Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/21/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 21, 1997 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRPERSON: ALSO PRESENT: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara B. Berry Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Pamela S. Hac'Kie W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Hike HcNees, Assistant County Hanager David Weigel, County Attorney (The proceedings commenced, Commissioner Mac'Kie being absent) Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll convene the Collier County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge this morning. MR. DORRILL: Father, we thank you for your wonder and your power and your grace and your love that you have for each one of us. Father, we give thanks for the opportunity that we have as public servants, whether elected county commissioners or appointed staff, to make a difference in our community. Father, this morning we think of one of our fallen comrades in Ron Cook, a friend for many years to employees in both the clerk's office as well as the county manager's office who was killed yesterday in an aircraft accident. We lift up his children this morning, his friends, his colleagues in their sadness for an individual who was truly a joy to come to work and see and work with everyday. We will miss Ron, and we lift him up and especially his family at this time. Father, as always, it's our prayer and our thanks that you give us the desire and the dedication to do the very best that we can to affect positive change in this community and that you would bless our time here together this morning. And we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. Mr. Dorrill, I see we have a few changes to the agenda today. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of changes. I have two add-on items. One is on proclamations and presentations. It will be 5(A) under proclamations, a proclamation recognizing the efforts of volunteers in the fight for cancer. I have one routine add-on item under community development, which is CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Dorrill, that would actually be 5(A)(2), I assume, and we would renumber 5 -- we have a 5(A) already. HR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. It'd be 5(A)(2). Item 8(A)(9) under community development is a routine item in order to effectuate some property closings. It's been the board's policy in the past to add items subject to the approval and all documents having been received by the attorney's office for water and sewer facilities acceptance for a project know as Wilshire Lakes Phase Two. (Commissioner Mac'Kie entered the boardroom.) MR. DORRILL: I have a request under the Board of County Commissioners for an add-on this morning. It will be 10(C), request by the Collier County parks and recreation department to waive special event fees for a circus in conjunction with the Cinco de Mayo to be held on January 24th and 25th at the request of Commissioner Norris. And I have one request for a continuance this morning, Hr. Chairman, and it's Item 8(D)(2), public works, which was an appeal of an administrative decision on the part of the transportation director. We're asking to continue that item two weeks until your regular meeting of February 4th. I have one note for our recording secretary this morning at the request of the sheriff. Item 16(D)(1) is an item in reference to 800 megahertz. There's a statement in there in the body of the staff report that says that the system is operational. We -- just for purposes of the record this morning want to indicate that while the system is operational, it has only been substantially completed, and we're still holding retainage and not made final payment on the 800 megahertz contract. And, Mr. Chairman, that's all that I have this morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we could remove 16(B)(2), which is request approval for additional increase in the amount of $2,000 for Oakes drainage ditch project. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Dotrill, 16 B)(2) will move to? MR. DORRILL: 8 (B) (3) . CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have under proclamations, an add-on, proclamation regarding the Cancerthon, which will become 5(A)(3). And under consent agenda -- one question, Hr. Dotrill, that may keep me from removing this item. 16(D)(1), request board approval for utilization monies in Fund 188 for the 800 megahertz. Fund 188 is? MR. DORRILL: The expendable trust fund that has to do with the cost pertaining to telephone bills for operational costs surcharge on your telephone bill, and both ourselves as well as the sheriff's department are recommending that to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I'll leave that as is. Are there any further changes? See none -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to accept -- or approve the agenda and consent agenda with changes as noted. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, it carries unanimously. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before going to Item 5(A), we have a guest on the panel this morning. Commissioner Hac'Kie, would you like to introduce our guest. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd love to. This is my daughter Annie who's going to help me make all the right choices today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Annie, welcome. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: She's out of school today. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 19-26, 1997 AS 4-H VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On to Item 5(A)(1), proclamations. Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yes, indeed. We have a proclamation this morning for 4-H volunteers. If we could have -- is Barbara Sweinberg here? And Randy Reiner (phonetic)? MR. COLDING: I'm Randy. COHMISSIONER BERRY: You're Randy? Good morning. And, Claudia Wilson, if you would just come up here and stand first, and we'll read the proclamation, and then I'll allow you to say some words afterwards if you would like to do that. The proclamation reads: Whereas, 4-H volunteers are an integral part of Collier County government; and Whereas, 4-H volunteerism results in the participation of over 2,000 youth of our community in enjoyable and productive activities; and Whereas, Collier County 4-H offers many opportunities for citizens who wish to volunteer in a variety of different service areas; and Whereas, last year 4-H volunteers contributed in excess of 5,500 hours of service or the equivalent of three full-time employees; and Whereas, last year 4-H volunteers contributed over $66,000 in services to Collier County government resulting in project achievement for more than 2,000 youth and providing local, area, state, and national opportunities and recognition for Collier County youth; and Whereas, the 4-H Foundation contributes $20,000 each year in private sector funds for scholarships and special materials; and Whereas, without 4-H volunteers the quality of service to the children of Collier County would be greatly reduced. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that extreme gratitude and appreciation is extended to all the 4-H volunteers who give of their time and energies to Collier County government. We, the Board of Collier County Commissioners, do affirm our commitment to youth development and value our partnership with the Collier County 4-H Coordinating Committee, 4-H Foundation, 4-H Leader Association, and the University of Florida in bringing these special opportunities to our children and therefore proclaim January 19th through the 26th as 4-H Volunteer Appreciation Week in Collier County. Done and ordered this 21st day of January 1997. Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept this proclamation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. COHMISSIONER BERRY: And if I could have the three of you come forward, we have a certificate for you in appreciation for your -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All those in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed? (No ~esponse) (Applause) COMMISSIONER BERRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Sam, you've been called worse before. MR. COLDING: I wish I was that good. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE VOLUNTEERS DEDICATED TO A CURE FOR CANCER - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On Item 5(2) I had mentioned additional 5(3); that's not necessary. The Cure for Cancer proclamation covers the Cancerthon; so it's all embodied in 5(2). Is Ed Garcia -- oh, Mr. Fuchs, you're here. Fantastic. We have Ken Fuchs here to accept this proclamation. The proclamation reads as follows: Whereas, cancer is a disease that has and is taking the lives of many friends, relatives, and citizens; and Whereas, we as a nation must unite in our effort to find a cure to stopping this disease; and Whereas, there are many individuals who volunteer their money and who contribute their money to realize a cure for cancer; and Whereas, The American Cancer Society and Continental Cablevision have devoted their resources for more than 40 years in recognizing that cancer is a threat and that everyone together is needed to overcome this deadly disease; and Whereas, on Saturday, January 25, 1997, from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. at Continental Cablevision studio on Tower Road, the last Cancerthon event will take place. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County that the efforts of volunteers and organizations like the American Cancer Society and Continental Cablevision be recognized as we all are dedicated in finding a cure for cancer and courage all citizens to participate and make this Cancerthon a memorable one. Done and ordered this 21st day of January 1997, signed Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. I'd like to make a motion that we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response (Applause) COMHISSIONER BERRY: Thanks again. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Good work. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good work. MR. FUCHS: If I may, a considerable amount of effort is put forth by many good citizens here in Southwest Florida, particularly in Collier County, for this project and this very worthwhile cause. Last year we raised for the American Cancer Society, the chapter here in Collier County, approximately $50,000. And that could not take place without the desire of the volunteers to come forth to put the project together, for the donations that are put forth by the community business leaders, if you will, good corporate citizens of our community. We are pleased to provide and, quite frankly, proud to provide our facilities, our medium, if you will, to help raise funds for such a worthwhile cause. There is hope. We keep our fingers crossed. There is not any of us, I'm sure, that haven't been touched by this challenge. And this is a time we can all get together and make a contribution to a very worthwhile cause. On behalf of all those who are involved in our efforts in this respect, a hardy thank you. And thank you, sir, for your contributions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Fuchs, you're too kind not to blow your own horn, but the work that Continental Cablevision puts forward in the production and airing of seven hours of live auction television is tremendous, and I'll be guest auctioneering this year again, and I look forward to seeing all of you there. And, again, thank you, Ken, and everyone at Continental Cablevision. MS. WILSON: I'm Claudia Wilson, the 4-H Leaders' Association. I'd just like to thank the commission for being there for us when we need you. There are a lot of volunteers. I'm a parent as well as a leader, too, of a club. 4-H means a lot to us, especially those who live out in the agricultural areas. 4-H has been a part of my life, too, because I was a 4-H kid myself out of the Immokalee area with Ms. Audrey Johnson as my leader, and it's really nice to see that it's still here and it's growing, and we'd just like to say thank you, and help continue -- and I'd like to say thanks for helping us and to continue this program. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you missed the 4-H barn at the fair, you missed the fair. Service awards this morning. Commissioner Mac'Kie. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It is truly a pleasure to give an award to -- Jennifer Edwards, if you'll come on up -- Her ten-year service pin, and Jennifer -- (Applause) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Jennifer has served Collier County in many ways and many times and has always answered the call, and we appreciate your work. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a good start. MR. DORRILL: She spent six of those with me; so she gets the purple heart and a kiss this morning. Congratulations. (Applause) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, is Mr. Lemacks not here? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I didn't have that crossed off on my list. Item #7A TONI ARMSTRONG REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF A BEACH/PARK AREA FOR EXERCISING DOGS - NOT TO BE PUT ON REGULAR AGENDA Up to Item 7(A), public petitions, Ms. Toni Armstrong. For public petitions the general course of action is you have ten minutes to present the information. The board typically does not take specific or binding action today, but may make recommendations to our staff to proceed in a course of direction. So with that, Ms. Armstrong. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, as she's coming forward, there appear to be a number of people here in support of Ms. Armstrong that have signed up, but typically you would not hear those. You'd wait and determine whether or not you want to hear these on another day at your discretion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. Because that was in public petition, speakers on the item are limited to those representing the petition. If this does come back on an agenda item, that's the time at which the general public will be allowed to address the matter. MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. I am Toni Armstrong. I reside at 481 Tarpon Court on Marco Island with my father who has lived there since 1968. I am representing 1,065 residents of Collier County in support of the designation of an area or areas along a beach in the unincorporated area of Collier County for the purpose of exercising dogs, the designation of one or more Collier County parks or portions of said parks as permissible sites for the exercising and socialization of dogs. The key words I would stress are "designated" and "areas." The ordinances I'm addressing are in Collier County Code Sections 14-361 and 14-363 dealing with animal control and Section 98-5813 dealing with park usage. I am asking that you direct your staff to identify locations to be known as designated areas, to address any concerns that the board may have, and to come back to the board with a report and proposed ordinances on resolutions or whatever is appropriate. I realize there will be concerns; however, a number of counties and cities in Florida have implemented dog areas, and I feel the concerns here can be addressed in a fair and balanced manner. I would be happy to work with your staff to solve these problems and know there are others who will step forward to help also. Thank you. Do you have any comments or questions that I might be able to answer at this time? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Members of the board? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just remember a few years ago we put out a parks and recreation calendar with a picture of two kids and a dog on the front, and I laughed when it came out because the dog couldn't be in the park, but mysteriously he was on our own calendar. MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I went through this item over the weekend and tried to consider the positives and negatives, the difficulties I came up with are rather glaring. By creating dog areas, we then have to require you to clean up the waste that dogs create. We then fall into an enforcement position of having someone there to enforce that pet owners to pick up the waste, which means that we are probably going to have to hire additional staff to create that enforcement. In addition, you mentioned the socialization of animals in these areas. I don't know if you've ever been to Keywaadin Island in the summertime when people take their dogs out there. I've been there three times. On two of those three occasions, there were fights among dogs with kids nearby. So the socialization of animals among responsible pet owners may be a fine idea, but we can't control whether you're a responsible pet owner or irresponsible in the use of those areas. So in looking at the negatives, I have a difficult time seeing past those including the liability or potential liability to the county should someone be harmed, bitten, or attacked in any of these areas by someone's dog. I just add those things up, and they're very difficult to overcome when the purposes for doing it are exercising and socialization. That's just a comment and I guess more for the benefit of my colleagues, but it's just -- right now it's easy to enforce. We don't have to worry about the problems because it's not allowed. If we allow it, we do have an endorsement issue that needs to be addressed, and I'm just not sure that the use of that area will be significant enough to merit the enforcement costs that the taxpayer's going to have to share. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, what sort of exposure would the county have liability-wise if we, number one, permitted dogs to be in certain areas and then had some unfortunate incident, biting incident? What would our liability be? MR. WEIGEL: There is a potential for liability. The exposure becomes a reality when it is sanctioned or approved by the county for such activities to be on county premises; so the mere allowance of it creates an exposure and a potential for liability. Ultimately on a case-by-case basis if injury to person or property were to occur on the county premises, we would have the elements to enter into consideration as to the county's administration of its new policy and if it passed muster or not. Obviously the potential for a lawsuit is there if an activity is created, and the defense of lawsuits is never absolutely predictable. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The decision today is whether or not to ask or direct staff to bring this back as a future agenda item. Without sounding crass, Ms. Armstrong, it's not my desire to change county ordinance to allow for dogs on the beach or dogs in public parks for the reasons I've cited. I haven't seen nor have I heard any evidence to change that position. Is there a consensus or direction from the board? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I would -- as much fun as it is to -- there are certain types of dogs that are -- seem to fair very well, especially in water. I think about Labs, and they're a lot of fun to take down there. And as much fun as it is to have the dog down there, it's also a tremendous responsibility. And I just -- I'm not sure that I want the county to accept that responsibility and have to monitor it. And that's why as much as it's nice and as much fun as it might be, it's a county responsibility that I shy away from. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I haven't heard from any of my constituents except in the negative. And because of that I'm going to join with you in the position. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's three. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Armstrong, we thank you very much and appreciate your bringing this as a public petition today. Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 97-052 DIRECTING THE PROPERTY OWNER/ENTITY OF PINE RIDGE CENTER WEST PUD TO SUBMIT AN AMENDED PUD WITHIN THE TIME FRAME ALLOWED BY THE LDC REQUIREMENT - ADOPTED Moving to Agenda Item 8(A), community development and environmental services. We've got a lot of PUDs today that are back under the sunset provision for Ordinance 88-87. This is Item 8(A)(1). MR. MILK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Bryan Milk. The reason I'm before you today is Ordinance 88-87. The Pine Ridge Center West PUD is up for sunsetting. That requirement is because the PUD has not commenced development or provided a development order for 15 percent of the infrastructure, roads, any of the related PUD master plan items, for that particular document. The Pine Ridge Center West PUD is approximately 8.87 acres in size and is located within the 1-75-Pine Ridge Road activity center. It is the westernmost boundary of the PUD activity center and provides for automobile and truck fuel dispensing facilities, business and professional offices, motels and hotels, drive-in and fast-food restaurants. It provides for a right in and right out only. The master plan in such from a recommendation of staff should be amended to comply with today's current formatting and PUD development commitments and of the activity center master plan for access management. We'd like to see this PUD and the base PUD, what they call Pine Ridge Center Planned Unit Development, which is basically the next item to be reviewed for sunsetting by this board. We'd like to see that more integrated and married together because both planned unit developments are exactly identical in size. They were prepared by Mr. Neno Spagna approximately one year later, one in '87, one in '88. We'd like to see an integration of the -- what we call a service driveway to connect vehicular points of access. There's a median opening existing in the Pine Ridge corridor. It's actually located on the westernmost boundary of Pine Ridge Center West PUD. I'm not sure if we can make geometric modifications to that to incorporate access for the site. But if it can be done and a service driveway is provided further east, then there'd be a nice interconnection there for both planned unit developments. I think something else, as the master plan shows, are some outdated utilizations of setbacks. Some of the landscaping needs to be rethought here. A lot of the provisions and development commitments do point to the Land Development Code. I think staff sees it that we'd like to reformat the PUD to again provide for the new formatting procedures in the Land Development Code. If I can answer any questions at this time, I'd be happy to do so, but our recommendation is for an amendment to come back in the next six months before this board. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I may, there was -- on this item -- on all items there's a memorandum from Ms. Student to Mr. Weigel. And I think it's more appropriate probably on this PUD today than any others. We have an eight-year-old PUD that has inside its borders a maximization of everything that was allowable at that time, a hundred and seventy-six motel units, gas station. I mean, if you try and put more than one of the uses on the land, what it shows is an absolute maximization of every square foot. There are no acreages tied to uses. In other words, the commercial and the hotel can float really anywhere on the property. MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There is no tie. There's no specificity. We have no idea what this may or may not look like under what's currently. And even with the recommendations staff is making, when it comes back, if we don't affect any of the units or acreages or in here, we're going to have the same problem. This is exactly what the sunset provision was intended to address, are those PUDs that under today's rules don't even remotely reflect what this board is requesting of petitioners. That brings us into Ms. Student's memorandum to Mr. Weigel. Ms. Student has, in essence, identified the roadblocks that this board has in attempting to affect the material elements of any PUD. And I guess I need a little clearer path than what has been presented here for the simple reason that if I -- I understand Ms. Student's caution in this memorandum, but again, the idea that if we do something we might be sued, therefore, we shouldn't do it, this board would be rendered ineffective on a weekly basis. So what I'm looking for is -- this PUD, for example, if we were to say that the commercial area shall be a maximum of 2 acres and the hotel-motel units should not exceed 150, and those two things should be incorporated. We are affecting the land use, and I need to know from the county attorney's office what is our ability to do that, because if we don't have an ability, this whole sunset provision deal is a ruse. MR. WEIGEL: Ready? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Fine. Well, that memo, of course, is precautionary. It provides signposts that may be important or instrumental in case there should be litigation at some point later on. The county attorney office recognizes that there's a potential for litigation, a potential for unhappiness with any board decision that the board may consider and make. What I would say, I think, to kind of succinctly respond to that memo and the position of our office is that we advise the board of some of the risks so that the board can make an informed decision. We believe that we have done that and do not need to restate that on a case-by-case or agenda-item basis and that the board knows that there are some risks out there in part because of new legislation which has not been tested in court. But beyond that when the board makes a particular decision for a particular agenda item concerning the PUD sunset review, we are prepared to assist the board in any way in defense or if proactive work is necessary so that we can create the court record that's necessary and prevail to the extent that we can. We can't provide the absolute answer yet, but Ms. Student, working with staff, can provide you -- if you determine to rein in or change or alter some of these PUDs under review, we will provide you with some of the in-house procedural mechanisms which may require additional public hearing, but in no way are we attempting to limit you or prevent the board in our advice from taking what action that you may determine to do, whether it's density reduction or a reconfiguration. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: We're cautious, but we're ready to go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, as I read Ms. Student's memo, I look at this PUD, eight years old. Nothing has happened. It was zoned. There hasn't been one ounce of effort or work on this item. In my mind that is complete and total speculative venture that occurred eight years ago, and under Ms. Student's memorandum, that is -- that is perfect for changing the uses or altering the uses. Once it is determined to be a speculative venture by this board, it changes the rules somewhat. Am I correct in that? MR. WEIGEL: I think you're absolutely correct. And some of the advice that we give the board from time to time often is assistance so that the record will reflect what you are attempting to do in case there should be redress or question in some other form later, but you're absolutely correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: One observation; it seems to me that what we're trying to do in many of these cases will be to unravel a purely speculative proposal. But it's -- I think it's important for us to remember that the county went through the major process of the zoning revaluation ordinance sometime back, and that is -- was far more sweeping of a procedure than what we're doing here. All we're really asking here is for these people to come up to modern standards, and I'm not reluctant to do that at all, especially if the board declares in those cases that -- that we find that these appear to be speculative venture. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. With that, do we have any speakers on this item, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: None other than Dr. Spagna, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dr. Spagna, good morning. DR. SPAGNA: Good morning. My name is Neno Spagna, and I represent a client, and I had prepared to come up here and explain a little bit about why nothing has happened there, but after listening I don't know; it just seems to me like it's to no avail. But I would like to say this, that much of this delay had nothing to do with the petitioner's intention of developing the property. As you all know, there was no water -- or no sewer there until about a year, year and a half ago. And this has weighed very heavily on not only their property, but also some of the other properties in the immediate area as to why it has not been developed. It is true that at one time it was possible to tie into the Sutherland PUD for sewage, but the state changed all that some time ago. They will not let you tie into these peripheral sewage treatment facilities any longer. Or if they were to allow you to do that, well, then there wouldn't be any need for the county or any of the other utilities to provide water and sewage, because some small subdivision could go in there and capture all of the sewage need for the developments within that area, and eventually you'd just end up with a lot of small sewage treatment plants. So at the time that the petitioners came in here, they did feel like there was a need for the development. I don't think it's fair to classify it as a pure speculation. There was much development going on in the area. That development has practically ceased. There's been very little development in that area since then primarily due to new regulations, the lack of the sewer, the fact that the market itself has been -- has been somewhat reluctant to develop. I do feel like this is a different case than just all the other PUDs that are being considered: Number one, the fact that they did not have the sewage; number two, there is another PUD immediately east of this subject property which has already been discussed. There is also some land east of that that can be developed. I just feel, myself, as much as -- March of last year we had requested an extension, a two-year extension of both this property and the property east of it. This was never given any consideration, probably because of the fact that it was coming up for consideration at this time under the moratorium requirements. We don't have any problem with that, but we feel very strongly that since this is the first time that we've asked for a two-year extension, that probably it's justifiable and that it should be granted, and we'll be better able to see what the need is in two years from now than we are today. The ordinance provides for it, and I don't think the board would be out of step in any way whatsoever if it were to be granted. And I am, on behalf of the petitioner, requesting that we be granted a two-year extension as was originally petitioned in our letter back in March almost a year ago. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Dr. Spagna. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Dr. Spagna, you mentioned the lack of sewer availability, and when was that sewer installed in there? DR. SPAGNA: I'm not sure. I spoke with Wes Hill before I sent my letter in, because I wanted to make sure that there -- you know, that there was or wasn't sewer. At that time, if I remember correctly, his answer to me was that there was not sewer in there at that time; however, the county was planning to extend it all the way east to 951 and that it would be in very shortly. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Milk. MR. MILK: I believe that sewer extension is completed. Now, a year ago it was not, and I believe it was scheduled by year 1996. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Since the sewer is now installed, has there been a submittal of plans to pull a permit? DR. SPAGNA: No, there have not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then I guess it's a little hard to make the case that -- that you were simply waiting for the sewers to come in there if the sewers are in now and you haven't submitted plans. DR. SPAGNA: Well, I'm not trying to make a case since we sent our letter in. My case is that the reason -- part of the delay that took place during this period was due to the fact that there was no sewer in there and -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: My only concern -- Mr. Spagna, you're a longtime residence of Collier County. Are you -- do you think your client is opposed to bring this particular piece up to the current standards? Commissioner Hancock raised a very interesting point about -- when talking about different things that are allowed through a PUD amendment -- DR. SPAGNA: No. They would not be objective to that. As a matter of fact, I think your ordinance requires that the -- that all the PUDs be brought up to -- I don't remember all the exact verbiage in the PUD, but I'm sure most of the conditions would have to come up to meet the present requirements anyway. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What can we do to insure that? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you also be willing to tie specific uses to land acreages on the parcel in the revised PUD? DR. SPAGNA: I guess my answer would have to be no, and I say that, because in all honesty, we do not have definite, concrete plans. I think one of the reasons why we have forestalled the development is because, as you know, there's been articles in the paper, and there's been a lot of discussion about the possibility some hospital or clinical facility being located somewhere in the area, not necessarily this property. I have no idea where except what I've read in the paper. And I think probably at this time it would be premature to come in here and develop it under all of the standards that have been set forth in the original PUD document. One thing, I think it would have to be brought up to date, things -- traffic, landscaping, architectural design, some of the things that there have been specific ordinances passed to cover those items. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Spagna, are you saying you're speculating that perhaps a medical facility might come in and that might impact how you'd use your land? DR. SPAGNA: Well, I guess what I'm saying is that I think you go in there and develop -- I think I agree with you all that some of the old standards have to be brought up to date, and even some of the uses are probably inappropriate. And I guess what I'm saying is that if something like that were to happen, it might change the whole complex of the area, the uses, the -- everything that goes with it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you're going to wait and see what goes in -- DR. SPAGNA: So I guess what I'm -- what I would like to see is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Spagna, can I just ask you a question? DR. SPAGNA: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're going to wait and see what goes in around you, and that will impact how you develop the property? DR. SPAGNA: Well, I can't speak with the owner, but that would be my -- my hope. In other words, I feel we would get much more -- much better development if something like that were to take place than to go in there now with filling stations or that type of uses and then later on find out it would be better served for some other use. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. DR. SPAGNA: And two years would give us a little time maybe for some of that to settle out. MR. DORRILL: You may have another speaker, too, on this. Mr. Jancicau, did you want to speak, sir? MR. JANCICAU: No, I have nothing. MR. DORRILL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Based on what I've heard today, unless we're willing to tie specific land uses to acreage, which is the commonplace method of doing PUDs today, I'm not interested in an extension at all. If there's going to be an extension, it's going to have to incorporate specific land uses tied to specific acreages, which is what we require of every PUD that walks in the door today. You're not allowed the shotgun method anymore. You're not allowed to throw every use out there not tied to anything on the site or any site plan. So unless that's included, you know, I would -- I would appreciate if this board would give direction to the staff that if we're going to pursue an extension, that be an element of that extension. And if it's not, then we'll have to review it when it comes back before us. But I think -- I hopefully am sending a very clear message that the way of eight years ago is not the way today, and I personally won't accept it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. I think from Mr. Spagna's comments, it's very clear. Your original comment to Mr. Weigel was if these properties are being purely speculative, this is a great example of where they are. They're going to see what goes in for what's the best use of the property, and I think we have the opportunity to make the request here. I don't think it's the least bit unreasonable, and I support your suggestion completely. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll move staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Consistent with Commissioner Hanoook's comment? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, of course. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, thank you -- DR. SPAGNA: I'll just wait for the next one; it's mine, tO0~ SO -- Item #8A2 RESOLUTION 97-053 DIRECTING THE PROPERTY OWNER/ENTITY OF PINE RIDGE CENTER PUD TO SUBMIT AN AMENDED PUD WITHIN THE TIME FRAME ALLOWED BY THE LDC REQUIREMENT - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. On to Item 8(A)(2). Mr. Milk. This is Ordinance 87-9, Pine Ridge Center PUD. MR. MILK: Pine Ridge Center PUD is much like the existing Pine Ridge Center West PUD in that it's located in an activity center that it has interchange-related uses such as gasoline services, hotel-motel, fast-food restaurants. It provides for one point of access, a right in, right only. Again, with this particular PUD, building heights are limited to 15 feet. There are some unique conditions for development regulations in there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are limited to what? MR. MILK: Well, there's different land use tracts that are provided in here as far as professional offices which are located in the rear of the PUD site specifically. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MILK: A little bit unique than a PUD of today. We like to see an area designated for commercial uses and acreages and maximums accountable to that. This hasn't been accomplished other that what -- there are much as we've talked about the previous PUD. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MILK: What's important here also is this PUD is adjacent to approximately 15 acres of agricultural property immediately to the east between the Sutherland PUD and Pine Ridge Center. What's very important here is we maintain an access management plan both on Pine Ridge Road and between internal PUDs to better connect these planned developments so they function properly and do not provide a burden on Pine Ridge Road. That's very important because what we've done -- PUD is to provide that method of service driveway access at the median. For your information, Naples Gateway PUD, which is located immediately across the street from these two PUDs, they're in for an amendment right now to update their entire project, much as you've recommended for Pine Ridge Center West. If all this happens for that particular area of the interchange activity center, you're going to find a cohesive unit here from planning, transportation, architectural designs, landscaping, and plan uses. Again, staff recommends that this one be amended in the next six months to come back. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of the staff? Mr. Spagna -- DR. SPAGNA: No. It's about the same. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: About the same. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Dr. Spagna, is this the same owner? DR. SPAGNA: No, they are different owners, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Same situation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's obvious by the site plan that the original zoning was anticipated for one fast-food restaurant, a gas station, and then spec parcels to the rear. Now, there's a fast-food restaurant, drive-through fast food, or the gas station were built, or I think we're dealing in the exact same situation. Are there any public speakers on this, Mr. Weigel, that you're aware of? MR. WEIGEL: None other than Mr. Spagna. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Have any plans been submitted for construction? DR. SPAGNA: Not to my knowledge. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are there any plans to do so? DR. SPAGNA: No, there are not that I know of. We have had discussions with the staff about the possibility of combining the two, but nothing that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I did have one question on this one. Because it at least showed varied parcels, did this -- did all recommendations require you to come back with an internal architectural component in addition -- I know we have architectural standards countywide now, but what about an internal architectural component to unify the -- the uses on the property? MR. MILK: That's correct. We will do that. We'll do that with the Naples Gateway and, as such, these two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And we do have a mechanism now to verify and check that which was a -- could have been a problem. In the past we didn't really have a way to check those -- MR. MILK: Additional language in the PUD document will provide for internal consistency in architectural design and landscaping and interconnects. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MILK: And to add to the land development requirement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good. Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, based on the record that there are no plans currently in the works to do any kind of development on this property, which indicates that it is a speculative venture, I'll move staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion is seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none -- DR. SPAGNA: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Dr. Spagna, thank you. Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 97-54 EXTENDING THE TIHE PERIOD FOR TWO YEARS FOR THE NORTHBROOKE PLAZA PUD TO OCTOBER 30, 1998 - ADOPTED Item 8(A)(3), staff review and recommendations relative to Ordinance 91-67, Northbrooke Plaza PUD. We have a change in the lineup. Mr. Nino has stepped up to the microphone. MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino, planning services department. The Northbrooke PUD is located in the northeast quadrant of 1-75 and Immokalee Road. It's a PUD that was approved -- you'll notice on page 3 of your -- page 4 of your executive summary, it was approved for 150 dwelling units for a net density of 10.5 units per acre. The fact that that residential component is in this PUD, I might add, really suggests that this PUD is responsive to the mixed-use land uses that were envisioned in the original establishment of the activity centers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean like Carillon? MR. NINO: They were not to be all -- yes. It would provide for gas stations on 3.2 acres, restaurants on 5 acres; general retail, 7.1; motel-hotel, 7 acres, maximum 150 rooms; offices and multifamily -- and there are four areas -- maximum of four areas for those commercial uses that I cited. In all other respects -- in terms of parking, in terms of landscaping, this PUD references the Land Development Code, whatever those requirements are in the Land Development Code, at the time of permitting, and it also follows that since it's silent on the matter of architectural standards, that they would have to comply with current architectural standards. (Commissioner Norris left the boardroom.) MR. NINO: Our review by my self and fellow staff members reveal that the PUD is not inconsistent with any element of the Growth Management Plan. In terms of it's access, you'll note that it has only access from Northbrooke Drive which is delayed and is yet to be constructed. That's inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan. Staff recommends a two-year extension. This PUD is relatively contemporary in it's structure. '91 models, you'll find, are better than '89 models. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, the one thing that stood out to me is under general retail with 7.1 acres dedicated to it. Maximum square footage is 118,000 square feet. Rule of thumb on general retail from my planning experience is ten to fifteen thousand square feet per acre. That just -- the 118,000 square feet sounds awfully high for 7 acres, and I'm just -- it just stood out to me as something that is a little unusual. MR. NINO: We've had PUDs that -- that have been in the range of 10,000 square feet to upwards of 90,000 square feet. I would remind you of the Piper Medical Center. That was one that was on the CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. You have to -- MR. NINO: -- high end of the scale. So was Veterans Memorial Park. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But you've got to start going multi-story then. MR. NINO: We have oftentimes suggested that in terms of new PUDs that the rule of thumb be established at 10,000 square feet per acre, and this is higher than that figure, but you're correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I don't know that it necessarily needs a change, but it did at least spark my curiosity. Are there any questions of Mr. Nino? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. The only question I have is actually on these last three projects. Is there any possibility of getting better maps when these issues come to us? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. NINO: We will certainly try to do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What, the hand-drawn version on page 38 wasn't sufficient? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, some of them are pretty outdated. I noticed when I was reading through here, some of the areas that they indicate, that's not what they are. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Okay. And I just for -- since I'm the new kid on the block, I have to -- I kind of relate to what's there now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good point. Maybe these and a current portion of the PUD map narrowed down showing local land uses would be appropriate. Any further questions for Mr. Nino? Does the petitioner or representative of the petitioner feel the need to expand upon this item at all? MR. VINES: I'd be glad to answer questions if you have any, but I don't want to prolong your meeting. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: What's your name, sir? MR. VINES: Bill Dines, for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any questions for Mr. Vines? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hove staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #8A4 RESOLUTION 97-055 GRANTING A 60 DAY TIME FRAME FOR AN AGREEMENT TO COME BACK BEFORE A DECISION ON THE TWO YEAR EXTENSION IS DETERMINED REGARDING THE SADDLEBROOK VILLAGE PUD - ADOPTED Seeing none, moving on to Item 8(A)(4), staff review and recommendations relative to 91-55, Saddlebrook Village PUD. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. The Saddlebrook PUD is married to affordable housing agreement. This PUD authorizes 438 dwelling units for a density of 13 dwelling units per acre, 6 of which relate to the density bonus program. 132 of the 438 units will be made available for affordable housing, which is 30 percent of the project. The PUD, again, reflects contemporary standards in terms of structure and format. It refers to the Land Development Code for landscaping, parking. It has a substantial amount of open space. Certainly we're -- that it will have no difficulty exceeding the 60 percent requirement for residential PUDs. The review suggests that this PUD is consistent with elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff has recommended a two-year extension. Mr. Nadeau is here representing the petitioner. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, you say this is tied to an affordable housing agreement? MR. NINO: Yes, it is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The entire project? MR. NINO: Yes. Well, 30 percent of the project -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. NINO: -- is tied to a controlled rent structure. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Controlled rent structure? MR. NINO: A rent structure that has been agreed upon. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The question then is, did we give density bonus on the entire project, but only 30 percent are to be affordable? MR. NINO: No, we gave it on the entire project. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But only 30 percent will be affordable? MR. NINO: That's what this PUD authorizes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is one of those where we -- the board increased the market rate density -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- under the affordable housing bonus but yet did not get a commensurate increase in the affordable, in other words, the granting of increased market-made apartments. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that's what our code currently permits. I mean, we need to be especially careful when we're talking about private property rights and that's -- you know, if we want to amend our code because -- but we haven't been seeing those projects come in requesting that. But as I understand it, the code permits a density bonus over an entire property under these kinds of circumstances; so I'd want to be really careful to -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll be careful, but it permits it, but it doesn't require it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course not. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And -- MR. NINO: I need to take the opportunity to advise you that Mr. Hihalic -- I haven't anything in writing from Mr. Hihalic, but he did indicate to me verbally latter part of last week that he would like to see the agreement changed for affordable housing should this come back in the form of some kind of an amendment or made a condition of the extension for another two years. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you another question, Mr. Nino. This was -- this PUD was first granted in 1991. Was the affordable housing component done at that time, or has it come for a PUD amendment later? MR. NINO: No, they were done concurrently. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It was done at that same time. So the property's been sitting there for six years now, and even though it has some affordable housing component in there, nothing's been done. That tends to indicate that it was originally permitted for speculative purposes. MR. NINO: I believe the staff report shows that they have made some permitting steps. There is an approved SDP, site development plan, for this project. There have been -- some corp permits have been accomplished. I believe Mr. Nadeau will tell you that there is currently a new owner with full intentions of going ahead, so I'll leave that up to Mr. Nadeau to indicate that. MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good morning. Pleasure to be before you again. For the record my name is Dwight Nadeau of HcAnly Engineering and Design representing the new property owner, James R. Colosimo, trustee for Exit 15 1-75 Land Trust. Yes. As Mr. Nino had stated, extensive work has been done on this property. We do have an approved preliminary SDP. We have an existing South Florida Water Management District permit in process. We have an existing Army Corp of Engineers dredge and fill individual permit in process. The property has changed hands since the affordable housing density bonus agreement was done in 1991. It was originally signed by Mr. Jassy. Now Mr. Colosimo controls the property. If there were a piece of property that should be extended, this would be a good example, Commissioners. Extensive work will continue on this job, and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Other than I was not aware at all of Mr. Hihalic's request for anything. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mention the permits and the preliminary SDP and so on. How long have you had those? Are those something that have been -- MR. NADEAU: Yeah. The preliminary SDP doesn't expire, but it was approved in 1994. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And your work with the corp MR. NADEAU: The corp is still ongoing. Actually, we're waiting on a letter from fish and wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and they've been delegating the letter to Game and Freshwater Fish Commission. And if any of you have had any experience with the feds, it's a protracted endeavor. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you aware if your client has any interest in increasing the percentage of affordable housing units above 30 percent? MR. NADEAU: All along my client has been telling me that the entire site was going to be affordable, not just 131 units would be, but all 438. But I'm not in a position to make any commitment to that or make any changes to the affordable housing density bonus agreement executed by a former owner today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, it seems like in the PUD that's really the dominant rub. If you will, it's granting of market rate under the purpose of affordable housing and receiving a far lesser share of affordable than the bonus itself would provide. I have to agree with Commissioner Norris's position on that. Again, a lot of these PUDs, we're trying to bring them into the manner in which business is conducted today in this county, and that's not consistent with the language of affordable housing approvals that have come before this board recently, and it does cause me some concern. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, if I might. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, excuse me. Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But our ability to do that is limited by the private property rights and when they have done as much work as they have -- and I know you're familiar, Commissioner Hancock, with the permitting process from your former life. When you're in that process, it takes quite a long time, and this -- our right to monkey with this PUD is limited by the vested rights that they may have established by virtue of the work that they have ongoing. I think we have to be extremely cautious, and maybe we should get an opinion from our attorney about whether or not this is one that we should exercise particular caution on when as much work has been undertaken as it appears to have been, an approved SDP by this county and the ongoing water management permits. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before doing that, Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'd like to -- based on Mr. Nadeau's statement that his client has indicated that they would prefer to do complete affordable on the site, I would make a motion that we grant a two-year extension under the condition that a new agreement be -- be made -- MR. NADEAU: Revisited. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Revisit the agreement and make a new agreement that the site would be a hundred percent affordable, otherwise have the -- have the PUD come back for a rehearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And that's a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a motion. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. I agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie that we need to be cautious, but at the same time I think, particularly considering your comments of what it appears any way your client has intended, we can probably meet all our objectives, which in particular would be to -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I just -- a question. I couldn't be happier if what we're going to do here is increase the affordable housing, the number of units that are offered at affordable housing rates. But I need to be clear that that's your -- you agreed to that. MR. NADEAU: No, I do not. I have no authority to agree to any change to that affordable housing density bonus agreement executed by a former property owner. The property has changed hands, and not having been availed of this information prior to the public hearing, I'm in no position to make any commitments. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's understood. But the motion anticipates an agreement, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood. MR. NADEAU: What I would be happy with would be the two-year extension and a request to revisit the agreement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, a request to revisit means it could be denied and off you go and we have the same thing down the road we have in front of us today. I think what Commissioner Norris is saying is that it is pending that agreement. Should that agreement fail, then the matter would come back before us. Is that the intent of your motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Essentially, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there a time frame in which you would anticipate either being met or not? Is it six months? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nadeau, how long do you think it will take to get an answer from your client to say whether he would be amenable to that agreement? MR. NADEAU: I couldn't respond, but I would imagine a couple months would be appropriate to schedule some time with Mr. Hihalic and Mr. Colosimo. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So the -- the 60 days then? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion involves 60-day time frame for return of an agreement to this board to finalize the extension of the PUD. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And failing the -- the property owner's agreement to amend, then this petition will come back in front of us to decide whether or not we give a two-year extension or we ask them to come back with a revised PUD. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just like it is today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) None. Mr. Nadeau, thank you. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #8A5 RESOLUTION 97-056 DIRECTING THE PROPERTY OWNER/ENTITY OF HYRTLE WOODS PUD TO SUBMIT AN AMENDED PUD WITHIN THE TIME FRAME ALLOWED BY THE LDC REQUIREMENT - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 8(A)(5 , staff review and recommendation for Ordinance 81-23, Myrtle Woods PUD. Mr. Milk, welcome back. MR. MILK: Thank you. For the record, Bryan Milk. I am presenting the Myrtle Woods PUD Ordinance 81-23 as it relates to the sunsetting provision of the Collier County Land Development Code. The subject property -- there's a site plan on page 6 of the executive summary packet. The subject property is a total of 5.66 acres in size. The frontage -- there's three lots that front the Tamiami Trail that are approximately 1.79 acres in size. That is the commercial portion of the PUD. The remaining 3.87 acres is zoned for multifamily development at approximately 11.63 dwelling units per the acre. Surrounding property, Treetops of Naples, is currently developed as a multifamily PUD. And the portions that aren't contiguous to the corridor of Tamiami Trail, there are approximately 11 dwelling units to the acre also. To the west of Myrtle Woods is RHF-6 property basically developed with some single-family houses, some agricultural activities. Further down Myrtle Woods Lane is RHF-3 property also developed with single-family houses. The property adjacent to the commercial areas out in the area in the frontage there are scattered developments of commercial businesses. In the Treetops PUD there are the storage units and the go-kart track. Immediately adjacent to the Myrtle Woods PUD, there is undeveloped -- there's a couple lots that are undeveloped. This PUD was approved back in 1981. There are very limited development commitments for transportation-related issues. In the U.S. 41 corridor right-of-way, there is an existing median opening at Myrtle Lane and approximately 150 feet right in front of the actual Myrtle Woods commercial tract. What staff would like to see is an amendment brought forward again to revisit this PUD and to provide for turn lanes, deceleration lanes, and some geometry conditions placed in the median of U.S. 41. This particular petition has went through the zoning teevaluation process, provided an exemption, compatibility exemption, and it met the commercial lender criteria for the commercial out in front. If I can answer questions at this time, I'd be happy to do so. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I spoke with the -- the owner of this property who is a real estate agent, in effect, that acquired this property somewhat unwillingly through a distress action. And the question is he has -- or the situation is he has no intention of doing anything with it himself, but he wants to resell it to someone who will then assumedly file a new PUD. So his -- his request is -- I don't know if we have the ability to do it, but if we do, his request is simply to grant a two-year extension under the condition that if and when the property is sold, that would require a new PUD to be submitted. Do we -- do we have that ability to formulate it that way? MR. WEIGEL: I think I may have a little concern that way in the sense that you're attempting to preserve a market value for the speculative sale of the property. And I think I'd advise you that that may not be the way you wish to go. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there -- can you think of any other mechanism by which we could accomplish what he's trying to accomplish without -- what his concern is, if we ask him to do a new PUD now, when he sells it the new buyer will have to do one as well. MR. WEIGEL: That's true, although it may be that the new buyer may or may not wish to deviate significantly from the PUD that the current owner, who has all the responsibilities -- whether he's going to be a long-term owner or not, they still have all the responsibilities of either fishing or cutting bait with a PUD that's of record. So maybe you want to treat this as you did a couple of agenda items prior to this, that you can put this on a relatively fast track to come back and review, which spurs the current owner to put something together or not, and/or just set it for public hearing within the 60 or 90 days that you may ask for it to come back for review because, as you know, each of these agenda items provides that one of the scenarios the board may direct is to reset a PUD for the public hearing process where the board itself takes the initiative to really accomplish fezone, and you may want to set a time frame to do that. It gives a message to the current owner that you need to get going quickly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Milk, did this property file an application under the zoning teevaluation ordinance? MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And on what basis was that application approved? MR. MILK: There were three applications. One for the commercial lender criteria, one for the lots up front in the commercial area, there was a zoning compatibility for the multifamily aspects of the property which was found consistent with the Treetops. And then there was a compatibility exemption granted for two of the commercial lots out in front based on the criteria of the Future Land Use Element. So based on the zoning teevaluation ordinance, the applicant at that time came forward to the board with three exceptions. All three of them were granted. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There was no application for vested rights filed to your knowledge? MR. MILK: I believe all that was found consistent due to the fact that they applied for all three of those exemptions, compatibility, exceptions, and commercial lender criteria. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But at that time if they wanted to apply for vested rights, they would have had to have done so at that time because they had to cite the criteria you were applying under in the zoning teevaluation ordinance. MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So they did not apply for vested rights? MR. MILK: I cannot tell that. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Fine. Is there a representative of the petitioner here? No? Seeing none, is there a motion on this item? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I would -- I would like to have a way to accommodate this petition, but since Mr. Weigel informs us that there is no mechanism to do so, I'll move staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Milk. Item #8A6 PERMITS TO FILL LAKE AREAS KNOWN AS AYALA LAKE - CONTINUED TO 2/4/97 On to Item -- dyslexic today -- 8(A)(6), recommendation that BCC authorize staff to apply for permits to fill a lake area known as Ayala Lake. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What a great idea. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Was that -- is that a fast-track comment, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It was for me. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second her. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ms. Sullivan, a brief background if you would, please. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. Linda Sullivan, code enforcement director. This item is an eyesore that's in Immokalee. I think everybody's familiar with it. It's a health and safety hazard. We've had some problems trying to cure it because the owner has been incarcerated. But we have some contractors now that are willing to donate some fill. However, I should tell you that the county attorney's office advised me a few minutes ago there are a couple of concerns, one of which is the right of entry that we have from the owner that is incarcerated. They would like some witness signatures on it, which I think we can solve and work out with the county attorney's office. The other is any environmental testing, but we have worked that out with Human Resources and the Army Corp of Engineers. We will coordinate that with them and won't go forward until those two items are finished. However, what we're asking for today is permission to file for a permit with the Army Corp of Engineers and a budget transfer, because we understand that's going to take 30 to 90 days, and we'd like to get started on that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to approve the item -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- consistent with Ms. Sullivan's comments. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have one concern about that. I certainly agree with what we're doing; so it has nothing to do with that. But what I'm asking is, should we file a lien on this property so at such time if it's ever sold that the county can recoup some of the cost? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that was my concern. First of all, I don't think we can, because we couldn't require this individual to take this action -- or could we? Is there a violation that we could require the individual to financially fund? MS. SULLIVAN: There's no violation other than the health safety thing. And the owner of the property pretty much says do whatever you need to do with it. He doesn't have any means to do it himself; so we've been working on this for some time. This is probably the best solution at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to support the motion, but it concerns me that we're -- we are going to take action and spend funds that will actually improve the property value of someone serving a drug conviction. The whole -- that whole scenario bothers me, but I understand the purpose for it. I'll support the motion, but it just COHMISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Chairman, can the attorney advise us? Can we do that? MR. WEIGEL: Can we lien the property? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Right. MR. WEIGEL: No, we cannot. There are a couple theories that we could certainly pursue such as benefit received, some kind of quasi-contractural arrangements particularly -- depending on the dialogue that we may have had with the owner of record. But it would appear that we can't put an enforceable lien on the property if we can't cite it for violation of one of our ordinances. And as Ms. Sullivan indicated, one of our concerns from a legal standpoint when the board gets on private properties, we just want to make sure that we didn't set ourselves up for perhaps -- it's kind of strange -- but like an inverse condemnation where you're trying to get on the property to do the right thing, but they say you never should have been there in the first place and get some kind of potential damage rights against us; so we just want to dot those I's and cross those T's so that it can go forward in the most unfettered way and best way that it can. COHMISSIONER BERRY: But it sounds like this property was a public nuisance. MS. SULLIVAN: It is, and not only that, but it is in an area where it is kind of landlocked. It's surround -- it took us a long time to figure out who owned the property, because there was really no way to get to it. MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner Berry, as you mentioned, if it, in fact, qualifies as a public nuisance -- and there are state statutes which provide definition of public nuisance, which are in part administered by the public health department, there may be some leverage there. We'll investigate that. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I really would like us to pursue and see if there isn't something that we can do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Actually, if we have a problem with individuals wandering down to the edge of the lake, falling in, and drowning -- I believe three bodies have been recovered from the lake -- that's a public nuisance and should require the property owner to do some form of fencing. If we have, in fact, a public nuisance, I'm trying trace a -- make a trail here to where the county can recoup whatever expenses are involved here. Because if I have a lake and a kid comes over and falls in my lake and drowns and I don't have it fenced, you can bet I'm going to be held responsible in some way. MR. WEIGEL: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Why are we absolving this individual in this case? I'm getting more and more away from supporting the motion, because I don't like the direction this is taking. Maybe someone can help me understand why we should do that instead of, as Commissioner Berry suggested, finding a way to at least make it so that the county can recoup some of those expenses. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to withdraw the motion. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'm definitely for filling this thing in. Don't misunderstand. I want this done, but I also -- at the same time let's do it, but let's also put something on this land that at such time -- it may not be within the next five, ten, whatever years, but when eventually that property is disposed of, that the county is able to recoup something from doing this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I want to withdraw the motion just so we can craft something new that does what we're all trying to do here, I think. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Sullivan, we're looking for some assistance, or at least I am, in the area of if we have, in fact, a public nuisance and can define so, isn't there some recourse the county can take eventually to recoup the funds to rid the area of the public nuisance? MS. SULLIVAN: Well, no. The county attorney's told us we can't file a lien. The other consideration is that this property -- I'm not sure that we would want to own this property and maintain this property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seems like we're maintaining it already. We're actually improving it. MS. SULLIVAN: Well, actually nobody's maintained that. You know, I envision where this property is that should the county file a lien and end up with this property, then we're going to have to keep people from trying -- keep people from falling in there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure Habitat for Humanity could find something to do with the property. MR. WEIGEL: Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton informs me that the right-of-entry document that we have with the owner, in fact, provides for the county purchase of this property for $10 if so choose to do. Although, of course, then the county is the underlying owner with whatever liability might be in that property; so it's probably not advisable. If I can assist you, though, to the extent that we can find a citable or lienable way to do -- to -- to attempt to get reimbursement back for the expenses the county may have, we'll obviously follow and uncover every stone that way. But if the person has no assets, findable assets, other than the property itself, then it ultimately might be that, yes, you can find someone liable for an accident on a property, but you have to sue them and get a judgment, which has to be converted into money, which is often a problem and very expensive itself. But depending on the board's direction today, we will continue to investigate and see if we can find something that will bring something back to the county. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I'm going to propose a course here that just popped in my mind, is if Miss Ashton is correct and we have the ability to own the land for $10 and we talk to an organization such as Habitat for Humanity that's looking for property to build homes in this area, if they would want to -- you know, if we take this and then Habitat purchases the property from the county for that $10, not only have we fixed the public nuisance, we've provided a public service. I -- there are ideas out there that need to be investigated before we just flat go out and do this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we -- MR. WEIGEL: I would suggest to staff comprehensively we bring this back to you, because we would look at the positives of owner as well as the negatives. You know, we may have contaminant soup or something out there and so that we can come back and tell you very -- in a very informed way what two or three of the options might be, and you could then make that decision. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I would like a little more in-depth review of this. I know it holds it up a little bit longer, but better that than an uninformed decision, in my opinion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two weeks? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A two-week period, is that sufficient, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I would think so. COHMISSIONER BERRY: How does that sound, Ms. Sullivan, to you? Is a couple weeks going to be a problem for you or -- MS. SULLIVAN: Well, we've been working on this for months and, you know, maybe a couple more bodies or something, but I will tell you that this property is landlocked. There is really no way to get to it. It's like .45 acres. It's not very large. COHMISSIONER BERRY: What can -- I'm bad on acreage. What could you build on .45 acres? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two homes. MS. SULLIVAN: I think access is going to be the problem. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we continue the item for two weeks to deal with answers for those questions. It may very well not be appropriate for those uses, but we don't know that right now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, thank you very much. We'll get -- we'll get a solution in a couple weeks. Item #8A7 RESOLUTION 97-057 GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THE EAST TRAIL RV PARK PUD TO JANUARY 21, 1999 - ADOPTED Item 8(A)(7), staff review and recommendations on Ordinance 91-91, the East Trail RV Park PUD. Another change in the lineup this morning. Good morning, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Good morning. As you noted, I'm presenting executive summary for the sunset review for Ordinance 91-91. That's the East Trail RV Park PUD. As noted on the location map on page 32 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, we might be able to make your life a little easier this morning. I noticed even though it were a RV park, the density is 5.1 per acre, which is pretty low for that type of use, and you're just recommending a two-year extension? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything out of the norm? Unusual? Strange? Worth note? MR. BELLOWS: Nothing. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I move staff's recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Bellows. Item #8A8 RESOLUTION 97-58 GRANTING A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THE DONOVAN CENTER PUD TO JANUARY 21, 1999 - ADOPTED On to Item 8(A)(8), which is review and recommendations, Ordinance 90-84, the Donovan Center PUD. This one may not be quite as quick, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: This is located in the interchange activity center at the corner, the -- or southwest corner of Immokalee Road and 1-75. If we could see the -- land uses include the Stiles PUD, the Breezewood PUD to the east. To the north is Regency Village, and on the east side of 1-75 is the Crestwood, Hokate, and Brentwood PUDs (phonetic). The project is approved for 115,000 square feet of commercial retail space and then 100,000 square feet of office space, 26 acres, and that includes Tracts 1 through 7, and that's noted on your site plan on page -- the end of page 29. Also includes 140 multifamily dwelling units on 20 acres and an adult living facility. Based on the consistency review with the Growth Management Plan, the density for this interchange activity center is 16 units per acre and 26 units per acre for hotel-motel and adult living facilities. The density proposed for this development is 7 units per acre, which is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and they're also consistent with the adult living facility. The transportation department feels that the project's access is consistent; however, they have made note of the four-laning or the improvements to Immokalee Road that -- that any adjustments would be made at the time of site development plan review. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions by the board of Mr. Bellows? Fairly straightforward on this and a recent PUD. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Looks like they -- the commercial square footage and acreage are in line with what we're doing today? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does the petitioner wish to address the board on this? MR. DORRILL: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. No speakers. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move approval of staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #8A9 WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR WILSHIRE LAKES, PHASE TWO - APPROVED Seeing none, we are on to Item 8(A)(9). It's a water and sewer facilities acceptance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Standard water and sewer facilities? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. All the documents were confirmed and received by the attorney's office. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, 8(A)(9) is approved. Item #SB1 RESOLUTION 94-566 TO REMAIN IN FORCE PROVIDING FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ON U.S. 41, MAINTENANCE OF MULTI-WAY STOPS ON VANDERBILT DRIVE AND MAINTENANCE OF MULTI-WAY STOPS ON PLATTED LOCAL ROADS WITHIN NAPLES PARK; THIS ITEM TO BE DISCUSSED AT NEXT HPO MEETING Item 8(B)(1), recommendation to approve a resolution superceding 94-566. This is traffic control measures in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Kant. MR. KANT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Edward Kant with the transportation services department. This is an agenda item requesting that an existing resolution be superceded with a new resolution which is essentially the same as the original. In August of 1994 the board approved Resolution 94-566, which provided for median openings on U.S. 41 for the upcoming six-lane project that FDOT is planning. In addition to this the original resolution provided for multiway stops within the Naples Park community and -- for continuing traffic monitoring. The sketch which I've handed out to you depicts very briefly the location of the existing approved median openings, and I've highlighted the area from 106th through 108th because that's the area which is affected by the proposed resolution. In the finalization of the six-laning project, it's become apparent that there had to be some adjustments made to accommodate the proposed turn lanes at lllth, and the bottom half of that sketch also has the same area highlighted showing the flip-flop of two of the directional median openings. In addition to requesting that change, there's been a note added to the proposed resolution exhibit which would provide for future modification of any of those median openings if, in fact, it was found to be necessary or desirable because of traffic conditions. If you have any questions, I'll try to answer them, but we don't -- at our department level don't see this as being a particularly involved transaction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I don't know about that. The -- what I've heard on this in the past has been the proposed change on the bottom half of the sheet would be directing traffic into a very unusual configuration of a local street. That street width is far narrow, and the turn radius is far too small for -- in my opinion, to carry a significant level of traffic. And this is the complaint I've heard from folks in Naples Park is I understand why we're being asked to move it to the south. It's for the stacking requirement of the northbound to westbound turn lanes onto -- MR. KANT: That's correct. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. However, what would happen, in all reality here, is the northern left turn access would eventually be closed because of the -- I think a real safety concern that may exist because the road configuration there is just terrible. You're very familiar with that configuration? MR. KANT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We would, in fact, be increasing traffic on a roadway that already has some -- I would say, some safety constraints involved with it. I'm not sure that's -- that's the type of solution we want to propose, and unless there has been significant input or opportunity for public input from the associations in Naples Park on this change, I'm not comfortable moving ahead with this specifically today. I see Vera here, but I don't know if the associations -- MR. KANT: Unfortunately, I've just personally come into this recently, and I can't tell you whether this has been previously -- this particular change has been discussed. I know that prior to the 1994 resolution and subsequent to that there had been a number of meetings up there, but I cannot address whether that happened with this change. You -- we have in the executive summary indicated that obviously you'd have several other alternatives. One is to leave the status quo. On the other hand, at some point in time I would predict that the existing approved median directional turn at 108th may have to be modified. That would, in essence, be the same thing that would happen if, in fact, the -- the 107th directional was removed. We've also indicated that future resolution might handle that particular intersection. But as I said, at this point in time, we're trying to accommodate the needs both of the residents and the FDOT's final design. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any other questions for Mr. Kant? Mr. HcNees, you have speakers on this? MR. HcNEES: Yes, sir. Vera Fitz-Gerald will be your only speaker. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald, and I live in Naples Park. And I must tell you that I find it exceedingly odd that this has just been sort of all of a sudden come forward without any warning to the property owners of Naples Park despite the fact that we have met countless times with Mr. Archibald, other members in the transportation department. All of a sudden this came forward without warning. I just find it a little bit of coincidence that I happen to live on 107th. I guess this is one way you get community activists. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's the Fitz-Gerald vendetta according to you. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Well, I'm beginning to get paranoid. I don't know why they have to have such a large -- and I think we've discussed this before, why they have to have about a thousand feet for a turn lane onto another residential street, lllth Avenue. I just don't believe that that is necessary. A lllth isn't slated for improvement in the next five years or even in the next ten years. When it is slated, then perhaps they can come up with a change of the entrances. But I don't know why it has to be done now. I -- I would like to see something specific that says they require a thousand feet for a turn lane onto lllth. And Mr. Archibald is -- Mr. Chairman, you just indicated; Mr. Archibald has said on numerous occasion that 107th Avenue was the least desirable avenue to put a left turn on because of that weird configuration going around the lake. And it is a dangerous one, and I wouldn't hesitate to say that there will be serious problems on that avenue because of that configuration. Also, I find it too much of a coincidence to accept that 107th just happens to be the avenue that the Colliers want to use -- or Peninsula Development as their main entrance to a future megamall if the future megamall ever comes about. I just find it too much of a coincidence. People have actually bought businesses on -- along the Naples Park strip -- I can think of one beauty parlor in particular -- based on the fact that that avenue was going to have a left turn; that was on 106th. And all of sudden the rug is being pulled out from underneath them. I think we need -- I think we should at least have -- the courtesy should have been extended to the property owners in Naples Park to discuss this and maybe find other solutions. As you know, we've come in front of -- before you, both at the HPO and here, trying to develop a future traffic plan within Naples Park. I don't know where the money is going to come from because the traffic management is so underfunded. I mean, $50,000, I think, is all it's granted per year, and now there must be a lineup a mile long for that money. Naples Park would -- I would venture to -- I think it would probably need about a hundred thousand to implement the traffic calming devices that we would need once this highway is widened, because it's going to have a dreadfully negative impact on our community, as everybody knows. I mean, does anybody not know this? So I'm asking you not to pass this resolution at this time and to give the property owners the consideration of a little more time to discuss this. And I'm really annoyed with George Archibald because he talked to me last week, and he never said anything about this. He was talking about the light on 99th; that's all he said. George, I'm mad at you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wherever you are. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Pardon? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wherever you are, George. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Fitz-Gerald. Really just the configuration of 107th causes me enough concern not to be comfortable with passing this resolution today. And not just the property owners of Naples Park, but also the Naples Park Area Association would be good folks to consult on this. One thing I've realized is no matter what happens on U. S. 41, somebody in Naples Park is going to be upset because you're going to be increasing traffic on just about every other street in Naples Park due to the widening of 41, but we -- we can't avoid that; so I'm beyond trying to make everyone happy with a traffic plan, but I think putting more traffic on 107th just simply is a bad idea because of the configuration of roadway around that lake; so I can't support the resolution today for that reason. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree, but, Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned -- confused, frankly. Why would we get a recommendation from traffic -- from our traffic department that doesn't recognize what to a layperson is such an obvious concern? MR. KANT: I don't have an answer to that, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's really being dictated by FDOT. They are saying they need a minimum distance for stacking lanes, two left -- two northbound, two westbound left-turn lanes from 41 onto lllth. The fact that lllth isn't slated for four-laning anytime right now at this point -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ever. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- you know, seems to have no impact on that planning. So we're -- what's being asked, I assume FDOT is generating a request to try to get this shifted down so their plans all fit nice and neat. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Procedurally where does this go? If we -- if we disagree with FDOT's request, what happens next? MR. KANT: Could I make a suggestion perhaps? Because we believe this was generated by FDOT, I wouldn't have any problem going back to FDOT and indicating your concerns to them with a recommendation that the existing resolution, which was agreed to by all parties, remain in effect and that we look at that lllth Avenue possibly as a two-step procedure to look at it with the maximum turning lanes they can get in there under those conditions with the idea that if, in fact, a problem -- an operational or safety problem does develop after that has been constructed, that we then go back and revisit that 108th Avenue directional turning movement without affecting any of the others. What that would do is, while it might cause some dollar expenditures in the future that we wouldn't otherwise have to spend, my only concern would be that you will then have a fairly long interrupted stretch there with no turning movement opportunities that might even send more traffic up to lllth; so there's a plus and a minus there, but for the immediate concern we don't have a problem going back to FDOT and relaying your concerns to them and requesting that we try to fit within those existing parameters. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Considering the fact that both the neighborhood and the board seem to be uncomfortable, I don't have any trouble not passing the resolution today, but what I might suggest is -- I found FDOT to be probably the most user friendly of all the state departments, and we ought to talk to Norm Feder and say, what are you doing here? What you got in mind? And we don't seem to be able to answer all those questions today; so let's find out the answer and then hopefully come up with a solution from there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do have an HPO this Friday, although there may be a question of quorum, and it may have to be continued; but at the next HPO meeting I think that would be a reasonable time to discuss it further. Any further comment? At this point by no action the board is saying we're going to maintain Resolution 94-566, and what I'd like to ask Mr. Kant, if you would please, if you'd speak to Gavin Jones and ask this item be a discussion item on the next HPO agenda and that Mr. Feder be notified of that in advance. MR. KANT: Will do. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I tell you what, let's take a five-minute break for our court reporter, and we'll be right back. (A short break was held.) Item #883 ADDITIONAL INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR THE OAKES DRAINAGE DITCH PROJECT - WORK ORDER #WA-SS WITH WILKISON & ASSOCIATES - APPROVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to resume the January 21st BCC meeting. Item 8(B)(2) has been continued. We're on to Item 8(B)(3). This is Commissioner Constantine's request, 16(B)(2) from the consent agenda. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't have a problem with the $2,000 additional. I just wanted to make sure we're meeting the concerns of the neighborhood out there, and I'm reasonably sure we are; but as long as the item's on the agenda, I know a number of issues that have been raised and want to make sure staff was working hand in hand with whoever it is we dealt with this one on. MR. HcNULL: I feel comfortable with our role so far in construct -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your name, please. MR. HcNULL: Bruce HcNull, stormwater management coordinator. The question on the Oakes ditch, we feel real comfortable with the progress that the contractor's been making. Also the request from the property owners and their concerns about the implementation of the ditch, the clearing of the 30-foot easement, we've responded to all of their requests in an appropriate manner, I believe; and so far things are going okay. The contractor is almost finished with the job. The additional $2,000 in engineering -- an increase for engineering fees was a result of a force main conflict at the outflow end of the ditch, and that's been taken care of. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you very much. Move the item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, thank you, Mr. HcNull. Item #8Cl PROPOSAL FOR PUBLIC USE OF THE MARCO ISLAND YHCA AQUATIC FACILITY - DENIED On to Item 8(C)(1) under public services, recommendation that BCC consider a proposal for public use of the Marco Island YHCA facility. Mr. Camp, good morning. MR. CAMP: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Skip Camp, your acting parks and recs director. The item before you is a proposed agreement between the Marco Island YHCA and the county for use of their facility in return for an amount of $70,000. The items -- the specific items are listed in the executive summary. I should note that the Parks and Recs Advisory Board has unanimously voted against this particular item. I'll be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You said unanimously? MR. CAMP: Voted against it, that's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The primary objections were? MR. CAMP: It's not budgeted. The cost was -- they considered excessive. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for Mr. Camp? Do we have any representatives from the YHCA on this item that wish to speak? MR. CLARK: Commissioners, for the record, Don Clark, the director of the Marco Island YHCA, and with me I have longtime island resident and chairman-elect of the YHCA board, Bob Stakich. In terms of the recreation board's unanimous decision not to support this, there was a little misunderstanding. We'd like to have been there to discuss its merits; however, that didn't happen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Clark. Were you notified of the meeting? MR. CLARK: I knew of when the meeting was. I didn't know that it was one of those things that you could come to and present your -- present your case. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. CLARK: As you know -- as we all know here, the county currently operates two aquatic facilities to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars annually. What we're trying to do is offer an opportunity for not just Marco Island, but Goodland, Isle of Capri -- we're also now beginning to serve the Hanatee School area as we branch out and kind of enlarge our service area to give these kids an opportunity to learn how to swim. While there's an argument that 70 percent of the people on the island have swimming pools, that also, I think, strengthens our case because you have 70 percent of the homes have an opportunity to have some kind of accident if you have children and adults who don't know how to swim. The -- one of the high points of our proposal is that it gives the county -- and the county and the YHCA have very similar missions. We're trying to provide social, recreational needs for the people in the area, and what we can do is we can offer these types of things with no capital expenditure or -- and, in fact, if this agreement doesn't work in the future or seems to be unsuccessful, you know, it could be discontinued and the county has no ongoing expenditure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there questions for Mr. Clark? Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Clark, what is your current Y policy on fees for underprivileged children on Marco? MR. CLARK: Currently we do scholarship. We have United Way funding that we earmark specifically to help people who qualify based on economic need. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So you're not excluding anyone on Marco -- MR. CLARK: We do not exclude, no. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions for Mr. Clark? Do we have public speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: Three, Mr. Chairman, and the first would be Ty Agoston followed by Gil Erlichman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Although these two are well-versed, for anyone else's benefit, you're given five minutes for your comments. When the little yellow light goes on, you have 30 seconds. When the red light's on, it's time to have a seat. Mr. Agoston, welcome. MR. AGOSTON: Thank you very much. Good morning, Commission. Good luck for your chairmanship. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. AGOSTON: And I am Ty Agoston, and I live in Golden Gate Estates. And I'm a long-term admirer of the YHCA. I have five children, and we have partaken in their activities numerous times. On the other hand, I kind of resent this blurring of the activities between public and private. And the reason I do is because I see down the road there could be changes on a part of the private group, and it will change the focus of their efforts and the public still is forced to support it. I also believe that if you contribute $70,000, this possibly will inhibit a recreational development on Marco Island. You may think that, well, you have a facility there for giving function and not grant and spend public money for the development. YHCA should stand on its own. It should generate the funds, and there are many, many fund raisers that's available to them, and the fund raisers would not be the method of coming up to the county commission to look for money. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Agoston. Mr. Erlichman. And our speaker after Mr. Erlichman is? MR. HcNEES: It would be Dr. Fay Biles. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Congratulations again, Mr. Hancock. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. ERLICHHAN: My name is Gilbert -- Gilbert or Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I'm speaking for myself. Way back when I was a young boy growing up, I was a member of the YHCA. And I became a, in fact, leader of younger boys; and I was in a club, and I enjoyed the activities of the Y, grew up in the inner city of New York. And the name of the YHCA was Central YHCA, and I -- my family were able to afford to pay for my membership. Now, the YHCA is a sectarian organization; it's the Young Hen's Christian Association. And although I was not Christian, I was still allowed to become a member. So the membership was open to anyone who could pay for it, and the amount of money was very small. I'm reading here on this agenda item that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed this proposal at their regular meeting on December 18, 1996, and recommended that this agreement not be approved. Now this -- this is one of many times I believe that your advisory committees or councils have made recommendations to you commissioners and you've not gone along with them. You've actually done reverse of what your advisory committees have asked or voted on. In this case I think I concur with the advisory board because, first of all, the YHCA is a private organization and they get funds from the Red Fire Agency. They get donations, and they have membership requirements which require a certain amount of money of families, individual, etc., and they provide a very good service to the community. But I -- I object to the county becoming a partner in their facilities only from the fact that you're going to be using taxpayer funds again to give or to work with a private facility or private organization. I read here in number -- point number five, it says the YHCA would be responsible for lifeguards during open swim. Well, if that's the case, does this negate the responsibility or legal responsibility of the county or taxpayers if anything happens in that pool? I don't know. I think that question would have to be answered by our county attorney. Then, of course, it's talking about the YHCA would keep available to the public lap swim lanes. In other words, they're going to have -- the YHCA would -- would restrict the use of the pool facility to a certain -- to an extent so that it would be available to the public. Well, this is absolutely unfair to the people that have paid their membership dues in the Y, so that's another point that I object to. On the whole I think it's a bad -- a bad deal and a bad situation, and I don't think that the commission should go ahead and consider becoming partners with the Marco Island YHCA. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Erlichman. Dr. Biles. And this is our last registered speaker, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: Yes. MS. BILES: I'm Faye Biles, president of the Marco Island Taxpayers Association, and I reside on Marco Island, of course. I had calls last night up to 11:30 from people, I guess, who just read the agenda in the Sunday paper and knew this was coming up and had not realized what was in store. And they asked me, please, to come and speak against it. I don't want to cast dispersions on the present officers, because I think Bob Hulhere and Bob Stakich and Don coming on board have done a wonderful job of trying to meet a huge deficit. And I blame that on past boards for poor fiscal practices. But I don't think it's fair for the taxpayers to come and fund a deficit. I know that they are in debt, and they are trying desperately to get out of it. They are doing continuous fund-raising events, and many of the people in the county and on Marco are contributing to those events. They are doing a great job. I just think it'll set a precedent. I don't like to see taxpayers' monies being used this way. And parks and recreation, I don't know if this would be one of their top priorities; I wouldn't think so. But many of the people on Marco Island -- and by the way, some of these people who called last night are members of both MICA and the Y, and so I don't think this has been widely known on Marco Island. I know there's been a great deal of lobbying behind the scenes. I've heard that, of course. But not many people on Marco know that this was even coming up today. So I just have to go with those people that called me last night, asked me, please, don't mix taxpayers' money and come to the commission for tax monies to wipe out a deficit. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Dr. Biles. We'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the intent here is excellent, and like Gil I was active in the YHCA as a kid and got a lot out of it. But I think -- as I looked at this initially before the meeting, I thought, gee, the partnership of the two looks like a great idea. But Commissioner Norris's question makes me wonder what's the benefit to the county. If the Y is already open to everyone and available to everyone and scholarships are available to those who are financially perhaps otherwise unable to meet the membership requirement, then I'm not sure what $70,000 achieves. If the Y already provides that service and already is available to virtually everyone, $70,000 doesn't do anything except it appears going toward that deficit. So I appreciate the attempt here, and I think trying to make the Y stable and trying to be -- make sure it's good for the community is a positive thing, but I'm not sure I can support this manner of doing it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree and would make a motion that we accept the Park and Recreation Advisory Board's recommendation and respectfully deny the request. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second that. I just want to clarify one point. I think Mr. Erlichman made a point that we had gone against the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. We have not, because this is the first time that it's come to us; so we have not gone against their -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. We're not going to have a discussion back and forth, as you know, Gil. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just -- because this is the first time we've heard this. So I will second Ms. Hac'Kie's motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let the record reflect the aspersion has bounced off Commissioner Berry. Motion is seconded. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, the item is denied. Item #9A AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CHALLENGE FOUNDATION, INC., FOR THE FUNDING OF THE 1997 PGA GOLF TOURNAMENT WITH TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS AND APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GREATER NAPLES CHAMBER OF COHMERCE, INC., AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR FUNDING OF FULFILLMENT WITH TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX FUNDS - APPROVED AS AMENDED On to Item 9(A) on the agenda. This is the -- the balance of the request from last week regarding fulfillment responsibilities and the six 30-second commercials to run with the LG Championship. Ironically Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Ashton were down in our office about five minutes after we adjourned saying we arrived at language, and there have been some revisions since. But you each have a copy in front of you. It says Item 9(A) in the upper right-hand corner of the agreement. Miss Ashton, I understand that the county attorney's office and the Chamber are in full agreement with the content of this? MS. ASHTON: Yes, we are. I'd like to make one point of clarification since the executive summary -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Your name for the record, please. MS. ASHTON: Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. ASHTON: Just too enthusiastic about the item. The executive summary states that the Chamber will be preparing two commercials, and they're only preparing one. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Most of the changes are clarifications on the scope of services outlined in detail what the Chamber proposes to do. Also the language on the accounting provides for an audit or an accounting. I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention, and that's in line with the recommendations that are coming from the tourist development tax counsel that there be an accounting, not necessarily a full audit. COHMISSIONER BERRY: So that means that whatever -- in other words, they're going to account to us the spending of that $500,0007 MS. ASHTON: Right. And they'll be providing invoices to back up -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correction, $100,000. This is the fulfillment side. COHMISSIONER BERRY: The fulfillment side. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The question you're asking was taken care of last week. Yes, there will be invoices submitted and an accounting of the 500,000. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Because that has been -- that has been confused as well. It's like everybody is coming -- I've been getting hit with, Oh, you don't care. You know, nobody's going to say anything. Well, I really think we need to clarify that point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. For both this contract and the one approved last week as well as all other Category C expenditures, invoices must be presented, either paid or unpaid, the invoices verified that they are consistent with the requirements of the contract before they are paid. That has never -- it's never been anything other than that with the exception of the lump-sum front payment that we did that we have now stopped doing. So that -- yes, that accounting will occur in consistency with the contract. It will occur in this as well as all other -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: And this is for the hundred thousand? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This is for the $100,000 fulfillment. And you weren't here last year when it happened, but there was fulfillment difficulties, and I think it was in the relationship of getting it done, not necessarily in the entities themself. This makes it very, very clear and puts the Chamber in a position of doing what they do best, and it's just much cleaner, much simpler. And, Mr. Wheeler, I assume that by your not being at the microphone, everything seems okay in the contract? He has nodded yes. Okay. Are there any further questions from the board? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. All those in favor please signify by -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel's trying to get your attention. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Before we go to vote, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I sure don't mind the vote, but I just want to make a comment when you finish your vote. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, 5-0. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. Right now we have just finished the trilogy of board meetings concerning the conversion of the tourist development tax and guidelines reimbursement contracts to an invoice payment format, and I just want to state that this has come to you really as problem solvers where both staff, the finance and payment offices, as well as the county attorney office can and shall and should recognize the symptoms of where a format which is in and of itself appropriate doesn't work with the particular fact situations that may follow the adoption of a format procedure. And when we note and can note that the round peg isn't fitting in the square hole, I think we can certainly make a better effort to bring these things before you, both individually and in an agenda format, prior to the occasion the way it's occurred this time because it placed a burden on the board of problem solving on problems that really had not come to you until very late after payments had been made and administration of the contract had been had. You are not the contract administrators; we are, and we can do a better job on that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Weigel. And I appreciate your comments. We'll look forward to the proactive role of the county attorney's office in these contracts. Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 97-59 APPOINTING CHARLES HUTTINGER TO THE CITY/COUNTY BEACH RENOURISHMENT ADVISORY COMHITTEE - ADOPTED On to Item 10(A) -- and, again, thank you, Mr. Wheeler. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to nominate Charles Huttinger. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a nomination. Are there any other nominations on the floor? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just that I know neither of these people. I just noticed that the recommendation from the committee is someone named Ralph Schinella, and I did notice that his resume has a lot of experience with these kinds of agencies. Just curious why we would go against their recommendation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Huttinger has a long history of experience on the Marco Island Beach Renourishment Committee. He's been a valuable member of that committee for quite some time. And in the spirit of bipartisanship, it would be well noted at this point that he is a registered democrat. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, despite that I'll second your motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. This won't spoil the apple cart of, oh, he's not elected so it won't matter? Just kidding. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, congratulations, Mr. Huttinger, and we'll look forward -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Mrs. Huttinger, by the way, you would be glad to know, is a registered republican. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So it's an even split in the household. That's important. Item #10B CREATION OF CITIZENS SCREENING COHMITTEE FOR THE COUNTY MANAGER POSITION AND GARY WRAGE, DON YORK, DON HERMAN, NICK CARSELLO AND JOHN PASSIDOHO APPOINTED TO SAID COHMITTEE Item 10(B), creation of citizens screening committee for the county manager position. Last week I asked, among other things, for each board member to bring a single name to recommend as an initial screening committee to work with Human Resources to reduce the total number of applications for the county manager position to roughly 20 or 30, approximately 10 percent of the total submitted that we expect. I guess we'll start at my left if you have a name to recommend to sit on that screening committee, Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Gary Wrage. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Gary Wrage. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don York. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don York. I am recommending Mr. Don Herman. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nicholas Carsillo (phonetic). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Nicholas Carsillo. And Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have John Passidomo. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: John Passidomo. We have five commissioners, five recommendations. Is there a -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve those five names. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, Ms. Edwards, would you be so kind as to -- I'm sure our assistants would be able to give you the address information on those people or get it from us and notify them as soon as possible of the proposed schedule for their involvement. MS. EDWARDS: We will. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And, likewise -- I have to admit I'm guilty of not getting my survey to you on Friday at five o'clock; so that'll be forthcoming today. MS. EDWARDS: I appreciate that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you, everyone, for working on that diligently. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So far they can narrow it down to 3.6 names. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The flood is coming but -- so we only have 36 applicants now, is it? MS. EDWARDS: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That'll make their job pretty easy then. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't count on it. Item #10C CARNIVAL PERMIT C-97-1 FOR A CIRCUS (CINCO DE MAYO) TO BE HELD JANUARY 24 & 25, 1997 - APPROVED AND SPECIAL EVENT FEES WAIVED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah, I know. Item 10(C), we have a request to waive permit fees. Commissioner Norris. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As this is a -- just a simple fee waiver for a event that we've done in the past, we've done it for them. And the way -- it should be probably commissioner's responsibility for this five, but since I'm the only full-time commissioner, it happened to come around when I was the only one in the office and -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think you might want to retract that statement if you expect to get any support for your motion. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Mr. Norris -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I happened to be the only one in the office at the moment, and so I sponsored the -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: I heard about it after the fact. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I was working late, actually. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean past noon? COMHISSIONER BERRY: You want me to clock in? I think, Mr. Norris, I've been in my office about as often as you have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let the record reflect that a fight broke out -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just -- coming to the office now. CONNISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just glad not to be involved in the bickering. COHMISSIONER BERRY: This is no bickering. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and a second. Don't make me be Ben Hogan again. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) The mostly full-time commission has approved that one unanimously. PUBLIC COHMENT - GIL ERLICHHAN REGARDING ADVISORY BOARD DECISIONS Okay. On to public comment. Hr. HcNees. HR. HcNEES: You have one, Gil Erlichman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning again, Gil. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning. The reason for this public comment is I have to correct a statement that Ms. Berry made about what I said concerning the advisory board decisions -- advisory -- your advisory board decisions. I did not say that the advisor -- it was the advisory board of the parks -- pardon me, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. I specifically said other advisory board decisions. Now, if need be, I will have to get a replay of the recording or the tape to correct that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not all that important, Mr. Erlichman. I heard what you said. I appreciate you restating -- MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and I don't think we need to have a rereading of the minutes. MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you. But I like to make sure that what I say is quoted correctly, and that's the reason I'm back here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Isn't it nice you have the opportunity? Not all of us are afforded that. MR. ERLICHHAN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Gil. No other public comment, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 97-60 RE PETITION CU-95-18 REQUESTING A 2ND EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS NAPLES FIRST ALLIANCE CHURCH AT 2504 ESTEY AVENUE BEING A PORTION OF LOT 25 AND 26, NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARM NO. 2 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Fantastic. On to Item 13(B)(1), Petition CU-95-18, request for second extension. Mr. Hulhere. MR. HULHERE: Yeah. Bob Hulhere, current planning manager. I have to make a correction. This is actually the first extension. This was first approved by the board a year ago January. There is a site development plan being reviewed by the staff, which we suspect will be approved shortly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hulhere, has anything changed since a year ago when they first bid this process? MR. HULHERE: No, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make motion -- we need to close the hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion to approve Petition CU-95-18. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Mulhere. Item #14A WORKSHOP TO BE HELD AT CONCLUSION OF 1/28/97 BCC MEETING AS REQUESTED BY THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISORS On to Item 14(1), add-on. I have received a request in my office from the -- in essence, the Council of Economic Advisors to have a EDC workshop. As you may remember, the board authorized a consultant study to prepare information. They have requested that we hear that in a workshop setting at the end of our regularly scheduled session on the 28th. The total time of this workshop Ms. Pareigis initially set 45 minutes, and we've whittled that down to 30. What I told her is that I would try and make it a practice, rather than making unilateral additions to the agenda, to bring them before the board since everyone's time is equally important and ask the board to make a joint decision on whether or not they wish to spend that time in that manner. So the request is for a 30-minute workshop immediately following the meeting on the 28th to discuss the Council of Economic Advisors' consultant recommendations. Mr. Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a great idea. It'll be time well spent. I just want to make sure we do it at the close rather than setting a time certain and finding ourselves out of time or done earlier. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Correct. It'd be at the close, and most of the people who are involved in this understand -- know how to read an agenda and anticipate lengthy or short meetings, so -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question. Are we requesting that the presenters understand that we're allotting 30 minutes? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. That is my statement to Ms. Pareigis. She said she thought they could comfortably bring it down to 30 minutes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I support -- I'm more than happy to spend more than 30 minutes on it. I think it's one of the most important things we could have to discuss. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the general consensus of the board. Miss Filson, would you please add that to the agenda on the 28th. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you imagine Commissioner Hac'Kie agreeing so strongly on something? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is -- you know we were just getting through this meeting without a large fight; so I'm going to go ahead and move on to the next item. Are there any BCC communications? Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have none. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: None. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: None. Item #14B DISCUSSION REGARDING HAULING CONTRACT CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two. One, just a comment. And, Mr. McNees, you can pass this on to our staff. I have one concern. Mr. Russell has been putting together the information for potentially going out to bid for a hauling contract, and he's laid out different possibilities of what we can send up. I'm a little concerned that what we're looking at sending out is actually lowering the level of service that we're currently giving. Some of the options are for one pickup a week instead of two or -- there are a number of options he laid out. And while I think the board likes having multiple options, I don't think any of us are probably excited about lowering the level of service we provide right now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not in my houseful of dirty diapers. Item #14C DISCUSSION OF INTERIM COUNTY MANAGER TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER AT 1/28/97 MEETING; INTERESTED STAFF SHOULD SUBMIT THEIR NAMES TO THE MANAGER'S OFFICE; AND APPOINTMENT OF THE INTERIM MANAGER TO BE ANNOUNCED ON FEBRUARY 4, 1997 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And then the second item has to do with the county manager position as well. And it sounds like we're progressing nicely on that, but with Mr. Dotrill leaving February 10, obviously we're going to have a need for an interim manager in the meantime. My one thought is we have a number of people in-house who may very well apply and who are qualified candidates. Just a suggestion that we may not want to appoint an interim manager who is also applying, because then if the perception -- whether it's real or not, the perception may be that they have some advantage or leg up if they are serving as interim manager and also applying for the job. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, we're going to leave this meeting not only with you and I not bickering, but with me strongly agreeing with that position. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Again, not a necessarily scheduled communication item where we have an opportunity to discuss this when we appoint the county manager. I come from a little different school in that the reason for playing assistant county manager is to step into that role, and whether it is a leg up or not, I have some questions about -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I wanted to -- and I know it's not scheduled, but I know it's coming up on us within a couple weeks; so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would see some input on both sides of that, and I think it'll be a healthy discussion to have. So do we want to schedule a specific date in which we make an interim appointment? I think we should schedule one Tuesday as a consideration of names and the following Tuesday to make the appointment. Is that a reasonable -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I suggest next -- 28th is next week and that we have or initial discussion on that and then make some formal or final decision the following week, which I think is February 4th. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we want to ask employees interested in the interim position to list their names with the county manager's office so that we know who may or may not be interested, and then if we have additions or discussion on that list, we can do it at that time? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. I think it's a good idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Am I supposed to ask if staff -- well, I guess all the application period will have closed by then; so we'll know who on staff is interested in the permanent position? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's what I was going to say. The application period, I think, goes to the 31st. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So hopefully by the time we get to our -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Between now and the 28th, any county employee who is interested in the interim position should register their name at Mr. Dorrill's office. The 28th we will have discussion on how to go about that appointment and schedule the appointment for the following Tuesday. Is that an agreed-upon schedule -- course of action? Fantastic. I don't have anything further. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Nothing. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. McNees, while they're quietly talking about you in front of you -- MR. McNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Ms. Filson. MS. FILSON: I didn't get the last name of one of the advisory board members of the one that you named. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Don Herman. MS. FILSON: Herman. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And I can provide that address for you, I think. I'll find it. Okay. If nothing further, this meeting is adjourned. ***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES FOR QUAIL WEST, PHASE ONE, BLOCK C - WITH STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Pages Item #16A2 ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR WINN DIXIE SHOPPING CENTER AT COUNTRYSIDE - WITH CASHIERS CHECK, IN THE A_MOUNT OF $3,254.00, AS SURETY AND STIPULATIONS O.R. Book Pages Item #16A3 SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH FORD CONSUMER FINANCE COMPANY Item #16A4 BID #96-2594 REJECTED AND STAFF AUTHORIZED TO RE-BID THE CLAM BAY EXOTICS REMOVAL PROJECT WITHOUT THE NEED OF A PERFORMANCE BOND Item #16B1 AUTHORIZATION TO REIMBURSE TOM SCHOLTZ $1,340.00 FOR THE SEWER IMPACT FEE CHARGED FOR A HOME BEING BUILT AT 4485 LORRAINE AVENUE Item #1682 - Moved to Item #883 Item #1683 PETITION AV-96-029 TO VACATE A 15-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 1407, PAGES 634-635, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #16B4 SPEED LIMIT CHANGES TO ROADWAYS AS LISTED IN CONFORMANCE WITH BOARD ACTION ON 8/6/96 - RESOLUTION 96-340 ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY SPEED LIMIT REDUCTIONS TO TWENTY FIVE MILES PER HOUR (25 MPH); ROADWAYS AFFECTED: NAPLES PARK SUBDIVISION EXCLUDING 111 AVENUE NORTH; VANDERBILT DRIVE BETWEEN lllTH AVENUE NORTH AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD INCLUDING ALL ROADWAYS TO THE WEST OFF VANDERBILT DRIVE; HENDERSON CREEK PARK AND INOMAH SUBDIVISION Item #16B5 ACCEPTANCE OF AN EASEMENT FROM KREHLING INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR INSTALLATION OF A WATER METER Item #16B6 BID #96-2608 FOR SPRINKLER PARTS & RELATED ITEMS - AWARDED TO TO COAST PUMP, HYATT SPRINKLER SUPPLIES AND PUMP & IRRIGATION SUPPLY Item #16B7 REIMBURSE TWO (2) MEMBERS OF THE MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHMENT ADVISORY COMHITTEE FOR EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTIES DURING ATTENDANCE AT THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON BEACH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY Item #1688 APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENTS RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD AMOUNTS FROM FY 1996 WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECT IN FUNDS 411, 412, 413 AND 414 Item #16C1 - This item has been deleted Item #16C2 - This item has been deleted Item #16C3 AMEND THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COLLIER COUNTY VETERANS COUNCIL, INC. AND THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS OF COLLIER COUNTY VETERANS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS UNTIL FEBRUARY 1, 2000 Item #16C4 ACCEPT THE REVENUES FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT THE COST OF EXTENDED HOURS REQUIRED FOR HOUSING AUTHORITY ACTIVITY Item #16D1 UTILIZATION OF MONIES IN FUND 188 FOR SPECIFIC OPERATIONAL COSTS OF THE 800 MHz RADIO SYSTEM Item #16D2 APPROVE THE GROUP HEALTH SUMMARY PLAN DOCUMENT WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF JANUARY 1, 1997 Item #16D3 APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD IN FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND (521) Item #16El APPROVE A $65,000.00 BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE CLAM BAY RESTORATION FUND (320) Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE No. 226 1995 Real Property 85-88 Dated 01 06/97 1996 Real Property 01 1996 Tangible Personal Property 12 01 06/97 42-43 09 - 12/10/96 50 & 52 06 - 01/08/97 Item #16G2 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #1611 APPROVAL FOR THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BONDS FOR KEITH G. ANDERSON AND JOHN N. WINTERS, COLLIER COUNTY MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT COHMISSIONERS, PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 388.131 AND 137.04, FLORIDA STATUTES Item #1612 NOTICE TO PROCEED TO THE TAX COLLECTOR FOR TAX DEED APPLICATIONS ON THE 1994 COUNTY TAX CERTIFICATES There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11:24 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Helissa Hilligan and Diane Krapf