cuyler advised that if th~ Board wishes to place a condition
on the building permit it can do :50, however, he cannot tell the.. that
it will nct. make it IIIOre subject to challenge. He noted that the Board
.uat separate the practical side from the legal issue and Mr. Mc!lrath
will make the argument that the church is not complying with the SOP.
coaais.~oner Saunders aoved tbat tbe planning/Zoning Director'.
4eoi.ioD be uphe14 and tbe building pe~it be issue~ with the
followiDg .tipulationss
1.
~e parking lot oan on II be u.e4 on Sunday'. for parking for
the 3 or 3-l/2 bour per od of .ervices.
The appropriate soft surface, grassy type surfaoe referred to
by Mr. Brown, i. tbe only approvecS surface.
Buffering aust be acceptable to tbc County Zoning staff
'l'bere are to be picnic t:ables, as mentioned by Mr. Bro,m,
tbat can be used by tbe neighbors as a park during the other
1-1/2 day. per .eek.
'l'bere be s~e cbanqe or device to prevent vebicles froa
entering tbe property ot.her tban tbe 3-1/2 hour. on sunday.
~here is no indication fr~ this aotion that a provisional
u.e for otber lots will be oonsidered favorably.
C01IIIÚssioner aoodnigbt seconlSed tbe aotion wbiob carried 3/2
2.
3.
4.
5.
t.
(coaaissioners Glass and Ra.se oJ?posed).
~ape '11
It_ teA
DISCUSSIO. 01' SYSTBJI DBVBLOPMBJI'l' CBARGBS FOR SPU.awooD 01' OPUS,
I.C. - 1J(PA~ RBS TO BB PAID YD BCC TO RBIMBURSB FOR SnAGB LID
Page 52
aooc 109 w.t 163
---*
MK 1OOn',! 164
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
Attorney Donald Pickworth advised that Springwood of Naples, Inc.
is a 96 unit condominium development. He stated that 60 of the units
hive been completed, sold, and residents are living in them. He (laid
they h~ve a package plant and are not presently served by the County
Water/Sewer System. He said they have been advised they must connect
to the County's system and the question is whether they have to pny
system development charges.
Mr. Pickworth staled that in 1984, the developer of Springwoe<l
entered into an Agreement with the County which required him to build
a package plant. He sald the Agreement also provides for the deve-
loper to ~rn oy.r the plant. which i. recoqniEed tc be en interim
facility. He stated that the Agreement etates that the developer
agrees to all system development charges that are in effect at tho
time building permits are requested and these charges will be mado
known to all proapective purchasers.
Mr. Pickworth stated that the developer did advise all prospective
purchasers, howeve~, there were no system development charges in
offect in 1984 an~ there was no way to foresee that the County would
impose an Ordinance establishing system development charges in 1986.
He said the County Ordinance provides not only for impact fees, but
also that all existing units will pay a system development charge.
Mr. Pickworth stated that the position of Staff is that the
Ordinance cont~ols and that Springwood is responsible to pay when they
connect. He said their feeling ia that the 1984 Agreement should
prevail. Ho stated they are offering the following compromises
Pago 53
-
..
-
..".",., .....,',."'..;~..,',~,.,~ "'···"~'"~"N._ "";"."'-.'_
-"'... _..~.,...."'~,~.__._-"....._~_.
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
l. Springwood will ~ay the impact fee for the 32 units under
construction.
2. Springwood will be responsible for running the lInes to con-
nect the oIl sewer system at Yo-Tech, and the Springwood
plant.
3. In return, the County will not charge the existing 64 units
the system de'·elopment fees.
Assistant County Attorney Anderson advised that the cost of
running the line and connecting to the County line could be applied
against the total impact fees of the 96 units, however, it cannot
delete the existing 64 units' charges.
In answer to Chairman Hasse, Me. Anderson stated there will be a
problem with procedent and the Board would riak having the County's
i.pact fee structure invalidated. He stated the cost of a 2 bathroom
residence is $l,l60.
