Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
BCC Minutes 10/13/1998 R
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, October 13, 1998 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Mac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3A AGENDA, CONSENT AGENDA AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For those of you who are still standing, if you would like to find a seat, please, we do have some seats up front. You'll be a lot more comfortable if you have a seat to sit in. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Translated, you're in for a long day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And now that I've got you all nicely seated, I'll tell you that you need to -- if you're intending to speak to any issue that's on the agenda this morning, there are forms in the hallway that you need to sign, and you need to have those given to Mr. Fernandez before the issue is heard. So if there's any of you that would like to get one of those forms, now is the appropriate time to do so. And turn the form into Mr. Fernandez, please. At this time, I'd like to call the Board of County Commissioners' meeting of October 13th, 1998 to order. This morning we're pleased to have with us the Reverend Peter Lyberg from Shepherd of the Glades Lutheran Church for our invocation. If you'd please stand and then remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. REVEREND LYBER~: Oh, God, Lord of the universe, we are helpless without your help. Unless you help us, we can see the ideal, but so often we cannot reach it. We can sense and know something of the right, but we cannot always achieve it. We can recognize our duty, but we cannot always perform it as we would. We can seek the truth but we can never fully grasp it. Ail our lives are haunted by the difference between what we ought to do and what in fact we do. Purify our hearts, that the wrong desires may not only be kept under control, but may be completely taken away. Strengthen our wills, that we may pass beyond resolving good to doing better, and beyond intention, to action that is fair and just. Oh, God, great and glorious, this day we rest our weakness in your great strength and our insufficiency in your total completeness. Take us, remold us, and do for us what we cannot do ourselves, and make us what we cannot be by ourselves. Ail this by your grace and power, Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would just ask again, if you happen to have a seat beside you that is open, if you'd just kind of raise your hand, indicating to people that there are some seats available. And you'll be more comfortable if you do have a seat. ***Okay, Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. Good morning, commissioners. We'd like to add item 16(B) (8), which is the approval of a joint agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation for the relocation of county water and wastewater facilities required by improvements to State Road 45, which is U.S. 41, from south of Myrtle Road to County Road 887, Old U.S. 41. This is staff's request. Also, we'd like to add an item to the backup for the -- for a summary agenda item. It doesn't change the status of the item, but adds additional material into the record. I'd like to ask Marjorie Student to present that item. MS. STUDENT: Good morning. For -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which item was it? MS. STUDENT: -- the record, Marjorie Student, assistant -- MR. FERNANDEZ: She's going to let you -- MS. STUDENT: -- county attorney. MR. WEIGEL: Item number. MS. STUDENT: Yes, the item is 17(B) . It's the Bembridge PUD. And Mr. Yovanovich has asked that I enter into the record the architectural rendering of the buildings -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to pull that from the summary agenda anyway, so we can add it now or we can add it then, but COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might as well go ahead and do it. If you're going to pull it anyway, we'll just do it all at once. MR. FERNANDEZ: You want us to pull the item from the summary agenda, okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that the only item, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chair, that's the only one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no changes, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I need to also pull 17(A). There's a couple of things that I need to clarify on that one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to pull the Royce Stalling's 39.82 acres on Santa Barbara. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's 17(A)? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: B. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's 17(B) . COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: B. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So where will those go? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 13(A) and (B), I believe. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 13(A) (1) and (2)? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Those may be under 12. Which would those be more appropriate under, Mr. Fernandez? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The zoning amendments. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's going to be 12(B) (3) and (4). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 12 (B) (3) and (4) ? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think those are 12(B)(3) and (4). COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So 12 (B)(3) is now 17(A), and 12 (B)(4) is 17(B) . CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda, summary agenda and regular agenda, as amended. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 REGULAR MEETING, SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 BUDGET MEETING AND SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 SPECIAL HURRICANE MEETING APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'm going to move approval of the regular meeting minutes of September 22, the September 23 budget hearing minutes, and the September 23 special hurricane meeting minutes, all of 1998. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED This morning it's my pleasure to present four service awards to employees who have been with us anywhere from five, 10 to 15 years. And our first recipient this morning is David Holmes for five years in facilities management. David, if you'd come forward, please. