Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/23/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 23, 1998 LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the June 23rd meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. We're pleased to have with us this morning the Reverend David Woemet of the East Naples United Methodist Church. Reverend Woemet? If you would please stand and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, after the invocation. REVEREND WOERNER: Almighty God, we invite thy divine presence in the public deliberations of these, our elected officials. We ask for thy guidance in the making of important decisions today. We thank you for these, thy servants, who have been elected by the people. Help them to be constantly alert to the needs of the community as a whole, and enable them to carefully consider the rights of every individual who comes before them today. Give them wisdom, insight, patience, perseverance and the strength that is necessary for the task before them. Bless and guide these commissioners that we have entrusted with the power and authority to lead us. We thank you for them, and we thank you for this wonderful democracy, in this land we call our home. Amen. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda this morning, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do, Madam Chairman, we have quite a number. First is to add item 16(B)(9), this is to approve the supplemental agreement number four with Hole, Hontes and Associates for the Immokalee Road six-lane improvement project. Second is to add item 16(J)(1). This is for the board to appropriate $313,300 from the county-wide capital fund reserves for a transfer to the Airport Authority Capital Fund to cover a budget shortfall in the Immokalee Regional Airport manufacturing incubator project, and approve the budget amendment and award the bid to Quality Builders -- Quality Control Builders, Incorporated, in the amount of $920,287 subject to purchasing's 10-day protest period. The third is to delete item 10(A). This is a four-year review of the environmental policy technical advisory board, with staff recommendation to consolidate EPTAB with the environmental advisory board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Hac'Kie, can I just ask why I don't have any objection -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to you continuing that? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I think it would be more appropriate to have it as a continuance than a deletion, because what I've done is, I've met with Mr. Cautero and Mr. Fernandez about some creative ways that we might merge those boards to empower them to give us some more advice while still, you know, functioning effectively. So we're just cooking up some better ideas about how to do it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So it's a continuance more than a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It really is more of a continuance than a deletion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just again, so you will know, I met with EPTAB about two weeks ago and told them that basically I think it's time either the board said look, here's what we want from EPTAB and you folks get the technical expertise and go do it, or we dissolve it, one or the other, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just mumbled to Commissioner Hancock, deja vu. I think that's like about the fourth time in the last six years that we've said that to them, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's no question we need desperately to improve the way we are communicating with our two environmental advisory boards. So I hope you guys will just give us a little more time to come up with a creative way to do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next is to delete item 16(A)(1). It's a request to approve for recording the final plat of Westview Plaza replat and approval of the performance security. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, did you say 16(A)(1)? MR. FERNANDEZ: 16(A)(1), yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not on my agenda change. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The deletion sheet. But that's all right. MR. FERNANDEZ: These have been added late. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wasn't aware we'd gotten to that yet. Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: In fact, there's probably four that are deletions that were late additions to this list. The next is to delete item 16(A)(2), which is the request to approve for recording the final plat of Kensington Park, phase four and approval of the performance security. Next is to delete item 16(A)(3), request to approve for recording the final plat of Hont Claire at Pelican Harsh, and approval of the performance security. The next is to delete item 16(B)(1), petition AV 98-007 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the public's interest in the remaining portion of a 60-foot wide and 30-foot wide road right-of-way, utility and drainage easement. And the final change is to move item 16(B)(6) to 8(B)(1); that's from consent to regular. This is the presentation of the preliminary feasibility study for the Haldeman Creek restoration project. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any changes? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one conflict on the consent agenda, Sue, that I need to be sure and do a waiver -- Sue, on 16(A)(15), final acceptance of water facilities for Bridgewater Condominium, that's a client of mine, so I will not be voting on that matter. MS. FILSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I -- also, unless Commissioner Constantine is already going to do this, I want to have some discussion about the Good Wheels problem. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. Yeah. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. So I'd like to add a discussion item for that, unless you have something more specific. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I want to have under item 10(B), if we can -- I don't mean to get out of line here, but a real serious problem we have -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Real serious. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- with the folks who are blind, who are handicapped, et cetera, literally unable to get anywhere right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Quite unnecessarily unable. That's all I have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have any changes today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only the transportation disadvantaged item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a request of the county attorney's office I'd like to make today regarding an adjacent land use that is damaging another land use, and I need to know what our role may or may not be. I thought it was most appropriate to ask it at least in this forum, because you may be getting similar phone calls in the near future. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, where do you want to put that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I assume under county attorney. So that would be 9(A), Mr. Fernandez? Is that a -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yep. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, and I have nothing to add. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll move the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: agenda as amended. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the Hotion carries five-zero. Item #4 MINUTES OF THE JUNE 2, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll move the approval of minutes for June 2nd, 1998 -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- regular meeting of this board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the approval of the minutes of the June 2nd board meeting. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5C1 TED SOLIDAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK REPRESENTATIVES RE A PLANNED LANDSCAPE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO INCLUDE AIRPORT ROAD TURN LANE IMPROVEMENTS - PRESENTED; STAFF TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH AIRPORT Moving on then to item 5(C)(1). We have Mr. Soliday with us this morning and Mr. Bawduniak, who is chairman of the Naples Airport Authority. They're going to give us a brief presentation regarding the landscaping and some other environmental improvements, which include the Airport Road area. Mr. Bawduniak. MR. BAWDUNIAK: Good morning. I'm Joe Bawduniak, chairman of the Naples Airport Authority. And in a few moments, Norman Trebilcock of Wilson-Miller will present the fundamental concepts of the Airport Road Improvement Project. Ted Soliday is here from the airport side to handle any detail questions. We're most enthused about this project for handling stormwater because of the ancillary benefits that will flow. No pun intended. The citizens of the county will benefit, the citizens of the City of Naples will benefit, and certainly the airport will. We look forward to the support of county staff with assistance in project management and oversight, and we thank you for the opportunity at this time to come in and give you an early look at the concept of this project. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, is this basically something that's going to be coming through for an SDP approval, or for something we'll have to vote on, or is it just informational? MR. SOLIDAY: It's more informational at this particular time, although down the road this will be a project that will be a tried jurisdictional -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We need your name. MR. SOLIDAY: -- situation, and we'll have to really negotiate with you and -- oh, I'm sorry, Ted Soliday. I'm the executive director of the Airport Authority. We will be working with your staff on this. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is it something that will require County Commission vote or just staff coordination? Does it involve a fezone, a conditional use, a variance? MR. SOLIDAY: The activity would be in the county -- or in the city, most of it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? MR. SOLIDAY: Go ahead. MR. FERNANDEZ: This involves a integration of some county project work with Airport Authority work, and could potentially come to the board for action. Mr. Ilschner may want to add a little something to that. But it's a concept that -- county has a plan to improve that area, and that carries with it a certain contribution or a certain commitment of funding. This project entails a more creative utilization of that commitment and that contribution. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator, Collier County. I think Mr. Fernandez has summarized it quite well. There will be some turn lane improvements and some other potential improvements on Airport Road that may involve a request for county participation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I'm sorry to cut you off, but can't we just hear the presentation? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. I just wanted to know, are we going to -- are they going to be asking us for money, are they going to be asking us -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I don't think so. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- a vote or a fezone? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, they might tell us during the presentation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought that would be such a simple question to answer that it could be a introductory remark, but I'll be glad to hear the presentation and figure it out on my own. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. My name is Norman Trebilcock. I'm the project manager for this Airport Road improvement project. This morning, what I'll cover is the team that's going to do the work, the purpose of the project, project overview, the schedule and some of the design concepts for the project. Wilson-Miller is the consultant for this project, working on behalf of the Naples Airport Authority, in conjunction with Avcon, their airport consultant, and also with Allied Engineering and Testing, their geotechnical support folks for the project. All other services will be provided in-house by the Wilson-Miller team, such as roadway design, surveying, environmental and permitting for this project. What -- the purpose of the project, the first thing is for drainage improvements. We have an existing open ditch system along Airport Road on the east side of the airport, west side of Airport Road, that is going to be improved for water quality, and also for conveyance, too. Another is to provide some aesthetic enhancements through landscaping and entries into the airport. And then finally, for safety and capacity, providing turn lanes, intersection improvements. It's going to improve the safety on Airport Road, but also with a sidewalk improvement that will connect an existing missing link of sidewalk along Airport Road. Just an overview of the project: First, in water management, we have the existing open ditch system that's going to be replaced by an enclosed pipe network. The intersection improvements, we have three intersections -- or rather four intersections that will be improved. First the North Road intersection, the Aviation Drive intersection, the Radio Road intersection, and also the intersection with the Humane Society entrance to the airport. Each of these will be provided with southbound right turn lanes. Three of the four don't have southbound right turn lanes right now. And also to provide for any future boulevard entrances into the airport to define entrances to the airport. A pathway -- there's an existing pathway on the south side of the airport, right at North Road, and then there's a pathway on Airport Road, right on the north side at Enterprise Avenue. The missing link is right there along the airport, and so what we're looking at is having a connection pathway to connect along Airport Road on the west side. But also, ultimately, what we can see, too, is over on the west side of the airport, you have the Gordon River greenway that's going to be developed to the north and south. Along the south side along North Road, there's going to be a proposed sidewalk there as a separate project. And there's a missing link at this point along Enterprise Avenue on the north side of the airport. But ultimately what you could have is a sidewalk that circumvents the entire airport that would be an excellent pathway for bicyclists, pedestrians; a real nice feature that could be landscaped well as a real positive community asset. But the area that we're focused on is the east side, the north/south link of this roadway that right now is really something that we don't point out and say this is Naples. And that's really something we want to change with this project. The landscaping, that's going to be a key component. Once we enclose the ditch system, we'll put landscaping along there, very similar to the other portions of roadways that we've done in the community through NaplesScape. But this will be more of a border landscaping that will help with the median landscaping that we have out there already. And then the entry enhancements. We need to, and we will, define the various entrances to the airport. We have the commercial entrance at North Road, we have the general aviation entrances at Radio Road and Aviation Drive, and make it very clear to folks as they come in and out of the airport and along Airport Road which is the proper entrance to go to so it's very clear as you move in and out of the airport. And then finally, it's the safety enhancements, the intersection improvements and also some of the open ditch features that -- the FAA right now has a wildlife attractant policy where they want to discourage any wildlife that interferes with air operations, and so that's one of the other purposes, to improve the safety out there for the air operations at the airport, too. Just an overview of the schedule. We're doing environmental assessment, environmental permitting and final design for the project. It's approximately a two-year process is what we're looking at before we secure final permits. And right now we're right in the initial stages. And the big purpose of this meeting here is really to just give some information to you-all, get some feedback on any concepts. We've already met with a lot of your staff folks that have provided a lot of good ideas, and we're having some follow-on utility coordination meetings with county, staff, city and other folks out there that have an interest in the project. But this is just to relay information to you is all. One of the items is to secure a FONSI, a finding of no significant impact from the Federal Aviation Administration. That will be a key component before we move to final design. And just some of the design concepts to show you. Right now this is a picture looking south at Enterprise. We have the open ditch, you have Airport Road, the ficus hedge along the airportws eastern boundary. And one of the concepts is to move to enclosing this system, having an underground drainage system, an exfiltration type system to treat the stormwater, just as we have on the northern part of the Airport Road, just north of the parkway. Itws something that treats stormwater. You donwt see it, itws underground in the median, but it does a good job of treating the stormwater. And this will allow us then to have landscaping out there, to have a meandering sidewalk, some streetscape outside of where the stormwater management system is, have a shallow interceptor swale to pick up for stormwater quality, but really change the whole face and appearance along this part of the airport. And then just another vision is this is just south of Aviation Drive, you can see the signals at North Road in the background there where the fence line is a little tighter to the roadway. And one of the concepts there is to again have a linear type system to have a splash of color with the appropriate vegetation, have the trees a little further back, tie in the stormwater management in between the fence line and the trees, and really, just improve the overall looks along this frontage of roadway. And thatws really it. Any questions that you-all may have? And that really concludes the presentation. MR. SOLIDAY: Madam Chairperson, maybe I should finish the question that Mrs. MacwKie -- Ms. MacwKie presented earlier. The authority desires to improve the appearance, to reduce the water management, or to deal with the water management challenge, and to enhance safety, as Norm presented. Therews clearly an issue. Wewre dealing in a safe -- or an easement that you have along the road there for Airport Road. There are a lot of questions about what the county might want in the future along the road, and we are very pleased that your staff have worked with us and weld like to thank them publicly here. You know, itls been really a pleasant opportunity to work with them. Our staff -- I donlt have an engineer on staff, so itls good to have somebody so that we can keep Norm and his group working straight. But there is definitely a benefit for both of us in this situation. If you were to do the lane improvements, for example, for turn lanes, yould have to deal with water management, because water managementls right there. If we want to deal with water management, if we deal with it right on the surface right there, it doesnlt help you, two public agencies, not using the money in the best way possible. Plus we do believe that this is an opportunity to get state and federal -- we already have state grants, we have the opportunity for future FAA grants, as well as from ISTEA, the state road funds for the multi-modal situation. You-all know about that, of course, from your other hats that you wear. We think this is a good opportunity to do a project where everybody wins at one time. And to answer the question about funding, maybe. Weld have to at the end of the project to look at it. If welre successful with all the grants, we just want you to go along with it and say go for it, airport, and we get it all done for everybodyls benefit. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Trebilcock, we've discussed on other issues the lack of turn lanes on Airport Road at high, you know, volume or higher volume intersections as being a restriction to the capacity of the roadway. Two questions: Does this anticipated project, one, improve that situation at those intersections; and two, by doing it, does it disallow a similar approach on the eastern side of the roadway, on the northbound lanes? MR. TREBILCOCK: Good question. One thing for sure is the direct southbound turn lanes that we're proposing will certainly help the capacity out there, especially at the North Road intersection. Another thing that we have -- especially when we met with staff, we had a technical meeting that has been brought up -- is a concept potentially, at least in setting up the water management system far enough away so that if the county did decide in the future that they wanted to provide some northbound right turn lanes into the Naples Production Park that don't exist now, that we could be far enough away so that we could deflect the road. And actually, there's a few kinks in Airport Road right now, right at Radio Road, that could potentially be straightened out so we can straighten out the entire length of Airport Road there, shift things over so we can have some northbound right turn lanes also. That's not necessarily going to be a direct charge of this project, but at least master planning for it. And that's the key thing to have county staff involved, because they can kind of keep us on track with that, to make sure we make those provisions. It may be something that could fold into this project, at least to maybe final design, but not necessarily go to build. But that is an opportunity, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Soliday, one, we talked about two government entities, but one difference is your government can show a profit and ours can't. You do have the ability to charge for services and actually accrue those funds. So when I look at this, things such as landscaping and whatnot, I think we understand that the county is not going to pay for landscaping or maintenance on the airport side. I don't think there's an issue there. I just want to be very clear that the only funds that I see the county participating in potentially are those that result in a direct improvement to the capacity of Airport Road, and those that our transportation staff recommend as things that if we didn't do today, we would need to do in the future, and that we couldn't ask the Naples Airport Authority to fund entirely. So I don't want there to be any misconception on your part about what at least I as an individual see our role as being here. It's strictly from a transportation standpoint. By the same token, though, what you're proposing is just a wonderful identifier for an airport that serves the community, and I applaud you for moving ahead with it. I think it's a good project. But again, I don't want that praise to be misinterpreted as a commitment of funding. I'm simply looking at the transportation issues. MR. SOLIDAY: No question, sir, we have no misconception. The authority is very well informed on this. We have not tried to deal with the funding of it, other than we do have state grants planned, and about 1.5 million dollars' worth of state grants, primarily for water management and landscaping. Again, doing that water management and landscaping in such a way that it does not have to be dug back up or changed or modified at a later date was our first and primary thought. But again, if we can attain ISTEA funding and federal funding from the airport so that we can do the whole project, it is possible that we can do some projects to help you and not necessarily ask for money. Maybe there's economy of scale by talking to you about those items that you might be interested in funding and doing it all at one time. We can bond it and be paid back by the county when -- at some such time that you can provide your capital funding. At this point, we have no misconceptions -- or no conceptions, really, even to how it's going to be done, other than the water management and landscaping. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'm comfortable giving staff direction to continue working with the airport on this project. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's something at a minimum we can do. And also to say that again I think the project would be good for the community. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Here, here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions, comments? Thank you very much. MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you again. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We appreciate it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Item #7A BARBARA CORNEAL REQUESTING A FEE WAIVER FOR A FUND RAISER AT VETERANS' PARK - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on then to item 7(A), Barbara Corneal requesting a fee waiver of Veterans' Park fundraiser. Is Ms. Corneal here? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't believe she's here. All right -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: this item. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we have a motion and a second to approve Motion carries five-zero. Item #7B WHIT WARD REPRESENTING THE COLLIER BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, INC., REQUESTING A FEE WAIVER - STAFF DIRECTED TO BRING BACK WITH OPTIONS ON JULY 28, 1998 Item 7(B), this is the CBIA, Collier Building Industry Association requesting a fee waiver. I believe we have Mr. Wiseman here this morning with us to -- MR. WISEMAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to replace Whit Ward this morning. MR. WISEMAN: I'm not Whit Ward. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're not Whit Ward. MR. WISEMAN: This one's a little easier than what we send him in here for. Thank you for your time. Good morning. My name is John Wiseman, I'm the 1998 president of the Collier Building Industry Association. We represent 825 member companies, which employ over 10,000 people, either related to or working in the industry in Collier County. We're here today with Gail Tunnock of the Mental Health Association to talk about what we're doing on September 19th of this year, which we will be building what we call a wonderhouse. It will be built in the Sterling Oaks community in North Naples. This house will be built from tie beam to Certificate of Occupancy in 24 hours. The purpose of this event is to raise money for the Mental Health Association, 50 percent of which the net proceeds will go to this worthwhile group. We are here today to request that $7,734.92, which is the cost of our permit and impact fees to be paid to Collier County, be paid from surplus permit fees that have been paid to development services so far this year. This request has been approved by our board of directors, which represents our entire membership, the Mental Health Association, which works with the lives of hundreds of children every year, and we've reviewed this with Vince Cautero of development services, and we have brought this proposal to the development services advisory committee, which we gained their unanimous approval. If you grant this request, we will be contributing 100 percent of the savings on these fees to the Mental Health Association. We've received numerous contributions and materials and commitments from countless individuals in our community for labor, skilled and unskilled and other professional services. We request that you consider and approve this proposal at your earlier possible convenience. I will now entertain any questions you might have, and Ms. Tunnock is here to talk about the Mental Health Association, if you have any questions about that. Thanks for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What will be the ultimate disposition of the house? MR. WISEMAN: Once the house is complete, we'll put it up for sale. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And what happens to the proceeds? MR. WISEMAN: Well, 50 percent of the proceeds will go to the Mental Health Association, and 50 percent will go to CBIA. We typically have a fundraiser like this every year, but this is the first year we've involved an outside charity. That's why we're coming to you to request that -- you know, if you do waive this, we'll be putting 100 percent of the money we would have paid for permit and impact fees directly towards the charity. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. Particularly with that last comment. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I can't support it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, it's 100 percent of the fee will go to charity, but 50 percent of the profits will go to the industry. MR. WISEMAN: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I can't support the issue. The house will be occupied at some point in time and there will be legitimate impacts on the county. I can't support that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me see if I understand, John. If you have to pay the fees, whatever proceeds you make, you'll split 50/50 anyway. If you do not pay the fees, you'll split the proceeds 50/50 except the charity will get more, because the money that would have gone to fees will go to them. MR. WISEMAN: That's correct. We're not asking for a waiver of these fees, we're asking for the fees to be paid out of surplus monies that have been paid to development services. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's an important distinction. You're not asking for this to be paid out of property taxes, you're asking for this to be paid out of development services' fees, which is permit fees already paid and collected by developers in the community. MR. WISEMAN: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Paid by the homeowners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, paid in conjunction with the pulling of permits, and it's surplus money that's in the development services' budget that's theirs to basically -- you know, development services advisory committee and Mr. Cautero decide how that money is spent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm trying to find a way to support this without the larger application being problematic in the future, which is that when any charitable organization builds a structure for their use. Let's say the Shelter For Abused Women builds a new structure and they come to us and say there are surplus fees, you know, in this account, and CBIA even says, you know, we think that's a good idea, aren't we then right back where we were several years ago using fees, whether they be taxes paid or fees -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In the charity business. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- just to subsidize, or make charitable contributions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As much as my initial impression on this was to support it, because CBIA was saying look, you know, we're the ones that have to charge these fees to people, and we're saying go ahead and use them, but in the end, it's the homeowner that ultimately pays that fee anyway. And I just -- it's not just this issue, John, it's the broader application of it that I'm having difficulty with. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, the point is that -- that it's the same thing as if we write a $7,700 check to the Mental Health Association, and we -- as you pointed out, we have made a conscious policy decision for a number of years not to fund contract agencies, and this is essentially the same thing as doing that. So if we do this, how do we then say no to the rest of the contract agencies who used to request? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Rather than have the motion fail, which I think will send the wrong message, I'll withdraw the motion, because it's obvious we don't have three -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there another option here? Mr. Weigel, can we defer the payment of impact fees to the time of sale based on any of the characteristics? In other words, it would still have to be paid, but it wouldn't have to be paid up front. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that make any difference to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Does it make any difference? MR. WISEMAN: It would make a difference in terms of the interest expense that we would be paying until the time of sale. That would be a benefit. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know if this meets any of the qualifications. MR. WEIGEL: I'm not prepared to say that it does, with my off-the-head knowledge of the impact fees and the ability that the board has under certain circumstances to defer the payment. Ms. Ashton may have something. MS. ASHTON: I'd like to respond to that. For the record, Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. Under our ordinances, the impact fees are due at the time of building permits, so if you wanted to do some sort of deferral mechanism, you would have to fund it until the deferral. So if you deferred it three months, you would have to fund it for three months until they paid it back. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I personally thought it was a pretty clever way of getting some money to the Mental Health Association, which you guys won't be surprised to know I don't think is such a terrible idea. MR. WISEMAN: Well, we interviewed about 10 different charities for this fundraiser, and something the association was intent on doing was keeping the money local and doing something to help kids in our community, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wish we could do something other than send an unintended message that it's not a worthwhile cause, because that's simply not the focus. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not the case. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The focus is that -- MR. WISEMAN: Well, maybe what you could do, rather than acting on it today is maybe entertain an executive summary or, you know, do something where you would have an opportunity to maybe consider it further. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to look at the deferral options and see if there's a time specific deferral that we could make that would again at least not have to put those funds out of pocket, because so much of what CBIA is doing is donated on this. You know, all the contractors that are going to be working on it I believe are donating their time? MR. WISEMAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are materials being donated also? MR. WISEMAN: Yes, they are. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if we can do something to avoid out-of-pocket cash up front until the home is sold, I'd like to see if at least that's an option. Is there any support for that direction? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me understand the direction you're going. You're saying that at the time of sale, the home purchaser will pay the impact fees -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- which will be repaid to the county at that point? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. But we would pay them in the interim out of the fund, but they would be returned to the fund at the time of sale. That's what I -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I bet the bookkeeping associated with that is more expensive than just keeping the money. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's not an option, it's not an option. But at this point I'm looking for some way to at least assist without going against the grain for me, which is to out -- making, in essence, an outright donation -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ms. Ashton wants to talk to you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to an agency. MS. ASHTON: The funding that I referred to, it would have to come out of general fund money. You couldn't -- you couldn't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pay it out of their fees? MS. ASHTON: -- pay out of the impact fee funds. MR. WISEMAN: Could this be done out of development services money to be paid back to development services? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Out of development services reserves? MS. ASHTON: I can't answer that question. I don't know if David wants to comment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The way we usually -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why don't we table this item? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I was going to say, the way we usually do public petitions is do we want to hear it or not, and -- as opposed to trying to solve it that day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think we want to hear it, but I would like to see us get some direction from our county staff. Give us some options of what we can do, you know, anywhere from no, you can't to anywhere in between. I personally would like to see that. Because I know what the board direction has been in the past in regard to these kinds of things. It's no different than any other group that may come before us. It has nothing to do with the group, per se. This is not a slap at anybody. It's just a policy decision that the board has made in the past in this regard. So let's -- at this point in time, you've made the public petition, we've heard you, now we're going to direct our staff to look in to see what our options are on this. If that meets with everybody. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the -- well, we've got a three-week recess coming up. What's your date of construction on the house? MR. WISEMAN: We plan to start -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: September. MR. WISEMAN: -- on July 19th. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, July 19th. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're not back 'til the 23rd? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 28th. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, the 28th. MR. WISEMAN: Well, we probably won't start right on July 19th, because a couple other things are running a couple weeks behind, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, July 19th is a Sunday. I guarantee you're not going to go to work on Sunday. MR. WISEMAN: Well, it's volunteer work, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Even on Sunday, I doubt very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's schedule that for the 28th, and if the timing works, it does, and if it doesn't, well, that's all you can do. MR. WISEMAN: Fine. Regardless of what you decide, I hope we can put you-all to work out there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure the people living at home want me working on it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not sure you have enough insurance to cover me. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, John. MR. WISEMAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Item #SA1 FUNDING TO ALLOCATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO THE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FOR A JAZZ AND ARTS FESTIVAL - APPROVED Moving on then to item 8(A)(1), this happens to do with allocation of tourism development funds to County Parks and Rec. for a jazz and arts festival. Mr. Mihalic. MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, I'm Greg Mihalic, housing and urban improvement. Yes, we come before you this morning to ask you to approve by motion $10,000 recommended by the Tourist Development Council for a jazz festival put on by Parks and Recreation Department and the Sugden COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: TDC recommended approval of this one? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. MIHALIC: They recommended approval, a five to four vote. There was a lot of discussion about it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And their request was 24,000, but the five to four approval was 10,000. Could you enlighten us about how that -- MR. MIHALIC: Yes, I think the -- most of the discussion was whether the government should be putting on a jazz festival. Several of the members felt that it should be done within the private sector and not by government. The 10,000 was a compromise. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we put on the quality of a festival, Mr. Olliff, that, you know, would -- how are you going to fill up -- fill in for these missing 14 -- or $14,0007 MR. OLLIFF: We actually already have. I think the original concept had some national headliner type jazz bands in mind, the Spyro Gyra type band and things, and we actually had to notch that back down. And we've actually got on your consent agenda today the contracts for the two jazz performers for this particular event. And we've had to scale back on the advertising slightly. We were advertising some promotional packages through local hotels, we were calling some swing and swing type packages that would include golf and the jazz concert tickets, and then also some tennis and golf packages along with the jazz. So we've had to scale back on that a little bit. But I think the event is doable with the money that we're currently requesting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the estimated heads on beds? MR. MIHALIC: They estimated 25 to 3,000 out-of-county visitors. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I gotta go back to what Mr. Olliff mentioned. That is, what are we doing for out-of-county advertising? I mean, it's the same thing I asked. I love what we're trying to do here and I think it's great. I disagree that government shouldn't necessarily be doing this sort of thing, particularly in a park like Sugden. But I want to make sure if we're spending -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You agree or you disagree? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's great if we put on some event like that. I remember when they did the bonfire on the beach. Any time you can do family oriented type of activity like this, it's great. But if we're expending TDC dollars, I want to make sure we're trying to draw people in from elsewhere. And I'm wondering, how are we doing that? MR. OLLIFF: Well, in addition to -- we've partnered locally with the local Jazz 98 station, so that covers a lot of the local areas. But in addition, we've got newspaper advertisements that will run with Fort Myers NewsPress, Miami Herald and some Tampa newspapers as well, so we're doing a lot of advertising in those major markets that surround us that we think are close enough that the people would come and actually stay overnight for a jazz and arts festival. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would Fort Myers stay overnight? I just think when I go to entertainment in Fort Myers, I come home at the end of the evening. MR. OLLIFF: That's probably true, but we don't want to miss that market either. And I think the money that they bring and spend here in Collier County is another one of the things that we're trying to attract, in addition to just strictly hotel beds. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, when we built Sugden Regional Park and we struck the deal with the Gulf Coast Skimmers and they built an amphitheater and just the layout of the park, these were the events that I think we were anticipating for the community to enjoy. And by scheduling one of those and our Parks and Rec. staff taking on the organization of it, we can put 500 people in room nights from Miami and Tampa and spend more money in the local economy. I think that that's what TDC is intended to do in category C, so I'm going to move approval. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we may have speakers. I apologize. I may be ahead of that. MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- a second. Okay, I can just share with you that that was kind of a difficult sell -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I bet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that night. But at any rate, we decided that something was a little better than the direction it was going. It was going to be zero. And anyway, I think we're pleased to get the 10. MR. OLLIFF: And frankly, the fact that it got a TDC approval at all is the result of Chairman Berry being on the TDC and I think helping to support that item, so we appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Amen. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The queen of jazz. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, queen of jazz, right. Just the queen is all right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Your worship. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, that is just a joke. Don't go out -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lighten up, people. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Chairman requires to be called the queen. That's front page, Gina. Get on that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Don't you even think about that. Well, I guess it could say worse. Anyway, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. HIHALIC: Thank you, commissioners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My kids are required to call me goddess, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Goddess? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Queen is just hey -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever works. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- but goddess is better. Item #8A2 AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO RETAIN LEGAL SERVICES TO ASSIST IN THE PREPARATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS REGARDING DENSITY REDUCTION - APPROVED WITH ROBINSON AND COLE AND DR. JAMES NICHOLAS; FORMAL COMPETITION WAIVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the next item is the authorization of staff to retain legal services to assist in the preparation of the COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question. Has the firm of Robinson and Cole done work with the Butt Harris Private Property Rights Act in the State of Florida? MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione of your comprehensive planning staff. They have -- Mr. Herriam has written numerous articles on property rights legislation in the State of Florida. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's only been a couple of legal challenges so that I don't think we -- MS. CACCHIONE: It's my understanding there have been two with density reduction, and they haven't gotten to the point of actual conclusion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But these are the recognized experts in the State of Florida, without a doubt. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's something we need to do. So I agree with the motion. Was there a second? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel wants to talk to you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I'd like the board to note for the record, through the movement or other member, that the board -- to acknowledge, the board had directed a rather quick turnaround for staff in this regard and, therefore, this selection of executive summary specifically provides for the waiver of formal competition, but that this waiver is in the public interest to do so. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know, I certainly would like to meet this individual. I have never read such an incredibly impressive -- what do they call this? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Resume. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Resume. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I guess resume is one. There's another term I think they use as well. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Curriculum vitae. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Curriculum vitae. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is fancy for resume. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, it's pretty impressive. So I hope that they're -- they do a good job. We have a motion and a second. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We have speakers, apparently, though. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do have speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, you have three -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- speakers. First is Ty Agoston, second is A1 Perkins, and then Mary Dunavan. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I saw you guys registering; just thought it was for public comment on general topics. MR. AGOSTON: Couldn't wait that long. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Ty Agoston, and I live in that unattractive or less attractive section of the county called Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself. This whole issue of bringing in legal help paid for by taxpayers who are being limited in their use of their land is kind of one hand fighting the other. And frankly, it's -- I find it distasteful. I remember attending a Republican Executive Committee meeting when the Republican Executive Committee chair have (sic) made a statement that your board should take every legal avenue to reduce the density in the county. Apparently somewhat belatedly you followed her instructions. As far as -- and I have said this before, that for you to say to a property owner that he can use one acre lot of 20, which is somewhat similar to when you're telling the property owner in Golden Gate Estates that he can use one acre out of two and a half, it's kind of disturbing. And someone somewhere along the line will take you to court, so it might be a good idea for you to get an excellent legal recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what we're doing, Mr. Agoston. MR. AGOSTON: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's exactly what we're doing. MR. AGOSTON: Is that what your role is? Are you really there to fight Collier County residents and taxpayers? Hr. Hancock have (sic) proposed a parable of the packing eight pounds into a five-pound bag. And the only thing came to my mind is the question, which one of you have the knowledge whether you have the eight pounds, and then the second question, whether you have a five-pound bag. It takes a very substantial educational background to even take a guess at it. I remember my company have hired Ph.D.'s out of Harvard who had an economics degree and a math degree and have a hard time isolating the most favorable position to put a supermarket in. This is a substantially more serious subject. And for us to sit here, or actually you as elected officials sit here to decide just exactly what people should do with their land, I think is, like I said, I can repeat myself, I find it distasteful. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I find it what we were elected to do. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is A1 Perkins. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and I don't know that his description's exactly how I would -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, heavens no. But we can't shirk the responsibility just because of how we frame the description. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners. People at home, we've got a whole new television set up here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The A1 Perkins Memorial -- MR. PERKINS: Please, don't use that word, Pam, that's too close for comfort, you know? Am I supposed to genuflect? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Feel free. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not sure, I think you can get arrested for that, A1, so be careful. MR. PERKINS: You're absolutely right. Obviously from the statements on the agenda, the word legal service, retain legal service. Now we're talking about money, we're talking about effect on people's lives, the whole bit; the effect on the county, and also the people who can least afford to pay the taxes are going to bear the burden in this thing. Now, if you proceed with this thing, make it aware that the legal system that you're going to hire is going to have opposition. Now, out of the 20 acres that you're going to let them build on one five-acre parcel, the payment, net payment of $300,000 per five acres, is going to be required, total withdraw of the 15 acres from the tax rolls, the additional five acres, no impact fees whatsoever, and also, they qualify for the Green Belt Law automatically, without any paperwork to the owner. When you take and get that in position, then maybe you're going to take and end up with some property that you don't want and that the other people don't want to pay for. Because property values in this community are skyrocketing. If you don't believe me, since when do you pay three million dollars for a condo and they throw in the washer and dryer? Big deal. You're also going to have another problem. You're going to have a fire protection problem. You're going to have EMS that are not going to be able to get in. You're going to have to have additional roads to these five-acre parcels in amongst 20. No impact fees to these people, if you impose this upon them. Mosquitoes, flooding, fires, all of this stuff is going to be affected by all of these people out there. Now, the more mosquitoes that we can grow in Collier County, the more that's going to head towards the beach. And along with that you're going to end up with nothing more than death, sickness, and of all things, you're going to put a burden on the kids. We also have a problem with snakes and all the rest of them. In the past, they've restricted cleaning up around your five-acre parcel, your house, around your house so the fire truck can get in. All of a sudden, you're creating a situation. So be aware that the people are not going to take and sit back and take this easy. By the way, I don't know whether I mentioned it. I'm speaking on behalf of the Belle Meade groups and the Sable Palm Association this morning. I think I've covered everything I wanted to cover. One other thing I need to reiterate that Mr. Agoston said, you're using taxpayers' money against those taxpayers. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker, Mary Dunavan. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is Ms. Dunavan the final speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, on this subject. MS. DUNAVAN: My name is Mary Dunavan, and I am speaking for myself. And I do not believe this is what government was set up to do; not supposed to be what government was supposed to do, set taxpayer against taxpayers. And when a county sets a property for development and only their development can occur in that certain area, you can make someone rich. And I don't believe government should be set up to do that. It profits certain people and penalizing others. And so you take property rights from someone, and you give them to others, and this is not right. And also, in some of the material that these legal services people have, sustainable development. So I believe that you're looking at sustainable development again with these legal services people. And so I guess that's it. Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I don't think we're fighting Collier County taxpayers. To the contrary, we're protecting them. Ty asked the question, how do we know? How do you know what the public wants? Well, I don't think you need to go to Harvard to have common sense. And if you go to -- whether it's the FOCUS meetings that were held a year ago, or TAG meetings, or any civic association in the county, the one message you hear loud and clear is concern about growth. I have yet to hear anyone who would prefer to have 400 and something thousand people and 23 flyovers 20 years from now, instead of having 300,000 people and maybe a couple of flyovers. Maybe you would prefer to have all those flyovers and 100,000 extra people, I don't know. But we hear, I hear, I assume the other commissioners hear, continually, every single week for the last six years for me, concern about that growth. And this is addressing that. This is not a private property rights issue. And I'm not sure -- I didn't follow A1 completely, but if you have 20 acres of agricultural use property today, after this change you still can use 20 acres of agricultural property. Nobody is saying you can't use that property. So it's not a private property rights issue, it's not, as Mary said, telling somebody that we're going to take your use away and give it to somebody else. It's just not an accurate representation. There have to be some basic set of rules of where you can and can't develop. And that's no different than what it's always been. And we're trying to make sure that this develops out in the way our community has asked it to, and that is not to have half a million people. I think this legal counsel helps us go ahead and make what is perhaps the most important move we've made in my six years on the board, and that is putting a peak, a cap, on that growth so that we don't end up with half a million people. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And besides that, we're simply following United Nations directive 96-329. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, God. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a joke, Mary, just a joke. MR. PERKINS: No, it's the truth, that's the problem. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It is not the truth. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, God. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate what you had to say, Commissioner Constantine. Government does have a responsibility to recognize a community's limit and to make sure that we plan within those limits. Those limits will vary from roadways, as we've cited, to potable water source to everything else. And to not recognize those limits is to shirk our responsibility as stewards of the public trust. I don't think anybody wants us to do that. But what we're doing here is ensuring that what we do is consistent with the constitutional property rights afforded the citizens of this community, and does not in fact infringe upon the rights or abilities of people in this community in an unreasonable fashion. That's why we're getting outside legal service, to ensure that our action is consistent with that. Because if it's not, we shouldn't be doing it. So I think we are meeting the mandate given us by this community and doing so in a responsible manner so as not to unnecessarily expend tax funds defending something that may have an adverse impact on individual rights. So it's how you want to paint it. But I think clearly, that's the intent of this board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was certainly the intent when I made the comments that I did about this one particular individual. I look at it as a person who knows exactly what can be done and what can't be done and what shouldn't be done. And that's the reason that I would support going along of hiring someone outside to come in and take a look at this. I don't want to impact people that own property. That's not my -- that's not my role up here. At the same time, as Commissioner Constantine and Hancock said, you know, I don't think we need to expend funds in a lot of legal lawsuits. And that's exactly what we could get ourselves into. And I don't want to spend your dollars that way. So at the same time we need somebody who knows exactly what this whole thing is all about to come in here and kind of guide the hand. And I don't see anything wrong with that. I believe that that's exactly what we should be doing. So it's nothing more than that. There's nothing, as far as this commissioner's concerned -- and from what I've heard from the rest, there's nothing subversive about what we're trying to do. If people want to paint it that way, that's certainly their privilege, but that's not the intent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like my fellow commissioners to note for the record that I am not going to make a lengthy speech on this subject. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Duly noted. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A little thank you note coming your way. Just kidding. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's throw a party. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I believe we voted on that item and it was five-zero. Item #8A3 RESOLUTION 98-231, ENDORSING THE NAPLES-COLLIER COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 1998 REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN TO ADD A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND - ADOPTED Item 8(B)(1), presentation of preliminary feasibility study for Haldeman Creek restoration project. This was an item that was moved from 16(B) to this particular location. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Did we skip -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 8(A)(3). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- 8 (A) (3) ? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We did? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We certainly did. I'm sorry, let's go back. I'm just crossing things off here right and left. Okay, let's go back to item 8(A)(3), adoption of a resolution endorsing the Naples-Collier County HPO 1998 reapportionment plan to add a representative of the City of Marco Island. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. MR. HEATHERINGTON: Good morning, and thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That was a very short -- short presentation. Do we have any speakers on this item? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: For the record -- MR. HEATHERINGTON: For the record, my name is Ken Heatherington. I'm metropolitan planning organization coordinator. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: MR. HEATHERINGTON: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: presentation. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Hotion carries five-zero. Again, thank you. Thank you. I'd like others to take note of Ken's fine Item #SB1 PRESENTATION OF THE PRELIHINARY FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE HALDEHAN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Now we will move to item 8(B)(1). As previously stated, the feasibility study for Haldeman Creek restoration project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd just like to thank you for getting this off the consent and onto regular agenda. I don't know whose decision it was, but it's such an important community issue. It's good for information. MR. HUBER: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Harry Huber with the office -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, you stink. MR. HUBER: You're kidding. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You've got to at least let him tell you what's proposed down there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have no public speakers on this item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, Harry, thanks for trying. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've never seen someone so disappointed at something being approved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, the bad news is just feasibility approved. I'll be happy when it's action approved. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks, guys. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we have a motion and a second to approve this particular item and no public speakers. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. HUBER: So my direction is to distribute a petition to create an HSTU? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It sure is. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the good news. Item #BE1 QUARTERLY REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998 - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next item is 8(E)(1), quarterly review -- revenue and expenditure report, fiscal year 1998. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this our first one? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you for doing it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: You're welcome. It's taken some time, and I apologize, we will have the second quarter at the July meeting and we will have the third quarter at the time of your public budget hearings, that way you'll have the most current up-to-date information, should any additional sales tax -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Come in. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- or revenue sharing monies materialize that would impact the final millage rate adoption for FY '99. This report was developed -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name. MR. SHYKOWSKI: I'm sorry, for the record Michael Smykowski, budget director. This report was developed in accordance with the board direction to expand the scope of the quarterly fiscal reporting. The report previously was a one-page report. It's fairly lengthy, but what it does include is year to date revenues and expenses within the major county fund groups, explanation of variances that might be encountered within any of those funds, and there's graphs also identifying the annual budgets', quarterly budgets' peak years as well as the year to date funds expended. In terms of overall revenue picture within the five cent local option gas tax, there is a shortfall projected there. However, we anticipated that, recognizing that Marco Island would in -- had incorporated and would share in those -- in those funds. As a result, we have established a separate reserve there, so there frankly is no impact in terms of budgeted projects. Within enterprise funds, as discussed at our budget workshops, ambulance fees were impacted by the state audit and changes in Hedicare reimbursement guidelines. Airport revenue, there's been some shortfalls in Avgas sales at Immokalee and Everglades City. Again, relatively minor. As anticipated, due to the continued strong growth in the construction industry, impact fee revenue collections have been very strong. There's surpluses currently projected within each impact fee category, and correspondingly, a large surplus forecast as well in building permit fee revenues. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where would I look, which page, to find the amount of reserves or, you know, how much money they have accumulated at this point? MR. SHYKOWSKI: In community development fund? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. SHYKOWSKI: That would be on page 11. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Two million dollars? Three million dollars? I'm sorry, help me read it. MR. SHYKOWSKI: What exactly are you looking for -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How much -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- I can help you out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- what's in their savings account? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Budget reserves to start the -- or based on the amended budget are just shy of 5.3 million dollars. And that's projected to grow into next year. Again, though, as discussed at -- during the budget workshops, the GIS program that we will -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very expensive. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- be undertaking and will undoubtedly be very expensive, this is one that will probably be a principal funding source -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Great. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- of that as well. So a lot of those reserves will actually be designated for a GIS system acquisition -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- in conjunction with public works. Now, the board also yesterday at the budget workshops had asked for an update regarding millage rates general fund. The adopted fund millage rate in FY '98 was 3.6813. The proposed, based on changes made yesterday is 3.5602. County-wide, 3.7265. The proposed is 3.6015. There's one area -- we made the assumption at this point that the sheriff's reduction, the 370,000, was all general fund. A portion of that may actually come out of Fund 111, because some of the expanders were actually reflective of that. So that's one assumption. There may be a minor change. That is something that we'll need to clarify in the next couple of days with the sheriff. But preliminarily, that's where we stand today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the total amount of taxes we're going to collect based on that rate is? MR. SHYKOWSKI: In general fund? Bear with me a moment. Just over 76 million. We collected approximately 72 million last year. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, any other questions for Hr. Smykowski? I have one. Commissioner Norris. On the five cent local option gas tax? When is that scheduled to expire? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You mean the one the revisionists have now said I championed? I did happen to see that yesterday. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I heard about that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I did see that in the paper. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I opposed it and am actually the one who asked for the sunset, and yesterday -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: It's five more years. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I championed it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: It was instituted for 10 years. Mr. Ilschner's indicated it's 2003, but it does have approximately five more years. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I saw it misrepresented in print as being for five years, but I happen to recall that it was for 10. MR. SHYKOWSKI: No, that is -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. MR. SHYKOWSKI: -- that was for a 10-year period. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a good clarification. That's -- I took that for truth and got worried. MR. SHYKOWSKI: In fact, I received a call a while back from Mr. Harrison from the City of Naples regarding that as well, so that is for a 10-year period. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the general fund went from 3.68 to 3.56? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the unincorporated went from 3.72 to 3.60? MR. SHYKOWSKI: That's total county-wide. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Total county-wide. MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. Unincorporated, we're still implementing those changes from the workshops. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hike, when you get that all finalized, would you put it together in a memo -- MR. SHYKOWSKI: Oh, sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- and give it to everybody? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Sure. What we're doing at this point is making the final changes, but a lot of the smaller HSTU's where you typically levy, like the beautification districts, they levy a fixed millage each year, and we're having to update all those based on the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotcha. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- final property -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. MR. SMYKOWSKI: -- values provided by the property appraiser's, so there will be minute changes in each of those, in accordance with their guidance to levy the full millage as authorized by the individual ordinances. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move acceptance of the report. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to accept the report. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. SMYKOWSKI: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Item #9A SOUTHAMPTON ZONING ISSUE - DISCUSSED Moving on then to item 9(A). This has to do -- Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Question of the county attorney. I wanted to bring this up, because you may have had experience with this in your district or not. The -- there's a golf course community called Stonebridge at Immokalee and Airport Road that was built after some existing homes in an adjacent neighborhood were there. We have had an effort between the sheriff's office and code enforcement and the homeowners dealing with an issue of anywhere from four to a dozen golf balls damaging roof tiles, windows, screens. The problem we have is that there is obviously a civil matter there that the homeowners may have to take up. But when this was approved in '87, I don't believe we had verbatim minutes. I have no way of going back to find out if the developer made any statements or promises regarding their project that it wouldn't adversely affect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wouldn't there be audio tapes at least? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The audio tapes are not kept that long. HS. FILSON: They only keep them three years. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They keep them three years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a mistake. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what we really have is really no different than one property owner being a nuisance to another. I don't know if any of that can be tied to zoning or to their PUD, and I don't know if this county necessarily has a role, but I wanted to ask if -- because this is something that may come up in different ways in different districts. And I heard somebody laugh out there when I brought this up. And for the folks who live in that house who were sitting having dinner last night when a ball came through the window, it's probably not real funny. So this may sound like a small issue to some, but I guess I wanted to do two things: One is to ask if there is a role for the county in this, or if it's strictly a civil matter and that's through Mr. Weigel. And the second is to kind of put this board on notice that there are some of these impacts that maybe in the past were not considered from one development to another that we want to pay special attention to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess obviously if people are being disturbed that way, it's not a funny matter. But it is a civil matter. It's not something the board has the authority to deal with, I don't think, even with Mr. Weigel. And I think your point that we need to actually plan for that in the future is a good one, but I think we're on a slippery slope if we start getting into neighborhood issues and trying to control that, you know, an errant golf ball or trying to control some of those issues. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not advocating we do anything outside of what is our legal responsibility. The problem is that 1987, whereas today we have verbatim minutes and we may discuss those issues here and there are commitments made on the record, in 1987 that didn't exist. And I don't have any way of knowing whether the developer made commitments that they did not comply with later. And I'm asking Mr. ~eigel what is our -- I mean, what abilities do we have to do that? Because, you know, we're dealing with older PUD's quite frequently, and I just -- I don't have anything written what commitments were made. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chair, a real opportunity here for us to be educated is what, Mr. Weigel, is the relevance of oral commitments made in a meeting if they are not incorporated as conditions into the final PUD? That's why my point being I think we have to be way more attentive to having those incorporated into the document, because they have a great deal more weight. MR. WEIGEL: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So, you know, oral commitments are hard to enforce anyway. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel, you'll get back to us on -- just with some kind of a --MR. WEIGEL: I'll be happy to. If you'd like, I'll provide a memo to you. And I can see, it appears maybe the nuances with this particular golf course and the community around it is that we may have homes that were not part of the PUD that surround the PUD, whereas frequently now we have golf course communities where the homes surrounding the golf course are part of the PUD and part of the development -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. WEIGEL: -- where the people that purchase have an idea going in exactly what's going to be transpiring next to them. Golfers -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is the nuance here, and the only reason why I felt it was something that I could bring up and ask. But I didn't want to ask this of Mr. Weigel without the board knowing it because of exactly -- Mr. Constantine's comment. You know, I don't want to give staff direction as an individual commissioner -- MR. WEIGEL: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and chase ghosts if it's not the board's desire, the board doesn't feel it's at least appropriate for them to do so on something like this. So -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: This item maybe escalated in terms of the county's involvement when you consider the fact that we -- I'm informed by Mr. Olliff this morning that the county owns some adjacent property along the golf course there. And in clearing, in preparation for the construction of a golf course -- a parking lot, we have reason to believe that errant golf balls are going to be a continuing problem, that we may have to mitigate in some way and there will be the question of the cost necessary for that mitigation and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're going to have to give out vouchers so people will no longer have a slice. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We just need -- maybe we need to provide golf school for all golfers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wish I spoke golf so I would get the slice joke. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's not good. Just understand that you don't want to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Slice is bad. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Slice is bad. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Slice is bad. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, that's all you have to remember. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fade is good. Slice is bad. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate the board indulging me on this, but I just think it's something that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it may be something with all the communities coming on line down the road that it might be something we have to be considerate about. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Item #10A Deleted Item #10B DISCUSSION RE GOOD WHEELS TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED - STAFF DIRECTED TO ELIMINATE REIMBURSEMENT CAP TO ALLOW FOR THE #13,000.00; TO AUTHORIZE A PURCHASE ORDER TO USE CARRYOVER OF $38,116.84 FROM FISCAL YEAR 96-97 AND LEGAL STAFF AND MANAGEMENT STAFF TO LOOK AT THE GREATER EXPENSES THAN ANTICIPATED WHEN THE BCC RECONVENES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, item 10(A) has been deleted. We'll go to 10(B), Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The transportation disadvantaged situation is unacceptable. There are a couple different thoughts on what needs to be done to correct it. But if you happen to be blind or handicapped or mentally challenged and depend on this service, and you happen to need to get some hygiene items or legal assistance or you need to go to the store or go to the bank and get some money, you can't do it right now. They're being told I'm sorry, there's no money available 'til July -- or no rides available I think 'til July 20th. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Except for medical. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. And which is just an unacceptable situation. There are a couple different schools of thought here: One, that Good Wheels over-spent on some things early. The second is that it's just been busier than usual. Frankly, either way, we need to make sure that these people can still get their services through July 20th. And we need -- if it takes more time than today to figure out what's the appropriate long-term solution to this so it doesn't reoccur and so that we're not giving money that we shouldn't be giving, that's fine, but I'm asking the board -- and Mr. Heatherington can probably help, but I'm asking the board to take some sort of corrective action today so these people aren't sitting around for the next month unable to get basic human services. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: An emergency budget amendment is what's necessary. It seems like, you know, that was the idea I had. I don't know what -- the I's have to be dotted and T's have to be crossed, but this has to be addressed today. It can't be allowed to delay. So somebody on staff tell us how to solve the problem. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I discussed this item with Mr. Heatherington yesterday. I felt that there were some questions regarding the executive summary that had been prepared and that's the reason it's not before you. It was not in proper form to be presented. One of the questions I had was the nature of the emergency. I understood that only half of the -- roughly half of the $100,000 appropriation had been committed at this point and that there appeared to be some additional funds remaining. There was a question of -- on the executive summary changing the rate at which the funds could be expended, the monthly rate. And as I said, we had some questions that we felt were still unanswered, and that's the reason why we didn't present it to you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While I appreciate the fact you weren't comfortable with the executive summary, I was disappointed something didn't appear on the agenda, simply because for those people who depend on this, this is real life. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have blind people who can't get food. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Whether we work out bureaucratic answers or not, they still need to get to the bank and need to pick up hygiene items and need to take care of basic necessities of life. And by not addressing it today, they wouldn't be able to until July 20th. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not an option. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I thought it was more than bureaucratic considerations when you consider the fact that the board had appropriated $100,000 for this function, and the executive summary would have involved a commitment, I think, of 38,000 more for the rest of the fiscal year, and I felt that that was something that required some review. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nevertheless, do you have a recommendation for how to solve this problem in the interim while we come up with a long-term solution? Because we can't leave it like it is. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Heatherington may be able to speak to that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. HEATHERINGTON: Given that it's close to the end of the fiscal year -- Ken Heatherington, MPO coordinator, for the record -- we are instituting the priority setting policy, and that -- where we're looking at only medical trips as the most important trips at this time. Actually, the amount that was invoiced, 52,999 was through February. If we look at the 8,500 through the end of June, that's about $86,000. $13,000 would be left somehow to expend through the end of September 30th. The thought about reducing the cap is that that money would be made immediately available, meaning we would spend down the county appropriation probably before September 30th. In the interim, we are applying for 1998, '99 non-sponsored trust fund grant from the transportation disadvantaged commission, which would be in effect sometime in July. The additional funds that Mr. Fernandez identified, and we haven't really had an opportunity to discuss closely with finance, is some carry-over dollars that were left after the TEC contract. It's not additional appropriation that was appropriated in '96, '97, it was left in there because was there was litigation by Medicaid against the previous provider. The option was possibly to access some of those carry-over funds for the new purchase order, but again, I was working with Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Smykowski on the applicability of doing it in that manner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There are some functions that are so basic that we provide some, that the sheriff provides some, that we as an institution provides, like the ambulance, but this is up there with ambulance services for me. It's a critical service. It's an absolute need. It's not something that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Health, safety and welfare. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Health, safety, welfare, thank you. And we can't -- if you need a budget amendment, Mr. Heatherington, present it, because I want to approve it. Because I don't want this service to remain at the level it's currently operating. MR. HEATHERINGTON: I have to defer to the county attorney and Mr. Fernandez to see if that is appropriate to introduce at this point in time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it's up to the board, not up to Mr. Fernandez whether or not it gets introduced. But now that it's on the agenda, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How much money -- excuse me, if you don't mind. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I actually have a copy -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of what was proposed here as an item, and I'll read you what that says, and we may or may not do it in this exact way. But the board has already approved a grant and authorized the budget amendments. The first amendment to the transportation disadvantaged agreement, however, appropriates 38,000 and some change through September 30th, 1998 by A, eliminating the monthly reimbursement cap, which is what he just mentioned, and authorizing a purchase order to use that carry-over. Those are really __ COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that easy? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the two steps that would be necessary. Now, if -- I know -- I understand Mr. Fernandez's concern, if there have been some expenditures outside of the parameters or beyond what needs to be done, we can pursue that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And during that September -- that period between now and September 30th can deal with that issue. But by taking this action, I think we can make sure those people are still getting their rides and still getting that essential service. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: I think -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Should those other issues remain unresolved for unforeseen reasons. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I guess the third part -- these would be the first two steps. The third part was -- would be have Mr. Fernandez, Mr. Weigel, Mr. Heatherington look at the specifics of the service provided by Good Wheels and see is there a reason that they are at fault, why some of those monies were expended more rapidly, or is it simply that there was more service this year. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: You know, itls kind of absurd that when there are rocks on the beach we go out and solve the problem and come back later to see who has to pay, but when we have blind people who canlt get to the grocery store, welre going to bureaucrat it. This has to be solved. Weill figure out later who has to pay. So itls -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If therels no objection from the board, Iill go ahead and make a motion that we do those three things: That we eliminate the reimbursement cap to allow for that 13,000 and some change; authorize purchase order to use the carry-over from fiscal 196 and 197 for that 38,116.84; and then as a third part, ask our legal staff and our management staff to look at the greater expenditure than anticipated and have a report back to us on that, and maybe by the time we reconvene in the end of July. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are we going to find out why we are having financial trouble in this -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That was the third part. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: That was the third part. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thatls the third part? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Third part. We have no public speakers, obviously, on this, or do we? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. All right, then I would like to call the question, if there are no more questions from the board. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think at this point in time weill take about a seven to 10-minute break and then weill resume. (A recess was taken.) Item #lib PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We are now to the public comment section of our agenda. Do we have any speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. Mr. A1 Perkins and Mr. Ty Agoston, first two speakers. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners, A1 Perkins, Belle Heade groups. Also, the Sable Palm Association. Needless to say, everybody should know that we've got fires up in the northern part of the state, and we also have a potential hurricane situation coming at us this year. The reason why I'm concerned about hurricanes and saving kids' lives and the rest of it is the fact that we are very vulnerable here in Collier County. The fact is, the only way we're going to get these people to pay attention is to take and educate them on what's going on. This needs to be said over and over and over again, because the stupid mistakes that people will do in a panic situation is what's going to kill them. Needless to say, along with those things like that, it's up to not only emergency management, but all of the county personnel, because the general public doesn't realize that when a hurricane is going to be upon us within 100 miles, it's almost too late to evacuate. When this takes place, the Sheriff's Department, EHS, all the equipment and all of the trucks, fire trucks, all of it, will be out of harm's way, like Immokalee. Now, to come back in and clean this mess up is going to be something else. And sifting through the debris for bodies is not my idea of a good time. I've been down that road. Anyhow, I need to make these people and everybody else within the sound of my voice to sit up and pay attention, people. This year we could really get ourself one or two and we could remove Keewaydin Island and the beach. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so the public's not misinformed, sheriff's deputies and the EHS units will not be in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ty Agoston and then Gil Erlichman. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ty is not here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ty isn't here, so move on to Mr. Erlichman. MR. ERLICHMAN: Good morning. For the record, my name is Gil Erlichman. I live in East Naples, and I'm a taxpayer and elector in Collier County. I'm speaking for myself. I didn't plan to speak this morning, but two items came up in the newspaper -- or rather about the newspaper. In fact, Mr. Constantine made a remark about -- during the discussion at 10(E) on the budget about the gas tax, and referring to a letter in the newspaper yesterday, which was totally inaccurate. The Naples Daily News is supposed to check on the accuracies of the -- the accuracy of letter writers by asking them for certain documents or facts when these facts are stated in their letter. In fact, on many occasions, I've been called to document certain things that I might -- that I have written about. Well, to straighten that letter out that was in the paper yesterday about the gasoline tax, gasoline tax went into effect on January 1st, 1994, and it was enacted in August of '93. In fact, I was at the -- at that commission meeting when Commissioner Saunders was chairman of the Collier County Commission. And I nicknamed it the Saunders tax, Saunders gasoline tax, because he was the one that was -- that pushed it. Mr. Constantine was opposed to it. And to a different -- I mean, the idea of having the gas tax was because supposedly there was a nine million dollar shortfall, which was discovered by the then assistant county commission -- Assistant County Manager Argot. And he said that that was the net -- need for the gasoline tax to cover this nine million dollar shortfall for road -- for road building and bridges. Now, conveniently he found an error back in November of '93, and it was on Carl Loveday's program, and he only found an error -- loss -- pardon me, a shortfall of two million dollars. But the gas tax was enacted. So I feel that now there should be a -- should be a surplus somewhere along the line in that gasoline tax, which is going to sunset in ten years. The other item in the newspaper concerned -- concerns Betty Matthews, which the Board of County Commissioners on June 3rd made a recommendation that they -- they authorized a settlement in the case of Collier County versus Betty J. Matthews. And in other words, the board authorized the -- to settle the lawsuit, authorized the county attorney to settle a lawsuit with her for $1,600, $1,600. The lawsuit hasn't been settled yet, because Betty Matthews hasn't replied yet or signed any papers to settle the suit. But the Naples Daily News on June 3rd said Collier settles lawsuit with Matthews. There's another total inaccuracy in the newspaper, in our Naples Daily News. I call it the mullet wrapper. But that's the only reason for my being up here today. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, is there any settlement yet in that lawsuit? MR. WEIGEL: No, there is not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was erroneous. The way it was written, it looked like the lawsuit was over $400. No, the lawsuit was over the entire $1,600 or more amount. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two thousand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It was refused to be paid. It wasn't over 400 bucks, it was over a couple thousand dollars, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it failed to report that she had also countersued asking for more money, which was some 500 plus dollars in addition. So that -- they didn't print all of the story. MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where's Paul Harvey when you need him? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The rest of the story. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Page two. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other comments -- or public comments? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other comments under this section, Madam Chairman. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 98-58, RE PETITION PUD-96-14(1), DONALD W. ARNOLD OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING SUNCO BUILDING CORPORATION REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE "ISLAND WALK" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), ORDINANCE 97-6, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE HILE EAST OF 1-75 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We'll move on then to the advertised public hearing section, our first item is 12(B)(1). Petition PUD-96-14(1), Mr. Arnold representing SUNCO Building Corporation, requesting an amendment to Island Walk PUD. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Madam Chairman, since this is a quasi judicial public hearing, please, we need to swear in the public speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, all individuals wishing to speak to this item, please rise and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any commissioners have any disclosure on this item? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I have had some discussion outside of the forum, but will render my decision consistent with statutes of the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have the same disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't believe I've had any contact on this item. Proceed, please. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current planning staff. Petitioner seeks to amend the Island Walk PUD to clarify language in table one of the development standards. And I have a graphic here for the video visualizer, and I can put it on here and see if we can go into more details of what the basic changes are. It basically clarifies the purpose of the town home development type by modifying the general note to allow common architectural theme. There's also -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, we're not getting anything. Is there a power switch or a video switch on that? MR. BELLOWS: Light's on, everything's working. There it goes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There it is. Got to hit your button on your screen. Up here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it wasn't up there either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I mean now. Yours is right. I was telling Barb. MR. BELLOWS: The first change is to the town home. Minimum site area. It's now 2,000 square feet instead of 2,500. The other changes are to the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 2,200 instead of 2,500, right? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And the other changes are to the setbacks for the side yard and the rear yard accessory for the town home. We added notes eight and nine, and then for the two-family the setbacks have been reduced from seven and a half to five feet. And then at the end is common architectural features for archways, arbors and courtyards. It's -- they're very minor. Staff has no objection to these. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had to kind of twist Mr. Reynolds' arm to get what we were asking for with the roofs when we went through this the first time. They're not changing anything with that, correct? MR. BELLOWS: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Wish we could get them to do something on the Village Walk project about the roofs after the fact. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A little late. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have any units or commitments been made in this project to property owners? In other words, has any property been sold inside the project, to your knowledge? MR. BELLOWS: Not to my knowledge. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we ask that question? MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Arnold -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why don't we ask the petitioner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure that there have been -- in other words, we're not changing the rules that will impact somebody who's already bought in the community. MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. This project, the town home development standards and the two-family development standard alterations are not going to affect units that have been sold. They're under construction in terms of model sales center. The tract O portion of the project, which is just west of the Logan Boulevard extension, will be the location featuring the town home product type. So that product has not been sold. All these modifications are internal only and will not affect the products that have been sold. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions? Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Arnold was the only one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll -- if there's no further questions, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move approval of 96-14(1). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: petition PUD-96-14(1). All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Second. We have a motion and a second to approve Hotion carries five-zero. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 98-59, RE PETITION PUD-91-2-(1), WILLIAM R. VINES, OF VINES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING ROBERT S. HARDY, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD, HAVING THE EFFECT OF AMENDING THE NORTHBROOKE PLAZA PUD AND MASTER PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF 1-75 AND NAPLES-IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), CONTAINING 43 ACRES, MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Item 12(B)(2), petition number PUD-91-2-(1). This is a -- requesting a fezone from a PUD to a PUD, having the effect of amending the Northbrooke Plaza PUD. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, you -- I know we have swear-in, but you remember, this is something we discussed a couple of weeks ago, so '- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's not a new fezone. MR. NINO: Again -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Again, this is a quasi judicial meeting -- hearing, and we need to swear in anyone who wishes -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right -- MR. NINO: -- to address the board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- all individuals wishing to speak to this particular item, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino. The petition that's before you is one that you dealt with on April the 28th, 1998. A number of amendments were made to that petition to the PUD which we were not able to accomplish in a timely manner for purposes of conveying the document to the secretary of state. Consequently, the matter is before you as a new hearing, new consideration. I might say that the executive summary identifies those changes that you directed on April the 28th, and I can assure you that the PUD document that you have in your possession contains all of those changes that you directed. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I sat down with this, because you remember we were unhappy with the lack of specificity, and we were trying to craft things in that hearing. And again, I think I learned something that day from that point forward, is just to say this isn't in the form we want it, here are the issues, go fix them and come back. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And since we didn't do that, I've reviewed this, and the only change is that hotel/motel would be allowed at four stories, but only if an assisted living facility is built adjacent to it. You may remember the concern for the single family on -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the far side? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're actually proposing an assisted living facility which is in fact compatible with single family. We have it elsewhere in the county. So that's the only change. Everything else is just as it was intended in that public hearing. But I have gone through it kind of item by item with the record to make sure that nothing was left out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just for -- since it's quasi judicial, I don't have any -- I haven't had any meetings with anybody on this. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have not had any direct contact with anyone on this. And in any case, will make my decision based on the information here in this hearing today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That is the same disclosure that I have. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't believe we're -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You don't have to. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- required to disclose nondisclosure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with Mr. Nino and with the petitioner as we went through the individual elements to make sure nothing was left out, and in fact, I can -- you know, again, I'm disclosing that. But I also want to point out that one of our concerns was enough neighborhood commercial there so that we can have a shopping center. This actually increases the acreage for that type of retail commercial over what was the decision that day. That is the other change, but it's one that I think is better for the neighborhood and the surrounding properties than even what we had discussed that day. So I -- my recollection is that is the second -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That neighborhood commercial can be internally accessed? MR. NINO: It would be internally accessed from Northbrooke Drive. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, we're not dumping them out onto -- MR. NINO: Immokalee Road. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Immokalee Road. MR. NINO: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. I just don't want to do that wrong again. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: On the gasoline service station, it says four acres, not to exceed four acres. What does that -- how many service stations would that allow? MR. NINO: Well, that could be two service stations. However, they will have to comply with whatever you adopt tomorrow in terms of siting requirements. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's clear that even though it's not adopted until tomorrow, Mr. Weigel, that they'll have to comply with that? MR. WEIGEL: I'm sorry, could you repeat that question? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's a permitted service station use in this PUD, and tomorrow night is when we finish our LDC amendments and we have the gas station criteria, siting criteria and otherwise. Do we need to put anything in this PUD to be sure that they have to comply with those criteria as they are adopted tomorrow? MR. WEIGEL: If the intention -- if the intention is that they apply -- that they comply with the criteria to be adopted tomorrow, the record should reflect it here, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we need that included in a motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And probably even need the petitioner's consent. MR. NINO: Hay I point out that with all PUD's there is boilerplate language that says in the event the issue is not addressed specifically, provisions of the Land Development Code are automatically applicable. But if you feel more comfortable with a specific reference, I'm sure -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What we're in fact trying to do is limit it to one gas station. Can we get a commitment from the petitioner that that's acceptable? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With the landscaping and other siting requirements that are going to be -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I'm sorry, I was trying to be -- MR. HARDY: I don't think that it would -- THE REPORTER: Sir, I need your name and I need for you to be on the microphone, please. MR. HARDY: I'm Robert Hardy, the petitioner, for RSH of Naples. It was my intention that there would probably be two stations in a development that size and in an area of that nature. It's not only a highway area, but it's also a -- there's a lot of rooftops in the area, and I think a little bit of competition will be good for everybody involved. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If we adopt some -- would you agree to comply with whatever standards are adopted tomorrow night? MR. HARDY: That's of course in -- the PUD document calls for that. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because they -- the standards that we're considering for adoption tomorrow night limit how close gas stations can be to each other. And would probably effectively limit you to One. MR. HARDY: How far is that standard, has anybody got any idea? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Five hundred feet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Five hundred feet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Five hundred feet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not so sure with the boilerplate language that Mr. Nino referred to that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think so. You know? It wouldn't get us there. No? Well, ask your lawyer. Sorry. Need some advice from Mr. Weigel then, because what we're looking for is that in these intersections, the proliferation of a gas station at some locations has caused problems for the adjacent community, and just the visual impact of having several gas stations. So we are considering and will be adopting standards tomorrow night that apply to all gas stations in interchange activity centers. So the question is, Mr. Weigel, whether the petitioner today agrees to comply with those standards or not, once we adopt them, based on the language in the PUD as it reads today, can -- do they apply? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think that what will apply is what you approve in this PUD ordinance today. And it will take into account the LDC requirements that exist today. If he -- if the petitioner does not volunteer on the record to adopt that which may be approved tomorrow evening, you certainly don't have that agreement with the petitioner, but I do not believe that ipso facto that what may or may not occur tomorrow evening is going to apply to what the board approves today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask then, if we approve a PUD with a commercial component that made no mention of architectural standards, yet we adopted architectural standards in the Land Development Code afterwards, we apply those as a rule today. Why is this any different? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I thought that with this one, if -- I could be reading this wrong by looking at the executive summary, but with what it seems to provide with specificity for gasoline service stations, that you may be limited there. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, I've made this argument when I was on the outside. As a lawyer, you argue to the extent something is addressed. If I mention gas stations in my PUD's, if there's a criteria in my PUD that allows -- can be interpreted to allow two gas stations, you can't enforce tomorrow night's restrictions against me to allow only one gas station. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But it remains silent on the number. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But it could be interpreted to allow two by virtue of the acreage, et cetera. And I just -- for my vote, I'll just go ahead and put on the record, it's going to have to comply with the -- for specificity, we could say with the standards that are currently in the draft of the LDC amendment ordinance with regard to gas stations, and we should attach those, incorporate them into the PUD. MR. WEIGEL: What I was attempting to say in my very first response to your question was, is that the board's approval today should be as specific as it wishes to be for any particular element, such as the gas stations. If you -- if the board collectively determines to address it with some specificity as to limitation of number, and not rely on a general standard that may be approved tomorrow evening. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So my suggestion was incorporate the standards, or we can continue it for a week and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, now, I have a question. This is what has come before us. Rather than us sitting up here changing it, I thought we either voted it up or vote it down -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we either -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and send it back with a recommendation that they've got to take a look at that particular item. Now, I know that puts it off, but, you know, this is what's been presented to us. Do we sit up here and tinker with it? I -- that's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And when we initially looked at this PUD, I think we tinkered in excess. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But in this case where we're talking about a single point -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of whether there is one gas station or two -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the landscaping associated -- you know, the site development requirements for. MR. NINO: May I try to assist you? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. MR. NINO: To accomplish your goal, irrespective of what Mr. Hardy indicated in terms of his consent, what you might consider doing is providing under item one on page 51 of the PUD automobile service stations pursuant to section 2.6.28, which will be the new regulations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's the point, Ron. That's what our lawyer just told us won't work. MR. NINO: No, we're saying in the PUD. Automobile service stations -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it doesn't exist today. MR. NINO: -- subject to. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can't impose a law that doesn't exist today, Ron. MR. NINO: No, no, 2 -- I'm sorry, section 2.6.28 exists today. It's going to be amended. MR. WEIGEL: Correct. And what my statement was, Ron, was that the board cannot contemplate what may or may not be tomorrow's amendment or some other time in the future. But they have to take that law or that application or that particular regulation number as it exists today, if they're going to refer to it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: People get the law on the day of their PUD. I mean, today is the day that Mr. Hardy's law will be if we incorporate the current law. What I would ask Mr. Hardy one more time is would you consider consenting to those revisions? It's a 500 foot separation criteria and some very specific design and landscaping -- I think when other -- other site development kinds of standards that we're adopting county-wide for gas stations. MR. HARDY: I'm not sure. The distances in this property standing here right now, I have no objection to landscape standards, but to say whether there should be one or two service stations in a project of that size without knowing the dimensions of it, it may well be that the dimensions fit with this thing. It may very well be that they're close and don't. This has been a PUD that was approved many years ago. We've just improved the PUD from everybody's point of view. And to prohibit something at the eleventh hour seems a little bit unreasonable. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm just not going to be able to support it for my vote without that change. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't very well be sitting 24 hours or less than 24 hours from a change that we have been working on for how long ago, over a year -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Easily. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and to say that this property -- that shouldn't apply to this property simply because it had existing zoning or has made some changes, so I need those things incorporated. You may very well have 500 feet separation and be allowed to have two gas stations on your property. I don't know. I don't know your frontage there. MR. HARDY: Well, if your intention is to impose them retroactively, which I think Ron Nino has said so, if that's the case, it doesn't make a particle of difference whether it's included or not. So if that is the case, if what Ron's saying is correct, then it matters not to me. If it says that this PUD is subject to the then current regulations when you apply for a permit, which I think is what it says, notwithstanding what anybody else says, I think we'd have an awful time getting a building permit for something that's contrary to the then existing codes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, quite simply, if Mr. Hardy agrees to that and it doesn't already say that, we can make it say that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. But at the time -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it already does, but if you're comfortable with that, we can word it that way and that gets us to where we're all trying to go. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It does. MR. HARDY: It can refer to it being in compliance with the then existing codes when the building permit's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the time of building permit issuance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That will work. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If we can get that verbiage in there, then I think we're fine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Frankly, I thought that's the way they all worked. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we need to be more clear on that in the future, because Commissioner Hac'Kie raised a good question. If you know it only takes roughly an acre to build a gas station, yet you're allowing four acres for gas station, it could be inferred that up to four gas stations may be allowed. Now, that's an inference and it's a logical jump, but -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But lawyers have been made to make sure arguments. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. So -- but Mr. Hardy's agreed to language that says that at the time of building permit issuance, gas stations will be subject to -- and we'll have the code -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The then existing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- section cited by Mr. Nino. Then that solves the problem. MR. HARDY: If you put 400 feet in there, it would be nice. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, no, no, can't do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nice parting shot there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do any of the commissioners have any other questions? Then I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'm going to move approval of PUD-91-2(1) as presented today, with the one additional change, that it be stipulated specifically in the PUD that for gasoline stations as a use at the time of building permit issuance, they must comply with section -- MR. NINO: 2.6.28. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- 2.6.28 of the Land Development Code. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: As it is then amended. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As it is then amended, correct. As amended. So whatever it says at the time of building permit issuance, they must comply with that section of the Land -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Development Code. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Real improvements to this PUD as far as the community in general, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I personally think in the future, when we see the general bubble diagrams, we ought to just kick those out. We need more specificity in PUD's to understand the relationships, the land uses, and we may want to look at formalizing that policy through our Land Development Code with our planning staff, because right now our example is a big fat bubble diagram. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Good thought. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So something we may want to consider working on. Item #1283 ORDINANCE 98-60, RE PETITION PUD-88-10(1), ROBERT L. DUANE, AICP, OF HOLE, HONTES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING NATIONAL HEALTH CARE, L.P., FOR A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD", PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BUT HAVING THE EFFECT OF AMENDING THE SURREY PLACE PUD AND UPDATING THE PUD TO CURRENT LDC REFERENCES AND CONDITIONS FOR PROPERYT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846), ONE HALF (1/2) MILE WEST OF AIRPORT ROAD (C.R. 31), CONTAINING 12.3 ACRES MORE OR LESS - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving on to item 12(B)(3), petition number PUD-88-10 (1). This is the National Health Care L.P. for a fezone from PUD to PUD. This is the amending of the Surrey Place PUD to provide provisions limiting the congregate care housing facilities, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had a brief conversation with the petitioner in this regard, with his lawyer. MR. NINO: Again, the matter before you is of a quasi judicial nature, and we'll need to swear in witnesses. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, all persons wishing to speak to this item, rise and be sworn in by our court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any disclosures? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I've had some outside contact on this particular item, but I will base my decision on the hearing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyone else? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I may have. I don't recall it specifically, but in order to cover all those bases, I'll disclose that I might have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I may have, but I don't remember. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did meet with the petitioner on this, and have -- I think I had one phone call from the resident back there and talked with them about it, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, very good. Mr. Nine? MR. NINO: Yes, Ren Nine for the record. The petition that's before you would ask that you amend by replacing the Surrey Place PUD with a new PUD. The purpose of which is to remove the current requirements of the PUD that limit congregate care housing to 120 skilled nursing units and 60 ALF units, and simply requiring that the current provisions of the Land Development Code, as it relates to the intensity of use for congregate care housing, is determined by a floor area ratio factor of 0.45. This petition -- that would allow them, quite frankly -- that would allow them to build more ALF facilities than nursing care facilities, which is the intended statement of their traffic impact statement. Currently there are 60 nursing care facilities and 22 ALF facilities, and it's the -- it's the -- that would leave them with 38 ALF facilities out of the allowable number of ALF facilities. And it is their intention to build more ALF facilities as opposed to nursing care facilities. The petition would also change the height that is currently allowed on tract A from a height of 45 feet to a height of 35 feet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a good thing. MR. NINO: And a new introduction would be a provision that would allow the petitioner to have accessory office space and specialty office space, specialty medical office space. The staff report was written in a manner that suggested that they were requesting more office space than we were prepared to support. I'm pleased to advise you that the Planning Commission, in reviewing the petition, agreed with the reductions that staff recommended, and the petition of the PUD document that is before you actually reflects those reductions that were recommended by the Planning Commission to 3,000 square feet of office space and 2,500 square feet of specialty medical space, namely geriatric care. I think it's important to appreciate the current PUD allows an expansion on tract A. Technically, the expansion in terms of the amount of area they would cover could be as large as is proposed or what could be achieved under this amendment. The only difference is that we're removing the distribution that is currently in the document of 120 nursing and 60 ALF, and going silent with that issue. But in terms of building intensity, this amendment does not necessarily imply that there'll be more building space on this property. It simply addresses how they could use tract A. I think that's important. I might point out that no one objected to this petition. The developer has proposed 100 percent opacity screen along Vilsand and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bethany. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's Bethany. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Bethany Place. MR. NINO: -- Vilsand and Bethany Place, thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome. MR. NINO: And Planning Commission were unanimous in their support. Again, there was no objection to the petition, and we recommend its approval as presented in your agenda package. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, to clarify my earlier somewhat vague disclosure, I do recall speaking with the petitioner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I was thinking about that the more we got into it. Okay, any questions from the commissioners -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- for the petitioners? Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- I have a request for the petitioner, petitioner's representative or someone. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Madam Chairman, commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson, on behalf of this property owner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Anderson, current PUD allows for 180 units; is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: I believe that's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 120 nursing and 60 ALF? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many units will you have under this new proposal? I don't believe that's specified here. MR. ANDERSON: We do not know how many we will wind up with. Approximately a year ago you amended the Land Development Code to remove the reference to specified number of units and went with what was called a floor area ratio that is -- ties the property that you're building on to the size of the building that you can have. And my recollection was that was done because these type of facilities don't fit neatly into the normal density calculations because they have so much less impact on the community infrastructure. So I cannot tell you with any certainty how many units we will wind up with. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you approximate it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because based on a floor area ratio, can't you just kind of extrapolate it from the available property? MR. ANDERSON: No. No, not really, because one of the reasons that we're in for this amendment is so that this facility can be competitive with the other new ALF's that are opening in the community, and, depending on what the market dictates, one of the reasons that we want to go this way is so we can have larger sized units. Because that's the current demand. Now, the pendulum may swing again in another five years, and we may wind up with going back to smaller units. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're looking to play by the same rules the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- newer ones are playing by? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Makes sense. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have a question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. What assurance do we have that these are not condos? I mean, you know, you're not just building larger units and selling them to people? What is the guarantee to this board that this is in fact an assisted living facility as opposed to a project we saw some years ago that was nothing short of a condo project under an ALF banner? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Was that on Marco? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, it was. MR. ANDERSON: Because this PUD that you're approving does not authorize multi-family uses. If they try to sell these out, I'd send the code enforcement inspector out to visit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: One thing I did want to add here, this is a landscaping plan that we will attach to the PUD. We met with neighboring residents. This is something we're committing to, and I just want to make that part of the record. Mr. Nino has a copy of that, and we will be making that. The commitment is that that landscaping will be installed within 90 days of the date of approval of this PUD amendment, and by the time that a certificate of occupancy is issued for the improvements, these plantings will have been required to reach a height of eight feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that, because the folks back there are getting squeezed in a little bit by the existing commercial zoning out there. And so I appreciate the effort you made on their behalf. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? Any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am, we have a number. The first two are Duval Evans and Bruce Siciliano. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you sure you got the right item? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the next item, I'm sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, we're on -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: 12 (B) (3) . MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry, no speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers on this one? MR. FERNANDEZ: My mistake. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there's no further questions from the commissioners, I'll close the public hearing, entertain a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: PUD-88-10(1). All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: much. We have a motion and a second to approve Hotion carries five-zero. Thank you very Item #12B4 ORDINANCE 98-61, RE PETITION PUD-97-17, MR. BRUCE SICILIANO, AICP, AND DUDLEY GOODLETTE, REPRESENTING AMERADA HESS CORPORATION AND GARRETT F.X. BEYRENT AND TERYL BREZSKI, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "E" ESTATES TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS THE PINE RIDGE CORNERS PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND WEST OF 1-75 - ADOPTED W/CONDITIONS Next item is 12(B)(4), petition PUD-97-17. This has to do with the Amerada Hess Corporation requesting a fezone from Estates to PUD to be known as Pine Ridge Corners PUD. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Since this is a quasi judicial hearing, we need to swear in those wishing to speak. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would all persons wishing to speak to this item please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any disclosure on this item? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, I met with Mr. Goodlette and representatives of Hess in his offices. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have the same disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Same disclosure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I met with representatives of Hess and with -- have spoken with some of the area residents as well. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with Mr. Goodlette and members of the entire team for Hess here in the conference room. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Before I start my presentation, I'd like to hand out the latest and greatest revised PUD document as a result of the Planning Commission hearing. The petitioner is requesting to fezone certain property zoned estates to the planned unit development district. I have a map here for the video visualizers showing the location of the site. It's on the north side of Pine Ridge Road and west of Interstate 95 -- 1-75. The subject -- I feel like Captain Video, I can't get it to go COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Apparently, Ray, you don't have the touch. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There's a button you've got to press somewhere. MR. BELLOWS: One is pressed -- there it goes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There it goes. MR. BELLOWS: As you can see, it's adjacent to the recently approved Cleason PUD. The PUD master plan provides for three land use parcels or tracts on the PUD. The first one, tract A, basically is a landscape buffer area to provide a transition from -- between the commercial uses and the residential areas to the north. I have the master plan here, if Ron can get that into focus for me. It basically shows the three development tracts, A, B and C. A is to the north. It separates the residential district from the PUD and the commercial uses in tract B and C. The uses in tract B are limited to hotels, motels, miscellaneous retail groups, drug stores, florists, banks, professional services, beauty shops, medical, professional groups, sit-down restaurants. Building heights in this tract are limited to 35 feet and are required to set back a minimum of 90 feet from Livingston Woods Lane. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Explain that setback to me. Does that -- is that setback strictly for the buildings, is there still parking allowed in there? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, there would still be parking allowed. And the petitioner has some -- a video that shows the graphics and the landscaping. I also have some graphics to show that demonstrates this landscape buffer a little better. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the distance to where the pavement would or could start? MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's an eight-foot high wall separating the two, but I believe it's from the property line 90 feet back. So there might be an additional from the edge of road, not counting the right-of-way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You mean pavement internally on the property from the external property line, right, from -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, if you're on the Livingston Woods Lane, and there's -- when you get there, there's a little easement or right-of-way, there's a sidewalk, they're putting some landscaping in, they're putting a wall in, and then immediately on the other side of that wall do you hit parking lot? MR. BELLOWS: No. There's -- on the other side of the wall is tract A, which is a landscape buffer. And I have a video that -- or a picture here that will show the -- yeah, it's a stormwater management area. This is the wall. As you see, it's an eight foot high wall, and there's vegetation on the north side of the wall facing the residential district. As can you see in the graphic, there's a -- Livingston Wood Lane that passes in front, a wall to the back. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay, let's say you and I scamper across Livingston Lane and through the shrubberies and we jump over the tree -- I mean, over the wall. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One, you'll be arrested for trespassing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. What do I hit when I jump over the wall? Is that the -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's a 20-foot buffer and an eight-foot wall. Then there's tract A, which is stormwater management area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On the petitioner's side of the wall __ MR. BELLOWS: Yes, 20-foot buffer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there is a 20-foot buffer, and then there's the stormwater? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- MR. BELLOWS: And then tract B and the setbacks from tract B. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have a visual, or will -- Dudley, we have a visual? Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: In tract C, there are more intensive uses, and they are limited to the tract closest to Pine Ridge Road, which is a principal arterial road. This includes gasoline service stations, car wash, convenient store, fast food restaurant, auto supply stores; all uses in area B are permitted. The PUD document prohibits loudspeakers and provides for increased landscaping on Pine Ridge Road. Again, the petitioner has a video and some additional graphics to show this landscape buffer that they are intending to help mitigate the -- offset the impacts of the gasoline service station, and to comply with the language for separation, location of gasoline service stations that you'll be hearing tomorrow. Now, there are currently three gasoline service stations in this activity center. The first one is the Mobil station, and that's in the northeast corner of the activity center up here. It's next to the Vineyards. And there are two south in the Southerland PUD, a Shell and a Chevron station. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many of them are approved? MR. BELLOWS: There were others that were approved. Two of them have been removed from the Pine Ridge Center West PUD. There's one approved in the north quadrant as part of the Angileri PUD. Right there. That is approved for gasoline service stations. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are a total of five that are either built or approved to be built, aren't there? MR. BELLOWS: There's three approved. The one approved -- so four. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you sure on that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the other ones have been removed. The Naples Gateway was also approved for a gasoline service station, and that was deleted through PUD sunsetting. And the two, as part of the Pine Ridge Center West and Pine Ridge Center were deleted as part of sunsetting. So we have three plus the one approved for the Angileri. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What was known as the Race Trac site -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- is the only main -- MR. BELLOWS: That's the only -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- gas station that can be built today -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in this activity center? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. Staff had requested a market study be submitted that indicated an additional need for an additional gasoline service station, and they have a representative here to discuss the results of that survey. But generally that market study indicates that this activity center can support two additional gasoline service stations, plus the three that are approved and the additional one for the Angileri. Based on staff's review and analysis of the compatibility with adjacent land uses, we tried to tailor these development standards in this PUD to be exactly the same as the development standards that were approved for the Cleason PUD, which is abutting to the east, and the Angileri PUD to the west. So basically this PUD mirrors those other two approved PUD's and uses, and then development standards, setback requirements. And those are iljustrated in the staff report. But I compared those three projects for you. The traffic impact statement indicates that the project will not impact the level of service on Pine Ridge Road; therefore, it's consistent with the traffic circulation policies. The Collier County Planning Commission reviewed this petition during their meeting on June 4th, and they recommended approval by a seven to zero vote. Plus, subject to a stipulation that the ground sign be limited to 60 square feet in size. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, just to make sure. Naples Gateway PUD no longer has a fueling station allowed -- MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- is that correct? There's no activity on the B item, the one just to the west of Angileri? That doesn't have anything approved right now? MR. BELLOWS: Not right now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And Cleason we said no to. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cleason has a no. And one on the south side we just said no to, correct? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pine Ridge Center? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Remove that. And then nothing over in Astron Plaza or any that allows for it? MR. BELLOWS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. Then we approved that medical office which -- MR. BELLOWS: That's being developed as an office. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Pena? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you help me with the -- Mr. Kant had given me a memo on this, but I still had a couple of questions like the length, the distance from the exit ramp of 1-75 to the proposed turn lane into this PUD. One, I'm looking for the distance, and two, I'm looking to make sure that that meets federal, state and local standards, because all three are tied in on this roadway. MR. KANT: Good morning, commissioners, Edward Kant, transportation services director. The dis -- depending upon how it's measured, the distance is from approximately 700 to 1,000 feet from the corner of this property to the off ramp. What Mr. Bellows was just pointing to, I'm talking about that would be the southeast corner of this property to the off ramp. There is a limited access line which essentially constrains any access to about eight feet of this property's frontage. He's got 300 and some feet. Does that answer your question, Commissioner? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not completely. Does -- it does partially. Does the proposed turn lane meet with the federal requirements as you get off the interstate? MR. KANT: The requirements -- that's a difficult question to answer, because there are no, quote, federal requirements. There are design requirements for putting in a turn lane. He would require about 300 and some feet, so there would still be about 300 and some feet separating the off ramp from the turn lane. He would be subject to an FDOT permit, because he would be asking to work within that right-of-way limit. He'd also be subject to a county permit for that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you comfortable, from a safety standpoint, with that one? MR. KANT: At this point, yes. One of the things that we're going to be doing is when Pine Ridge Road is six-laned, one of the constraints that's going to be added in that particular area is that the median opening which presently exists, which serves the south side of the road, the so-called Southerland PUD, that median opening is planned to be closed, and that's going to alleviate quite a bit of the crossing traffic movements. In addition to which, as this area develops, the next opportunity for a traffic signal is going to be at the intersection of Pine Ridge and Whippoorwill. So that that will serve also as a second -- well, not as a second, it does now, but it will then become the primary access for the Southerland PUD. So that we're going to be moving some of that traffic away from that intersection. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. KANT: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for Mr. Bellows. What's the separation from the subject property over to the Angileri PUD? What's that distance? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's a distance of one tract. And the tract width, I believe, is -- let's see, 300 feet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you're going where I think you're going -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's where I'm going. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- my question becomes -- we just asked Mr. Hardy to comply with a law that we're going to approve tomorrow. It's something that we've been working on for months and months and months. Why are we -- why wouldn't we ask these folks to do the same thing? MR. BELLOWS: It's the same situation. We are -- the petitioner has agreed to tailor as much as possible the gas station to meet those requirements. And if in fact that is approved tomorrow, they will be subject to those conditions. The same language that Mr. -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Similarly '- MR. BELLOWS: -- Nino -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The question being, if it's less than 500 feet. And maybe that's -- I keep looking back here for you. And maybe that's for the petitioner to answer. But if that's going to be less than or if that's going to be contrary to what's being proposed, just having asked someone else to do that 20 minutes ago, how do you propose we deal with that situation? Maybe it's going to be separated that much anyway, I don't know. MR. NINO: Let me answer that. In the current draft which you will again look at tomorrow, there is a provision in that draft that says at the time of a PUD request, with specific requirements built into the PUD, you may approve a gas station that doesn't meet the spacing criteria. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So while we may also be able to do that for Hr. Hardy, since we've made him subject to -- MR. NINO: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- you know, likewise. I just want to treat them exactly the same. MR. NINO: They would submit a -- much like the Angileri PUD did, and much like this current petitioner is doing, they're laying out their entire development program up front. And if you're impressed enough with that, it may justify consideration of the 500 with spacing, which is basically what the amendment purports. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, we don't have our proposed LDC amendments in front of us here today, but that contemplates that spacing has measured from the nearest two points of property line, do they not? MR. NINO: That's correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions from commissioners? Do we have speakers on this item, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, you have eight speakers. First one is Duval Evans. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let the petitioners speak. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to hear from the petitioners? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We usually do. MR. GOODLETTE: I'm sorry. Madam Chairman? Dudley Goodlette, with the law firm of Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, representing the petitioner in this matter, which is Amerada Hess Corporation. I'd like to -- the folks who stood up and who were sworn by the court reporter earlier, I'd like to introduce them to you, just to let you know who would be participating in the presentation this morning. Mr. Reed Cook, with Amerada Hess Corporation, to answer any operational type questions. Mr. Bruce Siciliano, who's the chief planner, and Mr. Dan Brundage, the engineer with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. Geri Fitapelli, who is an appraiser with Armalavage and Associates, who will be making the presentation regarding the market study. Rey Pezeshkan, who is an architect with the firm of Architectural Networks, will be talking about the design and -- of the project. And Christian -- Kristen Petty, who is an architec -- a landscape architect with the firm of Stephen Trudnak and Associates, will be reviewing the landscape plan in some detail. We appreciated Mr. Bellows and their staffs' recommendation of approval. To answer your specific question at the outset, Commissioner Constantine, the spacing from the -- what would be the northerly property line, which is the wall, as I understood the question, the stormwater management and open space area is 50 feet before you would -- you could have any parking which would occur on area B, or any pavement. Now, it may not be right up to that, but it would be no less than 50 feet -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. GOODLETTE: -- to answer your question. In addition, the Planning Commission, after our presentation to them on the 4th of June, rec -- unanimously recommended approval of this project. As each of you indicated in conjunction with this quasi judicial proceeding, we have had an opportunity to meet with you, to explain to you in some detail what this project itself entails, to also review with you the period of time that we, Amerada Hess -- and Mr. Beyrent, whom I also should have mentioned is in the audience, who is the owner of the property. Amerada Hess has a contract to purchase a portion of this property. This has been on the drawing board, if you will, for well over a year. And so to address your second question that was raised with respect to the LDC amendments that you considered a couple of weeks ago and you will be finalizing tomorrow evening, no, there's no way that we can actually move this property so that it's more than 330 feet from the Angileri PUD that was previously approved. So if we were constrained by the proposed LDC amendments, all of the work that we've been about for the last over a year period of time -- and of course the 500 feet spacing requirement is relatively new, and that's why we believe that it would not be appropriate under the circumstances. And after you've had an opportunity to review what we're prepared to present to you this morning, to consider not requiring that this 500 foot spacing requirement be met with respect to the project before you today. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Goodlette, can I interrupt you? MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because if that were the only option today, I have a lot of trouble with that. In fact, the option that will continue to be available to this board after we adopt the new code tomorrow night will be that even if a property does not meet the 500 foot separation, there can be conditions under which we can consider an exception. And based on what I saw in your office on the landscaping and the other changes, you know, that you're proposing, I think this is one that's worthy of that kind of consideration. But not because it's here the day before. That kind of consideration will also be available. MR. GOODLETTE: That's fine, whatever rationale. But I want you to know that we've been about this project for a good period of time, and to just be -- to have to deal only with that issue at this moment in time would make this otherwise prohibited. But we do believe that there are compelling reasons why those -- why that 500 foot spacing requirement should not be a requirement in conjunction with this project. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, to put your mind at ease, that won't be the only issue. I do have one other, and I had asked you this in the presentation you'd made to me privately, and would ask for some help again today. We have in the past few months turned down some requests to include fueling stations because of what was certainly perceived to be a saturation in that area. I have particular interest in your market study and some of the details with that, and maybe you can help me out there understanding if there is indeed a need for more. MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, and Ms. Fitapelli will cover that in some detail during her -- during her presentation. I just want to make one other comment sort of by way of introduction, then I'm going to ask Mr. Siciliano, who is the project planner, to review a summary of that, and then he in turn will be followed by the other participants in this presentation. But the other thing is, Commissioner Constantine, and I think it's an issue that we discussed specifically with you, is -- and we have been very -- and this applicant has been very sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors in Livingston Wood Village, which is the residential neighborhood to the north of this project. We have met with representatives of that neighborhood. I believe that you indicated you had spoken with them, so you may correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that they either approve of this project or have no objection to this project, based upon our discussions with them. If I'm incorrect in that -- I know that I've talked to Ms. Yoak about that and other neighbors, and I believe that they're satisfied that the proposed use for this particular parcel, with all of the attention that has been -- that this developer and applicant has given to the aesthetics and the landscaping and the setbacks merit your consideration and hopefully your approval this morning. With that, I'll ask Mr. Siciliano to review and summarize the project, and then the other participants as well. Thank you. Any other questions, Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. Have you-all seen this presentation? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we going to have the full video version today? MR. SICILIANO: Yes. Good morning. For the record, my name is Bruce Siciliano. I'm the project planner here on behalf of the property owner and Amerada Hess. Yes, we have the video. I'm going to try to be very brief, kind of hit some highlights and introduce I think the other -- the other presenters, because I think they'll kind of get into everybody's issues from a market and aesthetics standpoint. First, I'm not going to go back over -- Ray has done a good job, I think, in covering a lot of points. I just would like to touch on a few. One, in reference, as we consider things like the site and its location, that I think it's very important to note that this site, considering both its access, the entrance to the project, when we consider things like spacing to the off ramp, and maybe the -- and even the issue of a gasoline station, this site is centrally located between the ramp and Whippoorwill, and I think contemplating down the road that circulation for the entire northwest quadrant will basically consist of a looped -- a looped service road that will basically be right in and right out at the site, and then circle around to Whippoorwill. That will be it to service the intersection. So if you're going to locate a gas station, to me this is the logical spot. If you went back further, you're going to have people trying to find their way to some other location on the site. Additionally, the right in and right out here is going to ease the traffic burden on the Whippoorwill intersection, which we also don't I think want to congest later. In terms of the master plan for this site, essentially it's the same as Cleason, Angileri and Gateway. It has the larger setback in the rear, 90 feet, as opposed to a two and a half, which is Cleason. I think the -- probably the biggest plus or addition to this plan is that we are giving you a PUD document that I think the board has not seen before. We have incorporated into it very specific renderings that were created with the assistance of Architectural Network to literally replicate exactly what's going to be built. Today you will also see -- we have also incorporated a landscape plan that is a very detailed landscape plan, basically commensurate of what we provide you for construction. And we've also -- we'll be showing you 3-D animation at the end of the presentation, which from our perspective is intended to remove any question in anybody's mind about what will be built on the site, the quality and the commitment that this -- that Amerada is trying to commit to you with this project. In our mind, probably that commitment is the foremost I think long-range benefit from this project. Our hope again is that we are also providing to you a model for other projects that will come in at the interchanges, potentially even to help upgrade some of the existing uses on the interchanges -- on the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate you've got a lot of ground to cover here, but maybe we can just stick to the real specific items specific to here and all the yada, yada, yada items you've got to gloss over and move on. We've got a long agenda after this item, too. MR. SICILIANO: Okay. Then at that point, really, that was probably the key point. I would like to then just move on to introduce Geri Fitapelli from Armalavage and Associates to discuss the market study, and we'll introduce the others, Rey Pezeshkan and Kristen Petty after her. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I ask you a question? As much -- MR. SICILIANO: Sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- I mean, having heard this already, is there any question in anybody's mind about the market? Oh, okay, then we need to hear that. MR. SICILIANO: With that, I'll introduce Geri. MS. FITAPELLI: Good morning. I'm Geri Fitapelli with Armalavage and Associates, and we were hired to perform a market study for the subject property to determine if there was additional demand to support additional commercial retail, and with particular attention on gasoline and convenience stores. What we did was primarily two things: We studied each interchange intersection on 1-75 in Lee and Collier County. And what we did was we studied the number of gas stations and convenience stores, the traffic counts at these locations, and the actual quadrant locations of these properties. In addition, we reviewed and analyzed statistical data for gas stations and convenience stores provided by the National Association of Convenience Stores. And I'll just briefly summarize our findings. The subject interstate interchange has the highest traffic count of all the interchange activity center locations in Lee and Collier County. And this will continue to increase, based on county traffic projections, and also because of the Cleveland Clinic, which is under construction right now. We have determined that the market can support additional convenience retail at this location, and that this is a natural location for that type of use. We determined that there will be demand for two additional gas station and convenience stores, in addition to the three existing gas stations at that activity center. The northwest quadrant is the most appropriate location for this type of use, because it will alleviate traffic flow to the south side of the road and will provide services along the north side of the road. And this is actually now the only location where additional gas stations can be located. So in conclusion, the market can support additional commercial and a gas station at this site, and the northwest quadrant is the appropriate location. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you help me with -- you used that phrase twice, we've determined that it can support further. Can you get into some of the nuts and bolts of how you determined that? MS. FITAPELLI: Sure. What we did was first when we studied the individual interchange locations, we counted up the number of gas station and convenience stores. We counted the number of pumps that were actually there; a pump being how many cars can get gas at any one given time. We took the traffic counts, the highest traffic count at that area, and we came up with a ratio of what is the average daily traffic per pump. And we actually found out that it's fairly well consistent. We applied the ratio to the projected annual daily traffic counts for the subject area to see how many more we can support in the future. And it ended up being over eight years, two additional gas stations at that site. Now, to further support that, what we did was we took national statistics from the National Convenience Center information. And what they do is they compile information based on the total gasoline sales, their average gasoline sales per store, and their average convenience retail sales per store per square foot. And what we did was we added up the total square footage of all the convenience stores in the subject area and applied the average rate or the average sales per square rate, which are very reasonable for this county. And what we did was then we determined the ratio there and we forecasted out based on the increase in the traffic how much more we can support, how much sales volume there would be in the future to support additional space, and it actually ended up coming out to about two more stores. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any further questions? Thank you. MS. FITAPELLI: Thank you. MR. SICILIANO: Next we'd like to have Rey Pezeshkan from Architectural Network discuss the architectural features. MR. PEZESHKAN: My name is Rey Pezeshkan, I'm with Architectural Network, Inc. What I'd like to do is show you some photographs that we did. Hess hired us to do pretty much two tasks: One was to take their prototype gas station, and really to deal with the county requirements, and have meetings with staff and so forth to pretty much create a model, to look at the prototype. And what we did, we created a three-dimensional model and took -- in this situation, we took an aerial photograph and presented the three-dimensional model right into the aerial photograph. The other task was pretty much to show you what would -- all the information that we got from Hess on all the other consultants, what the gas station would look like once it's done -- it's going to be built. The first one is an aerial photograph that we did pretty much showing the actual site of the -- the building on the site. The next photograph that we did, pretty much we took the back property line which is Livingston Wood Lane, this incorporated eight-foot wall with a wall cap on top, and pretty much the landscaping that is submitted to the staff, as far as the requirements that we are proposing, and a sidewalk. And this is pretty much a view from the back residential property looking at the privacy wall. The next photograph that we took from the computer animation was really looking at the entrance from the Pine Ridge to the gas station. And in this one, you see pretty much the modified sign. What we did pretty much try to -- bringing some of the element of the food block into the sign and carry it to the buildings and so forth, and the landscaping requirements in front. And you can see some of the -- pretty much as far as the building. Next thing that I did, we -- reviewing with the staff, the building itself, we introduced some mansard roof and the concrete tile roof, which that's not really the prototype Hess uses. It mainly uses metal roofs. And in some cases, they don't really have -- it's flat roofs. And in the canopy area, they're -- pretty much all the columns and so forth are made out of metal, which in this case we tried to introduce the -- some of the masonry through the block from the building to the canopy. This is a shot that we really took from across the street from Pine Ridge, pretty much looking at the proposed Hess gas station, with the landscaping requirements and the mansard roof and the tile roof that you see in the background. This is again the same angle. We just brought it in a little bit closer. And this situation, you pretty much will see the canopy and the building in the back, the foreground. Pretty much right now this is what I have for you. We have I think -- after the landscaping, I think we have animation for you to see. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only question I had was is this -- on those pictures you show the growth. Is that at maturity or at planting, at opening, at CO? MR. PEZESHKAN: I think what -- you can talk with the landscaping. What they are -- what we are proposing here are the heights that are specified on the plans. And I believe Kristen can talk about what they do when they bring them in and so forth. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. I just need someone to answer. I mean -- MR. PEZESHKAN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we can have pretty pictures, and we do every Tuesday, but that's not always what they end up looking like. MR. PEZESHKAN: These pictures were really generated based on a photographing -- existing planting based on the heights and so forth that are required on the plans. MS. PETRY: If I could address you, Commissioner Constantine? What we've done is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your name, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Identify yourself. MS. PETRY: I'm Kristen Petty. I'm with the company Trudnak Landscape Architecture. And we can answer your question by saying yes, the plantings that were shown both on the plan and in the video, and also on the graphics that Rey just showed you, are indicative of what will be planted at the time. What everyone should be aware of, when you plant a new landscape, there is a period of establishment. And typically what that means is that it takes the plants one growing season or one summer to, in the professional term, fluff out. And that means it gives you the width and all that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Technical term. MS. PETRY: But the heights will be there. And at the end of one growing season, we'll have the density and the fluffiness of the leaves that you're looking for. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if this were to be approved, this is scheduled to go under construction when, Gary? In the fall, December, January, something? Three months. So it would be next summer when that would fluff up. MS. PETRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Question on the architecture, Rey. In your design, there was something that is missing that is notorious of gas stations and for Hess it's a big, fat green band on the gas canopy. What I saw was a very narrow trim piece on that canopy. Is that what you are guaranteeing? When we see this representation, is that what is going to be built? MR. PEZESHKAN: Yes. This is what was provided to me by them, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're dealing with the issue of color banding elsewhere in our code right now, and I notice that it was absent here, which I was pleased to see, but I just wanted to make sure I got that on the record that the visual representation we saw is architecturally what is going to be created on-site. MR. PEZESHKAN: On number six, that's what you really see. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, what I saw was a narrow trim band as opposed to the large, wide swath that's on most of them. MR. PEZESHKAN: Right. This is what was provided to us and we reviewed with the staff. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions? MS. PETRY: I guess we're ready for the landscape presentation. And again, I'm Kristen Petty. My company is Trudnak Landscape Architecture. My company was hired to produce the landscape plan for Amerada Hess. The concept behind the landscape design was to create an immediate green image for the property by creating an undulating front buffer that is based on ideas of successful buffering elsewhere in the county, such as places like Pelican Bay, Pelican Marsh. These places use an overall backdrop of green and a stratification of materials, the height provided by the trees, some mid-height and some low with some focal points of color. We also attempted from the start to break up the property so that it didn't appear from the road to be sort of a sea of parking or just a big building there. Also, something that was forefront in our minds from the beginning was to create in the property a quote, unquote, good neighbor. And we did this by providing the beautiful buffer in the front and by working with the wall in the back to create also a stratification of plant materials from high, mid-height to low using just some nice curving landscaped beds, instead of doing the typical lining up of plant materials. So that was our concept. And I think at this point it's important for me to give you just a little quick walk-through of the property to point out some of the specific elements. And if you look over here, this is our planting plan. And here we are at Pine Ridge Road. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, I don't believe your microphone is on. MS. PETRY: Is that better? No? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MS. PETRY: Yes? Okay. Here we are at Pine Ridge Road, and this is the buffer of which I was speaking. What we've done is to create sort of a smart buffer, if you will, which allows views into the site and out of the site at appropriate intervals so that you're allowed glimpses of the building and glimpses of the signage at the building. And it's also providing some nice clumping, naturalistic clumping of plant materials in these areas and some good focal points of color. Overall, we tried to use the native plant pallet, which kind of tries to recreate the visual appearance of our natural Florida landscape instead of doing a lot of exotic plant materials. We've done -- this is our buffer in the rear, using the same principles. Clumping of mature oak trees, as you can see, sable palms and some understory growth with some accents of color. Moving back in this direction, we -- in the beginning of our process of design, we physically moved our building back to allow -- to increase our area of internal landscape here, so that most importantly we could get some sable palms in, particularly on the corners, so that we can begin to blend our building a little bit better into the site. Retention basins that are used as actual site amenities in the summertime, we hope that they'll be a little bit filled with water. We use grasses to ring them and other native plant materials so that it gets that look of a little sort of a lake. We tried to do a beautiful sign composition here to help to bring the sign into context with the overall landscape. We do entries that feature clumping of trees and a good base of understory plant materials with some color at the corners. We do this in both locations. And in general, we just -- we just ring the property with plant materials and try to suffuse the plant materials through the job so that it looks like something that has a green image from the start. So the conclusion I think here that we can take from the proposed planting plan is that it's attempting to be a good neighbor right from the start by providing adequate buffering. Its buffering is quite good, and it's an exceptional planting plan in general, and an exceptional property. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. GOODLETTE: Madam Chairman, I know you have other public speakers. We would like to show the video. I think most but not all of you we have already had a chance to show that to. It won't take but just a couple of minutes, if we may indulge you to do that. Madam Chairman? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it's important, frankly, if we're going to make an exception, and I'm considering making an exception to the rules that we -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I haven't seen the video, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: How long is it? MR. GOODLETTE: I think it -- we should be able to complete this in three to five minutes? MR. PEZESHKAN: Sure. I need to just get into it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Press control, alt., delete to log on. MR. GOODLETTE: Hay Mr. Siciliano cover one thing briefly while they're setting that up, Madam Chairman? MR. SICILIANO: One other point that I forgot to touch on -- Bruce Siciliano again, for the record -- is last week at your public hearing on Land Development Code changes, the issue of wiring gasoline service stations for emergency services -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MR. SICILIANO: -- was raised. We had discussed that issue with Ken Pineau several months ago, and have committed to do that all along. So we just want you-all to know that this station will be wired in that manner. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I hope, just while we're doing this pause for technical difficulties, that that's something we're going to have in the LDC amendments for the gas stations tomorrow night. I don't know who's writing that, but I hope we're going to see that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We talked about it, but did we direct that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's something we need to see the next cycle, then. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can't get it in this one? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not on 24 hours' notice. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, we talked about it a couple weeks ago. HR. PEZESHKAN: If you're ready, we are ready. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go. MR. PEZESHKAN: What we have done is done two animation: One from the Livingston Wood Road -- Lane, which is in the back property, showing the privacy wall. There is yellow marks which starts the property. And it pretty much drive -- is going down the street looking at landscaping and the privacy wall. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So we're on the other side of the property now '- MR. PEZESHKAN: Correct, you're looking -- CONMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- on the residential side? MR. PEZESHKAN: -- pretty much from the -- from the residential section towards the south. The next yellow line that you will see on the monitors is the other side of the property. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the distance between the sidewalk and the wall? MR. PEZESHKAN: I believe -- I don't have the dimensions. Bruce, do you have it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Who's going -- Rey, who's going to keep up this landscaping and the wall and all of that? MR. PEZESHKAN: I think Reed is going to point that out as far as the maintenance and so forth. I think they have a program for it that pretty much shows the end of the property. As far as the -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Somebody answer those questions while we're looking? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can do two things here. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you don't answer them soon, I'll have -- MR. GOODLETTE: Thirty-five feet, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thirty-five feet? MR. GOODLETTE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: From sidewalk to wall? MR. GOODLETTE: Pavement to the -- MR. PEZESHKAN: Pavement to the wall. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pavement, meaning road? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Road pavement or sidewalk pavement? MR. GOODLETTE: We took that measurement from this other drawing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And maintenance, while he's doing that measuring, is the obligation of whom? MR. GOODLETTE: The homeowners and the property owners. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How does this compare with the other PUD's? I mean, this one actually looks perhaps to have more than the other PUD's were required back there. But are you going to -- I need someone from staff up here on this. Are we going to have a hodgepodge back there on Livingston Woods on this? I mean, this is a good hodgepodge if you're going to have one, but are we going to have a hodgepodge back there if we do this? MR. BELLOWS: No, the intent is to have the same -- similar type of wall, same height restrictions of buildings, therefore, and the architectural standards within each PUD should help keep them and the landscaping should help, you know, reduce that hodgepodge. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a real maintenance issue -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One recollection Mr. -- the Angileri PUD, didn't have anywhere near this much landscaping required on the back side of the wall, and I'm just wondering -- I hope everything that ever happens, whether this one does or not, has requirements like this. But I'm just wondering, will there be 300 feet of wonderful landscaping and then nothing and then some sparse landscaping, and then the next guy's comes in six months from now so he has wonderful landscaping again? MR. BELLOWS: Unfortunately, the lot separating Angileri and this one is vacant now. Hopefully when they come in and fezone that, we'll require the same type of landscaping. The Cleason PUD has a well landscaped back wall, so that should be the same. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Cleason PUD is similar to this? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And the Cleason PUD shares the same access point as this one, basically coming through the center of this site and then coming down the western property line to Pine Ridge Road. So you've already approved the access point for the Cleason, and the landscaping would be similar. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Bellows, is there an agreement with the homeowners? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's the question. For maintenance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For maintenance. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the PUD document spells out that maintenance would be for the property owners. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But have they agreed to accept that responsibility? MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe so. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's a biggie. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- did I misunderstand? Did -- the Livingston Woods property owners are going to be expected to maintain that? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I need a commitment that they -- MR. GOODLETTE: I'm sorry, I meant that's the property that we, the -- the applicants will maintain that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The applicants -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The PUD will -- MR. GOODLETTE: Yes, not the homeowners in the neighborhood, that's correct. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You said homeowners in your response, and that was the basis for my question is -- MR. GOODLETTE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Panic. MR. GOODLETTE: I was focusing on trying to answer your other question. I'm sorry, Commissioner Constantine, it's 20 feet from the pavement to the sidewalk and 25 feet from the sidewalk to the wall. So it's a total of 45 feet, based upon our calculations on these drawings from -- in answer to your two questions. The sidewalk is almost equidistant, if you will, between the edge of the pavement and the wall, which is a total of 45 feet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So there's no confusion, the landscaping we have seen here today on this presentation will be maintained at the expense of the PUD property owners, not the homeowners? MR. GOODLETTE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. PEZESHKAN: I guess I can continue again? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. MR. PEZESHKAN: This is animation that we did from Pine Ridge Road looking towards west, and pretty much driving down the Pine Ridge Road. This is pretty much showing all the exact heights, sizes and so forth for the structure, and landscaping. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'll just go ahead and tell you guys, this right here is what makes me think that this might be something that I would approve for an exception, even after we have the 500 foot separation, because that's what I have in mind when we talk about a gateway. You know, that's why I wanted these kinds of restrictions. MR. PEZESHKAN: Pretty much right now we're going to be driving into the driveway. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Look, a ground sign at a gas station. What are the odds of having that? MR. PEZESHKAN: We had to twist a lot of arms to get that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're going to help you twist them after tomorrow night, I think. MR. PEZESHKAN: This is pretty much showing the landscaping around the building, which really you don't see a lot around. I think it does help the building itself. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rey, you've got a lot of parking, which normally I -- anything that appears to be an excess in parking bothers me. But I've been to so many convenience stores where you can't get in and out. Actually, I think you've done a pretty good job with the parking on this one. MR. PEZESHKAN: I think yes, Bruce has done a great job. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Everybody pat your back. MR. PEZESHKAN: I believe there are 28 parkings, if I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where I get coffee every Wednesday morning, there's seven. It's over in the city, one of the old 7-11's, there's seven spaces, and it just -- MR. GOODLETTE: Madam Chairman, that concludes our presentation. I would just like for Mr. Cook, Reed Cook, to summarize; just on behalf of Amerada Hess make a couple of brief comments. Thanks. MR. COOK: My name is Reed Cook, I'm with Amerada Hess. I want to thank you very much for letting us present this to you this morning. We're proposing what we feel to be a very nice up-scale station be constructed there. We've also looked extensively throughout the state for fluffy trees, and I believe we found them, but they're at Disney World, so we're investigating that prospect of getting some of their trees there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's not too good for Collier. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely not. MR. COOK: Also, early -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you shape the shrubberies like dancing elephants and things, too? MR. COOK: We might be able to work something out. Also earlier today, I heard that your budget department was giving a presentation on sales tax revenue, and I understand gas tax is down a little bit, so I'd like to tell you that we'd like to do our best to contribute to that fund. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll bet you would. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I bet. MR. COOK: If you have any other questions, I'd appreciate entertaining those. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We talked when we met in Mr. Goodlette's office about the possibility of the further contribution of Hess to the gateway landscaping in the area, and I asked -- I did a memo to Mr. Fernandez to ask him to ask some staff to help me know what might be appropriate to ask you to do, because you indicated some willingness to -- MR. COOK: Yes, ma'am, I recall the conversation. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Do we have something on that? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. I've coordinated with Mr. Kant, and he's -- it's his opinion that because of the future six-laning of Pine Ridge Road, it wouldn't be prudent to have plans developed at this time, but he was recommending that in lieu of actual plantings, that a substitution be used, and the fees would -- for those 13 or 14 palm trees would be paid for that future landscaping. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: And basically, as I understood from our conversation, you guys were agreeable to contribute those 14 trees to Collier County for the future landscaping improvements along that gateway. MR. COOK: Are those fluffy trees? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Fluffy. Fluffy and shaped. MR. COOK: That might be a little bit tough to come by, but regular trees, we'd be happy to do that. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, he suggested -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll settle for regular. MR. BELLOWS: -- a sum of $1,750. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just very much appreciated that, because that's the kind of things that I'm going to be looking for after tomorrow night when we have these new regulations on gas stations and particularly at these gateway entrances. MR. COOK: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. MR. COOK: You know that we're established in the area. We're going to be a long-time resident here. We understand the importance of the gateway to the community. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are these the pay-at-the-pump type dispensing units? MR. COOK: Yes, sir, we do have those units and they'll be installed there. It's an added attraction for people coming in, because then they don't have to go into the store and weather the lines to buy our little toy trucks. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Does Hess issue its own retail credit card? MR. COOK: They have a Fleet Card. I don't know if we have a regular Visa or MasterCard type card, but we do have a Fleet Card. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just curious about the relevance of that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I was just going to say, we have eight public speakers, maybe we could move on -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd be happy to hear from the public. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, let's hear from the public. MR. COOK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I might add, as soon as we finish this item, we're going to take a break for lunch, so if there's any of you sitting here waiting for the next item, I'm going to give you a -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: A head start. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- quick chance to get down the elevators before we come thundering behind you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Ready now? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're ready. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ready. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Duval Evans and then Dan Brundage. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Third time's a charm. We've called Duval up twice and made him sit back down again. MR. EVANS: Good afternoon. My name is Duval Evans. I'm the owner of the Chevron station out there at Pine Ridge Road. Seems to me like we put stations on top of stations. Also, seems to me like that we're putting an awful lot of traffic and an awful lot of walls. My understanding, as I have been told, that if this Pine Ridge Road was a state road, that this station would not be permitted. It's too close to the intersection, and it's too many -- it's just -- it's not going to be very safe. I think if you commissioners approve this thing, that you are planning for some accidents down the road and not just a few, but a whole lot of them. The traffic from the hospital is going to be there, people going to work, people coming off 1-75. It's going to be rough with six lanes out there. They going to be weaving in and out, and it's just -- I just don't believe that it will work. It's going to be too many accidents. As far as the appraiser, I had Mr. Armalavage, if I pronounced it right, do an appraisal for me up in Bonita. I don't know how they found out all that information that they are getting on this will support another gasoline station, but when they appraised mine, they didn't know how much it pumped a month or how much the sales was. I don't believe they knew how much I'm doing out there at my station right now, which is a lot less than what Chevron said it would do. I hope that you do a lot of thinking and a lot of sleeping on this traffic situation out there, because it's going to be bad. And I'm telling you, it's going to be serious. I thank you for your time, and I hope you do a lot of thinking and sleeping on it. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker, Madam Chairman, is Gary Beyrent. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What happened to eight? MR. FERNANDEZ: They were all the presenters. They had registered as speakers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Better safe than sorry. MR. BEYRENT: For the record, my name's Gary Beyrent. Just before Bob Hardy left, he shook my hand and he whispered something to me, so this is all I have to say. Please, give me my gas station. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If ever I've seen a reason to say no, Gary, that was it. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Or prayers. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just need to know, was that the property owner or was that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. COOK: I'm sorry, we don't know who that was. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we going to take a break? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're going to take a break. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, despite the last speaker, we have gone through machination after machination on gas stations at this interchange. And I think when Race Trac came in, there existed the potential for eight, eight or nine, something in that area, in this immediate area. And over time we've looked at pieces individually as they've come back through sunset and determined whether that site was or wasn't appropriate, whether it was or wasn't realistic. But this is the first time we've received a market study that says here's what we believe the market will bear in this area. So it kind of allows us to limit our decision as to what is and isn't appropriate on a land use basis. I don't have any real issues with the market study that was presented. With the commitments that have been made, with the level of architecture and landscaping that has been proposed and with the market study, it says this intersection will support five, wherever they may be. My concern is that if we turn this one down, the market will return at some point with a fifth station somewhere else that may not have the commitments being made on the aesthetic side, on the planning side and on the neighborhood side that this particular property has done. The knowledge that by approving this, if we should do so today, that's it for this intersection. Someone's going to have to have a market study that totally blows this one out of the water entirely, that points to every falsehood that could be there, and goes well beyond that. I don't think that's going to happen. So if we are going to at some point lock this in to a maximum of five gas stations at this intersection, I think this is probably the most appropriate petition with which to do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If that's a motion, I'll second it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I will move approval of PUD 97-17. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I need to ask a question of the staff. Has the Angileri PUD submitted a permit application? MR. BELLOWS: For the gas station? I'm not aware of any at this time. MR. NINO: I'm not aware of it either. Whether they're in our shop with a SDP application at this time or not, I'm not aware of it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, my concern is that we've been working for some time and two weeks ago had our first reading of the LDC amendments that we're proposing, and we're going to finalize that tomorrow night. One of the things that we're very most interested in is separation of gas stations. And here, not even before we can get it finalized, we're ready to make an exception. I don't know about that. I'm not sure that's what we should be doing. If this gets approved today, though, how does that work then? Does the first one to present a permit application get it and the other ones are out of luck, or how is that going to work? MR. BELLOWS: No. MR. NINO: If this petition is approved, then it meets the criteria that is proposed in the code, which says location -- which says shall not apply to nor render nonconforming an existing automobile service station or automobile service station within a planned unit development which a specific architectural rendering and a site plan was approved as part of a rezoning action prior to the effective date of this amendment. Angileri is in because it meets that requirement if it's approved. This one is in if it meets that -- this one is in if you approve it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And with the hearing tomorrow night, no others could utilize that? MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: My concern is that within the last few months we have turned down a couple of projects because, you know, we were talking about this becoming a gasoline alley. I think the pictures are nice and I have no doubt in my mind that they fully will build what they have said they will build. I don't doubt that at all. But that's not my concern. And my concern goes back to the thing that we sat one -- here I remember one day when we were discussing the Angileri PUD, and we sat here for hours talking about this and made it very clear that that isn't the kind of thing that we want to continue. So I -- I'm really hard pressed, when we've turned down two recently, that you would go ahead and turn around and okay this. This just doesn't -- to me it seems very inconsistent. So I have a very difficult time with this One. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I share that as well. I have a couple of specific concerns, one being zap and dash. I think this board needs to show some consistency from week to week. And we have had a couple of PUD's on this very corridor that we have said sorry, no fuel station. Now, the argument might be that they didn't provide a market study, they didn't provide some of the support materials. But I still think it raises a question as to our consistency from week to week. And what it takes to get something approved here. And it seems like the same rules ought to apply for everybody up and down the same corridor. And if we approve this, it appears they may not. Second is I'm a little concerned that I raised the issue up front, and Mr. Kant maybe is considerably more knowledgeable than I on this topic and maybe is more comfortable than I am, but when we said we weren't sure of what FDOT might require, I would hate to have the use pass and then have some problem with that turn lane into this property as proposed because of such a minimum distance between the exit ramp and the -- where the turn lane is proposed. And I'm not sure where that would leave us. I don't know what the likelihood of them doing that is, but if that happened, where does that leave us then with a property that doesn't have the access as its been designed and shown here? MR. KANT: I'm not sure I heard exactly what the question was in there for me, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'm just kind of looking for the likelihood FDOT's going to be smooth sailing as far as permitting, or that there may be -- and I don't know that you can answer that. MR. KANT: At this point, sir, I wouldn't want to speculate on that. I have no idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Couple of the reasons -- and again, everyone's going to have their own personal approach on this. And I don't think any of them are necessarily wrong or right, I think they're for the most part opinions. What draws this out as being a little different for me is that the reason we began the discussion about quote, unquote gasoline alley was because we had a tremendous outcry from the neighborhood behind what was at that time a Race Trac Gas Station about not just -- in other words, it's not just -- at that time it wasn't just the Race Trac Gas Station they were upset about, it was the potential for gas stations; not just right there by their neighborhood, but along this entire corridor. And at that time, like I said, there were at least eight that I know of that were possible there. When Mr. Evans located his Chevron station there, there were at least six possible. The difference that this application has, and I think how it in fact complies with what we've been trying to do, is they have brought forward the details; the details that give us the bigger picture, issue of what is the final build-out of quote, unquote gas stations at this interchange activity center. Now, you can disagree with that market study and say five is not reasonable, or you can agree with it and say it is, but the market study indicates what can be borne in this area. And we have not just -- when we talk about being consistent, we have consistently over time cut back and reduced on the number of potential gas stations at this interchange activity center. By taking today's action, we don't guarantee that there will never be a fifth gas station here if we turn this down. It doesn't say there will only be four. They may -- there may be a fifth parcel here within the activity center that meets the access guidelines that will come back and make an application. And when they do, if they meet all of those guidelines and their market study says -- and there's a market study on record already that says that the market will bear them, then it becomes in my opinion difficult or more difficult to say no in that case. What I'm dealing with here, trying to look at, is a known quantity versus an unknown quantity of establishing a build-out of this particular use in a style that is as compatible with the neighborhood as it could be. And I think one evidence of that is the difference between the number of people that were in this audience on the Race Trac application and the number that are here today. The number then was dozens, the number now is zero. So that being the impetus for all of the action we've taken in this corridor and the fact that the same individuals who live in that neighborhood have not expressed objection to this application in any way that I'm aware of says to me that maybe we are accomplishing the goals they asked us to accomplish, which was to put a number on it, put a cap on it, don't leave us out there hanging in the wind where a true quote, unquote gasoline alley can be built. And I think we've done that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just in the nature of -- along that argument of consistency, for me, I'm confused about how approving this petition would be inconsistent when in fact it seems to me that they are only ahead of the curve in complying with the regulations. We have proposed regulations we're going to adopt tomorrow night that will permit exceptions to be made to the 500 foot siting in special conditions. This is exactly what the community wants for a gateway. This is exactly what we have consistently asked property owners to do. So I'm very confused about how this could be viewed as anything other than exactly consistent with what we have instructed or, you know, indicated to property owners that this is what we want along this gateway area. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How can it be exactly what we're trying to do when it's only 66 percent of the spread of the distance? How can it be exactly? It's not exactly because it doesn't meet the separation criteria that we have -- or that we soonedly (sic) are going to approve tomorrow night. So I don't think you should use the word exactly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I can tell you why I think it exactly meets, and that is because the criteria provide for an exception, and this is exactly the kind of circumstance where an exception would be appropriate. Don't argue with a lawyer, John. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you kidding? We spend most of our time arguing with lawyers up here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think it's a shame we're going to turn this down, because -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I've got a question for Commissioner Hancock, because your point was there's no guarantee that someone else won't come back. What's the guarantee that if this is approved someone else won't come back on that same other property and -- with their own market study? I guess my question is, I don't know that we can guarantee either scenario. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can't, but let me explain what that statement meant. Someone, an applicant, has submitted a market study that says this intersection can handle economically five gas stations. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's a part of the records. Whether we approve or turn this down, that remains a part of a given record. The next person that comes in, should this be turned down, already has a market study established that says a fifth gas station can be econ -- is economically viable at that intersection. What I'm saying the difference is, is by approving this, and again, I in no way am being critical of any of the points that have been raised, because this is a gray area, but by approving this, we lock in the maximum number that is consistent with that market study. Someone has got to in essence come in and disprove that entire market study to show a need for a sixth. And if the market study was done appropriately, the likelihood of that happening is very slim. That's the difference. It's just that the need has been established by the market study that's in the record. Someone else is going to respond to that. If it's not this applicant, it will be somebody else. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I need to ask a question of the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Fitapelli? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the woman who did the market study information. Because I thought she said in fact her study showed they might be able to support two more than what's approved '- MS. FITAPELLI: Two. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- right now. MS. FITAPELLI: Two in addition to the three existing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two and -- thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This would be Angileri and this one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. FITAPELLI: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Guys. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my understanding, was that this is the fifth in a total of five that the market study said could be supported at this intersection. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was concerned that when you said two additional that was over what was currently approved. MS. FITAPELLI: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? MS. FITAPELLI: And just for the record, that was done before the other two were deleted out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But my question is, do we ever use market studies as a determination of land use issues in this board, and should we? I don't believe that we ever did before. Why are we putting the emphasis on a market study in this particular case for the first time since I've been on the board? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have used the lack of a market study to turn down before. Because part of the code -- and I can't tell you word for word. Part of the code looks at what's appropriate in nature, and also, one of the -- as a matter of fact, it was a term, if I remember, it was over off Rattlesnake-Hammock, I think it was in your district, that had something about is there also adequate other areas? Does the market need it here but is there also adequate other places in the county that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would that be affordable housing? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- would be appropriate? You know, we've used stuff for affordable housing, but that wasn't what we used the market study for. But for certain commercial uses we have done that in the past. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think in this case -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Goodlette? Excuse me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Public hearing is closed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In this particular case -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, there's no more -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because we were looking at limiting gas stations, we were the ones that asked for market studies to show that they in fact were needed, and that was in part because of Mr. Evans' comments when we went through the Race Trac issue of whether they financially could be held. So I'm not basing it on, I'm just saying it's a part of the equation for consideration. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, even though the public hearing's closed, we can ask -- I can't stand not knowing what it was Mr. Goodlette had to say, so I'd like to -- MR. GOODLETTE: I'm not sure the public hearing -- was the public hearing closed? I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, it was closed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we -- MR. GOODLETTE: May I just -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What's the point? MR. GOODLETTE: -- I think it's important to your discussion -- it's the 500 feet issue, Madam Chairman -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the issue. MR. GOODLETTE: -- and it's when that issue arose. That's what's giving two of you, anyway, concern. And I think it's important. And I just checked with Mr. Nino, the whole thought of 500 feet versus 330 or 300 or 400 or 600 came about 60 days ago. This petition was filed months ago. We've been working at this for over a year. And I think that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not going to debate you on the merits of that, but in 1996 was the summer we did the Angileri PUD that ignited this whole debate, so -- MR. GOODLETTE: But we didn't -- but 500 feet -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- whether it was 500 feet or -- us starting to try to determine what all those specifics were have been going on for at least two years. MR. GOODLETTE: But with the exception of that one criteria -- and the staff could have come back to you after their analysis and said 330 feet. By the way, it's 500 feet between from building to building. What we don't comply with technically is the property line to property line issue. So, I mean, I think that -- I applaud the efforts that you've gone to in respect to these issues of gasoline stations, but to be -- to hold this petition up for that one 500-foot criteria that has come about so recently in time, I would just urge you to give some consideration to how long this petition has been in the process. And the one thing we couldn't do, the one thing we can't do, is move this property 170 feet in either direc -- I mean, to the east, if you will. I mean, that's the only criteria of the new that we can't -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The public hearing is closed. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Goodlette, I look at it very differently in that we recognized two years ago that there was a problem on gateways to our community in the area of gas stations, and have been working on filling in that definition. So whether the definition fits exactly to your need or not, we've been trying to achieve that definition for a long time. And so it -- and it's not just that one single issue of footage, there are all kinds of other issues as well. Most of those hurdles you have cleared as part of your presentation. But I think we're just looking at it from two different angles. That specific may or may not have been -- I don't know what the time frame was -- may or may not have been in place when you started your paperwork. But you -- I doubt that Hess had even considered this site at the time that we considered making changes, because we saw there was a problem at the time of Angileri. So you can take that to either extreme. I don't think either one does us a whole lot of good. I think it needs four votes, and it appears we may not have that. I would -- I do recognize the unique styling of this compared -- as a matter of fact, I was in the City of Fort Myers about a week ago and was looking at a Hess there that had a plant. I think it was an older building. I think they had actually retrofitted for their needs. But it was -- I was pleased with the presentation here, because it's far superior to what's up there. But the market study does help. And I guess the difference in my mind in between what's been -- the ones we've handled in the past and the ones that are now are some of the drawings are provided and other ones have just genetically said we'd like to have a fuel station. The real specific thing I'm looking for is that it meets the DOT guidelines. Because I think Mr. Evans has a very valid point, if you've got an exit and you go a couple hundred feet, you go three or 400 feet and you've got a turn lane, the amount of traffic -- and I would go so far, Mr. Kant, I don't know if this is the top accident intersection in the county, but it is surely in our top five, because almost daily there is an accident there as I come out through it. MR. KANT: I can find out. I don't believe it's in the top five or 10, but it certainly has its share of accidents, yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Safe to say, a strong accident history. MR. KANT: Yes, sir, that's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I do see that -- I do see that -- thank you. I do see that getting worse as we go. And so I think that's -- I'm sorry, this is becoming a weekly thing now, you laugh during my comments. Is there a problem, Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tim, stop paying so much attention to me. I was not even laughing during your comments, for heaven's sake. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just looking for some professional behavior. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just go ahead and finish your speech. For heaven's sake. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think that's a very valid concern that Mr. Evans raised. And I -- if it's a concern for FDOT, would you have any objection if we then returned it to us? I don't want to have a project here that turns into a transportation danger. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously, if FDOT expresses a concern about that turn lane from a safety standpoint, I would mirror that concern. Right now those people have to come off that off ramp and make a left-hand turn into Mr. Evans' place and then come back and cross traffic and get out. So the current situation for westbound traffic is worse than what it would be with a gas station there. And I don't know that Race Trac's ever going to build. We heard they were going to build right away, and it hasn't happened. So if FDOT has a concern about that, I would mirror that concern. I'd like to see it back, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because really where I want to go with that is if they cannot have a turn lane, that in my mind dramatically alters the project as far as what you can and can't do there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree 100 percent. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you suddenly had to turn in there without any turn lane, that clearly isn't acceptable for the type of traffic -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would want a letter from FDOT stating that there is no conflict with their access management guidelines based on this turn lane. Yes, I think that's a reasonable request. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You're making that part of your motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will include that in my motion, yes. MR. GOODLETTE: If we can't get an FDOT permit, we can't build. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're clear on that. But it's fezone. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can't build the turn lane. MR. GOODLETTE: We can't go forward with the station if we can't get an FDOT permit, because we won't have complied with your PUD requirement, which is for the turn lane. I think that's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the PUD requires a turn lane, and the permitting agency for that turn lane is the FDOT? MR. GOODLETTE: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if they don't issue the permit for the turn lane, your -- MR. GOODLETTE: You can't build the project. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- zoning for a gas station is void; is that correct? In all practical purposes. MR. GOODLETTE: I'm sorry, I just wanted to correct -- that's my understanding of where we are. MR. KANT: The turn lane is required under the county requirements, ordinance 93-64. That's -- whether it's specific in the PUD or not, they have to comply with all county ordinances. They'd have to have that turn lane in there. The kicker here is that because so much of the frontage lies within the limited access line of 1-75, it is my opinion they would also have to get FDOT approval, as we do when we want to work in that particular area, as anybody would have to. So there's two permits involved. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make that specific in there. And -- I'd just like to make that very specific. You used the word void, and someone said well, practical purposes. I don't want it to be for practical purposes, I want it to be that clear. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I will -- let me clarify that element. I will amend my motion to include that should the FDOT not permit a westbound right-hand turn lane into the project entrance, then a gas station -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Consistent with what's presented here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Consistent with what's presented here. -- they would then fail to meet the requirements of the PUD and the gas station could not be built. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second amends. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the gas station use would be null and void. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We can do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Gas station would not be built, so yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would kind of reluctantly agree to that. I'm not enthusiastic about more up there, but I do think it's an attractive piece. I think the commitment to the Livingston Woods Lane is a strong one, and probably better than even an alternative use will provide. The fact that the residents, the neighbors and the association up there are not objecting says something to me. The safety issue is a big one for me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel had something to offer on that, if I'm not mistaken. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, thank you. Briefly. And that is if you're building into the amendment that may be approved today that based on the happening or not happening of an event external to this amendment determines the viability of the amendment in the future, I think that the records should reflect that you will be bringing it back -- this matter back for a public hearing to ratify or confirm the correction of the external event that has or has not occurred, i.e., the FDOT requirements, so that you will actually do a fezone or a PUD amendment yourself, based on the failure of an occurrence. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that's a conservative approach, but we do state in PUD's regularly that you have to gain -- you have to have a, you know, right-hand turn lane in order -- MR. WEIGEL: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to have a certain use. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we don't -- if we're not the permitting agency on that right-hand turn lane, there's an obvious inference there that whoever is must issue it. MR. WEIGEL: The same result is achieved, and that is that the PUD cannot go forward. The owner and developer cannot build. But the PUD does not reflect the occurrence or non-occurrence or the history of that condition that you were relying on to occur. And I would suggest that there be a point in time when you want to bring back this PUD to reflect that the required condition did not occur, and you effectively by law amend the PUD to show that your previous approval is no longer there. Call it housekeeping, but I think that's something you'd want to do at some point in -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It can even just be a consent agenda. MR. WEIGEL: -- the future. Well, it's a -- these are advertised hearings. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. MR. GOODLETTE: Hay I just, for clarification, Madam Chairman, if the inference is then that if the -- when the DOT permit is issued, and we're assuming that it will be, that we may proceed? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right, as a flip side. MR. GOODLETTE: The only need to come back here would be to undo this PUD because that condition had not been met. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what Mr. Weigel -- MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. That's what I'm stating, yes. MR. GOODLETTE: That would be -- that certainly would not be a problem for the applicant. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We still may not have four votes for this, but I'm going to support that motion with some mild reluctance. But again, I've been real concerned about this whole corridor, but I think these folks have jumped a number of hurdles. If we can have that one safety issue taken care of, I have at least a modicum of comfort. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Call the question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll call for the question -- MR. BELLOWS: Hay I have one clarification to that? Is there a time line between when that FDOT permit is denied versus when they have to bring in a PUD amendment? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty days. MR. BELLOWS: Thirty days? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How's that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why wait around? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll call for the question. All in favor of this particular motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Opposed? Aye. Motion carries four-one. MR. GOODLETTE: I appreciate your indulgence, Madam Chairman. I know that took longer than you would like. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go eat. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN BERRY: We will reconvene our meeting with three of us, at least, present. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 98-232, RE PETITION AV-98-009, TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE SPECIAL PRESERVE EASEMENTS ON LOTS 1, 2 AND 3, BLOCK E, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE, REPLAT" AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 21, PAGES 84 THROUGH 106, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED Going on to item 12-C-1, Petition AV 98-009, the vacation of a portion of special preserve easement in Quail West Unit 1. MR. GRIGG: Rick Grigg, Planning Services. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Good afternoon. MR. GRIGG: Good afternoon. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there anything unusual about this one? MR. GRIGG: Not a thing. It should be very easy; it's something that they want to do. Instead of doing it piecemeal one at a time, they want to go ahead and do it all at once. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Do it all at once? Okay. Close the public hearing. Motions? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRMAN BERRY: We have a motion and a second -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN BERRY: -- to approve AV 98-009. All in favor? Opposed? (No response). Motion passes five-zero. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Everybody thought that was funny except the stenographer. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, sorry. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 98-233, RE PETITION AV-98-011 TO VACATE THE 12' WIDE LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ON LOTS 1 THROUGH 4 AND LOTS 8 THROUGH 13, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "TIERRA LAGO", AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 24, PAGES 20 AND 21, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN BERRY: Item 12 C-2, Petition AV-98-011,to vacate the 12-foot wide lake maintenance easement at Tierra Lago. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Same question. Anything unusual about this request? MR. GRIGG: Nothing unusual. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Staff have any objection? MR. GRIGG: None at all. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRMAN BERRY: I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve Petition AV-98-011. All in favor? Opposed? (No response) Motion carries five-zero. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 98-234, RE PETITION CU-98-7, CHRISTOPHER O. WRIGHT, P.E., OF RWA, INC., REPRESENTING TWIN EAGLES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE "5" OF THE "RT" ZONING DISTRICT PER SUBSECTION 2.2.8.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A PRIVATE CLUB FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9467 GULFSHORE DRIVE, CONSISTING OF 1.22 ACRES - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS Item 12 C-3, Petition CCSL-98-3. This is the Twin Eagles Beach and Bay Club requesting a Coastal Construction Setback Line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we hear that in conjunction with the conditional use, because it's not really relevant. They don't need it unless we approve the use. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think they are companion items, clearly. MR. NINO: Correct. I was going to ask for the same thing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BERRY: All right. Then we'll also be hearing at the same time Petition CU-98-7, with the same area. Is this a -- come on back, Mr. Nine. MR. NINO: It's been a long day. For the record, my name is Ren Nine. Petition CU-98-7 requests the conditional use for a private club, conditional use five in the RT, Resort/Tourist Zoning District. Currently on the property is a motel which will be demolished and in its place the developer proposes to develop recreational amenities which would be used exclusively for the purposes of -- for the members of the Twin Eagles Golf and Country Club and the residents who reside therein. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Nine? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You just said something and that was one of my questions. Are those two separate groups or do you have to live there to be a member? MR. NINO: No. They are two separate groups. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So you can be a member even if you don't live at Twin Eagles? MR. NINO: That is correct. That's what this application is requesting. In terms of -- the Petition is consistent with all elements of the GHP. The Future Land Use Element does provide for conditional uses in the urban residential area; that includes private clubs. A traffic analysis indicates that no significant threshold will be tripped by approval of this Petition over and above how it can presently be used. It has a full complement of infrastructure, therefore it's consistent with all elements of the Growth Management Plan. I need to -- I'm sorry. I need to remind you that this is a quasi-judicial hearing and we need to swear in witnesses. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. Any persons wishing to speak to this item please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All witnesses were sworn.) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, Mr. Pickworth had second thoughts on that or -- CHAIRMAN BERRY: Just a moment. Do we have any disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I met with Mr. Wright, the Petitioner, two months ago or more, a while ago, on this item. CHAIRMAN BERRY: As I did. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What's on this property now? MR. NINO: A motel. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: An older motel? MR. NINO: And across the street, on the east side of Gulfshore Drive, is an existing condominium. Both sides of the road are part of this petition, however, it should be appreciated that on the east side the only part of the east side that is tied to the conditional use is the parking lot, which will also serve the west side. Otherwise, the condominium is an authorized use and it is consistent with today's requirements. They will be doing some remodeling to that condominium, and it's true its use will be also by members of the Twin Eagles Golf and Country Club and residents who live therein. But that's no different than any other condominium that from time to time is used by various occupants. It's important to appreciate that on the property under today's regulations, the hotel could be constructed. And a hotel, for all practical purposes, could have the same host of recreational amenities as is proposed on this site without any building on it. Albeit they may be more intensive, because the maximum size of the hotel that could be constructed on this property we estimated at about 12 units. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what they propose here as compared to 12 units is how many units or how many square feet? MR. NINO: Well, there is no comparison other than the fact that Twin Eagles will consist of 275 residents, and they've indicated in their application 275 equity golf memberships, as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, I'm sorry. I just wanted to understand that point. When you're comparing the two, a 12 unit hotel and this proposed use, which would be the denset? MR. NINO: I would suspect that they would get more use from the golf course, the relationship with the golf course and the residential community that is made up of Twin Eagles, than would be generated by the occupants of a 12-unit motel. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thanks. MR. NINO: But the point I was trying to make is that to some extent, there could be the same type of recreational amenities on this property with a permitted use as within this conditional use relationship. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Mr. Nino, could I ask you a question? MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRMAN BERRY: If there was to be a condo built on this, how many units would be permitted in that? MR. NINO: I didn't figure it without the -- 16 units to the acre is the authorized density in the RT zoning district. However, it's 26 for '- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Hotel-motel? MR. NINO: Hotel, so it would be half that amount. Probably about seven condo units. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Seven condo units? MR. NINO: Seven condo units. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Twelve hotel rooms. MR. NINO: Yes. The petitioner carried on some considerable dialogue with residents of the neighborhood, and in particular, the condominium to the north side of the property, and from the point of view -- from that point of view, some consensus was reached and as a matter of fact, the resolution that is within your packet contains all of the agreed to stipulations that came out of that discussion process. As you know, there's a finding of fact for conditional uses, and in the opinion of staff and in the opinion of the Planning Commission, a preponderance of the Findings of Fact with the mitigation requirements that are made part of the resolution, do support the decision to allow the conditional use. The Planning Commission was unanimous in their support of the conditional use. I believe there were some objections. Those letters of objection are included in your agenda packet. I'd be happy to answer any further questions. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Any questions for Mr. Nino? Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have trouble with -- I need to understand the staff's rationalization for reviewing the findings on the conditional use and finding them in compliance. I don't understand how it can meet these two criteria, at least, that it has no effect on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects, when I'm comparing 12 and 7 units of a condo or a hotel-motel to this club. And I don't understand compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district, when what we have is a residential area and now we're essentially putting in a restaurant. What's the rationale? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I see the second one. Ron, the first one I can -- I don't think it's going to glare, it's not going to smell. I don't think it would impair property values. But the second one is a fair question, is a compatibility question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't understand how it can be compatible. MR. NINO: Well, we pointed out on page 8 of your staff report, I mean 8 of your agenda packets, that the use of this property will have some noise impact on the adjacent properties. However, we didn't feel that the difference in that noise impact that could result from a permitted use is so significant that it would have a negative impact on those properties. Appreciate that if a hotel or condominium were built on this property, that property could be used without interruption for 24 hours a day. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The 12 units. MR. NINO: This petition will have a sunrise to sunset limitation on its use. People are bothered mostly in the evening, particularly late at night when you're trying to get a good night's sleep. The property will not be in use, contrary to what could be a characteristic of a permitted use. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Nino, I'd like to thank you for referring me to your report, but on page 9, where we talk about the compatibility conclusion, it says inherently the use of this entire parcel as a recreational amenity to an off-site user community will introduce a level of discomfort, particularly to the condominium development to the north. Nevertheless, the way this property functions in relation to Twin Eagles can be regulated so that the least amount of adverse impact on its neighbors is effected. So I guess what staff is saying is that it's not compatible straight out. It might, however, be able to be made compatible by particular conditions. MR. NINO: That is correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That will be the question for the board basically. MR. NINO: That's the proposition that we made in our findings, which was concurred with by the Planning Commission, and you're correct; there is some subjective element there. It depends on your own personal opinion as to that kind of issue. However, I would remind you again that we certainly didn't get any objections from neighbors. They were apparently satisfied that the conditions they had for its operation would provide them the comfort level that they needed. I might add for the record that's with the exception of two stipulations which never made it to the list and which I have a copy of that I would like to hand out to you. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, I believe you have a question? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. If I understood you correctly, the potential pool of users here is two-fold. One are residents of Twin Eagles which consists of 275 homes, so let's say 275 families. MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The other is 275 some-odd members of the golf course, which are not required to be residents of Twin Eagles. MR. NINO: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a potential of 550 families that could have use of this particular site. I'm not going to say at a given time, but that's not realistic. There are 550 potential clients, if you will, of this private beach club. Can it be extended beyond those 550 the way they are identified in our report in any way, shape or form without Board approval? MR. NINO: I don't believe so, Commissioner. Let me be frank that one of the positions we made at the Planning Commission, as a matter of fact, an original stipulation that we had, is that the membership -- that the use of the property, we had recommended to the Planning Commission that use of the property be limited to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. NINO: -- to the residents of Twin Eagles and to equity members, until such time as a certain percentage of the homes, number of authorized units were allowed, were purchased. And like many golf courses, you know '- CHAIRMAN BERRY: They come off the membership? MR. NINO: Once all of the homeowners take over the golf course, then the equity, the non-resident opportunities cease to exist. That -- in discussions with petitioner, they had a problem with that. The Planning Commission didn't have a problem with their position. Mr. Pickworth, representing adjacent property owners, didn't have a problem with it. So quite frankly, staff backed away from it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are two impacts here that I need to have a firm understanding of. First of all, I want to say any development in Collier County that wants to purchase land and provide their own beach access has got my ear, because it is difficult for us to provide the beach access that is necessary out there. In a way, by them doing this, they are at least taking 275 homes and potentially 200-some odd other members kind of off the rolls of the responsibility of the county for beach access. So there is an upside to this from that standpoint. I do want to recognize that. My concern is this. With the potential of 550 families, I think realistically after people purchase in the community and belong to the club we're really talking about 350 in the end. I think if you look at the mix of people who buy in and join the golf course, it's probably about 350 families. My concern at first was parking. Quite simply, it was 32 spaces total, 350 families. You know, on the 4th of July, they are all going to want to be there. There was some effort to deal with the transportation issue. I had some real concerns for that when I went and met with Mr. Wright. The only thing that gave me any comfort was, I don't know if any of you have ever visited the Bonita Bay beach facility on Little Hickory Island, Little Hickory? Their community is far, far larger than this. I think they had 50 to 60 spaces there, and they are open from sunset to -- or sunrise to sunset. And there have been no complaints by the neighbors about parking issues and whatnot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do they have food and a restaurant and stuff there? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They do. They have a little clubhouse area. I don't think they have a grill, per se. I remember seeing restrooms and grilling facilities. It's more of a passive than an active recreation location, and that may be a distinction here. But anyway, for the beach use, that at least told me that there's a possibility this thing can co-exist and not be problematic. One of my concerns is that we talked about there may be as many as six events each year in which the facility may be open until 10:00 p.m. Well, there is no way for us to enforce that. We have no way of knowing whether there were eight events or nine events or four events, unless somebody next door with their binoculars is watching and documenting it every time someone is there at 9 p.m. at night. What I would suggest if this does go forward, is that the adjacent property owners, that their associations be notified two weeks in advance of any event up to a maximum of six that could occur throughout the year. That way, somebody is put on notice that the events are occurring, and someone can track the number of them without putting county government in that responsibility. I mean, we just shouldn't be doing that. It's a little onerous. I still have some issues with the parking. I'm going to need to hear how that's resolved and how it's resolved in relation to the neighborhood, and I'll let the petitioner do that. I'm sure they've done it on paper to you, Mr. Nino, but he probably didn't come down here just to listen today. My guess is he wants to tell us a few things. So that is a predominant concern of mine, one I'd like some fairly comfortable answers on. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Mr. Norris, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If I might offer an observation that would maybe speak a little bit to your parking concerns, is that in general, I think that the type of person who's going to live 12 to 15 miles away from the beach in a golf course community is not by nature going to be an avid beachgoer, in the first place. And I think that's borne out. If you notice who goes to the beach here in town, you find that the farther away someone lives from the beach, the less likely he is to go to the beach. I don't think it's going to be a matter that you're going to have 275 people going to the beach every day. I think it's going to be fairly sparse as a group, compared to people who live along Gulfshore Boulevard, obviously. In other words, those people who want to go to the beach and to whom the beach is important, gravitate to live towards, near the beach. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess when you're in the million-dollar home range, I would agree with you. For those of us who can't afford the million dollar homes, we just can't afford to live near the beach. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: (Laughing.) I guess. But anyway, I think that speaks to the parking issue. I don't know that -- I would suspect that you're not going to see a heavy usage on this particular property. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: On a daily basis you're probably right. My concern is special events, and Memorial Day and 4th of July. You may remember La Playa had something going with Pelican Marsh where we had them doubling as a hotel and they were kind of an off site beach resort for the real estate community at Pelican Marsh. We had some real parking problems; we had cars out in the street and that kind of thing, even though a parking analysis was done and showed them to be sufficient for both uses, there were some parking problems. So I guess the fact that a roughly similar relationship at another property caused a problem is why I expressed a concern, more than the demographics you cite. But I do appreciate that. MR. NINO: Speaking to the issue you raised, Commissioner, there is a provision in the resolution for notifying the condominium manager of adjoining condominiums of the name and phone number of a person who could be contacted. Any time this facility is operating in a manner that is offensive to either condominium, someone has a number that they can call and say hey, you're doing something that isn't right there. That is a provision in this resolution. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that. It has no enforcement capability, because enforcement still is a Code Enforcement issue for noise and whatnot. I appreciate the effort. But the enforcement still rests with Zoning on the county and Code Enforcement on the county for the noise and hours of operation. Am I correct in that, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's a nice effort, but that person could say thank you very much, have a nice day, and this is then complied with. I don't anticipate that, but sometimes you have to look at worst case scenario on these things. But I just don't want to create a big problem here. I do want to hear from the petitioner and from the public on this. Maybe this parking issue can be addressed more to my satisfaction, and I hope they can. CHAIRMAN BERRY: I would look at this facility as being something whereby grandparents would be bringing grandchildren to the beach in the wintertime when they come down to visit kind of thing; or friends that you suddenly find that you didn't know you had. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That happens when you move to Florida. CHAIRMAN BERRY: That happens when you move to Florida. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The other thing about a 4th of July party is how many of these residents are going to be in town the 4th of July, anyway. CHAIRMAN BERRY: The petitioner, please. MR. WRIGHT: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Chris Wright of RWA, Inc., and I am representing the Twin Eagles Beach and Bay Club in this particular petition. I think Ron has done a fairly good job at covering most of the issues. I do have a couple of things I would like to add to address Mr. Hanoook's concerns. I think maybe as good a place as any is to start off by maybe just taking a quick review of the Site Plan and make sure everybody understands the different elements within this Site Plan and how we expect them to be utilized. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's there on the wall. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so you folks know, there is another community considering a very similar operation so this is something I think we're going to see a trend in. So I just want to mention that. That can't be a part of today's decision, but we are, in essence, setting the stage for what may or may not be allowed in the future. I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Wright. MR. WRIGHT: As Ron had pointed out, the two parcels that make up this particular project are existingly developed. The east side parcel, which is adjacent to Gulfshore Drive and then also adjacent to Vanderbilt Bay, there is an existing two-story structure with parking underneath, that has approximately -- I think it has six units upstairs and one unit downstairs. It's more of a live-in type residence. Adjacent to the building there is an existing pool right here, and then there are two existing docks out back there that would accommodate four small vessels at this point in time. What we propose to do on this side of the property is simply renovate the upstairs units, leave the downstairs unit. The downstairs unit will become a unit for a live-in manager for the facility. This is something that they intend to do and this live-in manager's purpose is to help address concerns with respect to parking and all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When will you be taking applications? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes, I want that job. MR. WRIGHT: Unfortunately, I think the job's already -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Darn. MR. WRIGHT: -- spoken for. So this side really changes very little in what we intend to do between what's presently existing and what ultimately will happen. There are some proposed, in addition to the boat slips, but nothing major. The intent of the boat slips is for somebody that has a boat in dry storage in the Vanderbilt Bay area to come and get their boat out of dry storage, bring it down through the bay, park their boat at the dock for the day, access the beach, and then at night take the boat home with them. So we don't really expect a lot of usage out of that. It is something that is simply there as an extra amenity to the people that are buying the golf memberships in this community. Also, I'd mention that there's a pool that will come out on this side and be replaced with the additional parking that we all know is an issue. The western parcel, which is the parcel adjacent to the beach, there is an existing 22-unit condominium that is rented out by the week, by the day, by the month. The occupancy level is probably typical of any other beach type resort or condominium, in that, you know, it gets a fair amount of usage. What is intended by this petition is to completely demo the existing facility and build in its place a parking lot, an open air beach pavilion, which within that open air type structure would have some type of limited food service in the form of some grilling operations, cold sandwiches, snacks, beverages. On the other side of the structure is a bath house which would house locker rooms, restrooms, somewhere to change from one type of apparel to another type of apparel. Just outside the beach pavilion is a pool and a pool deck and accessway to the beach. All of the proposed structures are, we believe, in harmony with what's currently there from -- we're not going any further from a coastal setback standpoint than what's adjacent, not so much on this particular property here, but the property immediately to the north. And certainly, by removal of the condominium that sits somewhere out in this vicinity, we are removing that major habitable structure and replacing it with another major structure in the form of a pool and a beach pavilion. So that's basically the Site Plan and how it's intended to function, and if there are any questions with the use of the Site Plan or particular elements on the Site Plan, I'd like to entertain those questions right now before we go on. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry that I didn't -- that I was interrupted and didn't hear every bit of this. But is there public access through the property to the beach, general public access? MR. WRIGHT: Actually, I think that's the first time we've been asked that question, but I think the answer in general is no. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, that's going to be my fundamental problem. You made me think of this when you said that this may be coming up again, because I thought of the Bonita Bay site before. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Believe me, it wouldn't be the first time they've heard it. It's going to get asked in a public hearing. I've already talked to them about it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: With all due respect to Pelican Bay, and they are entitled to their private beach accesses, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. But if we're going to continue to privatize access to the beach, that's going to just exasperate the already serious problem we already have with public access to the beach. That's going to be very difficult for me to get around. That's one point. The other one I'm going to defer to the neighbors on, is I don't see how you can mitigate the impacts of 550 versus 12. But that public access to the beach, if you'd be willing to provide some sort of easement over some portion of the property. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. How much space between this and the building next door? How much that you own? MR. WRIGHT: Between the building here and the property line? Our setback is 15 foot on either side. We're just slightly over that minimum setback in terms of we've got like 16 feet, more or less. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's the same on the other side of the property? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. It's the same on both sides. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because there are people who live away from the beach who would like to be able to go to the beach, and if we could provide some kind of access for them, then I'm much more interested. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Where would they park, though, if they did have access? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There is right-of-way parking that's permitted on there, isn't there? CHAIRMAN BERRY: There is? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: There is no parking in the right of way there? CHAIRMAN BERRY: I wouldn't think so. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. That right of way is not as wide as you think it is. CHAIRMAN BERRY: No, not at all. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question. Does public access exist there today or is it restricted? MR. WRIGHT: It's restricted. I mean, there are no recorded easements for access to the beach on this particular property. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's not as if we're taking something away that already exists. MR. WRIGHT: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Hac'Kie, this is actually something we discussed very briefly, and the accesses in Vanderbilt Beach, of which we only officially declared two or three of them as public because we've improved them, were originally arguably private easements for the neighborhood. The problem is there isn't any parking, so the only way to access these easements is by foot or bicycle. And if you look at this parcel -- Chris, do you know how far away the nearest walkway or access to the beach is from this property? Because I don't recall. MR. WRIGHT: There is a location map that's in your agenda, and I think the closest access is to the south, and it's all the way right adjacent to the Ritz Carlton. And we're probably -- I would want to say 1500 feet away from that point. MR. NINO: It's the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road all the way to the Gulf, right next to the Vanderbilt Inn. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How about a bike rack and a little path? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They have some of those; I'm wondering where the nearest one is. MR. WRIGHT: I'm sorry. I think I've been given some better information than what I had available for you. There is a public access, according to the person that is currently or has been the manager of the Vanderbilt Vacation Villas, and will also be coming on staff with this particular project. She indicates that there is a public accessway right here at Gulf Point Condominium, just on the south side of this building. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that's pedestrian access. I don't want to get hung up on the term public and not, because some of the residents there will tell you that they were platted for that neighborhood. But regardless, there is no restriction. If you're on foot, you can walk down. Nobody checks you or stops you. I believe they are public from that perspective. So there is one nearby, and if we can't -- and here's kind of what went through my head -- if we can't provide parking, then all we're doing is adding an access for the residents in Vanderbilt Beach, and there's already one, one property line away. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we get that confirmed or do you know that for sure? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Dick Lydon, who's going to be talking a little bit later, could probably tell us if that is, in fact, the case, because he knows that area better than I do. You've walked that stretch a few times, haven't you, Dick? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Once or twice. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So maybe from other folks and maybe Mr. Pickworth, I think, represents some of the neighbors, he may be able to confirm this for us, also. But yes, that's important to know. But I did kind of go through that in my head and I couldn't come up with a reasonable solution. That's not to say on future parcels that can't be done. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Uh-hum. A bike rack and pathway, if nothing else. MR. WRIGHT: The color plan here is simply a colorized version of the plan that you have in your package. The thing that it doesn't have is the eastern parcel, since this was done primarily to focus on the western parcel here, which I think has the most questions associated with it. In addition to some of the other elements that I pointed out, there also is a privacy wall that will be extended. The privacy wall is intended not to be any higher than what currently the code requires. And you can see there's going to be a fair amount of landscaping, mature type vegetation planted to further buffer ourselves from the adjacent property users. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Madam Chair? Mr. Wright, because I can't see it all that clearly on my smaller, reduced version here, is that an at grade beach access on that brown boardwalk to the bottom there? MR. WRIGHT: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you can put that on the picture, do it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not a structure in any way; that's just something to take people down to the beach that are there at the pool or cabana area? MR. WRIGHT: You're speaking of this element here? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, that's true. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What is it? It's not a boardwalk? MR. WRIGHT: Well, it may be elevated six inches off the ground. To tell you the truth, we haven't gotten to the point where we've worked all those details out. But it's intended to be very low profile. It's not sitting way up off of existing grade. I would be surprised if it was any higher from existing grade by one foot. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are common in the Vanderbilt Beach area as you go to leave the condos, the hotels, or whatever. Those are fairly common. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a structure, because a very early plan had some type of a cabana or structure down there and I wanted to make sure that wasn't the case here. MR. WRIGHT: No. It's something that shouldn't affect the view or sites down the beach. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Obviously, the Vanderbilt Lagoon is not deep enough for things like liveaboard sailboats and all that kind of stuff. But as we look at the docks over on Vanderbilt Bay, the scenario you described, Mr. Wright, it seems fine to me, where somebody drives their boat down and they may even stay overnight in one of these units. My concern is somebody who uses their boat to get there and spends a week, you know. Where we may potentially have three or four boats moored overnight for days on end. Then it starts to look a little bit like a marina there. I'm looking for some kind of a commitment from you on the amount of time in which a boat can be moored there, and a commitment from you on that. You may not have it right now, you may want to discuss it with your client while others are speaking. But I just want to make sure we don't get in the situation we're trying to police the number of vessels. If somebody parks their boat there, drives their car away or someone else picks them up and leaves it there for maintenance for a week or two, we need something to make sure that can't happen, because I don't want this to be used as a storage for boats. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many boats can be docked there at one time? CHAIRMAN BERRY: I thought he said four. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, he said four currently. But if you look at the pilings on the design, you can actually get one at the end. I can see the possibility of six boats here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. It looked like six to me. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Plus one on the end, which may be seven. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. And the final configuration hasn't been determined and we don't even really know if there is a need for building additional slips. We put it on there in case we ever wanted to. Again, the intent is short-term parking, primarily day use, at most a two-day leaving the boat there for whatever purpose. But again, it's primarily going to be accessed, you know, just during the day and then the boat taken home at night. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If your client would agree to 48 hours. I was thinking inside of 72. So 48, I think that's reasonable, because you do have lodging rooms here and somebody may stay over the weekend. But then the boat's gone, you know. It cannot stay there more than 48 hours. That's reasonable to me, but that's just my opinion. MR. WRIGHT: To begin starting to address some of the issues with respect to the number of parking spaces and the number of total people available to access this particular site, I think all along from conception of the project, it's been intended that it be a very low impact, low density type facility. It's never been intended to have a bunch of ongoing weekly type events. It's simply an amenity that has been advertised in the promotion of the facility out off of Immokalee Road. It's certainly not a major selling point for those folks out there. It's just something that they could probably give to their customer that would help them make their buying decision. The occupancy of the facility has been designed to handle comfortably between 80 and 100 people. We would be surprised if you find that many people out there, more than a handful of times during the course of the year, and probably during these special type functions which have been limited to six will you find any more people out there than that. The reason for that is just the size of the facility itself, the amount of deck space available, the amount of space to circulate underneath the building just isn't there to support too many more people. And it would be too uncomfortable to host an event there that was going to have more people than that. Nobody would be happy, so it doesn't even make sense to do that. With respect to the parking situation, we do have I think it's 31 total parking spaces on the two sites, the eastern parcel and the western parcel. And in the event that the parking lot becomes full, I can envision some type of phone network setup. If somebody wants to come to the beach, they can call down and speak to somebody at the club and say how many people are there, is there plenty of parking. And they can base their decision on whether they come in that fashion or not. The fact that we're going to have an on-site resident manager to help us with the parking situation, if anybody were to park out in the right-of-way illegally, those cars will be towed. The intent is to keep all the vehicles within the confines of the parking spaces. During those special type events, there's obviously going to have to be some type of special arrangement made. All the logistics of that have not been determined at this point in time. Most likely it will be the 15 passenger van to and from a point; maybe it's a shopping center in the nearby vicinity that has some additional parking that's willing to enter into a day shared parking agreement, or maybe it's the people congregate out at the country club themselves and everybody is bussed in beyond what the parking lot has the capacity for. But it's my client's intent not to create any parking problems out there and to be a good neighbor. We've had several conversations with the Vanderbilt Property Owners' Association, and also with the adjacent property owners, and tried to work out stipulations that they feel that they can live with. I would like to mention in the list of stipulations that you have before you in the resolution, those are stipulations that were generated after Mr. Nino had generated his list of stipulations in the original draft document, which I feel the ones that are in there now are more restrictive; so we've added those. In our meeting with Mr. Pickworth and the adjacent residents, we asked them to prepare the stipulations which we agreed to without modification. I think again, that goes to show that we want to be a good neighbor and we think the type of facility that we're promoting here will be compatible with the adjacent property uses. With that, I'd like to open up to any additional questions that I could possibly answer. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to get to the speakers, myself, and see what we've got. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. We have two speakers, one of which submitted after this item began, and therefore is too late. The first speaker is Dick Lydon. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a second with Mr. Pickworth -- and just nod yea or nay -- are you representing the neighboring properties? MR. PICKWORTH: Yes. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is there a due process, people, with failing to let him be heard? I mean, does it increase their ability to bring a lawsuit later and successfully -- MR. WEIGEL: No. Our rule is a rule that's been adopted by the Board, published. It doesn't change the lawsuit liability or probability. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can the Chair make an exception if she chose to? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. We allowed the discretion of the Chair when we adopted the policy. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Considering it's not just speaking for himself but a whole condominium, I wonder if you would consider that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He may not even want to speak. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Hay I just ask -- just a minute, Dick -- Mr. Pickworth, in that regard, are your comments based pretty much on this letter that you have given us? MR. LYDON: That's my letter. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's Mr. Lydon's letter. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, there's a second one, Dick. MR. LYDON: Oh, sorry. CHAIRMAN BERRY: I'm talking about the one that was written or faxed over to Mr. Wright that was signed by you. It has two points. Are those the issues that you were planning to speak to? MR. PICKWORTH: That, plus a couple of things that were addressed by the Board that I wanted to comment on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, in the interest of spending less time talking about it than around it -- CHAIRMAN BERRY: You're right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you may want to ask Mr. Pickworth. CHAIRMAN BERRY: You're right. Mr. Lydon, go ahead. We'll start with you. MR. LYDON: For the record, I'm Dick Lydon. I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association. But before I do that, I had also put in a request to speak relative to the variance that's been requested for the building of this new operation. As chairman of the Beach Renourishment Committee, the word "variance" scares the hell out of us. Variances mean many problems, as far as the State is concerned, in the maintenance of beaches and the renourishing of beaches. And I would suspicion that they might very well have some serious problem getting that okay to build that swimming pool within the proximity of the beach that they're doing. But that is neither here nor there. I merely wanted to make that point. Now to move on with the fact that the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners' Association has done our best over the years to be good neighbors. We've worked hard to get a good beach turnaround and beach access, with some restrooms down at the south end of our beach. We've worked hard to get a parking lot down there that is a nice one, and unfortunately, always full. We have now agreed to work with the county in getting some more parking space, 150, 160 parking lot spaces up at the north end, so that people can get to Delnor Wiggins. You know, when you stop and think, we are being pretty good neighbors because none of us need to park a car to get to the beach. We can walk over to that beach. And when Twin Eagles came to me with this proposal, Mr. Wright, I looked at it, and I know the property because I had 21 of my family here for my 45th anniversary and we stayed in that Hideaway Villas, and I might tell you that we raised a good bit of rumpus during the course of the evening. When you turn 21 of those people loose, it's trouble. But when I was approached with this in March, I said fine, it sounds like it's good. Twin Eagles, upscale. Twin Peaks or Eagles? COMHISSIONER MACK'KIE: Twin Eagles. MR. LYDON: Upscale, 250, 275 homes, an 18-hele golf course; everybody is a member of the golf course. That's 275 families; that's 500. And having been involved with Benita Bay for a time, I've seen that work very nicely. And that old Hideaway Villas needs to be torn down and have something done with it. I thought this would be great; and I went on vacation for a month. I came back and I find out that we don't have 275 anymore, we've got 550. The 275 people who buy in that particular development are automatically members, as I understand it. They intend to sell an additional 275 equity memberships. That adds up to 550. Now, I don't know that there is anything in that PUD that says you can't add a few more Beach Club memberships to add on to that. I don't know whether that restriction exists or not. But I am concerned about the impact that that's going to have, not on the beach. There is plenty of room once we get out on the beach in front of that particular area. It gets a little crowded at the north end, gets a little crowded at the south end; but down there, there's enough room on the beach. What I am concerned is the impact of two things: One, traffic; second, noise. With the potential of 550 -- that's 1100 people with their guests -- you could turn up 500 people for a little show on the beach, a little party on the beach. I worked with the Ritz for eight years and we put 500 people on the beach and there was a lot of noise. And there will be a lot of noise on those six occasions, and I'm sure that those neighbors next door will be concerned with that. The other thing that bothers me greatly is the traffic impact. In my letter that I wrote after I had met with Mr. Wright, he was pretty much in agreement that they were going to run shuttle buses from the development to the beach club. There is nothing I've heard of today that indicates that that's going to be the case. I suggested that there be a route that those follow, because coming down Gulfshore Drive is not the answer, because that's got plenty of traffic right Dew. I asked that he consider 15 passenger vans, rather than mini buses, because we have a traffic problem on Gulfshore Drive; and I thought that that was kind of a given. Now I find out that you've got to call up the manager over there and find out whether it works. Just one more minute. I would like to point out to you that if you have four or five hundred people at that club for a special event, you're looking at ten 45-passenger motor coaches to move them in and out. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, the other speaker that registered after we began this discussion is Don Pickworth. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Pickworth must consider himself of course admonished for registering after the item began. MR. PICKWORTH: Yes. Madam Chairman, commissioners, I do apologize. I arrived in the room after Mr. Nine began speaking, and I consider myself properly admonished. However, I do believe representing the condominium to the north, whose residents are probably among the most directly affected by this, perhaps our thoughts on this matter might be of some use to the Board in its deliberations. I don't want to talk about the stipulations other than to say that our immediate concern when we knew they were doing this were the same concerns expressed by the Board. Obviously, a facility of this type has the potential to be extremely adverse to the neighborhood. It really depends on how it's operated. And we met with the developer and they were very forthcoming in agreeing to a number of restrictions, which alleviated many of our concerns, probably the chief of which is the fact that the facility will cease operations at sunset each day, except for six special events during the year. This, from our standpoint, you know, people ought to be able to enjoy the beach, and if the facilities are not used after sunset, and assuming there is some reasonable use of them during the daylight hours, we think this facility can be a good neighbor. And those stipulations were put in there, the ones you see in front of you, plus the two that Mr. Nino mentioned, which didn't get into that last group. The other two points I wanted to raise, though, which were mentioned during the discussion: Yes, we are a little concerned about the enforcement aspect of it and perhaps notifying the manager of our condominium or someone like that would be a way to do it. The parking issue, we struggled with that a little bit, but I guess where we came down to is it's our understanding that it is illegal to park in the county's right-of-way up there, and that therefore, that was sort of, there is already things on the books, if you will, to enforce that. So I guess with that issue, I think our sense was that these things have been addressed. We would be concerned about public access, because again, our comfort comes from the fact that the developer controls the use of this facility, and we think it's also in his interest to operate it in a neighborly way. So with that, I think that we're in support of what they're trying to do with the kind of restrictions that they've agreed to. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that the end of our public speakers? CHAIRMAN BERRY: I believe so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I have some questions for the petitioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As do I. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Wright, I understand that when you design a facility, there is really a comfortable maximum that it can serve, and you've expressed that as 80 to 100 for this particular site. Although I understand that, our issue becomes one of fine, we can sit up here and say, great, you can only have a hundred or 125 people on-site. And that sounds good and it seems to make the problem go away, except that how do we monitor it? What do we do? You know, are we going to have to send someone out from Code Enforcement and count people at night to see if there's a zoning violation and if so, what's the process for correcting that? We can probably craft something up here that has some enforceability, but is there anything that you can think of that would give us the assurance that if it's designed for 80 to 100 people, that we're not going to exceed that 100 people, period, or if it's 120 people? I think Mr. Lydon's comments are on the mark. You know, all of a sudden, the club newsletter goes out and the 4th of July festivities are out at the Beach Club. Granted, most people may not be here, Commissioner Norris, but those that are may take their friends, and next thing you know, we've got -- I'm looking for something, a benchmark, some way to ensure that the facility is not over-utilized to the point that although there are laws on the books about parking in the right-of-way, the enforcement of those; and the reluctance of the Sheriff's Office to get a tow -- a wrecker out there to tow people. We've seen it at La Playa. You can call the Sheriff's office and they come out and will do what they can, but there seems to be a reluctance to tow people unless it is posted, you know, from stem to stern. Even then, there's a reluctance to do it. So you've got to help me resolve those two issues, and I think they are significant, at least to their surrounding neighbors. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, while you think about those, can I add mine? Commissioner, do you mind? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My -- I didn't yet hear an answer about whether or not there is access, community access, to the beach nearby. But even if there were, I wonder, for my vote, you're going to need to put a bike rack in the southeast corner of your parking lot and allow access across that walkway for the neighborhood and anybody who can bike to the site, bike or walk to the site. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How wide is that neighboring property? Because I mean, if it's 150 feet or 180 feet or something, and there is another access down there, I don't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why couldn't they just walk across that little walkway, though? How nice and convenient for the general public. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Yes, I think that's nice, but -- Mr. WRIGHT: It's a hundred feet, more or less, the total width of the property. So we are pretty limited on the width. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On the mike, please. You have to be on the mike. MR. WRIGHT: The width of the property is about 100 feet right now. And as you can see, there's quite a few things going on from an operational issue; from a security issue. From our standpoint, certainly granting access to this just becomes more of a headache for us. And the width of the property is a constraining factor that we've tried to carefully plan around as much as possible, and take as many things into consideration as possible. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All I'm suggesting is where the purple car is -- MR. WRIGHT: Right here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- put a bike rack and that people who live in the area and can walk or bike to the area, can then walk from the bike rack across the parking lot, across your little walkway, to the beach. That's all I'm asking. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you know what an advocate I am for beach parking, but we don't have a shortage of ways for residents to get to the beach in that area. I understand what you're trying to do, but it doesn't solve anything, because we don't have a shortage of people who live in Vanderbilt Beach having access to the beach. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But I can ride my bike there. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It's a long ways. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You just can't walk on their privately constructed boardwalk. My feeling is that we need to separate. If we're going to make a public access it has to be separate from a private access. Otherwise, you're saying La Playa, you know, put a bike rack in front of your parking lot and people are allowed to use your lobby to get to the beach. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not the lobby, but their outside sidewalk. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Well, but, you know, I have a problem. I would think they would have a problem from a liability standpoint. You know, John Q. Public comes and they happen to trip over a board that happens to be sticking up. And you may deal differently with it being a member, et Getera, et Getera. But from the general public, I would have a concern doing that. If you're going to do anything it has to be outside on either side or whatever. I agree, I think the parking first off; the bike rack, I don't know. I would struggle with that. I like the beach access kind of thing but I certainly don't want it through the private club area. And I have nothing to do with this golf course. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, really, what you're asking them to do, Commissioner Hac'Kie, is convert their private property into public property. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That little strip. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think we've done that before. But at the south beach access on Marco Island, the developer donated some 20-foot easements to the county and fenced it off on both sides. And that's not the same situation as we have here. What we have here is purely private property that you're conditioning your vote on them providing public access through private property. I just don't think that's proper. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then they won't do that. MR. WRIGHT: I would like to add that I've spoken to my client, and we are willing to limit the total number of occupants for this facility to 112 at any one time, and that would include the use of the beach and also the use of the upland facilities, just on this particular side of the parcel. So it wouldn't encumber the eastern side of the parcel, but it would limit the beach side. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me ask on the enforcement side, Mr. Weigel, if they make that voluntary commitment it becomes a condition of the conditional use? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If the folks in the condo to the north or south all of a sudden see 200 people out there and call Code Enforcement, and we come out and determine there are more than 112 people there, what does that mean? Does that mean we have a violation of their zoning and they are brought before the Board of Zoning Appeals? MR. WEIGEL: No. I don't think it's going to be a Zoning Appeals; I think it is a Code Enforcement. Code Enforcement is for the violation of ordinances, and I think it's broad enough it would come before the Code Enforcement Board. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Would they be able to levy a financial penalty for a violation? MR. WEIGEL: They first are looking for a correction. They look for correction and compliance, yes, as far as that goes. But with repeated offenses, the leverage is there to impose fines. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the nature of the project and other things, I think that's really all we can more or less hope for. Because if I were a hotel or motel they could have a private function there and bring in 250 or 300 people to their property for a picnic and bus them in and there is not a word we could say about it as a Board, is my understanding. Does anyone feel differently than that or understand differently than that? There is no limit on a motel on number of people on this site. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's true. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So at least, we're making a step in that direction. The last remaining item that I can't kind of get complete closure to myself is the issue of parking enforcement. Then again, Mr. Weigel, I have to defer to you on this. If we got a voluntary commitment that the property owner would post the area as no parking in the right-of-way and would enforce that through a towing service that is also posted, again, if they fail to do that, are we back in the same situation of Code Enforcement? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's an interesting concept. That the landowner itself post that area that it does not own, but it's in the right-of-way, and see to it that there is enforcement? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. This is county right-of-way. It's a good point and I'm looking for a solution here and I'm having a tough time crafting one. MR. WEIGEL: But the fact is that there can be tickets, as well as towing, it appears, from the sheriff's agency, as far as that goes. And if no one else but the adjoining landowners or condominium association management get a string of complaints coming in with some repetition, I would expect that there would be some real enforcement out there. Not that I try to speak for the Sheriff's agency. MR. WRIGHT: I would like to add one thing with respect to that. I can see you struggling with this, Mr. Hancock. I think by virtue of the way that we've written the stipulations, it's our intent to be a self-policing entity here, and I think what we're looking for is the opportunity to do that, to do the right thing, to make sure that things are in compliance with what we've agreed to here today and previously. And if you can find some way to put some teeth to that, I would certainly like the opportunity to police ourselves on this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there any way we can -- and again, if I'm the only one that's really going down this path, let me know -- is there any way we can specify a set number of times a year in which complaints on parking are received by the sheriff's office, and if it exceeds that, it triggers a review of the conditional use? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The problem with that sort of thing is that we get into perhaps some subjective enforcement, and who is the enforcement agency. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does the car belong to a neighbor, does it belong to someone at the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. You get into all those issues and I'm not sure that we can get that deep into it. I think the petitioner, if I heard right, said they would limit the occupancy to 112. I think that's about as good a safeguard as we're going to get, because as you pointed out, the use that's there now could have hundreds of people there. They can party all night as loud as they want, within reason, and there is no restriction on that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The noise ordinance. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So it seems to me that this is definitely a downgrade in intensity with the ultimate number limited at 112 people. I don't know exactly how you intend to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But they've offered a number and that gives us something to hang our hat on. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. CHAIRMAN BERRY: And the sunup to sundown kind of restriction. I think there's a few things built in here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess at some point, we have to rely on the enforcement abilities of the Sheriff's Office on parking issues and if we aren't getting that, that's where we need to go. I was looking for a way to attach it to zoning, and there's just not a convenient way to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see a budget increase request for more traffic officers coming right now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see an increase for community service deputies being authorized to ticket right-of-way infractions. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Any other questions, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None that I can come up with. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Do we have any other -- we have obviously no other public speakers. I'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'm going to go ahead and move approval, then I'll start with the conditional use CU 98-7. We do have to take separate motions on that, correct, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval of CU 98-7, with the following restrictions that have been confirmed on the record by Mr. Wright as the agent for the owner. One is that the mooring requirements or the mooring allowance for boats at the proposed dock or existing dock be limited to 48 hours per vessel maximum. Second, is that in addition to stipulation 5-b on page 4 of our agenda, which indicates that there may be as many as six events each year in which the facility may be open until 10:00 p.m., that two weeks prior to those events, notification be delivered by registered mail to the properties immediately to the north and south of the subject property, so that the tracking of those events is made possible by those who are impacted the most by it. The third is that we recognize the voluntary limit of individuals utilizing the facility to 112 that was made here today. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay, we have a motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Motion carries four-one. Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 98-235, RE PETITION CCSL-98-3, CHRISTOPHER O. WRIGHT, P.E., OF RWA INC., REPRESENTING THE TWIN EAGLES BEACH AND BAY CLUB, REQUESTING A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK LINE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL AND DECK, BATHHOUSE, LIMITED FOOD SERVICE BUILDING AND PRIVACY WALLS, LOCATED AT 9467 GULF SHORE, LOT 4, BLOCK, CONNOR'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES UNIT NO. 1 - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS Now, the next motion would be for Petition CCSL-98-3. Do I have a motion for that? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Lydon had mentioned maintenance and I apologize, I don't remember the -- what's the exact distance of the -- this is for the pool itself? CHAIRMAN BERRY: To allow for construction of a pool and deck and bath house. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's well inside of the adjacent properties or equal to, so I don't see a maintenance issue. So I'll move approval of CCSL-98-3. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: After the hearing is closed, I'll go ahead and do that. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Hearing is closed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will move approval of CCSL-98-3. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. The entirety of the property, the beach house and the pool, are seaward of the control line? Where is the control line on your drawing, I guess. I couldn't tell from mine. MR. WRIGHT: The bath house or the pavilion type structure is actually 16 feet seaward of the current county line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the control line is in your parking lot somewhere? MR. WRIGHT: The control line actually goes right through the middle of the building. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It bisects -- page 4 of 12-C-3 shows it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As I understand it, though, the proposed building is farther, farther away from seaward than the current building. MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir. The most western edge of the proposed building is 16 foot from that line. The old building is almost 80 feet from that line. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Big improvement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The old building housed people. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Looks to me like you complied with this criteria. I just needed to get an understanding. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. All in favor? Opposed? (No response). Motion carries five-zero. I move approval of CCSL 98-3. Second. We have a motion to approve CCSL 98-3. Thank you very much. Item #12C4 ORDINANCE 98-62, TO MANAGE RECOVERY, RECONSTRUCTION AND MITIGATION ACTIVITIES FOLLOWING A HAJOR OR CATASTROPHIC DISASTER - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN BERRY: Moving on then to the approval of an ordinance created to manage recovery, reconstruction and mitigation activities following a major or catastrophic disaster. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Close the public hearing? CHAIRMAN BERRY: I will close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion to approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve an ordinance for recovery, reconstruction and mitigation following a major catastrophic disaster. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Too bad Mr. Perkins isn't here. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Good. All in favor? Opposed? (No response). Motion carries five-zero. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 98-236, RE PETITION CU-98-4, DR. NINO SPAGNA, REPRESENTING CROSSROADS COMMUNITY CHURCH, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "7" AND "11" OF THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH AND DAY CARE FACILITY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES - ADOPTED Item 13-A-2, Petition CU-98-4. I've been told that we need to close the public hearing on this particular item. Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Do they want to talk us out of this? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We want to say yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are we closed, Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN BERRY: We closed the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I move approval. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN BERRY: We have a motion and second to approve CU-98-4. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response). Motion carries five-zero. That's your reward for sitting here all day, Neno. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good thing your contract's not by the word, Nino. You'd be a poor man. Item #14A BUDGET ITEM REGARDING STORAGE SPACE FOR SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS - APPROVED CHAIRMAN BERRY: I believe Mr. Smykowski looks like he has something for the commissioners. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRMAN BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: I realize the hour is late, but there is one item that we neglected to bring up at wrap-up that has budget implications. The Supervisor of Elections has requested consideration of additional storage space. We have a time sensitive issue here that we need to deal with expeditiously in this case. Skip Camp can give you the details on the arrangements and square footage, and so forth. I believe some, if not all, of you have been briefed on this subject so you should be familiar with it. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, Mr. Fernandez, I spoke with the supervisor on this, and she indicated that this is what she needs. We took a little tour of our current facility and she definitely needs some more space. I told her that it's fine with me; I have no objection to any of this. This is a plan that we worked up together with Mr. Camp. And if nobody has any real objection to this, I'll make a motion to approve it. CHAIRMAN BERRY: I believe you were appointed as a board liaison __ COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I was indeed. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN BERRY: -- to go and speak with her and deal with this item. So if you have done that and you are pleased with what's here, we'll take your recommendation, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One caveat, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One caveat. I understand the reason for additional space is because of expansion due to the mail facility. When we look at what that mail facility is quote, unquote saving us, we now get to add $71,000 into it. MR. CAMP: For the record, Skip Camp, Facilities Management Director. Commissioner, that's only part of it. But you're correct, it is part of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. It's a cost incurred due to the mail facility. So when we look at what we are quote, unquote saving, let's remember there's 71 grand added to that, and I'd like the staff to take note of that for any future review of that operation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for pointing that out. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and second for approval of this item. All in favor? Opposed? (No response). Motion carries five-zero. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you, Commissioners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great job, Mary. MR. SMYKOWSKI: We would be funding that from reserves. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. You're clear on that. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. MR. SHYKOWSKI: The annual lease would come from our general fund contingency. I would propose to you Ms. Horgan's contingency for the costs incurred there should be a couple months' rental expenses, as well as the improvements required. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be out of this year's reserves in her budget? MR. SHYKOWSKI: Correct. And the annual lease next year, obviously, would come out of the general fund reserve for the Supervisor of Elections. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Smykowski. MR. FERNANDEZ: That's all I have, Madam Chair. CHAIRMAN BERRY: All right. Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have nothing. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have anything further. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. Item #14B DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COUNTY ADHINISTRATOR'S EVALUATION COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We had a discussion a couple of weeks back about we were due for our annual review of the County Administrator. I'm trying to recall, you had said you preferred like a written format as opposed to some scoring. Are we going to have something to work from or are we just writing it all on our own, at our leisure? I can't remember what we decided about that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the Chairman's call. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's why I'm asking. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: As I recall, the discussion we had was about the County Attorney, though, not the County Administrator. CHAIRMAN BERRY: No. We had spoken about Mr. Fernandez's review, and I think I was to await any of you that had any, if you wanted anything specific question-wise or anything that you wanted included. As of this date, I have not received anything. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You will. CHAIRMAN BERRY: At this point, if I will get those, then we will kind of put them on a form, you know, kind of thing, that we can go forward with. In the meantime, Mr. Fernandez, if we could have -- even though it's a short period of time -- the goals again that the Board established, and with your comments to us on what we have achieved of those goals or what we have dealt with. I think that we should have those, because I think that's a fair way to do a review. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sort of his self-evaluation. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Well, exactly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Self-evaluation, then our perception and also, any suggestions that we might have in the future, et cetera; constructive type things. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: For my two cents, you don't need to get it in writing. The goals that we set for county organization and administration are the things I'm going to evaluate Mr. Fernandez on and his ability to carry out those goals. So, beyond that, the commentary is on style -- CHAIRMAN BERRY: True. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and I don't think there are questions on style that you could generalize. So, from my standpoint, you take the goals that this Board set, and I will be assessing the County Administrator's organization on how they've accomplished those goals. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disagree that we can't put specific questions in about style. And I think back to some of the specific criticisms of Neil. And while overall he did a very good job as manager, there were certain perceptions about his approachability from the public, or his communications with the public. And I think some of those things we can probably formulate questions that just apply within the scope of what the manager should be doing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you can do this however you want to, but for me, you know, that will fall under -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Strengths and weaknesses. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It'll fall under small town, good government -- small town government in an urban area, something like that. Urban services in a small town feel, you know. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't that an old John Hellencamp song? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It might be. CHAIRMAN BERRY: I think we can structure a form, if you will, that would encompass and give you the opportunity to make some statements if you wish to make them in that regard. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's my desire simply for us in our evaluation of the strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement -- CHAIRMAN BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you know, beyond looking at the goal-setting thing. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Right. Well, I was just using that from a standpoint to look and see where we, kind of where we are here; are we doing what we said and is Mr. Fernandez carrying out some of the things that we had indicated that we thought were important for this Board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like I said, I got out of writing something, okay. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. If you can get that list to us and then we'll go to work on whatever it is we need to do. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mrs. Filson, do you or have you kept some of those old evaluations that we've made in years past? MS. FILSON: I have them on the computer. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I think maybe the form that Commissioner Volpe made was fairly detailed. That might be one that we could pattern after. I certainly would not want to do the one that Commissioner Matthews brought forth. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Matthews, oh, that was the worst '- MS. FILSON: That's probably the one I have on the computer. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It is? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't understand that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, surely we have others. I may even have some copies of those old ones. Yes, I didn't understand that one, either. At least we can pull some material out of those. CHAIRMAN BERRY: I don't believe -- I don't think any of us, if I understood your interest, we're not interested in getting into the A, B, C, D kind of categorization, grading kinds of things. We used to be hung up here and also the school board used to get the same thing, and they were very quick to point out administrator received an A, or a B or a C, and that's not the intent, I don't think of giving a grade. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Neil had actually requested some number system a couple of years because he wanted to be able to compare year to year, and whether he had improved. And this Board did not put an A, B, C. But it was like a four scale, and so the newspaper that particular year put on, okay, four would be like a 4.0, like an A and three would be a B. So there is essentially no way you can get an A in that scenario. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I do remember that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They went to a five the next year and then a hundred the following year. MR. FERNANDEZ: I would ask the Board to keep in mind what we are trying to accomplish with this, and that is to communicate with me areas that you're happy, areas that you're not so happy, areas that you think I need to improve in. Whatever form you feel comfortable in doing that, I think is what we need to keep focused on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Very good. Hopefully one-on-one will be included there. Item #15A DISCUSSION REGARDING 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of the things I wanted to mention is that this morning you may have heard that the State of Florida Division of Forestry is encouraging every community, every county, to cancel its 4th of July fireworks because of the high fire risk. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hadn't heard that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understanding that someone somewhere who may be listening at this moment, may wish to write a story about how Collier is not going to do that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they might not, unless you brought it up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Number one, we're setting them off over a lake, which kind of helps. And two, I believe that they have worked out -- this is something I want to ask the County Administrator through Parks and Rec. to check on -- make sure the East Naples Fire District is going to have a presence at the time of the fireworks. That's my understanding, but I think we have a responsibility to make sure that's going to be the case. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, that's the case. I have already received a report on that. We have coordinated with them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Good. So I just wanted to make sure we were addressing that issue, and we have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BERRY: Okay. Ms. Filson, do we have anything further? MS. FILSON: I have nothing further. Thank you. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously, with the exception of Item #16A15, 4/0 (Commissioner Mac'Kie abstained), that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted with changes: Item #16A1 - Deleted Item #16A2 - Deleted Item #16A3 - Deleted Item #16A4 STAFF TO AMEND ORDINANCE NO. 94-39, TO ALLOW SHIP REHABILITATION RECIPIENTS TO SELCT THEIR OWN CONTRACTORS PURSUANT TO COUNTY BID SPECIFICATIONS Item #16A5 BUDGET AMENDMENT ALLOCATING TOURISM DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR THE SPECIAL EVENTS AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND A.S.A., INC. Item #16A6 SECOND AMENDMENT TO TOURISM GRANT PROGRAM ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NAPLES AREA ACCOMMODATIONS ASSOCIATION, INC. Item #16A7 RESOLUTION 98-190 THROUGH 98-208 AND AGREEHENTS FOR WAIVER OF IHPACT FEES FOR NINETEEN (19) SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES TO BE BUILT BY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. IN NAPLES MANOR AND TO FUND SAID WAIVERS FROM AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND, FUND 191 Item #16A8 RESOLUTION 98-209 THROUGH 98-213, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS. 60528-024, 60924-047, 61002-020, 61017-120, 61017-121 AND 61017-164 Item #16A9 RESOLUTION 98-214 THROUGH 98-218, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS. 61030-049, 70103-017, 70107-066, 70213-021, AND 70214-008 Item #16A10 RESOLUTION 98-219 THROUGH 98-223, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS. 70228-051, 70321-030, 70324-030, 70408-018 AND 70408-061 Item #16All RESOLUTION 98-224 THROUGH 98-227, PROVIDING FOR ASSESSHENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE NOS. 7-806-057, 70902-084, 71010-027 AND 71218-020 Item #16A12 EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.636, "STAN WEEKS HOMESITE AND COHMERCIAL EXCAVATION", BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY 66TH AVENUE N.E. ON THE SOUTH AND WEST BY LAND ZONED ESTATES AND ON THE EAST BY THE FAKA UNION CANAL - WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16A13 EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.609 (HOD) GLEN EDEN-LAKE 5 BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY THE RETREAT PUD, ON THE EAST BY FALLING WATERS NORTH MULTI-FAMILY, ON THE SOUTH BY UNDEVELOPED RSF-4 AND ON THE WEST BY ARBOR TRACE PUD - WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16A14 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF SEWER FACILITIES FOR THE HRS SITE Item #16A15 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER FACILITIES FOR BRIDGEWATER CONDOHINIUH Item #16A16 RESOLUTION 98-228, DEFERRAL OF ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE IMPACT FEES FOR A 210 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO BE BUILT BY COLLEGE PARK HOLDINGS, LTD., AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS AND SUBORDINATION OF LIEN Item #16A17 FINAL PLAT OF "WILSHIRE LAKES PHASE TWO-A" - WITH STIPULATIONS Item #16A18 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (HPO) BUDGET FOR GRANT YEAR 1998-99 Item #16A19 FINAL PLAT OF "BRITTANY PLACE PHASE 1" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A20 AGREEMENT WITH PERCONTI DATA SYSTEMS, INC., TO UPGRADE AND COMPLETE AN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR THE COHMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Item #16A21 FINAL PLAT OF "BRITTANY PLACE PHASE 2" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS Item #16B1 - Deleted Item #1682 RESOLUTION 98-229 TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE PIPER BOULEVARD IHMEDIATELY EAST OF CYPRESS WAY EAST AND TO REDUCE THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON IHMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) EAST AND WEST OF JUNCTION AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION Item #1683 JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LEE COUNTY FOR PLANNING OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STAGES FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AT THE LEE/COLLIER LINE, CIE PROJECT NO. 021 Item #16B4 SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER NAPLESCAPE 90'S AND GEORGE BOTNER, ASLA, FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR THE PHASE 1 DAVIS BOULEVARD MEDIAN LANDSCAPE PROJECT (U.S. 41 TO C.R.31) Item #1685 COST REIMBURSEMENT BY SPRINT FOR WORK BY THE COUNTY AS PART OF THE RATTLESNAKE HAi~HOCK ROAD FOUR LANING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, BID NO. 95-2441 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $58,287.10 Item #1686 - Moved to Item #SB1 Item #1687 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO HOLE HONTES AND ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE RECLAIMED WATER BACK PRESURE SUSTAINING VALVES PROJECT, WORK ORDER NO. HHA-FT97-1, PROJECT NO. 74020 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $52,462.00 Item #1688 FUNDING FOR THE NORTH COLLIER REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT CONCENTRATE PUMPING STATION HEADER PIPING REPLACEMENT Item #1689 - Added SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NO. 4 WITH HOLE, HONTES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE IHMOKALEE ROAD SIX LANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $181,945.00 Item #16C1 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE LIBRARY'S ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WITH DATA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES Item #16C2 ACCESS EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE NORTH NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR THE VETERANS PARK CENTER PUD Item #16C3 AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE LEASE BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND TECH OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. Item #16C4 AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS FOR STAFF TO PURCHASE ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT LIGHTS FOR BAYVIEW PARK - IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $55,000.00 Item #16C5 LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE MARCO ISLAND FLOTILLA, INC. FOR UTILIZATION OF A NEW FACILITY LOCATED AT CAXAMBAS PARK Item #16C6 AGREEMENTS WITH CRAIG CHAQUICO AND PETER WHITE FOR A PERFORMANCE AT THE FIRST EVER ROYAL PALM JAZZ & ARTS FESTIVAL Item #16D1 RESOLUTION 98-230, ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE (NWS) FOR THE TRANSFER OF A NOAA WEATHER TRANSMITTER; BID REQUIREMENTS WAIVED TO PURCHASE THE EQUIPMENT SPECIFIED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Item #16E1 BUDGET ~MENDMENTS 98-287f 98-291f 98-294 ~ND 98-295 Item #16E2 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE CONSENT ~ND EMERGENCY ITEMS DURING THE BOARD'S SCHEDULED RECESSES Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED ~ND/OR REFERRED The £ollowing miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board o£ County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 APPROVAL OF THE USE OF CONFISCATED TRUST FUNDS TO PURCHASE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT BY THE COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE Item #16H2 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO RECOGNIZE ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 REVENUE IN THE CONFISCATED TRUST FUND (602) Item #16H3 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE $19,972.00 SUBGRANT AWARD FOR THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT #98-CJ-6J-09-21-01-202/STREET GANG PREVENTION AND APPREHENSION PROGRAM Item #16H4 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE $46,012.00 SUBGRANT AWARD FOR THE ANTI-DRUG ABUSE GRANT #98-CJ-6J-09-201/SERIOUS HABITUAL OFFENDER COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PLAN (SHOCAP) PROGRAM Item #1611 MEDIATED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IN THE CASE OF SUNSHINE EXCAVATORS, INC. V. COLLIER COUNTY, CASE NO. 97-1760-CC-11-ECT Item #16J1 - Added BID NO. 98-2811 FOR THE MANUFACTURING INCUBATOR PROJECT AT THE IHMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT - AWARDED TO QUALITY CONTROL BUILDERS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $920,287.00; TRANSFER OF $313,300.00 FROM THE COUNTY-WIDE CAPITAL FUND RESERVES TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY CAPITAL FUND TO COVER A BUDGET SHORTFALL IN THE IHMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT MANUFACTURING INCUBATOR PROJECT CHAIRMAN BERRY: Very good. This meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:30 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA BERRY, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Cherie Leone and Kaye Gray, RPR