Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/10/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 10, 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 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Hike HcNees, Interim County Hanager Robert Fernandez, County Hanager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. I'm going to call to order the June 10th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. This morning it's a pleasure to have here for invocation Reverend David Mallory with the First Assembly of God Church. Reverend Mallory, if I could ask you to honor us with an invocation, we'll follow it up with the Pledge of Allegiance. REVEREND MALLORY: Our Loving Heavenly Father, we thank you for your word for in your word we read, Thine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory forever, for each of us here in this room, I am sure, long to have a revelation of your Divine will for even here in Collier County we really do your business because this is your kingdom. We thank you for these fine commissioners and we thank you for the wisdom that you have empowered them with. We are grateful for our new county manager. We pray a special blessing upon him as he begins his duties, and we give you all the honor and praise. Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Mallory, again, thank you for being here and thank you for all your work in the community. We truly appreciate it. Good Morning, Mr. HcNees. MR. HcNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for recognizing I am not Mr. Fernandez, but -- MR. HANCOCK: But someday you hope to be. No, I'm just kidding. MS. HAC'KIE: Just keeping things light. MR. HANCOCK: Let it never be said there are sacred cows in this room. I do want to start things off with explaining to the board I discussed with Mr. Fernandez, yesterday, today's meeting, and Mr. HcNees has done a fantastic job as interim county manager, and I think we would be remiss in not mentioning that if it were not for his leadership and his abilities, we would be in a far sadder shape than we would like to have been. So, Mr. HcNees, I think we owe you a debt of gratitude for serving in an interim capacity, stepping up and fulfilling a role that you were fully capable of doing and doing quite well. Mr. Fernandez is going to more or less monitor the meeting today. Mr. HcNees will be acting in a similar capacity as he has in the past couple of months, but, again, Mr. HcNees, on behalf of the board, we are quite honored to have your talents in the county manager's office and want to thank you for all of your effort and your hard work over these last couple of months. It has been critical. MR. HcNEES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. As you said, we are going to, I guess, do a little bit of tag-team today while Mr. Fernandez kind of gets up to speed on our protocols and our -- how we do things, and so I'll proceed with the meeting. We have just a couple of changes for your agenda this morning, an item under the county attorney's agenda, 9(A), regarding some legal fees with an ongoing lawsuit. We have an Item 10(B) that has been requested to add by Commissioner Constantine, a resolution regarding an Army Corps study that has been proposed, and then for the record, excuse me, for the record, we have a consent agenda item that we want to add a couple of pages to, and I'll ask that staff make sure the reporter get copies of those pages for the record, and those would be the only staff changes we are proposing this morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Any changes to the agenda, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None, thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I only have one item under board communication, with no changes to the agenda. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Seconded. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (The Board members responded.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries unanimously. Item #4 MINUTES OF HAY 20, 1997, REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED Item Number 4. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of the May 20th, 1997, regular meeting. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. (The Board members responded.) Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JUNE 8-14, 1997 AS HOME OWNERSHIP WEEK - ADOPTED Under 5(A), proclamations, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, I'm happy to get to read a proclamation for Home Ownership Week and wonder if Jeff Cecil is here to accept it. I didn't see him. Is there someone else here on behalf of the Chamber/EDC Affordable Housing Committee? Okay. Come forward if you would here and stand in front of us while I read the proclamation. Just wave to the cameras. Okay. You probably want to turn and face -- WHEREAS, the United States is one of the first countries in the world to make home ownership a reality for a majority of its people. Thanks to the effective cooperation between industry and government, the doors of home ownership have been opened to millions of families in the last six decades; and WHEREAS, home ownership strengthens families and stabilizes communities, encourages savings and investment and promotes economic and civic responsibilities; and WHEREAS, expansion of home ownership spurs new production and sales of -- and sales of goods and services, thereby strengthening the economy and creating jobs; and WHEREAS, the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce/Economic Development Council Coalition, through its Affordable Housing Committee, is committed to increasing the availability of housing in the community that is affordable to employees of Collier County businesses and government agencies. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of June 8 through 14th be designated as home ownership week. Done and ordered this 10th day of June, 1997. Board of County Commissioners. Timothy L. Hancock, Chairman. And I am pleased to move acceptance of this proclamation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (The Board members responded.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations. SPEAKER: I'd like to thank everyone for this proclamation for promoting housing for those that want to live nearer to where they work. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you again. It's my pleasure this morning to recognize three individuals under service awards for time and employment with the county. First, we have from the Water North RO Plant, Robert Nixon, for five years. Mr. Nixon. Mr. Nixon is five years and a day. He's still at work. Okay. We'll go on to our second one from Office of Capital Projects Management, Steven Ritter, for ten years of service in Collier County. Mr. Ritter. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's been five years since you did this the last time. Congratulations. MR. RITTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And for 15 years service from Road and Bridge, Mr. Isidro Losano. Mr. Losano, congratulations. My next item is actually time certain for ten o'clock or until Senator Dudley arrives, so we will move on past that item and come back to it when it is appropriate. Item #9A PAYHENT OF LEGAL FEES AND NECESSARY COSTS FOR INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS IN BLANDFORD V. COLLIER COUNTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH RES. 95-632 AND PURCHASING POLICY WAIVED TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY FOR IHMEDIATE SELECTION OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL - APPROVED We are to Item 9(A). This was an add-on of the county attorney's office for legal fees in a lawsuit. Mr. Weigel, I believe we have a packet that was handed to us this morning on this item. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. Thank you and I appreciate that we could bring this before you. Mr. Mike Pettit, Assistant County Attorney, will provide the brief discussion of it before you. MR. PETTIT: Good morning, Commissioners and Mr. Chairman. Mike Pettit here from the county attorney's office. We're here this morning with the agreement of the Risk Management Department to recommend that the board approve, pursuant to its resolution 95-632, retention of outside counsel and payment for legal fees for two individual defendants in a lawsuit in which the county has also been named as a defendant. Ordinarily -- actually, this hasn't happened very frequently where individuals have been sued, individual county employees or former county employees, along with the county, and ordinarily we would attempt to represent all defendants, which is certainly a prerogative the board has under its resolution. We believe, in this case, it would be prudent to retain outside counsel for the two individual defendants. I would note that one of the defendants is a current county employee. One of the defendants is a former county employee who has only recently left county employment. Under the resolution we believe we have the power to retain outside counsel and pay those fees, and we think that's the best course here. If the board decides to choose that course, we are also requesting that to the extent it applies, the purchasing policy be waived so that we don't need to solicit quotes and can enter into -- we may not need to do that, because they are actually individual defendants that are being represented, but we want to cover that base. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pettit, my question is one of process. You said it is unusual that the individuals are named in addition to the county being sued in a case like this. What -- assuming a judgment in favor of the county, what opportunity would we have, if any, to recoup any of these additional legal costs due to the nature of the way the suit was filed? MR. PETTIT: There is a possibility at least with respect to certain counsel and complaint, I believe that once counsel is retained, it can be explored, where we can recover those fees. I would certainly argue that with respect to some, if not all the counts in the complaint, that the individual shouldn't have been defended -- shouldn't have been defended -- shouldn't have been sued under Federal law. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Pettit or Mr. Weigel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a brief one. I'm assuming that there aren't any allegations in the complaint that arise out of anything other than their service as employees of Collier County? MR. PETTIT: The allegations in the complaint relate to service as employees of Collier County, but obviously the allegations, as described, are of sexual harassment and racial discrimination, we deny those allegations and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they all relate to the employment of the individuals. MR. PETTIT: Absolutely, absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Mr. Pettit, thank you very much. MR. PETTIT: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Mr. Chairman, before you move to the next item, I have been informed that Mr. Cecil, who is here for the Home Ownership Week proclamation, has arrived and if you wish to allow him an opportunity, he wanted to say a couple of words regarding that -- that proclamation at your discretion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we have room for a couple of words, Mr. Cecil. We crack that whip early around here in the morning. MR. CECIL: After sprinting across the parking lot, I have to catch my breath. I am sorry for being late. I would like to recognize the members of the affordable housing committee that did make it before I did. Joan Gust, Bonnie Fauls, Greg Hihalic, Jill Greenfield, and Vanessa Fitz. They're all here. Well, good morning. I'm Jeff Cecil. I'm the partner in charge of the Naples office of Porter, Wright, Morris, and Arthur, a law firm based in Columbus, Ohio. On behalf of the Collier County business community, I want to thank you for proclaiming June 8th through 14th as Home Ownership Week. Owning one's own home is part of the American dream. You are helping through the proclamation to focus attention towards achieving that dream. The housing committee of the Chamber EDC Coalition, which I chair has been charged with the task of finding methods of making available to those who work in Collier County housing which is affordable. Finding a residence which is affordable for which a family pays less than 30 percent of its income is a difficult problem for many Collier County employees. Generally, the lower the employee's income, the more difficult the problem. When you consider the fact that even our new county administrator receives a housing subsidy, and I understand has not been able to find a house, is it any wonder that teachers, bank tellers, secretaries, highway patrolmen, and many just starting their careers here cannot find an affordable place to live? Consider this. If they do not live here, they do not spend their paychecks here. It is simply good business to ensure that our employees can live in Collier County, to work in Collier County. This proclamation helps point us in the direction we must go and marks the beginning of a very important period in our county, a period when our committee will seek your assistance and the assistance of the entire business community in finding, developing, and funding programs to provide homes to those who are the very foundation of our work force. Let's make the American dream come true in our county. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. I would like to clarify. I think Mr. Fernandez is trying to find the right house, not a house. Thank you. Item #10A RESOLUTION 97-270 REAPPOINTING JOHN AGNELLI AND RICHARD BOTTHOF AND APPOINTING CAROL E. GIRARDIN TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED We are to Item 10(A), appointment of members to the Industrial Development Authority. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Motion carries unanimously. Item #10B COUNTY ATTORNEY DIRECTED TO PREPARE RESOLUTION OF OPPOSITION FOR ADOPTION ON JUNE 17, 1997, REGARDING A PROPOSED ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IMPACT STUDY OF COLLIER COUNTY We are to Item 10(B) which was an add-on by Commissioner Constantine. I understand we have Mr. Ward from CBIA here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is, in my opinion, an effort to stifle the economy, at the very least, of Collier County, and I think Mr. Ward can probably outline it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Come on up, Mr. Ward. It may come as a shock to people in this room, but the federal government seems to be sticking its hands in local development approvals all of a sudden, but I know that is unusual, but, Mr. Ward, good morning. MR. WARD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Whit Ward. I represent the Collier Building Industry Association. I am here to ask you on behalf of Collier County to write a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers. The Army Corps of Engineers, as I have explained to you in my correspondence, is proposing to conduct an environmental impact study. It started out to be the Estero area and I understand that it has now expanded to come as far south as the Golden Gate canal. During the time it takes for the Army Corps of Engineers to complete this study, should they elect to do so, any -- any permit that is -- that is applied for must go through the Army Corps of Engineers, and, as you know, that is a very long and cumbersome process. It would pretty much, as the commissioner said, stop economic and building development in Collier County for as much as two or two and a half years. That's not the biggest thing. The biggest thing is that there have already been some nine or ten studies done on this area. We don't feel that we need another study. We know how the area works. There is ample information, and, most of all, we don't need the federal government here helping us anymore. We can take care of ourselves, and we can -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Please don't help us anymore. MR. WARD: That's exactly right. We can take care of ourselves down here, and so my request to you this morning would be that the county commission write a letter to a Colonel Terry Rice, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Jacksonville, Florida, asking them not to conduct a study here in Collier County. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman, I have personally been in contact with the offices of some of our federal legislators, Connie Hack's office, Porter Goss' office, in relation to this. They are aware of it, but I think we would be well advised, perhaps, to take this to the level of a resolution and forward it not only to the gentleman over at the Corps, but also to our legislators, and it probably wouldn't hurt to involve more than just our local ones. Any legislator that we have a good relationship with, I think we should get this on, because this is, as Mr. Ward has said, is just another study on top of a bunch of other studies, and really could be devastating to our local economy if everything has to stop for a couple of years all the way down to Golden Gate Parkway. I don't see the point in it since we have not only the South Florida Water Management District, but we have our own Big Cypress Basin Board here in Collier County to look into these matters and protect our environment, and it's just one of those pointless federal government make-work deals that could have a tremendous negative impact on our local citizens and we should get involved at the most stringent level we can. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just an informational question. I heard about this, you know, sort of through the grapevine that this was coming. I'm wondering, how did -- what official notice have we received? How do we know where the boundaries are? How do we know what we are asking them exactly not to do? MR. WARD: We don't know where the boundaries are other than the Army Corps started looking at the Estero watershed area. The Army Corps decides on their own what area would affect the area they have planned to study. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that the concern is the boundaries are wherever they decide to set them. MR. WARD: And the last -- yes, sir, you're right, Commissioner, and additionally, Colonel Terry Rice, in his last presentation that -- and I was not there, Diane Gilmore from Southwest Florida Chamber of Commerce was there, stated that he thought the area that he would recommend be studied should go to the Golden Gate canal, and so in his mind, that is what he has decided to do. I gave you a list of options and he also -- the list of options that I gave you indicated that he would favor option number five. In that same talk, he said they had decided on option number four, which is the most re -- stringent of the options. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the process is just that this one colonel in the Army Corps decides? MR. WARD: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the process? MR. WARD: He's made application -- he's made application or he's -- to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and they are currently looking for funding to study the project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we would -- we would appeal to the legislators because they would have a funding authority not to fund this and -- MR. WARD: That would be very helpful and I have -- we visited -- I personally have visited both of our United States senators at their Washington office and Congressman Porter Goss at his Washington office to encourage them to do whatever they can to prevent a study being conducted here. Also, understand, this is the broadest study that has or will be, if it is done, would be the broadest study ever attempted by the Corps of Engineers. They are kind of trying to expand their territory. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There are two things that cause me significant concern. The first is that we keep hearing about federal level cutbacks, yet we seem to have an agency that is seeking a project outside of their budget limits or trying to spend money within their budget limits, as far as I know, to the nth degree, by increasing the regulatory power over local government. If that is not enough concern, this needs to be framed in the proper context. This isn't an issue of builders versus environmentalists. That is not what this is about. This is a direct attack on private property rights. It's very similar to what the state perpetrated in the south block on those people. We have the Army Corps of Engineers saying we want to do a study and until we are done with that study we are going to restrict the rights of individual property owners without any rhyme, any reason, any basis whatsoever. That's not what government is about. So from that standpoint, this isn't about building, it isn't about environment. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's about intrusion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's simply about intrusion on individual rights from the federal level, which we don't need any more of. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I couldn't agree more. I just want to understand what it is that we are -- we're being asked to do and I wonder, have you made this -- I do feel confident that we have enough layers of regulation here and enough reviewers that we don't need one more. I'm wondering, however, has the Big Cypress Basin taken a position on this? Might we encourage them to do the same and the Water Management District, et cetera, to take -- to say, excuse me, we're down here, we are already doing this? MR. WARD: To my knowledge, they have not taken a position. We will encourage them to take a position. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to include in our resolution perhaps a letter or if Mr. Ward is going to take that initiative, just to be sure that the local agencies, in addition to Collier County, who are already doing this, also point out to the federal government, we are already doing this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me suggest, and Commissioner Norris, you suggested the resolution. I, for one, would like to see the wording of the resolution to make sure it is strong enough to state our position clearly, which would require it being approved next week. Were you assuming we would just adopt a resolution today and allow the wording to be determined by Mr. Weigel? What was your course of action suggesting the resolution? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It may be helpful to try to draft the resolution during this week, and look at it again next week, and approve it finally for distribution at that time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If there is some big -- if there's a crisis, we might want to go ahead and write a letter saying, you know, strong letter, strong resolution to follow. Just say no, strong letter to follow. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What I -- what we'd probably need in this case, assuming there is no further discussion, is to direct the county attorney to draft a letter for my signature, indicating our upcoming action of the full adoption of a resolution and what the general content of that resolution will be. The specifics will be decided upon in the resolution. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion to that effect. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Mr. McNees. MR. McNEES: You have one registered speaker. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Why don't we go ahead and go to that speaker? Mr. Ward, thank you. MR. WARD: Thank you, Commissioners. MR. HcNEES: Judy Leinweber. MS. LEINWEBER: Hi. I'm Judy Leinweber, and Colonel Rice, I met at the Keith Arnold Committee. I went to some of those meetings and he was the one that was responsible for the report. Well, Lee County has turned down all the recommendations from the Keith Arnold Committee. Colonel Rice has suggested and he also wanted to implement that any permits that are issued, he wants this to be their Bible and their guidelines to go by. Lee County had enough sense to turn them down, and I can see our county commissioners are on the same wavelength, but I don't think people should be on committees and make guidelines and be bullies and take our constitutional property rights. I think you folks are on the right track. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Leinweber. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Weigel, we will get a look at that draft for my signature a little bit later this week, I assume. MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you very much. With the one item remaining on the early portion of our agenda awaiting the arrival of Senator Dudley, let's go ahead and go to public comment on general topics. Do we have any additional speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: You have none. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do not. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 97-27 RE RECONSIDERATION OF PETITION PUD-90-1(2), THE RICHLAND PUD, WHICH WAS HEARD BY THE BCC ON HAY 13, 1997, AS AGENDA ITEM #12B(2) - ADOPTED We'll go into Item 12 then, Advertised Public Hearings. 12(B)(1) is a zoning amendment. I understand it is more of a scrivener's error but comes back under rezoning amendments -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Any reason why it's not on the consent agenda? MR. HcNEES: I don't know. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 97-271 RE PETITION SNR-97-3, EDWARD F. BECK REQUESTING A STREET NAME CHANGE FOR THAT PORTION OF C.R. 84 WHICH EXTENDS EAST OF C.R. 951 TO BENFIELD AVENUE TO BE KNOWN AS BECK BOULEVARD - ADOPTED We are to Item -- and following Mr. Nino's fine presentation. We're to Item 12(C)(1), Petition SNR-97-3, Edward Beck, requesting a street name change for a portion of County Road 84. Mr. Gutierrez, good morning. MR. GUTIERREZ: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. This application is filed by Mr. Edward F. Beck, the son of Mr. Edward J. Beck who used to work for the Florida Department of Transportation as a toll-taker and was killed on a section of roadway. His family wishes for the section of roadway, approximately one mile, to be renamed in his honor. The Department of Transportation is renaming the toll plaza, the Edward Beck Toll Plaza, this would be consistent with that. There is no opposition, and the fiscal impact to the county is $200 to change the street signs. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Procedural question. Any businesses located along that stretch of roadway that use that as an address? MR. GUTIERREZ: None to my knowledge, but I believe there's approximately seven addressees off that roadway. None are businesses though. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, but there are residences and so forth? MR. GUTIERREZ: That's my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No letters of objection from them? MR. GUTIERREZ: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. We do have a motion. Do we have any speakers, Mr. HcNees? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion to approve staff recommendation -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Mr. Gutierrez, thank you. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-272 RE PETITION CU-97-11, HARK LAMOUREUX, P.E., REPRESENTING HIKE PODOLSKI, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "7" OF THE C-3 ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN A COHMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9765 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH, LOTS 1 THROUGH 5 AND 47 THROUGH 50, NAPLES PARK, UNIT 5 - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are to Item 13(A)(1). The Board of Zoning Appeals, Petition CU-97-11, Hark Lamoureux representing Hike Podolski, conditional use "7" of C-3 zoning. Thank you, Mr. Weigel. I'd like to ask all members of our staff, all the petitioners, anyone here to speak on this item, to please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Good morning. MS. HURRAY: Good morning. Susan Hurray, Planning Services, for the record. The applicant is requesting conditional use approval to construct a residential dwelling unit above a 9,000 square foot retail golf store on .93 acres located on U.S. 41 at the southwest corner of the intersection of 41 and 98th Avenue North. The site is zoned C-3, as are the properties abutting the site north and south. The property to the west of the site is zoned RHF-6 and houses an existing single-family dwelling unit. The proposed dwelling unit meets the criteria as specified in the appropriate section of the land development code, and there is sufficient parking on the site to accommodate the additional use. The extra dwelling unit will be located on the second floor of the store. The planning commission voted unanimous -- unanimously '- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's still early. MS. HURRAY: I know how to say that word -- to approve the subject request subject to the stipulations found in the resolution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Ms. Hurray, have there been any commitments that the occupant of that residential unit will be in some way tied to or employed in the business below? MS. HURRAY: None made as a stipulation on the resolution. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There are actually two residences though, one above and one next door; isn't that right? MS. HURRAY: That's correct. One will be a caretaker's residence and then the additional dwelling unit is required to come through the conditional use approval process. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Give that to me again, Ms. Hurray. You lost me a little bit there. There are two -- MS. HURRAY: There will be two residences. One is a caretaker's residence and is permitted by way -- as an accessory use. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a detached structure. MS. HURRAY: That is attached upstairs, second floor. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. MS. HURRAY: The additional dwelling unit is allowed, provided the applicant has conditional use approval, is also located on the second floor immediately adjacent to the caretaker's residence. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So you've got two units upstairs. MS. HURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One is permitted as a caretaker's. One requires conditional use. MS. HURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And is the conditional use for the second residence applied for today? MS. HURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there any further questions of staff? Seeing none. We'll go to the petitioner now that he is done wallpapering the room. Mr. Lamoureux, good morning. MR. LAMOUREUX: Good morning. Hark Lamoureux representing the Podolskis who are here today in case you have any further questions. We are building a commercial establishment on the ground floor and they wish to occupy -- they are the owners of the establishment. They wish to occupy the second floor and they have an apartment for their family member to live in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So this is owner and family of owner will be occupying it. This will not be a rental unit? MR. LAMOUREUX: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Would you be willing to stipulate that you would agree not to rent the unit out as a market rate unit? MS. PODOLSKI: Why would we want to do that? I'm just -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In redevelopment areas where we are looking at accomplishing that, that's one thing, but Naples Park, these are small lots. Things are pretty tight in there. I just -- just curious. If you're not, then say so. If you are, great. MR. PODOLSKI: I would prefer that we didn't. The owners of the business have been in town for 18 years and it's a thriving business. The name of it is For the Love of Golf. They are currently located at 4065 -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, if it's golf, then it just gets approved. MR. PODOLSKI: -- on the Trail, and they plan to be here as long as God will keep them on the earth, so we would prefer that it not be a stipulation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just a question. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For planning staff, you know, God forbid they don't live another 80 or 150 years or whatever, but, you know, this will eventually become a business with two residences on top and it will have that zoning designation in perpetuity. I personally think that sounds like a good idea, but I'm not a planner. Is that a good idea? MS. HURRAY: Yes, it is. In fact, that is sort of the thing we are trying to encourage. I don't disagree with Mr. Hancock's statement that in redevelopment areas that's more applicable, but certainly the mixed use commercial is consistent with the comp plan and the land development code. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are we consistent in building height? There are no other exceptions being requested on this parcel? All other setbacks, building heights and so forth, are being met by the proposed plan? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. MR. LAMOUREUX: Sir, for what this is worth, the requirements that we have for access to the property, because it's a caretaker's residence, we have one entrance from the building itself. You will be able to go, if you are a resident there, you will be able to go from the business inside up to the second floor into the apartment and for reasons of fire accessibility, there is only one other outside entrance. So whether it's a rental unit or whether it's going to continue as the owners and their daughter living there, there is only going to be one outside entrance and exit. COHMISSIONER BERRY: There is parking there also? MS. HURRAY: Yes, the parking there is adequate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Are there any further questions of the petitioner? Seeing none. Do we have any registered speakers on this? MR. HcNEES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve Petition CU-97-11. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a notation that Mark's tie is really cool. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll include that in the motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. LAMOUREUX: Notice the longhorn. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sure he'll get a page of the record and put it on his wall. Thank you very much. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Mr. Lamoureux, thank you very much. Ms. Murray, thank you. MR. LAMOUREUX: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. MR. LAMOUREUX: Commissioners, may I just have a word, a private word? Thank you. I would just like to announce to you that I am leaving the area after 20 years, and I have enjoyed coming before this board. I've got to know some of you personally and I appreciate that because I -- I just -- I'm glad that this board is here and doing a good job, and I just want to say thank you for the consideration that you've given to me in the past. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Lamoureux, I'm going to take a wild guess that you are going to Texas. MR. LAMOUREUX: Indeed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the longhorn. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, again, thank you. We hate losing good professionals in this community, but Texas' gain is our loss. Good luck to you. MR. LAMOUREUX: Thank you, sir. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to add one other note. Hark -- I go back a long ways with Mark as a baseball coach many years back and certainly he has been active in the community, so I thank you for that participation as well. MR. LAMOUREUX: Bye-bye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good-bye. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 97-273 RE PETITION CU-97-8, TERRANCE L. KEPPLE OF KEPPLE ENGINEERING REPRESENTING THE EAGLES NEST WORSHIP CENTER, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USES "1", "3" AND "4" FOR A CHURCH, CHILD CARE FACILITY, AND SCHOOL ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT TO IHMOKALEE ROAD EAST OF 1-75, SOUTH OF LONGSHORE LAKES PUD, TRACTS 91 AND 110, UNIT 97, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS Next item, 13(A)(2), Conditional Use 97-8, Terrance Kepple of Kepple Engineering representing Eagle's Nest Workshop (sic) Center, requesting -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm pretty clear it's not a workshop center. It's a worship center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It says here workshop center, so that's what we're going to talk about. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've been there and there isn't any workshop in there. It is definitely worshipping. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: My guess is he would say it is a workshop, but Conditional Uses "1", "3", and "4" for a church, child care facility, and school on property located south of and adjacent to Immokalee Road. Mr. Milk, good morning. MR. MILK: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bryan Milk. I think we need to be sworn in. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We do. Would all individuals and staff members who are here to speak on this item, anyone wishing to speak, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Milk, please continue. MR. MILK: For the record, I'm presenting Petition CU-97-8. The petitioner seeks to develop the subject site with a 6,400 square foot church with a maximum seating capacity of 700, a 7,800 square foot fellowship hall including classrooms for a child-care facility and school, grades K through five, for a maximum of 300 children, and a future 5,000 square foot gymnasium. Petitioner plans to provide 90 paved parking places and 210 parking spaces on the subject property. The primary access, including a right turn lane to the site is provided from Immokalee Road. Additionally, an interconnect with the fire station to the east is also proposed. Access to 24th Avenue Southwest is prohibited. The subject property is contiguous to the Immokalee Road corridor. The subject site is 4.6 acres in size. It is immediately contiguous to the fire station and emergency medical services building presently in the location for approximately four years. East of the fire station is the St. Honica's Church. Property directly to the west and primarily all the way down west of the subject site is undeveloped estates property. 24th Avenue Southwest abuts the southern property line as does the Naples Baptist Temple. 24th Avenue is primarily developed with single family residences. I received approximately seven or eight letters concerned about the church, the child care, and the school facility with respect to the noise, the buffering, the fencing, and the location of the play area. The biggest concern at that point was the access to 24th Avenue Southwest. The petitioner has committed that they will not provide any driveway access to that roadway whatsoever as the site plan indicates. Staff has recommended that they put a six-foot board or masonry architecturally designed fence with landscaping on the exterior of that around the southern and western property boundaries to buffer that noise and parking arrangement. Also, there is a fence around the play area located in the center of the proposed site. The access to the fire station is one of possible need in the future, depending on what happens with the four-laning and possible six-laning of Immokalee Road. Those plans are not completely designed. The roadway is now operating a level to service A with approximately 15,000 trips. It may not be four-laned for another four or five years, so those designs aren't completely finished, but the thought here is that there probably will be some kind of a flashing yellow at that median at the fire station so access of that interconnect would be provided for the folks in the church area. The church is going to provide a right turn lane, decel lane into that facility also. I'm not sure, because of the access management plan, whether it will have two median locations, one at the fire station and one at the church, both for St. Monica's and the Eagle's Nest. So it was kind of a coordinated effort between each party to make sure there's safe and appropriate access. If I can answer any questions, I'd be happy to do so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a couple of questions. When was the last time the traffic count was done on Immokalee Road in that area? MR. MILK: I can't answer that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The concern I have, just to the west, I'm such a bad judge on distance, but there is another church that is going to be opening. It's built, but it -- MR. MILK: Pretty soon, right. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Very soon, but they're going to be opening. You have St. Monica's, which is to the east of this property -- MR. MILK: It's to the east. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- and now you are going to have this one. I'm not as concerned with quote, just church use, but I am concerned if that road isn't widened, if they go ahead and do a day-care center and you come out of there and you have to make a left turn in that particular stretch of roadway, at the time that that would be happening in the morning, that road is tremendously busy, and I am concerned about the congestion in that particular area. I personally think that there is a safety problem here. I'm not opposed to the church, per se, but I really have some problems with perhaps the day-care area and I believe it further stated that eventually a school, and until that road, you know, is addressed I think that we've got a little bit of a problem there, in my mind. MR. MILK: And I think the engineer has addressed that to some degree with the right turn lane. The single ingress and the large storage capacity there at the church and the distance back to Immokalee Road for stacking in the left and right turn lane there, we looked at that pretty intensely ourselves to make sure it was a safe point of ingress -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: You think that if they come out of there and turn to the left, that there is going to be an adequate area -- MR. MILK: There is adequate area. The problem is there is no divided median yet and, you know, there is traffic coming 60, 70 mile an hour there. There's no doubt about it. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's my concern. That's exactly my concern. MR. MILK: It's our concern also. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I share the same concern, the church, Sunday and Wednesday nights are difficult times. Those are off-peak hours anyway, so that is not such a concern, but with school you do have first thing in the morning and mid-afternoon and unless I misheard you, you just said there's no -- we don't know what the median cut situation will be. We don't know about shared signalization with the fire station. There are a number of things we don't know, and it just seems like until we do know what those are, it may be premature to approve that particular use. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course, nothing would prohibit them -- well, I guess there would be two ways to approach it. One is we could have some conditions that if the road is widened or if the appropriate signalization comes to bear, then the uses could be approved or we could require them to come back in for a conditional use in the future when those conditions change, and those are the options. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On the -- just to be consistent, I've had a problem with churches that are utilizing predominantly residential streets for large congregations and so forth, and I have been fairly consistent in that vein, so it's kind of forced them to the arterial and collector system because of the nature of, you know, several hundred cars leaving on the -- within the given hour on the streets without sidewalks and so forth. So there aren't a lot of options if you are looking for a church site. You've got to really look at an arterial or collector location. As we look at what are being cited as safety concerns, I think they are valid concerns. I point out Golden Gate Elementary. There is an elementary school located on a two-lane road where excessive speeds at that time of the morning were the norm for the longest time. We can't really make all of these uses wait until these roads are four-laned, because I think then we are in essence shutting them down on probably some of the only affordable property for some of these uses that's out there. There is a safety concern, but that concern exists whether that's a driveway to a single family home, whether that's a community, so I understand what you are saying, but I'm afraid if we start looking at this from a standpoint that we think that that's unsafe, we are extending ourselves beyond what is acceptable transportation, engineering criteria. The left turn lane -- left turn movement onto a two-lane roadway is probably safer than a median cut. You'll find fewer accidents in that given situation than you may where you have a median cut crossing four lanes. So we may be operating contrary to acceptable engineering principles and I think we need to hear something on that. If we have someone here from transportation or do not, I think it would be helpful to have that answered. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't disagree with you, but we know the road is going to change in a fairly short amount of time and I just think we need to be able to amend this document plan for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, I agree, I agree. My point was to shut it down or turn it down because of that, I think there's an inconsistency is the reason I brought that up. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand that. Then the thing that I would ask if this becomes where there is a child care facility, then I would certainly hope that the staff would come up with a recommendation for a traffic light to help them access onto this roadway. I'm just thinking, Tim, normally I understand exactly what you are saying about location of church properties and personally I'm concerned about this in other areas of Collier County as well. I can tell you that the particular church I attend on Sunday morning, it's an absolute madhouse going in and out of that church. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in my neighborhood. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, it is absolutely miserable and we have had to get the sheriff's department out there to help direct traffic because it is such a bad area. So this is an ongoing concern and when I see that you are going to have, particularly on Sundays, you are going to have to have three, but that's part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the child care drop-off in the morning, and people then proceeding on down, if -- assuming that perhaps they are going on west on Immokalee Road, having to get in there, number one, and, number two, get back out of there to proceed on west, and somebody is going to have to be there because people invariably are going to run late and they are going to start taking chances that they normally wouldn't take. So it's a concern. If this is not a concern with the rest of the board, then I certainly understand this, but I think I would be remiss if I didn't bring this up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I don't think you can say it's not a concern, but traffic signals have base warrants. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know. I understand. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Throughout the county you have to meet those warrants. Otherwise, we're slapping up traffic signals everywhere that there is an accident. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So that is why I said someone from transportation who is knowledgeable about the warrants and so forth would be a good person to help us resolve some of these issues. I know transportation had input on the request, the conditional use request. MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What stipulations did transportation place on this, if any? MR. MILK: Well, if you look at the -- and I'm going to turn your attention to the resolution on Page 33 of the executive summary document, Items J, K, L, M, N, O and P and Q are all transportation related items, and I think that, because the road is a two-lane facility, it is operating adequately. It gives -- this language gives the county some flexibility in determining the median cuts and whether they are required to have one and if it shall be moved or redesigned. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It looks to me like, Commissioner Berry, that -- and I hadn't noticed this either, but that maybe condition number 11, that the applicant shall be responsible for providing appropriate turn lanes and compensating right-of-way and shall be provided under four- or six-lane condition. It may be that these -- it looks to me like these requirements may already be -- they may have already been looking at what we are concerned about. MR. MILK: The situation is because it does operate effectively today and projecting ahead five and ten years with the school facility there and the church facility there, it's hard to really speculate on the four-lane and six-lane conditions, what's going to be appropriate. That's why all these conditions were rendered at this time, to give us the ability to modify that site plan as needed, when it was needed, due to the impact on Immokalee Road, and that was why we asked for the access to the fire station in case there is one combined effort there for a median cut or access to -- because of St. Honica's, the fire station, and now this church, they may want to combine all that, put a frontage road in, do something, perhaps, a little bit more effective than speculating from the standpoint of, now we have a two-lane facility. It's an arterial. It operates adequately. We tried to provide on the -- with Mr. Kepple and Ed Kant, the matter of grow-off and enough throat length so cars could enter the site effectively, have enough storage capacity and effectively exit. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Realistically, is the fire station going to want to share their access onto the main road? I mean, if you have got emergency service, do you want a few hundred cars -- MR. MILK: They have two access points now. They could actually -- their road actually loops around the site in a horseshoe design, so you actually enter the site, go around the site, go by the emergency medical services building and exit again so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You understand my point. MR. MILK: It was a point that I looked at and said, geez, if they only have one access, and then all of a sudden there's a fire call and there's all these turning movements, how are they going to be able to exit the site and they could effectively do that already. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. MILK: Again, that was a concern we looked at. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm hearing the point is we have competing uses in a very short stretch of road and we need to organize those competing uses in a solid traffic pattern at time of four-laning and somehow we have got to get that in this approval so that this property owner isn't surprised or adversely affected if this approval goes forward today. So why don't we kind of mull that over as we hear from the petitioner and other members. Yes, Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one more question. If under Condition H, if you guys could be thinking about this, that the applicant may be constrained to right-in, right-out access movements if we go to four- or six-lane and the county reserves the right to restrict and/or modify the location and use of median openings. Should there be also some specific condition about -- for drop-off and pick-up for day care and a school? I don't see that in any of the conditions and I wonder if -- because if you have ever tried to get past the YHCA, I mean, you know, they fixed their problem or made it better, but it's a significant issue, and I just wonder if that might be a place where we could put something in there about drop-off and pick-up at the county's discretion. You know, you may have to build a special lane or -- I don't know what a throat lane is, Bryan, but you do. Okay. I just wanted to plant that seed. MR. MILK: That's fine. We can work on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go to Mr. Kepple. Mr. Kepple, do you have anything to add to the discussion so far? MR. KEPPLE: Good morning. For the record, Terrance Kepple, representing the petitioner this morning. In general, no, I don't have anything to offer. We have reviewed the staff's recommendations and are in agreement with them. We did originally, as Mr. Milk mentioned, have an access planned on the 24th Avenue Northwest to help alleviate some of those left turn, westbound movements out of the church. Due to the concerns of the property owners along 24th, we did remove that access point and we would not go back and ask for you to put that back in at this point since we did remove it at their request. It is a concern, and that is the other reason that we did put that access into the fire station. We would work with the fire station upon four-laning so that we could get joint access with the fire station, a median opening, possibly a light, to assist in those exit turning movements. Unfortunately, with the current two-lane situation of the road, there isn't much to do as far as improvements to assist in the left-turn movements out of the facility. I would mention that the church is currently using leased space along North 41. They do not currently have a day care or a school facility. Those are long-range goals of theirs. They hope to be under construction before the end of the year with the church facility, and would open as a church sometime down the road, and I can't tell you when for sure that the day care and possibly the school would follow. Those will not be the first two uses. The church is the primary use of the property at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Kepple? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I have one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Kepple, would the petitioner be willing to stipulate that there would be no day care operation until the road is improved with four-lane or six-lane integration? MR. KEPPLE: If we knew when that date was, I think we could probably work something like that out. Unfortunately, as you are aware, as traffic situations change along roads, those dates of construction change. Right now it's not scheduled in the five-year program. Next year it may be or it may go out to ten-year, you know, depending on the other needs of the county. If we could set some type of date, if it's not four-lane, they could open, I think we might be able to work with that, but to leave it open-ended, I find that as a problem at this time. MR. MILK: Mr. Nino had stated that the year 2001 it would be scheduled for the four-lane commitment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's currently in the five-year CIE for 2001 for -- oh, it's not the five-year CIE. That's four years away so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was whether or not you would agree to additional stipulations that the county transportation staff would have the right to approve the traffic movements associated with either a day care or a school and that you understand that you may have to construct some roadway improvements in order to get that final approval. MR. KEPPLE: As we come in with the site development plan, they have that authority anyway under the right-of-way ordinance. They could restrict us to right-in, right-out now. That is a very difficult movement to restrict with Immokalee Road under a two-lane condition. It's almost impossible, as a matter of fact, but under the four-laning, of course, it could be restricted easily to right-in, right-out only. Right now we are anticipating, of course, right-in -- right and left-ins and right and lefts out, a full access at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, did you have an answer to the 2001 question? MR. MILK: It's expected to be looked at and designed in the next four years and constructed in the next six or seven years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, yeah, the design is in that five-year window, but -- MR. MILK: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- as we have seen on other roadways, that design can be tabled, it can be shelved if conditions change, so Mr. Kepple's point is well taken on that. Are there further questions for Mr. Kepple? COMMISSIONER BERRY: What is the anticipated time? Is there an anticipated time for the day care, thinking again along on further down east on that road you've got the elementary school and, of course, the new high school coming on line next year, so that particular roadway is going to be very busy. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think where, if nothing else, that roadway plan will be accelerated rather than put back. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I certainly would like to hope that roadway will be accelerated. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We would anticipate your MPO vote to say yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think you can understand that. MR. KEPPLE: If I could make a suggestion, possibly this will assist you. Right now we are requesting a total of a maximum of 300 day care and/or elementary school students in their facility. That would be at build-out, whenever that occurs, whether it be five years or ten years or whatever. I would propose that we could restrict that to a maximum of 150 students until such time as Immokalee Road is four-laned and a median constructed. That would decrease those traffic movements until that time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions? Commissioner Norris first. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I appreciate all the safety concerns and comments and I have them myself. This discussion, I think, has shown that we do take care of looking at these aspects of a proposal, but I'm curious as to whether we would even be having this discussion if the proposal were to, for example, have a restaurant at this site which would generate similar traffic movements for a breakfast period, for example. Is it just because it's a day care center that we're having this particular discussion or would it -- would we still be having this discussion if it were any other kind of an application. That is where I'm coming from and the point is I think we do need to be concerned with safety, and especially when children are involved, but what is the limit of what we should do? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That is a good question. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm satisfied, frankly, with what has been stated on the record and the fact that the SDP process will give staff a look at the access program. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a real simple question. Mr. Milk, in reference to the school and day care facility, with the stipulation that has just been made and the other requests that have been agreed to, are you comfortable this will not create an unsafe traffic situation now or in the foreseeable future? MR. MILK: What was that number that Mr. Kepple had -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 150 until it's four-lane. MR. MILK: I would not see an exacerbated problem or any traffic congestion with that. Again, this was designed for a maximum of 300 under the current conditions so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I understand Mr. Milk can come in on traffic congestion but not on individual driver stupidity. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, Iim just trying to look at an overall safety standpoint from a point of -- perspective. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed, agreed. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let me just respond to Mr. Norrisi concern. As a matter of fact, on that stretch of roadway, I would be concerned because of all the building that is going on along that roadway right now. I really would, and thatls -- this happened to be the issue. It happened to be the church, unfortunately. Iim not against the church. Donlt misunderstand that, but it is a concern about adding another, Iill say business, because a church in effect is a business to a certain extent, along that roadway and it is an extremely busy area, getting more so. MR. MILK: The only other alternative is to work with Capital Projects a little bit more intimately with this particular project, looking at the high school and the elementary school and maybe the actual design of the Immokalee Road corridor in that segment. That is the only thing else I can offer as far as -- we have not dealt a hundred percent with Capital Projects, but again with transportation fairly respectively for this particular petition so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have heard a local pastor refer to his business as fire insurance, so maybe it is a business. Letls do this. Do we have any further questions for Mr. Kepple? Okay. We can come back to Mr. Milk. Do we have any speakers on this matter? MR. McNEES: Not beyond the petitioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay, not beyond the petitioner. Iill close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, considering the stipulation that the petitioners agreed to and the comments of our professional staff as far as safety, Iill go ahead and make a motion we approve Petition CU-97-8 with the stipulations that have been agreed to on the record. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Iill second that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And specifically that -- and it ended up stipulation that that was a limit of 150 maximum kids at the day care center until the roadway, Immokalee Road, is four- or six-lane? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All those signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none. Item #5C1 CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $180,451 PRESENTED TO THE BCC BY SENATOR DUDLEY FOR A GRANT FOR THE EVERGLADES MUESUM PROJECT We are going back to Item 5(C)1. We are very pleased this morning to have Senator Dudley with us for a special presentation that you have taken time to be with us today for, and this involves a grant application Senator Dudley was tremendously helpful in establishing and receiving for Collier County, and I'm not going to steal your thunder, Senator Dudley. I'll let you go ahead and give us the details. SENATOR DUDLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hay it please the commission, I'm honored to be here today and to thank you for this brief time on your agenda. On behalf of our Secretary of State, Sandra Mortham, I have a check from the State of Florida payable to the Collier County Board of Commissioners in the amount of $180,451. This represents the final payment on your grant application for the Everglades Museum project, and it is with pleasure that I bring this to you today, but I do want to tell you that even though Collier is blessed with a strong and powerful legislative delegation, and a very large one, too, as you know, I'm very proud of the fact that our delegation, your delegation, has taken upon itself a policy of letting these grant applications be made, be heard regionally, and at a state level, be ranked, and then we try our best not to change the ranking. This grant application was ranked very high. Our part in this is making sure that the Division of Historical Programs under the Department of State has sufficient money every year in the state budget to fund as many of these worthwhile projects as possible. So while we take credit for voting on the budget in making sure that there are sufficient funds in this line item to address the better projects, you deserve the credit for making sure the grant application was properly made and that its merits were considered. it is with those words that I present, if I may approach, this check. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'd like to ask Mr. Jamro to come up forward and with me accept this check because it was Mr. Jamro and his staff that tailored the application in such a way that resulted in its ranking and as much as it's popular to bring pork home, Senator Dudley, we greatly appreciate your respect for the process. SENATOR DUDLEY: We don't mind bringing home the pork, Mr. Chairman. We just don't want to kill the pig. This is not made out to Mr. Jamro, but we know he deserves the credit for it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you so very much for the work on the application. Ron, thank you, and, Senator Dudley, it is always a pleasure and thank you. Ladies and gentlemen and Mr. Jamro, thank you very much again for all your efforts. The part of the job that I dearly love. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Are we going to lunch, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's see, one eighty divided by -- anyway -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's about ten years worth of lunches at Mr. Hom's. Item #14A DISCUSSION REGARDING ITEM #16F1 CONCERNING BALLOTS FOR SELECTION OF COUNTY MANAGER AND BCC DIRECTIVE TO PLACE SCRIVENER IDENTIFICATION ON APRIL 1, 1997, AGENDA ITEM #10A WORKSHEETS - FUTURE CORRESPONDENCE TO BE IDENTIFIED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We are on to board communications and it's a little out of order from normal, but I'm going to kick off BCC communications. This morning, with the approval of the agenda and the consent agenda, Item 16(F)(1) was a board directive to place identification on worksheets that we use during the selection process for the county manager -- or county administrator. Excuse me. I understand we are going to have to learn a new term there. The reason I place this on the agenda for today and ask for board approval on this particular matter is, quite frankly, because I erred in judgment when this originally came before the board. When I was responsible for developing the process in which we indicated who we wished to bring in for -- or what our impressions were of individual candidates to be then used in an open public discussion, I chose not to have individual commissioner's names on that. That was my decision and mine alone. We did -- Miss Filson did request Mr. Weigel's input on that matter before the board heard it. I think Mr. Weigel rendered an appropriate opinion that technically it was -- it was okay, but the discretionary element rested with me, and in retrospect, I should have done it differently. I initiated, two days after that, called Mr. Weigel and discussed doing this exact same thing two days after the board heard that item and utilized those worksheets as a starting point for, again, open public discussion. If it were not for the blatant criticism that was aimed at this board from the editorial board, this item would have occurred the following week after that discussion. But once that occurred, I felt that the public needed to be reassured that the accusations that involved the state attorney, an investigation, that were being levelled against us needed to be answered and resolved to the answer that we all knew was correct, which is that there was no intent for any member of this board or by any member of this board to violate the Sunshine law. Now that that opinion has been rendered, I feel it's appropriate to go back procedurally and do what I should have asked the board to do in the first place. I'm not going to pass the buck on it. It was -- this was a learning process. I'm not going to do everything perfect the first time, but all future correspondence, while I sit as chairman, that we have that has any bearing on decisions this board makes, that they are entered into the record, will be done so with names and initials on them. I'm working and will work with Mr. Weigel to try and determine if there's a way to adopt a policy. This board doesn't typically have an SOP or an operating manual that we can just put in policies and take policies out, but I think it's a -- just simply a good idea, but I didn't want this item to go unspoken without expressing to you what I feel is my responsibility and also my apologies for placing you all in the position of being criticized. So that was -- again, rests with me. It's done. All future correspondence will be handled, while I'm chairman, in the manner that this has now been corrected to represent. As far as I'm concerned, we are moving ahead. There is no need to discuss this item further, but I see Commissioner Hac'Kie is not going to let me do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have to say that I appreciate your willingness to take responsibility. I respect that, and nevertheless, I have to say that I would like to get better advice from our county attorney in the future if we are getting close to a violation. I don't think we got -- I don't think there's any question that there was not a violation of the Sunshine law, but as a lawyer, I know that my clients expect me to tell them when they are getting close to a danger zone, and I would like to have that from our county attorney in the future, and I didn't feel the need to say that publicly except for Commissioner Hancock is saying what he has said and I think that the two things have to be said publicly, if anything is, so there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. But I again feel that the majority of that rested on my shoulders, but that's a difference of opinion and I have said what I need to say, so I'm done with that item. Commissioner Hac'Kie, anything additional? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing additional. Item #15A DISCUSSION REGARDING DIVISION ADMINISTRATORS DURING COUNTY MANAGER TRANSITION PERIOD CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Mr. HcNees. MR. HcNEES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to take brief advantage of you as a captive audience. When I -- when you appointed me as interim county manager, I made a promise to you that the only thing that would be important to me would be a seamless transition and you-all gave me a nice round of applause for our having accomplished that, and I think the folks who really deserve the credit for that, for the fact that your operations continued to operate as if there had been no change, are your division administrators. I'd like to recognize Mr. Olliff, Mr. Cautero, Mr. Ochs, and Mr. Ilschner, Mr. Smykowski, and also Ray Miller who came in and did a yeoman's job for us. Those are the guys who kept things running and it didn't matter to them who the county manager was. They were just doing their jobs and I want to -- they deserve a lot of credit for how they handled all this, and I just want to thank them publicly, and that would be all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. It's the old analogy, they're the guys in the boiler room keeping the engine running, and if you weren't there, we don't see you every day and don't recognize you nearly enough, but in a time where we were in transition, you did your jobs, I think, to the nth degree, and thank you very much for that, Mr. HcNees. Mr. Fernandez, did you have anything this morning before we close the meeting? Seeing none. Ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Berry and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 RECOHMENDATION TO APPROVE FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF BRIARWOOD UNIT FIVE - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT, CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 97-268, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF "HAMPTON ROW", A REPLAT OF A PORTION OF A PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLAT KNOWN AS KENSINGTON PARK PHASE TWO, AND PETITION AV-97-004 AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY RECORDED PLAT OF "KENSINGTON PARK PHASE TWO" Item #16B1 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PRO RATA FUNDS TO FOREST LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER IMPROVEMENTS ALONG PINE RIDGE ROAD Item #16C1 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE SUHMER YOUTH NIGHTS IN THE IHMOKALEE AND NAPLES AREA Item #16C2 TIME EXTENSION TO THE CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA COHMUNITIES TRUST RELATIVE TO THE SUGDEN REGIONAL PARK PRESERVATION 2000 STATE GRANT AWARD Item #16D1 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL CHAIN LINK FENCING TO THE TOP OF THE PRISONERS ENTRANCE (SALLY PORT) AT THE IHMOKALEE COURTHOUSE FOR SECURITY REASONS Item #16D2 PURCHASE OF A PROTECTED SELF-INSURED POLLUTION LIABILITY AND REHEDIATION INSURANCE PROGRAM FROM RELIANCE NATIONAL INDEMNITY CO. - IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,488.00 PER YEAR Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 97-265 AND 97-286 Item #16E2 RECOHMENDATION TO INCREASE THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY FUEL REVENUE BUDGET AND FUEL PURCHASE EXPENSE BUDGET Item #16F1 BOARD DIRECTIVE TO PLACE SCRIVENER IDENTIFICATION ON APRIL 1, 1997 AGENDA ITEM 10(A) WORKSHEETS Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 RECOHMENDATION TO ENDORSE THE UNITED STATES DEPARTHENT OF JUSTICE, UNIVERSAL HIRING PROGRAM FORM TO CONFIRM THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE ROUND OF OFFICE OF COHMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES (COPS) FUNDING Item #1611 RESOLUTION 97-269, APPROVING THE LEASE AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE FOR THE LEASE OF APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF THE COLLIER COUNTY JAIL AT THE GOVERNMENT COMPLEX FOR A JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY Item #1612 ACCEPTANCE OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT, AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF $18,000.00 TO BOCA PALMS OF NAPLES, ASSOCIATION, INC. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:15 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS 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 GREGORY COURT REPORTER BY: Joyce Poteet