Mr. Pickworth stated that the c:ost of running the line for the
Yo-Tech and Spdngwood systems will be appro:dmately $50,000.
Commissioner Glass stated that the language in the 1984 Agreement
ia very clear and there WIIS no Ordlnance in effect when the original
64 building permits were issued.
coaai.sioner alass aoved tbat t:be Board of County C~i..ioner.
consider and approve tbe coapromisfl po.ition of sprinqwood of .aples,
Ino.
Utilities Administrator Crandall suggested that if the Board is
coneidering a compromising position, the developer could pay the
entire amount of the fees and the County could reimburse them fo:" the
Page 54
aøoc 109rat:t 165
"'..'t'-o:.._
,,"',., '~'~~-~.'--""_.>"'.'~'.~... ""L"'~'·_ ....,..,.
aooc 109 '1r.[ 166
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
construction costs of the line to connect.
Coaaisøion.r al..s withdrew his aotion.
After Mr. discussion, Mr. Rona.ld Beaudry, petitioner, stated his
compromise offer again.
'1'ape 117
coaaisøioner Pistor aov.d, s.ooI1d.d by Coaaission.r Ol.ss and
oarri.d unaniaously, tb.t 8prin9Y~S of .apl.s, Inc. will pay the
iapaot f.. for all " units and th. County will r.imburs. th..
for tb. oost of constructing tb. li~e for conn.otion, with tb.
.qr....nt to be brougbt back for .pJj)roval.
It_ feD
CLBAlf-tJP DAts PaR aooDLAJID Oø JIOVBMJBBR 5TH, 6TH, AIm 7TH, 1987
A1'PROVBD
coaai..ion.r 8aund.r. mov.d, ..~ond.d by coaais.ion.r alas. and
carri.d un.nimously, tbat "Cl.an-Up Days" for Qoodland on RoveJlber
5th, .th, and 7tb, 1917, Þ. approv.'d .nd landfill f..s be waived.
It.. t9A1
PBT%'1'IOIf KP-.7-IC, CKARLB8 B. XVLP RBQOBSTIøa A REOUCTIOR or TBB REAR
YARD 8ftBACJt rOR PROPBR'l'Y LOCAnD II IlAPLB8 BATH' 'fBDI8 CLOD _
APPROVlsO
Planning/Zoning Director McKim stated that Mr. Kulp is requesting
e reduction to the rear yard setback from 15 ft. to 5 ft. for a pool
located within the Naples Bath' Tennis Club Subdivision on the south
side of Swallow Pointe. She stated that Staff has no objections and
the CCPC reviewed and forwarded with a unanimous r.:ommend~tion of
approval subject to the fOllowing stipulation:
Page 55
_I
'..
-
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
1. Landscaping per Section 8.37 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be
provided along the southwestern side lot line in the area of
the encroachment to act as a visual buffer.
In answer to Commissioner Pistor, Mrs. McKim advised that the area
behind the property is a large common area containing a lake.
cOMaissioner pi.tor ~ed, seoonded by coaaissioner Goodnight and
carried uDaniaou.ly, tbat Petition MP-87-8C, Cbarle. B. Kulp
requesting a 10 ft. setback reducti,on from tbe required rear yard .et-
back for aoces.ory struotures, be 'Ipproved.
n_ 19A2
CAJUrIVAL nRKI~ 87-9, OUR LADY or (Jt7ADALUn CATHOLIC CXURCB, rOR
AJIXtJAL CBUJtCJI CAJUnVAL PROM JIOVBKBJ!R 25 TO 29, 1987 - APPROVBD
coaai.sioner pistor aoved, secl)nded by co_i..ioner Goodnight and
card.ed unanilloualy, that carnival Permit 87-9 for our Lady cf
Guadalupe catholic Churoh, from .a?eaber 25 to 29, 19'7, be approved
and the 8urety Bond .aived.
Page 56
aDO ( 109 w.l167
'I ..
¡ .
., 1:,
, ;.)
