Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/24/1998 R REGULAR HEETING FEBRUARY 24, 1998 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Timothy J. Constantine John C. Norris Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the Board of County Commissioners' meeting for February 24th. If we'd please rise for the invocation by Mr. Tom Olliff and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. MR. OLLIFF: Heavenly Father, we come to you this morning and we thank you so much for all that you've done for us individually and for what you've done for us as a community. Father, we thank you daily for the beautiful place that you've given us to live. Father, this morning, we pray especially for the people in central Florida. Father, we pray that you'd have your hand on that situation, that you'd watch over them, that you'd bring them back. Father, we pray that you'd have your hand on their families, that you'd give them comfort and strength as they go through this difficult time. Father, we thank you this morning for the dedication of a hardworking staff. Father, we thank you that there are people who are willing and dedicated to be able to serve you here in this community, and Father, we pray for the meeting this morning. We pray that you'd have your hand on each individual commissioner, that you'd give them wisdom so that they might be able to make decisions for the better good. We pray these things in your Son's holy name, amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Olliff. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two items. The first is to add Item 8(B)(1). This is the award of a contract for bid number 97-2771, removal of non-specification material from the Naples Beach to CBE Trucking Company, Incorporated, in the amount of $99,982 and report of other -- on other beach renourishment matters. Also, I'd like to ask the board to consider the withdrawal of Item 16(J)(1), which is the recommendation to recognize and transfer $190,000 from Airport Authority Fund 496 carryforward to the Immokalee Manufacturing Incubator Center Project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That was a request to withdraw that item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, to withdraw that item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Whose request? MR. FERNANDEZ: The budget office. We need to do more work on the figures -- dollar amounts. We hope to have that on the agenda for next week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, I see. So it's really just a -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Just to correct the figures. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I gotcha. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any changes? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None for me either, Madam Chairman. With that, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion made and seconded. Any other comments? I call for the question; all in favor? (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. Item #4 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF JANUARY 27 AND FEBRUARY 3, 1998 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of the January 27th regular meeting and February 3rd regular meeting. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? (Chorus of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED This morning it is my privilege to present some service awards to some people who have given us dedicated service. We'll start with Mr. George Cawley in Parks and Recreation Department, five years. Mr. Cawley, would you come forward, please? (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, and I've got a certificate and pin for you. The next individual is Barbara Lee for five years in the Road and Bridge Department. Barbara? (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you so much for your time. I have a certificate and a pin for you. Thank you very much. And last, but not least, is James Riley from Road and Bridge for five years. (Applause). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a certificate and a pin. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations, Mr. Riley. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's always a pleasure to represent those individuals that have given their time to the county for the good of all of us. Item #8B1 BID #97-2771 FOR THE REMOVAL OF NON-SPECIFICATION MATERIAL FROM THE NAPLES BEACH - AWARDED TO CBE TRUCKING IN THE AMOUNT OF $99,982.00 AND REPORT ON OTHER BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT MATTERS Moving on then to Item 8(B)(1), contract for bid 97- 2771, beach clean-up. Good morning, Mr. Gonzalez. MR. GONZALEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman and commissioners. Adolfo Gonzalez, capital projects director. This item was pulled last week when we received notice of an intent to protest the bid award by one of the bidders. We've since received correspondence from the bidder withdrawing their intent to protest and that is the reason why we have asked you to put it back on the agenda today. I think the agenda speaks for itself. Harry Huber and I are here to answer any questions you may have regarding any technical matter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any questions? Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just a point -- it's clear in the executive summary, but I thought it was worth mentioning. I thought the staff did a good job on following the direction the board issued on several points. One of which being, the request that the county attorney's office review the contract documents and determine whether any legal remedies in the 1995 contract are still available. Based upon their opinion in this regard, staff has notified the contractor of our intent to seek reimbursement of costs incurred in the removal of non-specification material. I think that's a key point. Mr. Weigel, to you and your staff, I appreciate your hard work in taking a look at that. I know it won't be an easy road, but at least it is an option that is available and one that I think is fair. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the other -- you know, just to add to that, the other comment is, I was relieved to find that our staff had in fact done a good job and our consultant, Coastal Engineering had done a really good job of documenting well within the contract periods what exactly has been done outside the scope of the contract. I mean, even in a way that I can understand; nice little pictures that show where, you know, the dredging went outside the approved areas. So I'm very comfortable with our good lawyering and our good staffing, we're gonna be able to, you know, get the public satisfied with this project, which has been basically successful, but does have some serious glitches and I think, you know, you've done a great job. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other comments? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Gonzalez, do we know yet whether T.L. James will be doing the work themselves or whether or not -- by letting this contract to CBE Trucking Company -- I mean, is there any chance T.L. James is going to actually just come in and do the work, instead of us actually expending, the funds or is that not a likelihood? MR. GONZALEZ: No, I don't think they're going to actually do the work. We did meet with T.L. James, and are reserving the right for any future actions. They had -- they neither had an opinion for or against our recommendation to do the beach cleaning by this particular bidder. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just as a side comment, looking at the size of -- I don't know what you call it, the auger or the bit -- the drill bit that is doing the digging, I'm amazed that they come as close as they do in estimating the depth and certainly working in an unstable environment; rough water, et cetera, et cetera, I'm sure this certainly has some bearing, and I'm amazed they do as well as they do in that particular format, so I think we're moving in the right direction. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pretty good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, in the absence of any speakers -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: We do have speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm betting we do, seeing who's out there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's have the speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Gil Erlichman and Bill Boggess. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We've been missing you, Gil. Where have you been? MR. ERLICHHAN: A little vacation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MR. ERLICHHAN: Good morning. For the record, Gil Erlichman, elector and taxpayer, I reside in East Naples. In the past -- in the past week, I received a copy from Mr. Gonzalez of the contract that the county has with or had with Coastal Engineering Consultants and this contract is called, Collier County Beach Restoration and Management Plan Professional Services Agreement, and it was entered into on the 24th day of Hay, 1994. And in -- and the reason for me going and getting this contract was that I noticed in the -- in the executive summary, that the staff is taking on -- upon themselves the blame -- as I see it, the blame for the rocks on the beach or the non-specification materials and I don't think that's absolutely true or fair. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that's just so -- Gil, that's not how I read it at all. MR. ERLICHHAN: Pardon, sir? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think our staff is taking responsibility for, in essence, a notification process that should have occurred prior to the letting or of the final payment to T.L. James, but not taking full responsibility for the contractor's mistake, no. MR. ERLICHHAN: Well, it says in paragraph -- part 3 of the executive summary, it says -- I'm taking this out of context. It is his opinion that the staff made an error in judgment by not requiring the contractor for the 1995 beach renourishment project to return to remove the non-specification material from Naples Beach. In hindsight, staff should have, one -- et cetera, et cetera. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. ERLICHHAN: Now, I'm basing my opinion upon the -- and object to this on the contract that the county has and had with Coastal Engineering because within the contract on section -- in section A, which is scope of services, I will read a few things out of that and this is A-6 -- A-6.2 on page 37. It says review materials -- this is the duties of the consultant, review materials and workmanship of the project and report to owner any deviations from the contract documents which may come to the consultant's attention. Determine the acceptability of work and materials and make recommendation to owner to reject items not meeting the requirements of the contract documents. Now, these items that they're referring to, I believe, are the rocks or any extraneous material, other than the sand that was pumped on the beach. Now, if that's the case, did the consultants notify the staff or any -- or someone who was responsible from the county -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, they did. MR. ERLICHHAN: -- and if so, why wasn't proper action taken at that particular time to prevent more non-specification materials, rocks, being put upon the beach? That's my question -- one of the questions, and it goes on further to say that, excuse me -- okay. Item A-6.11, and upon receiving notice from the contractor advising consultant that the project is substantially complete, consultant shall schedule, and in conjunction with owner, conduct a comprehensive inspection of the project, develop a list of items needing completion or correction. Forward said list to the contractor and provide written recommendations to the owner, that's the county, concerning the acceptability of work done. Now, in other words, we signed off on the advice of the consultants that this -- that the beach renourishment was done satisfactorily -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the whole point though, Gil, I thought that too, but what I have since had pointed out to me is a whole stack of correspondence -- correspondence with a whole stack of exhibits attached to it, that were provided to the contractor that say, we hereby object to this and this and this and this. So that we preserved our right to do what we're doing right now, which is make them solve the problem. I think that this -- that it was a misunderstanding, or at least it was over emphasized, that somebody thought that we had waived our rights and that we had signed off on everything. There's a whole stack of correspondence and, Adolfo, I'd suggest, you know, it might help to make it available to Mr. Erlichman, to show that we did, and that Coastal Engineering did object and preserve our right to make them solve the problem. MR. ERLICHMAN: Excuse me, why are we paying $99,000 then to a contractor? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because we want to solve the problem and then we're gonna get the money back. MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, are we sure we're gonna get the money back? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the opinion of the county attorney that we can recoup those funds, yes. MR. ERLICHMAN: Oh, okay. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, it's gonna -- it may require legal action -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll probably have to sue them, but that's what contracts -- that's what you have to do to enforce your rights under contracts. MR. ERLICHMAN: Well, it is my opinion that -- you know, I've been fighting consultants -- the use of consultants for many years and I go back to 1992, when there was consultants being contracted for which were unnecessary, and I don't see -- in this case, I don't see it's unnecessary, but I think we should be more vigilant in arriving at contracts with these consultants and make sure that we don't use boilerplate and we don't use -- we don't take for granted that the consultant's gonna do their job properly. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you take a look at what Mr. Gonzalez has, you'll see correspondence from the consultant notifying us of the exact problems we're still dealing with today. So I think that will help answer some of the questions, there may still be some out there. MR. ERLICHMAN: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mr. Bill Boggess. MR. BOGGESS: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. For the record, my name is Bill Boggess of 1100 8th Avenue South, City of Naples, a graduate of engineering and a former beach committee member. I have become more and more confused as the years go by, why are there rocks on the beach? Does anyone have a simple answer why are rocks on the beach? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As best I understand it, it's because the dredge went too far in some of the -- in some of the areas where it extracted material to pump on to the beach, it went outside the permitted area in several -- in several places. MR. BOGGESS: This is -- this is the source of all the rocks on the beach? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's as I understand it. MR. BOGGESS: My question comes then to the fact that this board, when Chairman Norris was in charge, you, Mac'Kie, Bettye Matthews and Hancock, all sat in a meeting, along with Neil Dotrill, the county attorney, Dr. Steven Gonzalez, Conrecode, I forget who all was there, and you passed a unanimous motion to require that the rocks that were in the borrow pit, be buried on the Naples Beach below the mean high tide line and to be covered with high quality sand material. You also, at the same time, provided an additional $400,000, which for some reason or other, escalated to 1.9 million dollars, extra pay to the contractor. Was the material in the borrow pits, was that actually the -- what you paid some -- or authorized to pay some $688,000 to Coastal Engineering to find the beach compatible sand? Was all the other material -- was the only material rock outside of the borrow pit? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I've been told. MR. BOGGESS: Why then was 70 percent of the borrow pit material paid extra? For instance, some was bid at $4.43 and you negotiated to pay the contractor, and did pay the contractor, $9.79 a cubic yard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I mean, I can't cite those numbers with you like you can. MR. BOGGESS: But, I have furnished that information to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know you have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Boggess, you also understand that there are two issues here. One is what was given to us as a description of what's called armory, material that is not really what I would call -- not what we were looking for that was in the borrow area. It may have met contract specs in most ways, but was not what we would want as an appearance to our beach, was laid below mean high water in a process called armoring, as was expressed to us by our staff and the consultant. No, we weren't terribly happy about it, but as you know, once you dig it up, you've got to do something with it, and with the time line of the turtle nesting season coming fast upon us, we had to make a decision what was in the best interest of getting the most renourishment done for the dollar and the armoring process was what was presented to us and seemed like the best option at the time. The second issue is that of rocks yea big on the beach, and that was not a part of the armoring process, which for the most part was contained in Vanderbilt Beach and some sections of the City of Naples. The rocks on the beach right now are occurring above mean high water, which was not a part of what was expected, and I believe that's the area that Commissioner Mac'Kie is referring to, that the dredge swung out of the approved area by Coastal Engineering and that's where the larger rocks on the beach came from. That's my understanding from the questions I have posed to our staff and the consultant and from my recollection of those events. MR. BOGGESS: You do realize that the contract specifications were in direct violation of the state design criteria? The state design criteria on your three permits required no rocks. Mr. Brantley of the FDEP notified Mr. Poff on March llth that he would not accept the project if there were any rocks. He also -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Boggess, I appreciate your concern with the procedure up till now, but the agenda item in front of us is how to correct the problem we've all acknowledged, and we're wondering do you support correcting the problem? Are you opposed to that? MR. BOGGESS: I support correcting the problem, but you're only addressing ten percent of it. Now, with regards -- there is some 200,000 cubic yards of material that is impregnated with rock on the beach, as well as Vanderbilt Beach. Seventeen hundred lineal feet along -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And some portion of that is the armoring? I mean, isn't some portion of that appropriate armoring? MR. BOGGESS: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that we've been told before? MR. BOGGESS: No, the only permission that Collier County had to do a layering, was because of the material that did not meet state specs in area six, borrow area six, and the state did require if you use that to bury the shell hash below mean high tide and then put the sand on top of it. That is the only area that is permitted. Now, I might add, I was in -- talking with the Corps of Engineers just yesterday and they're a little concerned that they sent a letter to your consultant December 18th requesting certain bits of information with regards to these rocks and they have yet to have a reply, but that's between them and your consultant. The -- as far as the fact that your consultant knew that there was rock, while I was on the beach committee, and that's the reason I got on the beach committee was because of my friends and neighbors complaining about of all the rocks on the Naples Beach, and I think that Mr. Huber and Mr. Steven will attest to the fact that nearly every meeting I raised questions about the rock and there were times when Dr. Steven said, don't worry about it, we have $500,000 of the contractor's money and we know what the problem is and we will have it fixed before the contractor leaves, and you have copies of that documentation also, but I am in favor of getting rid of the rocks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And that's what the agenda item is in front of us this morning. MR. BOGGESS: This item is taking care of about ten percent of the rocks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's ten percent of the problem. MR. BOGGESS: You will be receiving correspondence from the Corps of Engineers and from the State Department of Environmental Protection. As far as your staff and the engineer, your public works director rendered an opinion as to what he thought was wrong with the contractor, but they also -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse my, Mr. Boggess -- MR. BOGGESS: -- failed to comply with TS-4.4, TS-9.4. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, Mr. Boggess, your five minutes -- you've had your time limit. MR. BOGGESS: Mr. Hancock took a good portion of it, but if you want me to sit down, I'll sit down. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe the clock was reset based on my comments, Mr. Boggess. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. The item in front of us, do you have any further questions, Commissioner Mac'Kie? Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second. Any further comments? I'll call for the question; all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you very much, Mr. Gonzalez. Item #SF1 1997 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION INNOVATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AWARD PRESENTATION - ACCEPTED BY COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY CHAIRMAN, MONTE LAZARUS Hoving on then to item 8(F)(1), the FAA innovative environmental award presentation. Good morning, Mr. Drury. MR. DRURY: Good morning. John Drury, executive director, Collier County Airport Authority. The Federal Aviation Administration is here today to present the 1997 Innovative Environmental Award to this Board of County Commissioners and the Airport Authority for their environmental responsive stewardship throughout the work associated with upgrading the three county airports. I have the pleasure of introducing Mr. Jack Reynolds of the FAA's airports district office from Orlando, Florida. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, Mr. Reynolds, and welcome to Collier County. MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. On behalf of the FAA, I want to thank Mr. John Drury and the county for welcoming me down here. As indicated in your executive summary, I represent FAA's Orlando Airport District Office, and I'm here to present the General Aviation Environmental Award to the Board of County Commissioners and the Collier County Airport Authority. Each year the FAA Southern Region, which comprises seven states and 545 public airports, selects one airport for this award. This year Collier County has won the award for its environmental work on Everglades Airpark, Immokalee Regional Airport and Marco Island Executive by developing three airport master plans that addressed and mitigated the impact on the environment during the development of these airports. The FAA recognizes the joint efforts required by the Board of County Commissioners and the Airport Authority to accomplish this work and, therefore, we present this award to the Board of County Commissioners and the Collier County Airport Authority. I offer my congratulations to you. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If I could ask Mr. Lazarus to come forward, please? As the chairman of the Collier County Commission, I'd like to present this to the Airport Authority, Collier County Airport Authority, in recognition of all of your hard work and I would like you to take this and hang this with the other awards -- state awards that you have received. I'd also like to thank Mr. Reynolds, again, for taking the time to come down here to Collier County and also all of the board members, if we could have you stand, please, and be recognized, the authority members that are present. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you'd like to say something, you can step to the podium. Thank you so much, Mr. Lazarus. MR. LAZARUS: Monte Lazarus, chairman of the Collier County Airport Authority. We thank the FAA, the board members, the authority members and particularly the staff for a particularly well done job and to have this award for three airports is particularly gratifying. We will hang it with pride and we thank the members of the commission for their great support. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Lazarus. Item #8F2 RESOLUTION 98-46, APPROVING THE BUSINESS PLAN FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY - ADOPTED Moving on then to item 8(F)(2), is to adopt a resolution approving the business plan for the Collier County Airport Authority, and again Mr. Drury. MR. DRURY: Again, John Drury, executive director of Collier County Airport Authority. Previously, the Collier County Airport Authority was instructed by the Board of County Commissioners to develop a ten year business plan outlining how the airport authority was going to work towards self-sufficiency over the next ten years. That plan has been presented to each and every one of you and identifies the ways in which the airport authority will reach self-sufficiency over the next ten years. With that, I guess I'll introduce the chairman of the airport authority. He'll make a few comments on it and we'll be here to answer any questions that you may have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. LAZARUS: Monte Lazarus, chairman of the Collier County Airport Authority. We made a promise to the commission some months ago that we would come back with a ten year plan. We have done that. Our plan calls for us to reach break even in each of two categories, both operating and capital. It is a plan, it's a plan for a budget. It is not a budget in itself. The budget we submit to you each year will be consistent with that plan and we think the plan carrying us through to break even in the ten year period is virtually unique in this country among general aviation airports, so we're very -- we're proud of our plan, and we'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, any questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, first of all, thank you to John and Joanne, and everyone else associated with the business plan. This is precisely what I was looking for and the questions I raised during the last budget process were based on not having this in my hand and making fiscal appropriations. That problem won't occur again. I thought that the projections that you laid out were not just reasonable, but fairly conservative. Fuel sales being the one issue that, you know, is a little -- little tenuous, but again, I think you did it a little on the conservative side, which is what we're looking for. I really don't have any burning question raised from the plan. I think it was well structured and I appreciate the effort and the commitment that you've made because I think it mirrors what this board has asked for very well. So not a question, but simply a comment and a note of thanks to you and your staff for putting together what I think is a very good business plan. MR. DRURY: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, do you have any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I reviewed the plan, I think it's just what we asked for. I want to commend the airport authority for producing it in a timely manner and I think it looks like what we expected it to look like and what we expect of the airport authority. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a ditto to both of those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great job. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, and I will concur. Do we have any speakers or comments, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I have a question, if I may pose it to Mr. Drury? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certainly. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mr. Drury, in reviewing your plan, it indicates that, in fact, in ten years the request for contributions from the Board of County Commissioners will end at that point. However, at that point, you indicate in your plan, a plan to repay the Board of County Commissioners over a period of time by sharing 50 percent of the net revenues of the authority. I guess my question is, do you anticipate that -- is there a financing plan to deal with that debt? MR. DRURY: We took this plan for ten years. The pay back schedule starts at ten years and goes on for a very long time because we've included interest over the years. We said that this plan must remain dynamic and fluid, and what we meant by that is, it's very hard for us to predict what's going to happen in the industrial park and the foreign trade zone, but our plan is to take all the excess revenues that we get from fuel sales and all the excess revenues we get from leases in the Immokalee Industrial Park and to take 50 percent of those excess revenues and begin paying back the board. That -- the time that it will take to pay back will be many, many, many years and it will go on for a long time, but what's unique about this Airport Authority versus the Naples or others, is where a community invested in its airport because they didn't have a plan up front, it's illegal for them to pay back the county or the city. Here, because we have a plan up front, we can pay back the county based on the revenues that are generated, but to have a financial plan that goes out 20 or 30 years, no, we haven't gone that far out. We've basically gone out 10 years to break even and committed that all of the revenues that exceed the expenses, 50 percent of those go back to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Fernandez, I think your question is well taken, and that's something future boards are going to need to have in hand so they can track the course of the repayment schedule once it's developed. So once we have the business plan, I think what you're asking for is the logical next step, which is once we have complete self-sufficiency, if you will, and not requiring additional funds from the commission, what track are we on, how long it's gonna take, so maybe over the year to 18 months, that is a projection that will be helpful for us and future boards to know and one that you can update on an annual basis. MR. DRURY: I think in the three or four years as the industrial park grows and we have a track record, we should be able to come up with some number -- update the business plan and begin into the financial pay back period. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions, comments? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will make a motion that we adopt this resolution approving the business plan for the airport authority. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any further comments? If not, I'll call for the question; all in favor? Motion -- opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Thank you, Mr. Drury and thank you, Mr. Lazarus. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-47, APPOINTING TY AGOSTON TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED Moving on then to item 10(A), appointment of member to the Environmental Policy Technical Advisory Board. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, there's one opening and one applicant, I'll make a motion we go ahead and appoint that applicant, Ty Agoston. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion. Do we have any -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that motion. Are there any public speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No public speakers. Any comments? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just I have one and with -- Ty's not surprised to know that I'm not gonna support him for that appointment for one simple reason, that is that a majority of the committee has requested that we reopen the advertising and it harkens back to when Commissioner Hancock and I first came on the Board of County Commissioners and we had a committee ask us, please, to have a member removed and a vacancy declared because of the inability to work with the balance of the committee. You know, without naming names, I'm sure everybody remembers that circumstance and I just think this is one where, you know, the situation is almost identical. We have a committee that says for technical advice, we don't think Mr. Agoston is appropriately qualified and we would ask that you open the opportunity for applications again. I don't have any problem with Mr. Agoston continuing to participate and to apply, but when the board that he's seeking appointment to says, please, give us other options, I think it's shortsighted of us not to consider that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to disagree with you, because we have consistently, at least a half dozen times since I've been on the board we've had a committee raise a question and ask us, because it wasn't their choice, the one applicant that we've had, say, well, would you reopen it, and consistently we have said, no. If a resident of the county, in good faith, who meets the appropriate qualifications, and by the letter of the law Mr. Agoston does, applies, and no one else takes the time to apply, it would be a slap in their face to simply ignore their application and say, we're gonna reopen it and hope to get other people, and so I think when you say -- being consistent with what we've done in the past, to be consistent, we should go ahead and appoint the one applicant. Secondly, I think it's an insult to Mr. Agoston to say this is an identical situation or similar situation to the productivity thing, because there was a specific instance of what we'll refer to as acting out or acting inappropriately while a member of the board. There's no evidence Mr. Agoston, while he may have a different view than some members of the board, is going to act inappropriately, has acted inappropriately or otherwise. Having a difference of opinion is far different than doing things outside the scope of the committee. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If this -- I'm sorry, it's not my turn. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That was the point that I was going to make, is that you've seen -- and I'm sure you won't be surprised that I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Not at all. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- have a different viewpoint from you, but you're assuming and even the committee seems to be assuming that Mr. Agoston is not going to work appropriately with the committee and we have no evidence of that at all. I -- I can't see why anyone would say that a diversity of opinion is going to be harmful to any committee. On the contrary, I think if you have a committee that's loaded up with people all of one opinion and you don't get any different viewpoints, then your committee is not going to be productive at all, and so unless and until we see evidence of that -- that the committee is not functioning properly after this appointment, I think it would be inappropriate to deny Mr. Agoston the ability and the opportunity to serve on that committee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two quick points. I think it's ironic the same newspaper that put Ty's picture in there and called him a community activist and an avid letter writer, and in a way commended him for his community involvement, then would turn around and recommend that he not be appointed to a committee when he's the only applicant. I thought there was a tremendous amount of irony in that, but this -- the fact that we have one applicant for a position and the balance of the committee doesn't particularly choose that applicant, I understand what you're saying, Commissioner Hac'Kie, but I have to agree with Commissioner Constantine, that if any member gets in a committee and acts out of the bounds of that committee then we have the ability and I think the responsibility to remove that person, but that hasn't happened in this case. The second thing is that we continue to have difficulty getting qualified individuals on this committee. There's been discussions in the past of combining EPTAB and the Environmental Advisory Board and I think there -- this entire discussion just leads into that again. I think there's duplication there. I think we have difficulty finding qualified individuals for both committees and both are working in the same framework, that we may want to have -- we may want to take a serious look at that in the near future. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I could just say because of -- I hope Mr. Agoston knows that I have the highest respect for him. I think he's a very informed, very intelligent person. I absolutely do. I mean that very sincerely. I have the highest respect for you. My objection is simply that this is not the Environmental Advisory Board where I think it would be a perfect place to have a balance of opinions and differing opinions. This is the Environment Policy Technical Advisory Board where we need to have people with -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who don't want a balance of opinion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, where we want people with environmental policy technical expertise, and with all deference to Mr. Agoston, I don't have technical environmental expertise and I don't think he does, and that's the reason for my objection, and I sincerely do not mean to insult you. I have the highest respect for you. I genuinely respect our differing opinions and I don't intend any personal insult. I hope you understand that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I might just add a comment. I looked over the current membership of the EPTAB Board and I would tend to agree in terms of technical advisory board, but you have a number of people on this board who have the technical expertise. You also have a couple of individuals already seated on this board that you could look at and say that they don't have the technical expertise. You have a banker, you have -- what was the other one? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Pharmacist. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- pharmacist. You have an agri business management. If you want to look at it specifically, you know, and I'm not attacking these people, I'm just saying as I looked at the group, I looked to see just exactly what the technical side of it was and I think you have all of those kinds of people. I can't -- and I cannot see where adding this individual would be a detriment to this particular committee, because you certainly do have -- you have a biologist, you have a hydraulics, pollution, stormwater person, you've got solid, hazardous waste, you've got pollution control, you've got ecology; several individuals along that line. So I think that this will provide an even -- more of a balance on this board. If I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't support this particular application, but looking at all the individuals, the current seated ones and then this application, I felt that this is -- you know, provides balance as well, and I have to say, Ty, now if you start acting out on this board, we're gonna have to take a look at this so COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The teacher has spoken. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the teacher in me that says, you know, we can't misbehave. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Give you a time-out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But we'll put you in time-out for a little while, but at any rate, that's my conclusion when I looked at the application on this particular -- in this particular situation, so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know it sparked a lot of talk and that kind of thing, but I think we've talked this one to death -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to the point we're now ready -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we're now ready for a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe, was there a motion on the floor? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do have a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe we have a motion and a second. So at this point in time, I'll call for the question. Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers, okay. All in favor? Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four, one. Item #10B RESOLUTION 98-48, APPOINTING WILLIAM HALL, JUDY KELLER, LIANA MARIA BUYSSE AND KARN LOUWSMA (EVERGLADES CITY REPRESENTATIVE) TO THE TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL - ADOPTED The next item is Item 10(B), appointment of members to the Tourist Development Council. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I don't think we have too much of a choice in two of the positions, but we do need an owner of category and Mr. Hall with the Ritz Carlton is the only applicant there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We do need an Everglades City person, as was recommended by the committee, which Karen Louwsma fills that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are two others and I -- there may be different views on the board, but I would like to at least put on the floor, Judy Keller and Julie Butt as the two individuals for the non-owner. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: May I -- let me make a comment on that. Looking over this list and two names that came out that received and have received in the past on a continuing basis TDC funds, and that would be Ms. Keller and Gene Vaccaro, their organizations that they represent get TDC grants. I don't know that that's the appropriate thing to do in this case. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I tell you one person -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the past I would agree, if I may respond? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, of course. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In the past I may agree with Ms. Keller, but that's not the case anymore. Visit Naples, Inc., is the recipient of those funds. Ms. Keller, with the Chamber of Commerce, represents business and tourism in the community. Mr. Vaccaro is an operator of the facility that may hold events that receives TDC funds in the future. So, I understand the point on Mr. Vaccaro. On Ms. Keller, I think it's -- it is a little different though. Personal opinion, that's all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just gonna suggest that Liana Buysse has served on this committee as a general representative of the public and I think that that's extremely valuable and that we should consider reappointing her for continuity and for that general representation slot. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would agree with you. When I served as chairman of the TDC, the hotel owners would certainly come from the other end, and the other folks would come from another end and she was a nice balance and voice as part of that. I'd agree with you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I can't disagree with you. Liana does a good job. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about Ms. Keller and Ms. Buysse for the two non-specified spots? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question of Commissioner Hancock? Visit Naples, Inc., you referenced, are their offices in with -- I mean, it's a separate -- COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, their -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Entirely separate. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- offices are entirely separate. Their offices are in the Edgewater Beach Hotel. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, but I -- Commissioner Hac'Kie, if you put that in the form of a motion, I'm certainly supportive of it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Then I move that we appoint the two specific recommendations, of course, both Mr. Hall -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Louwsma. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ms. Louwsma from Everglades City and Ms. Keller and Ms. Buysse. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I second. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. MR. FERNANDEZ: Before you act on the motion, I wanted to let the commission know that I did receive a letter from Mr. HcCool from the City of Marco Island, indicating that on February the 4th, the City Council voted that a member of the Marco Island City Council be appointed to fill one of the elected official seats on the TDC. I wanted to pass that on to you. It goes on to say that they do not concur with the recommendation of TDC in this regard and ask that the board consider their request. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't see any applicants from the city council on here, do I? I mean, while I appreciate their interest on being on there, when we have an appointment from the City of Naples, they go through the process and meet the time calendar -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just like the Everglades appointment. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and while I think that's certainly a fair consideration for the future, they haven't met the timetable process for this, this time around. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For this go-round. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me suggest a modification of the ordinance or maybe we don't need to modify the ordinance, maybe it's already contained within there, to dedicate a seat for the City of Marco Island, because we have dedicated it for the city, and we have dedicated it for the City of Everglade. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we get into -- this was brought up at the last TDC meeting. There was a concern about this. We were fine as long as we had only two municipalities, being the City of Naples and Everglades City. Now that we have three municipalities, it's very clear in the statute that it can only be two is my understanding. So now that we have three, we do have a bit of a problem and this was discussed at length at the TDC that, you know, we have to consider this. This is according to state statute, is my understanding. This has nothing to do with us locally and the question or the -- it came up, the comment came up regarding some of your larger counties that have a number of municipalities within the county and they still only get two. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, our ordinance reads two elected or two municipal elected officials? It doesn't reference specifically Everglades City or specifically Naples; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: Is does not. However, one of the elected officials or representatives from a municipality must be from the largest populated -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. WEIGEL: -- which is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So there was discussion about this and there was concern and much discussion, I would say, that was my first TDC meeting and we had a lengthy discussion regarding this representation. So everybody's knowledgeable and concerned about it, but it's something that, you know, we'll have to certainly deal with in the future. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, one of the reasons that I suggested Ms. Butt was that we do have Mr. Dougherty who's an owner/operator and representing Marco Island and Ms. Butt is also from Marco, you know, so I was with this trying to, you know, obtain some Marco representation knowing the funding that comes from Marco, but I recently heard and I'm not sure to what extent this is a request from the City Council of Marco or an individual, but a request for Representative Saunders to look at Marco Island keeping its tourist development taxes on Marco Island. Do you know if that's a request from the council or just an idea floated by an individual council members, because I don't know? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: My understanding at this point is that that's simply a proposal and has not been voted on. However, I don't know what happened at last night's meeting, because I was out of town yesterday. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. I just thought that may have some bearing on how we look at appointments, if that process were to move forward. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Filson? MS. FILSON: Yes, may I ask a question, please? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MS. FILSON: One of the non-owner/operators will be to fulfill the remainder of a vacant term. So can I assume that that will be Judy Keller since -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that's appropriate. MS. FILSON: -- Liana was reappointed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, that's my motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second agrees. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And we have no speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call for the question; all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's nice to have more qualified than you need, but it makes it kind of tough. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certainly does, and they were probably all well qualified. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Probably no tougher than when we only have one applicant. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A lot less discussion too. Item #10C LETTERS TO THE STATE SENATOR AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING INCLUSION OF $2.4 MILLION RECURRING BUDGET LINE FOR THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The next one is letters to the State Senator and House of Representatives regarding inclusion of 2.4 million recurring budget line for the Regional Planning Councils. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nice presentation, Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Commissioner Norris, for bringing this regional concern to the board on this matter. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, it's that time of the year when those interests in state government annually try to cut out the regional planning council and concentrate our local -- what should be local and regional decisions in the DCA of Tallahassee, and so that's what this is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: While at the same time through the Florida Association of Counties, I have a minor recommendation I got in this year that request that DCA review the Elms Three Legislation, which actually had the pending recommendation to dissolve the DCA of Tallahassee and divest the authority to the regional planning council, so I would prefer we keep them in place. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, if you would just share with Mr. Daltry, I appreciated his letter, that we received his humor as always COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't he great? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- kind of lightens things up a little bit, so you can pass that word on to him. At this time, we're at the public comment section. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We need to take a vote on that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, I think we better vote on that. Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. I guess I just figured we were all in agreement, which we were. PUBLIC COHMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - TY AGOSTON RE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS Moving on then to the public comment section of our meeting. Do we have any public speakers today? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Mr. Ty Agoston. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a member of EPTAB, is his time limited at any point in the future or -- MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in an endangered area called Northern Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself. Thank you very much for the appointment to this Environmental Advisory Board. It is, on the other hand, not something that I wanted to talk about. There was an article in the newspaper sometime last week where area environment groups are ready to fight the county board again and they're bringing a suit and the Florida Wildlife Federation is actually looking for a special status, and my question is, what are the legal positions of the county in terms of these, what I consider nuisance suits? There was -- the Department of Community Affairs is a political entity, as such it pretty much follows the political philosophy of the governor because he appoints them, you know, the leadership of it, and reading Sustainable Southwest Florida, I gained some type of an insight to our governor's political philosophy and his plans for South Florida, and I don't agree with it. Collier County, according to Mr. Hancock, who should be well versed on the matter, is already owned by federal, state or conservation groups, some 75 percent. By what logic does the Florida Wildlife with an outside attorney representing them, bringing a nuisance suit? Last time they offered to settle for the legal fees. That's a standard system with environmentalists. They will take you to court and if it doesn't work, they try to delay you and then they want their money back, and personally, I believe that we should take every effort to literally fight them, because unless you can back them against the financial wall, so to speak, this will continue and you will have frivolous lawsuits from now on, as you had in the past 30 some odd years since I've been following you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Agoston. Do we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers. All right. Item #12A1 ORDINANCE 98-12, RE CP-97-3, GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP AND VARNADOE, P.A., REQUESTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE REALLOCAITON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FROM PORTIONS OF THE FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD/DRI LOCATED IN THE URBAN COASTAL FRINGE AND URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE DESIGNATED AREAS TO SPECIFIED LANDS LOCATED IN THE AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATED AREA OF THE FUTURE LAND USE HAP - ADOPTED We will move on then to the advertised public hearing section, Item 12(A), Petition CP-97-3. Mr. Arnold or Mr. Fernandez, can we deal with all of these -- there's three of them together, though we will vote on them separately, can we deal with all three of these at the same time and then vote on them separately so we don't hear the same presentation three different times? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe we can accommodate that, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can do that? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's -- and we're all right, Mr. Weigel, legally to do that? MR. WEIGEL: I think so. Ms. Student would like to add a comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Yes, Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: Yes, Madam Chair, I just would like to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you identify yourself, please. MS. STUDENT: Harjorie Student, assistant county attorney. I just would like to state that for the PUD and the DRI amendment, we would have to swear in anyone that's going to speak on those, but not for the comp. plan amendment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. But if we go ahead and swear them in, it doesn't mean that we can't deal with all -- or listen to -- and deal with all three of them? MS. STUDENT: No, it does not. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Very good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I may want to just ask that we -- I know we have several staff members that may be involved in this presentation. I see Mr. Arnold standing, but I think that it may behoove us to recognize the staff members individually. In Mr. Arnold's case, I'll make a motion to recognize -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK -- Mr. Arnold as an expert in the land of planning matters. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We recognize Mr. Arnold as an -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Expert? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- expert witness. Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. For the record, Wayne Arnold, planning services director. This again is a comprehensive plan amendment to the text of our agricultural/rural subdistrict, and which we have previously transmitted to the State Department of Community Affairs. This is the adoption hearing and, again, just to refresh your memory, this is in reference to a text amendment which affects the Fiddler's Creek property. It contemplates allowing the 6,000 dwelling units previously approved as part of the old Marco Shores PUD, a portion of those units to be reallocated to approximately 1,385 acres immediately to the east and south of the existing Fiddler's Creek property. This was transmitted to the State Department of Community Affairs. They issued one objection in their objection, recommendation and comment report to this related to the sprawl criteria in which they found that of the thirteen sprawl criteria used by the state that there was inadequate data and analysis to support three of those thirteen indicators of sprawl. What I think I'd like to do is -- procedurally, is after I finish part of my presentation, if we can maybe bring Ron Nino after this to discuss some of the PUD amendment issues, it might make the presentation flow because I know Mr. Varnadoe has a series of experts that will be proffered for the presentation. It might make the flow go a little bit easier if we allow staff to make its full presentation and then allow Mr. Varnadoe and his team to do that as well, and I beg your indulgence on that point. Specifically, the Department of Community Affairs, as we outlined in your executive summary, made three comments on the sprawl. One that the project would promote, allow or designate development for substantial areas of our jurisdiction as low-intensity development, that it failed to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses, and that it resulted in poor accessibility among related or linked land uses. We, in our executive summary, addressed those three points. We believe that we have adequately addressed their comments on inadequate data and analysis, and I think I'd like to just briefly go through our staff response to each of those indicators of sprawl that they mention, and the first one about promoting or allowing a significant portion of our jurisdiction for low-intensity development, I would argue that less than a tenth of one percent of the county's jurisdiction is in question here. Pretty insignificant amount of land area out of the county's total land mass. Additionally, I think that what we're talking about is something that I'm not sure the Department of Community Affairs adequately understood and that is we already have these approved 6,000 dwelling units. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No? The DCA misunderstood something? MR. ARNOLD: We are not contemplating the addition of any dwelling units and, in fact, the allowing -- spreading of the 6,000 dwelling units beyond their existing boundaries, in fact, we know that will eliminate 277 dwelling units that are entitled to be placed on this same 1,385 acres. To address their comment on did it fail to encourage an attractive and functional mix of uses. I think that -- again, we point out that we did review this in conjunction with the submitted PUD and DRI amendments, which the PUD very clearly is a mixed use development. We have a couple hundred thousand square feet of commercial use that are approved as part of this project. We have four golf courses, we have a mixture of land use types. We have club facilities, et cetera. We think that speaks very well that it is a functional mix of uses and it doesn't exceed its demand since we, again, don't have new dwelling units. In respect to their third and final point, that was that it results in poor accessibility among linked or related land uses, I would offer that this development, by allowing the adjoining areas to the east to be added, we allow no new access points to US 41 to serve the project. We allow a master plan to flow that can be a unified plan of development for the project, allow everything to be internalized for the project. We think that's pretty significant. It's also in close proximity, within a mile to the activity center at 951 and US 41, as well as there's another couple hundred thousand square feet of commercial space located along the State Road 951 corridor that serves this project, again, with no new dwelling units. I would point out too, that in reviewing this, one of the issues raised was a concern for environmental issues, and I would point out that the portion of Section 29, if I could step over to the map, this portion that's located on the -- below the Boyne South project, we also have -- will be no dwelling units contemplated for that portion of the development. There will be preserved open space areas. I think it should also be pointed out, when we looked at the pattern of development, we prepared an existing zoning and land use map at the county. It takes you from State Road 951/US 41 intersection out to the Seminole State Park. We don't find that this exacerbates any of the conditions of sprawl that may be present in our current plan and, in fact, we know the water and sewer district boundaries currently serve that area out through Seminole State Park. We also know that we have Boyne South. We have a variety of mobile home parks. We have an industrial park, a travel trailer park, et cetera, located in that corridor. Those developments alone are permitted to exceed 1,500 dwelling units also outside our urban boundary. This can truly be seen as more an infill project. Given its size, I think a lot of people question that statement that it's infill but, in fact, we know we have an urban pattern of development exceeding the density of this project to the north and east of the project beyond our current urban boundary. One of the other environmental benefits of the project is that at the planning commission meeting, we heard the developer speak to the peninsula issue and, again, the conservancy addressed that point as well. The peninsula, being the small piece of land that juts down into the Rookery Bay area in the center of the master plan for the project, those 63 acres would support about 700 dwelling units under their current plan and the developer has offered to place a conservation easement over those 63 acres as part of this approval process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the -- just for clarification, would you indicate on this -- okay. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Again, there's no effect on our high range population projections of the county. Again, the 6,000 dwelling units are currently authorized and approved. The reduction of 277 dwelling units results in a net decrease probably of about 500 residents in our long-term population projections. Again, there are truly no public facility impacts since this is within the county's water sewer district boundaries. There are some very positive effects related to stormwater management in here because of some drainage easements that can be placed over the property. We've had some long-standing -- some subregional drainage problems in this vicinity and I think you're going to hear a little bit more about the positive aspects of allowing the conservation easements and the pre-treatment of water before it enters the Rookery Bay system. Again, there are no level of service impacts. There is also no impact on our roadway network, since we're actually not increasing dwelling units, no new access points to US 41 or 951. I think, in summary, I'd just like to say that we have reviewed this in the context of the DCA's Rule 9J-5. We've also looked at this in terms of its impacts on environment population projections. We don't find that it meets any of the thirteen sprawl indicators and, in fact, I'd just like to remind you that the Department of Community Affairs did not say that it did, only that sufficient data and analysis was not supported with our original submittal, and we believe that the data and analysis that we presented, as well as the applicant will put on the record today, we believe that should easily satisfy the department's concerns. I think that one thing I should mention. It's a minor point. We did do a minor ordinance amendment relative to the comp. plan amendment. We added a new whereas clause that mentions the fact that we have considered additional data and analysis, that we have reviewed it in the context of a PUD/DRI submittal as well, and that's highlighted. I'd like to go ahead and hand that out to you. I've given Ms. Filson a copy of the revised original. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Again, the change appears on page 2, the first whereas clause. It references some additional information that will be transmitted, our market study report that had been prepared for the county by Fraser & Mohlke Associates, a report by Dr. Nelson that you'll hear more about and the PUD and DRI amendment. With that description of the comprehensive plan completed I think what we'd like to do is go ahead and bring Ron Nino up, if we could, to give you a little more specifics about the actual PUD amendments that are being contemplated as well, unless there's some questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? Commissioner Hac'Kie? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, as Mr. Nino comes up, I'll make a motion to recognize Mr Nino -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as an expert in the area of land planning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to recognize Mr. Nino as an expert witness. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And she wants you to swear these folks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we better swear these individuals in. Madam Court Reporter. (Speakers were sworn.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, do you want to do the whole room at once? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's do everybody. If there's anyone else that's going to speak to this issue at all, would you please rise and we'll swear you in now and everyone will be taken care of. That's anyone that's going to speak. Okay, please. (Speakers were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At the same time we're doing this, let's make any disclosures that we might have. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have met with the petitioner, with representatives of the Conservancy, with our staff and received correspondence on this matter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know if in this latest go around I have, but regardless, I'll make my decision in compliance with the laws of the State of Florida. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have had contact from outside parties and will base my decision on what I hear in this hearing. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I've had lots of correspondence, lots of discussions with both petitioners, their representatives, the Conservancy, the general public. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I've had correspondence and also contact by the petitioner and I will base my decision in accordance with the laws. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino, for the record. If I may, the petition -- I need to talk to you about the development order amendment, simply to enter into the record that what we're doing here is changing the development order to reflect the changes in acreage that result from adding 1,385 acres. So you will note in the development order amendment the strike-throughs that have to do with the table that summarizes the way the land uses are being used. Secondly, the name is being changed and those strike-throughs are reflected in the development order amendment and the development order is being extended by four years and eleven months. The regional planning council have reviewed this notification of proposed change and they have concluded that it is an insubstantial change and the planning commission reviewed this petition and unanimously recommended its approval. With respect to the PUD, I think I can be brief -- abbreviate my presentation. Mr. Arnold has covered the substantive issues that are being modified here, that are being changed. I think I need to enter into the record, however, that we've reviewed the petition relative to findings of consistency with respect to the future land use element, the sewer and water element, the open space element and we conclude that this petition is indeed consistent. It's important to recognize that your two official advisory bodies; the advisory -- the economical -- the Environmental Advisory Board and the Collier County Planning Commission have both unanimously recommended approval. The EAB recommended certain stipulations that are all reflected in the PUD document that you have in your package. There were some objections presented to the planning commission and there were indeed some people who reflected support for this petition. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question to go back to Mr. Arnold, but not for Mr. Nino at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, if I may, you mentioned that you felt that the responses that we've been provided today, that have been provided by the petitioner and by staff, are adequate to meet the DCA's -- the comments in their ORC report? I'm looking at a letter or a piece of correspondence dated January 6th signed by, I believe it's Keesey, C. Lawrence Keesey of Young, Van Assenderp. Have you had a chance to review that correspondence entirely? It's a response to -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I have. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to saying that you feel it adequately responds, would you agree with the response in that correspondence, on the basis of planning, that it is -- it addresses the issues of urban sprawl? MR. ARNOLD: I think we clearly addressed those issues of urban sprawl, and I think Mr. Keesey's letter was very to point with the Department of Community Affairs on how this should be viewed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And we'll just let it be a part of the record that goes to DCA. MR. ARNOLD: It will be. We intend to submit this as part of the record. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Along with everything submitted today that addresses that same issue? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there anything further from staff? Okay. Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. For the record, George Varnadoe, representing 951 Land Holding's Joint Venture, the contract purchaser of this property in question. Also here today to represent -- to address the board or to respond to questions and issues we have Michael Redd, president of the team plan, whose firm has done the master planning for the project. Dr. Arthur C. Nelson, a professor of city planning and public policy at Georgia Tech. Dr. Nelson's an expert in the area of urban and regional planning and more importantly today, urban sprawl. Also, Steve Means and Stuart Miller from the firm of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. They were the engineers and environmental consultants on the project and they're available also. As you heard Mr. Arnold say, the overall objective is to add 1,385 acres to the existing Fiddler's Creek project without adding any additional units. The area in question, you can probably see it better on the aerial, is the area in the -- it's a red stripe, it may look pink from your distance. The area in red is the eastern part of the existing Fiddler's Creek property. You can see that's -- it abuts it on the east. The property is divided into very clearly, areas that have been farmed and very clearly areas that have not been bothered by agriculture or have not been substantially disturbed, I guess is a better way to put that. It is important to recognize the proposal is not to move the urban boundary, but simply to add these 1,385 acres to the existing master plan project without increasing the amount of commercial or the number of units. As far as the development order amendment is concerned, you've heard Mr. Nino say that the regional planning council and your staff and the CCPC all agree it is a non-substantial deviation. As far as the amendment to the PUD, you've also heard there's only going to be two changes and that this is a very minor matter. It's the addition of the acreage and then the deletion of the peninsula that we heard referred to. I think the board is cognizant of the history of this project, but I do want to put it on the record. Fiddler's Creek was originally part of the Marco Shores Unit 30. That Marco Shores Unit 30 DRI, the size project arose out of the Deltona settlement agreement in the early '80's where over 12,000 units were allocated to this general area and over 9,000 units to the Marco Shores DRI. It was a part of an agreement where Deltona deeded over 15,000 acres to the State of Florida. I think it's important to note that both the Conservancy and the Florida Audubon Society were signatories to that settlement agreement, which authorized over 9,000 units to be built in this area. Since that original approval and this developer's acquisition of the property, the theme has been one of consistently reducing the density, while adding land to the project. Previously, a number of units were cut from 9,110 to 6,000 over a series of time, while the acres have increased by some 713 acres. The density has gone from 5.5 units an acre to 2.5 units an acre on a gross basis. The proposal today is to continue that trend of reducing the density by adding land without units. By adding the 1,385 acres but no new units, the density will go from 2.5 to 1.6 units an acre. I passed out a booklet and everyone of you has this, and this is stuff I will be asking to you put in the record later, but if you turn to tab C, there's a table there that I think describes in detail what we've done. If you look at the left-hand column of numbers, it has the original 1984 development order approval. If you look at the column that says 1998 amendment, you can see the changes and you can see the pluses or minuses. The acres have increased by almost 2,100 acres. Units have decreased by 3,110 units. We've had an increase in preserve areas of 714 acres and an increase in lakes, open space, golf course of 300 -- excuse me, 985 acres. As Wayne has pointed out, there's also going to be a decrease in the total buildout population of the county, if you approve this. The 277 units that could be built on 1,385 acres at the existing zoning of ag., one unit per five acres will be eliminated from the mix. Perhaps, more importantly, thinking of this in the long-term, we're removing 1,385 acres from the land inventory, if you would. This is an area that has urban services. It's an area that has development on three sides of it. The south side is, of course, the state owned land. Sooner or later there's going to be a push to urbanize this or bring it to the urban area. By adding this to this project today and not adding any more units, you're taking that 1,385 acres out of, what I'll call, the land inventory for future development. You and I may not be standing here or sitting there when this effort is made, but it will be made. Today we are removing that acreage from that inventory and I think that's a very important part and point, if you wish to try to control the number -- the total number of units to be built in this county. The history of the area, I think is also something we need to focus on. As Wayne has said, until 1989, this entire corridor, all the way out to the Collier-Seminole State Park was in the urban area. It was removed during our comprehensive planning process in 1989, basically at the urging of Charles Gauthier, then director of long-range planning for Collier County. The reasons were mainly concurrency driven and there were two major reasons. Number one, there was no water management plan for that area and number -- and part of that, there was no money due, while we were really concerned about being able to meet concurrency as far as the water management plan. Number two, there were great concerns about evacuating that entire area because 951 was two-laned. It wasn't on the state's five year plan and we had just approved 12,000 additional units in that acre - area. Now we've solved all those problems. We have a water management plan. We're gonna be an integral part of implementing that, as I'll talk a little bit later. Second, 951, of course, is partially four-laned and the rest of it will start this year. The units have been reduced, so we have addressed those issues. Mr. Gauthier did recognize that this would be developed in the future and during the process, he had this following quote. The tail section has water management problems, but it will be suitable for intensification after improvements have been made to County Road 951 and the water-shed master plan has been developed. Even Wayne has talked to you -- there are more intense or dense uses around the property. You can also see that -- Wayne's zoning map was very good, you can also see it from this aerial photograph. We have mobile home parks, we have -- here and here. We have RSF-3 here with golf course, we have golf course here and here and we also have some industrial here and the little yellow parts there are commercial. My count is more like 812 acres, north and south -- north and east of this project, outside the urban area and up to 2,000 units, when you count mobile home, RV, along with residential units that could be built. I think staff's done a great job of telling you about our proposal. I want to spend a couple of minutes on the so called, "peninsula", and it probably can be best seen by referring to the existing master plan and it's this area right in here and that's the reason this plan's up here. During talks with the Conservancy, the question was asked, well, if you're going to add 1,385 acres, as you see on this plan, to the project, is there any part of the existing plan that you could preserve that might be of some benefit? We immediately focused on the peninsula, because that was an area that was of some contention during the environmental permitting process with the Corps of Engineers and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission were very concerned about developing that because it is surrounded, as you can see, completely surrounded by state owned wetlands on all sides. The -- it is the only area, really, in the project where we don't have a good buffer between the development and the state owned wetlands to the south. That 63 acres contains both uplands and wetlands and our change in the proposal is now -- the change in our project now is not to develop that area. As you can see from our proposed master plan, that's now all in preserve. The peninsula contains some of the few uplands in the area and by preserving that we're creating some diversity of habitat. In talking with the Rookery Bay folks, they're very excited about that not being developed and being preserved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask you a question about that, Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the change -- is it dedicated in perpetuity as a conservation easement? What's the method for ensuring that it's never developed? MR. VARNADOE: We are now discussing that. We would prefer to deed it to -- because the lands around it are owned by the state. The state has been reluctant to take title. Where our commitment today is to provide a conservation easement or a deed, whichever they wish, but, yes, it is in perpetuity. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Varnadoe, can I interrupt you just a minute, please? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have to change court reporters, and if we could just cease and hold your thought and then we'll continue on with this. HR. VARNADOE: At my age, I'll try. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And maybe taking a little break? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And taking a break at the same time and then we'll just let you go forever. (A recess taken.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will reconvene the meeting, and we're in the middle of a presentation. Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I had just finished talking about the peninsula, and unless you have questions about that part, I think I'll continue on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Varnadoe, I just -- for clarification purposes, the peninsula had always been slated for development. As a result of the latest changes, that area will have, other than the existing utility site, have no development or -- there's a site on there I see in green that remains here? MR. VARNADOE: That site is a -- is owned by the Collier County School Board -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. VARNADOE: -- and that was donated for school purposes. They have kept that and their plan is to use that for mitigation purposes for other developments in Collier County, but we have shown it in that different color simply to designate it as not something that we have ownership control of. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the -- what previously was some 700 units in that peninsula will not be built in that area at all? MR. VARNADOE: If this amendment's approved, that's correct, sir. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And the total acreage of conservation easement or deed would be? MR. VARNADOE: On that part is -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That addition, yes, sir. MR. VARNADOE: That's 63 acres. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sixty three. Thank you. MR. VARNADOE: And the reason I said on that part is because you can look at the aerial photograph of the land we're going to be adding, everything in this area that's in a natural state and also on this parcel over here, plus the three cypress heads that are on the property, all of that is going to be preserved also. That's 450 acres, over 70 acres of which are uplands down in this area. Down in here, you've got some really pretty scrub habitat down in there. That COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which is particularly good for that diversity of habitat and that's important. MR. VARNADOE: That will also be preserved and there will also be a conservation easement on that. I'm trying to differentiate between the peninsula and that property there, and development, as I was saying, will occur only in the farm fields, and of that farm fields, approximately 575 acres of that will be an open space, recreational areas, lakes. Approximately 350 of the 1,385 acres will be developed for actual development purposes, residential units and infrastructure. Over 70 percent of the 1,385 acres will be in open space reserves, golf course and recreational areas. As I've stated before, with the addition of this, the density goes down to 1.6 units an acre. As Mr. Arnold said, the property is within the boundaries of the Collier County water sewer district. No residential units will be located on this part of Section 29 coming into the project. On that property, there will be a passive recreation area and lake on the part that's been farmed previously. There will be no new access points on the external roads, and since no new units, no increased trips, no increase on impacts on your transportation network. Although I have Stuart Miller and Steve Means here from Wilson, Miller to address the water management and environmental concerns, I'm going to just submit their report in the record, unless you all have questions, but I think the really important question is, will the ecology in this area be better off or worse off if this amendment's passed, and I think the question (sic) is, very clearly, it would be better off. First and foremost, as we talked about, we're preserving all the areas that have been undisturbed on the property, including over 70 acres of uplands. Second, as with the original project, we are creating the spreader swale, continuing the spreader swale over to serve two purposes. Number one, the south side of that spreader swale system will be at grade, if you will, existing grade, so that as the water from the project goes into that spreader swale system, it will be able to sheet discharge into the existing wetlands as opposed to point discharge, thereby, helping to more naturally approximate historic conditions. Second, that spreader swale system acts as a good buffer between the development property and the preserve property to the south. It's important to recognize that spreader swale system is not to be used for -- is not required for the retention or treatment. That's in addition to the water management on the property. That's an additional benefit. I know I saw John Boldt here earlier, but I'll -- I'll talk and then John can correct me if I say something wrong. When we were working on this property, Mr. Boldt asked if we could grant additional easements down the eastern side of Section 18 and 19 for additional relief of the problems he's having north of 41 on drainage, and as you remember, when we added Section 13, we did the same thing and we're glad to do that again on this property. This will allow the county to help alleviate some of the problems north of 41 they've been having with water management. When this project is built, that drainage swale will also go into our spreader swale system, so that water will also be sheet flowing into the areas to the south as opposed to being point discharged into the -- the wetlands. The project will stabilize the ground water tables and more closely approximate historic and natural conditions. It will create a more natural hydro period within the three wetland parcels that we see on the aerial here, therefore, helping to restore those. We'd, of course, be removing the exotics from those areas. Preservation of a 63 acre parcel that we call the peninsula will increase the total preservation area in Fiddler's Creek to 756 acres. At this time, with your permission, I'd like Michael Redd, who's had over 30 years of planning experience and who's the president of team plan, to briefly describe some of the added benefits and features that will derive from -- allowing us to add this 1,385 acres to the Fiddler's Creek project. His resume or curriculum vitae is under Tab A-4 if anybody wants to refer to that, and I would like for you to recognize Mr. Redd as an expert in the urban planning field. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. MR. REDD: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I'll be quite brief. The classic planning application here is obviously a mixed use community, and in designing the mixed use community, the translation from off of the drawing board and onto the ground is very serious business when you start hardening things up with roads and houses and amenities and so forth, and a community is not just an expansive housing move from one spot to another arbitrarily. A true community is an attractive and a functional use -- mix of uses that results in a living environment, has all the experiences, not just housing. The -- I'd like to begin by going over their -- you can take any master plan and divide it down into its basic elements, and we have eight basic elements here we're going to review very quickly, and the elements of this master plan are the housing, the circulation, the four golf courses, the town center or club facility, a commercial component, the lake system, open space system, including recreation, and a tennis center. Just to address those very briefly one by one, start with the housing. As you've heard, we've got 6,000 units of varied housing types. They're all contained in this master plan in separate neighborhoods, each having its own identity of a size that can be -- that you can identify with if you live in that neighborhood. They have their own entrance and they're separated in all cases by a major open space feature, a golf course, a lake, a park, something like that. Secondly, the number two thing we want to talk about is the circulation system. The circulation system is to -- we've used a loop road divided highway -- divided roadway, collector road, with a median. That is one of the standards in Florida planning. It's got a lot of advantages to it. When you use a divided roadway in the medians, it acts as a spine road for the pedestrian movement system and enhances all the linkages between the various land uses. It's a visual guidepost. It's hard to get lost. You see the divided median, ah, this is the way in and out of the project. It establishes a road hierarchy visual. You know, I'm on the main road now and this is the way I get in or out, and most importantly, I think, is that when you do this, none of our neighborhoods front directly onto it. That is, you can never back out of one of the units and onto the median -- onto the collector roadway. It allows convenient access to everyone in the neighborhood and through none of them. Next I'd like to speak to the golf courses, the prime green way or a major view shed, four golf courses. For a community this size, that's a nice big green swath to interject into 6,000 units. Four golf courses is a lot of open green space, open land on its own. Next is the central club facility, and the central club facility shown right here is -- acts and is, in fact, a town center type of operation. As far as -- it is located on the intersection of two of the largest roads. It becomes in fact, the nexus of the project. It becomes a cultural center with 60,000 square feet, becomes a social center and true town center format; gathering and meeting places, obviously, fitness rooms and card rooms. Also has a civic plaza element, which is out of doors for special events, Christmas, 4th of July, place for the community to -- to have -- have affairs and events which bind the community together very much. A large pool. It has restaurants, nighttime dining, arts and crafts rooms, so forth, so that's a big important element of the project. Next we talk about a commercial component. The demographics of 6,000 units produces a demand for about 420,000 square feet of commercial retail opportunities, and a large portion of that is served on site, and it's served primarily in two commercial parcels, one located on 951, and a lesser one of about 320,000 square feet -- excuse me, 300,000 square feet and -- on 41 with the balance. One of our other clients is the largest developer of the Publix type of shopping center in Florida. Their standard of measure is about 10,000 people in a fairly upscale community to drive one of these large retail grocery operations. That, we would envision, obviously, happening at the 300,000 square foot area right on 951. You're also going to have a secondary commercial need within the project, and that is served within the project in the golf clubhouses, in the tennis center. They'll have some small retails, and certainly the town center or club center, where you'll have amenities that fulfill the other commercial needs. Combined with these -- the 951, the 41, we serve about 90 percent of our needs and, of course, we have a large -- we have an activity center at the intersection of 951 not on this property, but certainly that will round out the commercial needs. Open space component is certainly important here. It's a -- it's 1,483 acres of total open space. It's the strongest thread of visual fabric holding the community together. The lake system, 688 acres of lake system. It's a visual as well as a physical element. As I mentioned, it's used to separate the neighborhoods, to define the neighborhoods, and of course, the tennis center located up here with some 23 tennis courts. Just to briefly close, I'd like to tell you some of the -- a bit of a planner's dream here, we had a pretty good plan, it worked from a standard point of view that -- all the measurements and sound planning principles, and then we're given this nice little -- little token all of the sudden also and able to take 1,300 acres and now let's make that plan better and that's pretty much what we've done, but it lets us do some very specific things. Obviously, the less density. If you look at a project in Florida, contained PUD, you can know that it will be probably no more, no matter how hard you cram, about three units to the gross acre. This allowed us to go from 2.5 units to the gross acre to 1.5 now -- 1.5, 1.6. Now we're into really nice community territory. This is really gonna have a nice feel to it. It allowed us to spread the amenities out more and centrally locate them. It puts a larger, vast, larger percentage of homes into the ten minute walk radius of most of the major recreational amenities, and it allowed us to more evenly distribute those amenities. It allowed us to add a fourth golf course; golf course, fairway and boundaries, about 135, 145 acres. It allowed us to get many more paired golf holes so you don't have canyon golf. It's made the quality of the golf course -- brought it up. With the extra land, if you'll notice, we were able to create a whole lot more of visual windows into the community. To me, nothing is worse than the whole time when you leave the road and enter the gates, you're constantly fronted with housing, and if you look at the master plan, it's very difficult, I always say they look like giant jigsaw puzzles, but if you look at the master plan, as you travel on the main roads, you're constantly looking into an open space, down parallel fairway golf, across a lake. We added a full mile of new view shed looking over the state wetlands to the south of the project, and nothing is fronted on those. It gives you a real relaxed feeling, real gracious master plan that you wind up with, and if you'll notice on the comparison of the two plans, we were able to move the circulation road, the prime collector road to the outside of the project. It allows us to buffer that, to keep it to the outside, makes it -- makes traffic circulation much better and it ensures that all the neighborhoods are separated, again, which I think is very important by open space, not just jammed together. It allowed us to put a tennis center in, 23 courts, which people forget how much land they gobble up. The -- just to address the collector road again, it's -- it really makes a good difference, a positive difference when you're able to make sure that the main roads going into and out of the project have their own look, their own feel. Just closing, I'd like to say that we -- we feel like -- we've got no new units, a lot more land, a really gracious plan now. We had a good plan before. We really do feel strongly about this and we haven't placed any stress on the existing infrastructure, no increase in density, so we really urge you to give your approval to this. Thank you so much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, I believe, has a question. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Redd, a couple of questions if I may. You referred to the central clubhouse facility and you used the term, a true town center. Are all the people who live in this development going to be members of the club? MR. REDD: Yes, they are. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. REDD: Anyone who lives here can go to the club. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's -- that's key to me, because if you purchase a home in here and you're not a member of the club, then what amenities are offered there do not -- are not accessible and it does not operate as a type of town center. The one thing that is important to me, in this county, we have not really promoted or required town center planning for large scale developments. As a result, we're shoving everything out onto the arterial and collector road system. It looks to me like predominantly the majority of services people need can be handled or would be handled at the two project entrances; is that a fair statement? MR. REDD: Absolutely. We -- with those retail centers, again, when you get Publix type development, you'll have all the other anchors, your drug stores and your services and so forth. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we're dealing with a significant capture rate for transportation and trips inside the project? MR. REDD: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is there, in your opinion, a need or a warrant for additional convenience retail commercial interior to the project, not at the project entrances? MR. REDD: I don't -- I don't think so. I mean, we're going to be well served. It probably would be -- from a traffic standpoint, you have to strike a delicate line, you know. It would be good if everybody could just walk around the corner and there would be a nice, clean, safe 7-Eleven there. That's not a real world situation, and I think it's very well -- the casual sundries, glasses, sunglasses and so forth should be served pretty well on site, suntan lotion and, you know, within the tennis center and the town center and so forth. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've seen in some projects recently, Village Walk comes to mind, that a development that will put in a -- some form of a retail establishment that is really built for and serves the people in the residence, again, just reducing trips. Not as key here because you've got the commercial at the two project entrances, but just from a planning standpoint -- MR. REDD: I applaud that very much. It's a very good example and the reason that -- it's also turned out to be a sales -- a marketing tool too, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was just trying to see if we needed to open the door for looking at additional commercial interior to the project in a more retail fashion, but if not, fine, but I wanted to at least have that answered. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Varnadoe, could you go over for me once again the access from 417 MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. The access to 41 has not changed from the prior plan. There's an access point at this location and an access point at that location. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I referred to two project entrances. There's actually three. MR. VARNADOE: There's actually four. There's a project entrance on 951 here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I forgot about that one. MR. VARNADOE: So there's two project entrances on 951 and two on U.S. 41, and the eastern one on 41 lines up with Greenway Boulevard, of course, deliberately so that that may someday require a signal. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And there would be no proposal to put one farther east if this new property happens to be approved today? MR. VARNADOE: No, sir. Madam Chairman, with your permission, I'll continue. I want to talk about urban sprawl for a minute. I think it -- Mr. Arnold pointed it out, but it's important to emphasize that DCA's objection is not that the amendment constitutes urban sprawl, but there wasn't sufficient data and analysis to say that it discouraged urban sprawl. In fact, the department's recommendation is that it be demonstrated through the provision of additional data and analysis that the amendment does not encourage urban sprawl -- or not proliferate urban sprawl. The DCA has adopted a rule which contains 13 primary indicators that a plan amendment either discourages or does not encourage urban sprawl. When you read that rule in context and see some of the cases, it's readily apparent that the -- the appearance of one or more of those indicators in and of itself does not constitute urban sprawl. It has to be a balance test, as you would expect, when you have that many indicators. Further, and I think Mr. Arnold also mentioned this, if a local government has a comprehensive plan that has been found in compliance, as we have today with Collier County, the DCA cannot find a plan amendment not to be consistent because it has -- because urban sprawl indicators are present if the plan amendment does not exacerbate the existing indicators that are already present in the comprehensive plan, which I think is also important. However, more importantly, when we discovered prior to the ORC report that DCA had questions about urban sprawl and whether the -- this plan amendment would have any indicators of urban sprawl, we retained Dr. Arthur C. Nelson to evaluate and address the issue of urban sprawl. His curriculum vitae is under your Tab A-3 in your booklet. Dr. Nelson is a professor of city planning and public policy at Georgia Tech in Atlanta and received his Doctor of Philosophy degree in urban studies from Portland State University. He's been a full professor at Georgia Tech since 1987. He has over 25 years of professional experience, about half in private practice and half in academia. He's a charter member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and also a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and I think he's authored eight books on growth management issues and wrote an impressive number of articles and been quoted in the print media such as the Wall Street Journal and New York Times and Atlanta Constitution, but the particular relevance to our discussion today is that Dr. Nelson was first retained by the Department of Community Affairs in 1988 to assist that agency in formulating its policy regarding urban sprawl. He directly assisted the department in drafting the current urban sprawl rules and -- indicators, rather, and the urban sprawl rule found in 9J-5. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please come over from the dark side. MR. VARNADOE: He's -- you will hear him talk about that. He's been very careful not to -- not to want to get involved if there was any question in his mind whether this really was urban sprawl. He's been retained by the Department of Community Affairs on -- as an expert witness in 23, I think, administrative law cases to testify on urban sprawl issues. I'd like to have Dr. Nelson recognized as an expert in the area of urban planning, but particularly in urban sprawl. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So moved. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll recognize Dr. Nelson as an expert witness. MR. VARNADOE: Dr. Nelson had some slides, but I think we're -- to save some time, we're just going to do it as a handout for you all and he's going to give you his opinion as to whether this amendment constitutes urban sprawl and also talk about the indicators that DCA raised. Dr. Nelson. DR. NELSON: Madam Chairman, members of the commission, thank you for welcoming me to the dark side. My friends at DCA think I've also gone to the dark side, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I said you'd come over from the dark side. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically, Dr. Nelson, you just can't win. DR. NELSON: I was asked about four months ago to entertain the question whether this proposed amendment did or did not constitute urban sprawl. In situations like this, I have a two-stage review process. The first is, I go through the documentation and I do a site visit to clarify in my own mind whether there's any question about the project being urban sprawl or not. If, in fact, I determine that urban sprawl may exist, I remove myself from the case and nobody hears from me ever again, usually. If, however, I find that urban sprawl is not an issue, that, in fact, the project benefits the urban environment, the development environment, I then proceed to the second stage, which I did in this case, and the second stage led to the report that you have in the large packet under Tab B. What I've done there is, I've evaluated several indicators of urban sprawl. Generally -- this morning I want to focus on the three indicators of urban sprawl raised by the DCA, those being whether the development results in low density single use development and excessive need, whether the development results or does not result in a functional relationship between related land uses, and whether or not the amendment results in improved accessibility between related land uses. Now, my evaluation is a little different than the others, from the perspective that I looked at what could happen to the site if the amendment were denied. In my opinion, the site, although it's now being used for agriculture, is not likely to be used for agriculture in the future, perhaps sooner than later. It is bounded on three sides by urban development. Part of my research that's published focuses on the interactions between urban development and farming. I found that, in most cases, farming disappears in the -- in the face of the urban pressures that might be adjacent to it or nearby. In my view, in my opinion, this -- the subject site agriculture is going to be impacted by urban development, and therefore, agriculture is not likely to continue in the future. So the question becomes, if the amendment is denied, what will the site be used for. Two alternatives primarily, a five acre -- a subdivision of five acre lots, 277 five acre lots. In my view, that is urban sprawl. However, I think because the -- the commission has interpreted that PUD's can be used for five acre areas, I think the best practices approach to development of the subject site if the amendment is denied is through 277 cjustered units, averaging about two acres each, using literature that I'm acquainted with and have had some experience with. So if you look on the first page of my summary, what I do here is I show you the current approved DRI, the subject site, if it is allowed to develop without the Fiddler's Creek expansion, and then the amended PUD/DRI effect. Pay attention particularly to the bottom set of cells. The current DUI -- DRI/PUD results in developing 1,051 acres. The subject site would be developed, in a best practices format, at about 570 acres, so if the amendment were denied, roughly 1,620 acres would eventually be developed, based on existing approvals and best practice development of the subject site. However, the amended PUD/DRI results in developing only 1,350 acres, about 300 acres fewer than the alternative. Now, let's move into the second page. The second page reviews the issues of density. By adding 1,385 acres to the site, but without adding more units, density goes down. We call that the gross density issue. I look at it a little differently, however. If the subject site is developed into 277 units, and we know Fiddler's Creek will be developed as 6,000 units, we, therefore, have 6,277 units on Fiddler's Creek and the subject site. That is the alternative before the amendment. After the amendment, or because of the amendment, by removing the 277 potential units an by reconfiguring the land uses resulting in less developed land, we actually have higher development density. Lower gross density, higher development density. That means land is being used more efficiently, land uses are more accessible to each other, flows are more efficient and you have an overall improvement in the situation relative to denying the PUD amendment and allowing the subject site to be developed as 277 units. On the third page, we get to the issue of -- and so I should summarize by saying that the -- the effect of the amendment is actually to increase the development density, and the effect is that the resulting density is not, in my consideration, low density, and that is one of the indicators of urban sprawl that DCA uses. Five point five units to the acre is moderate development density for single family residential environments. Another indicator of sprawl is the extent to which you have development land and excessive need. We all know, you know, that your plan currently has excess capacity in it. The effect of the amendment is to remove or reduce that excess capacity, albeit a somewhat slight amount, but it does reduce excess capacity a little bit. Now, on page four, we're getting into the issue of attractive and functional mix of land uses. If the amendment were denied, we would have a situation where only 75 percent of the golf course demand created by the community already approved would be met. With the amendment, 100 percent of the golf course demand created by the PUD/DRI is actually met on site. In terms of tennis courts, about half of the demand created for tennis by the currently approved PUD/DRI is met with the amendment. We go -- we move that to 100 percent actually met. If the amendment is denied, only 80 percent or 81 percent of the demand for commercial and recreation related commercial space is met on site with the amendment. We push that figure to almost 100 percent, 96 percent is my calculation. So really, what's happening, because of the amendment, we're improving the attractive and functional mix of land uses. We're internalizing more of the demand created by the already approved PUD/DRI. The last or third indicator that DCA is concerned about is accessibility between linked and related land uses. An emerging planning principle is to locate centers, whether they're commercial or recreational or destination points, for residents within a half mile or about a ten minute walking distance from their homes. The current PUD/DRI plus development of the subject site if the amendment is denied results in only 57 percent of the potential residents being within ten minutes or a half mile of the nearest destination point, a center, a commercial outfit or whatnot. With the amendment, that figure gets pushed to 71 percent because there's more flexibility in moving land uses around and providing more accessibility to the residential areas. So my conclusion on the sixth page is that the amended Fiddler's Creek PUD/DRI does not encourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have none. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commission Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Surprise, I do. The -- one of the elements that you reviewed that -- that really caught my attention is highlighted on page number four regarding the attractive and functional mix of land uses, and it was part of the question I referred to Mr. Redd previously, which is that, as I understand this, by comparison, if this amendment is not approved, the potential, and a significant potential, for 277 additional units at what you would classify as true urban sprawl could be developed with absolutely no amenities, no commercial amenities? DR. NELSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Every time somebody in one of those places needed something, they'd get out to 41 and go find it somewhere else? DR. NELSON: Correct. They couldn't even walk to it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Couldn't walk to it, which, again, is something that I think in our planning here we are just beginning to become aware of and address more, but we don't, at this point, so we would, in fact, be encouraging something that we know doesn't work right now. The converse, by approving this amendment, is that the commercial needs of those 6,000 units are almost all taken care of by the commercial properties on the perimeter and interior of the project? DR. NELSON: Correct. Now, I need to modify that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. DR. NELSON: We're only accommodating almost all of the neighborhood scale and community scale needs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's still regional and -- DR. NELSON: The regional needs, in fact, cannot be accommodated on site, nor should they be. They are best accommodated by the town center at the intersection of 951 and U.S. 41, which is only a mile away from the site. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Home Depot in every neighborhood is not our goal, so understanding there are always beyond neighborhood commercial needs, those that you're going to have to get in the car and go to, and we're not going to change that, but the true neighborhood commercial needs, as a result of this amendment, are better met than they are currently? DR. NELSON: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to not creating additional problems on the 1,300 acres adjacent to the existing project? DR. NELSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two points raised in the ORC report that I'd like a little clarification on if I may that you addressed in Tab B, is -- one is the failure to provide a clear separation between rural and urban land uses is the first, and the second is, result in loss of significant amounts of functional open space, which I think we just addressed to some extent. The others seem fairly straightforward and seem to be addressed in detail without question, but the one of failure to provide a clear separation between rural and urban land uses, could I ask you to elaborate on that a little bit on your opinion on how we actually -- that is not a true assertion? DR. NELSON: Well, presently, the -- the 1,300 acre site, that part which is in agriculture is bounded on three sides with urban development. There is not a clear separation between urban and rural land uses presently. Now, in the future, because of the amendment, the northern tier of the subject site will be filled in, so you'll basically have development from the currently approved DRI/PUD moving eastward abutting practically the eastern most large scale development that's already been approved and is now being built out, so that northern tier area's being filled in. However, at the southern end of that, you'll have a system of what I would call open space anchors, the spreader swale system leading into the wetlands owned by the state further south. Roughly, the bottom third of the -- of Section 19 and all of Section 29 will be preserved, thereby providing a buffer between urban development and the state owned wetlands beyond. So I think, to some extent, maybe the issue of separation between urban and rural land uses is not a primary issue here, but in fact, when you look at it carefully, we are improving the situation through the amendment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason for the question is, there's a common statement that the urban boundary will someday get moved and that it's a shifting line, which is not what our plan indicates, but as you point out, in this case, right now, there's no clear line in the sand in this particular area. With this amendment, if it is approved today, that line becomes far more clear to anyone in the future than it currently is? DR. NELSON: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think that's something that we need to consider, because not to approve it would probably allow the waters to be muddied more so than clarifying them, and I think for our public, clarifying that line is key to them. So I thank you for that. The second issue on the -- the functional open space, the result -- the project -- again, the assumption that the result will result in the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. You don't agree that the project will. Again, could you elaborate just briefly on that? DR. NELSON: Functional open space is that which is designed and managed and used for a particular open space purpose; wetlands, drainage, habitat, something intentional. Now, you may not disturb it, but you set up the machinery, legal machinery, planning machinery, to have them serve particular open space functions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And farmlands, you do not place in that category? DR. NELSON: Farmlands are not functional open space, even as defined by 9J-5. They are important open spaces in certain respects, there's no question, but the 9J-5 identifies -- or my interpretation of 9J-5 indicates to me that the functional open space concept applies primarily to wetlands, habitats, areas of unique scenery or views and so forth, not in anything active, and farming is active. The -- if the PUD/DRI is denied, none of the subject site now, nor probably in the future, would be used for functional open space because there would be no legal machinery or planning machinery to make that happen. With the amendment, all those things happen, and in fact, functional open space inventory goes up about double because of the amendment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. Those are all the questions I had, Commissioner Berry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Nelson. MR. VARNADOE: As I stated previously, I've got Steve Means and Stuart Miller here from Wilson, Miller if anyone has any questions on the environmental, water management. If not, I'd like to submit their report along with the other matters that are contained in the booklet that these witnesses have been testifying from into the record along with Dr. Nelson's six page summary of his slide report. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are there any questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we need a motion to recognize Mr. Miller and Mr. Means as experts since their testimony's being provided for the record? If so, I make the motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to recognize the two individuals mentioned as expert witnesses. All in favor? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on. Hang on. I don't mean to be difficult, but I don't know the background on either one of them and maybe you could give me a little brief before I vote for somebody to be an expert. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. If you'll look under Tab A, you'll see the -- A-i, Mr. Means, and A-2 is Mr. Miller. Mr. Means is a director of water resources at Wilson, Miller. He's a principal. He's a P.E. He has 14 years of experience as a registered engineer, and Mr. Miller, you'll see here his credentials as far as his environmental background, his length of service, Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. What are we declaring them experts in, Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In their respective professions of water management for Mr. Means and environmental review and permitting for Mr. Miller. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. MR. VARNADOE: Would you reflect that this is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You will enter those into the record then? MR. VARNADOE: Would you reflect that they're accepted as part of the record? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The manual that was presented to us will be part of the record as presented by Mr. Varnadoe for the petitioner. MR. VARNADOE: And I'd like to request to have an opportunity to respond to any issues or concerns that come up that we have not previously addressed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, any questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Are there public speakers? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will find out. MR. FERNANDEZ: First public speaker is Nancy Payton and the second is David Guggenheim. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Miss Payton, please. MS. PAYTON: Good morning. My name is Nancy Payton and I'm representing the Florida Wildlife Federation. The Florida Wildlife Federation is opposed to the growth management plan amendment DCA 98-D1 that authorizes Fiddler's Creek to increase density on certain agriculturally zoned land abutting the urban boundary. The Federation's position is based on the following points. Point one, we believe this amendment blurs the county's separation between urban and rural lands. Density on agriculturally zoned land may be increased by almost eight-fold, from one unit on each five acres to 1.5 units on an acre. Point two, the amendment represents urban sprawl. It also promotes a pattern of single use, low density housing in this area. Maybe there's some experts that think it's not urban sprawl, but maybe they would accept that it's urban ooze. Point three, it establishes a bad precedent, amending the county's growth management plan for a particular development seeking a market niche. That niche being a gated community with one of the lowest densities and the highest number of golf holes. Point four, this amendment raises serious questions of what happens when residential developments such as Fiddler's Creek begin to shove up against environmentally sensitive lands held in public trust. Issues of conflicting management practices are destined to occur. Prescribed burning versus morning tennis, mosquitoes versus open air dining, and black bears versus tee off times. Golf courses and other open spaces may not be adequate buffers to appease residents' urban expectations. The rural lands we have now will have to service forever. Decisions made now have important consequences down the road. The road this amendment takes is a dangerous one and one many do not want to take. The Federation and its supporters want Collier County to grow wisely and smartly, with clearheaded, farsighted land use planning. Better development models are needed to replace the current random collision of economic forces that is turning Collier's unique, rural, natural and scenic landscape into gates, guards and golf courses. Take a bold step, Commissioners, and say no to this amendment and what it represents. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker's David Guggenheim, and then Brad Cornell. MR. GUGGENHEIH: Good morning, Chairman Berry, Commissioners. For the record, David Guggenheim, president, CEO of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and I speak to you on behalf of our 5,300 family members, 675 volunteers and our 32 member board of directors who have ratified the position statement that I believe you received in the mail, and I'm giving you an extra copy just to be sure. The Conservancy does not object to the proposed growth management plan proposal that would allow an amendment to the Fiddler's Creek PUD/DRI. Although we do have serious concerns about urban type development of land outside the urban boundary, this particular proposal has compelling environmental benefits and other factors distinguishing it from other potential PUD's outside the urban boundary. First and foremost, the Conservancy is now satisfied that Fiddler's Creek is a -- is indeed a unique situation. It does not represent a precedent setting infringement of the urban boundary or urban sprawl. Our position statement lists ten distinguishing factors of this proposed project, including the fact that the proposed addition is within the boundaries of the Collier County water sewer district with such services available, and the fact that density is spread over a larger area within the project boundaries, but in addition, Fiddler's Creek has offered to give up development rights to an environmentally significant area, the peninsula, which extends into the Rookery Bay preserve area, 63 acres, and they've agreed to place that into a permanent conservation easement. This is a significant concession and a definite win for the environment. While we are satisfied that this project is indeed a unique case, the fact does remain that Collier County is experiencing tremendous growth pressure outside the urban boundary and it is important that we move forward with growth management plan, land development code amendments and get those in place regarding criteria for development outside the urban boundary. You directed staff to work with the Conservancy to develop such criteria following the Twin Eagles hearings. I'm pleased to report that those meetings appear imminent now within the next few weeks. We've been in touch with staff and we'll be getting that very important dialogue going, and time is of the essence on that. As I drove past Twin Eagles on Sunday, they have, indeed, broken ground out there and there are more and more developments like that, as you well know, going in outside our urban boundary. We believe that such criteria are nothing less than critical. Again, the Conservancy does not object to the proposed amendment before you. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I would just like to commend Mr. Guggenheim and the Conservancy for their rational, reasoned approach to helping this County Commission become ever more better stewards of our local environment as we deal with these very difficult growth issues, so thank you very much. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you, Commissioner COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Madam Chair. Dr. Guggenheim, did you have discussions with the folks at Rookery Bay regarding the proposal? I believe you got -- I think you and I had that discussion MR. GUGGENHEIM: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- regarding the water quality and the existing pulsing nature of storm water into Rookery Bay and whatnot. I -- the reason I ask that is because we don't have a letter of objection from them. They have not objected to it, to my knowledge, but you mentioned as one of your points, I think one of your key points on number five, is that the construction of the mile-long spreader swale will attempt to recreate historic sheet flows, discourage all terrain vehicles and accessory to Rookery Bay and whatnot, and I see that as probably that, and the 63 acre peninsula, as being two of the strongest environmental points we've seen in a long time. Was part of that arrived at through discussions with Rookery Bay as far as the water moving into that area? MR. GUGGENHEIM: Yes. I don't want to put myself in a position of speaking for the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I tried carefully not to put you in that position. MR. GUGGENHEIM: -- the reserve, but our discussions did certainly include conversation with the Rookery Bay staff who, in my judgment, were supportive of the environmental type of enhancements being proposed by this project, both to restore water flow, and certainly with regard to the 63 acre peninsula. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think you can take pride and your membership can take pride in the fact that that 63 acres may have had a very different outcome had it not been for the involvement of the Conservancy and the fact that the petitioner worked with you, and for that, thank you. MR. GUGGENHEIM: Thank you, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just while we're all saying how wonderful things are, I have to add mine too, to say, you know, there was some question in the community, was the Twin Eagles participation and discussion, was that a one time thing or is this truly a new day that the Conservancy is gonna work with developers to help this County Commission protect and carefully balance. Just as Miss Payton said, these are critical decisions that have an unending impact in the future, and I think you're hearing from all of us how much we very much appreciate your expertise and the fact that it is a new day. We're back to the Conservancy working with developers and helping us to strike a balance. Thank you. MR. GUGGENHEIH: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The final speaker is Brad Cornell. MR. CORNELL: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Brad Cornell, and I'm here as president of Collier County Audubon Society. And I'm having a letter given to you, and I won't read it, but although it's not very long, I will summarize just three points that I want to make in that letter. And, well, first say that we do oppose the -- your passing this amendment, particularly the growth management plan amendment. And the reasons that I want to cite to you are one, we feel that this is not an appropriate way to use our growth management plan, not an appropriate way to amend it for various site specific projects of this nature, and that that sort of action renders the plan less effective. So that's one point. Another point is that we have concerns about mosquito control practices that would be -- come into demand in this area. Already I think it could be said that we've got development in places that it shouldn't be. Well, that's water under the bridge, so to speak. But we don't want to exacerbate that problem of mosquito spraying near conservation lands. So that's another issue. And thirdly, I want to say that we feel like -- and this is to really echo what Dr. Guggenheim and Nancy Payton had to say -- that we should not be looking at the issues that concern development beyond our urban boundary, as it is now, in a project by project basis. That was -- I think that everyone recognizes the enormity and importance of this issue, and the pressures that are now coming to bear on our rural and agricultural lands. So I think we're all in agreement on that. And in light of that agreement, I think it would be wise for all of us not to promote policies on a project by project basis, but rather deal with this comprehensively in community meetings, discussions, criteria development, et cetera. So I would say for that reason, probably most importantly we should not go forward at this time with this amendment. Thank you very much. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cornell, did I hear you correctly, you're willing to work with the board, this project, to work with the board on developing criteria -- not just beyond the urban area but in the far-reaching agricultural parts of the county, the Audubon Society is willing to work with the board to arrive at a policy in that arena? MR. CORNELL: We want to work with a policy that governs development in the entire county, yes, that would be correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But specifically, it's such a critical point, and I know it's not relevant to this particular petition, but I think it's so important to the whole future of these issues, and that is you know that when we tried to have discussions on Twin Eagles that, as I understand it, Audubon and Wildlife were invited to participate in trying to discover what was the right thing to do with Twin Eagles and declined to participate. And what I think I heard was that as we go forward with the Conservancy and staff with what Dr. Guggenheim referred to, to develop these county-wide policies, addressing development standards outside the urban boundary, is Audubon now willing to participate in that process? MR. CORNELL: Well, first let me clarify that for one thing, I was not president of Audubon at that time when these issues came up, but I do understand that the reason -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know how you feel about being handed things you weren't responsible for. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that. MR. CORNELL: But if I may clarify, I do understand the reason for that policy choice of the chapter, and that was that we were doing things backward in our perception. It wasn't that we didn't want to participate in discussions on that, but again, we felt like doing it on a project by project basis was the incorrect procedure. We should deal with it more in a general policy discussion rather than specific to that particular project. That was our objection to that and why we pursued the course that we did. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But for future reference, are you going to be participating in those -- may we invite you and will you accept the invitation to participate in those development discussions about what the criteria should be in the future? MR. CORNELL: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wonderful. Thanks. MR. CORNELL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any further questions, comments? Does this conclude your presentation? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am. Unless the board has any questions, that would conclude our presentation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have one. Just -- it's the first time I heard mosquito spraying. One of the issues related to -- I don't even know if this is within or without a mosquito controlled district, and MR. VARNADOE: It is, and we've been working with them. We've also had communications back and forth with the Mercury Bay people on how best to address that situation. I think what is not being recognized by the opponents is the fact that we are setting aside a significant part of land between ourselves and this new property and anything the state owns that would otherwise be developed. Seventy acres of that 1,385 acres in the preserve is currently uplands, and over on section 29, down in the southeast corner, almost half of that half section, if you would, or quarter section is farmlands that could be developed without any -- all of that's going to be preserves. there will be quite a buffer between development and the state wetlands to the south, plus the fact that a spreader swale system will help again solve that -- part of those problems as far as run-off and mosquito spraying or over spraying in that area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it is incumbent upon us to realize that the mosquito control district is an independent district -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and responsible for the safe application of the mosquito spraying chemicals. We have no control in that arena, but it is in the district. MR. VARNADOE: Let me just conclude by saying one thing: Although I appreciate Mr. Cornell's wish for some overall policy guidance, I think that in unique situations which the Conservancy's recognized as a unique situation, that we can address this on a project by project basis. And you've heard Dr. Nelson say we are really solving some problems that we have in this area through this amendment. By not adding a new unit, you're bringing this into an existing problem. Thank you. I'm sorry, George Varnadoe, for the new court reporter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we've had our public speakers and the presentations are concluded. We will deal with each one of these different items. We will take all three of them at one time, but we'll -- oh, I'm sorry, we've got to close the public hearing. But we'll start with petition CP-97-3 first. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, based on the information presented today and that entered into the record, I move approval of petition CP-97-3 with staff recommendations. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second. Any further comments? If not, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) Motion carries unanimously five-zero. Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 98-13, PETITION PUD-84-7(6), GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING CY ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE, FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE MARCO SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK PUD AND REZONING CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, HAVING THE EFFECT OF ADDING 1,385 ACRES TO THE FIDDLER'S CREEK PORTION OF THE MARCO SHORES PUD (COMPANION TO ITEM 12C7) - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, in like order I move for approval of petition PUD-84-7(6). COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) Motion carries five-zero. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Finally, on this item, I'll also -- MR. VARNADOE: Commissioner Hancock, before you make a motion, I think we need -- probably have to have a motion on this that the DRI does not constitute a substantial deviation before we actually amend the DRI. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I apologize. I assumed we had made that assumption since it was entered in by our staff report that that was a part of the motion. If it was not, I'll clarify the motion to indicate that it is not a substantial change, the DRI. Ms. Student, is that appropriate? MS. STUDENT: That's appropriate. It is also contained in the resolution and conclusion that it is not a substantial deviation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, then I'll just offer clarification that in fact was a part of the motion that was made. There being -- if there's no objection to that, then I assume it stands. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Item #12C7 DEVELOPMENT ORDER 98-1/RESOLUTION 98-49, RE PETITION DOA-97-3, GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING DY ASSOCIATES JOINT VENTURE, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE MARCO SHORES/FIDDLER'S CREEK DEVELOPMENT ORDER 84-3, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING 1,385 ACRES TO THE FIDDLER'S CREEK PORTION OF SAID DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND COMPANION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZOING REGULATIONS, AND TO ADOPT A NEW MASTER PLAN (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEM 12B1) - ADOPTED COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the third -- go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that, I'll move approval of petition DOA-97-3. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very much. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 98-14, RE PETITION PUD-97-16, MCANLY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC., REPRESENTING TOLL BROTHERS, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" (CASA DEL SOL GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB) AND "A" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS NAPLES FOREST COUNTRY CLUB FOR PROPERYT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF C.R. 951 AND RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD (C.R. 864) - ADOPTED Mr. Nino, are you presenting this next item? MR. NINO: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is this lengthy? MR. NINO: I don't believe it's -- it should be any longer than a half an hour. Probably be good for half an hour. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right, we can do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is 2C-1 where we are? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're at 12 -- MR. FERNANDEZ: B-2. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- B-2. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: B-2, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. NINO: Don't hold me to that now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: After 31 minutes, Mr. Nino, we're going to have discussions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you have no speakers for that One. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have no speakers? Okay. Could we have all that are going to speak to petition PUD 97-16 please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter? (All witnesses duly sworn.) MR. NINO: For the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, let's do our disclosure at this point in time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have nothing to disclose. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have nothing to disclose. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have nothing to disclose. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I disclose I have no disclosure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I had a brief discussion with Mr. Nadeau about this, but I'm not sure, so I'll just mention that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino for the record. The petition that's before you asks you to fezone 485 acres, part of which is now zoned PUD, part is -- and the large -- far larger portion is zoned agriculture through the PUD classification, which would authorize the community of 785 mixed residential dwelling units, 150,000 square feet of commercial development at the northeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock and CR 951. The petition is con -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That ends up being less than two units an acre. MR. NINO: Yes, 1.67 units per acre. A whole lot of land going into open space and golf courses, far greater than is required under the Land Development Code. Approximately 70 percent. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, has there been any opposition to this? MR. NINO: There has been no opposition to this petition, other than an expression by the owner of the property that is -- the remaining owner in the Casa del Sole PUD did express some concern; however, I note that no one is here representing or wishing to carry forward that concern, so I have to assume that it has gone away. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does that in any way affect the legal authority of the application to move forward, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: No, I do not believe so. MR. NINO: As I indicated, the -- there are no consistency issues here. We've concluded that indeed, if approved, this would be consistent with all elements of the growth management plan. And importantly, the EAB reviewed this petition, they recommended approval, all of their concerns are contained within this PUD; the planning commission were unanimous in their recommendation of support, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. Mr. Nino, I recall some time back that we were talking about activity centers and modifications to such, and this was one of the corners that we were discussing. Refresh us on what the discussion entailed at that point in time and how we arrived at the number of 150,000 square feet of commercial for this particular application. MR. NINO: The petition asks you to establish 15 acres of commercial development in what otherwise is a 40-acre activity center. You will recall that from time to time we talked about a rule of thumb policy that suggests 10,000 square feet of commercial for every acre as an appropriate rule. That 15 acres gives us exactly that rule of thumb criteria. That's pretty well consistent with what we've allowed in many other PUD's. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. MR. NINO: And by this approval, we will in fact be reducing the size of the activity center from 40 acres to 15 acres, because that's all they've asked for. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And this activity center, refresh the board on the conversation that we had sometime back about this particular activity center. MR. NINO: I believe early in the evaluation and appraisal process there was a suggestion that this activity center be deleted in its entirety. But that was not -- that proposition was not successful. And your action sided to retain the activity center as was originally configured. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, it's a little difficult for me to tell from the exhibit in our book. There is a roadway that connects 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock. Will that be a public or private roadway? MR. NINO: That will likely be -- I believe that's going to be a private roadway. This is intended to be a gated community. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have discussed in the past, particularly where activity centers and commercial on corners of any significant size are located, that roads such as Napa Boulevard that connect Airport Road and Pine Ridge and create a route for people accessing the shopping center are really good ideas. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is, when does the time come that we begin enforcing by requiring that the commercial on the intersection give that type of road relief? Not so much as a reliever, but the people who turn into it can then access the other road without going back out and -- I like that kind of circular loop road. And I guess my question is -- it doesn't appear here -- one, is it a good idea, and two, can we require it, based on the traffic volumes at the intersection a potential -- you know, a potential trip generation at that intersection? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just sharing my thoughts on that, I agree with you in areas where it is -- substantial I think was the word you used -- commercial, but I think with the down-sizing of this from 40 acres to 15, I don't think of 150,000 square feet as substantial. I mean, it's in the big picture as we look at traffic generation and so on. I don't know that that warrants its own roadway. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Where exactly would that activity center be? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's right there at the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock and Isle of Capri. My concern is that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Excuse me, did you read Isle of Capri in here? How many years ago was it that we corrected that, five? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe it's referred to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, you've just received a second black mark. My apologies for calling attention to it. You mean County Road 951. Is that the one I meant? Okay, thank you. My concern is that when we've done these in the past -- I think I'd like to go back even to some of the smaller ones and see if we can't get that kind of a circuitous roadway. It doesn't have to be a predominant roadway fixture. In some places it can be used as an access for truck traffic to the rear of the shopping center, but still be used to access one road to another. I guess for Mr. Nadeau, do we have any plans for that shopping center that would either prohibit or allow for this type of a circular road access connecting 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock? MR. NADEAU: For the record, Dwight Nadeau, McAnly Engineering, representing Toll Brothers, Inc., subject, petition, Naples Forest Country Club. Commissioner Hancock, yes. And in fact, the access points to the commercial activity center here being off of County Barn -- excuse me, being off of 951 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road do conform with the access management plan, and there will be a circular routing through there. In addition, there will be access for the residents of the development to access the commercial internally. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to ask that -- obviously we'll see it in detail at the site development plan stage, or our staff will. What I'm looking for there is not something like was done at Pine Ridge Crossings where yes, you can access it but you've got to turn down this aisle and that aisle. It's rather convoluted. The more direct the better while staying in the safe traffic parameters within the shopping center. So I would just ask that detail and attention be placed to allowing that type of a more circuitous route and a less indirect route -- that has been done in other shopping centers -- during the design phase, and if you would, you know, commit to working toward that end, that would make me a lot more comfortable. MR. NADEAU: Yes, I believe that we can make that commitment. As you can see, the commercial parcel is irregularly shaped. That is primarily due to environmental concerns, but as well as a -- there will be a looping of the road from 951 to Rattlesnake Hammock -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Terrific. MR. NADEAU: -- so it will not be as circuitous as you might imagine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just to add to that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the word of the day, by the way. MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The word of the day. That's something that comes up every time. And rather than our having to catch it -- and I appreciate that you catch it every time -- maybe it's something, Mr. Nino, you could communicate should be a part of our traffic management or traffic access program, or -- so that, you know, you can see that it comes up every time and it's a board policy by our actions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think this is a little ahead of -- when we talked about master planning the activity centers -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on 951, the old Isle of Capri Road. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Formerly known as. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Formerly known as. Part of that was this type of looping. So I think we're just a little ahead of it. When those activity centers come forward being master planned, I think that's going to be the time to make a policy directive for the board. Until then, we're just going to have to catch them case by case. MR. NINO: Yes, if I may, that issue is diminished by virtue of the fact that we have one owner. That issue -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. NINO: -- relative to making sure activity centers hang together is when there are multiple ownerships. We assumed that we would be administratively dealing with the issue Commissioner Hancock raised, and you can rest assured that we would have dealt with that issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all the questions I have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other questions from the commission? Do I have a motion -- I'll close the public hearing first. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time we're within five minutes of a lunch break, and I believe that we will take that lunch break and we will reconvene here approximately 1:15. (Recess taken.) Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 98-50, RE PETITION AV-97-020 TO VACATE 6' WIDE DRAINAGE AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTS WITHIN LOTS 1 THROUGH 4, BLOCK 207 AND WITHIN LOTS 4 THROUGH 6, BLOCK 206, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF GOLDEN GATE UNIT 5, AND TO ACCEPT A 6' WIDE DRAINAGE AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AS A REPLACEMENT EASEMENT THROUGH THE PREVIOULSY VACATED CUL-DE-SAC AT THE INTERSECTION OF 28TH AVENUE SW AND 53RD TERRACE, S.W. - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will reconvene the board meeting for this afternoon. And we are moving on to Item 12-C, Petition AV 97-020. Mr. Mullet. MR. MULLER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Russ Mullet with your transportation services department. Item 12-C-1 is a public hearing to consider Petition AV 97-020 for the vacation of several six-foot wide drainage and public utilities, and its located on a portion of -- portions of Lots 1 through 4, Block 207, and portions of Lots 4 through 6 in Block -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Mullet, it's obvious you have done your usual fantastic job in preparing your staff report for this item, and I don't notice anything really unusual -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- about this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have one question, but I have it actually about all three of the next couple -- I mean the next couple petitions -- all three of the next couple. I don't know where that came from. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a multiple of six? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All three of the next couple. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I swear I had chicken fried steak for lunch and iced tea. Anyway for the next couple, I have this question, because the reason for the vacation is that -- so the areas encumbered can be used for development purposes, and there's nothing wrong with that. I guess what I'm wondering is, if we're making things easier, you know, allowing for development to occur where it might otherwise be more difficult for it to occur, what's in it for the general public? What -- why would we be approving? MR. MULLER: Well, I think on this one, I can say that it's better that we consolidate the lots under one ownership and sell it as a whole than -- than lots for residential on the parkway, may be a benefit to the public. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This is a general improvement? This isn't your -- if you remember the churches -- their facility in the general area, the option was to have some multi-family in the area. So considering the history on this property and -- it is a marked improvement over what will be otherwise the entryway into the community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then there's the answer right there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And they no longer need it for single-family development because we do have individual single-family lot development drainage plan requirements now which we didn't have a few years ago. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right, thanks. MR. MULLER: One thing about this particular petition is the resolution has a typo in it, and the agent is Gary Butler of Butler Engineering rather than Terry Cole, and I have a corrected resolution here for Miss Filson. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't see Gary, but had we known that, we probably just would have turned it down immediately. MR. MULLER: Well, Mike Landy is here and his staff. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, well, I got a whole different point of view about this now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There will be a remedial typing class available immediately following the commission meeting. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: The whole school teacher thing is continuing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Educate you kids. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am really -- I am really fine with this. Madam Chairman, do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We got to close -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve Petition AV 97-020. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 98-51, RE PETITION AV-97-021 TO VACATE PORTIONS OF SPECIAL PRESERVE EASEMENTS, TO VACATE PORTIONS OF DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ~ND TO ACCEPT REPLACEMENT EASEMENTS FOR THE VACATED PORTIONS OF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS IN THE QUAIL WEST SUBDIVISION - ADOPTED Item 12-C-2, Petition AV 97-021 to vacate portions of special preserve easements. COMMISSIONER M_~C'KIE: I have the same question about this one. It's for the purpose of increasing the buildable area within the lots. What's in that for the general public? MR. HULLER: Nothing. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have got to assume it's to the benefit of whomever the individual residential lot owner is, though. I just hate to have the government hold to on to a piece of property that it has no intention of using. It's not going to increase the density or anything else, because they still can't have any more than they have now. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It doesn't -- it won't have a net effect -- the net effect will be to build a larger house but not more units? MR. HULLER: Right, right. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not necessarily larger either, but it has to do with placement on the lot. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Placement on the lot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULLER: That's correct, too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just am not interested in doing -- in approving any of these if it gets us one more house, you know. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are we -- are we looking at, again, the size here, six feet? MR. MULLER: In Quail West there are a number of odd-sized easements and portions of easements. A preserve easement is very large and it encumbered some of the lots in really strange locations. And what they were trying to do is make the lot -- increase the buildable area and how they could position a house within that buildable area. They have enough special preserve easement remaining to keep the Army Core of Engineers happy, and that's all we care about, I guess. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers. I will close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will make a motion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just heard mumbling at that end. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is your motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I will make a motion that we approve this petition. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: AV 97-0217 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's the one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and an second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #12C3 - Deleted Item 12-C-3. I think that has been omitted. Item #12C4 RESOLUTION 98-52, RE PETITION AV-98-002 TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 12' WIDE LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT IN LOT 5 AND TO VACATE A PORTION OF A 15' WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN LOT 24, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "TIERRA LAGO" - ADOPTED 12-C-4, Petition AV 98-002 to vacate a portion of the twelve-foot wide lake maintenance easement in the Tierra Lago. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This one says to accommodate constructed improvements. MR. HULLER: Yes. There is encroachments into these easements. The developer/contractor went ahead and built some homes into a couple of easements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oops. MR. MULLER: That's happened before. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we were moving along so well, to. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem here is that obviously the access is required for lake maintenance only in this case. Is lake maintenance adequately provided elsewhere with the vacation of this easement? MR. MULLER: It's still on that lot. John Boldt actually went out and looked at both of these lots and they were fine. There was enough room to maintain the easement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just that the builder basically either ignored or was unaware of the easement when they constructed, and now we have to vacate that portion in which a physical structure encroaches on the easement? MR. MULLER: The units out there are very tight, and I can see where, you know, they saved some survey money and they went out there and put some homes in, and they're in the wrong spot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are people living there? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this house -- is this house occupied? MR. MULLER: I -- I don't think the one on Lot 5 is -- or the one on Lot 24 is. The one on Lot 5 had furniture in it when I went out and took a look at it, but no car there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There have been no objections to this? MR. MULLER: Everyone has offered a letter of no objection to all of these vacations. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just had a question on -- you said there is still the ability to get there and do the maintenance for the lake. Can you describe that for me a little bit? MR. MULLER: Yes. At the top of the lake, what they try to keep is a 20-foot clear zone around the lake so they can drive around the lake and clean out the lake. That still exists on this lot. There's still that much room between the actual pool cage and the top of the bank to where a truck could drive through this lot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we will still have permission to drive along -- I mean, where -- how do we have permission to drive on land after we have vacated the easement? MR. MULLER: We're vacating only that portion that the -- that the pool encroaches on, so we don't have permission to drive on that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me just -- again, I need to understand it. Were these built by the same builder, both of these? MR. HULLER: The petition is by the same -- came out of Vineyards Development, but I don't know if they were built by the same builder or not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Kind of my problem is, we have apparently a consistency within a small area of ignoring the setbacks. A mistake is a mistake, but this appears to be a pattern. Both are on Tierra Lago Way in the same community; is that right, Mr. Mullet? MR. HULLER: Right. There's a map on page 13 that shows both lots. One is Lot 24, and the other one is Lot 5. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As has been the case in the past, I mean, it's not that I have necessarily a problem with a mistake or an error, but two in the same community? That sounds like blatant disregard, not just an error. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and I was going to ask, is there some sort of penalty here, because for -- if someone comes back and asks for a variance -- an after-the-fact variance, they pay three times the cost? Or is there some penalty for simply ignoring or not doing their job properly? I am wondering, is this a mistake and someone just says, oh, we'll get them to change the easement? There's no penalty whatsoever? Because it seems as though there should be. MR. HULLER: I guess the penalty is the exposure that they're -- they're at today. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if we change this, there's absolutely none whatsoever. MR. HULLER: They have got a thousand dollar filing fee for a vacation, which is substantial. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Which you otherwise wouldn't to have pay at all. MR. HULLER: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. He would have had to pay it ahead of time to vacate it. Well -- MR. HULLER: Right. They would have shoved the house over a little bit. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which they couldn't have in either one of these. They are -- they are against the setback. One of them is a rear yard encroachment for a pool and enclosure and one is a zero lot line. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The plain old part of the house. MR. HULLER: That's correct. It's real tight. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, we keep looking for -- I keep looking for individual options in these cases where someone has shown what appears to me to be a disregard as opposed to an error, and I know the filing fee is X amount, but I keep wanting to refer something like this to the contractor licensing board to go after the builder for what is a blatant mistake. And I'm not sure what our options are available to us, but when we approve this kind of stuff, what we're really saying is look, if you build into an easement, just figure out a way to vacate it and everything will be fine. And I really don't like sending that message. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The petitioner is not here? I don't see anybody from Coastal. MR. HULLER: No, the petitioner, I believe, was Michael Saadeh. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Here's somebody. Come right in. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right on cue. You say he's not here, boom, there he is. MR. SAADEH: Good afternoon. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Saadeh, I'll give you a chance to catch your breath, and I'll kind of bring you up to speed on what my concern is. These are both apparently in the same community. And we have two encroachments. One is minor and one appears to be significant. Now, I know they can be rectified and I know that we're not going to sacrifice lake maintenance. My concern is is that there appears to be a pattern of disregarding setbacks here in this particular instance, and I am concerned about that. I am concerned about sending a message that you can ignore them and get them fixed later. So I am just looking for some -- some information that tells me that's not the case here. MR. SAADEH: Michael Saadeh, for the record, S-a-a-d-e-h. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did I give you enough time to catch your breath there? MR. SAADEH: That's fine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Will you put pant, pant in parenthesis? MR. SAADEH: Actually, I had a little trouble getting here. I had a flat -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, my gosh. MR. SAADEH: -- on a new car. So anyhow -- the lake maintenance easement actually is -- is one that I have been talking to your staff about probably doing without. And I would like to explain it a little bit so everybody understands. In the history of our subdivision, we have never had the county or any agency come in and maintain -- and maintain lakes. The purpose of the easement is to have access to the lake if there is no -- if there is an abandonment of a project on a certain lot. In our case, we're covered twofold. One, for each neighborhood we do have an association that maintains that neighborhood, and when the association takes charge of, you know, any neighborhood, then they do the maintenance. And in the case where the lots are empty, they are maintained by the association. In the case where the lots are built, then the homeowner maintains to the level of the grass of that lot. And by county regulations, the grass for the individual lakes would be -- the Bahia grass which is a little bit more economical grass. And our regulation is as we approve these homes, we insist on putting Floratam, and every homeowner is required to maintain from their back yard all the way to the lake level, whether it's through a master mechanism or one maintenance guy or the whole neighborhood maintenance guy. So in the past until now, we have never had a situation where the county had ever to come in and require easement or require access to these lakes. You don't need a truck; you need just a simple mower. In a lot of cases -- up until this point, we have 1,250 homes. We have never had the situation once where your staff was ever required to come back in and do any type of that maintenance. So to us, you know, I asked your staff over and over about the significance of that easement. And if you would like, that's quote, unquote from your own staff, that in your case, it does not protect the county because you guys do everything by the book. But in cases where someone plats a subdivision, sells a few lots, bankrupt and get out of business, the county want to have a mechanism to go in and maintain these lakes. Now, I don't believe for a minute that even if that happens that you guys have the manpower or you guys have the financial stability to go in there and maintain lakes for anyone. So from our history, we feel that this is just a requirement that encumbers the development of certain subdivisions and does not offer any benefit. I -- I would say that we -- we would never intentionally or otherwise have a disregard to a setback or requirement for of that nature. But to be truthful with you, this particular one, one was oversight and two, we felt that, you know -- and my interpretation, you may disagree, but this lake maintenance easement is not -- is really a burden on our development for no reason. Now, the other one was a pure -- the other one was a pure mistake on the contractor's part. It was not uncovered until the end of the project. I don't know the extent of that because it is very minor. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That one I can understand. I guess you have answered my question in one respect. I guess the way I would like to see this happen in the future is that we vacate the easement prior to construction. MR. SAADEH: I have asked Mr. Boldt to -- to-- for future planning to give me one reason why we shouldn't even show this on any plat, and I told him that as long is the Vineyards Developments -- right now we're doing our own construction so we don't have any outside builders. I am willing to give the county a letter stating that until the very last unit is built at the Vineyards, we will give you a personal guarantee. We will even give you a letter of credit or any kind of bond that you will not have to need to worry about maintenance easement in our subdivision. Because one of the things we do is, and frankly, this is the gist of it, we don't try to meet minimum requirements to generate sales. The type of clientele we cater to, if it doesn't appeal to them, we can't sell it. So we're always going to go way beyond what you require. And from that standpoint, you know, lake bank have to look nice and neat and, I mean, you know, with all due respect, I don't wait for someone to tell me clean it up. I am going to clean up it regardless, because otherwise I can't sell it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No question. I am -- if it were, like you said, a project under construction and whatnot and there were no assurances of the condition of the project and whatnot, then I would be less inclined. So I am not going to have a problem with these two today. I am just saying that with our staff in the future, before we start looking at sets of encroachments again, I would rather see the vacation occur prior to the construction and that consideration be made. And that makes this go away for me, but I just -- it's one of those things that when I see something like this, I just want to make sure we don't see a similar situation. MR. SAADEH: Actually, I have asked Mr. Mullet if he can come up with a mechanism to where we vacate those across the board unilaterally before we get in another situation, exactly what you're saying. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good. That answers -- that answers my question. MR. SAADEH: As quick as they give me something, then we will be happy to do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If there's a problem with doing that, I would like to know, because it makes a lot more sense than doing it this way. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. MR. SAADEH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So let's make him talk a little more, because he's just now catching his breath. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other comments or questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just hope the Lexus roadside plan worked out for you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Now, we will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will move approval of Petition AV 97-002. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. If there's no further questions, all in favor? Opposed. (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. MR. SAADEH: Thank you very much. Sorry about the delay. Thanks. Item #12C5 ORDINANCE 98-15, AMENDING ORDINANCE 97-82, WHICH CREATED THE BAYSHORE AVALON BEAUTIFICATION MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT; AMENDING SECTION SIX TO CLARIFY THAT MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE DISTRICT - ADOPTED WITH CHANGE CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to Petition AV 97-021 to vacate portions of special preserve easements -- gee whiz, we did that already. I'm sorry. Number five, recommendation to adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance 97-82, Bayshore Avalon Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Can I tell you about this one? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Didn't you already tell us about it? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I will tell you just one sentence about it, and I think you will be happy. As we reopen this and are soliciting for membership on the advisory board, there is a great deal of interest by commercial property owners to be able to serve on that board. This would allow that instead of just residential property owners. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is there any limit or breakdown in here or just it allows -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. It allows that decision -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the board's discretion. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At the board's discretion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record reflect that Commissioner Hac'Kie is engaged in solicitation, apparently. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: On Bayshore. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Excuse me? Am I soliciting what? Where? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It will be interesting to see how that are reads tomorrow. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just kidding. Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Miss Ashton, did you need to get something on the record here? MS. ASHTON: Yes. Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not engaged in solicitation are you, Miss Ashton? MS. ASHTON: Not today. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Those comments could be harassment, so you better keep your picking on me. MS. ASHTON: For the record, I am Heidi Ashton, assistant county attorney. I would like to read in a change in addition to the ordinance. I passed it out. It's highlighted in yellow. The new language including the change that I just handed out shall state that said members shall be permanent residents or owners of residential or commercial property within the HSTU. The intent for purposes of legislative history is that no owner would be left out as being an applicant for the committee. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If you own property, you can participate. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since you're paying. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Since you're paying, you should be able to participate. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And that is owners? We agreed not to allow designees? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. An owner -- the definition of owner includes an officer of the corporation if it's corporate or owner, but not just, you know, some agent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My buddy, Bob. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Okay. Anything further? Oh, Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, as you can tell, this language is breaking new ground for a committee within an HSTU, and there are, of course, other improvement HSTUs that exist. Our office is pretty well along in its comprehensive amendment of all of the advisory committee ordinances, including those for HSTU, and at this point in time, we would not be putting this kind of change in our master advisory committee ordinance or bringing back the other individual HSTU ordinances to allow this rather expansive membership selection process, unless you give us that direction. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: See, I don't understand that, personally. I mean, maybe you could give me some examples to make me understand it for general direction, but this one, it's seemed perfectly clear, the commercial property owners are paying a significant portion of any tax that's eventually assessed. It only seems fair that they would have representation on it. MR. WEIGEL: And if this board gives us the direction, we can provide this kind of language in the other beautification or improvement HSTUs, such as Radio Road or others where there may be commercial property ownership but an inability as presently written in those advisory committee ordinances for commercial owners to be on any advisory committee that's part and parcel of that HSTU. Now, we're early enough -- we're well along in our process, but we're early enough in the process that we can make those changes when we bring back our comprehensive advisory -- general advisory committee ordinance with the other HSTU ordinances that are going to be cleaned up and amended. And this is an opportunity for you to give us additional direction if you wish to in this regard. That would be separate from your motion and vote on this ordinance, however. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think I would like to know what other areas would be affected to know if this is, you know, a large problem or is this something that we have -- would have in other districts? MR. WEIGEL: Very good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or is this kind of a unique situation here? MR. WEIGEL: That would be fine. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I foresee it coming again with the Gateway Triangle redevelopment project. That's going to be eventually, hopefully, an HSTU that would have significant input by commercial property owners. They would have to have a say. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we have done it case by case in the past, and Mr. Weigel is correct in that it's kind of breaking new ground. But in a way it also -- it isn't if you look at the Pelican Bay HSTBU. They have designated representation from the businesses that are affected. So I think we have tailored it case by case in the past. But rather than creating a burden of work for the county attorney's office in reviewing all of those, unless there's a problem with them, I would assume that from here forward we just do it case by case also. MR. WEIGEL: That would fine, and if you'd like, we will prepare a brief just informational memo to you indicating what would appear to be those HSTUs that just might be considered in the future. And, again, Radio Road is one and -- of the more recent ones and there may be a few others that at some point in time you may say, go, do it, and we will be happy to do that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I tell you just one other thing just for simplification, could be that if all the ordinances were drafted like this one that says any residential and/or commercial property owner can apply for membership, this board is always going to appoint the members, and it just allows the door to be opened for anybody who owns property in the area to apply. It seems to me that there's nothing wrong with doing that across the board. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to think about that. Nothing comes to mind as problematic, but I would like time to consider it. So maybe the memo from the county attorney's office will help us do that. MR. WEIGEL: I will have it to you this week. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Anything further from anyone? I will close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Motion carries five, zero. Item #12C6 - WITHDRAWN Item #12C8 RESOLUTION 98-53, SETTING FORTH THE INTENT OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS TO USE THE UNIFORM METHOD OF COLLECTING NON-AD VALOREH ASSESSMENTS FOR INTERIM GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES FEES WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA AND IN THE INCORPORATED AREAS OF COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED We are on then to recommendation to adopt a resolution setting forth the intent of the Board of County Commissioners to use the uniform method of collecting non-ad valorem assessments for interim governmental services fees. Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Good afternoon again, and it's my pleasure to bring before you today the second in our series of notice of intent resolutions for this particular year. This one is provided in essence for cleanup or for security in the process as we go forward toward the board considering the adoption of interim governmental services fees. The changes in this resolution advertised and before you today from that which was adopted December 16th, 1997, are rather minor, but what they indicate and are briefly is to make very clear that the interim government services fee that the county ostensibly may adopt through ordinance process soon will apply as an interim governmental services fee for some general services throughout the county, including municipalities. This is separate from and in addition to the municipality interim governmental services fees which were addressed in the previous notice of intent resolutions that were adopted by the board. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How is that? I don't understand that. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. There are some services which are peculiarly or particularly municipal services that belong to the municipalities. And under the theory of interim governmental services fees, cities as well as the county endure the situation where properties that are fully appraised or fully valued on the tax roll are arguably subsidizing properties that have not been valued for the tax roll where the certificates of occupancy come at a certain point late in time. But there are other services that the county provides within the municipalities as well as throughout the county generally -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like the MS -- MR. WEIGEL: -- which continue to be services. There are some such as -- part of it would be sheriff's services and some others. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: EMS. MR. WEIGEL: EHS, yes, would be another good example. And those, again, to assure -- assure defensibility in any court process or challenge to the interim government service fee ordinance, we want to make it absolutely clear with this notice of intent that it is countywide, and if individual municipalities don't opt in, that there is still going to be some countywide impact, if I may use that term, or application of the interim governmental services fees. We may have been able to get by without this notice, but in the ordinance as it's been drafted and evolved up to this point, we felt that it was most appropriate to take this last opportunity that we have to advertise and have the board, if it wishes, to adopt this resolution, which still in no way commits the board to absolutely go forward this year with interim governmental services fees. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are we communicating with municipalities about this? MR. WEIGEL: We have, and, in fact, the municipalities have communicated back with us and indicated that they had no interest again this year. And we have three municipalities to deal with this year, whereas we had two that indicated no interest last year. Last year on the record through the meetings that were had where our board was in attendance with the City of Naples, particularly, they wanted to just kind of let the county go forward and leave the charge and the fight, if necessary, and see how it fleshed out judicially. But this particular resolution does give another window of opportunity to the municipalities, which is through March. But I don't anticipate them changing their response that we have already had early this year subsequent to the December notice of intent resolution. Additionally, I would like to report to you that under Chapter 197, it's a requirement that the property appraiser and the tax collector consent to a notice of intent resolution that comes after December 31st of the year preceding. John Yonkosky, director of the department of revenue, Miss Ashton and myself have met with both Mr. Carlton and Mr. Skinner, and although they have concerns about interim government services fees generally, and particularly Mr. Carlton has concern about the integrity of the tax roll if this should be made part of the tax bill, they both consent to this resolution that goes forward at this point in time, if the board should approve it. Additional information for you and the public and anyone else, of course, is that we expect to bring the ordinance -- advertise and bring it to the board in mid to late March and from that standpoint, we will thereafter look to take it into a validation process based upon anticipated revenues, seeking a local court validation. And if there should be appeal therefrom, it's just like any capital improvements project bond validation. It would be appealed directly to the Supreme Court as a fast-track review. And I would -- I think I can pretty assuredly state that it would be to the Supreme Court and probably opinion from the Supreme Court before the end of the calendar year. Next question that comes up, and, again, we're a little ahead of ourselves in regard to this particular notice of intent resolution, but that is, does the board wish to go forward this year with -- if it should adopt an ordinance with the implementation of interim government services fees in the budget process this year, which ostensibly would affect millages? And answer is, legally you can. It would be a decision to be made for all the reasons that come to bear in the budget process, which obviously will need to be coordinated with the county administrator and his -- and his budget office. And Mr. Yonkosky previously has indicated that over a one-year basis, I think he estimates 1.1 to 1.4 million in collections with the application of this fee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The public hearing in March will be the time at which we decide, based on input from the tax collector and your office, as to whether or not it is valid to place this on the tax bill or whether or not it would have to be required at time of CO; is that correct? MR. WEIGEL: That's correct. Certainly at that point in time, even if you adopt the ordinance, it doesn't necessarily mean that you go forward. You still, in your budget process, can opt in or out to go forward with it. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just know we will eventually have that debate, and March is probably the earliest of which that would be a definitive moment for that? MR. WEIGEL: That's right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commission Norris, questions? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Covered, thanks. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Once this is completed, can I get a summary statement from your office on where we are and where we're going to provide to the Florida Association of Counties because -- MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- they read last year John Yonkosky assisted me in authoring a -- in Florida County's Magazine an article on this, and they're very, very interested throughout the state. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Be very happy to. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there's -- and we have no public speak on this issue? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Close the public hearing, and I would like a motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 98-54, RE PETITION V-97-16, KAREN K. BISHOP OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., REPRESENTING JEFFREY PIIPPONEN REQUESTING A 2 FOOT VARIANCE TO THE REQUIRED HEIGHT FOR FENCES AND WALLS FROM 6 FEET TO 8 FEET FOR THE LONGSHORE LAKES PUD LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IHMOKALEE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE EAST OF INTERSTATE 75 - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Going on then to the advertised public hearings, Petition V-97-16, requiring a two-foot variance on the height of a fence. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Does this require swearing in? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, it does. All of those people who are going to be speaking to this issue, if I could ask you to be sworn in, please. (Witnesses were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any disclosures at this time? Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. We had lunch. I had lunch with the petitioner today, so it may have come up, but only very slightly. I haven't had any significant -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand that was chicken and fried steak? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With iced tea. And that was a bad plan. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner, what, lunch or -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The chicken fried steak. Maybe a salad next time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris, any disclosure? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I have no disclosure, but I would point out that you lose a point of I.Q. for every chicken fried steak you eat. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have no disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have any disclosure? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but when I do, I will be happy to bring it up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would welcome that. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I. I don't know if this applies, I did not speak to the petitioner about this. I spoke to some people who live in the development that this pertains to. So I will use that as my disclosure, but I will base my decision on whatever is applicable by the law. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Karen Bishop, representing Jeffrey Pipponen, is requesting a two-foot variance from the required six feet to eight feet for a wall along the Long Shore Lake PUD. Over the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am terribly sorry to interrupt. Is there any objection from anybody in the neighborhood? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or surrounding? Why would anybody think this was anything other than a good idea? When you spoke to the people in the community -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I spoke to the president of the homeowners' association, when I saw that this was on agenda, and their response was that they felt this was very forward thinking due to future development and they thought they were very pleased with this particular proposal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As much as I am sure Miss Bishop would like to talk to us -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there something you need to get on the record? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I bought lunch. I would like to get that on the record. I bought lunch. MS. BISHOP: No, thank you. You can keep the little pictures that I had done for you just in case somebody wanted to know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have one question on the -- could I have the other one, please? The only area of my concern is the landscaping along Immokalee Road. MS. BISHOP: Exists. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It exists already? MS. BISHOP: Yes, shall I point it out -- Karen Bishop, for the record. I represent the petitioner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So the construction of the wall will not eliminate any of the existing landscaping along the roadway? MS. BISHOP: As you can see, there is already a fence in place, and it zigs inside and out, and that vegetation exists on somebody else's property, so we will not be taking that down. That's the district's property. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure we didn't have a bare eight-foot wall running along the roadway. MS. BISHOP: Absolutely not. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's all I had. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve Petition V-97-16. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 98-55, RE PETITION V-97-15, KENNETH D. GOODMAN, REPRESENTING LAMA S. CHADWICK REQUESTING A 0.5 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDE YARD PROPERTY LINE; A 4 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE; A 13.3 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SETBACK FOR A TENNIS COURT ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE; AND A 2 FOOT AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED STRUCTURE-TO-STRUCTURE SETBACK OF 10 FEET FOR THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AND A TENNIS COURT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 118 CAJEPUT DRIVE - ADOPTED Moving on then to Petition V-97-15, concerning a five-tenths-foot after-the-fact variance from the required 30-foot side yard setback. Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on just a minute. We have to swear everybody in who what wants to speak to this issue. (Witnesses were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Has anyone on the commission had any contact on this particular item? Miss Hac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not to the best of my recollection. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor have I. Now, Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for four after-the-fact variances for a single-family house and accessory structures in Pine Ridge subdivision. Staff was recommending approval. The evening before the planning commission hearing, we received a significantly sized letter of objection from a neighboring property owner, which is included in your agenda packet, that -- because of that, the petitioner requested a two-week continuance. It was heard at the planning commission last Thursday, and at that time, the objecting party withdrew the objection. So staff still stands by their recommendation, and the planning commission recommends that the board approve this, and the vote was eight to zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the terribly sad story why it's after the fact? MR. REISCHL: Well, this was by a previous property owner, so the current property owner did not catch this upon the sale of the property. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tragic. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Tragic. And it's nice to hear that the neighbors have decided to get along. I mean, this is a ten-year-old tennis court that's on a great big lot that it seems kind of silly for people to be fussing over, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The one question I have on the thing, though, is there's a little shed involved that's encroaching pretty far into the setbacks. Why can't that just simply be moved? MR. REISCHL: That's -- in the resolution, that's not part of this variance, and the petitioner has agreed to remove it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's gone. It's going, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He says that was a great idea. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: It was a great idea. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it's already been addressed, so you must have communicated that mentally. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have -- do we have any letters from the Pine Ridge Civic Association on this matter? MR. REISCHL: The -- I am not sure if it's the civic association. One of the associations requested information, and that was all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm pretty sure that was them. Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would you like to -- MR. GOODMAN: Kenneth Goodman, for the record. I simply have nothing to add, but if anyone has any questions, I would be happy to address them. But all of these were issues that were not picked up when Mrs. Chadwick purchased the property several years ago. She retained a LaHar Everest (phonetic) to do the survey four years earlier. He did not catch these but for the shed, and we're simply here asking it be resolved today. The only person that had an objection has written and has agreed that they have no objection to this. In fact, they are supporting this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do any of the commissioners have any questions of Mr. Goodman? All right. If there's no further questions, any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No public speakers. I will close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a motion and a second to approve this particular petition, V-97-15. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 98-56, RE PETITION V-97-17, DANIEL AND MARGARET KELLY REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 22.9 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED 30 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6831 SANDALWOOD LANE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES AND A REQUIREMENT OF 15' FROM PROPERTY LINE And the last Petition, V-97-17, requesting an after-the-fact variance of 22.9 feet from the required 30-foot side yard setback. All those people speaking on this issue, please rise and be sworn in. (Witnesses were sworn. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any disclosure? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No disclosure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I am going to base my opinion on what I hear in this hearing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner -- Commissioner Hancock. Let the record reflect that Commissioner Hancock disappeared. I have nothing to disclose on this particular issue, and I will base my decision as accordance -- in accordance with the law. Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The petitioner is requesting an after-the-fact variance of 22.9 feet from the estate side yard setback requirement of 30 feet to 7.1 feet to allow for an existing 10 foot by 16 foot shed to remain as it currently exists. The property is located on the north side of Sandalwood Lane in Golden Gate Estates. The property owner indicates that they have constructed their home in 1984, and subsequently purchased a Ted's shed and had it placed on the site. The salesperson informed the owner that because it was placed on skids, they did not need a building permit, however, that was an incorrect assumption. The complaint was made known to Collier County through a violation reported by the adjacent property owner. Based on the code enforcement action, the property owner was notified to either move the shed or come in for a variance. If the owner would have obtained a building permit, the shed would have been placed in a proper location and not requiring a variance, just getting the after-the-fact building permits. It's staff's opinion that the granting of this variance is not in keeping with the general intent of the land development code, however, will not affect any light or circulation of air between structures. It's also about 70 feet from the adjacent property owner's structure. However, staff is constrained from recommending approval due to the fact that they never applied for a building permit in the first place. The planning commission reviewed this and they voted eight to zero to deny this petition. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hay I ask -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If you will wait just a minute. I would like to correct the record, please. Glancing at the name again, I did receive correspondence from the petitioner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As did I. I received a letter and photographs from the petitioner on this item. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As did I. My apologies, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway, I just want the record to reflect that correction. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was just, isn't this a simple matter of just move this structure that's on slides or whatever you called it? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The applicant indicates that there are some constraining factors that may work in her favor. The fact that there are water pumps, screening, and that there are some native vegetation that she would like to retain. If she moves it, they would maybe have to cut down some trees in an area that is undesirable. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said this is not in keeping with the land development code; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Staff doesn't -- does not recommend? MR. BELLOWS: No. Staff recommended denial and so did the planning commission. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The planning commission voted against this -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 8-0? Applicant had no permit for the structure at all regardless of where it was? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. Wait, one more question. It says here two neighbors spoke in opposition? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And they, I believe, are here today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Bellows, at the time the shed was placed on the property, was the setback at that time 15 feet? MR. BELLOWS: I believe so. In '84 and '85, it was ten percent. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if the shed was placed at that time, the setback would have been 15 feet, which is where the shed rests right now? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The planning commission made that motion to see if the members would go for the 15-foot setback, and that just barely was denied. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, wait, can you -- ask that -- it's presently 15 feet? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. It's presently 7.1 but can be rotated from its current orientation to meet a 15-foot setback, which if they had applied for a permit, which they didn't and should be severely admonished for, in '84 and '85, it would have been a 15-foot setback. MR. BELLOWS: The current requirement is 30 feet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There is, as I read it, and I am sure the petitioner can add to this, there is some vegetation that if they were just to scoot it over would require removal of it and so forth, which can be done. It just requires the cutting down of trees and some clearing. I guess my concern, and you say keeping with the nature of what's around, is the petitioner, in their correspondence to me -- and we will need to verify this -- indicated other encroachments in the immediate area have not been filed upon and have been there for some time. In addition, the picture I saw of the nature of the area showed, I believe, a backhoe in the back yard of an adjacent property owner, which is very difficult for me to discuss the issue of character of seven or eight feet when there's a backhoe sitting next to you. So I want to hear more about the character issue, because I think that's important as to how the adjacent property owners are using their property in viewing whether this is appropriate or not, regardless of the lack of a building permit, which I don't agree with, and I have problem with that. But that's just -- that's the exposure that I have had. I would appreciate that being addressed by the speakers when they get a chance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If they were to address the problem of number one, getting an after-the-fact permit, which they could do; is that correct? MR. BELLOWS: They are required to do that through the building department. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And then could rotate that building, then that would put them into compliance? MR. BELLOWS: If the variance was approved, yes, it would. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It would still -- it would still be a variance, because of the current rules are 30 instead of the old rules that were 15. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Are we ready to hear from the petitioner at this point? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am. MS. KELLY: Hello. I am Margaret Kelly. I am the petitioner, and you did all receive the correspondence from me which was identical to the presentation that I am going to be giving right now. We built our home -- purchased our property in 1983, built our home in 1984. At the time, the setback requirements were one-tenth of lot and for our 150-foot lot, this would have been 50 (sic) feet. Some years later we purchased a Ted's shed. At the time we purchased it, the salesman indicated to us that we didn't need a permit for this. This was a mobile structure on skids, and Collier County did not define that as a structure. We had no reason to think that he would be misleading us or did not know his business. I guess we were wrong. We have learned an expensive, costly lesson in that way. We had him place the shed on our property in a position that is about seven feet from the property line and 90 feet to the north of the adjacent property owner. I have here a picture of the shed the way it appears from our lot. We chose a location that was mostly hidden from the adjacent properties' view because of the dense natural vegetation. Also, we had our landscaper -- when we -- a few years after we built the house had installed Waxmyrtle hedge between us and our next door neighbor. Although after 12, 15 years, whatever, these have gotten a little tall and leggy and we would be happy to supplement this landscaping with some denset vegetation. This is another picture of the shed. I swung around a little bit further to the south of the shed, closer to the property line, to get a little bit of a view of what it looks like from behind. Now, as you can see, this shed is sitting perpendicular to the property line. It's about seven feet here (indicating) of vegetation between the shed and the property line. And this is probably similar to what the adjacent owner sees from his home. What we propose to do is pivot this shed in its present location, that way we could use the same limerock pad it's on and conserve, you know, the existing vegetation pretty much. It would spin around, and the doors would be facing right here (indicating), and there would be 15 feet between our property and -- our property line and the shed. If we had gotten a permit at the time, I believe the setbacks were 15 feet, because this is about the same time our adjacent neighbor built his garage at about 15 feet. I am asking for this variance for three reasons. The first one is that when we purchased the property, the setbacks were one-tenth of our lot width, and at the time when we designed our landscape, arranged or site, those are the setbacks that were in effect. Second reason, 30 feet setbacks is pretty extreme for our lot. Thatws 40 percent of our lot width taken up in setbacks. Thatws a lot for a lot thatws already been planned with the landscaping. Now, Collier County didnwt ask me for a 15-foot after-the-fact various when they took it from me, but I guess thatws neither here nor there. This is what our landscape plan looks like. We have cleared very little of our property. We have conserved the native vegetation as much as possible. This green area here is the area we have sodded. The fill pad, you know, runs -- slopes down pretty quick from the house for the first ten feet or so and then levels off on all sides. We have an area of natural vegetation that we have preserved in the middle of our back yard, and we have some large landscape trees, also. If wewre to move the shed to the 30-foot setbacks, which I have marked here in red, about the only place we can put it without clearing more of our property would be right in the only green area that we have for the kids to play volleyball or whatever, so weld kind of like to leave it over here, pivot it and add more vegetation to completely screen it if that would be okay. I have another picture of what it -- what the property itself looks like. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before you move to that, where you have "shed" marked, the white and black boxes -- MS. KELLY: Okay. The white and black boxes is existing. The red is if we pivot it, you know, we have to have a little bit more fill here, but we can basically use the limerock pad we have. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. KELLY: And then all these bushes still remain, and we will add more to them. And this is a picture of that little area I showed you where we have the grass in the back yard. As you can see, the minute we get off the grass, we have gotten into dense vegetation, pines, palmettoes and cypress. This is the reason we bought the lot. Welre trying to preserve this the best we can. I really donlt want to put a shed right there. I think we will go to another alternative for storage facility if we canlt keep it where it is. And the other reason I am asking for this variance is because of precedence in the neighborhood. The adjacent neighbor, John Gulotta, the one who is complaining, built his garage -- this is what it looks like. Itls a very large three-bay garage. He has this placed one-tenth of lot width from his property line. And now that he has his garage placed, hels here today to deny me the same privilege that he himself enjoys. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have to ask you, how often are that trailer and that backhoe where you see them in that picture? MS. KELLY: The trailer is a recent addition. The backhoe moves around the property somewhat. Itls probably been there for at least ten years. My other neighbor who complained or came to the planning commission meeting and said he didnlt want to set a precedent, I donlt understand at all, because he, himself, has a small structure right on his property line. Itls a two-story plywood structure. I donlt know if you can see it back in here. He set this precedent at least 15 years ago. Therels numerous other properties on our street that have these kind of little structures hidden away in the woods. I have counted eleven of them now, most of them sitting right on the lot line. Nobody knows there's there really because they're hidden in the woods and nobody cares. There are some other structures, like Mr. Gulotta's, that do have permits, that were built before -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I am sorry to interrupt you, but it just seems like what's been proposed here -- would changing that to 15 feet, which is what the legal requirement would have been when it went in anyway, is a fair compromise? I am sure you would prefer to leave it where it is? MS. KELLY: I prefer -- well, we prefer to leave it where it is, yeah, but I guess the rules the rule. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But is it a fair compromise if -- it was put in 15 years ago anyway and the setback was only 15 feet then. I am not sure. If it was a new structure or something that had just gone in, I would be worried about the 30 feet, but I am not sure. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or if they had just blatantly disregarded the rules when they were advised by the people they bought the shed from that it didn't require a permit, you know, that's mitigating to me, too. So that's a compromise. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would -- if there's some opposition to the compromise, I would like to hear what that is, but I guess -- you don't need to convince me any further on your side. MS. KELLY: Thank you. That's all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Hiss Kelly. If we could hear from the speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: Speakers. First is Lyle HcCandrews -- HcCandless, I'm sorry. MR. HcCANDLESS: Yes. For the record, my name is Lyle HcCandless. I have lived in the Livingston Wood area since 1973. I built the second house out there. I have been a neighbor of John Gulotta, the gentleman that made the -- made the objection to that shed. In all the years we have been neighbors there, probably the better part of 15, 18 years, I have never seen anything that he had going on there that I objected to as far as tractors or anything unsightly. He's been a good neighbor and he's got dogs that have never been in my yard. I find him to be a very good, agreeable, logical neighbor. The -- the -- if this were a structure that was on a concrete slab that was something that was going to be a problem to move, I would try to be more sensitive about it. But when we're talking about a Ted's shed that's a metal structure that's on portable runners, I just am not interested at all in seeing a variance put up for something that simple to set a precedent in the neighborhood. The next owner could come up there once that setback is reestablished and could put a big substantial structure there that could hinder him a whole lot. And for that reason -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will ask a question on that. Mr. Weigel, I think he's mistaken. This doesn't set a legal precedent that would allow anyone at this time or in the future to come and set up a structure with the old setback, does it? MR. WEIGEL: No, it doesn't, although, he may be addressing the fact that a setback is a standard that doesn't refer to a specific -- a specific structure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Whereas a variance, as we have modified recently, would run with the structure, not with the land. So in other words, it applies only to the structure, not to anyone who in the future wants to build a new structure. This setback would not be 15 feet. Only this one shed. Everything else in the future would have to comply with the 30-foot setback. MR. McCANDLESS: Okay. That's acceptable to me. Thank you. But by the same token, I -- I -- again, since this is such a temporary structure and it's moveable, it's not on a slab, I would much prefer to see it relocated to either the 15-foot setback that was enforced at the time or the 30 feet, whatever you gentlemen and ladies think is appropriate. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, Bob Mulhere, for the record. I just wanted to indicate that Commissioner Hancock is correct, but I think that the board would have to condition the variance to that structure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have the ability now which we didn't have a year ago. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is John Gulotta. MR. GULOTTA: My name is John Gulotta. I live on Sandalwood Lane. In regards to the shed, my neighbors and I both went down to Ted's Sheds and we were both told at the time that we went down that a permit was required to put anything from the county, number one. Number two, she's complaining about the backhoe. The backhoe has been removed from behind the garage in anticipation of putting a whole new driveway in, everything else from the front to the back. The garage was completed approximately -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, sir. Excuse me. We're not talking about your property here today. MR. GULOTTA: She's making a complaint -- okay, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I am telling you we're not talking about your property. Try to stick with the other. MR. GULOTTA: All right. That shed was -- I started the garage in '90, but that shed was put up about a year or two previous to me getting the garage. And I had gone down in '85 or '86, I think it was, with the neighbor across the street. We both went down and purchased Ted's sheds, and we were both told me needed permits at the time. He purchased a shed. I decided to later on build a garage and build a room in the back to store my supplies. Like the vegetation, a lot of that has been planted within the last week or two to cover up some of the Ted's shed. And behind the Ted's shed, there is melaleuca trees -- I couldn't think of the name -- that she wants removed. And I said I would remove the melaleucas in the process of putting up a fence to keep her dogs on her side. I said I would remove the melaleucas when the fence was put up. And that's the only thing that blocks the Ted's shed from me is the melaleucas, except now they have put I think it's two Areca palms, approximately four foot, and about a foot and a half in diameter behind there. The other trees that she said that's supposed to block it from my view, she cut down a few years ago. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, if we enforce this to the requirement that was there when it was -- if we enforce this to the distance that was required at the time the shed was put in, can you live with that? MR. GULOTTA: If it's 15 foot from the line, yes. I mean, I was -- I was required at the time that ten percent of my property went from the garage. I went 22 foot. In other words, to make sure there's no problems, God forbid, a survey or anything else was wrong. And like I say, if she moves it to 15 foot, I have no complaints with that. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I think you're being fair with that. I think that's a -- that's a terrific compromise in this situation. So I would agree with you. MR. GULOTTA: Well, I'm just spinning it around. I don't know if it's going to make it, I will be honest with you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, she will have to. MR. GULOTTA: Oh, okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we say 15 feet, she's going to have to. MR. GULOTTA: Because right now there's a very hazy property line because she had her property line -- how can I say it? Not surveyed. I don't think the house was ever originally surveyed. A new house was built next door, and they took measurements across the property from the next door's property line. So this property line is kind of hazy, because when I built mine, I had the surveyor come down and put pins in cement, and there's approximately a nine to eleven inch difference between the two property lines. So I think that shed is actually about five feet from the property line, according to the first survey. So you know -- but like I say, I can live with the other one. Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We will close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I make a motion we approve Petition V-97-17 with a 15-foot variance from the 30-foot side yard setback in compliance with what would have been required at the time this was put in place. That's specific to this structure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any other comments or questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just one question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In regard to Mr. Gulotta's last comment there. Do we -- does the petitioner have a solid survey to rely on or should we also require a new survey? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think we require her to be 15 foot from the line and if somebody determines it's not from the line, then she is in violation. MR. BELLOWS: Petitioner indicated they had the site surveyed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Say that again, please? MR. BELLOWS: Petitioner indicated they had the site surveyed. MS. KELLY: We did not have the lot surveyed for this variance. What we did -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Miss Kelly, would you identify yourself? MS. KELLY: Oh, Margaret Kelly, again, the petitioner. What we did when we were putting in our fence line, Mr. Gulotta went out and spray painted a bunch of fence posts and said they were on the wrong side. So we hired a professional surveyor to come and locate the property line. We did not want to create any problems. We had him locate the pins that were in place from Mr. Gulotta's own survey so that we wouldn't have any discrepancies. And that's the line that's there now. His survey line has been staked out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the point is, she's responsible for making sure she's off that line. How she goes about that is her business. MR. BELLOWS: I would also like to point out, when she applies for the building permits, they require a sealed survey. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So a sealed survey will get provided with the after-the-fact building permit. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. And you did make this a conditional variance? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So it goes with the structure? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The shed and the shed only. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The shed only. We have got that -- everything on the record in regard to this. Very good. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five, zero. Item #14 STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS Going on to staff communications. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything for us today? MR. WEIGEL: Nothing, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Just to let you know that we are looking for a date for the goal setting session for the board in about three to four weeks. I will be working with Miss Filson to determine that date. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Item #15-1 DISCUSSION REGARDING STREET NAME CHANGES FOR LOGAN BOULEVARD AREA Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not a thing. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not a thing. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nope. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commission Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items. Logan Boulevard, if you recall, or what they now refer to as Logan Woods, we changed in the fall -- the four southern names, four south streets there. And during the public hearing I said I would work with the homeowners on the four northern streets. Happy to report to you we have come up with four what most people anyway are deeming appropriate names, and our staff has run those through the mill and they are currently available for use. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Carrot Wood Road, Carrot Wood Court, Carrot Wood Terrace. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As much as I might like -- no, I just wanted to make sure, if there's no objection, they're going to go ahead and advertise those and they will bring them back to us in about five weeks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. Item #15-2 DISCUSSION RE ZONING OF SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF GREEN BOULEVARD COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second item is I need a little bit of a clarification from the board. I was talking to Mr. Arnold this week. He leaves us, I believe, Thursday and I was just going through some housecleaning items, and last fall, we had spoken on some changes to Santa Barbara Boulevard, the zoning on the east side of Santa Barbara north of Golden Gate Parkway, south of Green Boulevard, which now is serving as kind of a gateway into Golden Gate. There are -- probably about half of that is already zoned commercial, but a big chunk of it is zoned multi-family, and we have been looking at changing that multi-family to light commercial uses so that -- the multi-families are not very attractive there. We don't want to encourage more of it, and we had anticipated on coming back as part of the '98 cycle. I just wanted to make sure that was still fine with everybody. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Takes's fine. Item #15-3 DISCUSSION RE ARTICLE V TO BE PLACED ON MARCH 3, 1998 AGENDA Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quickly, Commissioner Berry, I saw your note regarding wanting to place the Article 5 assessment from FAC on today's agenda. I had scheduled it for next week. My apologies not communicating that to you, but we will be discussing that next week. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The reason I had proposed that, Commissioner Chairman Manning had caught me up at the Bonita Springs meeting and indicated this, and it was just the fact that we didn't talk to everybody, obviously, and so I went ahead, because I felt when he spoke with me that there was a sense of urgency to get some kind of a decision made. And in the meantime, our county administrator, Mr. Fernandez, has indicated that apparently he had had conversation with you or someone and so this is already scheduled. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As for FAC, they try to channel that stuff through me, and I will be more cognizant in the future of keeping you in that loop. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. I didn't realize that and I should have checked with you in addition. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not a problem. My fault. Next. Item #15-4 UPDATE RE SCORING OF MOCK TRIAL CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The only thing I want to add is I had the opportunity to -- I don't think we normally bring these kinds of things up, but I had the opportunity it serve along with Mr. Weigel this past Saturday as a scoring judge for the mock trial. And I don't know how many of you have ever had the opportunity to do that, but should you ever get the opportunity to do that, it is a worthwhile experience to go down and see how these young people have been trained and how well prepared they are. And I have to say publicly -- I can't say this hurts me to say it, but it will be probably unusual, we have a lot of people in terms of attorneys in this community who spend a great deal of time working with these young people to do this. And I think it's says a lot for the people, the amount time that they give and -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Attorneys are people, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, they are. And they just did a super job with the kids, but the kids did a great job. And I did share that Commissioner Hancock has a clone and it's kind of a scary thought. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, my God. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just in looks, right? I mean not in like attitude or mental ability? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I don't know how far it goes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Better looking, younger, more talented. COHMISSIONER BERRY: But anyway, there were -- this young man was with Lely High School and he did a super job as did -- the other school that we happened to judge was community school. We didn't know that at the time, but we found that out in the occurrence, but it was a great experience. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Makes you feel good. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And if any of you ever get the opportunity to see this or be a part of it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is it true you ordered blood tests, Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Was this Mr. Stump's crew. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well Mr. Stump isn't in that role. He's got another role with the school system now, but that's one that he has been involved with other the years. But it was a real, real worthwhile adventure, and I recommend that if you are asked, certainly accept the opportunity to participate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just say yes. If there's no further business, Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Say good-bye. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Constantine, and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted with changes: Item #16A1 ADDITIONAL CONTRACTOR TO THE LIST OF PRE-QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS PERMITTED TO WORK ON PROJECTS FUNDED THROUGH THE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CAMERON ASSET MANAGEMENT, INC. TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF PRE-QUALIFIED CONTRACTORS Item #16A2 APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT OF "THE CLUB ESTATES" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A3 RECORDING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF WATERWAYS OF NAPLES, UNIT TWO - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A4 APPLICATION FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ARTIFICIAL REEF GRANT FOR THE ARTIFICIAL REEF PROGRAM OF COLLIER COUNTY Item #16A5 QUIT-CLAIH DEED AND AN "AS IS" BILL OF SALE - TO RE-CONVEY TO THE HALSTATT PARTNERSHIP, ALL PROPERTY INTERESTS THAT THE COUNTY MANY HAVE IN THE GREY OAKS SUBDIVISION (EXCEPT UTILITY FACILITIES PROPERLY DEEDED TO THE COUNTY) Item #16B1 ALTERNATE ROAD IMPACT FEE FOR THE CYPRESS WOODS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB BASED ON A SITE-SPECIFIC COMPUTATION - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $17,710.46 Item #1682 RESOLUTION 98-44, ADOPTING THE GOLDEN GATE COHMUNITY ROADWAY BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN AND ACCEPTING MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE MEDIAN OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY FROM SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD EAST TO COUNTY ROAD 951 Item #1683 REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS TO THE FOREST LAKES PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FICUS SHRUBS THAT WERE RECEIVED BUT NOT PLANTED - $3,864.00 TO BE REFUNDED ON A PRO RATA BASIS TO THE ORIGINAL PAYOR FROM THE ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND 101-163620-763100 Item #1684 RESOLUTION 98-45, AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY TO ENTER INTO A JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE FURNISHING AND INSTALLING OF STREET LIGHTING AS PART OF THE IHMOKALEE STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT Item #16C1 LIMITED USE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE GOLDEN GATE AREA CHAMBER OF COHMERCE, INCORPORATED, IN ORDER TO HOLD ACTIVITIES FOR THE GOLDEN GATE FESTIVAL - TO BE HELD FROM FEBRUARY 27, 1998 THROUGH AND INCLUDING MARCH 1, 1998 Item #16D1 - Deleted Item #16D2 RFP #97-2769 FOR A FULL SERVICE AUCTIONEER AGREEMENT - AWARDED TO FIRST COAST AUCTION FOR THE DISPOSAL OF ALL SURPLUS ITEMS Item #16D3 SATISFACTION OF LIEN DOCUMENTS FILED AGAINST REAL PROPERTY FOR THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE - AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D4 CERTAIN COUNTY-OWNED PROPERTY DECLARED AS SURPLUS - AUCTION SCHEDULED FOR SATURDAY, MARCH 21, 1998 Item #16D5 BID #98-2756 FOR JANITORIAL SUPPLIES - AWARDED TO VARIOUS VENDORS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-75; 98-136; 98-137; AND 98-140 Item #1611 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON PARCEL NO. 318 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. GEORGE VISNICH, ET AL, CASE NO. 91-2776-CA-01DRM (PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK MSTU) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $500.00 Item #16J1 - Continued one week TRANSFER OF $190,000 FROM AIRPORT AUTHORITY FUND 496 CARRY FORWARD TO THE IMMOKALEE MANUFACTURING INCUBATOR CENTER PROJECT There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:24 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on , as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY SHERRIE RADIN, HEATHER L. CASASSA, RPR, CHERIE R. LEONE, RPR, AND DEBRA J. DeLAP