Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/10/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 10, 1996 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: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Barbara B. Berry Also present: W. Neil Dotrill, County Manager Michael A. HcNees, Assistant County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission meeting to order on December 10, 1996. Mr. Dotrill, could you lead us in the invocation and the pledge, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning. We thank you for the crispness of the air and the time of year that the holidays bring to all of us and for a variety of faiths and the meanings of Christmas and the holidays. Father, we are especially thankful this morning for Collier County and the opportunities that it creates for the people who live here, work here, enjoy their retirement years here. Father, we are always thankful for the quality of government that you have bestowed on this community. We thank you for the courage and the dedication of our five elected county commissioners. We are especially thankful of the hard work of the staff and the many citizens that choose to participate in the government process here. Father, as always, it's our prayer that you would bless this community, its people, and our time together here this morning. We pray these things in your Son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I see we have scant, few changes to our agenda today. MR. DORRILL: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I have just one item that is requested to actually be withdrawn because we don't have a continuous date. It is Item 8(E)(2), which is under the District HRS Health and Human Service Board, which was a request to appoint two representatives to that board. That was removed this morning by the petitioner, and we will determine when they will need to reschedule that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And for those people who may be here to hear the Royal Wood privatization issue, that has been continued until next week, I believe it is. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. That was already noted on the agenda index. It's not part of the changes here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right, but I think there may be people here, in any case, expecting to hear that, and that item will not be here until next week. Mr. Weigel, anything else? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. One change for the record, thank you. Consent Agenda Item 16(C)(1) is a resolution concerning the appointment of park rangers and recognizing individuals for the appointment, and I've been told by staff of two additional names that should be added to the record and would be added to the resolution, should you approve it, and those names are Charles Human and Jose Quintanilla. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Berry, anything further? COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just one item on board communications. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items: One, I'd like to remove 16(C)(2) from the consent agenda, which I assume will become 8(C)(1). MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An internet item, a question on funding. Also under 10(A) it's probably appropriate that we discuss what action we intend to take with regard to the position of county manager. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why? Did something happen? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We need a motion. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. I know it's a controversial motion, but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can we have a second on that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did. Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #4 MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 12 AND 19, 1996 REGULAR MEETINGS - APPROVED COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hove approval of the November 12th regular meeting minutes and the November 19th regular meeting minutes of 1996. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #5C1 TONY DUESTERHOFT, FLEET MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION, EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR DECEMBER, 1996 - RECOGNIZED We have today a -- this is our day that we do the employee of the month. We have today Tony Duesterhoeft. Could we have Tony come forward. Where is Tony? There he comes. Tony, if you'd come up here and turn around and face the camera so they can see you all across the country. Tony has been employed for almost five years and was nominated by his supervisor. He shows dedication to Collier County by his promptness, attendance record, and positive attitude. His outstanding performance is displayed through work habits and service to other county departments. Expertise and motivation are a part of his everyday work ethic, and without any reservations he was nominated and selected as the employee of the month for December 1996. Tony works in our fleet management department. And, Tony, I've got a letter here that goes in your file. It reads: It is indeed a pleasure for us to announce your selection as Collier County's employee of the month for December 1996. This well-deserved recognition is for your valuable contributions to the county through your work in the fleet management department. This honor includes an exceptional performance plaque as well as a $50 cash award, which I am proud to present to you. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, I offer our sincere congratulations and also our gratitude for your dependability and dedication. Now, Tony, if you're thoroughly embarrassed by now, we'll give you this. (Applause) Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 96-574, RE ORDINANCE 88-94, AS AMENDED, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ISLAND PINES GARDEN PUD - ADOPTED AND AMENDMENT TO COME BACK IN SIX MONTHS CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Our next item -- back to business here -- 8(A)(1), Ordinance 88-94, Pine Gardens PUD. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This item was a request by staff for direction regarding the Island Pines Garden PUD and the PUD sunsetting provisions of the Land Development Code. The PUD is located off County Barn Road, and according to the county's density rating system today, it would be permitted with a density of three units per acre. The current PUD allows eight units per acre. There was also a change involving an updated environmental impact statement, several traffic changes. And staff is, therefore, recommending that the item then come back within six months with an amended PUD document. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know there's going to be a -- probably a -- or maybe a petitioner, but this is a classic case of why the sunset was incorporated. This particular PUD appears to be out of context for the general area; so I'm supportive of staff's recommendations. CHAI~ NORRIS: Do we have public speakers on this one, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAI~ NORRIS: Nothing on this one? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then I'll '- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions from the board? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Petitioner's not here apparently. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of the staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That recommendation is to request -- or require a PUD amendment within six months? MR. REISCHL: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #8C1 RECOMHENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY COMHISSIONERS APPROVE THE GRANT AGREEMENT TO ENHANCE INTERNET CONNECTIVITY TO COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARIES - TABLED FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AT A LATER TIME IN THE MEETING Our next item is the former 16(C)(2), which is now 8(C)(1). COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a question on this, and that is obviously if we can enhance internet use, great. I'm wondering what the long-term cost of this may be. I assume increased activity on the internet can also result in increased expense. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just can tell you from my own personal, you know. America Online, now it's 20 bucks a month no matter how much you use it. I assume, you know, that we're getting something similar. If not, we ought to. MR. CONSTANTINE: I just don't know if that's one hookup with county or every single area we go to is 20 bucks. MR. DORRILL: I'm going to ask Mr. Ochs to give me some help because Mr. Olliff has stepped out of the room. Mr. Ochs, there's a question about our ongoing cost to subscribe and have the ability to connect to the internet in terms of the library location. I know as a charter member of the Naples Free-net, that gives us certain access online. Can you help me here in terms of the internet? And in this particular case it would be at library locations. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This item is $30,000 to enhance internet connectivities. I assume that means make it available throughout the county, but throughout the county -- MR. OCHS: Again, for the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. You're correct, Commissioner, that would be network access for the internet. Any of the PCs that are hooked up in the county's network can access the internet through that single connection. Then there'll be a -- what they call a firewall that will protect against outside viruses. That's how we would plan to set up the connection. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does the availability throughout our system increase our expense for use? MR. OCHS: I'd have to double-check on that for you. I don't want to make an off-the-cuff guess, but typically that's a single subscription, and then we route them all through a single line and pay as those line charges are incurred on a monthly basis. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just table this item until we can get an answer to that? I don't think I'm going to have a problem with it, but I'd be more comfortable if we'd get an answer. MR. OCHS: I can get that for you later this morning, if you want. MR. DORRILL: We can run it down perhaps by the end of the meeting. We'll just skip over that now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's continue this item for the moment then. And we'll move forward to the next item, which is 8(E)(1), Naples Area Transit Authority. Item #8El NAPLES AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR FRANCHISE TO OPERATE A PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM - DENIED MR. McNEES: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Mike HcNees, your assistant county manager. Earlier this year you received a proposal and saw a presentation from an organization called the Naples Area Transit Authority, who was requesting from you a ten-year exclusive franchise to operate a transit system, a bus system, within Collier County. Subsequent to that presentation, staff made an information request of the Naples Area Transit Authority in order to further evaluate this franchise request and make appropriate recommendations to you. The type of information that we asked for fell into three general categories. We asked for some definition of this organization, the Naples Area Transit Authority: Who were the principals, and what was the nature of the organization. We asked for some idea of just exactly what would this bus system look like, what form would it take, what would the structures look like, and what routes were they proposing. And we asked for some financial information regarding the bus system, both from a balance sheet standpoint relating to the organization itself, and from an income statement standpoint, what were they proposing this operation would look like from a financial standpoint. Each of those -- the letter that we sent is included as Attachment 1 to your agenda package; so you can see -- that is page 4 of this agenda item. You can see the information we asked for. The response from the Naples Area Transit Authority is also included in your agenda packet starting on page 6. The financial information that they sent in terms of income statement is attached starting on page 12 of your executive summary. The information that we provided was fairly responsive in terms of, I think, the information that the transit authority had available. They've documented the routes that they have sought. You can see, on the wall behind Mr. Dotrill, they have sent in photographs of sample bus stops and drawing likenesses of what possible bench configurations would look like, so you can have an idea of what they're proposing. Staff's recommendation at this point is pretty simple, and that is that the franchise request be denied. It's our feeling that, looking at the balance sheet information, which is pretty sketchy, that this is, for you, a highly speculative venture. The Naples Area Transit Authority itself shows net assets of one dollar, and it's understood by staff that what they want to do is secure financing with your franchise agreement in hand. And I understand that, and they may have done considerable work already in obtaining that financing, and we're not attempting to say that they haven't, but we don't know that. Honestly, we don't know who that financing body, person, or entity might be that you would actually, from all practical purposes, be doing business with. And staff can't, from that standpoint, recommend that you grant particularly an exclusive franchise for such a long period of time for this type of an operation. Now, I'd like to emphasize, staff's recommendation has not been made based on the demand, the need, or the appropriateness of some sort of mass transit system, be it large scale or small scale. That's not the question we're answering for you this morning. We haven't done market surveys; we haven't done an in-depth analysis. Your HPO studies those issues routinely. We're not making a recommendation based on that fact this morning. The recommendation staff has made to you is based on the proposal that you received and our analysis of the specifics of the Naples Area Transit Authority, the offer they've put on the table to you. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. I know that the representatives of the transit authority are here to make their case this morning, and I'm sure you'd like to hear from them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes, we would. MR. PATTERSON: Good morning. My name's Craig Patterson. I'm the president of the Naples Area Transit Authority. First of all, I'd like to thank you for having me here. It's a very important issue here this morning regarding transit here in Collier County. There are several issues that need to be addressed. The first issue was the bus stop benches as far as advertising. It does not conform with the code development or the land development statutes that are currently on the books. We have asked the county commissioners to modify that for us. Those moneys would basically augment the services that we're looking at: Approximately $1.4 million coming in from the advertising revenue from the pedestrian shelters and benches. We have since then received concern from the county commissioners and the public regarding advertisement on the benches. We would, furthermore, like to just basically have the benches on U.S. 41 with advertising on them. Same thing with the ten-year franchise agreement. We're seeking a five-year franchise agreement with the county commissioners. That would be contingent upon our performance. Granted, this is a start-up company. A lot of people -- you folks up there are smart business people. You certainly wouldn't invest $800,000 into a company that did not have the proper approval or authorization from the powers that be. We do have our financing available. It's ready to be set up for us. The only thing we're asking for from the county commissioners is basically give us the approval of the NATA as far as the franchise agreement, contingent upon the review and acceptance of the financing and the financing sources of the NATA. That's all we're asking for. If the county commissioners want us to put that money into an escrow account, we'll be able to do that. But just give us -- give us the right -- or the franchise agreement, everything contingent upon performance, financial performance, and the performance of the NATA. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You're proposing now a five-year franchise rather than ten? MR. PATTERSON: Correct. I dropped off a package last -- I believe it was last Thursday or Friday regarding the addendum. We realize that ten years is a little bit too long. We came in asking for ten years. Somebody made a comment a while back; the landfill doesn't even have that length of a franchise agreement. So we're looking for a five-year franchise agreement with the county. The county -- if we do not perform to the specifications or their timely manner or safety inspections, everything meets and exceeds federal regulations, if we don't perform, the county commissioners can say take your buses and get them out of here. We just want to have that chance. And we've been bending over backwards trying to accommodate the county, the different communities. Some people say that we're not addressing the issue as far as availability for the buses. Some people are saying that the bus started out too small, the route was too small, and now it's going too big. Some people are saying that it can't -- that we're not servicing the whole entire community. We can leave that up to the CTC. The CTC can go ahead and -- but what we're doing is, we're freeing up the current CTC right now to go out and penetrate the areas that they're not able to penetrate right now. So that's pretty much what we're asking from the county commissioners. Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I realize it's in the packet, but since we're in the public hearing, perhaps you can explain how you expect to derive your revenue and the breakdown. MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Perhaps the -- our accountant, Mike, can elaborate a little bit more on this, but I'll give you the overview of it. A lot of our advertizing revenue is going to be derived from the advertising on the exterior of the bus. We have that. We have different venues such as different shopping centers that we charge money to arrive there. We really haven't based, as far as our revenues, on the ridership itself. And then also for the bus stop benches that we would be taking away, we went down from 309 benches to approximately 80 benches. Those benches would only be in commercial districts going down U.S. 41 and up Airport-Pulling Road. That would be it. The rest of the money would be supported by different subdivisions, different communities. For us providing the services for a particular community, those people would be able to ride their bicycle to the gated -- to the guard gate, park the bike at the guard gate, and then walk over to the bus stop. We're also going to be offering discounted fares for their participation with that. Once again, we're not seeking county money nor city tax dollars. It's -- and the county commissioners have to keep in mind that this is a start-up company. It's the first of its kind. There was some mention a while back, and even today's paper, saying that people are concerned about us selling the company. We're not -- we do not have that interest of selling the company. This is our company. We want to keep it this way. But to address that concern, though, I mean, you have -- the cable company has been sold several times throughout the -- there is a franchise agreement with the county commissioners. But that is not our interest at this time, to sell the buses or to bring people in here. I understand Lamarre Advertisement Company -- I read in the paper -- I haven't -- this is the first that I've heard of it. We dealt with them previously because they, as you can see -- the pedestrian shelters, they provided those for me, wanted to penetrate the advertising system here in Collier County. If you want to be an advertising billboard, we are not just an advertising billboard. If we want -- I mean, that's why we're not going down Georgia -- or no. That's why we are going down Georgia or Sunshine Boulevard. A lot of our clients, they would much rather have us going up and down 41, back and forth, without picking up one passenger as long as they can get their advertisement or their corporate logo out there. We're not -- we are not in the advertising billboard business; we're in transportation. And that's why with Scott HcGaughey with the HBI bus company -- he's got an extensive background. His family's up in Pennsylvania that has been doing it for years. So we feel that this is what we need for Collier County. If Collier County wants us to scale back, where do we scale back to? Do we leave Marco Island out? Do we leave the East Trail out? Naples Manor that needs it a lot? Do we leave Golden Gate out? Do we leave Naples Park out? At what point do we do it? Do we just have a boat going round and round from Grand Central Station up 41 and up to Immokalee and back down to 41 to hit the different venues? Certainly you can do that. You can go to the different shopping centers, but where is your ridership? That defeats the purpose of having a mass transit system here. And by taking this away from the constituents here -- I mean, these people need this, this bus service. Now we're able to create a dual-income family, dual-career family. The kids are able to go down in the summertime and go out and get a job at the Coastland Center Mall or something where they weren't able to do it or get a job at one of the hotels or something. People are now able to go get medical care, go to Naples Villa, go to the movie theater, go to dinner and stuff. A lot of people can't drive here in this community nor can afford a car nor shouldn't be driving, for that matter. And a lot of us won't be able to drive in another 10 or 15 years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What percentage of your revenue is expected to come from stationary advertising? MR. PATTERSON: As far as for the display billboards, we're looking at -- since we did size it back, we're looking at $1.4 million. I would have to run the mathematics out rather quickly, but we're looking at only 80 boards. It was a very minute amount. Most of the revenue -- at 80 boards at $400 a month is what we are looking at acquiring. Unfortunately, I did have -- the gentleman should be here with the -- it's a little late now -- but the bus stop bench. It's almost like adopt a route, adopt a road, is what we're seeking. We're not seeking the massive advertising, the big stickers on the back of the display boards. It would be engraved. If the city -- not the city, but if the county would like to give us recommendations as far as what type of benches they would like, you know, along with-- you know, as far as the right-of-ways and stuff, we could do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have a ballpark estimate of what percentage of revenue that is? MR. PATTERSON: Michael, do you have that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think Mr. McNees does. MR. McNEES: In the first year, of a total of $829,000 of revenue, $83,000 is ridership. The other approximately $740,000, the vast majority of that is advertising revenue. $68,000 is what he's calling venue revenue, so in the neighborhood of over 80 percent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I need to just go ahead and in the interest of fairness -- and I've been trying to say this to the petitioner for a while, but I'll just say it for the purpose of today's hearing. I agree with you that this public transportation is needed in Collier County. I was willing to risk the Lee Tran deal that the county manager had worked out on a trial basis because I'm aware of how severe the need is for people to get those -- to be able to be two-income families, to get that second job. However, I -- you've referred to the franchise agreements that the county has with the landfill company and with the cable company, and these are extremely well-established, extremely experienced, extremely well-funded companies. And I just can't take the risk of having this very significant, important need attempt to be addressed by an underfunded, inexperienced company. MR. PATTERSON: If I can elaborate on that. It's not an inexperienced company at all. MBI company's been here for several years, here in Collier County. They have got a -- they probably have one of the largest bus facilities here in Collier County. That's why I brought Scott McGaughey aboard. Once again, they have their company up in Pennsylvania too. Underfunded? Just give us that chance. Say, fine, we will grant you this -- we will grant you this franchise agreement contingent upon the county commissioners' review, direction, and satisfaction of the funding sources and the dollar amount. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Patterson, where I go with that is that I understand you're saying that, and I believe you're committed to this being a transportation-oriented business instead of an advertising-oriented business, but I'm afraid that of necessity the advertising, since that's where your money is going to come from, will -- no pun intended -- drive the business decisions of the company. And that's just not how we can let public transportation be handled in Collier County. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point I was trying to get to is, I recall reading in the newspaper six weeks ago some comments from Commissioner Hancock where there's some question as to whether or not this type of advertising meets our current Land Development Code. And, Commissioner Hancock, you're probably better prepared to expand on that than I, but if it does not meet our code and you're anticipating that to make up 80 percent of your revenue, we very clearly have a problem right there, and that's where I was going with my comments. MR. PATTERSON: Okay. I understand that. Eighty percent of the revenue, the report that you have, we've since then scaled that back down. If you look at the financial form, that's only 30 percent. We've only used 30 percent of the numbers. The first and second year, the only numbers we used was 30 percent of the total revenues that can be derived from the company. Since speaking and finding out the challenges that the county commissioners had for us, we had to go back and look where can we get these dollar revenues from. So we've taken from the 309 down to 80, and we're transferring that cost over to different communities. We're also going to be raising our rates as far as the advertising venue on the bus and on the inside of the bus. Possibly we may have to even raise the rates for the bus fare. I don't know. And if it would, it would be maybe a maximum of a dollar more. But we have to come back and find out where we're going to get these dollars from. And certainly these pedestrian benches are not 80 percent of the moneys of the company itself. We're only looking at maybe 30 percent. Like I said, we've scaled it back. With the advertising on the buses, that's a lot of the revenue too. We're able to obtain between five and seven thousand dollars a bus for that, for the billboard advertising. We don't rely solely on ridership because we don't know where the ridership is coming from. We have a good idea of where it's coming from, but we can't base the company upon that. As Pamela mentioned a few moments ago, we're not saying we're like the landfill or the cable company. You have to keep in mind this is a start-up company. If you want the funding, we can put the funding in an escrow. We can have the funding available. Say, fine, we approve the -- or at least direct staff, Mr. Archibald or Hike HcNees, to get this thing rolling as far as where we're going; okay, we're going to take these bus stops off; this isn't where we're going to have the pedestrian shelters nor any pedestrian benches, and then also go ahead and allow us to do that, and then we come -- and then we'll say, fine, this is where our money is coming from. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Patterson, if I may, in the interest of time -- we may have public speakers on this matter -- let me try and get through some questions I have after reading the agreement. First comment you made about this, about having experience in the transit business, you cited HBI. HBI is a charter operation solely; is that correct? HR. PATTERSON: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They've never done a transit system in their lives; correct? MR. PATTERSON: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have never had any experience whatsoever running a transit system; is that correct? MR. PATTERSON: No, I have not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You'd mentioned U.S. 41. But being aware that that's a state right-of-way, how do you anticipate getting permission for placement of benches in a state right-of-way? MR. PATTERSON: Right. We've already spoken with the Florida Department of Transportation up in Fort Myers and down here. FDOT will not grant any private organization or a nongovernment entity a right-of-way for the property. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Collier County would have to do that for you. MR. PATTERSON: After speaking with Mr. Archibald, he stated that the county would have to do that and we would service those right-of-ways for the county. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You mentioned that there would be no tax dollars used; however, paragraph 7 of your franchise agreement states, "The grantee shall provide bus stop signs, pedestrian shelters, and pedestrian benches to the county engineering department for installation." The county will install your benches and signs for you; is that correct? MR. PATTERSON: We ask that from the county. If the county does not want to do that, they can take it away from us, and we can do it ourselves. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: "County shall waive all cost incurred with the acquisition of right-of-way permits, the right and privilege to operate passenger buses, the use of signage, benches," etc. Again, we're waiving fees in this contract also? MR. PATTERSON: What we're asking for, Tim, is -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hancock, please. MR. PATTERSON: Mr. Hancock, excuse me. What we're asking for, Mr. Hancock, is in consideration for us providing this service to the county, that the county grant us some sort of consideration for that, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just want to -- again, I have to understand the cost that you're asking for in addition to the other concerns. You're also asking that the county engineering and transportation help you with any moneys that may be available for grantee's efforts for state and federal agencies. Does that mean the county will, in essence, act in your behalf to obtain state and federal grants? MR. PATTERSON: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. County agrees to assist the grantee's marketing efforts to encourage the community to utilize the passenger bus service by PSAs. In other words, the county -- you're asking the county to get PSAs to get people on for ridership? MR. PATTERSON: Well, as far as with -- as far as educating the community, any pamphlets that you have or collateral to distribute that you have down here at your information center, yes, that's what we're asking. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just -- I wanted to clarify those for the reason that there is more than an "if you'll just give us an approval, off we go." There's a significant involvement and role that you're asking the county to take in this in addition to amending an existing Land Development Code. That's kind of ironic in that we just had a very long discussion on architectural controls and the aesthetics of the community. One of the elements is no billboards in this town, no advertising on bus benches. We're being asked to effect that solely for the purpose of your business. I understand how you're trying to make the bottom line work, but we generally don't make those kinds of community-wide exceptions for the benefit of a for-profit business; and that's a little much, I think, to expect in this regard in addition to all the other areas that the county would step up and have responsibilities according to this agreement. The last issue I have a problem with is the termination clause in this agreement. It states that "if you violate any of the elements of the franchise agreement." The only element of the franchise agreement that's performance oriented is if one of your drivers or an element of your system gets more than three moving violations in a 12-month period. There's nothing to say if a bus stop is missed for four hours in a given time due to whether it be mechanical difficulties or error, there are no performance standards for the transit element. So when you stand there and talk about how you're running routes for the community, this agreement has no performance-based elements with which the county can say, no, you are not doing your job. You're not living up to the transit element of your agreement. Therefore, we are going to terminate. That is nonexistent here. It's not our job, in my opinion, to write this agreement for you, but those are what I consider to be tremendous gaps, if we could even get over the point of the fact that the majority of your income is from something that is prohibited by code in this county anyway. When you stack all these things together, Mr. Patterson, it becomes very, very difficult for me to really call this a viable project. That's really a list of my concerns, and at this point I'm just not convinced that we have a workable project in front of us. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning. Gil Erlichman. I reside in East Naples, and I'm a taxpayer and an elector in Collier County. Good morning, Commissioners. I seem to recall a similar situation with St. Hatthew's House where the commissioners were asked to sign a paper, and on the basis of the signature of the commissioners on this paper, move it in Naples, St. Hatthew's House, to get some federal grant of some sort. In this case it seems to me that the commissioners are, once again, asked to give this specific person or persons a franchise on the basis that they're going to provide transportation, etc., in Collier County. Well, the whole thing is, from what I've read in the papers, their entire funds consist of one dollar, and evidently -- not evidently, but I think that once they get this franchise, aren't they eligible for federal grants, taxpayer dollars, for some type of transportation arrangement in the county? I don't know, but -- they're not? Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because they're for profit, I think that makes a difference. MR. ERLICHHAN: Okay. I see. But the thing is, as Mr. Hancock pointed out, it seems to me that these buses will be nothing more than portable advertising billboards, belching diesel fumes, which, if you've ever had the pleasure of driving behind a bus, one of these diesel buses, you'll know what I'm talking about. They stink. So I'm glad that the commissioners are not considering awarding this franchise, and I want to thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: And Mr. HcGaughey. Mr. HcGaughey. MR. HCGAUGHEY: Yes. My name is Scott HcGaughey. I'm one of the principals. I've run HBI Motor Coach here in Naples for the past ten years. You guys pretty much answered all my questions. The only thing is, after listening to all this, where do you think public transportation is going to come from? Is somebody going to just write a check and say, here, this is it? It's not -- the county already said they're not going to give this -- you're not going to give money to someone that's going to do it. The government's not going to give you money to do it, and I don't think anybody sitting-- you know, any wealthy person sitting in this audience is going to open their wallet or their checkbook and write a check for it. It's not going to happen, and this is the only way that I see that it's going to happen. I -- you know, all we're asking for is some support here to try to get this thing going. That's about all I really have to say. You know, I don't know what you're afraid of. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: We don't have any further speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, I don't think fear has anything to do with it. I think we're looking at this matter in a common-sense basis. We're not talking about a transit company so much as we are an advertising company. That's evident by their own financial projections that they supplied to us, which show only 10 percent of the income is derived through ridership. You wouldn't need ridership. Just run the thing as a transit company off your rates -- as an advertising company, up your rates by 10 percent, you've got the same income. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be happy to make a motion that we approve staff recommendation and, again, deny the request. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? None. Thank you. Item #9A RESOLUTION 96-575, AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION BY GIFT, PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF TEMPORARY EASEMENTS ON THREE PROPOSED SITES AND THE INGRESS/EGRESS TEMPORARY EASEMENT TO ONE SITE TO PERFORM WALK-THROUGH SURVEYS, FIELD SURVEY ELEVATIONS, SOIL BORINGS AND GROUND PENETRATING RADAR TRANSECTS AND OTHER ON-SITE INVESTIGATIVE DATA ON THREE PROPOSED LANDFILL AND MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY SITES - ADOPTED Next, Item 9(A), county attorney's report. Ladies and gentlemen, could we ask you to hold it down a little bit. We're still trying to conduct a meeting up here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, this essentially is ratifying the action we took about eight weeks ago saying we'd do what we needed to do to get the final step of the information on the landfill. I suspect we'll probably -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Hear from Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the effort of consistency, we'll have at least one vote opposed today, but this really is simply taking -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah, you're going to have one. You're going to have more than one maybe. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me say one big concern I have about this, among the others, and I won't restate all of the many, many arguments that I have. But, Commissioner Constantine, even you should be objecting to this one today because you're worried, appropriately, about a $20-a-month expenditure for America Online, or whatever the county's access is to the internet, and the staff is telling us in this staff report that they don't know yet what this might cost. And I'm here to suggest to you, as I have in the past, it's going to cost a lot. It's not going to be easy, and surely to Heaven, we're not going to say, here's a blank check, go spend it on fighting to get access for this landfill. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me tell you -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I know you're addressing Commissioner Constantine with that comment, but I feel a need to weigh in on one thing that has been pressed upon me. We, as a board, established a process to go out and acquire a new site for a landfill whenever that may be needed, whether it's 7 years from now, 10 years from now, 22 years from now, whenever it's needed. By following that process, the whole reason for that was to provide a legal and justifiable basis for the acquisition of sites. What we have now is threat of litigation. If there were not threat of litigation sitting in this room, if there were not individuals in the community -- and understand, you remember, you and I agreed on the value of farmland and how it should be rated. Yet, again, we had a citizens committee that was formed by a company that does this, that has backed it up legally time and time again, and now the only problem we're running into is threat of litigation. And if we backed away from this for that purpose alone, I think we would be making a grave mistake, and we would be invalidating the entire process as it has gone on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me clarify, because I think we're arguing a different point. I'm not suggesting that we stop the process. I might make that argument at another time, but I'm not today suggesting that. What I'm saying is, why do we have to do this before we get the appraisal to tell us what the potential costs are? That would be a prudent step. It says in the staff report that an appraisal is -- you know, will be received. Let's just don't cut the check without filling in the blank of how much money. Let's get the appraisal number, then go forward. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I can complete what I was saying -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two things, and then I'll -- one thing, and then I'll respond to your comment, and that is, all we're doing here is simply ratifying an action we said we were going to take anyway, and that is do what was required to get on the property and finish the process Commissioner Hancock just mentioned, and that is, get the final information so we can make an informed decision. I'm sure there will be disagreement on this board about that final decision. However, we have invested over $500,000, and we are 95 percent of the way toward having all the information on which to base that, and it makes no sense to stop at this point and throw that money away and throw that time and effort away; so I think we need to go forward on that point. Also we do have an estimate. I know Mr. Wilkinson is here somewhere. I can't see him in the crowd, but he assured me he-- there he is. I know we had a rough estimate on this, and when you look at the type of money that we have spent so far to get to this point, all out of the solid waste fund, I might add, so it's not general funds, tax dollars, going toward this, and you look at the size and scope of this project over a 50-year period for well in excess of $300 million, I don't see the amounts that have been estimated as being a huge impact on completing this project. Mr. Weigel. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did you have anything, because I had something to say if you didn't? I want to read this, and then I'll stop making this same point. But I've never -- I've never, that I can recall, had a staff report in my two years on the board that said under the fiscal impact section, "The cost of condemning the temporary easements is not known at this time." We don't generally approve things that are not known, especially when the next sentence goes on to say, "The county's appraiser for this project will be completing an appraisal report." I'm only asking that we wait for that report. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And would that report -- and maybe this is a question for staff. Would that be -- having that report in hand, fill in the cost column on this particular action, because I somewhat agree with Commissioner Constantine? I'm not sure that that's terribly relevant in the overall scope. Not that cost is never an issue, but in looking at the overall scope and what we knew this was going to cost, some of that was factored in. But what kind of time frame are we talking about, and would that fill in that blank? Do we have someone from staff here that can answer that question for me? MR. RUSSELL: David Russell, solid waste department, for the record. The work that's being done to actually get these temporary easements and the order of magnitude, we're talking of possibly ten, twenty thousand dollars, on that order. We have hired outside -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me, Mr. Russell. The question is, is the value of the easements -- does this -- MR. RUSSELL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the easement's for a 30-day period. It's not in perpetuity, just temporary. MR. RUSSELL: It's going to be a minor amount. Of course, it's the whole step in the litigation that we know that is coming, and it's a necessary step. But looking at funding a 50-year site with the capacity of 35 million tons on a per-ton basis, you're talking an infinitesimally small amount in the order of the whole project. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are three sites that-- in this, throughout the whole process we've gone through, that -- in the -- that the board set up. We need to get on and do our little soil borings and fill the hole back in and get off again. There's a cost associated with that, and as you said, when compared to the entire cost of what we're looking at, it's next to nothing. We have an estimate in the ten- to twenty-thousand-dollar range. It's not next to nothing as far as me, but out of a $350 million project -- I can't do the math there, but it's a very small percentage. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is that for all three sites you're looking at 20,0007 MR. RUSSELL: Well, ultimately the valuation of the property is going to be decided in the court litigation; so with this step, we're not going to be able to establish the -- you know, that ultimate price. COMHISSIONER BERRY: There's something I don't understand. We're going to try and get access to these three parcels of property to do these soil borings or whatever, and we're trying to establish a cost of what it's going to be to get onto those properties; is that correct? MR. RUSSELL: Correct. COMHISSIONER BERRY: And we don't know what it's going to cost to do that because we're going to be fighting this in litigation; is that correct? And how long is that going to take? MR. RUSSELL: Well, that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel can respond to that. MR. WEIGEL: If I may. Thank you. The resolution today is an authorization by the board to acquire the temporary ingress/egress right and the ability to get onto the premises for the limited investigative purposes for no more than a 30-day period; and the fact is, is that we don't know how much it will cost for us to do that. We don't know for a dead certainty that we'll be in litigation. Some of the prior statements and responses that the county has had would indicate that there is certainly a strong possibility of litigation. But in good faith we -- if the board should approve this resolution, the staff will be going forward with the county attorney's office to seek to acquire by gift, and if that doesn't work, then by purchase, based upon an appraisal that we have. And that appraisal assists us in negotiating in good faith to get on site for these limited purposes. And then if that doesn't work, the appraisal also stands up as an appraisal that would be used in a lawsuit for temporary taking, a condemnation lawsuit for the limited purposes of getting on this property. Now, in terms of getting, in an expeditious fashion, not losing lots of time -- and I know we've heard in previous board meetings the concept of years of litigation and things of this nature -- I believe that the county can show the public purpose and the nature of what it's attempting to do here by gift, purchase, or condemnation. We would file the lawsuit, if that's appropriate to do. The courts are, by rule and procedure, to give us an expedited calendaring date. It doesn't guarantee we'll be on in six weeks from when we filed the lawsuit, but an attempt should be made, and we would expect that we would get on within a reasonable time into the court for the hearing. Upon approving of the public purpose and the efficacy of what the county's attempting to do here under the quick-take scenario, it's merely a question of valuation. It's not a question of getting on the site. And again, the appraisals that are being done right now are -- we'll have them in 45 days, 60 days at the longest. In the meantime, we can continue, you know, negotiation, discussion, with each of the property owners or their representatives, but I hope that's a little more background. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just need to make sure I understand clearly. MR. WEIGEL: The $20,000 figure that we're talking about here, that's just a guess, but I in no way want to endorse that figure. We're still waiting for that figure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to make sure I clearly understand it. Assuming we approve public purpose, we go through the quick-take action, it means there will not be years and years of litigation to get on and do this peculiar site. Obviously -- to do this particular exercise. Obviously, if we move on and decide we want to try to purchase property for the use of a landfill, we get into a different action. But as far as simply temporary easements to get on, there is a process to go through; and assuming we can prove public purpose, that we don't -- we're not going to see years and years of litigation to get onto this. MR. WEIGEL: I wouldn't expect so for these kinds of limited purpose takings. And again, if the court determines the limited purpose taking is appropriate, then merely to be decided later, potentially by a jury, is the valuation of this limited purpose taking. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let him finish, please. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. MR. WEIGEL: Appeal from this is rare, and extended time for appeal, I think, is also relatively short. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And by passing this resolution, what it allows us to do is get an appraisal so that we have our best-guess estimate from a professional; we can make some sort of offer to the property owners. If they decline, then we go forward with the action that you've just described in that time frame. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we don't pass this resolution, that essentially stops the process, if they opt out of that. MR. WEIGEL: It stops the process for the time being because the staff won't have the direction to go forward and try to obtain by gift, purchase, or ultimately by condemnation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you're finished now, my question is, what's magic in the next 45 days that we can't get the appraisal before we give you that direction? MR. WEIGEL: I'd say the only thing magic is that to the extent that it has been the board direction in the past to proceed in a businesslike, efficient manner within the ultimate time frame of looking for a new landfill site and making that determination. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But nobody, nobody -- Commissioner Constantine, who wants this site approved as soon as possible, even, I believe, talks about seven or eight years. I'm talking about 24, 30 years. I don't think 45 days is too long to wait for this commission to know how much money it's authorizing be spent. That's all I'm asking today. Let's get the appraisal. That should take 45 days. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I think you've made it clear. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'm going to keep making it clear. MR. RUSSELL: Excuse me. I would suggest that even given that appraisal, that's the county's appraisal number, that number is going to be debated. I mean, that just -- that's a starting point for another whole debate. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to -- let's let Ms. Passidomo come up and threaten us now. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Passidomo. And then I have one other, Mr. Chairman. MS. PASSIDOMO: My name is Kathleen Passidomo, and I represent the owners of the sites in question, along with many other farming interests in Collier County. I'm not here to threaten you, Commissioner Norris, or any of the commissioners. I don't believe that that's appropriate. And in fact, the farming community wants to work with the county commission in the landfill relocation process, and I'd like to address that. I know I'm going to run out of time, so I've got to move quickly. I remember the last -- one thing that struck me regarding the earlier discussion is that there seemed to be some comment that the only thing that the commission needs to determine is whether or not there's a public purpose for the access. That's not quite correct because there are two tests that the condemning authority needs to address: Public purpose and necessity, reasonable necessity. And in fact, your proposed ordinance that you're going to be signing today finds that it's reasonably necessary -- and I think it was line 20 -- to gain access to the property. So what I'd like to point out is that that's a very important test, and reasonable necessity means just that. We take the position, my clients take the position, that it's not necessary for the county to pursue access to these properties and further, to even acquire additional properties for the landfill relocation because, I think, the bottom line, my clients believe that the landfill issue needs to be looked at in a coordinated, comprehensive manner, and we believe it's really not doing that. There are so many issues out there that the commission needs to address before you determine to go out there and spend county money for acquisition of land. We -- I have been here before this commission on numerous ancillary issues ranging from the golf course property to the maintenance shed on the present landfill to issues about cost, and it seems to me that this is a cart-before-the-horse type of issue. I have been to the Citizens Advisory Committee meetings. The Citizens Advisory Committee did a great job, but you know one thing they didn't look at was the present site. So we're heading down a path -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not true, Ms. Passidomo. I've been to virtually all the meetings. I think you've been to two. I assure you that was included. Virtually every piece of property in Collier County was included in what we looked at. MS. PASSIDOMO: I beg to differ, Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I must have imagined it. I was at those meetings. I'm very, very sure what we considered and what we didn't. I didn't see you at those meetings, and I assure you we looked at every piece of property in Collier County, including the existing site. MS. PASSIDOMO: Commissioner, we don't need to debate because that's not appropriate. I think the issue here and the bottom line is the county commission is looking at a long-range process, a 30-year, 40-year, 50-year process, and I think the cart is coming before the horse. The farming community wants to work with the county commission. We have received numerous calls from people who have information regarding issues regarding the landfill. For example, some of the things that my clients request the board to do: Look again at the present site. The odor control has been the only-- the only issue that really has come before the commission is the odor, and I don't believe it's come back before the board as to the controls that have been put in place earlier this spring, the wastewater treatment plant issue, whether or not the odor comes from that. I know the board discussed it at one time, but there never was a resolution of that. There's certain new technology that's out there. The two issues, very briefly because I have 50 seconds, are the reasonably necessary test may not be met because you have other options and other alternatives that you need to explore. You have a landfill that has 24 years of life left -- and I think we got that from Mr. Russell. I may be off by a year or two -- plus 300 acres adjacent to it that you could utilize; so it's not necessary to do it right now. It's not, as Commissioner Mac'Kie said, 45 days. You have plenty of time. You may ultimately decide to move it, but don't foreclose all the other opportunities and options that you have out there. And that's what we're looking for, and we want to help you with that. If you have any questions, I would be happy to respond. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I do have one question. Ms. Passidomo, were you present at all the public hearings regarding the landfill contract? MS. PASSIDOMO: I was not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MS. PASSIDOMO: I did read it, however. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because -- well, if you read the transcript, then you would know full well that exactly what you're asking for has been done, and you're asking us to do it all over again, and you're willing to help us as long as we don't locate it on any of your clients' property. That's really what it comes down to. You're asking us to relive the entire discussion again, to do it all over again, and I guess, in your opinion, you're willing to determine for the residents of the estates whether or not they should have a landfill expanded next to them. That's really not your role or your clients' role. We went through that in a public process here, and this board made a policy decision, and I understand policy decisions can be changed down the road. That policy decision was that the reason landfills move is because the communities around them grow toward them or in on them. You know, that was the reason it was moved for the first time here. So by negating that, I think you're doing a tremendous disservice to the people who live in the estates. MS. PASSIDOMO: Commissioner Hancock, that's not the intention of me or my clients. The issue is not -- you know, my clients just don't want it because it's not our backyard kind of thing. There's a lot of issues that we're dealing with in terms of the agricultural lands of the sites in question and the value of them, and there's a lot of issues regarding sites where you may have willing sellers. You may determine, as I said earlier, to move the landfill, but what we're objecting to is that there is some very valuable land that the Citizens Advisory Committee has looked at and has selected, and the agricultural criteria was not up high on the list for the selection process of that committee. And there are so many issues that should be addressed, and that's all we're asking for. We're not asking for -- we're not -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. And then I have one additional, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Agoston, if I could have you stand by, please. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, Commissioners. Merry Christmas, if I don't see you. Ladies and gentlemen, people at home. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A1, can I have a merry Christmas even if you do see me? MR. PERKINS: Yes. No, seriously, people. You know, everybody overlooks Christmas because it's a way to make a buck. You better take and go back and realize what Christmas is all about. Well, are you ready? You want to hear it all again? Okay. First of all, when you talk about the landfill, I don't want to talk about the landfill. Our overly paid people find it very profitable to maintain a problem such as garbage. Not once -- and I have challenged every person on the landfill committee, and most of them are all environmentalists, to fix the problem, not just move it around, not hide it, not keep throwing money at it. Fix the problem. The technology is out there to do it. We can take and recycle, because the state mandates that we must recycle a certain amount. They're increasing it. At the same time we can compost, put it back on the earth from where it came from. We have the technology, the ability, and we're sure as hell going to spend the money. So let's fix the problem. Now, as far as the farms go, I don't want to put 4,000 people out of business, and I don't want to impact Immokalee economic-wise. You're going to take and actually destroy a town because their whole hub is farming and groves; yet you have a willing seller that has ample amount of room who has been trying to take and get you to pay attention to them to put in a waste-recovery facility. They're willing to take and support you, involvement, put their resources behind you. And by the way, this is Oberlin College out of Ohio who is totally willing to support this commission if they take and go for a recycling -- a waste-recovery facility. They have the land; they're even willing to bond it out. That means it's a freebie. But the technology and the information that they have available around the world to fix this problem is where I'm coming from. We're getting bigger and bigger and bigger day by day. We're going to get more and more and more trash, and if I was Waste Management, I would just drool about the amount of money that the new contracts are going to bring in. Back on a couple of other things. On the radio, WNOG, David Russell said we've already spent $2 million on the search for the landfill. Two million bucks. Oberlin College, I think they want four, and we're nowhere near it. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: A1, I need -- MR. PERKINS: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I want to correct that because we've spent $2 million on landfill consultants to date, most of whom told us to stay at the present site and to buy the adjacent expansion property. That's what we spent $2 million to find out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I need to correct that because the Post, Buckley report from 1991 did one thing: It looked at expanding it. It looked at either expanding it to the east or to the north. Ms. Passidomo was concerned about not looking all over. The 1991 Post, Buckley report didn't look anywhere except expanding. MR. RUSSELL: That was especially in support, and I also talked about that $2 million number. A good portion of that, over $800,000, was related to the incinerator issue. And also in that cost is the present fee for what we're doing now in that total cost; so it isn't correct to say that it's $2 million to support staying where we are now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, none of this has anything to do with the question, including most of Mr. Perkins' comments; so let's keep that in mind, please. MR. PERKINS: Okay. Well, the word that irritates me is condemnation here. You've shown intent, and with intent the legal part of this thing is going to get carried away for God knows how long. And I had a rough estimate. It's going to cost us 30 million bucks before you can get one foot on that property, and believe me, you're playing around with people who can well afford it. Back to fixing a problem. You've got to remember that Oberlin site is downstream of all the water supply for the entire county. What, Marco Island? You know where Marco Island's going to get their water from? Well, anyhow, you do. Anyhow, the rest of the county, with the exception of Marco Island, gets their water from north of the proposed -- what I proposed -- waste-recovery site. It's upstream. By the way, we have -- the landfill out there now has two unlined cells that could put leachate into the water supply anytime they want to. By the way, you guys better pay attention. The South Florida Water Management is working you over also. Anyhow, it's an old farm. We're talking about a new farm. Farms are farms. Let's fix the problem. I heard you the first time. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, we now have three more. We'll have Mr. Agoston, and then I have Mr. Billie. If I could get you to come forward, please, sir. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself. I have followed the selection of the landfill for quite some time. And while I'm not as knowledgeable as Mr. Perkins seems to be, I have caught kind of a dichotomy here. I'm looking at the evaluative criteria which was used to exclude the college property, which is apparently the only willing seller. The reason it was excluded was because of Rookery Bay and the Henderson Creek drainage basin, which apparently the environmental people have found to be in danger if the landfill gets placed there. What I have a problem with that, is that I also listened to a number of presentations on the safety of the landfill, and to me, if I'm looking at this from my point of view, if they're worried about Rookery Bay and the danger the landfill presents to it, are they going to worry about my grandchildren, the drinking water they're going to drink? I understand these things don't go to hell that rapidly, so I'm safe, and so are you. But down the road if that landfill leaks and either the environmentalists say that the landfill is safe, in which case why do they worry about Rookery Bay -- I mean, there is something somebody is selling there, and it's directly opposing their own stand. And I've been looking for an answer for this particular issue for quite some time, never got a satisfactory one, and I would like to know. I live out there. This is close to me. And I have two little grandsons. They also live out there, and frankly, I resent anyone putting the Rookery Bay fishes or whatever type of animals they may have out there ahead of my grandchildren. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Billie. And then, Ms. Larsen, if I could also have you come forward, please. MR. BILLIE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Good to meet you again. For many years I have seen a landfill. I'm sure a lot of you never been near the landfill, never acknowledged them. And each and every one of you's responsibility to damage the land or the air. Don't say we do. We do not. Because we all are. You think about your grandkids, your great-grandkids. You should do something about it, trying to cut down what waste human beings create. We the responsibility, all the water pollution, air pollution, land damage, we all responsibilities. Nobody else. We, the people, is the responsibility. We cannot continue living on this land like this. The earth is the one that's taken care of us. Earth we're living on. Earth, the one that nourish us, not the money, not the commissioners, not the government. The air, the water, the earth, the trees the one that's important to all of us. Take care of it. Maybe we can live continuously. If we do not, we all damage ourselves for all people. The simplest thought, you don't have to go educate for 40 years to learn that; you can see it and look at it and can tell what's going on around you. Go outside the building once in a while. Go out there and see what's going on out there once in a while. Quit pointing at each other all the time. We're not going anywhere. Let's take care of the water and air for the future generations, for the people, not for the money. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Larsen. MS. LARSEN: Like the speakers before me, I'm not here to just speak for myself. I'm here to speak -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: What is your name, please? MS. LARSEN: My name is Shannon Larsen. I'm here to speak for the younger generations and the generations yet to come. Landfills and incinerators are not the answer; we all know that. They're poisoning the air, and they're poisoning our waters. There are many communities right now today who have been very successful in eliminating their waste problems simply by asking the individuals and their communities to pull together and stop creating so much waste. In Vermont they don't have this problem anymore because individuals are limited to the amount of waste that they can put out each week for collection. They almost have completely eliminated their problem. Germany has drastically reduced their problem, so drastically that they don't even have enough waste anymore to keep the incinerators and landfills going. So why can't we do that? There is no more reason to keep polluting the earth. There's not going to be a place for the younger generations to live anymore. We have to start thinking about them, and putting another landfill is not what's going to help them. I'm here to speak for them because the young kids today know what's going on, but they can't stand here and speak to you and ask you to stop doing these things. Just simply because a solid waste business is a growing business, it generates a lot of dollars, but it does not generate a future for the young kids. These are the ones we must think about, and I just know that there is time. There isn't the necessity to put this landfill in. There are other means to do this, and you know that, and we know that, and you're just going to have to request this to be done. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of thoughts. First, a couple of the speakers mentioned, including Commissioner Mac'Kie mentioned, time frame, and I think it's important to break it down. When we signed the contract with Waste Management a couple of years ago, it was for -- we were told a 22-year time frame at that time was available, if they utilized every aspect of that. That would take us down to 20 years. We're required by law to have inventory close to ten years for future use, which leaves us a window of ten years. And you start looking at you're going to need -- when you have decided upon a point, you're going to need a couple of years to prepare that site; so you're down to eight. You're going to need three to four years to permit that site; so you're down to four years. I suspect that once a site is selected, there may be some arguments and some lawsuits. If we have threats of lawsuits and disagreement over a temporary easement for 30 days, we surely will have disagreement if we decide to choose a site, and it's not a willing seller, and that may take a couple of years. So we're down to maybe a two-year window if everything goes like clockwork along the way, and so we can't throw out the number 20 years, 30 years, because that's not the amount of time we have. As far as it being a money issue, I get a little bit of a kick out of that because we put out an invitation for bids and proposals for any technology on the planet, and what came back were a number of different technologies like recycling facilities, composting, and so on, and the cheapest one was three times as expensive as what we're doing right now. So when we talk about money issues, it's not about a landfill and making money. It's about Collier County has the lowest or second-lowest tipping fees. What you all pay every year to have your trash picked up is, I think, the second lowest in the State of Florida. Lee County pays more than twice what we pay; so it is not a money issue. But regardless of technology -- I agree, and I hope at some point we don't have to landfill. But regardless of technology, whatever it is, if it's a recycling facility or if it's composting or it it's something we don't even know yet, we have to have a place to do it, and we are running out of that place at our existing site. Now, the issue of closing out all the other options was what Ms. Passidomo said. We're not doing that. The only issue before us today is a temporary easement so we can continue the process which this board of commissioners started 16 or 18 months ago and get to the position where this board can make an informed decision. And we can't do that until we have all the information, and this final step will allow us to have that information. I'm going to make a motion we approve the resolution and continue the process. In my mind, we are simply ratifying what the board said it would do on several occasions, but specifically what we said we would do about eight weeks ago when we said we would get on the site so at least we can have the appropriate information from which to base our decision. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: In the interest of time, all I'm going to say is that when we did that eight weeks ago and I objected because I was concerned about the cost, I was told, don't worry. We'll know the cost. We'll find that out before we start. Now we're starting, and we still don't know the cost. Forty-five days -- I wouldn't spend money at home without knowing how much. I'd ask you to wait 45 days to find out what the county's appraisal -- even though we know that's the lowest number, let's find out what's the minimum amount of money we're authorizing to be spent. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The irony for me is, Commissioner Hac'Kie, when you first got on the board, for probably 12 months every Tuesday you would gripe about the amount of time it took government to do things, "God, it's always another month. It's always another few weeks," and here you are asking for more of that. The fact is, we have a best-guess estimate right now. We'll get an official appraisal, but that's not going to be the final word. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But your county attorney would not put that in his staff report, and he's the one making the request, and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It appears to me the only unknown cost -- Mr. Russell has told us what we think the hard land costs are going to be, ballpark anyway, and it seems to me the costs we're talking about are the legal costs that may occur due to a significant challenge here. That's the real unknown. And when you're dealing with these issues, that will always be an unknown. I doubt there are many clients that walk in your office and you tell them in representing them, this is what it's going to cost you when it's all over. You don't know the legal cost. So we'll never nail that down. And it depends on the landowners; what is it worth to them to fight this and pay Ms. Passidomo or whomever else to do that? That's a cost we'll never nail down, but Mr. Russell has given us a ballpark. MR. RUSSELL: That number that I gave you is just billable hours to get the information to 45 days. Now, granted, this whole process is going to cost significantly more than that. And how much, it's just at this point -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And no matter what it costs -- MR. RUSSELL: -- you can't put a dollar number on it, but the reality is for good land use planning to take care of our future, it's something that's got to be done. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And no matter what the cost, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you'll probably object to it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And Commissioner Constantine will probably go with it, and we're going to be back in the same boat; so I don't think we're gaining anything by waiting. And it's amazing that we're sitting here and almost being accused of planning too far out into the future. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second for that motion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. But I just have something to say. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion before your comments. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've been real quiet down here, but mainly because I haven't gotten a chance to talk. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You'll get pushier as you stay on the board longer. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think I'll have a problem with that. But I didn't commit to any of this, okay? So I'm -- I didn't make any commitment eight weeks ago to do anything because I wasn't here. But I do have some concern over the cost, and I never have been real excited about writing a blank check to anybody; so I do have some concerns there. I don't want to slow the process down because I do feel like somewhere along the line we've got to get to the bottom of this thing and get on with life. This landfill thing, I'm certainly very much aware of this landfill thing because no matter if it stays or it moves, it's in my district, because it ain't going to go anywhere else. You're certainly not going to move it on Central Avenue. So the bottom line is that if it's going to be around, it's going to be something that my district is going to have to deal with, and I personally have some real problems with going into good farmland. That's bothered me right from the get-go, but that's beside the point, I guess. But I have a real hard time writing the blank check this morning. That's a real difficult situation for me. I wish that there had been some dollar amount put down here. I'd have felt a little more comfortable with it. So I'm just -- I'm not sure that I'm going to be able to support this. We don't know where we're going. I would have thought after a couple of years we'd have had a better handle on all of this than what we have. We've spent an awful lot of money trying to figure out what to do with trash. I don't know what the answer is. I, too, have heard all the reports on recycling, and as many people as you want to talk to, they're going to offer the greatest thing in the world to solve your problem. If that was so, it would have been done a long time ago. So there's no quick fix to it, and at this point in time, I understand the resolution. I know what you're trying to do. I just have a real -- I wish we could go in there and just get this information. And I don't understand why we have to go through all of this stuff just to find out, because I guarantee you, probably when we get done, we're not going to know any more than we did when we went into it. But I can't support writing a blank check. All that for that, I guess. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Well, we do have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Aye. Opposed. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That motion carries 3 to 2. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And it's not a gender thing; so don't -- (Laughter) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, can we take a brief break before we get on to the county manager item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll take a short break. (A short break was held.) Item #8C1 GRANT AGREEMENT TO ENHANCE INTERNET CONNECTIVITY TO COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARIES - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll reconvene our meeting. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Since the next item is mine -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No, it's not. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Actually we're going to go back to the item that we skipped earlier, and that was 16(C)(2), now 8(C)(1). Mr. Olliff, if you could answer Mr. Constantine's question on that point. MR. OLLIFF: Real briefly, I think the item is simply to provide some wiring connections for the existing computer system that's there. The $30,000 grant is a no-match grant, and all it will allow us to do is to allow the public to have access to certain public domain databases that have no charge associated with them, and there are no ongoing costs. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, move the item. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and second on Item 16(C)(2). All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #10A DISCUSSION RE THE COUNTY HANAGER'S POSITION - COHMISSIONER BERRY TO PROVIDE SEARCH COHMITTEE CRITERIA; COUNTY MANAGER TO PROVIDE PROFILE OF AD TO BE RUN NATIONALLY Okay. Our next item is 10(A), the county manager's position. MR. CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I added this on for obvious reasons. Our county manager has told us he'll be leaving in February. There's been some discussion, according to the newspaper, anyway, and individually, as to what direction we should head, and I thought perhaps it would be a good idea if we had a little of that discussion now amongst ourselves while we're all here. I have a couple of thoughts, and I know both Mr. Dotrill and, from what I've read, a couple of you have indicated that you'd like to form a citizens committee to be a part of the search, which I think is a great idea, and I think the community being a part of getting our county manager is an excellent idea. My only concern with that is that we need to be a little careful if we have people on that committee who frequently come to the board of commissioners for business. If they're choosing who their executive of the county is, you have the potential for at least an appearance of a conflict there; so that's just something we want to be wary of. I don't know what the feeling of the rest of the board is. I think if we can constitute a good citizens committee and advertise in the appropriate places -- and I'd like to advertise nationally and, obviously, consider our in-house candidates as well. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I have a couple of thoughts on that, and Commissioner Hac'Kie, I see, has some, too, as well. A couple of things: I know that there are several county manager/city manager candidates within the State of Florida that have quietly expressed some interest in this job. So one thing that we may want to do is to simply quickly advertise, see if we have some good response quickly, and move forward from that position rather than go through the long, time-consuming process of constituting a committee and going through the procedural items with that committee, which would consume a considerable amount of time. With Mr. Dotrill leaving on February the 10th, that would almost preclude us being able to go directly to a new county manager rather than an interim manager. So while the committee may be a good idea, and it probably is, we may be able to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish in a more rapid fashion. Ms. Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'd like to -- I agree. We're going to have to have an interim. I don't think we're going to be able to have a permanent replacement by February 10th or 1st or whatever that date is. But my contribution to this discussion, I think we need to do a temporary -- I'm sorry, I think we need to do a committee. I think we need to do a national advertising, and we need to do that now. My contribution to that would be that we should also ask Mr. Dotrill to prepare what a headhunter would do for us. I'd like for us to avoid headhunters, and we'll just get their stable of people that, you know, they're marketing around. But what a headhunter would do for us is develop -- would ask us to develop a profile of the most important characteristics of the person we're seeking. And Mr. Dotrill, I'm sure, could produce that for us for us to look at and rank so that we know exactly what it is we're looking for. Avoid a headhunter. Go with the citizens committee, and beginning advertising soon. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess if we're really trying to arrive at a consensus, if not total agreement, on what we should do, I agree also that it should be advertised nationally. I'm not afraid of not meeting the February 10th deadline. We have very capable people on staff, both as the assistant county manager and division heads, that can act in an interim basis while that is ongoing. My biggest concern is that we give the process the tremendous amount of credit that is commensurate with the level of experience and the abilities we're looking for to be the county manager for the premier community in this state. And, you know, the last thing I want to do is step quickly if it doesn't mean thoroughly. We have a pool of individuals that are tremendously respected and talented in this already called your productivity committee. Look at the resumes of those individuals. You'll find elements of a search team sitting right there, folks that work for Fortune 500 companies and ran Fortune 500 companies, people that have gone through probably national searches for executive positions before. I'm not saying that's inclusive, but it's a resource that we can tap that are not individuals that come before this board all the time. Commissioner Berry has had the fortune to sit on search committees and to form search committees for the school board and for, I think, recently for a principal as a nationwide search. I heard nothing but great comments about that process and how they arrived at that choice, and that's probably the most recent nationwide search I've heard of that I think that was done very, very well. So I would be interested in seeing how that was structured, because I'm not sure how we want to put it together. But I do think we need to go nationwide, and we need to, if anything else, if nothing else, be cautious and deliberate for this position. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I echo the same sentiments as the rest of the commissioners. I don't think there's a need to be in a panic. I think we proceed very judiciously in this matter, and certainly an interim is going to be a fact of life and probably should be, and I think that way we'll make the best decision. But I do believe, as the rest of you do, that a committee is a good idea. A national search is fine, and certainly encourage people within the system to apply as well. I think that that's important. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: An interesting point Mr. Dotrill made during his resignation announcement was he's been our county manager ten years. And the frequency with which that occurs in his business is pretty small; and I guess, if we are cautious and deliberate, as you suggest, my hope is we find someone who is deserving and can work with us for a long term like that again. It's not to the community's benefit when you have changes every two and three years, which unfortunately, is more common than not. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I don't know if some of you have-- I don't know what your longevity is in Collier County, but I've been here long enough to know that this could be a swinging door. I don't think that anybody wins in those situations, and I think it's important that you get somebody and maintain stability. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would it be appropriate for this board to appoint a head, not just of the selection committee, but someone to bring back information and ideas on how the selection committee should be formed and what its course of action should be? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask -- that really follows right along the lines that I was thinking about asking Mr. Dotrill to develop, what a headhunter would otherwise offer to us. And is that-- do you have any ideas along that line? MR. DORRILL: Typically what they'll do -- and there are three other Florida counties at the moment that are in the same process, so we do need to develop a schedule. And the bible for people who do what I do is the International City and County Manager's Newsletter, and fortunately, it comes out every other week, and it has job-posting opportunities on a fairly short advertising deadline. It's not like we'd have to wait to get in the February issue of some national journal. That comes out every other week. I think that each one of you have already touched on a couple of things. I think in advance it shouldn't be my responsibility, but yours to pick and choose from a long list of managerial traits and personality, traits of what is important to you individually and then collectively in your next county manager. That's called an executive recruitment profile. We can develop the ad and the schedule. I think how you want to pick a citizens committee should be directed through the board's office, but then work through my office and the human resource office to just develop some of the pick-and-choose opportunities for you. We'll get our ad written, and we'll show you a schedule as to when that ad can run. You do have an outstanding reputation now, and it wouldn't surprise me, based on your comments on advertising, for you to get 300 resumes. Several years ago when I had the opportunity in Hillsborough County, they had, I think, 299 resumes for that opportunity. I think you need to develop -- give a little thought, not today, but give a little thought as to how you want to direct the citizens committee to short list and what the size of the short list should contain, but then the ultimate decision as to who gets invited to an interview and who is interviewed needs to be with the county commission and not a committee. And I think that we can develop a lot of those thoughts for you and even share that with you in inner-office correspondence by the end of the week. And at least that way if you want to talk more about impaneling a committee, you can do that next Tuesday. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which we need to do next Tuesday because it's our last meeting before the end of the year. So if we're looking for direction, I'd like to give Mr. Dotrill direction to begin development of an ad that we could look at and approve next week and to help us to prepare something for us to rank those -- the profiles of the county manager that we want to hire, just as he described. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think I'd like to see some current ads that are running and just be able to read some of them and see how they're stated. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good idea. COMHISSIONER BERRY: If you could provide those. MR. DORRILL: We can do that today because we keep copies of the newsletters, and it will give you -- it's just what I would call a flavor of the types of ads. Some of them are very good; some of them are poor; but it will give you a flavor, and then you can compare that against whatever draft the human resources department prepares for next week, if that's what your desires are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that's a general direction, I would also like to ask Commissioner Berry to provide us next Tuesday with some of, I guess, search committee -- the committee criteria that was used. And again, the only experience that I have heard about recently was the hiring of Tony at Barton Collier. But I haven't been exposed with a nationwide search before, and I heard great things about that process; so I would like to maybe ask Commissioner Berry to bring that information to us as a potential structure, and then we can all think about that in the meantime. Okay? MR. DORRILL: Consider it done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Let's move on then to the public comment section. Do we have public comment today? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, I don't believe so. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 96-79, RE PETITION PUD-85-8(5), ROBIN CARVER OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO EAGLE CREEK PUD BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 656 TO 470, INCREASING THE BUILDING HEIGHTS TO FOUR STORIES, PROVIDING AN ACCESSORYY SETBACK OF 10 FEET ALONG THE PUD BOUNDARY IN TRACT M-2 AND REVISING THE MASTER PLAN TO PROVIDE FOR A SECONDARY ACCESS CONNECTING WITH THE COMHERCIAL CENTER, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF S.R. 951, BEHNID THE EAGLE CREEK SHOPPING CENTER - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we will go to the afternoon portion of our agenda and directly to 12(B)(1), Petition PUD-85-8(5) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, are they looking to reduce the number of dwellings from 656 to 470? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's the proposal. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Petition PUD-85-8, Robin Carver of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek. The petitioner is requesting to not only reduce the number of dwelling units to 470, but to reduce the density to 1.58 units per acre, but they also are requesting changes to increase the maximum building height from three stories to four stories. They're also proposing to provide an accessory setback structure in Tract M-2 to offer garages. They're also requesting a revision to the master plan to provide a secondary access to the commercial shopping center; and, lastly, they're also proposing a revision to the distance between structures to be 30 feet. In view of the traffic impacts, the statement indicates that the project will not generate any -- the amendment will not generate any additional trips; therefore, it's consistent with the level of service standards. The project will not affect any other level of service standards. Staff has found this project consistent with the Growth Management Plan. No letters have been received for or against. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition on November 21st, and they unanimously approved. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, the request for an increase in height -- are any of these tracts on the perimeter of the project, or are they all internal to the project? MR. BELLOWS: They're basically internal to the project behind the Eagle Creek Shopping Center. I can show you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you grab the microphone, the second question is, because this is a PUD, the noticing requirement of 300 feet does not apply internally; is that correct? So in other words, people who may be next to the tracts that are going from 30 to 40 feet -- MR. BELLOWS: No, it does apply internally. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It does apply internally? MR. BELLOW: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Tract M-2 is located here (indicating). Eagle Creek commercial is here (indicating), Tract M-i, here (indicating). This is a multifamily development. The proposed access, I believe, on your PUD master plan, it shows -- and the petitioner also has a larger map showing the revised access on the master plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When the petitioner is ready to speak, I might just ask for a little explanation on what the height impacts are and that kind of thing, just to help me understand it a little better. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think the petitioner is ready. MS. CARVER: Good morning. Robin Carver with Wilson, Miller. I'm here to represent Eagle Creek Properties. And we're here today to ask for a few different variations on the PUD amendment. And, Mr. Hancock -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. You'll need that hand-held microphone around back. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: You'd think in all of our renovations we could have made that a little easier. MS. CARVER: The only tract that we're talking about for the height increase and the reduction and the accessory setback is Tract M-2, which is located here (indicating) in the northeast portion of the project. It's actually abutting the commercial properties that sit up here (indicating), The Shops at Eagle Creek on 41 and 951. That is the only tract that we are requesting that increase on. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Carver, let me ask you a question on that. Now, the four-story buildings that you're proposing are -- have the lake between them and the existing housing units; is that correct? MS. CARVER: Yes. These are the three buildings right here (indicating) that we're proposing four story. They are oriented to the southwest over a lake area. They are -- adjacent to that is also the swimming pool club (indicating) and then some units over on this side (indicating) that really aren't affected by it because the orientation is over the southwest. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's only those three units? MS. CARVER: Only those three buildings. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. No other questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions? Public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve Petition PUD-85-8(5). COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? MS. CARVER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Ms. Carver. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 96-80, RE PETITION PUD-94-10(1), BARBARA CAWLEY OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC. REQUESTING TO AMEND THE 300 ACRE GOODLETTE ROAD PUD DOCUMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DELETING THE GOLF COURSE USES AND REVISING THE MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD - ADOPTED Next item, 12(B)(2), Petition PUD-94-10(1), Goodlette Road PUD. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of the project planning staff. Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to hand out some -- a revised page to Table 2 of the PUD document. Petitioner has requested this in response to some concerns that were raised during the Planning Commission. The petition is to amend the 300-acre Goodlette Road PUD for the purposes of deleting the golf course use and to revise the master plan. Due to changes in market conditions, petitioner proposes to remove the golf course use within the PUD and to revise the master plan to reflect this change. The golf course is applicable only to the southern portion of the PUD and will be replaced with open space, lakes, residential dwellings. The residential units will be similar to the existing low-density dwellings on the adjacent properties to the northeast. There is also an existing wall along this boundary, and the residential areas will be buffered in accordance with the Land Development Code. To assure this, the petitioner has added a Stipulation 8 on this handout on the bottom of the page. Basically, they're providing standards for residential units within 150 feet of the Crossings on common property line between this and the PUD. They're basically limiting the structures to Category 1-, 2-, and 3-type -- and 4- -- structures, which are single-family units. They're attached town houses, duplexes, zero lot line, or single-family detached, providing for setbacks of 30 feet in this area; and the maximum height will be 30 feet measured from the height between the eaves and the ridge of the roof. Category 3 and 4 structures in this area shall be limited to one story. No Category 5 structures shall be constructed in this area, and this basically is to help the residents in the Crossings to allay any fears that they'll have with a large multifamily project in this 150-foot buffer area. I believe the petitioner has a map showing this 150-foot area enlarged. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, before I question, I need to say that I've had discussions with the petitioner and the residents of Pine Ridge and the Crossings, but as according to law, I will base my decision on the information presented today. This particular change comes out of, at least in part, discussions I've had with the petitioners. So I'd like to ask you to confirm for me if this is the case with these development standards. Do they height-wise and setback-wise mimic the development standards in the Crossings? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So they're really basically the same development standards across the wall in this -- MR. BELLOWS: I think they're somewhat more stringent in some cases. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are they? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What about buffering in that area? What steps have been taken to visually separate the two communities with buffering and if that's been done? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's an existing wall, and the petitioner is proposing to landscape per the Land Development Code. But the wall on the side of the setback, the staff is of the opinion that is adequate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's your opinion that it is indeed compatible -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- As far as land use setbacks and so forth? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have had discussions with petitioner on the site; however, my decision, as required by law, will be based solely on the information provided during this public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Same for me. Does the petitioner want to say anything on this? MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, members of the board. I'm Don Pickworth. Just a word or two of introduction, and then I want Ms. Cawley to point out a couple of things. As Mr. Bellows has said -- and we have discussed with all of you these concerns, because when we went to the Planning Commission, some residents of the Crossings appeared and were concerned. And so we've -- we've tried to come up with something that we thought would meet the concerns as were expressed at the Planning Commission meeting, and I think this is -- what you have there is our response. What you end up with is, that block in orange (indicating) represents 150-foot wide no-condo zone, basically, is what it does. And I think Ms. Cawley has a couple other comments on the site plan, and then with that, I guess, we'll answer questions at the end rather than spend a lot of time now. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. CAWLEY: Good morning. Barbara Cawley, with Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, representing the petitioner here today. I just want to be very brief here, just to go over the site plan and get some information on the record. As you can see, the new site plan is very similar to the original plan except that we have removed the golf course use. That is the primary function for this amendment. The open space calculation is exactly the same as it was on the original master plan. The 25 percent native habitat requirement is identical to what it was on the original plan. Basically, we have additional lakes and residential units out there. The density has not changed. The original density was three units per acre. On this particular piece, because of the units that were allocated to the north, which are already under construction, the density will be 2.14 units per acre, which is actually a very low-density product. As Mr. Bellows stated, we believe that the changes that we're proposing here, the additional language that we're adding to the LDC -- to the PUD, mirror the adjacent property standards and, therefore, are fully compatible with what's required under the Growth Management Plan and compatibility tests in the LDC. We have an existing wall, and the plantings, we believe, will be adequate buffers for that particular site. We believe that our application meets or exceeds any county standards that are required of us at this time and ask that you approve the project. Thank you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Cawley, for the purpose of those folks that are in Pine Ridge, I know you visited the subject under the original approval. MS. CAWLEY: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The buffer on the western side of the property, there is some pine and scrub oak that occurs in that area? MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you explain to me what commitment you've made for the retention of that native vegetation. MS. CAWLEY: The commitment that was made in the original PUD has not changed. There was a requirement that along the 15-foot buffer along Goodlette-Frank Road, that the maximum amount of scrub vegetation would be preserved within that buffer, and in fact, that's where the scrub vegetation is. It's located basically in the buffer and in the easements for the city well fields; so internally there's very little scrub. There's just a very thin linear line of scrub along there, and that has not changed. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And upon project completion, it's my understanding that that area, even though it's an easement for the city well fields and even part of the FPL easement, is going to be maintained -- MS. CAWLEY: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- By the project developers so it won't be an unkempt situation? MS. CAWLEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Questions? No questions from the board. I'll close the public hearing. It appears what we're doing here is just simply or primarily deleting the golf course, and in the process we're adding additional safeguards for the adjoining properties with buffers and so forth. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. And with that understanding, I'm going to move approval of PUD-94-10(1). COMHISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12B3 ORDINANCE 96-81, RE PETITION PUD-89-5(1), DWIGHT NADEAU OF MCANLY ENGINEERING & DESIGN, INC., REPRESENTING SOUTHWEST PROFESSIONAL HEALTH PARK LAND TRUST FOR A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT HAVING THE EFFECT OF AMENDING THE PROVISIONS AND MASTER PLAN FOR THE SOUTHWEST PROFESSIONAL HEALTH PARK LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) AND EAST OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD (C.R. 851), CONSISTING OF 17.74 + ACRES, - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Next item, 12(B)(3), Petition PUD-89-5(1). Hr. Nadeau. MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino, planning services department. The petition that's before you asks you to repeal and readopt the PUD for the Southwest Professional Health Park, which is located on the south side of Immokalee Road opposite the Collier Health Center. As you know -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, this really doesn't change anything except the number of tracts; is that right? MR. NINO: Exactly. The land use remains exactly the same except that the original PUD had tract specificity for certain land uses. This amendment would say that all the authorized uses may be located anywhere within the buildable area of the PUD. However, given the changes from the time of the initial approval, this PUD will eliminate many of -- all of the conditions that were in the original PUD that had its phasing, its development -- because at the time of its approval, Immokalee Road was a two-lane facility, and the level of service would have been abridged had all the development come on board at one time. With the four-laning of Immokalee Road, those conditions no longer apply. This development would not exceed the level of service for Immokalee Road; so this opportunity was used to eliminate those conditions within the PUD. I need to bring to your attention, however, that the PUD document you have has since changed in a couple of respects as a result of discussions held by the developer following the meeting of the Planning Commission. In particular, the authorization to allow assisted-living facilities is going to be changed to say that those are licensed facilities and cannot be converted to any other land use not permitted under Section 3.2 without approval of the board of commissioners. There is another change to the area of stockpiling of fill material. A provision has been added to insure that the stockpiles in excess of 90 days will be seeded with grass. And this petition had proposed changing the density for assisted-living facilities from 20 to 26 units per acre, which is the density otherwise allowed by the Land Development Code, and has changed it back to the 20 units per acre as opposed to the 26 units per acre. Everything essentially stays the same. MR. DORRILL: We have no speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question -- I have a couple questions for the petitioner, but I do need to mention also that I met with the petitioner on this item. I will base my decision on the information presented here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As will I. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: When you mentioned the ACLF, the adult congregate assisted-living facility, I've had discussions with the petitioner regarding this, because this board has taken a very scrutinized approach -- or used an increased level of scrutiny, I guess is more appropriate, on the ACLF to not create condo projects at high densities. So, Mr. Anderson, if you would be so kind as to reflect in our conversation -- the mix of living units for this particular proposed project is important to me, and I'd like that on the record for the purpose of not ending up with, in essence, small condos, and we need some assurances that that's not the case. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. The planned unit mix is 60 assisted-living units, 66 independent-living units, and 14 Alzheimer units. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if you'd help me understand independent-living units. What type of kitchen facilities do we have there? MR. ANDERSON: In the independent living they have a stove, a refrigerator, and a sink. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the assisted? MR. ANDERSON: The assisted living have a microwave, a sink, and a small refrigerator. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And is this going to be a transitional facility that someone, in essence, can come into at an independent stage of transaction up through the facility? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. They will have that opportunity to do that. Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It will not be a monthly rental project in any way? MR. ANDERSON: Not a monthly rental, no. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I just wanted to make sure we gave that one the same level that we've given all the other ACLFs that have come before us. That's all I have. MR. ANDERSON: It is an annual lease. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand, but it does have-- similar to Moorings Park and other areas, it does have the ability to come in and transition up through long term? MR. ANDERSON: Indeed, we hope that's what they do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions? Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve Petition PUD-89-5(1) with the changes outlined by Mr. Nino, according to the Planning Commission, and with Mr. Anderson's agreements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12B4 ORDINANCE 96-82, RE PETITION PUD-89-6(1), JAMES M. INK, P.E., OF GREY OAKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTING HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO GREYOAKS PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CjustERED HOUSING WHERE THE LAND BENEATH EACH UNIT IS OWNED BY THE UNIT OWNER, IS SUBDIVIDED AND FRONTS UPON A PRIVATE COMMON ACCESSWAY, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31) AND GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY (C.R. 886) - ADOPTED Next item, Petition PUD-89-6(1). MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record, planning services department. PUD-89-6(1) is the first amendment to the Grey Oaks development of regional impact -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, the last thing I want to do is interrupt you; however, as I read here it says, "This amendment does nothing to change approved land uses or their intensity of development," but just offers some standards, shuffles some things around. Unless there's something you have to get on the record -- MR. NINO: No. That statement is very correct. The amendment is to facilitate a special type of cjustered housing, and it simply adds one column to the table of development standards that are unique to this one special type of development. MR. DORRILL: There are no speakers, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There are no speakers? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Is the location through the internal of the project, or is it on the perimeter of the project? MR. NINO: It may be anywhere within a residential development tract. Some tracts which are perimeter would be perimeter to the Grey Oaks. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There's only one boundary that goes up against anything other than a roadway, if I remember correctly; so never mind. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: This just looks to me like one of those things that it's a shame it has to come in front of the county commission. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Darn shame. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Darn shame. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm quite pleased that it came in front of the county commission. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are you? Good. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Proud to be at home, Mr. Ink. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 96-83, AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-61, THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next Item, 12(C)(1), recommendation that the board of county commissioners adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance 95-61, the Collier County Building Construction Administrative Code. MR. CAUTERO: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Vince Cautero, community development and environmental services administrator. Most of the amendments in the ordinance before you are minor. They deal with formatting so that staff could recognize the 1994 addition of the Southern Building Code. In addition, some minor changes were made. We are recommending that the cost for necessitating a permit for jobs raises from 500 to 750 so that we don't have to have as much paperwork flowing through the system for smaller types of jobs. This will be consistent with the fee resolution which is coming before you on the 17th of November. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: December, maybe? MR. CAUTERO: Excuse me. December, the 17th of December. The major changes that I'd like to highlight very briefly deal with inspections. On pages 10 and 11 of your executive summary the amendment calls for the elimination of inspections being recognized that would have legal effect by design professionals and, instead, points to state statutes. The same is true for work that is done by professional plan reviewers and professional inspectors that are certified but are not hired by Collier County as subcontractors. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't see a strike-through and underline on pages -- well, 10 and 11. MR. CAUTERO: The bottom of page 10. The design professional section is -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I was looking at the -- you mean the packet page 10 or the ordinance page 107 MR. CAUTERO: I apologize. It's ordinance page 10. I'll tell you more in a moment. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because I don't see it there either. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't either. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see the department's not covered by code at the bottom of 10. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I recall reading it. MR. CAUTERO: Page 19 of your executive summary. I apologize. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's okay. I just wanted to follow along. MR. CAUTERO: I have the ordinance, different drafts of the ordinance, in front of me. What we're stating here is that the design professional may conduct work in accordance with Florida Statute, but it has no legal effect if the inspection is performed by the qualified professionals in the field in your office as well as plan review and building inspections -- and that is found on page 22-- for the plans to be serviced. Earlier an amendment has been adopted by the board in which private plan review services and private inspection services would be allowed in Collier County. And since that time, late last year, we have received an opinion from our legal staff that that was not to take place. That inspection had to occur by employees of Collier County or subcontractors of the county. We're currently working on a proposal now which would allow us to hire people on a temporary basis, if needed, for those types of services, and they would be subcontractors of the county rather than private -- privately hired by homeowners or builders. The final change that I'd like to point out to you deals with the lot drainage site plan. This item was born through discussions with the Development Services Advisory Committee as well as staff discussions with the manager and Commissioner Hancock's office. The intent here is for single-family and duplex permits to carry some additional paperwork attached to the permit that would allow us to identify spot elevations and water flow to determine if the drainage plan for the single-family lot or the duplex unit is consistent with the subdivision plan. We've had some complaints in the past, especially in the North Naples area after the heavy rains last year, and we found out upon inspection of those lots that the drainage was not in conformance with the original subdivision plan. This recommendation received support from the Development Services Advisory Committee, and we've worked with them on it for the past several months. Those are the three major changes in your amendment package today, and I'll be glad to answer any questions. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may expand on that one, that's particularly important to me. Willoughby Acres had phone calls, and they were from people -- the lot was supposed to be graded back to front. It was graded front to back. Naples Park, when you get -- the new elevations where a home will come up several feet above the next one, they were grading down to the property lines. All the water was sheet-flowing under the neighbors' yards. So this would not just -- it doesn't have approved subdivision plans. But those that don't, you'd have to present some drainage plan to show that your water's not going to get shoved onto your neighbor, and that would be countywide; so I'm just a huge advocate of that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ditto. CHAI~ NORRIS: Anything else, Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: No, sir. CHAI~ NORRIS: Do we have public speakers on this? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, we don't. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hove approval of the staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a mildly related item before we move on. Mr. Cautero, the density issue has been a hot topic of discussion the past several months, and I believe we do have some direction to come back with some different options and so on. MR. CAUTERO: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you give us some indication of when we're likely to see that? I was under the impression we were going to have some sort of summary by this month anyway, and obviously, that will be after the turn of the year. MR. CAUTERO: Yes. We talked about that just recently with the planning staff as we're preparing our work on the ordinance amendment, the Growth Management Plan amendment, in conjunction with the year. We plan to bring you an update on that in January as soon as we possibly can give you our findings at this point in time; so we plan to do that soon. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 96-576, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS FOR BEAUTIFICATION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND MEDIAN AREAS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CONSERVATION OR PRESERVE AREAS, U.S. 41 BERMS, STREET SIGNAGE REPLACEMENTS WITHIN THE MEDIAN AREAS AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS TO U.S. 41 ENTRANCES WITHIN THE PELICAN BAY MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING AND BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 12(C)(2), recommendation that the board of county commissioners adopt the resolution setting forth the intent to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for beautification of recreational facilities and median areas, and maintenance of the conservation or preserve areas. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ward has not arrived, but the next two items are routine, and I can tell you that these are procedural in order to have residents who live within the areas that benefit, be it drainage, median beautification, maintenance of preserve areas, to establish the uniform method of assessment so that the residents and the property owners can have a single bill for their governmental services, be it property taxes or, in these cases, special assessments. I can answer any questions that you have. There are no speakers. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is an annual event too. It has to be done once a year, the same thing. MR. DORRILL: It is, and you will set the assessment and determine the rational nexus for that at the appropriate hearing this summer when you adopt their budget request. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have one request of your office, Mr. Dotrill. There's discussion within Pelican Bay, and there has been at least for the two years I've been in office, whether this was at some point supposed to become an ad valorem assessment. You probably know the history of the services division better than I, and I might ask for your assistance in was this ever to be voted upon by them? Was it initiated as a fee to be changed later? It's just a question I'm getting continuously. If I could ask for your assistance on answering that. MR. DORRILL: It can be. There is some history there, and I think it would be good for us to compile that in a narrative and perhaps even have a workshop in Pelican Bay, because it comes up annually. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's exactly where I was going with that. Thank you. With that -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval -- or adoption of this resolution, actually. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 96-577, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENTS FOR THE NAPLES PARK AREA DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS MUNICIPAL SERVICE BENEFIT UNIT - ADOPTED 12(C)(3) is the companion resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually this is for Naples Park. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, for Naples Park, I'm sorry. MR. DORRILL: It's a different district, and I do have a speaker here. Again, this is procedural as it pertains to establishing the process by which you would then determine what the unit costs data are, whether it's acreage or front foot or square footage for benefiting properties within the Naples Park drainage improvement district. The process is the same. Mr. Boldt is here and can answer any specific questions. I do have one member of the public who's registered. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd suggest Mr. Boldt's told us time and time again -- and this project's under construction -- what it is. Maybe we want to go to the public speaker and see if it raises any questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Fitz-Gerald. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald, and if it's Naples Park, I'm down here. I just read it in the agenda and said, now, what are they going to pull now? So I'm down here. I want to find out. I just want to know what's cooking. If something's changed, I want to know; so if somebody could explain it, that would be the extent of my speaking. MR. DORRILL: Nothing has changed. You'll recall, we had several different bases within Naples Park. Different areas of that subdivision derive a different benefit in terms of the type of amenity. And then the assessment role will be prepared consistent with prior board action that will determine the assessable value for each individual lot within Naples Park and the type of drainage enhancement that they are to receive. And that project has been bid and publicly awarded and is under construction. It is on schedule. This will enable us to then generate the first bill based on the pro rata benefit that each individual parcel owner will receive in Naples Park. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question for Mr. Boldt, which may help answer -- it won't make you very happy, but it will help answer the question. The Pavilion Club and the Pavilion Shopping Center assessment amount, by this action today are we locking in that amount? MR. BOLDT: No, sir, you're not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because that can -- okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And your name is? MR. BOLDT: John Boldt, stormwater management director. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I knew that was still being worked on. Thank you. That answers my question. So this is just simply establishing the method by which we're going to collect the funds, and the methodology has already been approved by this board. No change to that methodology? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. MS. FITZ-GERALD: Oh, good. I can go home then. Thank yOU. MR. DORRILL: That's all that's here for that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm going to close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval -- adoption of the resolution. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Item #12C4 RESOLUTION 96-578, RE PETITION AV-96-028 TO RENOUNCE AND DISCLAIM ALL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THE COUNTY AND PUBLIC TO ACCESS (INGRESS/EGRESS) AND TRAVEL UPON ROADWAYS LOCATED WITHIN COUNTRYSIDE AT BERKSHIRE LAKES; PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING AND UNAFFECTED RIGHTS OF EASEMENT HOLDERS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND FIRE SERVICES, COLLIER COUNTY WATER MANAGEMENT VEHICLES AND PERSONNEL, COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES, PERSONNEL AND PERMITTING AND COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT VEHICLES AND PERSONNEL - ADOPTED AS AMENDED Next item is 12(C)(4), Petition AV 96-028, Berkshire Lakes Countryside -- Countryside at Berkshire Lakes. I'm sorry. I'll get it right. MR. HULLER: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record my name is Russ Mullet from the transportation department. Item 12(C)(4) is a public hearing to consider Petition AV 96-028 to vacate the public's right to ingress and egress and travel upon all roadways within the Countryside at Berkshire Lakes development. The location of Countryside Drive is approximately 1,200 feet west of Santa Barbara Boulevard, running from Davis Boulevard on the south to Radio Road on the north, a distance of about 1.1 mile. There's a map on page 13. The reason for the vacation is a number of reasons. The petitioners are the homeowners' association, and they consider the volume of traffic, the speed of traffic, to be an item in addition to security, the crime or fear of crime in their neighborhood. We've received letters of no objection to the vacation from current planning, engineering review, sheriff's office, East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, the homeowners' association, and all pertinent utility companies. The public benefit would be the reduced maintenance cost and improved value to the community. Yesterday we received a petition of 50 signatures against the petition to vacate. They list the items as: The cost of maintenance as a deterrent; it would create congestion on Radio Road entrance. No vote was taken recently. There was a vote in '93. The petitioners have done a survey of the property owners, which 74 percent responded; 81 percent were in favor. That would make 60 percent of the community was in favor of the petition to vacate. We have prepared a resolution, and it's been approved by the county attorney's office in accordance with Florida Statute 336.09 and 336.10. Based on the public benefit and the lack of negative transportation capacity or circulation impacts, staff is recommending approval. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A couple of things. Mr. Weigel, first of all, someone has alleged that I have a conflict on this for two reasons: One, that I have people in Countryside that volunteered on my campaign. If that's a conflict of interest, I can't vote on anything in my district. And also, my dad lives in Countryside, and that's alleged to be a conflict. I need some assurance from you that under the laws of the State of Florida I have no conflict in this situation. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I guess that's his problem, not yours. Under section -- (Laughter) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you talking about the campaign volunteer or his dad? MR. WEIGEL: I've reviewed the question, the allegation, and looked at the law; and specifically it's 112.314 of the Florida Statutes, which talks in terms of a conflict with a relative or blood relative concerning a special private gain or loss. And I would opine and do opine that any gain here is just one that is afforded people generally that are in there, that there's no special private gain or loss that is afforded or inures to your father by virtue of his living in there; so I say there's no conflict. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm, in fact, required by law of the State of Florida to vote on this item, aren't I, as long as I'm in the room? MR. WEIGEL: If there's no conflict, you're required to vote. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The second point is, I have had discussion on this item outside of the public hearing, but I'll base my decision solely on the information provided here in the public hearing as required by the laws of the State of Florida. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As I have. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mullet, has the county spent any significant sum of money on maintenance, because the developer built the road; so the county taxpayer did not build the road. Have we spent any significant sums of money on maintenance or reconstruction of this roadway? MR. HULLER: It's about 11 years old. Over that 11 years, we've spent about $20,000, 10 of which are hard costs for signs and paint and whatnot, and another ten is for traffic counts and going out and doing annual inspections and responding to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which we do on all roadways anyway? MR. HULLER: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Being 11 years old, it's probably got resurfacing somewhere in the not-too-distant future? MR. HULLER: Probably another ten. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Another ten years? MR. HULLER: Ten years. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Before we resurface it? MR. HULLER: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's their road, they can resurface it whenever they want. MR. CUYLER: For the record, Ken Cuyler representing Countryside. I think they are probably looking at five or so. But with regard to Russ's presentation, his comments about the balloting I think are very important. And those figures, 74 percent of the owners responded to that ballot, which is a high response rate; 81 percent of the owners replying were in favor of it. He also mentioned the maintenance costs. I think there's really two points to that. The past maintenance costs have been relatively low. The future maintenance costs are going to be higher and are going to be absorbed by Countryside Master Association as set out in your resolution. The point being, the county really hasn't put too much money into it to date, but somebody is going to put some money into it in the future, and Countryside association understands, and they're accepting that responsibility. They understand that they're requesting a right, and they have a responsibility to go along with that. Your agenda package also has the resolution in it at page 3, if you want to refer to that. I think it's important to note not only what the resolution is doing, but what it's not doing. It is taking the action that Countryside is requesting, and that is, you are renouncing and disclaiming the right of the general public to ingress/egress and travel upon the roadways within Countryside. What it is not doing is disturbing any other rights within Countryside. Your private easement holders: Electrical, utility, cables, and such are unaffected. Your emergency services: Fire, sheriff, etc., are unaffected. It provides for the county's water management services and various other county services, and it also provides for county utilities. And then you'll note in numbered paragraph 7 that the association does, in fact, take on the responsibility for the maintenance in the future. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just make a quick interruption to encourage staff. When people come in with these vacations, this is a much better procedure, I would suggest. I think it's much cleaner, much simpler for interpretation purposes, and leaves the other easements alone. So for what it's worth, I wanted to endorse that process. MR. CUYLER: Probably the last point that I want to make, and I really do want to emphasize this point, I think the keys to your consideration are, is there a general public benefit? Russ has indicated there will be through the shift of the maintenance of the road. Is there a detriment to the public? There's none that we see. Is there a benefit to the community itself? It appears that there is, and they are asking for this; so they've determined that it's a benefit, and 81 percent of the people responding felt there was a benefit in voting for it. But one key point is that Countryside is extremely unique in its position with regard to your transportation system. It has east/west arterial on the north, one on the south. It has a winding north/south road, but directly adjacent to the community is a north/south arterial that's signalized, and Santa Barbara is safer than the Countryside Drive. It is quicker, if you do not speed through Countryside, and because of that -- and I think it says a tenth of a mile in your materials. I believe it's less than a quarter mile. It may not be a tenth of a mile, but it's somewhere right in that area. It's just a matter of seconds. I mean, I think in the Olympics they can run that distance in under a minute. So it's a very short distance, and that's a very important consideration in the sense that there's really nobody else that's situated in that position, and there appears to be no reason, to the citizens within Countryside, why the general public would need to access that simply to go from one arterial to another with an adjacent arterial right next door. We have -- attorneys are taught you never ask a question you don't know the answer to, but I've been told that most of the people in the audience are in support of this petition; so I'm going to take a chance and ask everyone who is in support of the petition to please raise your hand. Thank you very much. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Good gamble. MR. CUYLER: We luck out sometimes. We do have two of the residents. The first will be Mike McNulty, and he's signed up as your next speaker. He will tell you his background and his credentials, and he'll briefly go over some of the safety and security items, and then he'll introduce the next speaker. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many public speakers do we have? MR. HcNEES: You have six more. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Six public speakers. MR. CUYLER: We're limiting ours to three. There will be some people who are signed up that will waive their right to speak from our side. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have six public speakers? MR. HcNEES: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's call those. While the public speakers are coming up, for those of you who may not have been here before, we ask you to limit your comments to five minutes, please, and be concise. You don't have to use the whole five minutes if you don't care to. MR. HcNEES: Your first speaker is Michael HcNulty. He will be followed by Earl Kegg. MR. HcNULTY: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. My name is Michael J. HcNulty, and I reside at 220 Countryside Drive. Since my wife and I retired in 1994, we have lived here year round and are both domiciled in the State of Florida. We have no other home. Within our Countryside community there are 34 incorporated associations representing all 1,133 unit owners. Each of these associations has its own president who sits on a council where I serve as chairman. The great majority of my colleagues, many of whom are here in this room today, strongly support the petition for privatization which is before you. The consensus among the council of presidents is reflective of our community sentiments as demonstrated by the vote which Mr. Cuyler referred to taken earlier this year in March. Apart from my role as chairman of the presidents' council, I address you as a resident homeowner who is deeply concerned with safety and security in our community. I believe I can speak with some authority on these matters because of my long experience in protective services. For 29 years I served with the New York City Police Department, rising to the rank of assistant chief, where I was placed in command of more than 6,000 police officers responsible for the safety and security of Manhattan. Upon retirement from the police service, I spent ten years at Rockefeller Center in New York City as vice president for protection and public services. Now, I tell you this only because these two experiences, in both the public and private sectors, have afforded me a unique perspective on the rationale underlying our petition for privatization. Countryside is not necessarily an unsafe community, nor it is crime ridden; the sheriff's data will bear that out. But the risk, the risk of serious traffic accidents and criminal activity, in my estimation, has grown dramatically. The safety and tranquility of our neighborhood is threatened more and more each day by rapid development in the surrounding area and the discovery that Countryside Drive affords the motoring public a convenient means to bypass established and safe traffic controls on Santa Barbara Boulevard. For example, the 1.1 mile distance between Davis Boulevard and Radio Road can be covered in 13/4 minutes using Santa Barbara's four-lane highway at 45 miles per hour. It should take almost 3 minutes to cover the same distance on Countryside Drive at 25 miles per hour, which is the posted speed limit. Instead, many drivers choose to ignore the limit and speed recklessly through the community. That fact was apparently confirmed on October 15th of this year when Mr. Muller's office did a road survey over a 24-hour period indicating that of 2,243 counts, more than 80 percent of all vehicles using Countryside Drive exceeded the speed limit. It is not uncommon to see an impatient motorist cross the double-yellow line of our two-lane roadway in order to pass a law-abiding driver. There are four school bus stops along the route, which is also used by many joggers and bicyclists. It is a residential thoroughfare which, unfortunately, has become a convenient traffic artery used by commercial vehicles and other motorists who want to avoid the traffic control signals on Santa Barbara. As to criminal activity, I see ample cause for alarm. 1996 has seen an escalation of vandalism, theft, and trespass on our community facilities. In a 35-month period from '93 through '95, there were 604 calls for service to the sheriff's office from Countryside residents. Most of these calls were generated by fear and suspicion rather than a confirmed incident; however, they do reflect the concerns of a community which does not feel adequately protected in a rapidly developing environment. My point is this: Throughout my professional career, I learned that prevention of accidents and deterrents of crime are far superior to apprehension of lawbreakers and the grim results of vehicular tragedies. There will be no significant inconvenience to the general public if traffic is averted from a residential street to a four-lane highway one block away. Let's make sure that Countryside can protect itself. Let's prevent accidents and deter criminals. Let's reduce the risk and eliminate the fear. It is imperative and in the interest of both Collier County and our community that the roads in Countryside be privatized. I deeply appreciate the opportunity and privilege of appearing before you today and strongly urge your favorable consideration for our petition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. (Applause) MR. McNEES: Mr. Kegg will be followed by Robert Knapp. MR. KEGG: Mr. Chairman, members of the board of commissioners, my name is Earl Kegg, and I'm a resident of Countryside and a resident of Collier County full time. They've stolen a lot of my thunder, because some of the things that have been said I'm not going to bore you with again. I had a few points I did want to make, and I'll make it real brief. There are 34 separate associations within Countryside; however, I represent the master board. I'm a director on the master board, and the master board is the umbrella or governing body of Countryside development. Countryside is divided into seven areas and consisting of single-family homes and condominiums, and each area elects their directors by individual ballot; therefore, the master board represents all the areas of Countryside. The master board runs the business side of the community, and we are the instrument of change when the board and the majority of our members feel that certain changes need to be made to our facilities to improve the quality of life. So privatizing the roads is one of the items that we've been very concerned with for several years. To give you a little history, in 1993 the board decided to poll the owners to determine if we should consider petitioning the county to privatize the roads. However, at that time, we also included a special financial assessment to the members. And as our documents require two-thirds vote of approval of each class of members, in 1993 the votes cast were less than those needed for approval; and, therefore, the issue was defeated. Since 1993 a lot of things have changed as many of our owners continued to be alarmed over the situation. So we again went out to the owners. An informant letter was sent in April, along with a ballot requesting that the owners vote on requesting the county to disclaim public access to the road. It was explained that if the county approved, that the board would be responsible, financially responsible, for the future maintenance and repairs. As no assessment would be made, our legal counsel advised that we didn't have to go to the members for a vote; however, the board felt that unless our owners agreed, we would not file this petition. When the ballots were counted, as Mr. Cuyler pointed out, the majority, the overwhelming majority of those that voted, 81 percent voted for filing a petition; therefore, we proceeded to do so. There are several things here that have already been said; so I'm not going to repeat those. We do have developments adjacent to Countryside. Embassy Woods and Falling Waters are gated communities. We feel that it's a win/win situation for the county and for Countryside. If approved, the county would no longer have the financial obligation to maintain and repair a little over 2 miles of road, thus freeing county funds for other uses. And also if approved, we will have the ability to control access to the community. Real estate values should improve. Higher property values will help the property owner and at the same time provide a broader tax base for the county. And I want to thank you for your consideration. I had a full five minutes, but I decided a lot has been said; so I won't bore you with the rest of it. And we really appreciate your consideration today. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Kegg. (Applause) MR. CUYLER: Mr. Knapp indicated to me that he would waive his time. He's in support, and he'll waive his time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. MR. McNEES: Your next speaker is Albert -- it's either Disdiel or Disdiet. I'm not sure. MR. CUYLER: He's waiving. Same thing for Mr. Disdiet. He's in support and waives his time. MR. McNEES: The next speaker would be Carl Hicks followed by Chris Straton. MR. HICKS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. If ever there was a David and a Goliath here, I'm a David in this situation. What I'd like to do is read this petition with the 51 names. My name is Carl Hicks, and I live in Country Haven. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. HICKS: I would like to read this petition that a lot of us got together, and I'd like to make one comment after. Regarding notice of public hearing, public meeting to consider Petition AV 96-028, petition by Countryside Master Association to abandon the public ways and to take over and privatize the public roads within Countryside as a first step in creating a gated community. I addressed this to Mr. Russell; so, Dear Mr. Russell: We, the undersigned, wish to go on record to the county commission as being strongly opposed to the petition requesting the county to abandon the public ways through the Countryside community. We do not wish to take over the cost of maintaining these roads unless our ad valorem taxes are proportionately reduced to compensate us for the increased costs. We feel that it is not in the best interest of the general public and would create an unnecessary traffic bottleneck at Radio Road and Davis Boulevard by closing off Countryside Drive, a public way. Contrary to what the petitioner, Countryside Master Association, would like you to believe, there is strong opposition to abandonment of these roads to create a gated community. As a matter of fact, the results of a poll tallied by Countryside Master Board on November 8, 1993, showed that 53 percent -- 53.6 percent of the owners of Countryside were opposed to the abandonment of the roads. These results were tallied by president Dom Festa and then president Grant Grimm. No vote -- I'm going to go off this a little bit. No vote, according to the documents, has been taken since then. They have had a survey, but we don't feel that that's according to the two-thirds of the B's and the two-thirds of the A's that live in Countryside. They came to us in 1993 -- I'm getting off this now. This is what I was going to talk about after. They came to us in 1993. They put the figures in front of us. They told us what it would cost, and we had a vote according to the documents, and it was defeated. Now this time -- and at that time they told us there would be no further action taken. Now at this time they go in another direction. I believe they're putting the wagon before the horses. We go in a different direction. We take a survey, no figures discussed. A lot of us are on fixed incomes that are living in this community. We're down here; we bought in for public roads. We don't want private roads. We don't want high maintenance fees. We can't afford high maintenance fees; so this is what we're against on that issue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sir, can I just comment on that. Up here, at the front. MR. HICKS: Excuse me. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's okay. Just to let you know that you may have -- we won't be giving any opinion on whether or not you have a complaint against your association and whether or not they have properly, you know, complied with your private restrictions. We have to be very careful to stay out of that. I just want you to know that. MR. HICKS: Thank you. Let me go on to the next thing here. Where was I? All right. Prior to the above poll, President Dom Festa on August 15 in 1993 in a letter to all the owners stated that every owner would have the opportunity to vote on this important issue -- this is the vote in 1993 -- and that if the votes were cast, less than two-thirds were needed for approval. No further action would be taken by the board. The owners have never been given the opportunity to vote on the abandonment of the roads here through the documents -- you know, the way the documents say there for us. And I'll just quote for the record: The master declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for Countryside, Article 4, Section 3 states that no assessment for capital improvement will pass without the assent of two-thirds of each class of member voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose. No meeting was held; no vote was taken, and if the roads are abandoned by the county, the owners will be automatically assessed for the cost of the maintenance and the legal cost of property abandonment. Can I go on with this? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, sir, that would be unfair to the other people who only took their five minutes, if you don't mind. MR. HICKS: Okay. Thank you for your time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, sir. MR. HICKS: This is what I wanted to bring out to you. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. HcNEES: Your final speaker is Chris Straton. MS. STRATON: Good morning. My name is Chris Straton, and I'm a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee to the HPO. And the reason I'm here is to talk about the issue of using road closure to address traffic calming, safety cut-through, speeding types of issues. When I first became a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee, I was exposed to the idea of traffic calming, which this commission has adopted, and it adopted it as a result of some activities in Pine Ridge where the people in Pine Ridge wanted their roads closed because of concerns about safety, security, speeding, and those types of things. So my concern is that there is a long queue of people in communities who have the unfortunate experience of being in communities that have public roads that the public is using, and that there are many of those communities that have approached the county about the need to control speeding and security and congestion and those types of things, and what -- they don't want stop signs; they want their roads closed. When the traffic-calming process was put in place, the idea was to use road closures as a last resort and to try to use other creative ways of trying to address the concerns of the residents. And, therefore, my concern is that should this board grant this request, that the message that's sent out to Foxfire and the people on Pompei Lane or Lakewood or all those other people that are living on roads that are sharing in the public transportation, that we don't end up creating a precedent that we will have to continue to sort of grant, because we -- you know that our traffic network suffers from not having lots of east/west or north/south corridors that go very far. So my concern is not relevant to the merits of Countryside, but should you find in support, is that there is a finding to establish the unique characteristics of this so that we are not in a position of continuing a proliferation of everybody wanting my street closed. And we're in a position where we have five-- count them -- five roads that you can travel on if you need to get from point A to point B. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Straton, one question. Are you here on behalf of that committee? MS. STRATON: No, I'm not. We did not discuss the issue. We were not made aware of it, and it is unfortunate that the papers didn't pick up this story ahead of time so that, you know, the community had a little broader understanding of what the potential is of this particular finding. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. I think your concern is a good one. I think anytime there's a petition like this, it has to be considered on its own merits and not assume that it's like any other. MS. STRATON: Yes. And if there's a way that that can be incorporated so we -- you don't inadvertently get in a position where Royal Wood's attorney says, hey, you know, whatever. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, this doesn't create any legal precedent, does it? MR. WEIGEL: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I have a question. How many times have we closed roads in the past? MR. MULLER: Once. Once the board approved the petition to vacate in Foxfire, they reopened it the next week and went for denial. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me raise an interesting point along that line, because as Chris mentioned, Pine Ridge and the area up there -- and it's actually a similar situation when we had the concerns with Hickory and all the cut-through traffic, and one of the reasons we fast-tracked Vanderbilt was to alleviate that cut-through traffic because -- and Mr. Cuyler mentioned, it's less than a quarter of a mile. I've measured it on my way home. And from the entrance of Countryside to Santa Barbara, it's just under two-tenths of a mile, which is almost an identical distance from what was the old entrance to Hickory to the new Vanderbilt. And what this board agreed to do when we fast-tracked Vanderbilt was, once that four-lane availability was there, try to relieve the impacts on that neighborhood. There's no need, we said at the time, for traffic to be cutting through Pine Ridge. And actually, what we ended up doing there was dead-ending Hickory so there is literally no cut-through traffic there now, unless you go far out of the way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll talk about that another time. I -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, nothing. I guess my concern is that I hope that you haven't been lulled into thinking that by stopping traffic moving through your neighborhood, that your crime rate is nonexistent. I think you can talk to some of the other gated communities. Talk to Wyndemere, for instance, and that's a prime example that having a gate out there is not going to stop crime. That doesn't mean you can go away at night and leave your sliding doors open and sleep well. I just -- a deterrent, yes, but if you start thinking that this is going to be a big thing for you, don't be lulled into thinking that because it's not true. I live in a gated community. I knew that when I moved in there. My gated community -- it wouldn't do you any good if they opened up the streets in mine, because you couldn't go anywhere. So where I live, it's immaterial whether it would be open or closed, but I knew it was a gated community when I lived in there -- or when I moved in there, and I knew that I was going to pay more. And if you look at your bills, which is not a determining factor for this commission, but just -- I'm just saying this to you, that most of the cost of our maintenance goes to our security. So you just need to be aware of those things and know up front what you're getting yourself into, but that isn't my big concern here. My big concern is the very thing that Ms. Straton spoke about earlier that I can see, looking around at communities in Collier County, if we start this process of vacating these private roads, I can think of about three or four different areas right now that we could do that, and we're going to create some real problems. And there's one big one not far from where I live, that if we chose to do this and this group of people comes forward and wants to do the same thing, it's going to create a big problem. So I have a real concern about this, and I understand what you're saying. But I would like to see, number one, if there's something else that can be done -- if you're worried about traffic, if there's something else that can be done in your neighborhood with the traffic situation before you decide to close off this road totally, and that's a question I have to the staff or whomever. MR. HULLER: Commissioner Berry, we share those concerns of closure. We've had a lot of requests for closure. We look at each individual petition on its own merit, and some of the pros and cons we look at in our department is road level of service impacts due to volume. That's not applicable at Countryside. Safety impacts due to the change in routes or times, and that's not applicable at Countryside. Alternative routes, which is available at Countryside. And then the community concerns include sense of security, community character, property values, elitism, sense of traffic safety, and livability: Walking, bicycling, social interactions. We also look at the impacts on adjacent communities. Falling Waters would be minimal if they had to go and use Santa Barbara. Access control, future signalization is the responsibility of development per their PUD. Road operation impacts are positive for the Countryside vacations; so we have -- this individual vacation has some merits that do stand alone. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just remembered, I don't know if it was a year or two ago that there was -- of course, it was only one accident, but it was a very severe accident at the corner of Santa Barbara and Davis Boulevard, and at that point in time the traffic was routed around, and I believe they did come down through Countryside, because you absolutely could not move on Santa Barbara or Davis. At that point you had to get beyond that major intersection. So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think as part of the resolution, though, it says here, this doesn't prohibit -- if we need, for safety reasons, it doesn't prohibit access at all. Mr. Cuyler, you might be able to quote it from which page or chapter and verse. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I didn't know if that was what they meant by safety. Okay. MR. CUYLER: It's in the resolution that emergency services still have access to the roadway. I'm sure there's not going to be an objection if there's an extremely unusual emergency situation. I'm not sure how I write that into the -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: When I read emergency services, I'm thinking of fire, ambulance, those kinds of things. I certainly wasn't thinking about -- MR. CUYLER: That includes the sheriff's department. Frankly, the way I would read the resolution, if the sheriff's department says we've got access -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's a traffic emergency. MR. CUYLER: -- we've got access to your road, move over. I think that's it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, we need to make -- you know COHMISSIONER BERRY: Because, Pam, in the case I'm talking about, yes, people could have gone down Radio Road, then gone down Airport Road, and come back around, but the traffic was unbelievable. That's true. That's what they did. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. Please. Please. Please. This is a public hearing. Please, keep it down. COHMISSIONER BERRY: But that was the situation, and there was a -- there was a long line of traffic out there, and they were trying to decide what to do with it at the time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. That's a valid concern, and I'm under the impression the sheriff's department has the authority to declare some sort of an emergency on site. And I know I've been rerouted in traffic myself from time to time, but maybe Mr. Weigel can help us with that. I've got to assume that would fall under the public easement or public access. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not sure I've ever been rerouted through a gated community, though, and that's -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why I asked Mr. Weigel. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's let Mr. Weigel answer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the issue. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's let Mr. Weigel answer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not sure that's the question. MR. WEIGEL: I generally would not take the position contrary to the sheriff to make the determination under his obligations of Chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes, jurisdiction over the roads, and he can make those determinations. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're trying to, in essence, retro-fit a policy or an idea that was abandoned or never approached by this community in its long-term planning strategy 20 years ago. We all sit here today and know that a grid system is the way to go traffic-wise. A higher number of public roads a shorter distance from each other moves traffic more evenly through the community. The problem is that that's not how this community has developed. The number of public roads that connect arterials or collectors that go through neighborhoods are very few and very far between, and each day as we get more cars, those roads become impacted more unfairly every day. I look at communities like this one and Foxfire, and in my opinion, U.S. Homes did a disservice to the folks in Foxfire by double-loading a street with homes on each side that goes from one collector to another. And it's continuing to happen in some communities. I would love nothing more than to alleviate the problem in Foxfire for those individuals, but that roadway has become an integral part of our system. If you eliminate that roadway, it is going to cause us to have to construct another county roadway in near proximity to it where there is no available right-of-way. We have talked about, you know, the unique circumstances of this roadway. I can't think of any other community, whether it's Lakewood or whether it's Foxfire or Pine Ridge or even Kings Lake, in which there is within two-tenths of a mile a four-lane collector roadway immediately adjacent to it. We can't really force upon people the idea of a grid system when it realistically is never going to occur unless we start taking aggressive steps to create one. So I think we can make an individual decision, community by community, whether or not privatization of a roadway is, in fact, adverse to the public interest or beneficial. And so if by stating and citing these certain characteristics of this community in this location, I'm confident that it sets no precedent for Foxfire or any other community to come in and request the same thing because their conditions are so dramatically different. I would like nothing more than to say that we're going to have public roadways every three-tenths of a mile, but it's not going happen. We're not going to make it happen; so let's get off the kick of trying to promote a grid system when realistically if it didn't start 20 years ago, we're not going to make it happen today, and we're not going to make it happen by turning this petition down. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree. I'm going to make a motion -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to make a motion we approve Petition 96-028. I want to state a couple of reasons why. Part of it is what Mr. Mullet has said, and you indicated that you have reviewed many, many requests like this over the years, and I'm quoting you now. "This individual vacation has merits that do stand alone." And I remember you saying at the very beginning that staff recommends it. We have letters of no objection for the sheriff's department, fire department, from our own engineering and planning departments; and as you've laid out, it's just under two-tenths of a mile. And I think it is unique in character. I think the concern is a very valid one, but as I scan in my mind all those other communities, I don't think there's anything with the same situation, and we do have to address each one as an individual. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's why it's important we talk about this up here at the board table and here -- get everything laid out here and kind of sorted out so I understand where you're coming from and what you're saying. I appreciate that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Constantine, in your motion can we request, if you will, a friendly amendment from the petitioner that should the Collier County Sheriff's Office deem an absolute necessity to route traffic normally predicted for Santa Barbara on this roadway, that it be allowed by the property owners? I know they haven't voted on that, but it seems to be one sticking point. COHMISSIONER BERRY: That's my biggest concern. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think as long as -- if we have an emergency circumstance declared by the sheriff's department, that's not an unrealistic request, and I'd be happy to make that part of the motion. I assume -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And this is not for convenience, understand. This is for dire emergency need that, in fact, shuts down Santa Barbara Boulevard. Not just restricts it, but shuts it down. MR. CUYLER: We would consider that a friendly amendment as well, and we would agree to that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion, assuming that includes the amendment. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It does. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We do have a motion and a second for approval of Petition AV 96-028. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Aye. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Opposed? Aye. That amendment is successful 4 to 1. MR. CUYLER: That would include the full staff recommendation? There are some advertising requirements and such, just to get that on the record. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. And with that we'll break for lunch and be back at one o'clock. (A lunch break was held until 1:00 p.m.) Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 96-579, RE PETITION V-96-22, R. BRUCE ANDERSON REPRESENTING ALBERT J. SOCOL, REQUESTING A 25 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 50 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT TO 75 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST END OF PELICAN STREET, IN THE LA PENINSULA DEVELOPMENT - ADOPTED WITH CONDITIONS; TO BE RECONSIDERED AFTER READVERTISING CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene the county commission meeting. Our first petition this afternoon is 13(A)(1), Petition V-96-22. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with planning services staff presenting Petition V-96-22. Bruce Anderson, representing Albert Socol, is requesting a 25-foot variance from the required 50-foot maximum height limit to 75 feet. The subject 6-acre tract is located in La Peninsula and is zoned RHF-12 and is approved for 74 units. Construction began in 1984 on this multifamily project that was to contain nine separate 50-foot-high buildings. At present only six buildings have been completed while construction was stopped on the seventh building due to financial difficulties. Petitioner now intends to demolish this partially constructed building and in its place, including the proposed eighth and ninth buildings, construct two new residential buildings at 75 feet in height. As you can see on the plan, the six buildings are here (indicating), and the partially constructed one is here (indicating). The -- the petition for allowing the increased height will result in greater setbacks between buildings. This one (indicating) is 75 feet and 50 feet between the other structure, whereas the existing buildings have an average of 20-feet distance between structures. It should also be noted that the buildings will have larger setbacks ranging from thirty-five feet to a hundred and forty feet which will increase the amount of open space over the originally approved plans. In addition, the building area coverage will decrease from 55,941 square feet to approximately 41,700 square feet. The petitioner contends that development has -- has been problematic due to -- for new construction because of the unusual shape of the property, poor site design by the previous owners, a partially built structure, and an inadequate sewage package plan. As a result, the petitioner claims that these special conditions have caused problems preventing any new development. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition on December 5th and unanimously approved the -- the height variance. It's staff's opinion that a conforming structure could be built on site, but due to the special conditions referenced in the staff report, staff is also recommending approval of the height variance. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Oh, I also have to point out that staff has received numerous letters for and against, and the petitioner has surveyed the residents and will present the results of the survey. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, how long has that part of the building been in that state of disrepair or lack of -- failure to complete? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have the exact time, but it's about four or five years. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I tell you what. Why don't I just -- yeah, I'll ask the petitioner to address that. I understood it was a considerable period of time. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, about seven maybe. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Anything else? Any further questions? We'll hear from the petitioner then. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, this is a petition where there are some people in opposition, and I think we should have the court reporter swear any of the witnesses that are going to testify. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's a good idea, but who are you? MS. STUDENT: Oh, I beg your pardon. For the record, Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Prior to the swearing, I might mention that I have spoken with individuals related to this; however, as required by the law of the State of Florida, I will base my decision solely on the information provided during this public hearing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I've had numerous correspondence and conversations on this item, too, but I will base my decision on what is -- I hear here today in the hearings. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise for me. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Ditto. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would you swear in the witnesses, please. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Okay. Now petitioner, please. MR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record my name is Bruce Anderson from Young, vanAssenderp & Varnadoe on behalf of the petitioner, Albert J. Socol. La Peninsula sits on the tip of the Isle of Capri as it faces the Marco River and the Gulf of Mexico. It is a beautiful location, but it is a partially constructed development with a problematic history that includes bankruptcy and that is best evidenced by this picture of what others have referred to as the "Beirut Building" or the pile of debris at La Peninsula. Approval of this variance includes demolition of this eyesore that sits on the point at the gulf entrance to the Isle of Capri. My client, Albert Socol, is an architect. He also has a master's in planning. His work has three times received the City Beautiful first place award in the annual Coral Gables Chamber of Commerce award to outstanding building structures. He and his wife, Harlene, who is also an architect, are Collier County residents committed to completing this redevelopment project. As Mr. Bellows told you, this La Peninsula was originally approved for nine 50-foot buildings. Only six were completed. The seventh building was begun and left in its present condition approximately seven years ago. Our petition is very straightforward. The seventh building shell will be demolished, and in the place of three 50-foot buildings, there will be two 75-foot midrise buildings. Either way you slice it, it's a total of a hundred and fifty feet of building height. There would not be any increases in density. Only the originally approved remaining 74 units would be constructed. Before there was ever a La Peninsula project, this property was originally planned to be part of the Marco Towers development, which is adjacent to the east property line. Marco Towers is developed with a 75-foot structure. La Peninsula and Marco Towers share the same sewage treatment plant, and there is a 10-foot fishing easement along La Peninsula's seawall for the residents of Marco Towers. In exchange for height, setbacks have been greatly increased as demonstrated on this graphic (indicating) of the proposed site plan wherein we show in the shaded areas (indicating) what the building outline of the originally approved three buildings were; so you can graphically compare to what is proposed today. These two new buildings will be set farther -- set back farther from the water, farther from the property line, and farther from each other. The result is wider view and circulation corridors and a decrease in building coverage. Additionally, the new buildings will have a 38-foot-wide, 4-story-tall opening between the second and sixth floors. Replicating the three buildings that were originally approved is impractical because of the Americans with Disabilities Act; changes in the Life Safety Code; and the condominium market, which demands larger units for owners who spend more time in Florida than was custom in the past. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Could you just expand a little bit on the ADA -- MR. ANDERSON: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the Americans with Disabilities Act, that -- that makes it impractical -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because I don't -- haven't heard anything on that so far. MR. ANDERSON: The existing structures at La Peninsula, including this Building 700, don't comply with either the Life Safety Code or the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that a structure be totally accessible to the handicapped. Every level of the building has to have elevator access and also have sufficient radius to turn a wheelchair 5 feet in diameter when exiting an elevator or entering condo units. A handicapped ramp not to exceed 1 to 12 is also -- also has to be provided from the grade to the main level of the building. The existing structures have town houses with two flights of stairs and steps within the units and with no elevator access to the town house units. The Life Safety Code requires the building to be sprinkled and provide rapid access and proper turning radius for fire equipment and apparatus. The buildings originally approved under the existing site plan, the 700, 800, and 900 buildings, are too close together to meet the access and turning radius requirements. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Now, Mr. Socol has designed these new buildings to blend with and compliment the existing buildings as shown on the -- this (indicating) architectural elevation. He has met three times with the owners at La Peninsula, and most owners are overwhelmingly very supportive, although there are always a few dissidents in every crowd. We also made a public presentation to a large crowd at the Isle of Capri Civic Association, and the association does not oppose this variance. And also, as Mr. Bellows told you, the Planning Commission recommended approval by an 8 to 0 vote. This is a redevelopment proposal for a project that is in distress. The proposal for an extra 25 feet in building height is more than compensated for by increased setbacks and decreased building coverage and removal of an eyesore that has plagued this lovely community for a number of years. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And how many years? MR. ANDERSON: Seven. And we -- although not required by law, today we are ready to commit and specifically request that you condition this variance approval request on the site plan that we submitted and the architectural renderings that we have submitted. If we depart from the site plan in any manner, we will agree to subject any site plan changes to review under the applicable Land Development Code sections for a PUD master plan change. And if there are any changes from the architectural elevations, we will come back in for another variance so that you can feel comfortable and the people that are there can feel comfortable that what they see is what they get. Now, you're probably going to hear some objections today from some attorneys representing a couple of unit owners regarding relocation of common areas and perhaps even some alleged defects in the notice of hearings on this variance. I urge you to consider the source. They represent continuation of the status quo, which most people find entirely unacceptable. Any objections concerning relocation of common areas or common facilities as depicted on the site plan is irrelevant to this variance petition. My client has the clear right under the property owners' association documents to relocate the common facilities as shown on the site plan, and any dispute concerning that right is a private matter to be resolved among the property owners or ultimately the courts. The Land Development Code and its predecessor zoning ordinances over the years have been quite clear that such disputes are outside the county's responsibility. (Commissioner Hac'Kie entered the boardroom.) And it is thus -- it is that way, thankfully, for the taxpayers who might otherwise have to foot the bill for such disputes. In closing, my client has conducted a straw vote of La Peninsula unit owners to determine whether there was support for his proposal including, specifically, the variance. By a margin of 66 percent to 34 percent, unit owners overwhelmingly support this variance request. I would like to enter into the record copies of the votes as well as a unit-by-unit summary tabulation of each vote. I will distribute copies of the summary tabulations to each commissioner, and I will file the -- the actual ballots and letters that support those tabulations with the clerk's office and make them a part of the record. They approve of this variance petition, and we respectfully request your approval as well. And I'll be happy to answer any questions now or -- or later as things progress. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions for the petitioner? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just received yesterday 21 petitions opposed. Have you seen this package (indicating) at all, Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I have. Yes, I have, and we have -- those no votes are reflected in our tabulations. I'll be frank with you. We have cause to believe that some of the signatures on those documents that you have received are not authentic. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that's not verifiable necessarily? MR. ANDERSON: I will leave that to other speakers if they have been able to do that. I can tell you -- well, I'll just leave it at that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Anderson, could I get you to remove this easel, then, if you're done with it. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Unless other members want to see this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I'm fine. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go to our public speakers then. How many do we have? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I have about ten. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Fields. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: While the public speakers are coming up, I might remind -- this gentleman did not get sworn in. I -- I might remind our public speakers, those that -- and especially those who have not been here before, that we allow five minutes per speaker, and we ask you, please, not to be redundant. And if -- if we could ask you to keep your remarks concise, we'd appreciate that as well. MR. FIELDS: I will do my best. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You need to be sworn in. (The speaker was sworn.) MR. DORRILL: Mr. Southern, if I could have you stand by, you'll follow this gentleman. Go ahead, Mr. Fields. MR. FIELDS: For the record -- for the record I'm Alan Fields, and I'm here representing Lavonna and Hike Rose and their company, Rose Enterprises. The Roses own 17 units at La Peninsula. To start off, I want to get us clearly on the record once again as we did at the Planning Commission meeting that the notice for this hearing has been seriously deficient. There was an honest error made by staff early on in the computer records resulting in notices being sent to only one of the six completed and sold-out buildings in La Peninsula. They went back to correct that. Like I say, that was an honest mistake. I don't want to cast any aspersions at staff on that. When those last notices went out, we were told that they went out on the day when the Planning Commission was originally to meet, on November 21st. And I would like to distribute, for convenience, copies of your land planning regulations and some summary calendars so it makes it a little bit easier to track the dates I'm going to reference. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Fields, we need you on the microphone if you're going to talk. MR. FIELDS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You can hand those to the county manager. He'll -- he'll distribute it for us. MR. FIELDS: Okay. Let me hang on to one of those also. The corrected notice, we were advised at the last hearing, was given on the 21st. It has since become apparent that the notice actually went out on the 22nd. The hearing for the Planning Commission was held on the 5th. The rules, the Land Planning Code for Collier County, requires 15 days' notice be given in advance of that meeting. We have a serious dispute as to how many days' actual notice and what days you can count. Counting the 21st, the day of mailing, which we later found was actually the 22nd -- and the calendar I've just given you is in error on that -- and counting the day of hearing, which you can hardly say is in advance, you barely get to 15. It was -- the notice fails on that point. The hearing shouldn't have been held. This hearing shouldn't have been held. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I apologize for being late, but has Mr. Weigel already opined on whether or not the notice is appropriate? I mean, I assume it wouldn't be on our agenda if we hadn't met the notice requirements. That's typically how it works. It's pulled off the agenda if it hasn't complied. MR. FIELDS: It should have been. It only came to my attention today that there was yet another day's shortfall because the notice didn't go out on the 21st as previously reported. There is a second notice deficiency in that after that Planning Commission meeting and before -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you mind if Mr. Weigel answers my question before we move on -- MR. FIELDS: Certainly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- past that, because I just didn't know if we needed to continue to talk a lot about notice. That may be some -- a point on which you want to appeal in the future, but we don't usually decide those issues. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I am prepared to -- to respond to any issue of notice which is brought before you today, and obviously he has passed out copies of certain sections of the Land Development Code that provide for notice with the CCPC and -- and the board. You may -- you may hear this today. I am not telling you you cannot hear it. The question of notice is being brought and placed before you, and -- and I think at the conclusion of speakers, if you will allow, I will give you further opinion and advice in regard to the actions you may take today. I am not telling you and -- nor -- and I would have if I had felt it necessary to tell you that you could not take action today, but I will advise you on the actions that you may wish to consider to take today concerning the substantive issues before you and the -- and the procedural issues that are being brought before you now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. FIELDS: The second notice discrepancy is the notice that must be given after the Planning Commission hearing and before this hearing of 15 days. Even counting the day of the hearing and today, which I think are both excluded for these computations, I can't get but to six. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably because it doesn't have to appear after the Planning Commission. It requires 15 days' notice, but it's not required subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing. MR. FIELDS: I -- I disagree with your interpretation of the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Once again, we don't take our legal advice from you, sir. We take it from Mr. Weigel. MR. FIELDS: Understood. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And he has promised to advise us after the speakers; so if this is your only point, I think you've made it and -- MR. FIELDS: I will move on. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- we appreciate it. MR. FIELDS: And thank you. Mr. Anderson referred to the straw vote that he has taken. The information that was circulated in advance of that was seriously misleading as well as being accompanied by an offer on the part of Mr. Socol to pay special assessments for those people who voted in favor of and in support of this proposal, something I think you should be aware of and factor into your considerations. The second main objection we have is that a large portion of this property that is set for redevelopment today is already dedicated common area that was set forth when the original project was developed. It was outlined and laid out in the Declaration of Condominiums of each of the six buildings which have been completed. It was common area that the people who bought out there were expecting -- expected to get and, in fact, was built. It's roughly this portion of the property from here (indicating) over that he wants to develop, which is the existing clubhouse, tennis courts, swimming pools. I don't think -- and Mr. Anderson is in some ways correct that that is a private dispute, but it is also a relevant matter here in a couple of key respects. One, I don't think that there's jurisdiction to hear somebody else's application. You've got the wrong landowner before you applying for the variance. Secondly, I think it is relevant to the extent that the proposal is tied to a specific site plan. The variance you're being asked to grant is tied to this site plan, which uses other people's lands. By -- in going through with that, you're tying our hands in terms of negotiations. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Time's up. MR. FIELDS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Southern, then Mr. Dobberteen. MR. SOUTHERN: Thank you for this privilege. I'm Harold Southern, and I'm owner of Unit 104 at La Peninsula. I'm opposed to the petition, and I'll tell you why in as honest and logical manner as I know how. I'm speaking not only for myself, but for a number of owners at La Peninsula who actually bought their condos as -- the straw that caused them to -- to buy it due to the beautiful tennis facilities that they had at La Peninsula. My wife and I visited La Peninsula in 1986. The only things that were completed at that time was a clubhouse; the swimming pool adjacent to the clubhouse; a tennis -- four tennis courts, beautiful tennis courts, adjacent to the clubhouse all situated in the center of the development project, which is -- is the logical and -- and the best place for it. And we decided on going ahead and -- and buying that that day when we was down there. We looked at some brochures. We saw all of the nine buildings projected -- none of them had been built at that time -- projected around there and the beautiful landscape, and we decided that that's where we wanted to -- to be. And -- and when you have tennis courts and when you have swimming pools, you've got to have restrooms. You've got to have water fountains. You've got to have showers. All of these are in this one complex. You don't have to have individual facilities for any of those -- those other things. Those four tennis courts provide us with what we call community tennis. We get a lot of people involved. We have community tennis on Saturday mornings and on Monday afternoons and on Wednesday afternoons, and I'll just explain briefly how we go about community tennis on Saturday morning. We have a sheet where you can sign up to play. There are only four courts; so you only have 16 players. The first 16 players that sign up on that sheet by the tennis courts there by the clubhouse will be the ones that will play Saturday morning. They all assemble about eight o'clock. They warm up about 15 minutes. The captain calls all of them together on one of the center courts, either 2 or 3, assigns them numbers, and then he'll read out number 2 and number 4 play number 6 and number 8 on Court 1. He goes through this on all -- on all four courts. They play four games, and when they're all finished with four games, he calls them back. He calls out numbers again. This is repeated about eight or ten times. We all play with different partners every time. We have a lot of fun and a lot of fellowship. And I would like to say that -- that maintaining tennis courts is a big expense. These are Har-Tru courts. They have to be worked every day, sometimes twice a day, rolled and packed and brushed; and you have to have something like a tractor to pull the -- the rollers and so forth. Once you -- and you have to have a big gate to get into the tennis complex, but once you're in there, you can fix all four courts relatively fast and easy. If you split these courts up and have one here (indicating), one there (indicating), two over here (indicating), you have killed community tennis, because you have to have eye contact and voice contact to conduct community tennis and coordinate it. And so I'm -- I'm against it for that reason. I'm also against it for the maintenance problem, because it takes a lot of man-hours to keep those courts up. And to take that tractor-like thing that has a 7-foot-wide brush behind it from one complex to another, you have to have a road to -- to run that tractor and the rollers and so forth. And then you -- when you go in the courts, you make certain adjustments to -- to the brushes and so forth, and when you come out, you got to make the adjustments again, and you'll be doing that two or three times. From a maintenance standpoint, you only do it once the way it is now. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Dobberteen. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see Mr. Weigel, but before we get off on too many tangents, this board is being asked to approve or not approve a variance, building height. What occurs in relation to common areas is not the perusal of this board. We have no say in what occurs in those common areas. We have no jurisdiction. This is a building height variance, and I just -- again, we -- we can't tell you what you do or don't have to do with your tennis courts. That's not a -- that's not a part of this -- of what we're being asked to do here. So I don't -- I just don't want to mislead you that we have any authority in that area. This is a variance for building height. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Anderson, I believe it's Ross Anderson; you'll follow this gentleman. Go ahead, Mr. Dobberteen. MR. DOBBERTEEN: Thank you. My name is Bruce Dobberteen. I am a Florida resident and have lived at La Peninsula for eight years. I'm opposed to the request for a height variance of 75 feet. La Peninsula is a unique and attractive place because of its low-rise buildings. I bought here because of that fact. The proposed buildings have 11 levels compared to 5 levels in the current buildings. A variance from 50 to 75 feet doesn't sound like a lot, but if you're living there, imagine looking at 11 levels instead of 5. The petitioner's presentation to you suggests that the area may involve (sic) into two separate condominiums: La Dauphine, as in your documents, and La Peninsula. I believe that this will happen. If it happens, it will negatively impact what should be a coherent and homogenized development on a very special strip of land. We hope that you will not bulkanize this unique place. The requestor indicates one of the reasons for approving the variance is better views. Frankly, I don't understand this issue. Each of the condos have magnificent views. The views between the buildings weren't much in the old plan, and they aren't much in the new plan. As to the matter of air circulation, we know that the prevailing winds are from the southwest, and the buildings at issue face the northwest. It doesn't seem to me to be a relevant issue. The petitioner refers to open space as a benefit of his proposal. Open space that is lawn and landscaping, green space, is an advantage. Parking lots and roadways are not an advantage. The petitioner plans to turn the present green space into parking lots and unnecessary roadways. A careful analysis of these two plans leads to this alarming conclusion: Green space has been decreased nearly 50 percent from a hundred and -- from nineteen -- a hundred and ninety thousand square feet in the original plan to a hundred and five thousand square feet in the petitioner's plan. And, finally, a closing thought about height. How tall is this building really going to be? This chart suggests that it's going to be a hundred and ten or a hundred and fifteen feet from top to bottom. I believe it's going to be a lot taller than Marco Towers. Marco Towers has a flat roof; 8 levels, not 11; and has no 9- or 10-foot ceilings. Thank you very much for your attention. It's a privilege to talk to you. I didn't realize you people had to work so hard. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Anderson, and then, Ms. Clark, you'll follow this gentleman. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My name is T. Russell Anderson. I live at 641 La Peninsula. The other day I took a ride down to Florida Connection, and I talked to a salesperson down there about the proposed complex, La Dauphine. And she tells me that the developer at the new La Dauphine is George Heaton. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Should we know who that is, or -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know him. MR. DORRILL: Miss Clark, are you still with us? Joanne Clark, if you would, please, ma'am; and then, Mr. Yovanovich, you'll be following this lady. MS. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, my name is Joanne Clark, and I live at 645 La Peninsula. My main problem, number one, is that the notice for the hearing was mailed out on November 22nd by bulk mail. I did not receive this (indicating) until the day after the hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Today's the hearing. MS. CLARK: The other hearing for the original -- I sent you a letter to that effect too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You meant the Planning Commission. MS. CLARK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They didn't make a decision. They make recommendations. MS. CLARK: Okay. But I wasn't even aware of it until that time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You were not in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting, obviously. MS. CLARK: No, I didn't know about it. Okay. I also did not receive any correspondence until November 29th from Mr. Socol. When I bought into La Peninsula, I bought into a way of life that I wanted to do, the way I wanted to live. This is the ad, an island sanctuary. Didn't want high rises. If I wanted a high rise, I would have gone to Hideaway Beach where I had originally looked. And also this is why I -- I have a condominium on Marco Island, but it was already overcrowded and congested, and I wanted La Peninsula, the way Marco was 30 years ago when I first came here. But most importantly -- well, secondly, there's also -- if our present construction is so bad that we have to change it and have high rises -- I have a commercial postcard that I bought at a drugstore, six for a dollar or something, where they're expounding on the beauty of the Isle of Capri, and La Peninsula is the featured subject. Okay. It does -- it does show the unfinished building, which is adjoining my building, which is my main concern. I live at 645, which is the top floor of the building that is to be demolished. If that building is demolished, what's going to happen to my investment, my original investment, and also the hundred thousand dollars that I have put into my unit? Demolition will probably crack my floor to floor -- floor-to-ceiling mirrors, my marble, the tile in the kitchen. The demolition is naturally going to create a horrible hardship on me: first of all, the noise of the demolition and also the destruction. If my property is damaged, what proof do I have or what do I have to go on that it's going to be corrected? And I feel that the stress of -- as a citizen that it -- it's going to be a tremendous hardship on me. I came here to spend the rest of my life in peace and harmony with the community that I bought into, not to have it disturbed and changed. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, obviously not in this forum, but surely there is a -- a way to remedy that if -- if someone is doing some sort of construction or destruction and they cause a problem on adjoining property, do they hold some responsibility? Again, not in this forum, but I've got to assume there's some responsibility there. Someone can pursue that in civil court or -- MR. WEIGEL: There is -- MS. CLARK: Sure, which would cost me -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you'll allow -- can I ask __ MS. CLARK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- our attorney to answer the question, please? MR. WEIGEL: There are -- there are civil remedies that are apart from the government process. In regard to permitting where there is pile driving or blasting or activities that affect adjacent lands, our codes do address that at least to a considerable extent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I guess my question for the woman is, you mentioned concern for the enjoyment and value of your property, and if this is what you are looking at next door (indicating), I've got to assume that impacts the value of your property. MS. CLARK: I -- I have here where it can be completed, and I also have a letter that shows that back in June of 1995, the -- the people that were at -- there now, which are, again, the same people obviously, but they had several reservations for Building 700 already. And I was told that four of the units adjoining mine were already -- had contracts at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, my point isn't whether or not that can be completed. It appears that they're -- they're not going to do that. And if it stays in its current state, which it's been in for seven years, I've got to assume that that does have a negative impact on your value. MS. CLARK: Not if it's completed the way it should be CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's not what he said, ma'am. MS. CLARK: -- and there's no reason why it can't be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not what I'm asking. MS. CLARK: I'm sorry. I didn't quite understand the question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It stayed in the same state for seven years. If it continues in that state, that very clearly has a negative impact on your or other neighboring properties. MS. CLARK: Right. But what I'm saying is that I would probably have to have litigation and additional expense in order to have my property put back into the condition that it is now. I finally finished all the improvements. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask you, Miss Clark, when you signed the petition opposing this project? Do you remember when you did that? MS. CLARK: I think it was the day before the hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before the Planning Commission? MS. CLARK: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But your first point was that you weren't made aware of this until the day after the hearing. MS. CLARK: I did not receive any correspondence. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But were you aware of it? MS. CLARK: Not until I saw the bulletin, and I found out about -- you know, that there was a hearing, and I hadn't -- I hadn't received notification. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you were aware of it. MS. CLARK: I've never had an opportunity to even review any of it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let -- let me make sure I'm clear. You signed the petition before the hearing of the Planning Commission. MS. CLARK: The day before. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And you were assumedly, then, aware that there was a Planning Commission hearing. MS. CLARK: The day before. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. So you were aware -- MS. CLARK: But I had no time to even evaluate the -- the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But you were -- you were aware of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You signed a petition against it. MS. CLARK: I signed it because I did not have a chance to even evaluate and review their proposal. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why would you oppose something you haven't reviewed? MS. CLARK: Why? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- if you -- MS. CLARK: Why would I approve something that I haven't had a chance to review? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would do neither. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I -- my -- my reason for asking was just to find out whether or not at least you knew there was going to be a hearing, and you did. Even though you couldn't make plans to be there, you did know there was a hearing. MS. CLARK: The day before. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's -- that's all I was asking. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next speaker, please. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Yovanovich, then Mr. Carse. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich, and I represent Diane and Joseph Barravecchio and the four people who just previously spoke beginning with Mr. Southern. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but that is, perhaps, the best-looking tie we've had up here all day. MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that. Thank you. Not to spend a whole lot of time on the notice issue, we also have issues with the notice; and so I don't have to get into all the details, we'd just like to preserve our ability to appeal based on improper notice. We want to point out that what the petitioner is asking for is for you to help him make more money. The original developer is Isle of Capri Associates, Inc. They are the current property owner. They bought the property with the current problems, with -- with the, quote, Beirut Building. They were going to complete the project. Now they've decided they want to -- they weren't able to make this project go, and they want a different development plan. So they're coming to the commission and saying, please give us a height variance so we can try a different product which will sell in this area. You know, we all want to make more money, and that's fine. But I'm not sure it's the commission's domain to make that happen. I think what -- the petitioner has to prove that he's entitled to a variance for other reasons than economic reasons. What has happened here is Isle of Capri Associates, like I said, purchased the property. It -- it wasn't going forward. They then entered into an agreement with Mr. Socol for Mr. Socol to purchase the property. The agreement is contingent upon a lot of different things including getting this variance for height. It's also conditioned upon him getting the approval of the master association to allow the juggling around of common elements, which Mr. Anderson has represented he already had that authority, but the contract is contingent upon him getting that authority. So Mr. Socol has entered into an agreement with Isle of Capri Associates to buy the property, and Mr. Heaton is the president of Isle of Capri Associates, Inc. At one point when he signed the contract, he was the president. He may no longer be, but when he entered into the agreement with Mr. Socol, he was the president. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You must have eyes in the back of your head. These people behind you are going (indicating). MR. YOVANOVICH: I can -- I can hear. I -- I'm being coaxed. So anyway the point of that is, the sales contract has quite a few incentives for Isle of Capri for this to go forward. They get 3 percent of the -- the revenues from all sales of Mr. Socol's project, in any development entity it's named, because it's Mr. Socol or his assigns. They also get seventy-five thous -- seven hundred -- up to seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars for any construction savings that occur by going to this new construction method. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, Mr. Yovanovich, that's not relevant. We don't -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It is relevant in that it appears what's happening is we're -- we may be shifting names. Instead of it being Isle of Capri, we're talking about somebody else. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: But we can't deny or approve a variance based on that information. You already hit on the point: Why is a variance being requested, and what physical elements -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'll move -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- dictate. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll move along. That was -- that's just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It may be useful background for you, but it doesn't help us in this decision. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, let's get to the -- to the crux of the matter. Staff has reviewed the variance request, and staff has said that a conforming structure can be built there. In fact, there is a permit down at community -- at Development Services that, with a few minor changes, can be picked up to complete the building. It can be done. They can get the permit to complete the building. They don't want to, but they can do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you think that might be because they can't sell the units? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I understand that, but again, I don't think economic reasons is the sole reason for you to give him a variance in the height requirements. He can go other ways. Staff has determined that there's no land-related hardship; thus the variance will confer a special privilege otherwise denied to other lands of the zoning district. And staff has determined that the granting of this variance will not be in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the RHF-12 district. The Marco Tower that was discussed is on the other side of the property. It's not -- it's adjacent to a five-story building. One of the 75-foot-story (sic) buildings, if I can (indicating), will be right adjacent to a single-family residence. Okay. That's what's going to be adjacent to the 75-foot building, single-family residence. In addition, this -- this rendition of what's going to be built is inaccurate. This building is -- is not going to be as long as they're depicting it. Everything -- it's shorter and everything moves this way (indicating). So what they're saying as far as distance between structures is -- is not totally accurate. We are not opposed to a -- some plan to get rid of the Beirut Building, but we are opposed -- can I just conclude? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Tell us what you're opposing. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. We are just -- we are opposed to the giving of the variance when we do not believe that the petitioner has met the criteria set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code to be entitled to a variance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Yovanovich, didn't you used to be on our county attorney's staff? MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: For how long? MR. YOVANOVICH: Probably a little over four years. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: In that four-year period, did you ever see a variance granted when -- if there was an alternative other than the variance to whatever was being proposed? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You made a point that -- that this -- that the building could be built without this variance. In your experience as county attorney, did you ever see a -- a variance granted under similar circumstances? MR. YOVANOVICH: Where there was another building? I -- to be honest with you, I wasn't responsible for reviewing variance requests; so I don't know what was approved and what wasn't approved. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, maybe I can refresh you since the same -- approximate same four years I was here. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. Many times have variances been granted when there were plausible alternatives to what was being requested under the variance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that's not the criteria. Staff went through the criteria and says that all of them are met with the exception of a couple that they didn't go on to explain why -- MR. YOVANOVICH: And -- and another -- just for a quick second. The tenure of the report, I understood, was let's get rid of the eyesore; so let's grant this variance request. And we got a plan before us, and I'm not sure that -- that's that's the only criteria you need to look at. You failed three of the eight -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that your staff has said. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Carse and then Mr. Martin. MR. CARSE: Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good afternoon. My name is George Carse. I live at 202 La Peninsula Boulevard. My wife and I have been residents of La Peninsula for the past nine years on the Isles of Capri here in Collier County. My comments today are made not just on our behalf, but I'd like you to know on behalf of the overwhelming majority of residents at La Peninsula. As you've heard from counsel, a vote was taken. We have a hundred and thirty-nine units at La Peninsula, and over 80 percent of the unit owners responded; and of that 80 percent, 66 percent voted in favor of the so-called project. Some 34 percent entered negative votes, which represented 23 owners at La Peninsula. As noted by counsel, it is also a significant factor that there have not been any objections from the residential homes which are adjacent to La Peninsula and which are adjacent to what will be -- if you pass this petition, what will be the 75-foot buildings. There have been no objections from the surrounding neighbors, and there have been no objections from La -- from the Isles of Capri in general. Today, Commissioners, on behalf of this majority interest, we urge your approval of Petition V-96-22 presented by the Socols requesting the variance for the two residential buildings. We cannot emphasize too strongly the importance of today's hearing of this petition, for your approval will allow several significant benefits to accrue not only to La Peninsula, but also to the Isles of Capri and also, further, to Collier County. Very briefly, La Peninsula has been in dire financial straits from shortly after its inception right up to the present time with but -- with but a very brief intermission during the present developer's ownership. This developer, the Isles of Capri Associates, has, in fact, further burdened the owners themselves with serious delinquencies of -- of regular assessments and special assessment funds, which to this day are unaccounted for from 1995. This fall the same developer passed another special assessment for necessary repairs, but, again, was totally delinquent in paying their share of what amounted to close to a hundred thousand dollars. I only mention this so that you can see the majority desire to clear away this wreckage with a new developer is not hard to understand. With regard to the construction, the additional height of the new buildings will definitely allow greater airflow, and it will definitely open up a vision -- a view of the sea and the beautiful mangroves that otherwise would not have existed, and we'd like you not to discount that. Further and at long last, the elimination of the Beirut Building is something that we have long awaited. This has stood as a major eyesore to marine traffic and land traffic, and in case you don't -- or haven't seen the building, it sits at the -- at the entranceway of the Isles of Capri Pass and the inland waterway as a -- as a notice to people of the sorry site at La Peninsula that hasn't been corrected. It's also a sorry site for the many tour boats that go by every day and point out the Beirut Building. Finally, this new construction will compliment La Peninsula. It will -- by further increasing the beauty of the community considered by many to be one of the most beautiful projects in all of Collier County. Property values, which have suffered from neglect over the years, will be allowed to return to normal. And this will not benefit just the owners, but also the Isles of Capri community and also the tax rolls of Collier County. For the above reasons, Commissioners, we, again, urge your approval, and we thank you for listening. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Martin and then Mr. Allen. MR. MARTIN: Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Ken Martin. I'm a permanent resident of 206 La Peninsula. I moved in in 1988 just after the original developer went belly-up and left two incomplete buildings. In the ensuing years, most of the years, La Peninsula was under the direction of a court-appointed executor or whatever they called him. And, incidentally, that's the only individual connected with the project that's ever made any money. (Laughter) A couple of years ago, Isles of Capri Associates bought the project at auction from the RTC, and we were very optimistic at La Peninsula as to what might happen. In the two years that they've been working on the project, they've completed one building. And they've told us that it ran a million dollars over budget, and they proved to us that the units couldn't be sold economically. They recently dumped -- wholesaled 15 of them at 50 to 60 percent of the listed prices. And in their course of their activities at La Peninsula, as has been said, they didn't help our name at all; and they failed to address some very serious concerns, the problems that arose while they were there. As has been said, they've chose to ignore a very serious sewage-disposal problem. And they finally did, at the insistence of the owners, pass a special assessment to address it, but they haven't put a dime in it. They collected to recondition our pool, which is in serious repair problems. And they collected it, and a year later nothing has been done, and we don't expect anything to be done. And they've chosen to ignore the condition of the seawall and permitted it to fall into the Gulf of Mexico, a pretty good section of it. And that's where we stand today. Now we have a developer who is proposing to come in and build something that he can build economically and that he feels there's a market for it, and many of us are in the same situation that I'm in. We feel this might be a last opportunity to see the project completed in our lifetimes, and we welcome it, and we'd appreciate your consideration. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Allen. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: How many more, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: I have one more. After this gentleman will be Mr. Compton -- or Ms. Compton, rather. MR. ALLEN: Thank you, Commissioners, for hearing us. My name is Douglas Allen, and I have Unit 635 since 1989. And that unit, incidentally, is right in against this concrete wall (indicating), which I don't appreciate very much. The two new condominiums proposed will, to my mind, not only be an enhancement of the area, but as has been said before, give us more viewing area and -- compared to this early 1980s design, which really creates a wall which you can't see around. Of course, we have the precedent of Marco Towers at 75 feet. They're right next door to us. That's never bothered us. I think the other main feature there is that these new buildings will permit some upscale units to be present at -- at La Peninsula, and that has to help all of us, all of our property values. And also I think the -- from what I've seen, this is a fairly common practice in developments to have various scales of -- of units. In summary, then, I -- we believe this new property is good for La Peninsula and will indeed be followed through, and that's very important to us. We're feeling very sorry about what's happened the last several years. It will enhance our values, improve our views, and we highly recommend it. I think we will be very happy to have our last seven years of -- of development troubles ended and have a finished community we can be proud of. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: And Miss Compton. She's your last registered speaker, Mr. Chairman. MS. COHPTON: Good afternoon. I'm Barbara Compton. I've been a resident of Collier County since 1971, a realtor since 1976. Most importantly, I represent six unit owners or six units at La Peninsula, and these people are very concerned about their current and future community out there. I was one of the original on-site sales associates for La Peninsula with Marco Beach Realty, and last summer I was requested to come to North Palm Beach and meet with Isles of Capri Associates' Mr. George Heaton. They were having problems. They were requesting that we work on wholesaling the units at a 25 percent discount. In October I had done an update to Mr. Socol on what had had happened out there. If you will let me read a little of this, I'd like to tell you. It said, As an update to our marketing involvement with Mr. Heaton at La Peninsula since July, we have had nine written contracts. However, the time -- at this time only one is due to close in November, one has not been accepted, and seven were withdrawn during the 15-day recisionary period. The reason those were withdrawn was, my customers got out and about, which I encouraged them to do, spoke to people in the community, spoke to people at La Peninsula, checked with the on-site maintenance people, etc., and received very negative reports on the community itself and the values there. I believe that even at the reduced prices and other incentives, it was not enough to make people go ahead with it. They are looking for a -- a different type of value in this day and age: larger units, more amenities, etc. Probably the best comparable today to Mr. Socol's proposal is in North Naples, the highly successful Pelican Isle Yacht Club. It has the same types of views and -- and the same types of amenities. Yes, Mr. Socol is proposing this to be slightly higher, but the community is going to be gaining. They are going to have more green space and widened views, updated modern facilities, retention enhancement of the beautiful landscaping, and a completed community. The problems and frustrations expressed are justified and are a result of the current design and not Mr. Socol's proposal. Something I wasn't going to address, but Mr. Anderson that spoke here earlier did come to my office. He spoke with one of my realtors and gave his name as Ted Brown, said he lived in Lely, gave a different phone number. They first discussed Hideaway Beach. They discussed also the current properties that were over there. He told her that he did not like Building 400; so they discussed Building 500, which we were having an open house on Sunday. She made an appointment for him to meet my other associate, Dave Johnson, there on Sunday. He did not come, needless to say. And, yes, she told him that Mr. Heaton was the developer. Mr. Heaton is the developer of Building 500. Mr. Socol will be the developer of the new project when it comes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We need to swear in Ted Brown. (Laughter) MS. COMPTON: I -- I also wanted to mention that during the same time period that -- that I was working on the La Peninsula things, we were working with another project on Marco Island called Vintage Bay. It has many similarities with La Peninsula. It is not a beachfront property, but has a spectacular view and generous square footage. During July, August, and September, we had 14 sales at Vintage Bay. All are firm with 20 percent deposits, and there were no recisions on it. I think that's saying that the market is there. There are buyers out there. They have to have confidence in the project that they're buying. And for the existing owners that are there, this variance will enhance their values in the long run. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: I believe that's all, Mr. Chairman. MR. BELLOWS: Excuse me, Commissioners. I also would like to put on the record a couple comments. One is that the Land Development Code was recently amended to reference demonstration of practical difficulties in approving a variance, not just a land-related hardship. And that could mean a height variance zoning, not a conceptual site plan submitted with that variance request. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, I think you wanted to give us a little advice too. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thanks. I'll make one comment in regard -- that you haven't asked me for, but in regard to the proposed eight -- eight elements concerning hardship, these are guides. The -- there is no requirement in the Land Development Code that all eight elements be effectively denoted or hit on the head exactly, but they are elements to be looked at to assist the board in making this determination. In regard to the question of this item coming before the board generally and the -- the issue of notice procedure that had -- had come up, I'd take this opportunity to mention to the board and the public that -- that rarely will be the case that the county attorney will tell the board that it cannot hear an item. The county attorney and the county attorney staff may advise the board of the effects of decisions that it may make when it hears an item, but for those -- particularly for those items that are petitioner driven, if the petitioner, as this petitioner or petitioner's agent, was given the opportunity to continue, to withdraw, to come back, to attempt to alleviate or remove or reduce issues or perceptions of issues of notice and procedure, and this petitioner has stated, no, they wanted to be heard today. And from that standpoint then the county attorney is in a position to advise the board upon having a hearing of what the actions of the board may -- may be. And I would tell you that, in fact, yes, there is, in fact, a procedural issue concerning notice. It has been raised; it's been researched. We certainly had the privilege -- and I consider it a privilege to work with former colleagues on both sides of the issue and commend them for the research they did and Miss Student for her research over the weekend in regard to notice, procedure, a lot of court cases that we reviewed. There's no case exactly on point concerning the kind of procedure that the county has. And don't forget this is a -- a double procedure, involves the Collier County Planning Commission and then the -- the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Zoning Appeals. Upon that background I would suggest to the board that if they ask the question if they approve this may the county get sued for having approved it, the answer is, yes, you can get sued for almost any decision that you make. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And regularly do. MR. WEIGEL: The question -- another question that frequently haunted Mr. Cuyler and me occasionally thus far is, well, if you're sued, what are the percentages of winning or losing? Ken usually ducked that question pretty well. (Laughter) MR. WEIGEL: And I'll try to, too; and that is, we don't know what the courts will do. But I do think that there is a risk here if the board goes forward in the sense that there is a -- an issue. How genuine, I can't absolutely tell you, but there is an issue concerning the notice that went out or failed to go out in a timely fashion to people surrounding the property before you today. But there are some alternatives for you. Obviously, you always have the ability to deny the petitioner's request. In most cases the potential for lawsuit goes away, but not always. You could approve the petitioner's request. In this case we have some stipulations presented by Mr. Anderson on behalf of the petitioner and I think some stipulations and conditions or recommendations by staff in regard to the petition before you. But by virtue of the fact that there is an issue of notice, you have another option before you, too, and that is, conceivably, you can approve -- if you wish to, approve the petition today with what other -- whatever conditions or stipulations that -- that you wish to implement. You may also -- and this is somewhat novel. You may, in fact, before the end of this board meeting or shortly thereafter entertain a motion to reconsider under Section 2-41 of our code book, the reconsideration ordinance. This would give the public, the staff, all interested parties an opportunity for the staff to renotice all the appropriate people that are required under our code to be noticed. And it would come -- the board could come back and hear this under a motion to -- reconsideration type of hearing on the second meeting following this meeting, which would be, I think, the 7th of January, which gives enough time for everyone who hasn't had notice or thinks they haven't had notice to be noticed, and it could come back again. A little postscript to this, and Mr. Anderson will assist me here, is that he has indicated that his client will, in fact, defend and hold the county harmless if the board does deem to approve the petition today. And I would appreciate it if he would indicate that for the record just so you know ultimately what -- what their intentions are in that regard. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. I made that commitment in a March -- or December 9, 1996, letter to Assistant County Attorney Harjorie Student, which I would like to make a part of the record today. It also includes our responses on the notice issues. MR. WEIGEL: I'd be remiss if I didn't tell you one other option that you have, and of course, you exercise this from time to time, and that is to continue an item. Now, that may or may not assist the petitioner in his goal in merely continuing the item to some date certain and the staff still going forward and taking care of any notice requirements that it -- that it's aware of. But that, again, just for the record to be complete, is another option that you have, and if you have any questions, I'll try to answer those. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, how much -- I guess I just want to know if this can play into my decision, because it's one thing when we get something that has not been properly noticed whether the -- where the location is wrong or a segment of -- of individuals living around it were absolutely not noticed, I mean, very obvious cases. It appears to me that for all the points raised, there's been no material effect on what we've heard today. There's nobody that wasn't told about this today that should have been told about this today. If the postal office was slow in delivering, our code says it must be sent, not that we must guarantee delivery. So '- MS. CLARK: You -- you -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ha'am. Ha'am. The -- the point I'm getting at is, there's been no real material effect on this hearing. And, you know, to continue is to come back and hear the exact same thing we just heard today at another time, and we've never really had a real reason to do that either. So can that be a part of this board's deliberation in whether or not the notice difficulty is -- is valid? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If -- if I can just follow up on that. If the board's comfortable doing the scenario -- the petitioner may not be, but I don't have any opposition to making a decision one way or the other today and then reconsidering it, which cures the defect from what -- from what you've described. I -- I don't know if you all are open to that, but that way that -- that answer -- or that issue goes away, and we can base our decision solely on the merits of the request -- MR. WEIGEL: If I can respond. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- as opposed to continuing, because I agree with you. I -- I don't think we've done that frequently and -- MR. WEIGEL: I -- I had indicated on the record that there are issues of procedure and notice, but I have not stated that there is a defect. We have an alleged defect. But at any rate, the opportunity, if the board were to entertain this and the staff to go forward and advertise to bring it back again, would lay to rest the question of any person who hadn't been given notice. Clearly they would have had notice, and the people that have appeared here today and some who have, of course, not appeared here today have had notice one way or another. But it's -- it's just a -- it's an element where it reduces -- probably reduces the -- the risk of an unsuccessful defense of a lawsuit if you don't do that reconsideration, but at the same time, you are not constrained to do a reconsideration. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. The -- I think the point that we need to keep in mind as a board is that if the -- if the variance is denied, we don't need to do anything further; but if it is -- if the variance is granted, to -- as Mr. Weigel has pointed out to us, to make the decision pretty much sueproof, I think we would probably want to go with the reconsideration. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And in reconsideration what would we do? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'd have the hearing again. We would renotice people and make sure they're all noticed and then have -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Go through this again? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- hearing again. Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, you'd have a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Having already voted and already decided? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. That's government. MR. WEIGEL: If that's the case -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This morning you thought another 30 days would be great. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not writing a blank check right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would -- I would venture to try something untested and actually talk about the project. (Laughter) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When it comes to a height variance, generally the things I look for are both internal and external compatibility. Obviously, the existing project half built can't be profitable, be completed, and can't meet current development standards. So the project's going to have to change in some form. The question is, is this the minimum change that would allow for a compatible project? I went through the eight guides that are -- that are to be considered by this board, and I come up five in favor of, three not. In looking at that list of eight, one is extremely subjective when I look at the -- the individual criteria. So I -- I'm comfortable as far as what our code sets for us is -- what we should consider, it meets the majority of that test. And the thing that -- that really gets me is, there's no property on the other side except for the general boating public. They've been looking at -- at the Beirut Building for -- for seven years, and when you count the numbers of individuals who live in La Peninsula that support this and take out the -- the duplication of some 14 or 15 units owned by one individual who all voted no against it, it's an overwhelming number that say this is a good thing. And generally on internal compatibility, that's a pretty good measure that I've used in the past. So is the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of Petition V-96-22, a 25-foot variance, and that does include all stipulations set forth by staff and those commitments made by the petitioner both in writing and on the record today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Specifically, I particularly want to note that one about indemnifying us from any notice issues. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Included. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. If there's no further questions, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There are none. Motion to reconsider? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Being one on the prevailing side of that motion, I guess it's appropriate to -- I'll make a motion to reconsider this item after a proper notice has occurred, which will be, I guess, 15 days prior to the hearing date. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not sure why that's necessary if we've already been indemnified on the issue. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, that's a good point too. I guess we're just trying to keep our county attorney out of court as much as possible and in the office, which is kind of another novel concept. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It would probably be cheaper than defending the lawsuits. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't -- I don't think the -- the notice requirement carries -- what I've heard today is, is that valid? So if we're going to err on the safe side, let's go ahead and do it procedurally instead of risking sending the county attorney or assistant county attorney to court on a couple of days. So I'm going to let the motion stand for reconsideration. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second for reconsideration and adver -- readvertisement. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Make that two. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Make that two? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. All right. That concludes that item then. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 96-580, RE PETITION V-96-23, NORHAWESTALL, REQUESTING A 12 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 18 FEET FOR A UTILITY SHED ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 620 WEBBER BOULEVARD, TRACT 23, UNIT 4, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED The next item is 13(A)(2), Petition V-96-23. HR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, just to advise you, I have no further speakers for the balance of the day. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The balance of the day? While we are -- while we are in the transition mode here, we would be remiss in our duties if we didn't recognize the esteemed Hickey Cooper in our -- in our audience today. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So esteemed I have no idea -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Hickey Cooper? We'd like to recognize Hickey. He graced us with his presence here today. MR. COOPER: I'll see you after the first of the year, if you know what I mean. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I do. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it an odd or an even here coming up? MR. DORRILL: Go ahead, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of current planning staff presenting Petition V-96-23, Norma Westall requesting a 12-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 30-foot side-yard setback for a utility shed. The property is located at 620 Weber Boulevard, which is in the Golden Gate Estates. The building permit for the shed indicates that the hundred-and-ninety-two-square-foot shed was designed with the required 30-foot setback. However, the original property owner built it in the wrong location and never called in a final inspection; and, therefore, it went undetected until the current property owner, Ms. Westall, purchased the property. Then it was detected. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But someone at least bothered to get a permit this time. How refreshing. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, halfway through. It's staff's opinion that the encroachment will not impact the adjacent properties, will not affect public health, safety, or -- or welfare. And the Collier County Planning Commission approved this petition -- or recommended approval on November 21st for -- if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On a variance like this, if we approve it and a storm comes along and blows it down, can they rebuild it on the same pad? MR. BELLOWS: The variance will allow them to rebuild it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It runs with the land. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's what I thought. That's the only downside to these. Have you received any correspondence from the adjacent property owner who is closest to this? MR. BELLOWS: They showed up at the Planning Commission, but they were mostly interested in how the variance would affect their property. And they thought they may be expanding or increasing the nonconforming, and then when they found out it was remaining the same, they had no objections. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, is there an opportunity for the board to impose a condition for the variance that would not allow reconstruction upon demolition or other destruction of the -- the shed rather than have it run with the land in -- in perpetuity? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I just hate to do that. You know, I mean, if a hurricane comes in and, by no fault of their own, happens to destroy something, I don't see the harm in -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, the -- the point is that the shed could be built in a conforming location without any problem. The -- it was just put there as a matter of convenience without a permit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than -- than test the waters on this one issue, what I'd like to do is maybe ask the county attorney to look into that for future cases, because I'm -- I think in some cases like this one I would -- I would go that route, because if it's completely destroyed by fire or storm, the replacement cost is the same whether it's there or 20 feet this way (indicating). So it's not like you're financially affecting the individual, but -- just like signs. If you have a nonconforming sign and it blows down, you have to put it back in a conforming location. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. But I think this -- you're talking about you've got a concrete pad; so it's going to be -- I don't think a hurricane or a tornado or whatever is probably going to tear up the -- the concrete pad. It will the building, but -- which means then they're going to have to remove what is there and move it. MR. BELLOWS: That is one of the petitioner's stated reasons for applying for the variance. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's understandable. Is the variance -- does it only cover the portion of the property underneath the pad -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- and nothing else? MR. BELLOWS: The shed rests firmly on the pad. It doesn't -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The variance doesn't cover anything outside the boundaries of the shed? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. They can't come in and build a second shed. MR. BELLOWS: No. It only applies to the shed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I don't want to hold this item up, but I -- I think there's some cases where that's a valid concern, and I would like to ask the county attorney to let us know if that can be done. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I do too. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of Variance 96-23. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A rare motion to approve a variance by me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 96-581, PETITION CU-96-17, WILIAM L. HOOVER, AICP AND BEAU KEENE, P.E. OF KEENE ENGINEERING, REPRESENTING HAYFLOWER CONGREGATIONAL UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USES "1" AND "3" OF THE "E" ESTATES DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH WITH RELATED FACILITIES AND CHILD CARE CENTER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COUNTY BARN ROAD APPROXIMATELY .8 MILES SOUTH OF DAVIS BLVD. (C.R. 84), CONSISTING OF 9.91 ACRES - ADOPTED WITH CONDITIONS Next item, petition -- is 13(A)(3), Petition CU-96-17. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, your planning services staff. Petition CU-96-17 asks your permission -- asks your approval of conditional uses for a church and a day-care center for property that is zoned E, estates, located on the west side of County Barn Road. The petition has been reviewed for its consistency with the Growth Management Plan, and we assure you that this petition, if approved, would be consistent with all elements of the Growth Management Plan. Conditional uses require a finding of fact. In the opinion of staff and the -- supported by the Planning Commission, the criteria for finding approval of a conditional use has been satisfied. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this petition 8 to 0. A -- the property owner lying immediately contiguous to the property, furthermore, has indicated his -- their -- their approval of the -- the granting of the conditional use. The resolution that would have you adopt the conditional use contains a considerable number of conditions which address the issues of compatibility. If approved, this petition would require the construction of a decorative masonry wall. And, moreover, the specifications for that wall are included in your agenda package; would allow that to be timed, however, to the construction of parking lots; would require the development of landscaped buffers in accordance with the Land Development Code; would require direct illumination of the parking areas and no spillover onto adjacent properties; would require that -- right-turn lanes and left turn-lanes and provide conditions under which those could be laid; and then if additional right-of-way were necessary for the widening of County Barn Road, would also require additional right-of-way and compensating right- and left-hand turns. We think that this petition has been comprehensively covered, and we recommend approval of that petition. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Were there any objections from the neighbors? MR. NINO: There were no objections. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No objections. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you define for me -- and I think I know, but define for me the difference between fellowship hall and worship center. MR. NINO: Fellowship hall is the multipurpose building. In our opinion, it's a multipurpose where -- where committees of the church function, and in this case it wouldn't be a Knights of Columbus, obviously. (Laughter) MR. NINO: But that's the closest corollary that I could come up with off the top of my head. COHMISSIONER BERRY: A church hall as opposed to a sanctuary. MR. NINO: A church hall as opposed to a sanctuary, correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd say the biggest difference is folding chairs versus pews. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that -- that's where my question is, though. As this is described, does that mean the fellowship hall will be used as a -- a hall for worship until we -- MR. NINO: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- get to the further phases? MR. NINO: Yes. Under the -- under the phasing program, the fellowship hall -- and Mr. Hoover is the consultant in this case. Under -- they've decided that under their phasing program, they're going to build a church hall first, and they're going to use a part of the church hall as a sanctuary. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess what I want to avoid is -- and I don't think this is happening here, but I don't want to have a hall and day-care center first and then maybe someday a long time from now a church will follow and -- sliding it in under the church category. And I don't think that's going on here, and I just want to make sure. MR. HOOVER: Yes. I think I can answer that. Bill Hoover, representing the petitioner. We have one stipulation in there. For one thing, Commissioner Constantine, the child-care center will not open during the week until the road is four-laned, and I talked to capital projects. They're not expecting that to be four-laned until fiscal year 1999 to 2000. In the church we've already submitted for a SDP, the final, several weeks ago. The church fully intends and would like to be opened maybe by Christmas of 1997. And the fellowship hall is basically a flexible area that would initially be used with folding chairs, as Commissioner Hancock mentioned, and then later on that's typically where the church holds their Wednesday night dinners or Sunday night dinners in that area, and it's used for youth getting togethers and things like that. So it comes in very handy, and -- and you can see we are putting up a -- a large sanctuary in the future. We don't have a problem if you want to add that as a stipulation that the child-care center cannot be operated until after the sanctuary -- excuse me, until after the worship facility is open. In other words, we would always have a church there if we're going to run a child-care center. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question on the child-care center. Do you have a square footage maximum size of that, because again, it's the chronology. We just want a child-care center. Next thing you know, well, we've got a hundred kids and we're looking for an elementary school. You know, and then before you know it, you've got a -- a school growing on the site, and the neighbors read a child-care center associated with a church. So I want to make sure that we -- we have -- MR. HOOVER: There's -- there's a limit in there of -- at least I proposed in there that we would have 60 children in Phase i(B), and then in Phase 2 when the sanctuary is built, we would have another 60 children. So we -- we can also live with a maximum of a hundred and twenty, because that's how we proposed that and did the traffic study. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Since that was a part of the proposal, I'd like that just to be stated on the record: They agree to a maximum of 120 kids; otherwise they have to come back to the board for additional conditional use approval. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other questions from the board? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A mere 120 children. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve the item with all the stipulations that have been outlined as part of this public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: You've got yourself a church center as soon as you pay for it. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 96-582, RE PETITION V-96-24, JIM COBB, REQUESTING A 24.1 FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 48.8 FEET FOR COMBINED SIDE YARDS TO 24.7 FEET FORAN INDUSTRIAL SITE LOCATED AT 351 PRODUCTION BOULEVARD - ADOPTED Next item, 13(A)(4), Petition V-96-24. This one is not too complicated -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- is it, Mr. Badamtchian? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Jim Cobb's company, Atlas Van Lines, they own two conforming lots with two conforming buildings. They have a walkway joining those buildings together with a permanent roof over the walkway. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval of V-96-24. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) That motion is approved 5 to 0. Glad you stayed here all day for that, aren't you? Item #14A OVERHEAD POWER LINES VS. UNDERGROUND LINES - DISCUSSED Okay. Commissioner Berry, anything further? COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. I sent a memo out to each of you yesterday regarding overhead power lines and some information I had received. There's kind of a new trend in power lines with these huge manifolds (phonetic) that are 60 or 80 feet tall. They're able to save right-of-way acquisition by putting one large pole up. The other thing is that Orange County is looking into requiring all future utility lines to be underground -- COMHISSIONER BERRY: I like that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- which I think is another good idea. What I wanted to kind of ask is if -- one, if this element is really any concern to the balance of the board; and, two, if there's interest in pursuing some change that would require future utility lines to be underground. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Tim, I have a question for you -- excuse me, Commissioner. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That's okay. You can call me Tim. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Or you can call me Ray. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Does this -- in the past there's been some concern about the width or the -- the distance out from power lines. Does this -- by having this type of pole, does it affect this? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it just reduces that distance, but we don't have anything that says that -- we don't have minimum distances in residential areas for high trans -- high-voltage transmission lines. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Well, from my former position, we had -- at one time had some property for a school and there was concern because these big power lines ran down through the property, and there was a distance that was stated on either side of those power lines that it was not in our best interest to go ahead and place a school, you know, in close proximity to those power lines because of some kind of waves that were coming off of -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: PCBs. COMHISSIONER BERRY: Whatever. And I just wondered, does this pool -- does this type of pole take care of that? Does it minimize that distance? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: It might, but it certainly would minimize it more if that were underground. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I agree. That -- to me that would be my first choice. If I had a thing that I could say that we should do, I -- I would like to see that, but -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I guess -- and I'm just looking for -- for some direction on, you know, do we want to get into the business of regulating the manner in which power poles are constructed in Collier County, or do we want to leave it as is? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: My answer is, yes, I'd like to get into the business. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And my response is, I think we already are in that business to a degree. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: To a degree. I have not investigated that fully. I tell you what. Why don't I -- I'll just work with our staff and find out what our current regulations are and maybe bring back something that shows where -- the possible problems; and if we wanted to send that to a -- to an amendment process, we'll do it then. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Have you considered the impact that this will have on our earthworm population? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, you mean the rare and -- the rare and endangered Florida earthworm. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have anything further? Item #14B FORTHCOMING INTELLINET CHALLENGE AUDIT - DISCUSSED COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just a -- sort of a heads up that I'm going to be looking for -- and I'm sure you all are, too, but -- but I'm going to be looking for this IntelliNet audit to be coming out of the clerk's office. We expect it soon. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and, frankly, from what I hear about it, I'm unhappy with what we're going to learn, and I think we all ought to be prepared to be taking some really serious action about whether or not we continue to fund the tournament for this coming year. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, this is the best earth there is for those worms anywhere on the planet. COHMISSIONER BERRY: On the planet. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I got it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what we're told for every single animal or plant species, whatever it happens to be, is that it's the best location. Item #14C REVIEW OF COUNTY ATTORNEY TO TAKE PLACE AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR - DISCUSSED Just reflecting this past week on Mr. Dorrill's decision, it got me to thinking about our two employees, and we have yet to do a review. We didn't do a review, a written review, this year on Mr. Weigel. And I wondered if it might not do us a little good to -- at the first of the year to go through that process and make sure we're -- we're all happy and so on. But I know he's not -- he's not due up until Hay or something anyway, but I don't -- I don't know that we did that at all. It might be appropriate sometime after the first of the year to do some sort of review. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Do you normally do this? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, that's normal. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, is this -- it is normal? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have done it annually in the past for the manager and the attorney, and we just missed this year. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We missed it for Mr. Dorrill, too, did we not? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, there was hardly any point of doing it. I was -- I was in the process of -- of putting the -- the requests out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have -- have your review in for him by February 10th. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: As long as you can have it in by February the 9th, I think you'll be all right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a big midyear review, if I remember correctly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, big one. Is it -- is it the normal time? I will -- I'm a little gun shy from what just went on at the city council with the city attorney, and they had this surprise review and that -- I don't want to get into that process with Mr. Weigel. Is it the normal time? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm certainly not suggesting any surprise for Mr. Weigel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no. I didn't think you were. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But -- and actually part of the -- part of the catalyst for this is the action of the city and the fact that they didn't have a record for two or three years of review, and they didn't have any written review. And I just -- I think it's probably not very professional and not good practice for us to go too long of a period of time without giving some formal feedback. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Isn't -- Mr. Weigel, isn't your contract annually renewable at this point? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's a bit of hybrid, but it was, the first year, kind of a probation for a year subject to automatic renewal if nothing occurred -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: When's the year up? MR. WEIGEL: -- and nothing occurred. Well, the year -- the year was up October 3rd. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, welcome to your second year. MR. WEIGEL: Yeah, happy to be here. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think that's a good suggestion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We need to have an annual schedule for that, probably consistent with his anniversary date of the original contract. Item #14D EPTAB TOO MERGE WITH EAB - DISCUSSED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And I have one final comment. I -- I noticed in Mr. Coady's newspaper today that EPTAB has decided that they would like to be folded up into the EAB. That -- that seems a reasonable suggestion since I made that myself in 1993 at which time, of course, I was quite vilified for -- for making such a suggestion. Now they're doing it themselves, and I think it's -- it's encouraging to see them come around to my way of thinking. (Laughter) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you need to take any sort of formal action now to ratify that or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, I think we'll wait for them to make the proposal. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let's do. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But they -- they have done it publicly; so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not that the Naples -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- I think it's a fine idea. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not that the Naples Daily News would ever get, you know, the story anything but exactly accurate, but I'd rather hear from them before we -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: He too. Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're done. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF BULLARD SUBDIVISION - WITH STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A2 - Deleted Item #16A3 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR CALUSA BAY, PHASE I - WITH STIPULATIONS AND CASH BOND O.R. Book Pages Item #16A4 WATER FACILITIES ACCEPTANCE FOR CAY LAGOON - WITH STIPULATIONS AND LETTER OF CREDIT O.R. Book Pages Item #16B1 REPORT OF RECOHMENDED IMPROVEMENTS AND COST ESTIMATE FOR BOAT LAUNCH PARKING IMPROVEMENTS ON C.R. 29 AT CHOKOLOSKEE ISLAND Item #1682 WORK ORDER HMA-FT96-7 WITH HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO IMPLEMENT A 1.5 HGD WATER ASR SYSTEM AT HANATEE ROAD Item #1683 CHANGE ORDER FOR PERFORMANCE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES UNDER THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COASTAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY BEACH RESTORATION PROJECT Item #1684 - Deleted Item #1685 ANNUAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CONSULTNAT CONTRACT #93-2131 FOR MARCO ISLAND, GOLDEN GATE, IHMOKALEE AND LELY GOLF ESTATES H.S.T.U. BEAUTIFICATION DISTRICTS - AWARDED TO MCGEE & ASSOCIATES Item #1686 BID #96-2593 FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATOR REPAIR MAINTENANCE AND INSTALLATION - AWARDED TO AAA GENERATOR AND PUMP, INC. Item #16C1 RESOLUTION 96-573 DESIGNATING COLLIER COUNTY PARK RANGERS AS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND PROVIDING FOR THE DUTIES AND BOUNDARIES FOR SAME WITH CHANGES. RESOLUTION 91-462 AND 92-504 TO BE SUPERSEDED Item #16C2 - Moved to Item #8C1 Item #16D1 REPORT TO THE BOARD REGARDING EMERGENCY REPAIRS TO THE CENTRAL LIBRARY CHILLER Item #16D2 PURCHASE OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS BONDS FOR ELECTED COUNTY COHMISSIONERS AND CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS Item #16D3 BUDGET FOR FY 1996/97 FOR THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (HOU) FIRST RESPONDER TRAINING PROVIDED BY THE PARTICIPATING FIRE DEPARTMENTS Item #16G1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1993 Tangible Personal Property No. Dated 181 11/19/96 1996 Tangible Personal Property 33 11/19/96 1996 Real Property 54 and 57 11/18 - 11/22/96 Item #1662 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented to the Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated: There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:33 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara Grant and Barbara Drescher