_""",""",__·,~·_~_~,,~~.w_,,~,,·~. ,. .-._.......""_,
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
It. ftU
~I~IO. MP-17-tC, THOMAS ~ BARBARA BELL RBPRZSEØTIKO WILLIAM
DAlnELS, RBOtJB8'1'Iøa A 8Z'l'BACK RBDt ~IOØ IØ THE rROØT AND SIDB YARD8
FOR PROPERTY IØ rOREST LAUD - APJlROVED
Planning/Zoning Dir~ctor McKi" stated this is a request for
~ltiple setback reductions to allow a residence to remain where it is
presently located. She advised t~e property is located on the nQrth
aide of Happolo Drive in the Foree,t Lakes Subdivision at the end of a
cul-de-sac and is shaped irregularly. She stated the petitioner is
requesting a reduction in the front yard setback from 20 ft. to l8.3
ftd the east aide yard fro. 7.5 ft. to 7.2 ft.; and the west side
y.rd from 7.S ft. to 6.2 ft.
Mrs. McKim advised that this j,s an after-the-fact variance request
due to . survey error at the time of construction in 1984 end has
remained undetected until a boundnry survey for a financial institu-
tion was performed. She stated that both adjacent lots are developed
and no correspondence has been rec:eived.
Mrs. McKim stated that Staff has no objections and the CCPC for-
warded their recommendation of approval.
cOIIIIi..ioner Pistor aoved, .e.,onded by cOllais.ioner alas. and
carried unanimously, tbat Petition MP-17-9C, 'l'bomas and Barbara Bell,
representing willi.. Daniels, re~Je.ting a setback reduction in tbe
front yard and side yards for property located on tbe north .ide of
aappolo Lane in tbe rorest Lakes Subdivision, be approved.
PlIge 57
lOGe 100 'A'.{ 169
IlK 109 mt 170
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
tt_ In1
COJf8'l'RUC'I'IOW OP ACCESS IMFROVBXmrJ'S A1fD SITB IMPROVEKEJrrS POR '1'JI!:
COtmTY'8 55 ACRB PARCEL LOCU'BD AJ.oØO IMMOItALBB ROAD WI'l'BIØ 'l'BB
ORAØGB'l'RBE POD - APPROVED (PAIR SITE)
co..issioner piator ~ed, seoonded by Commiasioner aoodnigbt and
carried unaniaously, that conatruotion of access improv_anta and aita
improvement. for tbe county'. 55 ncra parcal located along I..okalee
acad within the Orangetree POD, bft approved per Staff reco..endations.
It_ 112D
UCOGJrI~IO. OP TJm nsn:D Bon:L UOB OP A VA1fDBRBIL~ BEACH ItOAD
PROPB1tft (PORMBRLY IaIOW1I AS COØJfORS VAJrDBRBILT BEACH PROJB~ OR 'l'JIB
WIKDWARD COVB) A1fD COKDITIOWS POR ISSOAØCB OF BUILDIwa PBRMITS
'81-52'8, '81-5579, '81-5580 and ~81-5'04 - APPROVED WI'l'B CHAØOE8
Commissioner Glaas stated the existing building permits will
expire in the near future and conditions have been drafted by the
Planning Department and the County Attorney to aCknowledge the vested
interest and reduce density to t~3ay's standards. He noted that the
impact fees of over S400,OOO have been paid and there will be no
refund in excess of what is requi.red with 162 units.
Commiesioner Glass read the cl)nditions and stated that they have
been advised by c~mpetent authority, Purcell & Haskins designer, that
the 6 month time frame will not ~a adequate and the project will take
one year. He suggested that Para~raph "D" and "E" of the Conditions be
modified to reflect "twelve months".
County Attorney Cuyler stated that this is a situation where
older building permits exist. He said Building Permit '81-5579 and
\ ,
L¡
1. ¡ ~:
Page 58
-
..
..
