Loading...
BCC Minutes 12/09/1997 R REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 9, 1997 OF THE THE COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COHMISSIONERS in LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners 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: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine ALSO PRESENT: Bob Fernandez, County Administrator David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good morning. It's my pleasure to welcome everyone to the December 9th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. This morning it is our pleasure for the invocation to have Reverend Harold Brown of Lely Presbyterian Church with us. Thank you for being here. If we could ask for your invocation, we'll follow that with the Pledge of Allegiance. REV. BROWN: Thank you. Our Father, we thank you for all the secular joy that we have experienced, good shopping and lots of joys and finding presents for those we love. We thank you for safe travel for those of us who are being with our families during this holiday season. We thank you though that underneath all of the secular's the sacred, so we take a moment to give thanks for this perfectly beautiful day that you've given us. Thank you, Lord, not only for that -- this day but also for these public servants who try to do their best. Bless all who are elected, all who are appointed and bless us as a body in Collier County to see underneath all of the secular a sacred theme of your love for us and our opportunity to use our heads and our the hearts because of your divine guidance for good for all. Thank you for that Christmas blessing. Amen. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Reverend Brown, we appreciate you taking time to be with us this morning. Thank you very much. I'd like to also thank our staff. For the first time in a long time we have holiday decorations in the board room. Miss Filson, to you and everyone, thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: As I was gathering myself, it looks like we have a couple of add-ons this morning. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, we do. First is add Item 8(E)(1), which is a request for the board to adopt the resolution opposing House Bill 3185 relating to certain rate-making provisions and investor-owned water and wastewater utility systems before the 1998 regular session of the legislature. And also, we'd like to add Item 10(B), which is the discussion for a joint Lee-Collier meeting with the Army Corps of Engineers, on December the 17th to discuss the proposed study. was by the Commissioner Hancock asked for that one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we no longer following the rule where every time we add an item we have to subtract one? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, you know, you didn't like the one I going to subtract so -- I was going to subtract one of your items adding mine but I didn't think that would work. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, any changes to the agenda? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No additions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No changes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, none for me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to make a motion that we accept agenda and consent agenda as -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- amended. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to his motion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5B EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED We are to the service awards section of this is Item 5(B) on our agenda. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. We've got two biggies today. I thrilled to get to thank these people for their service to Collier County. First is Helen Ortega, if she's here. Would you come forward? For 15 years of service to Collier County. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Congratulations, Helen. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. ORTEGA: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, don't forget the pin. Yeah. Thanks. There is actually one more today but she couldn't be with us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Item #5C1 THE COLLIER COUNTY HUSEUH'S PROGRAM OF EVENTS FOR 1998 IN HONOR OF COLLIER COUNTY'S 75TH ANNIVERSARY - PRESENTED in We're to Item 5(C)(1) on the agenda. This is a presentation to announce the Collier County Huseum's program of events for 1998 honor of the Collier County's -- Collier County's 75th anniversary celebration. Good morning, Mr. Jamro. MR. JAMRO: Good morning, commissioners. Ron Jamro, your museum director. I do appreciate a moment of your time this morning and the opportunity to tell you what the museum has planned for next year to mark the 75th anniversary for Collier County. In a sense we've already started the celebration with our Old Florida Festival this past November. This year's event drew over 5,000 visitors and showcased over five centuries of South Florida history with the help of historical re-enactors, craft workers and folk historians from all over the state. Beginning in January, the museum will providing -- will be providing a daily Today in Collier County History piece for publication in the Naples Daily News as well as a special exhibition from the Henry B. Plant Museum in Tampa on Florida's role in the Spanish-American War, which also observes its centennial in 1998. It's a busy year. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm sorry. You said there was the H. B. Plant Museum? MR. JAMRO: H. B. Plant Museum, yeah. use CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That was our dose in there, yeah. MR. JAMRO: Yeah. Some affiliation of that. Again, in partnership with the Naples Daily News, we will be publishing the first ever children's history of Collier County for by our local second through fourth graders. Then in February we'll be focusing on the heritage and the culture of black Americans in Florida with our fifth annual Black Cultural Arts Festival. It's held on the museum grounds. March takes us even further back in time to investigate Collier County's earliest residents during Florida Archeology Month. It will -- presenting lectures, films and an archeology fair devoted to the culture of the Caloosa Indians and their ancestors. In March 2, we'll be exploring folk life in our community with a and special workshop from the Florida Division of Historical Resources the Florida Humanities Council. This free hands-on program is specially designed to teach people how to preserve their own family histories and photographs. Then on April 26th, we invite all of you to be our honored guests at the dedication of Collier County's newest historical museum, the Museum of the Everglades and Everglades City. The opening crowns almost a decade of hard work and cooperation between this board, the friends of the museum in Everglades City and the State of Florida to rescue, restore and reuse one of our county's oldest structures. And that also coincides with the 70th anniversary of the opening of the Tamiami Trail. For me, we're planning a very special presentation to the board, which will include an exact replica drawn from the Florida Department of State Archives of Senate Bill Number 149 that officially created Collier County on May 8th, 1923. It was signed by then Governor Cary A. Hardy. Finally, we'll end the celebration in November with our tenth annual Old Florida Festival and a two-day salute to Collier County's 75 five years as Florida's 62nd county. We begin, however, next Monday on a more festive note with a special holiday exhibition of Beanie Babies, the level of bean bag animals that have become a national obsession and the hottest toy collectible in toy history. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And it played a critical role in the history and development of Collier County. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right in there. MR. JAMRO: Show me the Beanies, it's coming. It will be the first -- first public exhibition of every Beanie Baby ever produced. And it is designed to introduce younger visitors to the museum and to encourage them to visit often with their parents and friends on more serious trips. At first blush, Beanie Babies in Collier County history would appear to have little or nothing in common. I agree, until you consider that one of the most coveted and eagerly sought after beanies today also happens to be our official county seal, the turkey, which is adopted by the first board of county commissioners on July 9th, 1923. And, so, to mark the beginning of both occasions, the friends of the Collier County Museum would like to present each of you with a small memento this morning served today by our friends and generous co-sponsors of the exhibition from the Registry Resort, Mr. Louis Fartell. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was wondering why there was somebody with tuxedo in the audience. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, my very own? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They should have brought some for everybody. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Miss Mosier. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Do I have to share this with my granddaughter, I wonder? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, my goodness gracious. COMMISSIONER BERRY: This is pretty cute. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I saw you in the elevator. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Now they're going to say we're all a bunch you of turkeys. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's been said before, Barbara. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's official now. MR. JAMRO: So, we're now on your way. 1998 also marks one final milestone. It is the Collier County Huseum's 20th year of public service to our community. We thank for making that possible and for your generous and continued support. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ron, I'm not going to let you get away so quick. First of all, to the Registry Resort and to you, thank you. But to the -- I think those of you in the community that have not stepped foot inside the museum, you're doing yourself a tremendous disservice. The hard work of Ron, his staff and some volunteers have turned what was basically a -- a trailer with some exhibits into what I think is one of the finer museums on history and -- and everything from archeology through, I mean, Beanie Babies. They cover it all. But you do a wonderful job. Ron is actually a co-author of a book that's for sale in the museum that covers Collier County History that's very good. So, please, you know, you support it yourself individually through the community, please visit it. We happen to be you very proud of it. Ron, to you and your staff -- MR. JAMRO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- thank you, and to the Registry, thank very much. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: within hours. My daughter will have drool on that turkey Item #5C2 EDWARD TORRONI, ASSISTANT TO THE ATHLETIC SUPERVISOR, PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION, EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR FOR 1997 - PRESENTED one Our next one is one that as chairman is in the top five of -- of things you enjoy during -- doing during the year and that is to recognize the employee of the year. This year -- I have an opportunity when I go out and speak to obviously answer questions and dodge bullets on tough items, but item that's always a pleasure to deal with is our Parks and Recreation Department. The services that our Parks and Rec people provide through not just the facilities but their hands-on service to community is something that I think every board member probably has no concerns over and is done with the highest level of professionalism. And with that, I'd like to ask Mr. Edward Tottoni, assistant to the athletic supervisor, to come forward and we're recognizing Ed today as employee of the year for 1997. The remarks that were condensed into a single paragraph regarding Ed's performance this year are as follows: This year our employee of the year is truly a remarkable person. Ed has been with Collier County Government for 21 years, starting when he was four, and is being recognized today for his involvement in county sponsored children and adult recreational sports programs. And I know that because my first meeting for a softball team, Ed was running it about seven years ago. Ed schedules the annual weekend tournaments sponsored by Champion Sports Productions, Naples Sports Festival, benefiting the North Naples Little League, the annual USTA Junior Tennis Tournament and the Marco Island Sports Festival. He organizes and schedules the course throughout the county for the Collier County Women's Tennis Association and this year he organized a Naples Daily News Junior Golf Tournament, hosting over 200 participants. Ed oversees various youth sports such as flag football, cheerleading and basketball, coed and men's softball teams and a senior games program. Because of his dedication to keeping the citizens of Collier County, young and old alike, fit and active, Ed is being recognized for this special award. As employee of the year, Ed, you get a few things. I'll start off with the least important and that's a letter signed by me recognizing you as employee of the year. And I'll present that to you. In addition, you're recognized with an employee of the year plaque that can be hung in your office or you may just want to carry it with you since you're never in your office. Also a $250 cash award. Our thanks and congratulations. And, Ed, we certainly appreciate it. (Applause.) MR. TORRONI: I don't get this opportunity too often to speak in front of you. Obviously it's been almost 22 years and I think I was only up here once, but I would like to obviously make -- not make this sound like an academy award, you know, presentation by any means, but there's a few people obviously that I would like to thank and that's -- that's the EAC obviously who provides a platform for -- for its employees to show off some of the things that they've done, and I appreciate obviously them selecting, you know, me as their employee. I'd also like to probably pay tribute to the people who are mostly responsible for this and it's probably our entire department. I've been here, like you said, 22 years and we have celebrated our 25th anniversary last year, and we're all pretty proud of the accomplishments obviously. I think, Mr. Hancock, you've talked about the museum, but you also said some nice things about the Parks and Rec Department. And to sum it up, I think it's absolutely true. We've gone a long way. We've done a lot of things for our community and I believe it's close to seven or eight million people that visit our parks, our to beaches, et cetera, are real happy that you and your -- your commission and your predecessors have thought very kind of us to -- support the growth of our parks and system. bit and And I hope we serve you well as well. But, people in our department, everyone in our department, probably deserves a little of this but they're not going to get any of it. Everyone -- just about everyone, starting from our director administrators all the way to our hundreds of volunteers that participate in our parks every year probably have a hand in it. And, like I said, I wish everyone could probably come up here and take part in this, but I'm going to publicly thank everyone in our department for -- for their help in -- in making sure that this came true. Again, thank you people up here for -- for the support over the years, and I hope I'll be here for, I think, seven more years, I think, on this retirement time. Thank you, guys. Appreciate it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Ed, congratulations. MR. TORRONI: And happy holidays to you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you to you, too. (Applause.) Item #8A2 RESOLUTION 97-452, AUTHORIZING A NEW AGREEHENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY - ADOPTED AS AMENDED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Our next item on the agenda this morning Item 8(A)(1) under Community Development and Environmental Services, status of BCC action pursuant to sunsetting provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code relative to Saddlebrook Village PUD. Mr. Mihalic -- MR. MIHALIC: Good morning -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- good morning. MR. MIHALIC: -- commissioners. For the record, I'm Greg Mihalic, director of housing and urban improvement as well as the affordable housing director for the county. 8(A)(1) and 8(A)(2) are companion items, commissioner, and I think it's better to deal with Item 8(A)(2) first because that is certainly related to whether -- what issues you will discuss with the sunsetting of this -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any objection by the board? MR. MIHALIC: -- PUD. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, let's proceed with 8(A)(2 then. MR. MIHALIC: And good morning, commissioners. Saddlebrook Village PUD is the affordable housing Planned Unit Development of 438 units. That was originally approved on June 25th, 1991. On January 21st, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners for considered extending the PUD because it came up for the sunsetting provisions of the Planned Unit Developments. And at that time the commission considered it but they asked a new affordable housing agreement because affordable housing has dramatically changed since 1991. In 1991 this developer was going to put 30 percent of the units as affordable housing. He was going to service moderate income people at 80 percent of median income. So, families could really make $45,000 a year and live in affordable apartments. That's not affordable housing anymore. We don't service people that make 80 percent of median income. We service families that make 50 and 60 percent of median income. And, so, we went back and the developer has redfawn the agreement to meet our current minimum standards, and those are at lease 20 percent of all the units in the development have to be for very low-income units; that is, those that are at 50 percent of median income and the affordable units must cover the density bonus agreement. And in this particular case at the time, there were seven units of base density and a density bonus of six units an acre for a total of 13 units per acre. This developer is now proposing to set aside 46 percent of all the units as affordable housing to cover that density bonus agreement. So, he is covering all the density bonus units with either very low or the low income units. In -- in the documents that we gave you, they were really in name of the contract purchaser of this property and not in the owner's name. Since we've given you the documents, the owner has agreed that the owner will also sign on to these agreements and we will to redo the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement if you'll approve it to 75 reflect the owners of this land trust, which is 1-70 -- Exit 15, I- land trusts, Jim Colosimo, trustee. And because of that, we now have a list of all the beneficial owners. And there are about 55 beneficial owners of this property. I'd like to hand that out to you now. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I look at these just for kicks but -- MR. MIHALIC: You can see it's a fairly long list of beneficial owners to this property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: might have invested in. You never know what your mom and dad to CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Oh, yes, I do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MIHALIC: So, the density bonus agreement will have to be altered for the documents you receive to strike the provision of phasing Section 17, which says that the provision will not be applicable if the buyer does not close on this property. That will be struck, as well as adding the name of the trustee this, the owner-trustee. So, this will be -- this agreement will flow to the land, whether it sells or doesn't sell, as a new affordable housing density agreement to run with the land. And you're agreeing to this to allow the owner an extension to build this until October 30th, 1998, and that's really the -- what you're going to allow if you allow the sunsetting provision to be extended, and which would be obviously 8(A)(1). If I can answer any questions? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just have a real general problem with this as we talk about whether or not we're going to extend this. We're talking with our staff and have -- have ranked as one of our top and priorities is the density issues and trying to limit population SO on. I understand we're trying to encourage affordable housing and that's the purpose behind the density bonus, but an absolute minimum, you know, a 46 percent is affordable under the definition. Only one in five of these units is actually very low. It -- it seems completely contrary to the discussions we've been having trying to limit the number of people and trying to limit the number of densities in the urban area. And, as I look at the sunset amendment, I'm -- I'm not sure we need to extend this again. I think there was a -- we've gone well beyond the five-year time frame and they didn't meet the requirements. And -- and, Greg, as you pointed out, things have changed an awful lot. I think it was '93 when we changed so that we didn't deal with 80 percent anymore. And -- MR. MIHALIC: That's right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, it's almost five years since we changed the law, let alone whether this particular PUD met it. So, I don't -- I just -- I don't -- I'm not comfortable with something like this at 13 units an acre when it -- 80 percent of it really is not doing what we're trying to accomplish. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mihalic, you -- you mentioned that - that there was a section that was struck -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes. of if COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- concerning ownership and -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes, commissioner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and you think the agreement would terminate. Where is that? MR. MIHALIC: On stamped Page 13 of your pages. At the bottom that page, the last sentence that runs onto the next page, it says, developer fails to close on one or both portions of this property, this agreement shall be deemed void and of force or effect to such portions not owned by the developer. That will be struck. Again, we're going to add the -- excuse me, commissioner. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have some concern about striking that. That was one of the points that was negotiated and when did we decide to strike that? MR. MIHALIC: Well, in front of the Plan Commission, the -- the was to, Planning Commission -- that we met with the Planning Commission on this and they recommended it forward by a unanimous vote, but that one of the provisions that the attorney for the developer agreed so that this affordable housing agreements replaces the original agreement that was appreved in 1991. So, the owner would now be added to this agreement and that section would be struck. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mihalic, as I understand it, the way it's broken down now out of the 13 units per acre, there are, in essence, seven at market, six at affordable? MR. MIHALIC: That's correct, commissioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the market rate units on seven, by achieving seven are -- are realizing proximity to an activity center in order to get to seven or -- MR. HIHALIC: I can't speak to how that original base density was arrived at or whether it would be arrived at the same base density today. I'd like Mr. Nine to comment on that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And out of the six that are affordable, only really 1.2 of those are very low. MR. MIHALIC: That's true, commissioner, but that -- that, really, we require 20 percent of all new affordable housing developments, 20 percent of all the units to be very low income. That is generally what most developers will agree to. If they don't put more of that in, then a very low income units in than they have to. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nine? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think -- I don't think that was be correct, what you said. Say that again. The six units, 1.2, will very low? I don't think that's right. MR. MIHALIC: Out of -- out of the six bonus density units, 20 percent of those affordable units and 20 percent of the rest of the development will be a very low income. So, of the whole development will be affordable, so Commissioner Norris is really correct that it would be more than one point -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would be 2.6 out of your 13. MR. MIHALIC: Twenty percent of the total which would be double that of the affordable units, yes. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Twenty forty-six -- MR. MIHALIC: It would be approximately -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: -- whatever that works out to be. MR. MIHALIC: Approximately 38 percent of all the units will be low -- of all the units in -- of all the affordable units will be very income, commissioner. It would be twice -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. MR. MIHALIC: Yeah. Twenty percent times four -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Got it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nine? Just one question regarding how we arrive at -- MR. NINO: For the record, Ren Nine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- a seven base density plus six affordable based -- MR. NINO: Based -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- density based on proximity to activity center? MR. NINO: The base density is four and an additional three units are authorized as a bonus for being within one mile of an activity center. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. So, if it were not affordable, they could request up to seven units per acre for the site currently. MR. NINO: That is correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But they're getting 13. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thirteen because the up -- the proximity to activity center bonus doesn't have any tie to affordable? The difference between seven and 13, those are all affordable. So, they've -- they've used two bonuses to get to 13 units an acre, which is allowed by the comp plan but it's an up-to number, not not COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not a requirement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At some point we'll need some legal advice. I'm looking for Mr. Weigel or somebody about whether or this is a little different from the usual -- I see Marjorie -- because of the agreement. If that -- because of the separate agreement with the developer, if that created a separate property right in addition to the -- the PUD with the sunset, that's something I'm going to want to know about anyway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's also something else to consider and I think that they've -- they've received tax exempt bonds from the Housing Finance Authority in the past for Phase 1. And that was done on a basis of Phase 2 was part of that application initially, so there are some things that we just need to know how -- what -- what weight to -- they should be given in any consideration for alterations. HR. NINO: Let me speak to that issue, commissioners. The Collier County Housing Finance Authority a few years ago issued allocation for $4.9 million in tax exempt revenue bonds for this parcel. They will expire at the end of the year unless this property moves forward. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do you want your question answered by in the Hiss Student? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would, thank you. HS. STUDENT: It's -- I haven't had to deal with this issue before and I get involved in a land use side and another attorney the office deals with the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. STUDENT: -- agreement side. But in an abundance of caution, and it's hard to predict with property rights legislation, you know, how that could all play out and, in an abundance of caution, at the very least, I'll say someone might be able to successfully make that argument. But I know of no case law or anything, you know, that would address that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we're dealing with that new -- relatively new statute, we don't know yet if it would apply. HS. STUDENT: Absolutely. And there -- there are no reported cases. It would take a few years to have a case reported under that, and from our monitoring of it, a lot of them have gone through local processes permitted by statute to work it out and, indeed, have been worked out, so there hasn't been any need to get to the District Court of Appeal. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Student, did we get your name on the record? MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon. Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney, for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. HS. STUDENT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Mihalic. MR. MIHALIC: Well, commissioners, speaking of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, as I mentioned, affordable housing has changed dramatically since 1991, and I say it will change dramatically over the next five years. It's important when a developer does not build within whatever time period he's allowed to relook at these agreements and renegotiate them so that they meet current standards in my opinion. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there further questions of staff? If not, let's go to the petitioner. Mr. Anderson. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. I'm here on behalf of the trustee-owner of this PUD who has a contract with Colonial Equities, Inc. to purchase this PUD property and develop it. Colonial Equities is listed in the new affordable housing agreement as the applicant because they will be the actual developer of Phase 1 of this project, which consists of 140 affordable units. As Mr. Mihalic mentioned, my client has also agreed to sign the new agreement as the current owner of the property that was at the request of Mr. Mihalic. I would also like to note for the record that an additional signatory to this contract would be Outreach Housing Corporation, which would be -- they're related to Colonial Equities and they would be the developer of Phase 2 of this project. I can tell you from recent experience on a -- on a similar affordable housing PUD, that it has become increasingly more difficult for Collier County projects to secure the state funding that is a critical component of getting these developments built. Now, we all down here in Collier County pay more than our fair share of state and federal taxes. And if we have a commitment, as we do here, for a $4.9 million project to help address what is both a community need and a state Growth Management Act requirement like affordable housing, we should take the money. I would like to emphasize that this trustee owner of the property does have a history of cooperating with Collier County on other lands that he owns within Collier County. We offer cooperation and seek like kind response. Now, although I was not involved in the representation at this time -- at the time, back in January, the board directed as part of the PUD sunset review that a new agreement, affordable housing agreement, be negotiated with Mr. Mihalic and brought back for your approval. That agreement is what you have before you today and it does give Mr. Mihalic everything that he asked for. Now, this new agreement does not change the density or any part of the previously approved PUD, but it does do two very important things. Number one, it increases the total number of affordable units from 132 out of 438 units to 202 units or 46 percent of the entire project, which equates exactly to the density bonus that was awarded to this property for provision of affordable housing. Secondly, it also increases from zero to 88 the number of units to be reserved for very low-income families. As I explained earlier, Phase 1 will be 100 percent affordable and Phase 2 will be a mixture of affordable and market rate units for a you the remainder of the PUD and, also, Phase 2 will be the subject of PUD amendment that will come before you next year to request authorization for one-bedroom units in Phase 2. Now, in addition to the new affordable housing agreement that requested, the trustee-owner of this PUD property would offer the following stipulations for a PUD sunset extension resolution. Number one, Phase 1 and Phase 2 shall be constructed in compliance with all existing land development code requirements. Number two, Phase 1 shall be developed for 100 percent affordable units as provided in the new Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. Phase 2 shall also be developed as provided in the new agreement. Third, prior to the expiration of the extension period, a PUD amendment shall be filed with Collier County to formally incorporate into the PUD document current land development code standards. Fourth, we're willing to commit and attach as exhibits to the sunset resolution architectural elevations for Phase 1, which I'd like to distribute. I would also like to distribute and enter into the record the planning staff's executive summary on Saddlebrook PUD that was issued in January. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. What was that, Bruce, you're entering? MR. ANDERSON: It is a copy of the original staff report, executive summary, on the Saddlebrook PUD that came before you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see? MR. ANDERSON: -- in January. That staff report sets forth a summary of the various local, state and federal permits that were either secured or being pursued at that time. I would note importantly that the staff review found that and the development commitments in the current PUD were consistent with current land development code requirements and the planning staff recommended a two-year extension. In conclusion, we offer you a new affordable housing agreement that increases the number of affordable units and it also now provides, for the first time, for housing for very low-income families. We offer stipulations for a PUD extension that assure you that the first phase of this PUD will be 100 percent affordable units, that assure you that this development will meet current land development code requirements, and that these requirements will be included in a forthcoming PUD amendment that will be required to be submitted. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have and we would respectfully request your approval. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Anderson, it's -- the parcel is 33.7 acres? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Anderson. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I do. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Anderson, can you help me with the question I asked Mr. Mihalic about the striking of that provision concerning cancellation of this agreement if the sale falls through? MR. ANDERSON: That was a provision that I had originally inserted, really kind of at the suggestion of Mr. Mihalic, and then later I got the staff report which indicated that now there was Some objection to this paragraph from the staff's perspective and they wanted the owner to really sign on to this agreement unconditionally. So, it was at the request of your staff that that paragraph was -- was modified as it is. We were just trying to be cooperative. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you help me with the genesis of this? MR. MIHALIC: Well, commissioner, an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement runs to the land. In my opinion, this provision would have not let it run to the land. It would have let it run to the land only if this developer bought it. And I didn't think that helped progress the situation for where it was in 1991, commissioner. So, I didn't -- there must have been a misunderstanding, although it is good to have a density bonus agreement that reflects how the purchaser will use it, because he has to develop the parcel, so generic affordable housing density bonus agreements are of no value to as anyone, I think it's important that it runs to the land. And then if the owner signs it, then it will run to the land -- as the agreement that will be in place and it will repeal the original agreement from 1991. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, Mr. Anderson, I just don't share his enthusiasm for putting that provision on -- or taking that provision out. MR. ANDERSON: I -- it's whatever the commission would prefer. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think I tend to agree with you only because -- I guess because one of two ways. If this were a raw project coming today with no history whatsoever, it is within about one or one and a half units per acre of what I would consider reasonable today. I don't know that I would go all three density bonus units because of the density ban. I understand the incentive to have market rate so that the more market rate you have, the more affordable you can produce. You know, I understand the financial incentive there. I'd probably be more comfortable at five or six market rate units than seven. But as 30 or 50 units, when you look at the very low income that's being addressed here, the fact that the first phase is 100 percent low income, which is a need, and it's a need that at least aesthetically is -- appears to be one that -- that can be done in, you know, a manner consistent with community standards, I'm not sure that's enough to -- to throw the whole thing away. But with the inclusion of the language that was -- was stricken by the Planning Commission about it running with the particular owner, that's the only place I find a level of comfort in this project is that his history locally is good enough that I, you know, I can support that. So, I -- I -- you know, I'm trying to strike a balance here. Commissioner Constantine, I -- I agree with you in -- in context but I think, after looking at what the housing finance authority has done and is proposing to do on this project, I'd like to see this one move forward and then we'll make -- we'll make more individual decisions on future projects as they come forward. MR. HIHALIC: I need a little bit of guidance then, commissioner. Do you want us to flow only to the buyer of this land or do you want the current owner to also buy into this agreement? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I guess -- and, Commissioner Norris, maybe who I feel -- if this -- COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If this deal falls through, I want to know I'm dealing with on this project because affordable housing can go a on couple of different ways. I know who I'm dealing with right now. know who's representing them. And that's important to me in this process because of how affordable can really make a turn one way or the other, depending who's doing the -- the construction and the development. So, that's important enough to me that I would want it to run with that. Is that consistent with your concerns or -- COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That's -- that's my concern is that if this -- like I say, we have a known quantity, but if this particular deal falls through, then this property could sit here for ten years and who knows what would happen at the -- you know, if somebody else could come along and take it. I just -- you know, I don't like to give approvals that could end up being for speculation. MR. HIHALIC: Would you like -- if this deal falls through, would you like any agreement to then come back to the board for re- approval? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. MR. HIHALIC: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's -- that's reasonable, I think. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions for the petitioner? COHMISSIONER BERRY: So, what you're saying -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- is that instead of striking that, you're going to leave it in there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Leave it in there. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Yeah. And I -- I would tend to agree with that. I think that makes -- I think that makes more sense. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any questions of the petitioner? Seeing none -- MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Do we have speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion on Item -- MR. MIHALIC: Commissioner, I think that the attorney has some CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Miss Ashton. MR. MIHALIC: -- additional language that -- MS. ASHTON: If your desire is not to include the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Name, please? MS. ASHTON: For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. If your desire is not to include the current owner, then we will need to change the resolution that's in your package accordingly to reflect that the new agreement will replace the old agreement as to the property that the contract purchaser acquires, and I would suggest a certain date be specified, that he has a certain time period to acquire it or not acquire it, and then the termination language that we put in the resolution for the original agreement will be deleted from the resolution so that original agreement will still remain in place. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I would assume 90 days for acquisition is sufficient. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now, let me -- let me be sure I understand this, Hiss Ashton. If we put in the language you were just describing in order to address the concern here about -- that a majority of the board wants to be sure that they're only giving this agreement to this buyer, if -- if -- we've got Agreement A and Agreement B. Agreement A is the old one. Agreement B is today's. If Agreement B goes away because this buyer doesn't close on the deal within whatever time frame we set, we go back to Agreement A? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. I think they're being replaced. One's being -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now, that's '- MS. ASHTON: Well, we need the previous owner to agree to terminate the agreement that's currently in place, and if that owner does not join in this agreement, that agreement would still be in place. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's the whole point, guys. That's where I think we're missing the boat is -- is the agreement that they have in front of us today, staff is telling us, and I think nobody disagrees, that it's an improvement on Agreement A. So, we don't want to go back to Agreement A, and we might. MR. HIHALIC: I think we can do both, commissioners. We will supplement -- we will substitute Agreement B for Agreement A. But if this -- if this property does not close with Colonial Equities, we'll also bring back any other agreement with any other buyer back to you. So, Agreement -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You can draft it. MR. HIHALIC: -- B will replace A, and we will bring back any other Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement with any new buyer other than Colonial Equities back to you for approval. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And -- and that's good, Greg, if the owner will consent because we can't unilaterally change Agreement A. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me re-open the public hearing for the to purpose of addressing -- the petitioner addressing that question. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We -- we agree to that. I -- I want to mention again the other party to this agreement would be Outreach Housing Corporation, which would be the developer of Phase 2. They would also be a signatory to this agreement, and if you're inclined put any kind of a time frame on when it has to close, we would request 120 days. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's pretty reasonable. MR. ANDERSON: It's going to be taken down in two phases. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, the total take-down time would be 120 days? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And the -- the situation Mr. Mihalic just outlined where Agreement B would -- would replace Agreement A and that any change in ownership beyond what is contemplated in the agreement before us would cause the agreement to come back to the board. The parties you represent have no difficulty with that scenario; is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. And Agreement B -- just so I'm clear, Agreement B is the one - Nino the the new one; right? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. It's good to clarify that. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions of staff or the petitioner? Anything, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Ron Nino. Nevertheless, we need to wrap all of this up into a new sunsetting resolution. Do we take it that what has been offered on the record will be crafted into a new sunsetting resolution? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I hope so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, isn't that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. We have -- we have two separate actions. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's Item 8(A)(1). CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to hear that directly -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're going to have to modify it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That resolution, I think, is what Mr. is pointing out to us. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What we need at this point -- again, I'll close the public hearing -- is a motion to either approve or deny agreement before us. here on the record. reference I need a motion on that resolution as amended And if that is successful, we will then that action in the discussion on 8(A)(1). COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, let me see. I'll make a motion that we approve this agreement with the -- incorporating this discussion that we've had here this morning relative to this new agreement superseding the previous agreement, having it pertain only to the mentioned and anticipated purchasers of the property, and that if -- if the anticipated purchasers of the property do not follow through for any other reason, that any subsequent affordable housing agreement would come back to this board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With 120 days to close. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With 120 days to close. Did I get everything? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It sounds like it. Greg, would you -- maybe somebody ought to put the names of those two potential purchasers on the record. MR. MIHALIC: Yes, commissioner. Colonial Equities, Incorporated is one and Outreach Housing Corporation would be the other one. Is that the official name of the -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let the record reflect Mr. Anderson has indicated yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one. MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners. Item #SA1 RESOLUTION 97-453, REGARDING SUNSETTING PROVISIONS (SECTION 2.7.3.4) OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATIVE TO THE SADDLEBROOK VILLAGE PUD (ORDINANCE NO. 91-55) AND COMPANION AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT AND TO AFFIRM OR REPEAL RESOLUTION 91-55 - ADOPTED AS AMENDED the by CHAI~ HANCOCK: Item 8(A)(1), the next item is a sunsetting provision on Saddlebrook Village PUD. Action taken on this needs to incorporate by reference Item 8(A)(2), the agreement that was just modified and approved by the board. Mr. Nino, is there anything outstanding or unusual that we haven't discussed already on this project? MR. NINO: No. I would simply add, however -- Ron Nino for record -- that when we replace the new resolution, it will be done a scrivener's error, I'm advised by legal counsel. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that we can adopt this resolution -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Legal counsel is disagreeing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or coming quickly to the microphone. MS. STUDENT: For the record again, Harjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. It wasn't in the agenda packet but you have a scrivener's error resolution that we need to do to correct what occurred in January. It has an additional provision about the affordable housing agreement just for the historical purposes, then there will be a new resolution that will totally replace that to reflect what took place today. CHAI~ HANCOCK: So, we need to include the reference scrivener's error and the resolution approved today in any pending approval of Item 8(A)(1) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And I have a question -- CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- on that. Let's -- let's say that the scenario that we -- we've discussed earlier concerning these -- these listed buyers falls through, then what happens to our sunsetting resolution? Is that terminated at that point? CHAI~ HANCOCK: I'll let staff answer it, but I don't think we our can. I think that -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we'll do it -- CHAI~ HANCOCK: Yeah. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Phrasing the question another way, does we PUD sunsetting action here extend to the length of the agreement that approved in the previous item? In other words, if this item falls through, does that also fall through the sunsetting provision? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, would the -- would the have to come back for a six-month rewrite if these buyers don't close in 120 days. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Right. MR. NINO: And I assume then we'll be back -- we'll be back to you, advising you of that action and your need to rethink the -- the we of status of the PUD. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that legal -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, I -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Miss Student? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think legally the property owner, unless require them to come back, if that should occur, the property owner could sit on the property, wait for a new purchaser and then try to negotiate a new affordable housing agreement without affecting the zoning. MR. NINO: I would -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I sure would hope so. I mean, that's - surely they have to have a zoning category of some kind. It can't just be unzoned property as in 120 days if these guys don't close. MR. NINO: Your action -- your action approving the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement today takes care of the condition the approval to extend the -- extend the PUD for -- for an additional two years. That action -- your action of approval today does extend the PUD approval for two years from today's date. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, there's no automatic return of the zoning to this board until two years from this date, assuming inaction on the property. MR. NINO: Assuming inaction on the property, correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask a dumb question, Mr. Nino. This PUD without the affordable housing agreement has sufficient standards to -- to allow development to go forward? MR. NINO: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, if we -- if we take away the affordable housing agreement, this PUD could stand on its own? MR. NINO: Yes, it does. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it allows what kind of density on its own? MR. NINO: Seven dwelling units per acre. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Total. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I got it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does that answer your question, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions of staff on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Does petitioner wish to add anything? Unless there are any questions of the petitioner? MR. ANDERSON: Are there any? I just want to remind you that one of the -- one of the stipulations that we offered on this resolution was that we would be coming back prior to the end of the expiration period with a PUD amendment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And for the record? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Still here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do I have any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What I'm confused about is that -- is that what we're supposed to be doing, Mr. Weigel, a motion to approve the resolution in our packet? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. This is -- MR. WEIGEL: No, I think -- I think that what counsel and Mr. Nino told you is that there is another resolution that you may be approving here at this point in time. So, your question is a good one to make sure we understand which resolution -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. WEIGEL: -- we're approving. MS. STUDENT: For the record again, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. Mr. Nino has a resolution that is a scrivener's error resolution that you need to approve today. And then -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's 98 dash blank that he just handed to us? MS. STUDENT: It's -- it's a -- MR. NINO: No, no. MS. STUDENT: I beg your pardon? What's the number? MR. WEIGEL: It would be 97. COMMISSIONER BERRY: 98 dash -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He just handed us 98 dash blank. MS. STUDENT: It should be 97 and that can be -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a scrivener's error on that? MS. STUDENT: That's a scrivener's error on a scrivener's error, I guess. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: On the scrivener's error. MS. STUDENT: And that -- that should be approved today and then we will take your direction and do an updated resolution that has all the conditions that were agreed upon today. This is just for historic purposes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the updated resolution will come back on consent agenda so we don't have to have this discussion again? MS. STUDENT: I think it could well come back on consent, yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And as I said before, motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Anyone who is still with us, congratulations. Thank you, Mr. Anderson, Miss Student, Mr. Nino, Mr. Hihalic and all the people that support you. Item #SB AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES THAT PROVIDES FOR APPROPRIATE MODIFICATIONS TO THE GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - APPROVED Item 8(B) under public works -- sorry, I watched the billboards last night -- consideration of an agreement between Collier County and the City of Naples that provides for appropriate modification to the Golden Gate Boulevard Improvement Project. Mr. Ilschner, good morning. MR. ILSCHNER: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator. This morning we have before you an interlocal agreement between the City of Naples and Collier County that would provide for -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Hey, Ed, let me interrupt you, if I may for second. Have you met with each commissioner on this item? MR. ILSCHNER: I have met with two commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With two commissioners. MR. ILSCHNER: I'm sorry. Three commissioners. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Then, I'm sorry. Go ahead and proceed. I was going to -- I was going to shortcut this -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- sucker because it's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it's good news. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- pretty straightforward. MR. ILSCHNER: I have not been able to meet with all commissioners, no. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. ILSCHNER: Let me briefly give you some background on this issue. The Golden Gate Boulevard project was designed by our staff in concert with a number of public meetings in which the major concern was the cross-section of this roadway. And what resulted from those meetings was, and I have provided, by the way, for each of you the approved typical section as currently exists for this roadway in the form of a handout, and that is, of course, this one that I show you here. And this particular agreed-to section, this roadway was centered in the right-of-way and all the public meetings that were held with the public indicated this. And it also indicated the existing 36- inch water main owned by the City of Naples located under the new roadway. The staff in concert with the City of Naples' staff designed this for Dr. project so that there would be conflict structures established to allow for drainage to occur and leave the waterline in place. The staff in January of '97 contacted the city staff, City of Naples' staff, and requested that they provide the estimated cost those conflict structures. It was at this time that city manager, Richard Woodruff, of the City of Naples contacted county staff and requested a meeting to discuss the waterline. We met with the city manager and his staff, and the result of that meeting was the city asked the county to place the project on hold for a period of 60 days. This would be until July the llth, 1997. The purpose for the hold was for the city to conduct a forensic test on the existing waterline to determine its remaining life and also to perform a value engineering of the roadway project itself to determine if there were other alternative cross-sections that might more cost effective for the county. There was some delay and, of course, bringing the forensic testing people on board to do this testing, it's a very highly technological form of testing. That was finally done, however, and during the interim period, staff was working with the City of Naples to arrive at an appropriate cross-section. That cross-section is what we now refer to, and I refer you in the handout I gave you to the shift-it section. It's a proposed typical section being shifted ten feet to the south. The 36 -- it's important to note that the 36-inch waterline now is no longer under the travel lanes of the roadway. Now, this provides some advantage to, of course, Collier County in that we can also anticipate less damage to a roadway should there be a rupture, also provides some advantages, of course, to the City of Naples in that they will be able to access that and maintain that line without injuring or destroying our roadway section. So, for both parties, that is a positive. One of the things that we recognize fairly quickly is that during all the public hearings, one of the concerns was the placement of the roadway and the right-of-way. So, one of the concerns we expressed to the the City of Naples was the issue of potential inequity concerns on part of people abutting the project. I would like to point out at this point in time that this roadway does not shift during its first one mile. to That's the area adjacent the school. That was of concern to the school in the initial public hearings, so we're retaining the roadway in its present location for the first mile. The remaining four miles to Wilson Boulevard is where we're talking about shifting the second -- the section. With regards to shifting the section, the closest structure that will result -- result from this movement will be 60 feet from the right-of-way line and 78 feet from the edge of the new roadway. That would be edge of pavement or gutter. I think that's an important point to bring to your attention. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's the closest one, the majority of houses along that roadway are set back a considerable distance greater than that? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, they are. There are six homes that are 300 feet back from the edge of pavement and the bulk or remaining 60 plus homes are at least 100 feet or more from the edge of pavement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In essence, a less than ten percent change as far as proximity of roadway. HR. ILSCHNER: That is correct. We drafted an agreement and provided that agreement to the City of Naples. They broached that agreement to their city council. There were some minor revisions to that agreement that were only wording clarification points. There were no substantive changes to the agreement with respect to the dollar amounts planned for reimbursement to Collier County. I have provided you with a revised agreement for your information, and I'll provide those agreements to -- for the record as well. This agreement has been designed to ensure that Collier County does not incur any additional cost to accommodate this line remaining in our right-of-way. Since all the detailed costs and finalized design aren't available, we consider this agreement an agreement that will also - although we want you to adopt it at this point in time, we will bring that back to you at time of bidding for final amendment to incorporate the final cost as well as to stipulate the payment schedule associated with this agreement. Let me touch just briefly on the provisions quickly for you. The provisions are contained in -- are general in the agreement itself. The real meat of this is, of course, the Exhibit A. The agreement simply says in wording that the county is going to design and construct a cross-section to accommodate the waterline and, in return, the city will agree to participate in all public meetings to explain the reason for the design changes and project delay. And the city manager has also graciously agreed to draft a letter that we for will send out to all people who reside on Golden Gate Boulevard as well as the intersectional roadways informing them of the reason the changes and the delay. Exhibit A though is the real meat of the agreement which stipulates all of the particular costs and, very quickly, the city will pay design change costs. We estimate those to be 84,400. They will also pay for the conflict structures totaling some hundred and eighty thousand dollars. This accommodates the drainage. They will subsidize right-of-way costs. And this is the would-be area that I -- I believe I need to try to clarify for you. In looking at this issue, we contacted our real property people and we said, what is the norm for situations in which we get into condemnation on parcel takes? They indicated that usually up to 20 percent. Since we are shifting this roadway, we are going to build into this some protection for the county should we exceed that norm. And this would pertain to, of course, the south side only. And what this basically states, that up to 20 percent of the parcels, there will be no participation by the City of Naples in the right-of-way taking. Should those exceed the norm of 20 percent, and we set an upper limit of 40 percent, then there will be a differential cost between the 40 percent takings and the 20 percent, equating to a hundred sixty-five thousand dollars, six hundred and forty-four dollars. That would be paid for by the City of Naples. And then once we in one reach that upper maximum limit of 40 percent of parcels resulting condemnation, we would share equally. I think that's an important for you to -- to understand. There are two areas of cost we could not identify at this point. One of those is contractor precautionary area cost. That has to be determined at time of bid but will be paid for by the City of Naples. And the final one is contractor repair costs should there be a need to repair the line. We don't want the contractor to be unnecessarily delayed, so he will purchase a repair sections of line, have those available. The City of Naples will pay for those repair sections. Finally, the city will pay -- and this is in there to clarify point. This is understood, but we want to clarify it. Since we're allowing the line to remain within the right-of-way, any leaks that occur in the future as a result of the line operation that are not created by Collier County or that are natural breaks, et cetera, they would be paid for by the City of Naples. And then, finally, there are two areas. There's an area in which the staff has accumulated about $17,425 worth of staff time associated with this delay and the changes negotiations associated with that as well as we anticipate some $3,000 in costs associated with new public meetings. We've asked the city to provide that. The total known cost at this time is $450,469. We would plan to proceed ahead, if you approve this agreement, establishing an information dissemination program that would take place using the Golden Gate Gazette as well as providing letters to all the residents along the roadway as well as intersectional roadways, and then we would have a public meeting sometime after -- probably the first two weeks in January, one meeting in the daytime and one meeting at night, for the benefit of informing the public of these changes. That is the sum and substance of this agreement. The staff recommends that you adopt this interlocal agreement with the understanding that we would be bringing it back to you for an amendment after bid and determination of cost. I'll be happy to answer any questions. We have Dr. Woodruff with the City of Naples as well as George Archibald in the audience. And they are also available to answer any questions you might have as well. Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: George, I assume you were able to find your way here today? Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The roads still work. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Ilschner, you mentioned that the first mile of this will not be relocated. Is the waterline going to be under the travel lanes then in that of one mile? MR. ILSCHNER: That -- that is correct, yes, sir. There will be conflict structures associated with that if necessary though as the original design called for. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER BERRY: A lot of that has to do with the location Big Cypress Elementary School. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. ILSCHNER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mentioned something that's important to me, and that is getting the information out to the people because most people on this roadway have said, look, we need this, it's a good idea. There have been a few very vocal, as my read, that have basically said, no way anyway. And this is going to be an opportunity for them to say, look at what the county is trying to pull on us. I think it's very clear and very obvious here that this is the most reasonable solution possible, that this has a minimal effect on any of the properties adjacent to the roadway and, hopefully, by being proactive in the information that you have expressed or the way we're going to do it, people will see that. They'll see that we're trying to do what's in the best interest of the community overall. And, so, I appreciate you doing, and I know Commissioner Berry does, and I know the people along that corridor do. I -- I'm fine with staff. Do we have any other questions of o~lr Ty staff on this? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, do we have any registered speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. You have two registered speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: The first is Ty Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for myself. I think I've told you regarding the Golden Gate Boulevard that my daughter totaled a car and my grandson was almost lost in the accident because of the overcrowding condition of that roadway. I don't get up that early in the morning, so I couldn't testify as to how busy it is, but every now and then, I have to go somewhere at that time of day and it's absolutely phenomenal. New York City doesn't have anything to beat the traffic that is at various cross __ in the the crossings along Golden Gate Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You haven't been back to New York City awhile, have you, Ty? MR. AGOSTON: Not me. I'm -- I swore off New York City other than a couple of times a year. I resent personally that -- the delay in the construction or starting of the construction of this project for a very personal reason and also resent the City of Naples for causing it. I also would like to ask if we are going to reach out just to people directly affected, meaning people living right on the -- the roadway. I have heard discussions where a local attorney was telling them that a -- a tree is worth $1,000. I mean some of those pieces of property probably were bought for $1,000, but they're being recommended to charge $1,000 a tree. I believe that the whole Golden Gate Estates, unfortunately, LISe that one roadway to access Naples. And for you to allow a congregation of highly interested people but do not include the balance of the population of Golden Gate Estates, you're going to have another major demonstration of calling you guys names and calling you guys whatever you were called the last time. I don't want to repeat any of it. But the fact of the matter is, is that these people do not represent the whole of Golden Gate Estates. The whole of Golden Gate Estates wants that road built and wants to have it built yesterday because they're being inconvenienced every day. Thanks. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Agoston. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Agoston, you mentioned the whole of Golden Gate Estates? MR. AGOSTON: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How are you spelling that? MR. AGOSTON: I think it's spelled with a W but I'm not -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I just wanted to clarify that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Could I add something, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I -- I think one of the opportunities Mr. Agoston is that when we do have the public information meetings, those will be open to the public; in other words, to all of the people in Golden Gate Estates. But I think their idea to send mailings to the people that live right along in terms of property, et cetera, that was, I think, part of the feeling. But when it comes to the public meetings, that's open to everybody as they always have been. But -- but that is -- it's certainly -- and the word will get out again by the use of the newspaper and local media, et cetera. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next speaker. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Linda Baum. MS. BAUM: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Linda Baum and I'm representing ECHO, the Estates Coalition of Homeowners. I apologize for my late arrival this morning. I had a doctor's appointment and we know that they're never on time. I've had over the past 11 months several conversations with Commissioner Berry. Members of our group have written to you. We've gotten responses from the commissioners. I once again am going to come before you and urge you to strongly consider keeping this road within the existing hundred foot right-of-way. We are a rural community. We need a four-lane road. There is no doubt about it. We need it. We want it, like Ty said, yesterday. But the majority of people feel that an urban roadway coming through the estates is not what we need. We need a four-lane road which will make traveling easier, safer, and it will allow for, you know, the free flow of traffic, not the backups that we have now. ECHO has been accused in the past of holding this project up by forming, by speaking their outrage against the six-laning back in February, the extreme four-laning now. I need it to be put on public record that ECHO has always stood and has always believed and wanted that four-lane road. We just think and we know that you can hold it within the hundred feet. The -- the issue with the City of Naples over the water main, the in county and the city had their first meeting, as far as I know, back January of this year. The water main issue has been there from the getgo. And January 28th's Golden Gate Gazette, Mr. Hellriegel is quoted as saying the only fly in the ointment, according to him, on the widening of the boulevard is the water main that parallels with the boulevard. Again, April 8th in Golden Gate Gazette, Mr. Hellriegel came to few the April 1st meeting of ECHO, along with Commissioner Berry and a others from the county, and told us, this is it. This is the final plan. This is the four-lane road that you're getting, like it or not. This is it. And here we are in December still sitting with traffic backed up as far as the eye can see, sirens still blaring because of the accidents that continue to happen, and we're still sitting with one road in and out of the estates. I'm asking you respectfully, keep this road, four-lane it, right now. It's a dead issue. You don't have to make any deals with the City of Naples. You don't have to spend any more money. You can save money by four-laning this road within the hundred feet and, again, looking at the rest of the road network and giving us more roads to work with in and out of the estates. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have two questions for you, if I may. MS. BAUH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: First of all, in order to keep it in a hundred foot cross-section, we'd have to do a redesign which would probably take somewhere near a year. Are you advocating that? MS. BAUH: I was -- I am under the understanding that three years ago you had a design for a four-lane road within the existing right-of-way that was at 60 percent design. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Would you rather eliminate the median or the sidewalks? MS. BAUH: I think the median could be downsized. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not within a hundred feet. What would you do? Do you want to eliminate it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One or the other. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The problem is, what you're asking for, there are things you cannot get out of. You cannot reduce lane widths beyond a certain point. You cannot reduce the cross-section needed for water management beyond a certain point. And in this roadway when you put the four lanes, the necessary water management and one sidewalk, you're at a hundred feet, which means there is no median, which means traffic can make -- can have head-on collisions with no correction area whatsoever. I think in the interest of public safety, we have a responsibility to provide the sidewalks and a median for safe travel. To not do that would be to make a 25-foot decision that could cost somebody their life, and I think that test is much higher when it not comes to what our responsibility is, than the test of whether or the roadway is ten feet closer to a home that is 60 feet off the roadway. It's a balancing act, and in balancing that, I just simply disagree with you that a roadway within a hundred feet serves the community best. I think, in essence, it would be dangerous and would actually be counter to what we're trying to do out there, which is make the roadway safer. So I -- you know -- you know, if you, folks, have a decision on or that and you want to show me what you want to eliminate, sidewalks median -- MS. BAUH: I think off the top of my head and without speaking for the rest of the residents in getting -- I -- I've heard in the past year enough comments coming from the residents out there and I think the median is needed to avoid those head-on collisions. I think we can live with the bike path we have right now. I don't think we need the sidewalk, especially an eight-foot sidewalk. The median, I agree. I think you do need that in order to the avoid the head-on collisions. The sidewalk, I don't think there is a need for it. We have bike path that is used as a sidewalk and a bike path and I think that's fine. You know, that was put in a year and a half ago for $170,000. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I really encourage you to take a look at the cross-section because four lanes of traffic, a median and one bike path and water management exceeds a hundred feet. MS. BAUM: Okay. I'm -- I'm going by the -- the typical section that I saw that was from three years ago. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well -- MS. BAUM: Okay. Now, you may have to redesign. You're going to have to redesign on this when you shift it to south. And -- and I'll tell you right now, and I live on the north end within the first mile, but I'll tell you right now, as soon as you go to shift it to the south, if you think you've had people outraged this past year, wait till you take this to them. It's going to be outrageous. I've heard it already. People are the __ on not going to want this. It affects all of the estates, not just property owners along the boulevard in that five-mile section. It it involves everyone. It involves Ty and his neighborhood. It involves people from Desoto and Everglades because we all use that road. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, you know, you make the point from this cross-section when you say that. It is -- it is going to probably upset the people who are going to have a road coming in a little bit closer to them than they thought they would, the people the south side, you know, below the first mile. They're not going to be happy but we have to make people unhappy every day because we have to look at the greater good, and the greater good is that cross-section. We've got to do it. MS. BAUM: I'm convinced, Commissioner Mac'Kie, that -- that we could work on this project from here until kingdom come and you will never get everyone agreeing on every point. That's a given. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MS. BAUM: Plain and simple. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right. You're absolutely correct, and that's why we -- we look at all the information. We listen to the public and we make our decisions and not everybody's going to be happen. We understand that. And we -- we do what, as Commissioner Mac'Kie said, is in the -- the best interest of everyone. And we understand that not everybody's going to be happy but we live with that. That's our job. MS. BAUM: I understand that. I'm just urging you -- as a final thought, I'm just urging you that if you're going to have to redesign, if you can't keep the four-lane road within the hundred, let's try to keep it as close to the hundred as we can. Don't go the hundred and thirty. If you're going to have to redesign, there has to be a way, a compromise, between the hundred and the hundred and thirty that's going to make this a four-lane road, make it safe, but we don't need all the bells and whistles. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. Thank you. MS. BAUM: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any further speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No further speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion to approve staff recommendation. Is there a second on the motion? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not willing or prepared to remove anything from this cross-section. I'm not going to tell the people on the north side of the street they shouldn't have a sidewalk. I'm not going to tell the people on the south they shouldn't have a sidewalk. I'm not going to tell the people who are risking head-on collisions they shouldn't have a median. So, I -- no, I'm sorry. I -- I cannot find a compromise that meets this community standards overall. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, and I -- I can think of an important point. Ty, I understand your and the residents' frustration and I disagree a little bit with you directing it at the City of Naples in that ironically what's happened here is should there be no it problem with their lines down the road, it will cause far less inconvenience to you and the other motoring public out there than would have otherwise. If everything was directly under the road, you'd have it torn up. And I -- I think, looking at long term, the city has done the estates a favor as -- by doing that off the middle of the roadway. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Don't get us wrong. We blame the city every chance we get, so, you know -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Credit where credit is due. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I think one thing, too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even when they don't get a chance. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think something we did need to point out, the city did not hesitate in stepping up and saying, you know, we've created some of this delight. They -- they have not backed off of this. And -- and I'll be honest with you. When I first started -- started talking about a waterline, I mean, what -- what would be your first impression of what this waterline might look like? Are you thinking of a piece of PVC pipe? Wrong. I mean, you're talking about a major structure here, that it's not PVC pipe. This is something that has been in the ground for a number of years and, as they found out, has a lot of life left to it. I think if -- correct me, but are we looking at 50, 60 -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. ILSCHNER: Thirty-two years. COMMISSIONER BERRY: At least. So, to go in and just discount that and say tear it out, forget about it, ignore it, that is wrong, too. And, so, if you've got a structure that's -- I mean talking about wasting money, that would be wasteful in my mind to go in there and ignore that and just say, hey, to heck with you, city, we're going to build a road over the top of this, come hell or high water. And this is what -- this is it. We're going to do it our way. And I think that that would be wrong in -- in the best interest of everybody in Collier County to do that. So, this has been a difficult project. I -- it was one of the things that I inherited when I first came into office. I thought it was '- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a nice way of saying it. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- simple from the standpoint of how can anybody not want to improve that roadway if you have seen the traffic out on that roadway? How wrong I was, because I've never seen anything that opened up a bigger can of worms than this roadway project when we're trying to do and give them a roadway that's going to be a safer roadway, that's going to give their children out there access along the side to get them off of the roadway and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: To the elementary school. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- to the elementary school and, frankly, to say? O~lt as the -- you have a library out there along the parkway. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A park. COHMISSIONER BERRY: A park. I mean, these -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I say, let's get on with it. What do you COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I -- I tell you, they need the roadway, the people need the roadway, and if you've been out there both in the after -- late afternoon and in the early morning, you cannot believe the traffic. You cannot see when it's still dark there as long and as far as the eye can see, it is a line of light far as you can see, and people have to pick their time to access that roadway because it is so congested. The question and the answer is they do need that roadway desperately out in that area. And I do agree with Miss Baum from the standpoint not only Golden Gate Boulevard, but the entire -- and I've chirped about this at the HPO meetings. We need to look at the entire roadway system in the estates, not only Golden Gate Boulevard. That's the first step, but there's a lot of other roadways out there that need to be addressed as well. And it will come. Unfortunately, it's a long process and it -- it does take some time. So, thank you for letting me chirp about this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Chirping allowed. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think we should four-lane it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You think we ought to four-lane it? We have an agreement before us between the county and the City of Naples and the staff requested to take action on that agreement. Do I have a motion on the agreement, please? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I already moved -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Already moved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and it was seconded. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, I'll recognize the motion and the second and ask for a vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries, five-zero. Item #BE1 RESOLUTION 97-454, OPPOSING ENACTHENT INTO LAW OF PROPOSED FLORIDA HOUSE BILL NUMBER 3185, WHICH INTENDS TO ARBITRARILY REQUIRE THAT CUSTOMERS OF MANY INVESTOR OWNED WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES WILL HAVE TO PAY COSTS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY THE UTILITY'S FUTURE CUSTOMERS - ADOPTED Tend to one more item before the break. It's an add-on, Item 8(E)(1), a resolution opposing House Bill 3185. In essence, we passed a resolution in April of this year opposing this. This, in essence, is really preempting our local utility authority. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve this and pass a copy on to our beloved state representative. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Blue, do you need anything else on that? We're all pretty familiar with it? Any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll call the question. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The resolution is adopted five to zero. Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: An informational item in conjunction with this, I'd just like to remind the board that we have one additional item to present to the legislative delegation that has previously been before you. It's the issue of addressing the special act regarding bonfires on the beach. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: If you'll remember, the board has directed us, so we'll have two items that we present to the legislature delegation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Good enough. With that, let's go ahead and take a ten-minute break and return with Item 9(A). (A recess was had.