The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 02/10/1998 R REGULAR HEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call the February 10, 1998 Board of County Commissioners' meeting to order. Would you please stand for the invocation by Father Joseph Spinelli of Saint Elizabeth Seton Catholic Church and remain standing for the pledge. Father Spinelli. FATHER SPINELLI: In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. May God who is the fountain of all goodness be with you all. All that God has created and sustains, all the events he guides, and all human works that are good and have a good purpose, prompt those who believe to praise and bless the Lord with hearts and voices. He is the source and origin of every blessing. By this celebration we proclaim our belief that all things work together for the good of those who fear and love God. We are sure that in all things we must seek the help of God so that in complete reliance on his will, we may do everything for his glory. God's love is creation and his goodness sustains the universe. We pray now that he will bestow his blessing upon us, that he will renew and support us with his strength. Everlasting God, you give life a nobler meaning when we try wholeheartedly to do your will. Fill us with the spirit of your holiness. You want us to increase your gifts and to return them to you and to our neighbor. Accept the offering of our loving service. You watch over us with fatherly care. Hear the cries of those who trust in you. Lord, let the effect of your blessing remain with your faithful people, and give them new life and strength of spirit so that the power of your love will enable them to accomplish what is right and good. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Pledge of Allegiance recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Father Spinelli. May I remind those who are here today to speak on any of the issues that we have, that you must register prior to the issue being heard. Just a gentle reminder again so we don't have any concern later on. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do. Good morning, Commissioners. First item is to withdraw Item 8-B-l, which is to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of road right-of-way for the construction of the four-laning improvements for Immokalee Road between 1-75 and County Road 951. The second is to continue Item 16-B-4 to the February 17th meeting. This is the action to award a contract for professional engineering services for the South Naples Community Park, RFP 97-2745. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any changes? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have something under communications, but no changes to the agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. And I have no changes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move approval of the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All those in favor? Motion carries -- Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #4 MINUTES OF JANUARY 15, 1998 EMERGENCY MEETING AND JANUARY 20, 1998, REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the minutes of the January 15th emergency meeting and the regular meeting that was on my second wedding anniversary, January 20th, 1998. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that second include the wedding plug? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And actually, happy anniversary. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's Valentine's Day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a second, he's a newlywed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, right. Okay. Motion -- we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's going to be a crisp meeting today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You betcha. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 9-14, 1998, AS COLLIER HARVEST WEEK - ADOPTED Proclamations, Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. We have a proclamation for Collier Harvest Week, and I would like to see if Bert Paradis and John Raker are here. Would you step forward, please? MR. RAKER: I'm John Raker. Mr. Paradis is in the hospital. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I see. If you will step forward and turn around and face the camera there, I will read this proclamation for you. Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the goals of Collier Harvest, a chapter of U.S.A. Harvest, in its efforts to feed the hungry through volume efforts and in-kind donations from local markets, restaurants, bakeries and caterers; and Whereas, Collier County is fortunate to have numerous individuals and organizations who give generously of their time and excess food at no cost to the hungry of Collier County to support Collier Harvest; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners lends support and encouragement to all Collier County citizens interested in the community effort to eradicate hunger in Collier County; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the positive effects of its citizens' participation in Collier Harvest in helping to fight hunger and promoting community support of Collier Harvest, Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February 9th to the 14th, 1998 be designated as Collier Harvest Week. Done and ordered this 10th day of February, 1998, by the Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you would like to say something, please go to the podium. MR. RAKER: I am sorry Mr. Paradis couldn't make it this morning; he's in the hospital. But five years ago, he started Collier Harvest with five volunteers and himself. Today this proclamation will be given and received by 137 workers who deliver to 36 agencies in Collier County and last year delivered over half a million pounds of food. That was quite a bit more than the fifteen thousand we got the first year. We get it shipped from all over the country and there are very very generous people in this county that like to take care of those less fortunate. We're glad to be part of those. Thank you very much. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think in addition to the food, it must be pointed out that it takes people to get that food to those various places, so, indeed, a big thank you to you and the rest of the volunteers who take on this very tremendous project. Thank you very much. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED At this time, service awards. Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am, it is my pleasure this morning to recognize an employee who's been in the library system of Collier County for ten years. Miss Carol Somers. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Good job. Item #5C1 DEBRAH PRESTON, SENIOR PLANNER, PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, RECOGNIZED AS EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR FEBRUARY, 1998 At this time, it's my pleasure to present our employee of the month for the month of February to Miss Debrah Preston, who is a senior planner in the Planning Services Department of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division. So Debra, if you'd come up here, we'll talk a little bit about you and let the people at home see who you are so they know what you do. Turn around and face the camera. Debrah Preston is a dedicated employee who is always ready to volunteer for new projects while continuing to meet deadlines on assigned projects. Debrah's most recent projects include the development of the Marco Island Master Plan, Immokalee Main Street designation and the Gateway Triangle Bayshore development efforts. She has initiated cost savings for the county by utilizing the federal VISTA or Volunteers In Service To America program to help staff the Immokalee Main Street program, which she oversees. Through her dedication, the Immokalee business owners have benefitted with the development of several training and organizational sessions. Debrah's recent involvement in the Economic Development Council Redevelopment Committee is an extra effort on her part to further redevelopment efforts in Immokalee and the Gateway Bayshore redevelopment areas. In addition to this, she doesn't have enough to do, so she volunteers for countless other community projects including the Immokalee Paint Your Heart Out, Habitat for Humanity, the United Way, American Heart Association Walk-a-thon and organizing efforts for the American Planning Association. She's been recognized for her excellent customer service skills. She's earned the respect of her coworkers for her job knowledge, skills and willingness to assist at all levels to achieve departmental objectives. At this time I would like to present Debrah with a plaque, and also most importantly a nice little check. Don't spend it all in one place. Congratulations and thank you. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wish we got to vote on that, because I would certainly add my endorsement to -- having worked with Debrah. She's here late nights and long hours working on those redevelopment projects, and we're really lucky to have her. We appreciate it. Item #5C2 PRESENTATION TO COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY IN APPREICATION OF LEADERSHIP AND SUPPORT OF THE UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY CAMPAIGN 1997 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Also, at this time if I could have Shannon Anderson come forward, please. Last week there was a special award given at the annual United Way kind of wrap up of the campaign, and, Shannon, maybe you want to make a presentation. Maybe you want to go to the microphone first, please. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to say we welcome Shannon despite who she's married to. MS. ANDERSON: It's going to be a doubleheader today; we're both here. Thank you for allowing me to appear on behalf of United Way. I appreciate and want to very gratefully knowledge and thank the county employees for their outstanding participation and support of the United Way of Collier County. Without the employees' generosity and the leadership that the county employees gave to our campaign, the United Way would not have exceeded our goal of one point two million dollars. The one point two million dollars represents a twenty percent increase over last year's goal. But our twenty percent increase really pales in comparison to the five hundred percent increase that the county employees brought to their contributions, raising over eighteen thousand dollars. There are an incredible number of people that deserve thanks within the county, not only of the United Way, but of the community for their efforts. But I would be remiss if I did not single out administrator Fernandez and also Leo Ochs, who is very active in the United Way. All I can say is, we're really looking forward to what you guys are going to do next year. Thank you very much. On behalf of the United Way, a little token of our appreciation. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You will be back next year. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And, again, a special thanks to Leo Ochs, who more or less heads up the campaign for the county employees and to our county administrator, Mr. Fernandez. Thank you all very much for all of your efforts and also the employees who have contributed to this. Thank you. Item #8D1 TUFF PUBLICATION SELECTED AS THE NEWSPAPER FOR THE ADVERTISING OF DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE AND PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES Moving on then to Item 8-D-l, selection of the newspaper for the advertising of the delinquent real estate and personal property taxes. Mr. Ochs, good morning. MR. OCHS: Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the board. For the record, Lee Ochs, support services administrator. This item was an item that was continued from last week's meeting with direction from the board to the staff to attempt to solicit additional prices from other firms that may be interested in bidding on this particular project. Staff, during the past week, has done that, prepared a bid package, sent that out to six different prospective bidders, received two bids in return, one from the Naples Daily News and one from Tuff Publications. The format of the bid spec. actually asked for pricing under three different scenarios. The first would be basically the traditional scenario where we would have a single newspaper print and publish the notices. The second -- excuse me, the first one would be with a full, regular distribution, circulation of the newspaper. The second scenario involved the limited distribution in those same publications, and then the third pricing scenario asked for the cost of printing the notices only and a separate bid on distribution costs or insertion costs. The Naples Daily News gave us a bid on only the first scenario, and we received bids from Tuff Publications in all three scenarios. Based on the staffws analysis of the bid information received and our discussions with the county attorneyws office, staff is recommending award to Tuff Publications for printing of a thousand of the delinquent tax notices at a cost of fifty-seven thousand dollars. I would be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said printing of a thousand. Do you mean a hundred thousand? MR. OCHS: Excuse me. A hundred thousand, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just above your recommendation for Tuff Publications, it says Tuff Publications will be a more dispersed distribution as compared to Naples Daily News with county-wide coverage. I know that last year that was one of our primary concerns. Maybe you can just explain what that means. MR. OCHS: Yes, sir. What we mean by that is that the mix of publications that Tuff proposes to use to circulate the notices involves not only dailies but also by-weeklies. We have both subscription type publications and they have free publications that they put out in different areas of the county. So what we meant by that was not only will subscribers receive those notices, but other individuals who would pick up an insert in one of the free publications would also have access to that delinquent tax notice, so in that respect, it is more dispersed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So itws less expensive but it also reaches a wider audience. MR. OCHS: Thatws our intention, correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, if itws appropriate, I move the item to accept staffws recommendation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. MR. FERNANDEZ: Before that, I would just get in the record that we have a revised executive summary that replaces the original one that was in the packet. I just wanted to make that clear, that the revised reflects this recommendation that was presented by Mr. Ochs. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you, Mr. Ochs. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, Iwm sorry, I forgot to mention that we did have one speaker on this subject. It was Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He doesn't want to talk to us, do you? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you want to talk to us? MR. TUFF: No, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Norris wants it duly noted that he in the past has held the record for the shortest meeting. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He alleges. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He alleges. And -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Continues to hold. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- he's very happy to know that I will not be breaking that record today. Of course, I wouldn't attempt to do that, because I want to make sure we take care of all of our county business. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-34 APPOINTING VANESSA FITZ AND DARLENE KOONTZ TO THE CITIZENS ADVISORY TASK FORCE - ADOPTED Board of County Commissioners. We have appointment of members to the Citizens' Advisory Task Force, Item 10-A. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will -- we have two -- Hiss Filson, do we need three members? MS. FILSON: We need three members, but David Correa is presently a member of two committees and that's the maximum. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So he can't -- he can't serve. MS. FILSON: He's not qualified. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Then I will nominate Vanessa Fitz and Darlene Koontz. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a motion. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero for Vanessa Fitz, which is a reappointment, and Darlene Koontz. Will you then advertise for the -- MS. FILSON: I have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have advertised? Okay. Very good. Item #10B RESOLUTION 98-35 REAPPOINTING GLENN HARRELL AND APPOINTING DAVID A. ROELLIG, JAMES A. CARROLL, HAUREEN MCCARTHY AND CORNELIA KRIEGH TO THE PELICAN BAY HSTBU ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Moving on then to appointment of members to the Pelican Bay HSTBU Advisory Committee. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, the committee recommendation, all six are wonderfully qualified, but I will move the committee recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second to go with the committee recommendation of Glen Hartell, which is a reappointment; David Roellig; Russell Hudge, a reappointment; James A. Carroll; and Manteen McCarthy. MS. FILSON: Can I just mention one thing, please? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MS. FILSON: I believe it's Mr. Hudge who served two terms, and I amended that out of here. You will need to waive Section 7-B-1 of Ordinance 8641. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I just make the point that we have done consistently -- from parks and recreation in 1993, when we had guilt from down on Marco, and if there is someone else qualified who wants to participate, we haven't waived that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That being the case, and I didn't see it in the staff report, and I thank you for bringing it up, because we had talked about it. Russ Hudge has done yeoman's work and a tremendous job on the HSTBU, but in staying -- trying to be consistent with these appointments, I would agree. I am going to withdraw my motion. I would like to craft a second motion that will appoint Cornelia Kriegh in the place of Russell Hudge, with a tremendous amount of thanks for the hard work that Rus has put forward and all the time he has spent on the HSTBU. He's been a terrific member of that, and I would like to find a way to recognize him individually at one of our meetings. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can do that. Motion has been withdrawn. A new motion has been made to include Cornelia Kriegh. Is there a second to that motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #10C RESOLUTION 98-36 APPOINTING CLIFFORD WESLEY FLEGAL, JR. AND DYREL DELANEY TO SERVE AS REGULAR MEMBERS AND ROBERTA DUSEK TO SERVE AS ALTERNATE TO THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD - ADOPTED And the next one is the appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement Board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to just be sure that Cliff Flegal who has served as alternate and shown an interest in serving as a regular member of the board, I would like to nominate him. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion to nominate Mr. Flegal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We need one more. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We need one more. MS. FILSON: Actually, there's two vacancies, and if you move Mr. Flegal, who is now an alternate, up to a regular member, we will have to appoint one additional regular and one alternate, so that's a total of three. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will add, then, in the form of a motion, if that's okay with you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, that we appoint Clifford Wesley Flegal and Dyrel Delaney to the regular positions and Roberta Dusek to the alternate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 98-10 RE PETITION PUD-97-12, WILLIAM L. HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE REPRESENTING FRANK CLESEN AND SONS, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE PINE RIDGE ROAD (CR 896) AND 1-75 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER LOCATED ON TRACT 92, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT 35 - ADOPTED We are now to the public hearing section of our agenda. And the first one is petition PUD 97-12, regarding a fezone from Estates to PUD. All individuals who are planning to speak to this issue, please rise and I will have the court reporter swear you in. (Witnesses were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Mr. Milk. MR. MILK: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MR. MILK: For record, my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting petition PUD 97-12. Mr. Hoover is representing Frank Clesen in a request to fezone properties from Estates to PUD. The subject property is 4.33 acres in size and is located at the northwest quadrant of the 1-75/Pine Ridge Road interchange activity center. Mr. Hoover has presented a project which has three land use parcels, A, B and C. Parcel A is contiguous to the Livingston Road right-of-way. It is approximately .55 acres in size and will be used for open space and water management. Area B is located internal to the project. It is approximately 1.88 acres in size and will be utilized for hotels, motels, professional offices, business offices, medical offices, sit-down restaurants and miscellaneous retail businesses. Area C is located contiguous to Pine Ridge Road. It is 1.67 acres in size and will be utilized for fast-food restaurants, auto supply stores and all of the permitted uses in area B. The project allows for a maximum building height of thirty-five feet. It provides for a setback from Livingston Woods Lane of eighty-two and a half feet. It is set up very similar to the Naples Gateway PUD and the Angileri PUD recently approved, with the exception that this PUD does not provide for gasoline service stations and/or convenience stores. It is all architecturally integrated and unified from signage, landscaping and parcels B and C have to be consistent in architectural design guidelines with signage, also. The project is serviced by bisecting and perimeter ingress -- ingress/egress easements which actually move westwardly towards -- through Tract 77 and eventually south to the Pine Ridge Road corridor, which intersects with the median opening at the Sutherland PUD. These bisecting and perimeter easements were for the purposes of ingress and egress to these Golden Gate Estates tracts. There is legislature (sic) on the records to delete a majority of these bisecting easements by December 31st of 1999. Those who want to secure those easements have to go to the clerk of court's office and secure the necessary means of ingress and egress to their properties. From a transportation standpoint, we have looked at this project and looked at the access through Tract 77, which is the abutting four and a half acres. This meets the county's access management plan for interchanges, and, therefore, we recommend this access to this property. What's also important about the property is the bisecting easement runs east and west, which will eventually link the property to the east, the property to the west, Angileri, Naples Gateway, so there will be a frontage road aspect, east-west corridor, if I may, throughout that entirety of the project. If I can answer any questions, I would like to do so at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I might add that I have had no contact with the petitioner on this or any other information, but I am basing my decision on all information that I have in this hearing today or whatever I have read. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I will base my decision as required by state law. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I also have no communication to disclose. I will base my decision on the information presented. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No disclosure. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will base my decision on what I hear in this hearing today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Mr. Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Milk, maybe it's just an omission from my packet, but I noticed last night, I don't have the PUD document. MR. MILK: You should have. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I need a PUD document. MR. MILK: What if I have one right here? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, I don't think it's in anybody's. Well, it's not in mine either. I was having that same trouble, trying to get a mental image of what exactly we're -- the end result will be here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I was unable as I went through it last night to really do any review on this. MR. MILK: I will tell you from a planning standpoint that it's exactly the same as Naples Gateway. It's a step up from Angileri, because when we did Angileri, we were very specific in office related uses and limited commercial uses. What we did in Gateway was we opened the door for medical related offices, professional offices and business offices and some service convenience retail outlets, but we did not -- we eliminated the convenience commercial aspect, the car wash aspect, and the gasoline service station aspect of that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just while this is going on, Mr. Cautero, could maybe somebody make copies? I'd like to look at the PUD, too. I could probably do that while we're talking, but -- thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're going to have to give me time to go through this. If the petitioner has a presentation, maybe we can do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We can do that. Mr. Hoover. MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning representing the petitioner. The property is four point three three acres in size and is located within the Pine Ridge Road, 1-75 interstate activity center. The handout you're receiving includes key portions of a marketing study from Quinby Appraisal and Research, whose analyses indicate that there's a need for the commercial land uses proposed. We're proposing highway commercial and convenience commercial land uses, except the gas stations and convenience stores with gas pumps are not being requested. If you look at the aerial photo in the packet, you can see that the nearest home is about eight hundred fifty feet to the northwest from the nearest boundary of our property. We have employed basically the same strategies planning wise that are in the Gateway PUD and Angileri PUD inasmuch as we have proposed three land use tracts within the PUD. The one with the most intensive land uses would be right along Pine Ridge Road. And the land uses would drop as we went to the most northern parcel, which would only be a green area and water management area. That would be seventy-two and a half feet in depth. I think most importantly we have carried on an architectural theme similar to the Gateway and the Angileri PUD, and is all -- since there is no land developed on the north side of Pine Ridge Road in the commercial activity center, we can carry on the same theme all the way on that whole side, all the length of the interstate activity. And this would include a masonry wall along Livingston Woods Lane that would match -- every place, the walls would match in colors and architecturally. It would have -- along this wall would have double the required landscaping of the land development code. Additionally, we would be planting red maple trees in the stormwater management area, which would be the most northern tract, to provide an additional buffer as time went on. All buildings are going to be finished in peaked roofs. They will have a tile or metal roof. And all the buildings will be finished in light, subdued colors except for decorative trim. I think maybe a good example of having this in there is maybe going beyond what we have in architectural controls. If anybody has drove Taylor Road, there was a real nice building put up about three years ago, however, recently I think the guy painted it purple and orange. So -- and I mean bright. The -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll be taking care of that in the next round of architectural standards. MR. HOOVER: Okay. But I think it's good to have something with light, subdued colors in a PUD that's coming in so that we can have a little bit more protection, especially when it's the first impression coming into Naples. But I think everything in our PUD, planning wise, I can go on the record as a professional planner saying this, it's going to be an asset for somebody coming off of 75 coming into town that we're carrying on the same theme. We have got a nice looking project with the standards we have in here. The only thing that can be built is something of what you expect to be built in North Naples. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we -- that's exactly the issue, because I -- the first question that I had had to do with Area C and then, of course, A. It sounds like you have done a good job about the buffering from the residential neighborhood. But I am -- I'm concerned about the same things we talked about before, about, you know, gasoline alley and, you know, what impression we're making for people. Because this is the entrance, you know, to Collier County coming off the interstate. So I hear you that what we're proposing architecturally is going to be pretty, but I have trouble always with those standard industrial codes, trying to know -- everything that's in B is also permitted in C -- I'll give mine to the court reporter, because since, I have gotten one -- but like auto supply store, eating places, you know, the group fifty-five, thirty-one, fifty-eight, twelve, paint and wallpaper stores, hotels and motels. MR. MILK: The biggest difference between B and C is Area C, which is contiguous to Pine Ridge Road, it would allow a fast-food restaurant. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like, can they have a McDonald's with arches in Area C? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If those arches comply with the architectural standards, but, yes. MR. MILK: For the sign itself -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it would have to be sign height and whatnot. MR. MILK: I will tell you this, there's no pole signs allowed in this corridor, so you won't have that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about the idea of, you know, continuity of development, having, you know, some inter-connectedness in architectural themes and some of that stuff? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem is we don't have an anchor out there. We don't have the one that is actually physically built yet that we say that's a good theme, let's perpetuate that. And what's going to happen is these are going to come on line and they're trying to use similar standards, but, you know, they're going to vary. If we had one building there -- and I have thought the same thing. If we had a building there that we said this is a good theme as a Gateway theme, let's perpetuate it, we could hold other developers of adjacent developments to it. We don't have that one yet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But you know this little section is either going to be something that we're really proud of that got approved while we were on the board or really embarrassed that we let it slip through. I mean, I think this is, you know, one of those highly visible areas of town -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's going to be a lot better than it would have been if we hadn't taken the action we have in the last two or three years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No question. No question. MR. MILK: What I will say, though, for the record, is, for example, the pole signs. There are no pole signs allowed. There are only ground signs allowed. There is a wall that's going to be constructed along the entire property perimeter of the boundary contiguous to Livingston Woods Lane. It's going to be in a twenty-foot buffer with an eight-foot architecturally designed masonry wall. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Talk about what's going to be on Pine Ridge. MR. MILK: Pine Ridge Road is basically going to be -- and because of the transition now -- we set this up as a transition from the neighborhood of Livingston to the north to the more intensified uses or convenience type uses, fast-food restaurants, perhaps a gasoline service station, your banks and your restaurants. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What happened to the discussion two PUDs ago that we asked staff to go back and research what we could do because we have already approved seven, or something, gas stations in this -- and we never heard a word back. And I don't think by the time we got done with that discussion, I don't think it was just limited to gas stations. I think we talked about a number of different issues like fast food, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Convenience kinds of uses. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what happened to that discussion? MR. MILK: I think the discussion was that of is there enough gasoline service stations in this corridor. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think we probably felt like there probably was, and we wanted to know if we could use that as a criteria for voting yes or no on a petition. That's what I wanted to know. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, and he said this one isn't going to allow for that. MR. MILK: It's not going to allow for any gas -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But that was just one example, the gas stations. There's also, you know, a long string of Seven-Elevens or HcDonalds. MR. MILK: To answer the question, I think we have looked at that through long-range planning and the EAR process. I'm not so sure if that was being -- if that's a conclusive response. If we actually looked at the gasoline service stations, for example, in the corridor in that intersection, I mean, I just can't answer that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I remember, because it was -- it was -- I think it was initially my suggestion that through the growth management plan amendment process, we look at limiting the number of gas stations in either activity center or that was the train of -- or at least the line of discussion and -- MR. MILK: On a broader scale. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On a broader scale, but to say that this is an area that we want to look at. If I am not mistaken, the very next cycle for growth management plan amendments came too quickly with too many amendments in it initially for us to have the staff time, and we were going to try to hit that down the road. That's my recollection. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So should we expect to see that in March? Or is that one more thing that's just going to get lost somewhere in the general direction that the board gives? MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold, planning services director. We did have this discussion sometime last year, and at that time we were in the middle of the EAR based amendments to our comprehensive plan, and we brought back to you some information on location, number of gas stations, convenience commercial uses, et cetera, and at that time, and what we're intending to do, is come back and rather than prohibit certain land uses, because we think that may be problematic legally to just prohibit certain land uses, but to go ahead and make sure that we look at market conditions as part of our rezoning. We also set up Gateway standards for these activity centers, which that language does appear in your -- your base amendments to the plan where we treat these as gateways to our community and we will -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, talk about that. If we had Gateway standards in place today, what kinds of things would we be considering? Because, you know, this is -- you know, as we got real concerned about Angileri, and now we're moving -- we've got three tracts of land left between Angileri and the intersection of Pine Ridge and 1-75. This is the center one, you know. There are two estate zoned parcels on either side of this parcel. If we don't have Gateway standards, you know, we're going to lose our shot at Gateway here. What kinds of things are Gateway standards, and do you know if anything like that's included in this PUD? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think certain elements of that certainly are in this PUD, because they talk about complimentary architectural standards. They talk about some unifying themes throughout not only this parcel but some adjacent ones as well that are going to develop with sort of similar uses. But again, given the corridor and the location with 1-75 and our plan supporting that these are for sort of commercial, your motoring public type uses, I think we have set out the standard to become more than just a neighborhood activity center, for instance. But I think what we would be looking for are unifying themes, and in the best world, we would take a vacant activity center and have you build a plan and look at unifying themes. And what we really want is a landscape feature. Do we need a public feature? Do we need a water management feature to highlight that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the answer to all three of those questions is yes, yes, yes. We need all three of those things. I don't know how we get it in a piecemeal fashion. MR. ARNOLD: Well, that's the difficult part. We see these things piece -- piecemeal and we try to do the best in looking at these individually to pull them all together. But until we take a look at each quadrant of an activity center and try to come up with a master plan -- and we found that to be very difficult given the diverse ownerships that we have. And some are local people, others are not. Others don't have a near-term desire to develop their property. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, we are doing exactly what you're talking about. But on those activity centers that as of yet the property is predominantly unzoned or not zoned or parcels ag. -- in a parcel such as this where we already have little segments that are zoned, I think it's up to us to look at each one individually and determine whether the uses permitted by that zoning are appropriate, are overkill or not what we want, but we are going to be forced to do this particular interchange activity center piecemeal because we're kind of late in the game. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. And the thing that we can do, though, is require as much interconnection of architecture and some sort of a landscape theme. So could you tell us what's in this PUD as far as the interconnection with the adjacent parcels, because Wayne mentioned something about that. MR. MILK: There's a couple of things that are going to be unified along this entire corridor and that's maximum building heights of thirty-five feet, ground signs, pole signs are prohibited. What's important is the limited access to Pine Ridge Road which complies with the access management plan. What's very important is that frontage road, that east/west corridor from Gateway all the way through to the eastern-most property, currently is zoned Estates. That is that bisecting easement that we have seen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is a frontage road easement along all of those parcels. MR. MILK: Yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. MR. MILK: From Naples Gateway through Angileri and through Clesen. What's very important about that is each of these cross sections are identical in each of the PUDs proposed so far. There are twenty-four feet of pavements, they are valley-guttered, they are landscaped on both the north and south sides. There is a twenty-foot buffer along the entirety of Pine Ridge Road in each of the three PUDs that we have looked at thus far. Double hedge rows, trees, lamp posts, street lights, lighting at the interchanges there for ingress and egress, turn lanes, and design guidelines that geometricaly are uniform throughout the entire project. So as we look at these, we're looking at maximum heights of thirty-five feet. We're looking at very limited commercial uses, businesses uses, medical office uses. We're looking at the transition from Livingston neighborhood to the Pine Ridge Road corridor. The internal access intersects and the architectural design for each of the projects with very specific roofing types, pitch types and color schemes throughout each of the projects, and that's been coordinated commonly throughout all three of these projects. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's great. MR. MILK: So, you know, to answer your question I think from a staff standpoint and the applicants' standpoint, they have been willing to do that uniformly with all of these projects. And we intend to carry that forward throughout the remainder. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question for the petitioner. Do you have -- Mr. Hoover, are you aware of any end users that you are working with right now or is this fezone fairly speculative in the sense that you don't really have anyone on contract for the property or under contract? MR. HOOVER: Awhile back Mr. Clesen's reps. -- they were talking with Shoney's about buying the entire site, and I don't believe that came about. What -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no contract purchasers for the site right now? MR. HOOVER: No. They do have another person that's looking at it for a motel that would like to take the back half of the site and go either to the east or the west, which would make it a little bit larger site. From what I understand, the motel people like to have about a hundred rooms, and they would have to take either the whole parcel or the back of two -- of one of these to make it work. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask that is there are two things under uses that concern me. The first is a verbiage -- what I think is a verbiage change from what we have used in the past. Under item eighteen on page seven of the PUD, it says any other commercial use or professional service which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses. Mr. Milk, correct me if I am wrong. I have got an extra copy of the PUD if you don't -- I didn't have any and now I have two. It's feast or famine today. It's says any professional service which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses. What I remember PUDs reading is comparable in nature, not compatible. MR. MILK: There's three words. There's comparable, comparable and compatible, okay? And I will throw this to the attorney's office. When we looked at these PUD documents, the attorney's office tweaked those words consistently. Some are comparable, some are compatible, some are comparable. So this change was the result of the attorney's office in that review of the language. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I need to know, because the word compatible -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to ask a question. What's the difference between comparable and comparable other than pronounciation? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same word. MR. MILK: I will say that historically the word comparable, incidental and accessory to are the words we typically use in the document. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The reason compatible concerns me is that there are uses that may be compatible with a paint and wallpaper store that are not desirous. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that's a very good point. I don't know, Harjorie, what the case law says. MS. STUDENT: Quite frankly, I don't remember doing this, but I don't have any problem with comparable. It's fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let's -- let's switch it to comparable '- MS. STUDENT: That's fine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because then I can leave paint and wallpaper stores. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's also in C-4, just while you're making that change. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the same thing goes for, you know, auto supply stores in Area C. I don't necessarily want an auto supply store here, but, you know, again, with the commercial architectural standards, I don't think it would be that big of a problem, but the word compatible in item four under C opens up a whole new area that I don't want to go to. MS. STUDENT: Madam Chairman and the board, the -- again, I don't remember putting that word compatible in there, because in my opinion, it should be comparable. That's what we see in our zoning code and you're right, it does have a different meaning. So for the record, in my opinion, it should be comparable. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unless the petitioner has a problem with that, I think the word compatible and under item eighteen under B on page seven and item four under C on page seven should be changed to comparable. MR. HOOVER: I agree with you, Commissioner. As a planner, I think you're a hundred percent correct on that. We absolutely have no problem with that at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The next question I have under SIC codes is regarding drinking places under accessory uses. It says group fifty-eight thirteen only in conjunction with eating places. I am fairly sure I know what that means, but, Bryan, can you help me out with that? Are we talking about, in essence, a lounge in accessory to a restaurant only? In other words -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there some percentage of sales tied to food? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. Like having a Friday's with a bar inside or a Bennigan's with a bar inside? But, you know, I need to know that that's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Shoney's with a bar inside? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Denny's with a beer tap? MR. MILK: It's usually a place where fifty-one percent of the sales and revenue generated are from food and not beverage. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't want to, you know -- there are places like, you know, Ridgeport Pub and they do fifty-one percent food, but that place is a bar on the weekends, I mean. And I don't want -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: A nice bar that we like. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have been there, seen that, done that. But I'm just saying it's a bar, and I don't think we want to do that this close to a neighborhood. MR. MILK: I agree. When they come in for their occupational licenses and zoning certificates, they give us affidavits that they are, from the state, a restaurant, slash, and they serve alcohol. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Those are the questions I had. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But that's fine. That meets the legal hurdle, but it still doesn't address Commissioner Hancock's -- I am sure the folks at Ridgeport could get affidavits that say they meet the legal criteria for restaurant, slash, and they -- and I -- I don't think you have answered his question there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're in the right place for what they're doing -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but if you take what Ridgeport or what -- what is it, Captain's Table down the road or, I mean, those kinds that are in shopping centers and put them as a stand-alone use backing up to a residential area, now I have got a problem with compatibility. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hilk's response sounds to me like we can't prohibit that the way it's in here. They can bring in an affidavit, but all that's doing is saying they're fifty-one percent food. MR. MILK: As far as the zoning department looks at it, that could happen, Commissioner, you're absolutely right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have any suggestion as to how we could limit that, Mr. Hoover? MR. HOOVER: Yes. I think I disagree with that, because when you apply for an occupational license, you come down to the county staff and they're going to look it up in their SIC codes. So if we're -- what we want here is what you're talking about, the Bennigan's and the restaurants that have alcoholic beverages with it. But we don't want a lounge, and that's definitely not our intention here. If we need to put some additional language in here, we don't have a problem. If we were coming in here and it was a lounge or a bar, that would -- when it was looked up in the SIC code, your primary use would be lounge. If somebody came in and said hey, it's a restaurant and it's actually a beer joint, that's when it would go to code enforcement, just like any other use. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And, again, I am not in any way disparaging Ridgeport, but they do a heavy lunch business and do a lot of their food sales in lunch. But when it comes past eight o'clock, nine o'clock at night, it operates very similar to a stand-alone bar. They still serve food, but, I mean, you're talking the majority of the sales at that point are alcohol related. And it's that relationship. If we can limit it to a Friday's type situation, fine. But I need to have a way -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tell us how to draft that. MR. MILK: Well, we can just strike it, strike the language. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, but I don't want them to be able to serve beer with their chili, you know. MR. MILK: Oh, I can understand that. But there's four -- four or five different licenses out there issued by the state. There's beer, there's wine, there's alcohol, and it's all based on the size of the restaurant, number of seats and that sort of thing. So if a real restaurant like a Bennigan's or Friday's comes in and they have a hundred and fifty seats which requires seventy-five parking places, they're going to have their alcohol license anyway. They're going to be in the food business but have their accessory bar and that sort of thing. So that's really accomplished with the number of the seats per the state, okay? So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In other words, if Ridgeport wants to go in there, the way it's written right now, there's nothing to prohibit that. Mr. Hoover, would you object to upping instead of it has to be a majority, fifty percent, fifty point one percent food, to upping that to sixty-five percent or seventy percent or something that still makes a fair balance there so it's clear? MR. HOOVER: I was thinking something a little bit along your lines there, too, where -- yeah, we can -- we can increase that ratio. The fifty-one percent is like off those four COP state licenses and things. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. HOOVER: And those are pretty lenient, and when I worked in Hillsborough County, I did see a few places that the county was fighting back and forth a little bit and, yeah, we don't have a problem if you want to make that seventy percent of the sales would have to be food. And we can also say, like on the eating places, that throughout the time that the place is open, that it would need to be operating as a restaurant, if there's a way of stating that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem here we're going to find is enforceability, because we are seeking a category that's not identified specifically by state licensing nor by any other code that we have. Is that where you're going, Mr. Hulhere? MR. HULHERE: That was the point I was going to make. I'm sorry, my name is Bob Hulhere, current planning manager. The intent is that the alcohol sales be accessory to food sales. I'm stating the obvious. We have already discussed that. To up that percentage, about the only way that I -- that I think that we might be able to have a -- some legitimate feeling that the eventual business owner is complying with that would be also to require some sort of reporting on an annual basis, and that is what the state does. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what they would give to the state, they would just have to give us? In other words, we're not creating an additional requirement? MR. HULHERE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. That's fine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to me if the petitioner doesn't object and if they already have to do a report like that anyway and all it is is a matter of making a photocopy, that's a no-brainer. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Of course, the difference will be that instead of reporting fifty point one, they have to report seventy percent. MR. MILK: And what we could do for this is tie it to the annual monitoring report for the PUD, for Clesen PUD, so that report comes in in conjunction with the applicant's annual monitoring report. So we could look at that sales revenue. There's one other thing I wanted to put on the record. And just -- I'm not sure that that was pointed out, is that building height in this PUD is a maximum of thirty-five feet, which includes offices, hotel, motels, and any other building that's permitted. That language is also very similar in the Naples Gateway PUD at thirty-five feet. Where it's not is in the Angileri PUD. At that hearing, hotels and motels were limited to two stories, and I wasn't sure why that happened, but that was a gasoline and convenience store related PUD. So from a consistency standpoint, thirty-five feet is the maximum height in any of the PUDs. Gateway is at thirty-five at ninety foot setback for the thirty-five foot building. This PUD, the setback is eighty-two and a half feet from the right-of-way at thirty-five feet, is the differences here. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's consistent enough for me. The only restaurant experience I have is waiting tables at Bennigan's in college. I'm not sure if seventy percent -- I don't know what the food/alcohol mix is -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's his number. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in a regular restaurant, so I guess we'll stick with seventy percent for now. We may find that that moves one way or the other. Probably the best thing we can do is ask our staff to check with the restaurant association in town and to find out what a true restaurant with an ancillary bar, what their mix actually is, so that we are operating from an informed -- a more informed basis in the future. That would be helpful, because I would like two categories for restaurants, slash, bar. One is the ones like Ridgeport or like McCabe's down on Fifth. You know, it's not just in shopping centers, but places that at nighttime operate as a bar. There are correct places for those and incorrect places. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What, are you making the rounds every weekend? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Every stinking weekend. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You seem to be very knowledgeable about this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I don't have all the beer on tap memorized, but I am working on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just supporting that downtown redevelopment, and we appreciate it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am a pro-city guy, you know, particularly when it comes to Friday night. So anyway, I would like to ask our staff for future use if the board agrees. I would like to kind of see two categories in the PUDs, one for, you know, a family -- you know, a Bennigan's type of restaurant, if you will, and one for a Ridgeport type of restaurant, you know, and a separation between the two so we can identify them in the future, because they are very different uses. MR. MILK: Sure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to be -- I like that idea so much that I hope that I hear -- I see Vince nodding -- that that's something we'll see in the LDC amendments or, you know, that that's a real request, that a majority of the board is, you know, supporting that request, because I'd really like to see that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's two of us. I see heads nodding. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So in the next cycle of amendments, that would be a good place. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, any comment, questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think all my questions have been answered in the ensuing discussion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very insightful debate. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. If not, I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I would like to move approval of PUD 97-12 with the following changes. On page seven of the PUD, item eighteen, the word compatible be changed to comparable. On the same page seven of the PUD under item four, the word compatible be changed to comparable. On page eight of the PUD, under Item D-2, drinking places, from fifty-eight thirteen, only in conjunction with eating places, the additional requirement of a food, a minimum food-to-alcohol sales ratio be seventy to thirty percent. And I believe -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said alcohol to food and then you said seventy to thirty. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Food to alcohol. Seventy percent food for a minimum. Go the other way with it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Potato chips. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And those are all the things that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second. Any questions or discussion? All in favor? Opposed? (No response. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry, you can't have any more pretzels unless you buy another beer. MR. HOOVER: I have a question. You're referring to dollar amount on your sales? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I said -- I believe I said dollar sales. MR. HOOVER: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we did it by volume, we might be in trouble. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 98-11 AMENDING ORDINANCE 97-79 TO CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR TO THE PELICAN MARSH PUD DOCUMENT RESULTING FROM A TRANSMITTAL TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF A DOCUMENT IN WHICH CERTAIN PAGES WERE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Moving on then to Item 12-C-1. This is a scrivener's error. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you will close the public hearing, I will be glad to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the correcting of a scrivener's error. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 98-37 RE PETITION V-97-14, JOHN HOBART REPRESENTING FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES REQUESTING A 40 FOOT DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FROM THE YARD SETBACK REQUIREHENT OF FIFTH FEET FOR A STRUCTURE LOCATED IN A PUD ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN PELICAN BAY PUD - ADOPTED Moving on then to the other advertised public hearings, Petition V-97-14, First National Bank of Naples requesting a forty-foot variance from the yard setback requirement of fifty feet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong, this is kind of procedural because the bank is already up, it's being built? MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, for the record. It's -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. I think we need to swear in some people. Anyone that's speaking on this issue, would you please stand and I'll have the court reporter swear you in? Madam Court Reporter. (Witnesses were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Also, I have had no contact with this particular petition. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing to disclose. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No disclosure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we actually have to put it on the record if we have no disclosure? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. But I will be glad to mention that I have had no contact on this. MS. MURRAY: All set? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Murray, this is just a covered parking area, in a nutshell? MS. MURRAY: In a nutshell, it's a cover over two parking spaces. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it's architecturally integrated with the building? MS. MURRAY: That's correct, except that what I handed out now is a revised exhibit. It's not included in your packet in the resolution. At the Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant had proposed a canopy structure with four support poles. The Planning Commission recommended to forward a recommendation of approval to you provided the structure was architecturally integrated with the bank building and the other commercial structures surrounding it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is right next to the entrance to Ruby Tuesday's. MS. MURRAY: It would be -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Am I going to be surrounding bars all day today? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Number three. MS. MURRAY: It's a little unique in that the property fronts on 41 and then also the entranceway to the shopping center, and then there's a parking lot to the west. So it would almost function as kind of a stand-alone structure out there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is anyone objecting? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one speaker, Madam Chairman, Mr. John Hobart. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Hobart, do you want to talk us out of this, because I think it's pretty straightforward. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HOBART: Well, my name is John Hobart, and I am from Hicanopy, Florida, but I do represent First National Bank of Naples and, yes, it is an ancillary building covered -- for covered parking with similar Mediterranean architecture to match the existing building. I would like to just mention to the board, and I think it's important, is the variances that we are requesting in relationship to the property line are along the north and the west. Now, these are interior property lines, which is all within the shopping center complex. So we are actually about a hundred and fifty or a hundred and sixty feet from the right-of-way along 41, and about the same dimension from the south property line, which would be adjacent to another parcel. So it's not that we are trying to get closer to the road or closer to someone else's property. We're still maintaining ourselves within the complex, within the PUD, overall of the shopping center. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who gets to park in these spots? MR. HOBART: Pardon? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who gets to park in these spots? MR. HOBART: I knew that question was going -- these are requested from the president and CEO of First National Bank, and they will be reserved parking. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. That's all. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My only comment was when something is interior like this, it seems to me it's something that should be simpler, frankly. That maybe there ought to be some procedure where staff can make a determination. Just a comment, for what it's worth. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I disagree because it borders somebody else's property. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Interior to the shopping center, but it is the kind of thing we want to encourage with the whole interconnectedness between the, you know -- just a comment. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How much is this encroaching onto the other property? Nothing at all. MR. HOBART: It's not encroaching at all. Actually, we're still maintaining the ten-foot landscape buffer, so we're within the ten-foot landscape buffer. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you tell us who's going to park there, because that may affect the decision? If it's Garret Richter (phonetic), we got to turn this thing down. MR. HOBART: I don't really know. I know one of the gentlemen. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. I have a question. Do the parking places already exist? MR. HOBART: Yes, they do exist. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're just simply covering them? MR. HOBART: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. HOBART: And it's simply four column elements with a roof. There won't be any wall enclosures whatsoever, so you're going to have that open -- openness through it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This for two parking spaces? MR. HOBART: Two parking spaces, yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Will mobile homes or camping trailers be parked in those spots? MR. HOBART: No, no. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not unless they want to get red-tagged in fifteen minutes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have no further questions. MR. HOBART: The opening height wonlt permit that. It will only permit a passenger automobile. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any further questions for the petitioner? Then I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the variance. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. MR. HOBART: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 98-38 RE PETITION SPA-97-1, R. BRUCE ANDERSON, ESQ., REPRESENTING DANIEL AND BARBARA HOOVER, OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2452 J & C BOULEVARD KNOWN AS TEO'S RESTAURANT, REQUESTING APPROVAL TO SHARE A TOTAL OF 27 OFF-SITE PARKING SPACES LOCATED AT 6401 AIRPORT ROAD KNOWN AS HADINGER CARPETS - ADOPTED WITH AGREEMENT AS AMENDED Moving on then to petition thirteen, number two, Petition SPA-97-1. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I need to disclose I did have conversation with the petitioners on this item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As did I. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As did I. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Would all those speaking to this particular issue rise and be sworn in by the court reporter, please. (Witnesses were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is an offsite shared parking petition between the Teo's Restaurant and the carpet store on U.S. 41 called Hadinger Carpet. As you may recall, in 1995 -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am terribly sorry to interrupt, but this seems fairly cut and dried. I understand the agreement has an item where if this isn't working or if there's a problem, the sheriff's department can bring that forward and say, gee, we have a problem and the board has a chance to correct it at that time. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. There was an administrative interpretation that since -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, your time is up. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Since during the time that they didn't have this offsite parking, they didn't have any parking problems. We have affidavits from neighbors and the sheriff's department that they never had parking problems. Should this lease expire and not be renewed, we are not going to revoke the license unless or until we see a parking problem or neighbors complain of parking, people parking on the side of the road. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why I just said my only concern was if ninety days from now the carpet place says, well, we don't want to do this any more, but that appears to be answered that if the sheriff's department finds there is a problem, they can bring it back to us. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I was going to go the flip side of that, to tell you the truth, that they have met all of the requirements that we have for this administrative waiver that you don't -- this doesn't actually generate enough cars to need the required code parking. my suggestion was going to be that we allow them to go forward under the administrative approval and if there is a problem, then we tell this small business owner he has to spend two hundred and seventy dollars a month to get an offsite parking agreement. But right now we're making him spend that money. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe Commissioner Hancock can tell us about the traffic and how many people come and go. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: What's it like at night there? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can you tell us, sir? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, I have never had a problem finding a parking space. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: At any time of day or night? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can only speak to the daytime hours because of those little hot dogs they serve. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I have a question for Mr. Cardillo. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You guys got to get out more, really. MR. CARDILLO: I am John Cardillo on behalf of the petitioner, Teo's, along with Mr. Bruce Anderson. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Cardillo, how would you rank relative -- relative rank the hot dogs at Teo's? MR. CARDILLO: Well, per size, that is by the inch, they are as good or better than almost anything I have ever seen. Now, they are small, but if you extrapolate the size -- and if I may take a little more time -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're trying to make this sound quite savvy, aren't you? MR. CARDILLO: Well, I was listening last night to -- I was listening this morning to compatible versus comparable, and last night at the Inns of Court, we argued irrebuttable versus irrefutable. And I can tell you irrebuttably and irrefutably that these are the best three-inch hot dogs I have ever had. And I would support, actually, what Commissioner Hac'Kie was suggesting, and that is to reverse this process. I think that makes a lot of sense and is the fair thing to do with what's happened with this individual -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It really is. MR. CARDILLO: -- for previous problems from the county administration process. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Coming from such a gourmand as Mr. Cardillo, I will accept that analysis. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only concern I have is that if there is a shared parking agreement, then if, you know, based on this fine presentation today, Teo's gets a booming business they have never experienced tomorrow due to this increased exposure that Mr. Cardillo has offered, that the spaces be made available there. It's kind of like saying we don't think there's going to be a problem, but let's wait and see. If we go ahead and execute the shared parking agreement, if there is a problem, there's an overflow site, and the only way that's triggered to say whether that's sufficient or not is if that goes away. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I guess the only thing is, if you're selling hot dogs, two hundred and seventy dollars a month is real money, you know. It's just a shame to make somebody spend whatever, you know -- MR. CARDILLO: Could I -- could I address -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- three grand a year for nothing. MR. CARDILLO: -- if I might, some of the problems with the hot dogs -- that would not give rise to such a great amount of population. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand your logic, Commissioner Hac'Kie. I just -- it's not like it's a little hot dog cart on wheels; it's a viable business. He does a good lunch business and that kind of stuff. I don't think -- if economics were not satisfactory, I think that would be made evident by the petitioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And frankly, it's our job to do planning in the area and not try to take care of each individual business owner and their economics. And so I think that if the situation bears itself out, that's fine, but I think we need to make sure there's adequate planning done. I'd rather be able to back off that than have to step up and do it two months from now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I would like to ask the petitioner is, Mr. Cardillo, you and I and Mr. Anderson discussed this, assuming the board approves the shared parking agreement and the proposal before us, would you be placing signs in the parking area indicating the location of the offsite parking? MR. CARDILLO: Yes. We have recommended that to the petitioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? Any further questions from the commissioners? Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, no. MR. ANDERSON: Commissioners, if you're inclined to go ahead and require the shared parking agreement, I have a new version that incorporates the potential review and revocation conditions that were contained in the administrative approval. It does delete the requirement of a restrictive covenant on the property, but I did want to distribute that and make that a part of the record. It has been reviewed by both your planning staff and the county attorney's office and approved by them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with the removal of the covenant. It was a little confusing to me why we had that anyway. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the addition of signs indicating the location of the offsite parking, I will move approval of SPA-97-1, including staff recommendations and the agreement we're now receiving and throwing away. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And submitting for the record. Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, yeah, that part, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Very good. We have a motion and a second. If there's no further questions, I will call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you very much. MR. CARDILLO: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 98-39 REQUESTING EXTENSION OF TIHE FOR WHICH AN ASPHALT AND CONCRETE BATCH PLANT FACILITY HAY OPERATE AS A CONDITIONALLY APPROVED USE IN THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to Item 13-B-l, request for an extension of time for asphalt and concrete batch plant facility. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, this next item is kind of a no-brainer. I do want to make one complaint, though. As I read through the item, nowhere in the executive summary does it say where it is, whose it is, and so on, other than referring to Resolution 93-138, which I truly don't know off the top of my head. I had to go back into a support documentation to find out it was Mr. Bennotsol (phonetic). Just on future items if we could stick to the general practice of actually mentioning who the petitioner is, where the project is, it's very helpful. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, I need to have people sworn in that want to speak to this. So all those speaking to this issue, please rise. (Witnesses were sworn.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I have no disclosure on this item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other disclosures? I have had no contact. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had no contact. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? MR. NENO: Ron Neno, for the record. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disclose I have nothing to disclose. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, right. Okay. Mr. Neno would like to make a lengthy presentation on this. MR. NENO: No, I don't wish to make a lengthy presentation. I would hope that the executive summary speaks to the issues. You have a petition here that was approved five years ago to institute a batch plant at the Willow Run quarry. One of the conditions of that approval was that they come back to the board of zoning appeals within a five-year time frame and seek -- seek to continue that function. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Neno. Would you close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I have a question. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, you have a question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sorry. MR. NENO: Petitioner has asked that -- that the time limitation be removed. I think our paragraph on page two of the executive summary summarizes our position in response to any opinion of staff. The petitioner's request that the operation of the asphalt and concrete batch plant be tied to the life of aggregate mining and processing has considerable merit, particularly in view of the expanded area of mining activity which provides an expanded area of separation between batch plant operations and land that is not part of the earth mining land area. You might recall that not too long ago, two hundred additional acres were added to the earth mining functions. No particular objective is served by requiring reconsideration of the batch plants at an intermediate stage in the mining and processing of aggregate material. That is not readily apparent today in terms of its potential impact on surrounding land that is not part of the property for which -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can even stop this hearing in addition to having future ones. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I have -- MR. NENO: The concern for -- the concern for compatibility can be reinforced by requiring no sale of the land that is now part of the total land area. And we have crafted a resolution to achieve that requirement. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, question? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. At the time that we received the request to expand the earth mining operation, was there any mention whatsoever of extending the asphalt batch plant at that tiem, because I don't recall it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's required as part of the PUD, isn't it? MR. NENO: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand the requirement. The point is that in the executive summary it says, based on this action is to extend -- the purpose for this action is to extend the life or the time frame of the earth mining activities a significant number of years thereby providing an immediate source of raw materials. In other words, when we added two hundred acres to the earth mining, we increased the raw materials -- MR. NENO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that would then create the need to have the batch plant -- MR. NENO: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there for five or more years? MR. NENO: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wouldn't that have been -- MR. NENO: Perhaps more than five years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Did the petitioner indicate that direction at the time we heard the earth mining operation? MR. NENO: No, they didn't. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So this is a little piecemeal approach when, in fact, one is directly related to the area. So at the time we heard the earth mining operation, if the people around it knew that the earth mining was directly related to keeping an asphalt batch plant there, maybe they would have been a little more concerned, maybe not. I just think -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What people? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What people? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Property owners, people that own property in Collier County. I just think that if the two are directly tied together, it would have been advisable to hear them at the same time. And hearing them piecemeal like this, I think, is a little unfair. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Neno -- MR. NENO: Of course, we were -- we were -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Neno. MR. NENO: We were -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Neno. MR. NENO: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Neno, if they didn't add the extra -- he wants to talk today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's talking. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If they didn't add the extra two hundred acres, would they still need to come back and get an extension? MR. NENO: Yes, they would. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. NENO: And we were unaware of that at the time, that there was a five-year limitation, when we were dealing with the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The property owner was aware, though. And I think the two are joined uses, and it's best to understand that at the public hearing on the expansion of the conditional use. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Further questions? Do we have any speakers on this issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none, Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers. I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff's recommendation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that include not requiring them to come back for the conditional use at all? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, one. Item #1382 RESOLUTION 98-40 REQUESTING A SECOND EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE CU-96-1 FOR A CHURCH IN THE RSF-3 ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION 96-192 ADOPTED ON APRIL 9, 1996, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.7.4 OF THE LCD - ADOPTED Hoving on to Item B-2. This is a request for a second extension. And I have a request to close the public hearing. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further discussion? I will call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you want to take a break? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do I want to take a break? We're going to take a permanent break here very shortly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Was there any public comment? Did we miss that somehow? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We just missed public comment. I just breezed right on through there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: There were no registered speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No registered speakers? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What the Chairman is trying to say, she knew the status of no speakers and decided just to move through the item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. I am good. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: God, you're good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, any communications for us? MR. FERNANDEZ: I have no items, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No items, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does Miss Filson have anything to say to us today? MS. FILSON: Happy Valentine's Day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Happy Valentine's Day; that's very nice. And to all of you, too. Commissioner Mac'Kie. MR. HANCOCK: I would have hated to be one of your students. Item #15A ADDITIONAL INVOICES FOR COURT ADMINISTRATION TO BE PRESENTED ON 2/17/98 COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just have a question about the -- I am going to keep asking it every week -- about the continuing saga with the clerk and the court administration. Do we have anything to report? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I received yesterday a new list of invoices, and I have scheduled to present those to the board at your meeting next week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, I understand, also, that discussions have been held among the attorneys, and Mr. Weigel could probably give you a little more detail about that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does Mr. Weigel wish to give us more detail about that? MR. WEIGEL: No, not too much. We have another teleconference of attorneys scheduled later this week. We're working on it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. Thank you. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just the Historical Society is very excited and anxiously awaiting our luncheon workshop next week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you haven't been to Palm Cottage, and you all probably have, it's wonderful. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do they serve alcohol their? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dramatic change there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You can pick some up on the way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just couldn't remember if I had been there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I hate to -- this group is deteriorated. I think it's time we get them out of here. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First of all, thank you to staff for grouping all of our bar-related petitions today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They were bar-related to you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted to point out to everybody, you may have been watching the winter olympics. I haven't -- I don't read the paper often enough to know if it's been in there or not, but we have one of our very own in the winter olympics, Brian Shimer. I pulled the schedule off the Internet last night and the two-man runs are on February 14th and 15th in the wee hours of the morning, one and three a.m., and the four-mans are February 20th and 21st. If Mr. Shimer should be -- and he's talented enough -- if he's fortunate enough to win a medal, I am working on a proclamation for a Brian Shimer Day and a coming-home parade, if we can get one of Naples very own to medal in the winter olympics in Nagano, Japan. So I just wanted to kind of put that out there that we'll be rooting for him and hopefully we will be having a parade for Mr. Shimer and a proclamation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We might want to send a telegraph over, no medal, no parade. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure that's all the motivation he needs. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: These guys are brutal. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: But anyway, I did want to point that out and we will be looking forward to next week maybe working on some plans for a parade. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sounds great. Mr. Shimer, indeed, is one of our own from here, so we wish him the best over there. I have nothing further to say. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did have one item. I'm very sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's too late. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As you know, each week my dad comes in at the end of the meeting and goes to lunch. This week dad is in Maine, so filling in for him is my sister, Betty. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Welcome to the zoo. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you drew the short straw. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, if there's nothing further before this commission, meeting is adjourned. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted with changes: Item #16A1 EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.632 TO CREATIVE HOMES OF S.W. FLORIDA FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS "CREATIVE HOMES COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION" LOCATED IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RNAGE 27 EAST, UNIT 59 OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - WITH STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A2 QUITCLAIM DEED GRANTED BY ROBERT AND ERVENE SHELLABARGER IN REFERENCE TO A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO SHELLABARGER PARK IN IMMOKALEE (GRANT #97-DB-3K-09-21-01-N03). Item #16A3 RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "ISLAND WALK PHASE ONE" LOCATED IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - WITH LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A4 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FUND 111 TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO PAY FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERIM GOVERNMENT SERVICES FEES ORDINANCE Item #16B1 COOPERATIVE AGREEHENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER NLA/~AGEHENT DISTRICT FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A REPLACEMENT BRIDGE AT VALEWOOD DRIVE OVER THE COCOHATCHEE CANAL Item #1682 EXECUTION OF THREE(3) QUITCLAIM DEEDS, IN ORDER TO RECONVEY PREVIOUS INTERESTS OBTAINED BY PINE AIR LAKES PUD Item #1683 PROJECT NO. 69101; CIE 08 - SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 3 WITH HOLE, HONTES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR IHMOKALEE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,900.00 Item #16B4 - Continued to 2/17/98 PROJECT #80037 - FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK RFP 97-2745 Item #16C1 STAFF DIRECTED TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 93-2 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT ADVISORY BOARD AND CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD Item #16C2 PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF AND COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DIRECTED TO DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 89-11 RELATING TO BEACH AND WATER AND VESSEL CONTROL Item #16D1 REJECTION OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO RFP #97-2760, "DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE INTEGRATED SOFTWARE SYSTEM" - STAFF TO RE-SOLICIT THE PROJECT Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-130 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated on the miscellaneous correspondence. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:25 a.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY DEBRA J. DeLAP, NOTARY PUBLIC.