NOVEMBER J, 1987
'81-5580 are currently valid permits for 77 units and 85 units respec-
tively, for a total øf 162 units. He said they also have a currently
valid Building Permit for 79 unit~, '81-5268, and a valid Building
Permit, '81-5604, for a garage structure. He said if the permit
holderu are willing to comply with all of today's regulations with
respect to the payment of applicable impact fees, the question nrise.
if the Board has the authority to say they recognize that the indivi-
dual has a hotel use on this property, and that currently valid
building permits are vestp.d7
Mr. Cuyler stated that if the permit holder wants to submit
an application for a new buildin9 per~it, wants to comply with
today's zoning and building regulations, and wants \;0 comply with
today'. density, to a maximum of 162 units, then the Board ha. the
discretion to ¡,llow them to do so, as long as all of the items listed
in the conditions are met. He noted that the only other variation, is
that the number of stories may not be in compliance.
Mr. cuyler stated they will be forfeiting the 79 units for which
they have a valid building permit and will forfeit any water and sewer
impact fe.. whicl. have been paid.
In answer to Commissioner pi.tor, Mr. Cuyler stated the permits
were kept alive in the same way all of the other older permits have
been kept alive, by performing the minimal amount of work required.
In anRwer to Chairman Hasse, Planning/Zoning Director McKim stated
the maximum height in C-3 zoning is 50 ft. with a provisional use up
Page 59
aDD( 109 pa'.! 171
109w~ 172
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
to 100 ft. She stated the current permits are for 10 stories.
Mr. Cuyler slaled thal the Board needs to understand that it this
action is taken for these permits, any situation found to have a
vested use and a vested density, will have to be recognized with
today'. intensity requirements. County Manager Dorrill stated that
this also recognizes th~ degree to which they have made a good faith
effort to construct something.
Mr. Thomas Tucker, owner, stated that he has read the proposed
conditions, understands theø and agrees to comply. In answer to Mr.
Cuyler, Mr. Tucker stated that he understands that he will be for-
feiting any impact fees previously paid.
comai..ioner Pi.tor aoved, ..conded by co..i.sioner Saunders and
oarried unaniaously, tbat tbe ve.ted botel use of a Vanderbilt Øeacb
Road property (foraerly known as Connor. Van4erbilt Beaob project or
tbe Windward Cove) be recoqni.ed, and tbe following conditione be
plaoed on tbe i.suance of a building peraits
Pnge 60
-
'..
..
-",-,~,,,~,.",,,-----_....,--,....,,<,".,-
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
lua U.s.u , UUoJ
IUDGft AIIlJltnOlITS 11-13 AJID CORUC'rIøa 81-4 TO 87-519 - ADOP'l'BD
c~is.!oner Goodniqbt aoved, .econded by coaa!s.ioner pi.tor and
carried unanimou.ly, tbat Budqet A.endaent. 88-13 and correcting 88-4
~ '7-519, be adopted.
AAA
The followinq it..s were approved and/or adopted under tbe
Consent Agenda upon aotion made by Comais.ioner Saunder.,
.econded by c~i..ioDer Pistor and carried unaDimouslys
AAA
It_lUll
TDl'ORARY U'l'ILI'rY EABIDœØ'l' TO rLOR.IDA P01rSR AIm LIaB'l' POR 'l'BB BBIŒ7IT
or COtJR'l'BOuø. BUILDlltGS "C" AIm "11"
See pages I KP #0 I%'3
It_ 114B2
ACCBP'rAIICJS or S.CURI," POR 'r1IB St1!IDIVISIOØ IMPROVBUlITS AIm
C01fST1tU~IO. AIm MAIJI'1'DAJfCB MUI:MB1I"I' U rIJrAL PLA~ or PBLICAJI BAY
u.n' 7 POR UCORDIØO
See pages
IrlJ- I Ri-
.
It_ 114D1
ACCBP'rAIICJS or COCRBCTIVB SBWBR , 1rA'l'BR rACILITIES CO.nJUNfCII DOCtJJCB1frS
POa uaarr PUJt SUBDIVJ:SIO.