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Good after -- good morning, excuse me. We're going to reconvene the board of county commissioners meeting for today, December 9th. Item #9A SETTLEMENT OF ROOKERY BAY UTILITIES CO. V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 96-1-CIV-FTH-23D - APPROVED WITH CHANGES We left off at Item 9(A) under County Attorney's report in the agenda. This is a recommendation to consider and approve settlement of Rookery Bay Utility v Collier County. I do want to ask, have you had the opportunity to meet and brief each commissioner individually? MR. PETTIT: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Mike Petit, Assistant County Attorney. I have met with each of the commissioners individually except for in get and Commissioner Norris, I believe, on this item. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What are you waiting on? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I asked that is that typically these settlement cases, if we've had that opportunity, unless there are any outstanding questions of -- of -- usually a lengthy presentation isn't necessary. I'll ask the board. Do you have any questions on this matter? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. This is a good settlement. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pettit, is there anything we need to on the record formally? MR. PETTIT: Yes. I do want to make an amendment to the agreement on the floor. Rookery Bay's counsel and one of its officers is here, and he I have discussed this. And what I'm going to do is just read the language into the record and then we will prepare a new settlement document and bring it in if the board votes to approve the settlement. The change -- and it's for purposes of clarification. I'll take responsibility for writing a somewhat unclear sentence here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That will be noted. MR. PETTIT: Page -- thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He's leaving. What does he care. MR. PETTIT: Page 3 in Paragraph 4 and then on to Page 4 is where the change will occur. At the top there's a sentence and this is in the settlement agreement. It states, the county and Rookery Bay agree that to the extent the boundaries of the Fiddlers Creek Community Development district are expanded after that date, nothing in this agreement or release shall automatically entitle the county to provide wastewater service to expanded -- to the expanded area without agreement of Rookery Bay or any successor. And we are going to add some language to the effect that that will only apply to the extent that the expanded area in fact falls within Rookery Bay's wastewater certificated area, just to make it clear that obviously if the CDD expands and remains in our area we would serve it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions Mr. Pettit? Seeing none, is there a motion on this matter? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the settlement proposal and to thank Mr. Pettit for his continuing outstanding work and to wish that we could persuade him not to leave us for higher ground. MR. PETTIT: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a second on the motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was about to say it's not because of the glowing remarks about Mr. Pettit, I hope. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, let's see. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. MR. PETTIT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pettit, is this your swan song or are we to going to see you again? HR. PETTIT: You will see me again. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But actually it will be a freebie. He won't be on the payroll next time he's here. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's even better. We look forward seeing you when we're not paying you and doing work. That's good. Thank you, Mike. Item #10A RESOLUTION 97-455, APPOINTING WILLIAM EBBEN TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Under Item 10(A), board of county commissioners. We have an appointment to a member of the Collier County Government Productivity Committee. I want to point out here that they have done something I've never seen before, that I think is fantastic. They didn't just list a recommendation. They ranked the individuals. Leave it to this committee to do the unexpected and to do it well. But, anyway, they did -- they ranked them for us and included explanations and I think they should be landed for that. So, if the staff agrees and we'll pass them on, I'd be greatly appreciative. Do we have discussion or a motion on this. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'd like to move the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Move to approve. Please go right ahead, Mrs. Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: No. Be my guest. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Just somebody do it quick. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we nominate William Ebben. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We have a motion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Item #10B JOINT LEE/COLLIER HEETING WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS - MEETING TO BE HELD DECEMBER 17, 1997 AT 9:00 A.H. of the be the Item 10(B) was an add-on at my request, requesting a time and -- a date and time for a joint Lee-Collier meeting with the Corps Engineers. The reason is, and each of you has had your -- your office has been copied on the response the Corps of Engineers has provided to questions posed by the Lee County -- or in cooperation with the Lee County Commission. In addition to the question, we have asked on authority. Two things have happened since I received those. One is I directed the response regarding the Corps' authority to perform the study to Mr. Weigel's office for any material input he feels would appropriate on that at this time. And the second thing I had done is requested the Lee County commission today discuss the date of December 17th, preferably in morning, if not, at noon, for a joint meeting -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Home game? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- understanding that -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Home game? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't -- you know, I'd just as soon the Lion's Club would be a good place again if they wanted to do it there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You know, we can certainly do it here. The location at this point is not as important as locking in the date. So, I want to ask two things. The first, which is the easiest, is does the board wish to have a joint meeting with the Lee County commission, the Corps of Engineers either the morning or at noontime on the 17th? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're looking for a motion, I'll make one that we meet with the Lee board on the 17th at 9:00 a.m. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But assuming that -- the Lee board and the Corps. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I know the Corps is available. I've already discussed it with them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) received for CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, I understand you -- you my correspondence rather recently. Do you think it would be more appropriate to provide any information next Tuesday under County Attorney's report rather than today? Would that be sufficient or -- I'll leave that up to you, whichever way you'd like to go with that. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I -- I really don't have any information you today. I received a copy -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, next Tuesday -- MR. WEIGEL: -- just last evening. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- is starting to look real good. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I did -- you've only had it, I think, a Lee day and a half or two days, so -- HR. WEIGEL: No, I haven't received yours yet. In fact, it's still in our office. I did receive a complimentary copy from the County attorney yesterday afternoon. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You got theirs before you got mine. Okay. We need to -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We need to discuss that interoffice -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- mail question then. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a problem? I didn't notice which one you said was first preference, but the afternoon, 12:00 o'clock, would be a lot better for me than the morning. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The motion was for 9:00 a.m. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The motion was 9:00. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry. And I seconded it, so I guess I'll have to go with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think -- I will express to the Lee County commission noon as the fallback or choice B, if that's appropriate. I you -- I have my district office hours that morning but if I have -- know, if need be, I'll cancel them because this is something we need to get done. But we'll say choice one is 9:00 a.m., choice two is noon. Okay. And with that, Mr. Weigel -- particularly if any members of the Mr. now board have questions regarding that authority, please get them to Weigel this week so that he can address them in advance rather than having to be Johnny on the spot -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, he does that quite well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- on the legal side next Tuesday. With that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to call him Johnny from on. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. Just for public knowledge, are we going to schedule this at that Lion's Club? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What will happen is we'll do a press release as soon as I get information from the Lee County commission on their availability and location. If the Lion's Club is not available, we'll determine a second location. Once I get that, we'll do a press release and I'm sure the paper will be kind enough to, you know, to print that and so forth. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Clubhouse at par one, whatever. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: With that, that's the end of the regular scheduled items for the morning. We are to Public Comment on General Topics. Do we have registered speakers this morning, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. You did have one speaker on this -- this item on the EIS that I failed to recognize, Mr. Ty Agoston. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The item is whether or not the board should meet with Lee County and the Corps of Engineers on the 17th. So, let's keep our comments refined to that particular decision. MR. AGOSTON: My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates and I'm speaking for myself. I am a pretty outspoken antagonist to the U.S. Corps of Engineers controlling our growth destiny, and to be honest with you, and I want to be very nice here, maybe make a political statement by not blaming you, but I like to have a little more notice and also like to have the information on what's going to be discussed at these meetings, and the question whether this is a public meeting or not. I understand that in Florida there is such a thing as a Sunshine Law, whatever, that would be covered. I personally think that at this point in time, the Army Corps of be Eng -- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers engaged in their holistic project building socialism in a capitalist system. And I'd like to prepared to ask questions and I don't have any of the questions and answers that you -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The subject -- MR. AGOSTON: -- and your commission are going to deal with next Wednesday. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The fact that you've been here for all the meetings, I would assume you knew the subject matter. The subject matter is response by the Corps of Engineers to the 46 questions posted by the Lee County commission. We're going to have an opportunity to discuss those face-to-face with them. The other reason for the meeting is the Corps has met with the Lee County commission, the Collier County commission separately. We want everyone to be in the same room to discuss the -- those questions and the Corps' authority in public, as all of our meetings are, at the same time so the Lee commission and the Collier commission have the same information to either move forward on or to make whatever future decisions are -- are available. That's the purpose of the meeting. MR. AGOSTON: Is all the questions available and the responses available to the public? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes, they certainly are. They've been available since I received them in my office two or three days ago. Yes. As a matter of fact, we've already had a request for them and fulfilled those requests. MR. AGOSTON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. And we're now to Public Comment on General Topics. Mr. Fernandez, any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have no registered speakers for this section, Mr. Chairman. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 97-78, REGARDING PETITION PUD-82-6(3), GRANITE DEVELOPMENT, L.C., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SABAL LAKE PUD, ORDINANCE 82- 41, AS AMENDED - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, we'll move to Public Hearings under Item 12(B), Zoning Amendments. The first item is PUD or petition PUD 82-6(3), Granite Development, L.C., requesting an amendment to the Sabal Lake PUD. Two things: This does require four affirmative votes and it is a quasi-judicial matter, so I'm going to ask that all members of our staff, members of the petitioner's team and any member of the public here to speak on this item please now stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in? (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Good morning. For the record, my name is Ron Nino. The petition that's before you asks you to amend the Sabal Lakes PUD to clarify the space between accessory and principal buildings. Actually, this petition comes to you at the urging of staff because, for some considerable time, we've been experiencing problems with the issuance of building permits for single-family houses because the regulations were unclear. However, there was sufficient administrative discretion in the regulations that allowed us to do exactly what this amendment would __ would have us do. As a matter of fact, some 90 homes have been built in Sabal Lakes with screened enclosure pool -- with screen enclosures that are within five feet of principal buildings. However, that matter was always somewhat unclear, but in our opinion left us admis -- sufficient discretion. So, we're really trying to wrap that up and -- and end the delays that -- that occur each and every time somebody applies to build a home in Sabal Lakes that ends up back in the planning section, a couple days are lost and a lot of -- a lot of that time -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, does anybody object to this or is there -- MR. NINO: No one objects. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- any logical reason why we wouldn't want to do this? MR. NINO: No reason at all and no one objects to it and the Planning Commission unanimously supports the amendment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This isn't the item to do it on, but I -- I am going to start looking at setbacks within residential communities, and we'll talk about it in detail later. But I have noticed that we're getting a lot of postage stamp developments with less -- you know, 15 feet between structures and the overall aesthetic value in that community is really -- I think it's something that merits some planning discussion, but I'll -- we'll -- I'm initiating that now and follow through in the -- the next few months on that. Any discussion on this, on this matter? Does the petitioner wish to add anything to Mr. Nino's excellent presentation? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Indicates no. I'll close -- I'm sorry. Any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I move staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 97-456, REGARDING REVISIONS TO THE PELICAN HARSH DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item 12(B). This also is a quasi-judicial matter. PUD 93-1(3). George Varnadoe representing WCI Communities for fezone, PUD to PUD, having the effect of amending the Pelican Marsh PUD, Ordinance 95-4. This also requires four votes. I'm going to ask that all members of our staff, members of the petitioner, their team and any member of the public here to speak on this item please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in? (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.) MR. VARNADOE: Mr. Chairman, before you start, there's two companion items and it would probably be appropriate -- I'm sorry. George Varnadoe, for the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's two companion items. MR. VARNADOE: There's two companion items and it would probably be easier and quicker if we just handle them all together. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd like to disclose that I've had some conversation with Mr. Varnadoe and Miss Watts but I'll make my decision based on all appropriate information. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have the same disclosure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Identical disclosure. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't believe I've met with them but, regardless, my decision will be based as required by state law. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I've had contact with the petitioner. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Because we have different requirements in the number of affirmative votes between Item 12 (B)(2) and 12(C)(2) and (3), Mr. Weigel, does it then require that we take separate motions? a and MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, could I just see if I understand this crystal clear. They're -- they're looking to makes some changes at Pelican Marsh. They would like to have 500 fewer dwelling units. They would like to have less retail, less office space. They would increase hotel space. MR. NINO: That is correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that it in a nut shell? There's couple of other little fringe items here and there's a golf course MR. NINO: That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, have you found any reason, way, shape or form why this is not a good thing for the community? of MR. NINO: No. Absolutely not. And the Planning Commission, course, unanimously agree with that. There have been no communications of opposition to the amendments to the petition. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm going to ask one question of the petitioner that I asked previously. I want to get it on the record. Because the fact that this affects the northeast quadrant -- yeah, northeast quadrant of -- at an intersection of two arterials, was concerned from a transportation standpoint. Mr. Varnadoe, is that intersection one that has slated or proposed for a flyover due to intersection failure by the year 2020? MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. Mr. Chairman, I asked our transportation consultant, Plummet and Associates, to check that out and they spoke with your transportation department, and also looked at your -- your 2020 plan and they are no provisions for a flyover at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport Road. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The internal roadway shown there, will that be a private roadway or a public roadway? MR. VARNADOE: That will be private. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Are there questions of staff or the petitioner by the balancing members of the board? MR. NINO: Yes. Mr. Chairman, in the last few weeks, we were still bogged down in a couple of commitments and they were recently resolved. They're not in your agenda package. I submitted to you three pages that have some additional changes to them as opposed to the original PUD document. With respect to two of those -- with respect to two items, Item 8.9, and our attorney's office encouraged that certain changes be made to indicate that impact fee credits would be allowed if the ordinance, the impact fee ordinance, allows them and then one additional case item, an Item Q on Page 8.9, 8.6 of the PUD document? MR. VARNADOE: Actually 8.7. MR. NINO: 8.7? It's our attorney's position that Item Q is unacceptable and not to be deleted. And I understand from Mr. Varnadoe that his clients have accepted both of those modifications. MR. VARNADOE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Anything further, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have questions of the petitioner? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I see none. Mr. Varnadoe, is there anything at this point you feel the need to get on the record? of HR. VARNADOE: No, sir, I do not. The -- I think the report stands -- speaks for itself. I'd like to thank your staff for working with us. It's been a pleasure working with your staff on this. The Regional Planning Council and the Collier County Planning Commission have both unanimously approved the changes and have determined them not to be substantial deviation for the development order. I would think that would be the first order of business is the determination that it's not a substantial deviation and then the amendment to the PUD and DRI after that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In agreeing with that, I'm going to ask the board consider an order Item 12(C)(2) first, 12(C)(3) secondly and then the Item 12(B)(2) finally. With that I -- I looked in the PUD. I did not find a requirement for the Greg Norman Charity Golf Tournament, but I assume you'll keep working on that, Miss Watts? Okay. Are there any registered speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: There are no registered speakers. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I love reading the record later. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, to someone who doesn't know me, they're going to think that rather odd. Okay. So, those who do know me, they'll think it rather odd. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We are used to you being odd. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The first item we need to consider is Item 12(C)(2). MR. FERNANDEZ: Have you closed? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I thought I did. The public hearing is closed. Item 12(C)(2) is whether or not this does or does not constitute a substantial deviation. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: PUD Mr. Chairman, motion to approve 93-1(3) . COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, the motion to find that this does not constitute a substantial deviation. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Since the first motion is out of order with the chair request, we'll accept the second motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying eye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Mr. Fernandez. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry. MR. FERNANDEZ: Was the extent of that motion to approve the - adopt the resolution? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. That motion was to declare that it does not constitute a substantial deviation. is MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The second Item 12 (C)(3), Petition DOA-97-4 -- is actually the adoption of the resolution, as I understand it. Is that correct, Mr. Weigel? MR. NINO: Yes. We're adopting the resolution -- MR. WEIGEL: Yeah. That's correct. MR. NINO: -- declaring this action to represent an insubstantial change. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a motion on Item 12(C)(3)? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just read -- you're losing me here because 12(C)(2) says a resolution -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of the BCC. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's why I -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris just said, no, that wasn't -- the motion wasn't a resolution so, I need some help with that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- I was just going by what I heard the motion maker say and that's what she said. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then we'd better go back -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's back up -- let's back up and clarify on Item 12(C)(2). Was it the intent of the motion maker to adopt a resolution stating that the -- the change does not constitute a substantial deviation? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Second, was that your intent also? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Does anyone wish to change their vote? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, it stands five-zero. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Item -- and thank you. You're right. missed the word resolution there. Item #12C3 DEVELOPHENT ORDER 97-4/RESOLUTION 97-457, REGARDING PETITION DOA- 97-4, GEORGE L. VARNDADOE OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING WCI COHMUNITIES, L.P., FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PELICAN HARSH DEVELOPMENT ORDER 95-1 AS AMENDED - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Item 12(C)(3), Petition DOA-97-4. Do we have a motion on that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the DRI amendment in accordance with staff recommendations including the changes we got this morning to the extent they're applicable to the DRI. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: None of us could have crafted that except you, Commissioner Mac'Kie. Discussion on the motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Motion carries five-zero. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 97-79, REGARDING PETITION PUD-93-1(3), GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VAN ASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING WCI COHMUNITIES, L.P., FOR A REZONE FORM PUD TO PUD AMENDING PELICAN HARSH PUD, ORDINANCE NO. 95-4, - ADOPTED Item 12(B)(2) which is Petition PUD-93-1, fezone from PUD to PUD. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the PUD fezone in accordance with staff recommendations. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: All right. Three in one shot. Thank you. Mr. Nino, thank you. Item #1283 ORDINANCE 97-80, PETITION PUD-97-13, HICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED REPRESENTING ANTHONY J. HARTIG REQUESTING A REZONE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES to Next Item 12(B)(3), Petition PUD-97-13. Hichael Fernandez, AICP, of Planning Development, Incorporated representing Anthony Hartig. This is a request to fezone from A, Ag, Rural Agricultural PUD, Planned Unit Development, for a mixed use project. Again, this is a quasi-judicial matter. It does require three votes but I'm going to ask that all members of our staff here on this item, members of the petitiener's team and any member of the public here to speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter? (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Nine, hello again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I disclose that I met with Mr. Fernandez and Mr. DeAngelis on this matter. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have the same disclosure. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I have met with the petitioners on this matter and like my colleagues, I'll base my decision on the information that is presented here and previously. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Follow suit. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Same decision. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Nine? MR. NINO: Yes. Ren Nine, for the record. PUD-97-13 asks this board to approve of rezening of land that is currently zoned agricultural to PUD. That land lies on the south side the of the of Immokalee Road and it's positioned between two existing PUD's, Southwest Professional Health Park and the Veterans Park PUD, both which are health-related PUD's. This PUD purports to divide the property up into two tracts, northerly tract and the southerly tract bisected by Horseshoe Creek, and on the north parcel proposes the construction of 25,000 square feet of -- of medically-related office uses. On the south portion, the petitioner is asking you to approve 70,000 square feet of office space generally consistent with the C- classification or a fire station administration training facility 40 dwelling units. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whichever comes first. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's been reduced to 40 dwelling units? MR. NINO: Pardon? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The staff report indicates 42. MR. PETTIT: Forty-two. Thank you. Forty-two dwelling units. All of those land uses are consistent with the future land use element. The commercial is consistent by virtue of its contiguous relationship to existing commercial. The residential is consistent because it's within the urban residentially designated area and within the urban residentially designated area, the essential services are are permitted as conditional uses. So, all of those uses are permitted. In terms of the traffic generation impacts of all of the uses, analysis advises us that none of the uses would trip the five percent significant impact test; therefore, it's consistent with the traffic circulation element of the Growth Management Plan. By virtue of the structure of the PUD in terms of its commitment to national preservation to the extent that the site has those, the open space requirement connection with county sewer and water system, all of those things are addressed within the PUD commitments in -- in accordance with staff review and the staff recommendations, I might add. This matter -- so, to that extent, the PUD is entirely consistent with all of the elements of the Growth Management Plan. This PUD proposes that in the event of a fire station that a road would be created along the south end of the PUD on property that is owned by the county, by Collier County, and it would -- it would comprise of a 50-foot easement upon which the fire district would build a road and a sidewalk. And -- and I'm -- staff is advised that that recommendation is clearly supported by our public services division. are for to for Mr. Olliff is here. We're advised that -- that that is an acceptable proposition. And that would be the only condition, incidentally, under which the fire station would be built on this site. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: The PUD has crafted the standards that -- that are, for all practical purposes, consistent with -- with standards that -- that -- that apply to those types of land uses in the Land Development Code. We have an additional setback requirement in this PUD for -- development that fronts on Immokalee Road, which is consistent with our view that perhaps the minimum setback of 25 feet for commercial buildings isn't adequate, isn't sufficiently adequate as it relates a major thoroughfare such as Immokalee. And in all cases that we brought before you, we've insisted on greater setbacks than the minimum that is allowed, otherwise allowed, along Immokalee Road commercially zoned projects. The Planning Commission -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a good consistent theme, Mr. Nino. Thank you. MR. NINO: The Planning Commission reviewed this petition and unanimously recommended its approval. The EAV reviewed this petition and their -- all of their considerations and stipulations are included within the PUD document that is before you. We -- we'd be pleased to answer any questions. The petitioner is to here. I believe there is an issue that -- that came up at the last minute that -- that Mr. Fernandez is going to discuss, and there is party representing the person that raised that issue here similar - similarly to discuss that issue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Let me say for the record -- there's one additional thing. Mr. Olliff advised me earlier that this petitioner had agreed construct the sidewalk, bike path, all the way from Immokalee Road the Collier County Park and -- and that stipulation needs to be inserted within the PUD document. I understand there's concurrence with that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. We'll ask the petitioner to verify that. Question for you, Mr. Nino. On Tract B -- MR. NINO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- looking at basically six units an acre, which is typically a multifamily product. MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is that consistent with the adjacent land uses to the east? MR. NINO: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Or to the west? Excuse me. MR. NINO: I think if you -- our staff report ironically points out that because of the development that is on either side of it, the development that's on the back of it, quite frankly, from our professional point of view, the least desirable use here is the residential use. And I think you, as a planner, would agree that - to CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. MR. NINO: -- that this is the best place in the world to go build residences. However, as we pointed out, that is an allowable use under the future land use element. It is urban residential although it's in a rather tight, small, confined area; nevertheless, that is -- that is approved. That is permitted. And, furthermore, given those constraints, the only likely market response, I think you will agree, is multifamily. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. NINO: And multifamily had a density of less than six units per acre. It's not likely to fly. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Agreed. Further questions for Mr. Nino? Seeing none, let's go to the petitioner. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, commissioners. Michael Fernandez of Planning Development, Incorporated representing the landowner. The project, as Mr. Nino stated, is of two parcels, the front parcel being a commercial piece. There are three potential uses for the southern portion of the parcel, one of them being a fire department, which is the preferred, and should it get approved, then, of course, the other two uses are the are inconsequential because they'll never happen. The fire department proposes to have a fire department station there along with an administration and training facility, although training facility is largely contained within the building. Exterior to the building, there is a four-story training tower that will be used for repelling and training with hoses on multistructure -- multistoried structures. However, other than that, all training will occur in the building. There is no burn centers outside of the facility. There are no additional training exercises that are going to be done outside of that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No different than what the city has down on 26th? HR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. That's correct. I'm familiar with that piece. The facility that you're reviewing here is substantially reduced in scope from what was brought before you from another piece of property that was proposed on Immokalee Road sometime ago. This facility is for the use of the North Naples Fire District. It's not is for other agencies. And -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: One thing that's consistent, Mr. Fernandez, an overabundance of parking. I don't know who keeps doing the fire department plans but they apparently love parking spaces. MR. FERNANDEZ: There -- there is within the facility a -- a conference center so that they can hold gatherings there -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and the facility -- the parking that's shown there is commensurate with the regulations for this facility as per the Land Development Code. The facility itself is situated to the south of the property and would have access down Veterans Park Drive. I will confirm Mr. Nino's comment that the petitioner has agreed to put in a sidewalk along the east side of Veterans Park Drive from the park entrance all the way to the exit of Veterans Park Drive onto Immokalee Road. This will effectively remove pedestrians right now that are sharing that roadway with Veterans Park Drive. In addition to that, as part of the stipulations that are incorporated in the PUD, the fire department would propose a traffic signal subject to Collier County transportation division review at the intersection and is willing to pay for that. And my understanding this is something that the fire department -- or the parks department has been looking for to -- for some time, an on-call facility that would allow them to disperse people when they have significant events at the park facility itself. At the entrance to the drive to the fire department project, we'll also have a pole signalization with a light so that that can be triggered as well as the one at Veterans Park Drive and Immokalee Road giving added safety and giving warning to people when the fire department vehicles are going to be coming out. The other intent, and this again gets a little bit further into the process, but it's to propose a three-way intersection there, so there -- it becomes customary that people understand that vehicles may or may not be entering at that point. And it will create then a more formal entrance into the park area. We believe this is a good compatible use with the park itself. The -- Collier County also shares a facility with the fire department up at Pelican Bay and to our knowledge has not had problems either with the park or with the adjacent residential areas. Now, in the event that the fire station administration facility is not approved, the two other uses are residential and commercial. Those facilities would not have the need for access from the parks property. Access would be from Tract A with a bridge constructed over the Horse Creek, so it would be an internal access different than the other one. A couple points of clarification. Ron Nino mentioned 25,000 square feet. The developer has said in the PUD document it's only 20,000 square feet, so a little bit lower. And relative to the intensity of the residential development, the see the 42 units that are requested is -- is what the owner would like to -- would have liked to get approved if possible and that would give him an alternative to use to the commercial. He has some concern that with what was approved recently in area that it may not be a timely use and that the residential may actually be a better alternative, although I would agree with Mr. Nino that's probably the least desirable from everybody's standpoint, the residential component of the facility. In addition to that, Mr. Nino did mention that there is some concern from one of our neighbors who recently gained knowledge of the to the and facility. They're creating a -- a health center and they're called CareMatrix. It's an ALF project. They've asked us to accept certain conditions. We've agreed those conditions and I'll read them into the record. The chief of fire department has reviewed these as well and has accepted them their attorney, John Cardillo, is here today and if you have any further questions -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: How many conditions are there, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: There are six conditions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Better yet, why don't we go ahead and just enter them into the record by passing them to the court reporter? And the do you have copies for the board to look at? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we don't. We just -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: In that case, why don't you read them into record? MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. These were just hammered out during the __ before the meeting. The training facility does not involve the use of fire or smoke and shall operate only between the hours of 8:30 and 4:30 p.m. and shall meet the LD -- the county's LDC noise ordinance requirements, 90-17, as amended. The fire station shall have no outdoor sirens. The automated traffic signal shall be installed at the intersections of the fire station driveway and the Veterans Park Drive and at Immokalee and Veterans Park Drive subject to Collier County review and shall be triggered by remote controls in the emergency -- within the emergency vehicles so that turning movements could be made as safely and quietly as possible. Sirens and horns are not to be used unless determined necessary by the operator. The sirens and horns not to be -- the sirens and horns are not to be used on Immokalee Road until the emergency vehicles have passed the CareMatrix facility to the west and the nursing home immediately to the east unless the demand requires that, as determined by the operator, that future EMS vehicles using this facility will abide by the same standards if and when that happens. And the developer also further agrees to minimize the removal of trees in the areas that are not to be developed. One last item, we've also received a request from Mary Morgan's office to utilize the facility for an elections center and the fire department, if they purchase the property, will sign the document that's been given them so that it can be used as a precinct. She has related to us that this is an area that they've been looking for one for sometime and this would be a perfect complement for their existing facilities. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And there's plenty of parking for them so we're in good shape there. Anything else, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's it. I'll be happy to answer any question you may have. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Question for Mr. Nino. My concern is one of exclusive use; in other words, if -- is there anything in the PUD that says if the fire department goes in Tract B, nothing else can go there? If 42 dwelling units go in there, no commercial either. MR. NINO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We've been presented three scenarios. I just want to make sure that no two of the scenarios can be mixed on Tract B. MR. NINO: Yes. That's provided for in the PUD. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, I go a step farther than that. Since I've been on the board, I've not been receptive to having multichoice PUD's. When we had our conversation, I was under the understanding that you were going to present this as a fire station. I'm not supportive of giving you options in your PUD. You know, you've got three just totally disparate uses defined in here; fire station, medical office buildings or residential. Well, pick one and let us know. But I want to know what I'm voting on what's going to go in there before I vote on it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. The fire department is prepared, I believe, to close on the property on the December 12th, I believe, John, assuming that the rezoning is granted. The land developer was insistent on options in case you did not or the approve the fire department. He wanted something to fall back on if they didn't close by that date. My understanding -- because we talked about a self-healing document that if -- if the fire department did not close with the property or did close on the property, the others would disappear altogether, but I was told that that's a self-healing document and that's not something that is allowable. But the -- so, basically, -- the two alternative uses are really just backups. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if the closing is planned for Friday, then you wouldn't have any objection if we just passed it with the fire department use? MR. FERNANDEZ: Just a moment, please. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I can see this thing zipping right along if that's agreed to. MR. CARDILLO: Hay I address the board? My name is John Cardillo and I represent the North Naples Fire Commission, and we're -- if this is approved, we're going to close. It is not the 12th. It's the first week of January, but we are going to close. We have plans ready to go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I'm certainly -- I'm not trying to tie the hands of the property owner but, you know, Commissioner Norris, and you've been consistent about this, I will agree with you. I was leaning towards, you know, either the commercial or fire station but not all three. I was -- I was going to ask that we remove the residential just because I'm not terribly comfortable with it. But, you know, with -- with the legal representative, at least expressing the intent of the fire district to close on the property in January, I think if it were not to happen, the petitioner could very easily come back and say, you know, it didn't happen as anticipated. This is the specific use of the land we're now requesting and we'll be able to review that in its entirety. And that is consistent with what we've done in the past on -- or at least in the recent past on PUD's. So, I want to at least narrow the uses, but I am certainly supportive of -- of specifying the, you know -- the plan we have, and and some we have a plan for and we don't have a plan for residential we don't have a plan for commercial. We don't know what it will look like. So -- and we're talking just about Tract B. I understand Tract A is going to be commercial period. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: They -- they only requested one use for that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: But the problem on Tract B, is let's -- let's say, for example, we pass it as presented here today and for whatever reason the fire department did not go forward with their - their proposal and the property was shifted to 42 units of residential, well, we don't get to see that anymore. We've already approved it. We don't get to see any -- any architectural -- MR. CARDILLO: Oh, I agree completely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- renderings. We don't know what kind of residential it's going to be. I'm just not willing to do that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Cardillo or anything else, John? We don't know anything about it, so Any further questions of Mr. to MR. CARDILLO: No. That's all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CARDILLO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. We have four. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have four registered speakers? Let's go those. MR. FERNANDEZ: Jim Norquest. Are they all three together? Then Bruce Tyson and Ernest Cox. MR. COX: If I may, my name is Ernest Cox. I'm an attorney with Gunster, Yoakley, Valdez-Foli and Stewart. I represent CareMatrix. CareMatrix is the owner of property immediately to the west of this that is currently being developed as an assisted living facility. It is currently under construction as part of an adjoining PUD and will be operational. We do have a schematic which just shows where the proposed fire station would be, our facility, as it will be developed. With me today is Bruce Tyson, the land planner on our project and any also Jim Norquest of CareMatrix. I would -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm not attempting to limit your input in way but I heard Mr. Fernandez read into the record six conditions that were agreed upon between CareMatrix and the petitioner. If those are included as a part of any motion here, does CareMatrix have any objection to the proposed project? MR. COX: We -- we are agreeable to the project as proposed with those conditions. I would just briefly like to ask Jim Norquest just -- just so that the commission is clear as to what exactly it is that CareMatrix has next door. We believe we're going to have a fine relationship with the fire department. We've talked to the chief. The chief has agreed. Everybody's on board with these conditions, but I do think it is important for the commission to briefly understand CareMatrix' concerns with the people that will be living there. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Let's go ahead and hear from him. MR. NORQUEST: Jim Norquest from CareMatrix for the record, and I will be brief because I think everybody understands the situation here. But this is an assistant living facility. I'll just restate Some obvious points. It's a residential use. The average age in this facility is probably about 80 years old. We simply have to be in a position of assuring that our residents have the greatest possible amount of peace and security here. So, therefore, our obvious concern is with the fire station and the use with any potential noise or smoke that it might generate. I've already been assured by the fire chief that there will be no smoke associated with the training facility so I'm completely comfortable with that. We have worked out some conditions that I think ameliorate our concerns about the sirens. But just to -- I just want to state on record that our concern here is that we can't have indiscriminate of horns and sirens from either EHS vehicles or fire trucks here. Obviously, our people will be greatly adversely affected by that and we have to look out for them. the COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I certainly appreciate the fact you agreed to those items. I do have a question. If they are not being met somewhere along the line, who has authority and what happens to enforce it? MR. NORQUEST: That's always a problem. How do you enforce these things? That's -- that's one reason why we wanted to have them in the record as conditions of approval and not just as some sort of letter or loose, floating understanding and why I wanted to get up here and say this and have my comments on the record, too. I've talked to the fire chief myself and I have a feeling of comfort from talking to him because, first of all, he had impressed me as a straightforward person. Secondly, his office is going to be right here in this facility, so I feel like there's some accountability there for us. If we do have a problem, we'll call him first before we come back to you, I assure of you that. I just wanted my comments on the record. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you for that. Looking at the -- the map that's up on the board there, your facility is the sort of salmon colored -- usually -- use -- there's and handheld microphone right behind you on that corner. MR. NORQUEST: Okay. I think I'm on now. Yes. This is our facility here. This is the part before -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Show me Immokalee Road. MR. NORQUEST: Immokalee Road is right up here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. MR. NORQUEST: This is Veterans Park Drive that goes down to Veterans Park. This is the four-story training tower right here this is the fire station itself. Our concern, of course, is that there's only about 450 feet here at the closest point between our building and the fire station. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And what is the distance from your building to Immokalee Road? MR. NORQUEST: 740 feet to this intersection. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no. Just straight -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Straight up. MR. NORQUEST: Oh, probably about 150 maybe, something like that. I'm estimating. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: it So, it's closer to Immokalee Road than is to the fire station? MR. NORQUEST: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You understand that there's vehicles going across Immokalee Road with sirens going -- MR. NORQUEST: Yes. We're just trying to keep it from getting at any worse. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Understood. MR. NORQUEST: I mean there's a hospital there. We knew that when we bought the property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Any other questions of the representative from CareMatrix? Seeing none, Mr. Fernandez, do you have anything else to add this time? HR. FERNANDEZ: residential the The petitioner agrees to remove the use from the property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But would like to keep the commercial in? MR. FERNANDEZ: Would like to keep the commercial in only on basis that if for some unknown reason the fire department doesn't close on the property. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: At least in commercial we do have architectural and site design standards that would apply to this site if commercial development occurs? MR. NINO: Yes. That is correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Do we have any additional registered speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: John Cardillo also registered, but he got the opportunity earlier. I don't know -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- If he has additional comments. MR. CARDILLO: Pass. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: He's -- he's done. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And no others? MR. FERNANDEZ: Those are all. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the item with the fire use only and with the sidewalk that was yes in the -- I think Mr. Fernandez nodded. I don't know if we got a verbal on the record. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we did. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: And the six commitments? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the six commitments as outlined their agreement with -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: And I'll second it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the commercial use. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. It's not part of my motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Your motion strikes, effectively strikes, residential and commercial uses on Tract B. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we do that without the agreement from the petitioner, Mr. Weigel? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you can. That's why they're petitioning us. to it way, on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one. Mr. Fernandez, thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just think you should have been able keep the commercial, too. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I do, too, but I wasn't going to submarine for that. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, if that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I didn't know who else was voting which so at least give him the use that we think they're going to close COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Strange. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 97-81, AMENDING COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE 95-22 WHICH ESTABLISHES THE IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's -- the next item is Item 12 C)(1), ordinance amending Collier County Ordinance 95-22, which establishes the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. Mr. Mihalic, does the term no brainer seem to fit this one? MR. MIHALIC: Absolutely, commissioners. This essentially does what you want it to make an ex officio member of the director of agricultural services on this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Do we have any speakers on this, Mr. Fernandez? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have to close the public hearing before we can vote on these motions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just said that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's been no motion yet because he hadn't closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ignore it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The public hearing is now closed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion we approve the item. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll still second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Items 12(C)(2) and (3) were previously heard. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 97-458, REGARDING PETITION OSP-97-3, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, OF HOOVER PLANNING SHOPPE REPRESENTING JAMES S. LINDSAY, BANK DIRECTOR OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF NAPLES - GOLDEN GATE BRANCH, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF OFF-SITE PARKING AND A BANK ATM - ADOPTED We are under Board of Zoning Appeals, Item 13(A)(1), Petition OSP-97-3, Bill Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning Shoppe representing James Lindsay, bank director of First National Bank of Naples, Golden Gate Branch. This is a request of an approval for an off-site parking and a bank ATM for property described as Lots 31 and 32, Golden Gate, Unit 3. This is a quasi-judicial matter, therefore, we're going to need to swear in all members of our staff, members of the petitioner's team and anyone here to speak on this item. Would those individuals please stand and raise your right hand? Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in? (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: This matter requires three affirmative votes of the board to be approved. Mr. Reischl, good morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I disclose, please, that I've had a brief conversation with Mr. Richter on this matter? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I should -- I keep forgetting to go to that today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had some conversation on this but I'm going to base my decision on what we hear today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, I've had a discussion with Mr. Richter and I'm going to base my decision on the information presented on the matter. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And Commissioner Berry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think I had any discussion with Richter on this. Just lucky, I guess. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Apparently -- apparently he doesn't like you. COMMISSIONER BERRY: votes. No. Apparently he figures he's got four CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Reischl, with that inauspicious statement, let's -- let's go ahead and proceed. MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, Planning Services. This is a request for off-site parking for the First National Bank of Naples, Golden Gate Branch. It's located at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Tropicana Boulevard. The blue on the site plan is the existing First National Bank site. The yellow is the proposed off-site parking facility, which is of currently zoned RMF-12. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how long a presentation we need here. The -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- bank's been an excellent corporate neighbor of the Golden Gate community. They're trying to improve the area, do a little more banking there and the loss of an RMF-12 in that particular area will not be a great loss. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. That is a great improvement to the area. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Obvious and plain community benefit from the petition. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, there's two things that the -- one thing that the code requires that you put on the record. One of the criteria states that there shall be no traffic exiting onto local roads. Tropicana Boulevard is a local road; however, staff believes that it functions as a minor collector. If the board confirms that, that would take care of that criteria. And the Planning Commission did unanimously approve the petition with the ATM and I just wanted to let you know that staff's opinion was that the ATM was a commercial use and not part of an OSP. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think on that point we've got to find a different way to define it because in my opinion it's an adjunct use, you know, that in -- in of itself, you know, it's kind of like the, you know, the machines that give you bottled water. I mean it's tough to say that that can only go -- MR. REISCHL: Well, actually, that requires a conditional use. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, which -- which is a public hearing. MR. REISCHL: Right. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But not necessarily defined as a commercial It's just a conditional use. So, my -- my point is that there -- if -- if we're going to use. have our situations such as this in the future, we need to take a look at as to code and find a common sense place for them because it's very difficult for me to consider an ATM a commercial use. It's about innocuous as you can get -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- on a piece of property. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I can see that this is moving along pretty fast, but Mr. Richter has been here all day. We should at least make him get up here and say something on the record. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think given the opportunity for him not say anything would be far advantageous. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. Keep him in -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not very often we get to beat up the petitioners, so thank you for being here today, Mr. Richter. COMMISSIONER BERRY: He's such a good target. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. I understand your -- I understand your point, Mr. Reischl, but, you know, I guess I just disagree that we would designate ATH's as commercial uses, and in this particular case, I think the community benefit far outweighs any designation as such and we may want to look at our code to find a more comfortable niche for things like this in the future that -- that doesn't raise that question. Further questions of staff? Seeing none, any registered speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Seeing none, does the petitioner want to talk us out of this one? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I see a lot of heads nodding no. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve the item recognizing Tropicana as a minor collector. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries five-zero. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 97-459, REGARDING PETITION CU-97-17, BEAU KEENE, P.E., REPRESENTING JERRY R. HOOKS AND CATHERINE J. BOYETTE REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "23" OF THE "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR A SPORTING AND RECREATIONAL CAMP INCLUDING AIRBOAT TOURS FOR PROPERTY IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST, LYING SOUTH AND WEST OF U.S. 41, CONSISTING OF 194+ ACRES - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Next Item 13(A)(2), Petition CU-97-17, a conditional use. Mr. Beau Keene representing Jerry Hooks and Catherine Boyette, requesting Conditional Use 23 of the Ag Zoning District for a sporting and recreational camp including airboat tours. This also is a quasi-judicial matter requiring four affirmative votes. Would anyone from the public, members of the petitioner's team and our staff, please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in. Madam Court Reporter? (The witnesses were sworn by the court reporter.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Reischl, are you back up to bat again here? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But before he does, let me disclose that I CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I was actually going to get to that on my ownr but go ahead. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, darn. Is that I've had a brief conversation this morning with Mr. Pires in behalf of the petitioner and also had a meeting with someone who's going to speak in opposition. Tami, I've forgotten your last name. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: House. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had conversation on both sides of this issue but I'm going to base my decision here in this public hearing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I've had discussion with both sides of this issue as well. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that I have but regardless, I'll base my decision according to the statutes of the State of Florida. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I've had discussions with Mr. Pires and Mr. Hooks and Miss House on this matter. I'll base my decision on the the 29 you information presented here before us. Mr. Reischl, with that -- MR. REISCHL: Good morning again. Fred Reischl, Planning Services. This is a request for a conditional use for airboat tour operations and this site is located on East 41 and this map is probably a reduced copy of the best map I could find to show you location. This blue line is State Road 92. This blue line is State Road and the -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I couldn't see the first blue line. just knock over that camera? No, I'm just kidding. MR. REISCHL: Very, very close to the edge. It's approximately three miles east of State Road 92 and 12 miles west of 29. Could by on Do The site is all of the section located south of U.S. 41 owned Mr. Hooks and, as you can see in the aerial, there are -- well, they're highlighted on here but these are existing airboat trails the aerial. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Reischl, is -- if we were familiar with the recent swap with Barton Collier so that this -- this is adjacent to property that was recently added to the Ten Thousand Islands preserve? MR. REISCHL: Yes. That was my next exhibit here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's the neighborhood we're in? MR. REISCHL: This -- if you can see this whole pink dot here, that's the subject property. This is the Picayune Strand State Forest. The yellow is the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that -- that's a state forest? they own that property? HR. REISCHL: Under -- slated for acquisition, put it that way. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, that would be -- that would then make it the alleged Picayune Strand State Forest. MR. REISCHL: Yes. And the yellow is the Collier-Seminole State Park and the blue is by the Ten Thousand Islands, so, basically, the property is surrounded state and national parks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: COMMISSIONER BERRY: Of the alleged. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Of the alleged. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the blue is real. real important. MR. REISCHL: Yes. We had that verified. use Except the green part. I think that's The petitioner proposes to utilize only the existing trails on the property, and as you read in the resolution, he has agreed to nonaircraft engines, has specific mufflers and spark arrestors. The boats have been changed from the recommendation of the Environmental Advisory Board. That was changed at the Planning Commission. The size of the boats was reduced from 18 to 16 feet. Six passengers would be permitted on each boat and the CCPC permitted four boats to operate on the trail at one time, whereas the EAB recommended three. And that was -- basically, that was the reason for one of the negative votes for the Planning Commission was that the chairman thought that the -- he was not opposed to the project but was opposed to the fact that we bail out one more boat than the EAB recommended. COHMISSIONER BERRY: How many boats are they going to have? MR. REISCHL: Well, this was just at one time, so the current recommendation by the Planning Commission is four boats. No more than four boats operating at one time. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Four boats with -- MR. REISCHL: One hundred ninety-four acres on -- with a maximum of six passengers. And the hours were also limited to -- from one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset. And there was a letter from the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, which requested that there be a buffer of 50 yards between park boundaries and the trails. And, as you can see in yellow, I hope you can see, in yellow here is a 50-yard line and at two points, the existing trails come within approximately 25 yards of Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge. The opposition -- the park manager or park representative had no objection to the incursion at those two points. Basically, the alternative would be to cut new trails, which in the area of critical state concern is almost impossible to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, the manager of the Ten Thousand Islands preserve does not object to this petition. MR. REISCHL: Well, he was at the EAB and after it was discussed, that the only two places they would come within the 50 yards would be those two existing trails. He didn't state anything else. I can't state for certain that he didn't have an objection but he didn't publicly object, no. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. Thank you. MR. REISCHL: And, as I said, the -- the Planning Commission and the EAB recommended approval of this. yOU. If yOU have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Reischl? Mr. Reischl -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, mine was if we were adopting a standard for airboats in Collier County, would it be the staff's recommendation of one per 50 -- or what would it be; one per 25 acres? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: On this one? One per forty-eight and a half acres. MR. REISCHL: Fifty approximately. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: One per 50 acres is a rational recommendation. MR. REISCHL: Well, we -- as you recall, a few months ago we came before you and asked if there were going to be standard stipulations and you decided not to have standard stipulations. The EAB recommended three boats and then the Planning Commission, after listening to Mr. Hooks, recommended four. So, we're not -- we're not necessarily using a standard or a percentage of land as to how many votes. We were just taking it on the fact that he is requesting smaller boats and more -- one more boat with a smaller sized boat. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: What's the difference between a smaller boat and a bigger boat? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Two feet. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well -- MR. REISCHL: Just -- just two feet in this case. COHMISSIONER BERRY: -- I understand that. MR. REISCHL: No. The -- COHMISSIONER BERRY: I mean, what -- no. Okay. Bad question. What's the difference -- what's the difference in impact of a smaller boat versus a larger boat? MR. REISCHL: Very low. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's my point is it's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not relevant. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's not the size of the boat. It's the frequency. No. It's the number of total boats that are operated throughout the day. The difference in any potential damage from a 16 to 18-footer, if you look at the engine size for noise and whatnot, it's really not that significant. MR. REISCHL: And that stipulation didn't change from the number of boats. The mufflers and spark arrestors -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. REISCHL: -- all stayed the same. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. The reason I wanted to -- the reason didn't support saying one boat per how many acres is it ignores the conditions on the existing properties. In other words, if you're running in existing trails that have been there for 50 years, that's different than if you are, you know, running in an area that has a lot more saw grass, a lot more vegetation. In other words, the impacts of the boat are going to be more obvious. So, I think that flexibility has to come into play when you look at what is the proposed route of the boats and that -- you know, so I think saying one per hundred acres or something would ignore the site conditions and either determine a good site or a bad site for that kind of use. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had one more question. That was just it may be an environmental staff kind of question instead, so I don't know and I don't see them here, but the existing trails that have already disturbed the grasses and wetlands obviously, if they were if they were to continue undisturbed from today till -- how long would it take for them to regenerate themselves or could they? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, Current Planning. I don't think anybody knows the answer to that question. It would depend on the type of habitat. These canals or these channels are functioning as tidal creeks at this time, so it -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. LENBERGER: -- may take them a very long time to regenerate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not all of these were formed by airboats. Some of them are natural, as I understand. Is that correct, Mr. Lenberger? MR. LENBERGER: That was my understanding, yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And there's a -- you can kind of see a difference where -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- you know, it's pretty obvious but, you know, and look at the -- the way these things meander. If you're going to make one with an airboat, you'd make it a little straighter than that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, in fact, they did all the way to Everglades City. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That has happened, yes, it has, but anyway MR. REISCHL: I also was just notified of a correction to what told you. It was not a representative of Ten Thousand Islands. It the to was a representative of Collier-Seminole at the request of -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: But we don't have any letters of objection from the Ten Thousand Islands sanctuary or refuge? MR. REISCHL: There was -- right. That was a letter that requested the 50 yard. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. But are they aware of the two encroachments and have they responded officially to those? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't sound like it. MR. LENBERGER: No. They have -- they have not responded to encroachment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: They are aware that the trails do come closer the border and their property is posted at this time. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there any maps that or -- I could hold and look at for a minute about the trails, the locations of the trails? Do you guys have them or -- I just want to understand where the trails go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. There's three aerials up, so I'm sure somebody can hand one to you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. That's -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are there further questions of Mr. Reischl or Mr. Lenberger at this time? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, you get the whole thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'll share. Thanks. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, one question I've been curious do about. Does this -- does this particular petition have the same conditions and stipulations on it as the existing airboat operators today? MR. REISCHL: The most similar would be Everglades Private Airboat Tours. The one that's not quite the same would be the Gator Airboat Tours. That basically operates on open water. Everglades Private operates on a series of trails similar to this, so we used -- and the EAB and the Planning Commission also used that as a model along with the additional stipulation of the limited hours. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, does that include all aspects like signage and -- MR. REISCHL: Yes. The -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- anything else? MR. REISCHL: -- signage is included as part of their resolution, yes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is the -- are the signage regulations for this petition application -- I tell you, I think I'm going the same places as you, Commissioner Norris. I wish that you could take the resolution for Everglades Private because it is the most analogous, and the proposed proposal here and just tell me where they differ. An obvious one I can see is the boats per square mile. MR. REISCHL: Yes. That's different. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But if there are other differences, I'd like to know. MR. REISCHL: The other difference -- well, technically, there is a difference with the bird survey requirements and Everglades Private that has come to you. You have directed us to remove it, but the amended resolution has not come back to you yet, so technically that's still part of their resolution although -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not -- MR. REISCHL: -- functionally it doesn't count. The other would be the hours of operation are not limited on Everglades Private Airboat Tours but they are limited by the EAB resolution -- stipulation placed in this resolution. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Other than that, they're identical. MR. REISCHL: The wording may be different but I believe the intent of all the stipulations are the same. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I still want to be lowering our standards from '92 -- MR. REISCHL: That was not the intent of staff at all. If there were any changes in wording, it was just due to legal review and changes in departments, things like that -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You did -- MR. REISCHL: -- from project review to Planning Services, things like that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You had mentioned the bird surveys. One of the reasons that we're -- we're directing that they be, I guess eliminated, I remember us doing something in that vein. Was, one, that they had done them, and, two, that they didn't mean a whole hell of a lot. I'm not sure whether we came to that conclusion because they'd done them or we came to that conclusion because, you know -- so, in other words, should -- should Mr. Hooks, if he's approved, be required to at least do them for a set period of time to determine whether or you and not there are impacts? At least, I remember from the House's operation down there, know, you looked at them and thought, well, you know, this -- this it on a dollar will get you a beer. I mean it just wasn't very valuable. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not a very good beer CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry. COHMISSIONER BERRY: But it was costly to the people to have done. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. COHMISSIONER BERRY: You know. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So, I'm just -- again, I'm just looking for the same rules from one person to the next. If you made the folks that petition do it for a couple years, I just don't -- I don't know. Maybe you or Mr. Lenberger could tell me. Are they not very fruitful because of the nature of them or are got they not very fruitful because there was no impact? MR. REISCHL: And the other factor was the staff review. Did staff devote the time and did we have the expertise to have a base line study and then -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. MR. REISCHL: -- be every six months after that? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only government would say you've to do something because somebody else did it and not have any other particular reason why. So, I mean, unless we can give a reason, I don't think we should put that burden on them. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, that's what I'm asking. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm trying to -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't even know why -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm trying to determine why -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't hear one forthcoming. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Bob Mulhere, Current Planning Manager. The EAB's recommendation to remove that stipulation was that they were not able to correlate any information from those studies and it was their same feeling that this would be the same situation here, that there would be no ability to correlate from those bird studies that the -- any impacts were associated directly to the airboat use. And, therefore, they didn't -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What study to study -- MR. MULHERE: -- they didn't place that stipulation on this for are that reason. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. Further questions of staff? Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one more. And maybe just -- if you'll come over while they're -- and show me what the boundaries on this map. I don't understand. Is this -- HR. REISCHL: 41 and then the yellow line. is it COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. But that's a trail, right? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. MR. REISCHL: No. That's the property. It's the same color. The trail is in blue. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's a line drawn there. MR. REISCHL: The trail is in blue and the property boundary also in blue. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. That's what -- I was confused if that outline was a huge trail. MR. REISCHL: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That might have been intentionally cut if were. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It might have been. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Any further questions of staff? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you, no. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let's go to the petitioner. MR. PIRES: If I may, Commissioner Hancock -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: -- members of the board, Anthony Pires, Jr. of the law firm Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. We have here today Beau Keene who's the engineer, the applicant's representative on this application, and Jerry Hooks, one of the owners of the property. There's been extensive discussion, I understand the concerns of the board, about whether there are any differences in approvals that you all provided in the past for other airboat operators versus this One. There is one that was probably inadvertently left off by staff, one or two, from the everboats -- Everglades Airboat Tours. Mr. and Mrs. House on that application, reading from the resolution, they had one additional condition, and like in normal, one year from the date of the conditional use approval, the Board of County Commissioners will reevaluate this conditional use and have found it to be abusive or detrimental to the environment and no steps were taken to correct their problem, then the BCC has the ability to eliminate the conditional use. That probably was inadvertently left off by staff. I wanted the board to be aware of that. I didn't know if the board wants to make that as a condition of this approval. And I've discussed that with my client and they're amenable to that similar kind of condition. One other item that they had with the Everglades Airboat Tours where they had to submit a wetland mitigation and enhancement plan. to 41 It This site is unique and I think -- and Mr. Hooks will testify that effect, that this site, the borrow pit that's on this site, as can been seen in the aerial photograph, was utilized to build U.S. or part of the U.S. 41 activity years and years ago. The pad that's been -- there was a pad for a service station. was there years, years and years ago. There are no existing physical construction activities that will take place as far as filling in of wetlands or any other activity, so we don't think that's appropriate. But I wanted the board to be aware of those two additional restrictions and conditions in the Everglades Airboat Tours' approval. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But, Mr. Pires -- MR. PIRES: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- based on your review, those are the only two differences between your clients and Everglades Private were those two? MR. PIRES: Well, there's two more. The -- the bird count that the board has talked about extensively that was -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. MR. PIRES: -- a dollar a beer, I can get you a beer, I guess And COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. PIRES: -- and my client has had imposed upon him and is agreeable to it, to one additional restriction that is not on Everglades Airboat Tours. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Time. MR. PIRES: Everglades Airboat Tours can't operate at night. my understanding is they do operate at night or have that opportunity. This operation is limited to one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's because of the campers at Collier-Seminole don't want to be listening to it, I assume. MR. PIRES: I'm not sure if that was the rationale or just because the -- the staff made the recommendation and EAB and CCPC did. So, that's one additional restriction on this site. Other than that, there are no additional. I have a copy of the resolution if you wish to see that. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. I can -- MR. PIRES: I think another important issue decided was there was a discussion about size. It could be corrected by Commissioner Hancock, to my understanding, is that the Bobby Weeks Airboat operation is on about 60 acres that he owns. The rest of it is public land. And he currently has -- I believe Mr. Rooks will testify that Mr. Weeks has four airboats on the -- on the 60 areas that he owns. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that Gators one that's on open -- MR. PIRES: Right. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- water? MR. PIRES: No. It does go in open water but -- CHAI~ HANCOCK: The reason Mr. Pires says I will attest to it in the or not is because I did his conditional use application when he was the private sector. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But open water is an entirely different story from what we're talking about here. MR. PIRES: Yeah. I think it just gives some -- some sense of the perspective of the acreage involved. I'd like to make -- I think if we could just make part of the record the Planning Commission minutes and the resolution involving Everglades Airboat Tours, Resolution 93-129, if I can hand them to clerk or County Attorney, and the CCPC minutes as well as the staff report for the EAB where the staff recommended approval. One other issue about the birds. I think the bird survey that has been done, which one has been performed for this site, showed that birds weren't really utilizing. They were flying over it or through it. If -- with your indulgence, if you have any questions, I'm available. Mr. Hooks, if we could then have him provide some evidence and testimony, I think it would be helpful for the board to understand the history of the site. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions for Mr. Pires? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Pires, you don't have any objection to the fact that there's a couple of extra restrictions on Mr. yours as far as the hours and so on? MR. PIRES: No, sir, not at all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you've offered the additional restriction as far as if a year from now we find there's flagrant abuse, we could revoke the conditional -- MR. PIRES: Just like the ones from Everglades Airboat Tours, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, if I could comment on two of those things. The expiration of the conditional use through Steve's -- Lenberger's research has shown that that was in connection with the bird survey. That's why it was not included in -- in this. CHAI~ HANCOCK: Okay. MR. REISCHL: And the hours, if I recall from the EAB, the hours were limited due to bird roosting, so that was considered to be after the bird roosting hours and, therefore, the noise wouldn't bother them as much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I'd like to leave the -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Especially the campers. MR. REISCHL: And the campers. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The reason I'd like to leave the expiration in there is because this property is bordered on two sides or, you know, by preserve areas. Probably a good idea just to make sure that the, you know, operators are on their toes and don't stray from that. Because if they do, we'll get those reports and may have an effect on I'm the zoning, so I'd like to leave it in for that purpose. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's admirable -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next speaker. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- they brought it up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yes. And then likewise, Mr. Pires, you -- like to thank you for bringing that up. MR. PIRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. HOOKS: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Jerry Hooks. I own the property in question. I have some photos I'd like to enter in that I took myself yesterday afternoon so you can actually see what's going on besides the big map out there. You can see the existing trail, the type of boats that we have. The property in question has been owned by the family, which a member of. My great grandfather and other men owned it. I acquired all the property from other family members a little over two years ago. The property in question at one time in the late forties and early -- later thirties, early forties, there was a little service station and a little camp, fish camp situation, sitting on the borrow pit at one time out there. Our idea behind Wind Dancer Airboats is to keep the Everglades as not it natural as we possibly can. We are using existing trails that I myself have been riding on for approximately 35 years. They have changed one bit. We have the original surveys of the property from 1935 and the property is still in the same condition as it was at that time and will be maintained that way. As far as signage and everything on our property, we will only have one sign. There will be no signs or no buildings, no boats, just one sign on the front. That's it. We're trying to keep it as natural as possible. I hope that you all see it our way. If you have any questions you'd like to ask -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Hooks, that sign you're going to have, that will conform to county sign regulations. It will -- since this is a conditional use, it doesn't qualify under the commercial signage. MR. REISCHL: Correct. It's agricultural. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That means he can't have a pole sign. Is that correct? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Has he got enough frontage for a pole sign? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. He's got along 41. MR. REISCHL: He's got -- he has the frontage, yeah. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Plenty of frontage, yeah. MR. HOOKS: And I have the engineering drawings for it, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. MR. REISCHL: Yes. That would qualify for a pole sign. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's your intention, to have a pole sign? MR. HOOKS: One pole sign only. That's all there will be. MR. REISCHL: As you can see from the site plan, the U.S. 41 right-of-way extends way off the pavement, so his sign would be located -- MR. HOOKS: I would be -- MR. REISCHL: -- well off the pavement. MR. HOOKS: -- from the center line of the highway, 175 feet from the road. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. That's what, a 25-foot height on pole signs? Twenty foot or 25? MR. HOOKS: Twenty foot. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: it Twenty foot, I thought. Yeah, we lowered from 25 to 20 last year. Okay. Any other questions for Hr. Hooks? Seeing none, let's go on to public speakers. Thank you, Mr. Hooks. MR. HOOKS: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two public speakers. The first is Tami House and then Michael Simonik. MS. HOUSE: Hi. For the record, my name is Tami House. I'm with Everglades Private Airboat Tours. I'm not in a -- I don't object to the petition as -- as coming in as another business. Hy major concerns are, number one, the density in the boats. They -- Mr. Hancock, you said it's the trails as opposed to breaking new trails or whatever. Had our company utilized all the trails that were existing when we acquired the piece of land, we could have run three or four times as many trails. We abandoned a -- a good majority of those trails so that they could regenerate. And we're limited to the six boats to the -- you know, by the County Commissioners five years ago, and I believe in that, you know, some sort of precedence has been set. And to allow, you know, two and a half times that density, I believe, is - It is pushing it. As far as the mitigation goes with DEP, ours was also a borrow pit in a -- in a land area where they had used excavation to -- to to build 41. Host of the mitigation we did with DEP was because of the airboat trails. And I also believe that the 60 acres that is involved in the Gator Airboat Tours is all uplands. It's all the railroad grade. really doesn't come into play with the -- with the wetlands, I don't believe. They do run navigable waters. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question for you. MS. HOUSE: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You abandoned some trails so that they could -- did they revegetate? MS. HOUSE: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Did they close in? MS. HOUSE: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, that goes exactly against what -- what our staff just said to us, is that we couldn't reasonably expect any of these trails to grow back up. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not what Mr. Lenberger said. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Maybe I misunderstood. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That was in response to my question about whether some of these were -- were not created as trails but tributaries. And he also said -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And my question was -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Yeah. He set that, as I recall, that, you know, we can't tell how long it's going to take. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Not that they -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- wouldn't, but we don't -- we can't tell you what would happen if they're aren't used. I mean -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. I appreciate that. I'm sorry. misunderstood. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: If you got one -- you know, if you got one saw _ to with, you know, good cypress hedge on each side and not a lot of grass, I mean, it's -- it's going to take awhile to come back and - you know, or even something in mangrove. I mean, that's not going come back. vegetation. why for Those are generally natural, so it depends on MS. HOUSE: Oh, definitely. It -- it -- you know, some of the trails took longer to regenerate. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Right. And I believe on this one, Mr. Reischl, are all trails being used? Are all the existing trails on the property being used? MR. REISCHL: As far as I know. I mean, Mr. Keene can answer that. No. I'm seeing -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. I didn't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Show us which ones are not. I'm real interested in seeing that. MR. REISCHL: It's hard to tell the trails on there. That's they were highlighted on the map. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Anyone have any further questions Miss House? MS. HOUSE: I just wanted to add one thing. And, Commissioner Mac'Kie, you are right. They did also mention the campers of the Collier-Seminole State Park. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought so. Being one -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I tend to notice. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Michael Simonik. MR. SIMONIK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. here on -- my name is Michael Simonik. I'm the Director of Environmental Policy of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. I'm here speaking on behalf of our 5,600 family members which equates to over 10,000 people in this county and our 32 member board. If I may, I'd like to first off correct the correction from staff. Something was corrected to say that the letter was not from Jim Krakowski, the refuge matter of the Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge, but it was from Seminole-Collier on it. Maybe there was another letter, but this one is from Jim Krakowski -- MR. REISCHL: Right. MR. SIHONIK: -- asking for the 50 yards. MR. REISCHL: The letter is from Mr. Krakowski but the speaker at the EAB was from Collier-Seminole. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, the objection stands from the Ten Thousand Islands. MR. SIHONIK: Ten Thousand Islands. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What -- what -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I see the letter, Michael? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- objection? I don't -- I -- MR. REISCHL: No activity -- MR. SIMONIK: But I'm not going to make a point of that. just wanted to correct the correction. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, wait. You call something an objection. me any We understood that they had a comment saying not within 50 yards of the -- the boundary of their -- of the Ten Thousand Islands Refuge. Is that correct? MR. REISCHL: Correct. In their letter. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What they say is, thank you for giving the opportunity to comment. I -- because the venture may have an impact on the refuge, I would suggest the following conditions, and then you can read what they are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But they don't object. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But they're -- this doesn't really hold weight necessarily. It's just their request and if -- if it's encroached on in two spots, that has always been encroached upon. MR. HULHERE: For the record, Bob Hulhere. I just -- two things. I spoke personally with Mr. Krakowski before we received that letter. He didn't indicate that was a letter of objection. He indicated he appreciated the opportunity to review and he had some comments to make. Secondly, the correction had nothing to do with that letter that we made. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. HULHERE: The correction was that the individual who in person showed up at the EAB meeting was from Collier-Seminole State Park and not Mr. Krakowski. So, we don't need to be corrected on that. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to clarify. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The clarification. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We don't have any objection then from to of Hr. Krakowski. HR. REISCHL: No objection. It was a suggestion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. REISCHL: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Please continue, Mr. Simonik. MR. SIHONIK: Thank you for clarifying. And we do not object the breaching of the 50 yards in those two points either. That's point. Another thing I wanted to say before I get yelled at from the peanut gallery over here, as I usually do, we are not apposed to airboat operations in the area of critical state concern, which all the airboat operations are in. We support ECHO tourism when it's compatible with the -- with the resource. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Simonik, I have to interrupt you for a second. Mr. Agoston will be the first to tell you that I don't allow him or try not to allow him or anyone else to be critical of individuals present, so your reference to individuals in this audience as a peanut gallery is demeaning and inappropriate. Thank you. Please continue. MR. SIMONIK: One thing that we do have -- we do have a concern with is the inequality of the stipulations from one operation to the next. Five years ago, there were stipulations made for Everglades Airboat Tours. And we were comfortable with those from the Conservancy and we did not object to that and that set standards, standards for the density of the -- of the usage of airboats on an acreage basis. How many acres per airboat should we allow? That's analogous to density and housing. I kind of think that's analogous to density. And we allowed in the stipulations five years ago to allow one boat on 170 acres. Now, we're going to change that and allow one boat on 48.5 acres, which is about three and a half times or more the amount of density of airboats running in a particular area. And I would add that it's even more acreage in the Everglades airboat operation because the Houses have leased another 950 acres to the south to buffer not just 50 yards. They leased practically two whole sections of land, two square miles of land below them to buffer the Ten Thousand Islands in Everglades National Park, and also they leased six more sections above U.S. 41. So, we have 3500 acres that are leased by one operation using only six airboats. My point of it being an inequity amongst the two is that if we change the rules and allow higher density, the second airboat operation may be more competitive than the first. We may see the Everglades Airboat business close down and the Collier Enterprises that owns the land will lease to other people. And I can guarantee you that they are not going to lease to other operator like Tami House and their operation who is using six airboats on 3500 acres. And we know now that it's precedent that there will be one boat on 50 acres. So, it will go from six to 70 if -- if it's not a competitive and we don't have the same rules for both. point. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: legal precedent here; yes or no? MR. WEIGEL: No. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You mean, so automatically -- That's my Mr. Weigel, are we setting any the MR. SIMONIK: So, then we can -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- they would be allowed to have 70 boats next day? MR. SIMONIK: We can have one airboat on one acre. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's true. MR. SIHONIK: That's right. We have a concern with that because that we believe would impact the resources out there in the area of critical state concern. We have a real problem with that many boats and that much flexibility in this issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, if that public hearing ever comes up, that would be the right time to approach that, but for us to make a decision on this gentleman's effort based on a hypothetical impact of the free market economy and what might or might not happen to the Houses and then what might or might not happen from the Colliers really isn't fair to Mr. Hooks. MR. SIHONIK: Okay. Let me make another point then. We do -- was glad -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think he's out of time. MR. SIHONIK: -- that Mr. Pires -- I was glad that Mr. Pires offered the one-year evaluation but we'd like to know how that's going to be evaluated. Is that going to be with a bird survey or will we just come back here and, you know, the operator will say, well, everything is fine, let us continue? So, I'd like some answer to how it's going to be evaluated. SO, I was glad to hear that. That was one of the things I was coming back with that staff didn't bring up is a difference in the two. Let's evaluate what's going on out there. And -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Simonik, can I ask you a question? MR. SIHONIK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- not being trained as you are, I don't know. impacts way the tOO What is an appropriate way to measure the environmental of an operation such as this? Is a bird count, a bird study, the -- how can I measure? How would I know if they're having negative impacts on the environment above what they currently have affected? MR. SIHONIK: I think that's probably the best way is to do bird survey out there. The latest survey said that the birds were just flying over. If they stopped flying over, maybe that's a concern, if they don't go anywhere near the area because there's many boats running around, maybe using their certain trails and they're going to use less trails, maybe they'll come back. We can learn lots of things for other operations in the future. I know the commission doesn't like monitoring of our environment resources but that's how we learn things along the way and what isn't impact -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You left out the useless monitoring of our environmental resources. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, this could be a useful monitoring is what I think we're saying. MR. SIMONIK: I think most monitoring is useful -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I know. MR. SIHONIK: -- of our environmental resources so we can determine base line and impacts in the future. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COHMISSIONER BERRY: I just have a question. Unless we do a bird survey now, what good is it to turn around and do one after a year of operation? What are you going to compare it to? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Actually, they did do one now. COHMISSIONER BERRY: They did? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Pires said that. MR. SIHONIK: They have done one. MR. REISCHL: There was one submitted with conditional use. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, the only way you can make that comparison even relatively make some sense, you would have to have the same conditions on the same day to make it work. There's a ton of things, Michael, that would enter in there if the birds are, quote, merely flying over on the day if they do it a year later to the day. If it's a rainy day and the birds are roosting and there's no birds sighted, then somebody could end up saying, gee, they've had a real impact on the environment out here when in -- in reality that's not the case at all. I mean -- MR. SIHONIK: It's very difficult to say 100 percent guarantee that cause and effect on monitoring of our environmental resources, but it gives you something. It's better than nothing. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Michael, that gives you nothing. MR. SIHONIK: I would disagree as a wildlife biologist. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gives you nothing useful. COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well -- yeah, but where does common sense come in here, Michael? I mean there's a lot of other outside factors that can have, you know, certainly some impact on this. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I.e., destruction of northern nesting habitat? COHMISSIONER BERRY: Well, yeah. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, a couple of comments. One is every time I've been down there, you have to chase the birds off the airboats to get in them anyway. The second one is that -- that purely numbers of airboats per acre doesn't tell you the story. It's really how many times an airboat might pass a particular point. Now, if you had -- if you had six airboats and they were going are out really fast compared -- on a big piece of property compared to a lesser number of airboats going a lot slower, the impacts could be exactly the same if it was relative. So, you know, don't get too hung up on just raw numbers of airboats because that doesn't tell the whole story. It's how much they in use and how many laps do they take. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Most of these courses are a one-hour trip and back, as I understand it. And that's -- that's a fairly even comparison. The -- does anyone have any questions of Mr. Simonik? MR. SIMONIK: Can I say one last thing? We recommend that go with EAB with only the three airboats rather than the four. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Simonik. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Just a minute. Mr. Simonik, would you object to the Houses being allowed to increase their number of airboats based on the acreage that they have? question. MR. SIMONIK: I think they may try. Once this happens today - COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think that was the CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That's not the question. MR. SIMONIK: They may come back. COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's not what I asked you. I asked would you object? MR. SIMONIK: Yes. Yes, we would. Even though I like the operation right now, we're very comfortable with the operation right now, but if it comes back for whatever you need for a conditional use variance, we would object to it because right now it's working just fine. And if they are able to sustain their business with all the environment stipulations on them and run a good business and still stay in business, that says something. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one more question for Mr. Simonik to just -- well, because I'm looking for science as a basis for decision making. Is there -- I understand Commissioner Norris' point and I think it's a really good one, that I don't care if they own 500 boats, if they -- you know, the question is how often are they going to be lapping around those trails? And I hear you saying that three is better than four, but what really matters is what trails are going to be used and how often. I right about that? Isn't that what has the environmental effect? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Another way to ask that would be if three boats leave Cleveland at three o'clock -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. That is another way to ask it. MR. SIMONIK: And that's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But shouldn't these standards -- MR. SIMONIK: That's -- that's the maximum -- that's the maximum number running at any one time. have a in of And if you have 500, you could convoy of 500 running around in a circle. If you only have three, that's the most that can happen in that hour's period. MR. REISCHL: That's true. It's not the number of boats that COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are available. MR. REISCHL: -- are available at the operation on both Everglades and Wind Dancer. It's the number of boats on the trails operation at one time. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then the only other thing I'm going to want to know, and it's not for Mr. Simonik, thank you, is -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Simonik. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- which of -- if they're not using all these trails, highlight the ones that they are using and tell me which ones they're not using. MR. REISCHL: The ones that are highlighted in blue lines -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's the dark line. MR. REISCHL: -- are the ones that they're -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's a single, connecting, dark line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see that, but there's hardly anything here that's not being used. I mean why are you saying that they're not -- maybe that is a trail they're not using? Maybe that? It looks to me like they're using -- MR. REISCHL: That's why they're highlighted because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- every dad-gum trail on there is what guess I'm saying. MR. REISCHL: The trail is really hard to tell on the aerial. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think one of the significant -- and, I'm sorry. Do we have additional speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, there is not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. One of the significant differences here, and it's one that I kind of wrestle with, is the fact that Mr. Hooks and his family own this property. They're not leasing it to somebody for a business venture. They own it. And I think there's an issue here of what is a minimum viable use for this property. You're not going to see residential development. It's not permitted. You're not going to see something that requires septic tanks and drain fields and whatnot because the likelihood of getting a permit for that is pretty thin, all except on a minimal list basis. What he's talking about using the property for is something that recreationally has been used for since airboats were invented in my guess. So, I think we do have a question of property rights here versus someone who's leasing property for a commercial purpose. That is a difference. I think it -- it should play in the decision. Are we setting a precedent? This is my favorite argument of people who want to oppose something. If you let this person do it, then you are, de facto, approving everything else similar to this. And, again, it's insulting that someone would have the audacity to ignore this board's ability to look at individual circumstances on petition and make a reasonable decision. That kind of statement that you are setting a precedent is ridiculous and it seems to be consistent, unfortunately, in this case. And I just -- I find it offensive. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do you have an opinion on it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: A little one. I like the one-year evaluation criteria. If a bird count has already been done, I'd like to see one done in a year. And if there is a marked difference that is not biologically explainable, then we -- then let's take a look at it. If there isn't, then fine, but I think that's -- that's a good idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On that point, can I ask you a question because I -- it seems to me our staff stood here 28 minutes ago and said, you saw no use, you didn't derive any benefit from bird studies in the past. And, again, I go back to the why are we doing it. If our own staff can't tell us what benefit we can possibly derive, why would we the cause somebody to do it? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems like we're just placating someone else who had to go through it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Well, the requirement was the Houses do one like every year ad infinitum. I mean, it kept going on and on -- MR. REISCHL: For five years. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- for five years. And that was a little ridiculous. I mean, it's not going to -- I think the one-year mark makes some sense and Mr. Pires offered that anyway. And to have an element of reconsideration, you know, I'd like to at least -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could I ask your staff what we can expect to get for a tangible response from them? MR. REISCHL: Well, like if I can make an extrapolation from one that the Houses submitted, a list of species, numbers of birds that were spotted on -- on the days the surveys were done. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What you're talking -- I mean, I don't mean that. I mean, what's -- then what's the result of that? What you told us 29 minutes ago was that that information really was essentially useless. I mean, it wasn't serving a purpose. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But as an environmentalist -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm asking staff, thank's. If -- if -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Constantine, I'm just saying you might want to get environmental staff to answer the question. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And that's -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then they would qualify. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what I am asking our staff to do. And what they stood up and said to me or said to us a half hour, at least how I understood it, was that it wasn't serving a great purpose. Now, if you can correct that now, great. This is an opportunity, but I don't want to require someone to spend money and do this if it serves no purpose. It's only governmental would say, well, somebody else had to do it so we'll make them do it, too. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's not the reason. MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger. I don't believe if they did a bird survey we'd get any useful information out of it. They did a wildlife survey for this project. Very few of the birds were utilized in the project at the time of the survey. My guess is that the birds are coming into the site feeding, but on there are no roosting areas on this property. The House property was a little different. They had roosting areas as well as feeding areas on the property that were identified the aerial that they submitted which identified their trails. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So, you said you don't believe we'll get any useful information. MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: That -- and you gave me the distinction, the how differences between feeding and roosting. If -- you know, if there are roosting areas that they use, then you can look at, you know, -- you know, how that's affected. If there aren't, then it's a -- it's just a migratory process whether they feed there that day or not, so you gave me the reason. And with that, I'm comfortable not -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just ask -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- not requiring it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I don't know -- I haven't met you before. Are you with the environmental staff? MR. LENBERGER: Yes, I am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You've only been there what, six years? MR. LENBERGER: Four years. of so the CHAI~ HANCOCK: Four years. Okay. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: You never come to the meetings. Mr. Lorenz is usually here, but I'm glad to -- to know you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie would like to see more you, Hr. Lenberger, so please attend more meetings. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm not sure I agree with his opinion, maybe not. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The other thing that I do want to say is I I tend to agree with EAB on the three-vote limit. I'm not as interested in its size. It could be 18 feet, it could be 16 foot. But just, again, trying to be consistent with what was done with Houses' property only limiting to six boats. There is a point at which it becomes not profitable to even run a business like this, and I think if you start going with one or two boats, you're not -- you can't run a business. Three is a minimum in my opinion, so -- but I do agree with the EAB on the three boats also. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I ask our staff, what was the discussion with the Planning Commission that boosted that back to four? MR. REISCHL: Mr. Hook -- it was Mr. Hooks' request. And the majority of the Planning Commission agreed with his request. The chairman disagreed and one member did not agree with the petition at can all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, can I ask? Haybe Hr. Hooks offer some assistance here, but I'm trying to understand what -- what the benefit of -- MR. HOOKS: The reason for the request for the four smaller boats, true, when you go from 16 to 18 feet, you're only talking tWO at foot in length. But when you go to ten passenger, you're looking another two and a half foot in width. The boats that we have now at present are designed and they're built to run in the trails that exist on the property. We don't want to widen the trails any with wider boats. That's our reason behind it. We're not trying to run a full commercial operation and be the world king airboaters. We're trying to make it as presentable as possible to the public as nature has put it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess, Commissioner Hancock, I'm just looking for what is the impact? What's the benefit of doing the three versus four? CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'm just -- again, I'm just trying to seek some level of equity between what the Houses were limited to versus another property. That -- that's the only reason, to be honest with you. That's -- that's where I'm coming from. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess -- I mean, I appreciate the Houses wanting to do what they want to do, but I -- just looking at this petition, I don't see any reason why four doesn't work and I - and from the perspective of how -- how this is supposed to work anyway, we measure each petition on its merits and -- and not necessarily what's happened to the rest of the world, or as Mr. Simonik wanted us to do, what's going -- what could hypothetically happen in the economic world six years from now. So, it just seems to me looking -- and maybe we just differ on that, but it seems to me looking at the specifics of this particular case, there's no harm in the four. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further comments or questions? Seeing none, the public hearing is closed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion we approve the item, including the -- I'm sorry - - I thought you did close it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I just did. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Including the one-year evaluation criteria that Mr. Pires has offered, including all other criteria, including the extra restriction on hours of operation and with four units out at any one time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you deleting the bird survey? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. No bird survey. MR. REISCHL: So, could I get a clarification? It's just a -- expiration after one year, if there's been a deterioration of conditions, but there's no bird survey linked into that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. MR. REISCHL: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If there's some egregious violation, that gives us an opportunity to go back. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Due to the narrow width of the boats that Mr. Hooks -- and that makes sense in the fact that there are no rookeries on the site -- I think there's the less potential environmental impact here. In other words, I don't want to kill it over one vote. Again, there's not much this land can be used for other than something like this, so I don't, you know, want -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: -- to kill it, so -- we have a motion and we have a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion carries four-one. Mr. Reischl, petitioners, thank you very much. of (Recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioners meeting. Good afternoon. I'll reconvene the Board Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 97-460, REGARDING PETITION V-97-13, DENNIS CRONIN OF BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, P.A., REPRESENTING W. FRANKLIN & CAROL B. ELLIS REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 2.39 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 7.5 FEET TO 5.11 FEET FORAN EXISTING POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURE LOCATED AT 710 HOLLYBRIAR LANE IN PELICAN BAY - ADOPTED We are to Item 13.A.3 on the agenda. This is Petition V-97-13, Dennis Cronin of Bond, Schoeneck & King, P.A., representing Franklin and Carol Ellis, requesting an after-the-fact variance. This is a quasi-judicial matter. Would all members of our staff, members of the petitioners' team and anyone here to speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in? (Witnesses sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Badamtchian, good afternoon. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no disclosure to make on this item, having had no conversations with anyone. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I haven't, either. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, I haven't talked to anybody about this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No, no disclosure to make. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Badamtchian? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Dennis Cronin represents Mr. and Mrs. Ellis, who are requesting an after-the-fact variance of 2.39 feet from the side yard setback of 7.5 feet, to 5.11 feet, for an existing pool enclosure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just interrupt? I mean, it's not their fault. It's not their problem, it's not -- it's their problem, but it's not their fault. They didn't build it, they didn't cause it. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, they did not build it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nobody objects. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They bought the property this year and the screen enclosure was built in 1989, which was built without a building permit. However, the applicant did not cause the encroachment. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No objection by any neighbors? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. WCI COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody just finally got a good enough lawyer to find it on the survey as the sale was going through; am I right? MR. CRONIN: I'll take that as a compliment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You are so complimented. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Are you guys done with love pats? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have some concern here for this one. wrote them a letter and told them not to build it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They wrote that letter to Borelli Construction or to somebody. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They wrote this letter to Borelli Construction, correct. And the Borelli Construction did not pull a building permit to build it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: What can we -- Borelli Construction obviously violated several county codes by not doing that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I just did the complaint to Contractor Licensing, and I checked the Borelli Construction file. We have no complaints. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I think we do now. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Now we have one, yes. This is the first one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they're one of the best, most reputable builders in the county. They do very high end, very -- I mean, they are one of the best builders in the county. I'm shocked by this. build something? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me continue asking my question. Badamtchian, the portion of this structure that's within the setback that encroaches, what is that? It's really not clear on our drawing here exactly what it is. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's the enclosure for the pool that's within the setback. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's on the ground? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is a low wall. The wall up to four feet the CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: So they're aware that you need a permit to Mr. in height is permitted within the setback. But what they did, they built the enclosure over it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The wall is permitted? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The wall is permitted. It's just the screen above it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We really don't have a clear drawing of what's going on here. Do you have something in more detail? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, I'm afraid not. That's the only thing I have, is the survey. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What would be the net effect of moving screened portion back out of the setback? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't think it's going to cause any hardship or anything. There is enough room to move it back. The only thing is, it may cause financial hardship to tear it down and rebuild it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Also it becomes somewhat impractical, it looks, because it would then actually contact a little jut on the house pad there. What it's going to do is reduce the size of the useable patio there to a real small size. It can be done. But I think what would probably happen is it would just simply be removed. I doubt that they would replace it, because it's such a small area. The fact that there is an existing hard structure within the setback that is permitted, is a little bit of a mitigating circumstance. It's not as if the wall was built for the purpose of supporting the screen enclosure. The wall was built, period and the not the screen enclosure was attached to it. I'm more interested in going after Borelli Construction for pulling the permit for it, personally. I mean, that seems to be most appropriate thing here. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Questions of staff? MR. CRONIN: If you have any questions. I think you made the point, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Dennis Cronin, Bond, Schoeneck and King. Mr. and Mrs. Ellis have only owned the property since April of 1997. As you pointed out, the construction occurred in 1989. It was two owners prior to Mr. and Mrs. Ellis, and the person, or the trust Mr. and Mrs. Ellis purchased the property from in 1997, acquired the property in 1993, and they were a cash buyer at that point in time. No survey was performed and it wasn't caught at that point. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Further questions of Mr. Cronin? Seeing none, any speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve the variance. COHMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: There's a motion and second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Motion carries five-zero. MR. CRONIN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Cronin. Item #13A4 THE IN RESOLUTION 97-461, REGARDING PETITION V-97-10, MR. KELLY HUFF REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 10 FEET 5 INCHES FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 19 FEET 7 INCHES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF llTH AVENUE S.W., FURTHER DESCRIBED AS EAST 180 FEET OF TRACT 53, UNIT 26, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUBDIVISION SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED Next, Item 13(a)4, Petition V-97-10. Mr. Kelly Huff requesting an after-the-fact variance of 10 feet 5 inches from the 30-foot required side yard setback. Again, this is quasi-judicial. Members of our staff, Mr. Huff, and anyone here to speak on this item, please stand and raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter, would you please swear them in? (Witnesses sworn.) CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Afternoon, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Good afternoon. For the record, Ray Bellows. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Let me go ahead and get the disclosure, here. go if Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have none. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: None. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we don't have any, do we need to through this charade every time or is it only if there is something disclose that we probably ought to pipe up and share that? MR. WEIGEL: The answer is yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, what? MR. WEIGEL: Only if you have something to disclose. Although the question is given to you by the Chair, then there is then one might say an obligation to respond. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: The Chair has been tremendously inconsistent today. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I've had contact with the petitioner on this item. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. In the future, I'll just ask anyone with any disclosure statement, please do so now, and you're on your Own. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: The petitioner seeks an after-the-fact variance of 10 feet, 5 inches from the required 30-foot side yard setback to allow a garage to remain at the existing location of 19 feet, 7 inches. Current property owner states that when the property was -- when he purchased the property in '85 the side setback in the Estates was 10 percent of the lot width, not to exceed 30 feet. He started construction on the garage in '91; completed in '93, without building permits. The setback requirement was changed in '91 to a maximum of 30-foot -- or minimum of 30-foot side yard setback in the the Estates. If he obtained building permits, we would have been able to direct him to the proper setbacks or if he built it at the time the 10-foot setback -- percent setback requirement was in effect, then structure in the existing location would be conforming. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Who is the owner that performed the work without a building permit? The gentleman here, Mr. Huff. Do you have any letters of objection from neighbors? MR. BELLOWS: No letters of objection; three letters in support from the adjacent property owners. The Planning Commission deemed that because of the wooded nature and the fact there is approximately 20-feet setback, that they voted for approval by a vote of five to two. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions for staff? Mr. Huff? MR. Huff: For the record, Kelly Huff. I admit that I done it without the permit, but I did bring this to the county's attention. to to was going to sell the property -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: You brought it to our attention because you were going to sell it and it was caught on a survey. MR. Huff: No, sir. When I went -- the people that were going buy the house asked about the garage. I said I would go get the permit, straighten it out, no problem. When I went to the county get the permit, they requested a survey. So then the survey, so -- CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I don't have any love loss for people who don't pull permits. I'll be honest with you. MR. Huff: There is -- there is no excuse. I done it. The reason for doing it was when I started in '91, I knew I didn't have the money to complete it. In the last couple weeks, in the planning meetings I did learn that permits could be extended, that they didn't end in six months. didn't ask enough questions. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Okay. Questions of Hr. Huff? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What was the Planning Commission's recommendation? It was yes, it was favorable because of the wooded nature? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: After-the-fact permit's what, twice the cost? MR. BELLOWS: For zoning, it's double; for building permits, it's four times. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: solving fee Well, so what's the total cost of this problem, if it's solved? HR. BELLOWS: Well, from a zoning standpoint, it's 850. Depending on what the building permit fees are, four times. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Do you know what your building permit is, sir? MR. Huff: At the meeting they assumed 200-some dollars plus 850. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: dollars to solve the problem. MR. Huff: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It will cost you over a thousand I guess I just think that's -- I have a of hard time with this, too, Commissioner Hancock, but it is a penalty a thousand dollars for failing to do it on time. Haybe that's sufficient, I don't know. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The problem is, it's -- a variance is a function that's reserved to the purview of this Board, and we have gentleman here that didn't bother to do that, and didn't even bother to get a building permit. So, you know -- MR. Huff: I'm willing to pay all -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- he's taken our -- our duty away from US, which is to protect the health, safety and welfare of his adjoining neighbors, by not following the procedure. So he pays a thousand bucks and he gets away with it. I just, you know, I'm not sure that that's the way things ought to happen. MR. Huff: It's been more than a thousand, but the money -- I understand. It's been a costly mistake. MR. BELLOWS: I have some photographs that show the structure more clearly, if you'd like to see them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would. The other thing is if he came in and asked for the variance ahead of time, I probably would have voted in favor of it because his neighbors don't object and it's in the middle of a wooded area. So I guess to my mind, the penalty is the financial penalty, and that's enough. HR. Huff: If's a big word. But if I would have got the permit the building would have been in the same place it was 18-foot setback then, and I set it back almost 20, just for what I had gave. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you would not have needed a variance if in you had applied for the permit at the time. It's only the change the regulation. Mr. the MR. Huff: The setback law has changed since then. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Further questions of Mr. Huff or staff? Fernandez, do we have any additional speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir, we have none. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Considering his -- I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Considering his neighbors' support and fact he's having to pay a sufficient dollar penalty, I'm going to move approval of the variance. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Aye. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Opposed? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: No. Motion carries three-two. Variance is approved. Item 13A5 RESOLUTION 97-462, REGARDING PETITION V-97-12, ALFRED W. FRENCH REPRESENTING SEACREST COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL REQUESTING A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT IN THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DAVIS BLVD. AND OPPOSITE BERKSHIRE LAKES - ADOPTED Next item, last scheduled item 13(a)5, Petition V-97-12, Dr. French representing Seacrest Country Day School, requesting a six foot height variance from the required 30-foot maximum height limit. This is a quasi-judicial matter. Members of our staff, Mr. French, as soon as you get done tacking up there. Bob, you want to help him? We'll go ahead and do the swear-in. A1, if I could ask you to raise your right hand. Madam Court Reporter, if you'll please swear them in. (Witnesses sworn.) CHAI~ HANCOCK: Thank you. Mr. Bellows, this one doesn't appear to be too terribly complicated, does it? MR. BELLOWS: No. It's basically to improve the architectural appearance of the campus, the center building, the recreational center is going to be designed with a hip roof and flat tower -- CHAI~ HANCOCK: Any objections? MR. BELLOWS: No objections. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Going to make it prettier, going to make it beautiful. It's a very positive -- CHAI~ HANCOCK: And the six is not really useable floor space, there is an architectural component to address the aesthetics of the building and make it nicer. Did I miss anything there, Mr. French? MR. FRENCH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We were saying how much we like the design of the building and what a good idea this variance appears to be. MR. FRENCH: Thank you. My presentation is concluded. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: It's really to address an architectural component and not a building floor or add additional floor space, anything like that. Is that correct? MR. FRENCH: That is correct, Mr. Hancock. CHAI~ HANCOCK: And it's before you build it, which is kind of get neat on these variances to get them that way. Do we have any speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. French is the only registered speaker. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Unless you have an absolute dire need to anything on the record, Mr. French, I think I'll close the public hearing. MR. FRENCH: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Is there a motion? it? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Second it. Chairman HANCOCK: Motion and second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Motion carries five-zero. It just seems odd to spend all day waiting for that, doesn't HR. FRENCH: Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Beautiful design. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Next, we have staff communications. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything this morning, or this afternoon, excuse me? MR. WEIGEL: Well, only to say that our office will miss Mike Pettit, Assistant County Attorney leaving at the end of this week. He's been with the office for three years, and been certainly a core and very assisting member of the team. And we wish him well on his private practice endeavor. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Likewise, the Board would like to thank Mr. Pettit for all of his work and wish him the best of luck and a speedy return. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's going to be hard not to factor that in in any votes against his employer now. When Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson come in here, the fact that they steal some of our best lawyers is going to be hard to ignore. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: I already vote against them all the time, anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Just to say that my office is going to miss Mr. Pettit, too. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing, thank you. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nothing further today. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Nothing, sir. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRMAN HANCOCK: And on behalf of the Beanie Babies, we are adjourned. ***** Commissioner Norris moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 97-451, GRANTING THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER, AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "STELLA MARIS" Item #16A2 BOY SCOUT TROOP 274 EXEHPT FROH PERMIT FEE AND STAFF DIRECTED TO PROCESS A FUND TRANSFER IN THE A_MOUNT OF $75.00 Item #16B1 RESPONSE TO RFP 97-2724 ("FINANCIAL AUDIT/SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE CONTRACTORS") - REJECTED AND STAFF TO RE-BID Item #1682 BID 97-2752 TO REPAIR AND REHABILITATE THE COCOHATCHEE EAST & WEST A_MIL GATES - AWARDED TO HASTER'S GROUP, INC. IN THE A_MOUNT OF $61,930.00 Item #1683 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND CENTEX HOMES, INC. FOR ROAD IMPACT FEE CREDITS IN RETURN FOR THE DEVELOPER ACCEPTING STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD FOUR- LANE PROJECT FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (C.I.E. 065) STAFF DIRECTED TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD Item #16B4 BID 97-2730 TO CONSTRUCT A ROOF COVERING FOR THE MAX HASSE COMHUNITY PARK - AWARDED TO TAYLOR PANSING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $119,490.00 Item #1685 RENEWAL FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD OF CONTRACT 95-2388 IN ACCORDANCE WITH PURCHASING POLICY - RENEWALS STARTING SEPTEMBER 17, 1997 FOR ARDAMAN & ASSOCIATES; LAW ENGINEERING, INC.; AND UNIVERAL ENGINEERING SERVICES Item #1686 BID 97-2743 TO INSTALL MEDIAN IRRIGATION AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS FOR DAVIS BOULEVARD PHASE I (U.S. 41 TO AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD) - AWARDED TO HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $333,500.00 - STAFF DIRECTED TO NEGOTIATE WITH HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRIES, INC. AFTER COHMENCEHENT OF CONSTRUCTION TO ASCERTAIN COST REDUCTION POSSIBILITIES IN THE WORK SCOPE ON THE ORDER OF 6e OF THE BID AMOUNT Item #16D1 AND CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND INSURANCE RISK NLA/~AGEHENT SERVICES, INC. FOR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING FUNDS RECEIVED FROM CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWALS Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the BCC has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated on the miscellaneous correspondence. AL Item #1611 AGREEMENT IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY VS. COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA - HICKORY BAY WEST, ET the There being no further business for the good of the County, meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:45 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Kaye Gray, RPR