See pages O.R. Book 1306. Paqes 2123-2140
It_ 11401
CJSRTlrICA'l'ZS or CORUCTIOØ TO TIIB TAX ROLL
Tangible Personal I'roperty 1987 Tax Roll
Nos. 1987-27/33
Da~ed 10/20-22/81
IOOC 109 Fa'.! 175
Page 6l
~ ¡..! 1.;
, ,\
-..1·."1"¡"I'f\i·_·_-*"',,,'"
... 100 Pa'.{ 176
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
It. '1402
8~n8n~IOø 01" LIDS 1"OR 8ZRVI~S (II" THZ PUBLIC DZnxDER
Sce pages I e7 - ~".3
It_ '140
J118C11LUDOUS CORUSPOJn)DCZ rILED '~/OR UI"IRUD
There being no objection, the fClllowing correspondence was filed
and/or referred to the various depar'tments as indicated below:
1. Copy of letter received 10/16/87 to Stephen Fain, Director of
Finance, Collier County Public Schools, from John Yonkosky,
Clerk of the Circuit Court Office, forwarding remittance of
$59,316 which represented the District School Board's distri-
butive share of 1986-{;7 Federal Payments-in-lieu of Taxes
(P.LL.T.). Referred to BC:C and filed.
,. Copy of letter dated 10/19/87 to Aubrey Rogers and BCC
Chairman from David Brlertcln, Inspector General and Virgil
Choate, Correctional OfficE!r Inspector II, Department of
Corrections, attaching a sUllllllary of September 21, 1987
Inspection Report of the CCIllier County Stockade. Referred
to BCC and filed.
3. Letter received on 10/27/87 from Douglas L. Fry,
Environmental Manager, DER, copy of short form application
(File No. 11140782SITerry .,. Pritchard) which involves
dredge and fill activities. Referred to Neil Dorrill
(letter), David Pettrow, Dr. C. Edward Proffitt and filed.
4. Copy of Certification received on 10/27/87 to District Child
Support Enforcement Supervisor, District Eight, HRS, of ser-
vice of process on 95 child support enforcement actions iden-
tified by the Department afl Title IV-D. Referred to Jim
Ciles and filed.
5. Copy of Certification received 10/27/87 to District Chil~
Support Enforcement SuperY:Lsor, District Eight, HRS, of ser-
vice of process on 30 child support enforcement actions iden-
tified by the Department au Title TV-D. Referred to Jim
Giles and filed.
, ~.,
"'.... ;1" (. t \.<.û f
!H'I:
, "~') ~ ~, :
¡ ~ <,,,
Page 62
I,·. \
-,
..
-
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
6. Letter received from Nancy Conti, Assistant to the Deputy
Commissioner, Department of Labor' Employment, Notice of
Trial and Pretrial (10:00 A.M. Nov. 30, 1987) Conference
Schedule Cor Final Hearings for Monday, January 11, 1988
at Naples City Hall at lO:30 A.M. Referred to Neil DorriU,
Sherry Rynders, Ken Cuyler and filed.
7. Copy oC letter received 10/08/87 from Darrell W. Smith,
planning' Budgeting Administrator, Department of Revenue, to
Honorable Guy Carlton, Tax Collector, notice that budget tor
fiscal year 1987-88 as approved by the Department of Revenue
on 09/lS/87 is the final approved budget. Referred to BCC,
Lori Zalka and filed.
8. Letter received on 10/01/87 from Norman E. Feder, Director,
DOT, listing dates of threo public meetings scheduled to
inform public of Corridor Haster Plan Study on I-7S from
Georgia State Line to south of Naples. Referred to Neil
Dorrill, George Archibald, Jeff Perry and filed.
9. Transmittal letter received 10/2l/87 from W. R. Trefa, Deputy
Assistant Secretary, DOT, with CO~f of the Department's
Adopted Five-year Work Program for the entire state.
Referred to Neil Dorrill (letter), George Archibald (with
original document) and fil.d.
lO. "Order Closing File" received lO/22/87 from Division of
Administrative Hearings, Case No. 87-4183, Department of
Community Affairs vs. Immokalee Road partnership. Roferred
to Neil Dorrill, Devid Pettrow, George Archibald and filed.
ll. Notice received 10/20/87 from Mary Ellen Hawkins of
Legislative Public Hearing regarding pari-mutuel funds.
Refe~red to BCC and filed.
12. Letter dated 10/22/87 fro. Sidney Martin, Chairman, House
Natural Resources Committee, expressing the need for
recycling programs. Referred to Neil Dorrill, Bob Fahey,
Bill Lorenz, George Archit'ald and filed.
13. Minutes:
A. 10/lS/87 - Parks , RE~reation Advisory Board
B. 09/25/87 - Big CypreflS Basin Board of SFWMD
C. 09/01/87 - Marco Islnnd BeautifIcation Board - Corrected
D. 09/09/87 - Marco Iolnnd Beautification Board - Corrected
E. 10/06/87 - Marco Islnnd Beautification Board
aDD( lan ,ar.t 117
Page 63
í!
_......_----""......._-"""';^"',,,...~,_.~.=, ;<.",-"",;"",,,,~.,",,",.,,,,,.,,.~ ..',
... 109 '&'1178
NOVEMBER 3, 1987
14. Letter received 10/27/87 .from Redmond Jones, President,
Naples Park Area Association, stating they will pay impact
fee of 53,370 unwillingly and under protest. Referred to
Bruce Ar'lerson and filed.
lS. Notice dated 10/21/87 of Proposed Agency Action - Amendatory
Order Grant Certificate, Public Service Commission, regarding
Docket No. 8608S2-SU, Ord·er No. 18245-A reI Application of
Eagle Creek Utility Co. f,:>r a sewer certificate in Collier
County. Referred to Neil Dorrill, Bruce Anderson, Tom
Crandall and filed.
16. Copy of letter dated 10/12/87 from Major Lou Gibbs, Jail
Administrator, Sheriff's Department, to Virgil Choate, Prison
Inspector/Investigator replying to citabJe violations of
09/22/87 Inspection. Referred to BCr. and filed.
17. Letter received 10/2787 from Sheriff Aubrey Rogers,
transmitting excess monies from the Sheriff's Office
operating budget for the period 10/01/86 through 09/30/87.
Also included was document titled "Collier County Sheriff'.
Office FY 1986-87 Budget vs. Actual Expenses" and LGF-3,
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures & Changes in Fund
Balance -- Budget' Actual. Refereed to BCC, John Yonkosky
(with check) and filed.
18. Transmittal letter dated 10/20/87 from Guy Carlton, Tax
Collector, with Form LGF-3 end LGFD-8 for Year 1986-87.
Referred to Lori Zalka and filed.
19. Letter dated 10/22/87 from Adam W. Addison, Dvputy Tax
Collector, attaching copy showing the amount of postage used
and due for the first tax notice mailing, pursuant to FL
Statutes 197.322. Referred to Lori Zalka and filed.
20. Letter dated 10/14/87 from Guy Carlton, Tax Collector, with
summary of the Tax Certificates held in the name of the
County that are involved under Florida Statute 197.502.
Referre~ to BCC and filed.
21. Letter dated 10/26/87 fre·m Robert L. Patton, Controller, Tax
Collector's Office with distribution of Current Ad Valorem
Tax and recap showing year to date totals of taxes collected,
net of discount, for 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. Referred
to Lori Zalka and filed.
Page 64
-
'-
..
.-""--
-
1-
-
NOV!MBER 3, 1987
...
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
___ting was adjourned by order of the Chair - Time: 6:55 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY CCMUSSIONERS/
8~ARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OrFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
roNTROL
~~~¿
,~I"
~A1$s_ c. .~fí~, CLERK
.~' ~., ~
"~~~
:. /' .~ - ;; . ....
,". . .,', ~ -- d:;;k."". ð~ LJc_
,,~, '~,_~"td~'\es approved by the Soard on þA,/. ~ ~ /.pr./
','" ,..... ~
IS ~r~ or as corrected .
~ ~ ,;
.,." .
. ,
.... I
, ; .' r ~
Page 65
an« 109,v.[ 179
. /'
. ,
¡''' ';'1 'I'
'4 ~ t ..
¡~J'')~
,I" .
. ¡,., '-'