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Our next recipient is Chuck Human for five years in the parks and recreation department. Chuck? (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And for 10 years of service, Victor Philogene, in the traffic operations department. Victor? (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And our last recipient today is Glen Alderfer for 15 years in EMS. (Applause) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a lot of long shift hours. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seems like 30, doesn't it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. And congratulations to you. Here's your pin. Item #5C PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN APPRECIATION FOR OUTSTANDING SUPPORT OF THE "SUMMER RUN FOR FUN PROGRAM" - PRESENTED BY CARLTON CASE This morning we have a presentation brought to us by Carlton Case from the Naples Area Board of Chamber of Commerce, called Summer Run For Fun Program. MR. CASE: Summer Run For Fun Program is a sponsor program by the Kiwanis Club of Naples. This marks -- this past summer marked the 20th anniversary of the program. We meet the first -- starting the first Monday in June for eight consecutive Mondays. This past summer we had over 380 kids involved in the program in learning about track and field, and also families having a fellowship time together. Of that 380, 239 kids came at least five of the eight Mondays, and would -- each child that receives a -- that attends five of the eight Mondays receives a shirt, a trophy and some coupons to a Happy Meal to McDonald's. But on behalf of the Summer Run For Fun Program, I'd like to present this plaque in support of the numerous hours from Marla Ramsey and her staff on the -- in committing in the program year end and year out. And Commissioner 'Berry, if you'd accept this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Marla's here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Marla's here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Where's Marla? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Marla. Let's have Marla come on up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's have Marla up here. She~s the one that does the work, so she is the one that should receive the plaque for (Applause.) MR. CASE: Victoria would also like to make a presentation. VICTORIA: We'd like to present T-shirts to each of the commissioners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Anybody got gift disclosure forms? MR. CASE: They are under $25, for the record. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: She doesn't look like a lobbyist to me, Carlton. MR. CASE: There are two larges and three extra larges, so you all have to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'll just stay away from that one. MR. CASE: Anyways, again, thanks to Collier County and all the support of the Summer Run For Fun Program. And have a good day. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I apologize to Carlton when I see him. He's currently the president of the Naples Area Chamber of Commerce~ but this event was with the Kiwanis Club, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's a busy man. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- he's a busy person. Thank you so much. Item #8Al FY 1998/99 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROGRAM PROJECT LIST FOR COUNTYWIDE PATHWAY CONSTRUCTION - APPROVED Moving on then to item 8(A), recommendation to approve the fiscal year 1998/99 bicycle and pedestrian program project list for countywide pathway construction. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move approval. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Battis probably would like to say a few words, would you, Jeremy? MR. BATTIS: Just a couple. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll withdraw my motion. MR. BATTIS: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee -- members of the commission. Jeremy Battis, bicycle coordinator. I have for your submission today 10 projects brought to you by the bicycle and pedestrian program and its advisory committee, the pathway advisory committee. These 10 projects will add approximately five and a half miles to the existing network in the neighborhoods of East NAples, Golden Gate and Immokalee. And it's with my firm endorsement that the commission approve the recommendation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move the item. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He told me he had a question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got mine answered. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very much. Item ~8C1 REVIEW OF PRESERVATION PLANS AND FUNDING OPTIONS REGARDING THE HISTORIC ROBERTS RANCH PROPERTY IN IMMOKALEE - OPTION "B" APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS Item 8(C). This is a review of the plans for funding options regarding the historic Roberts Ranch property, located in Immokalee. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I must apologize, I was trying to manage all of these signup sheets, and I had missed Cheryl Newman, who had asked to speak on that last item, the pedestrian -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: She's waiving. MS. NEWMAN: That's okay, I just wanted to say thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're welcome. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We appreciate that, and we accept your thanks, Cheryl. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead and have a few minutes saying thanks, Cheryl. MR. OLLIFF: Good morning. For the record, Tom Olliff, the county's public services administrator. This item originally came to you, I believe, two weeks ago under a public petition where the Roberts trust was asking the county commission to consider the purchase of some additional acreage adjacent to property already owned by Collier County for use as a preservation and historic site. I think if you've had an opportunity to review the executive summary before you, what we've tried to focus on were ways that the County Commission might be able to purchase that property and the funding mechanisms that were available in order to be able to do that. If you'll look primarily at the fiscal impact statement, I think we've tried to show you some financial opportunities in both the tourist development tax and through an MSTU, and in both cases, obviously looking to try and obtain and use some of the state historical grant preservation funds that were the same type of funds that we used in order to be able to restore the Everglades City project. In terms of the actual property and the preservation plans that are included in your executive summary, I'll allow Mr. Jamro, your museum director, to provide you a little more detail about the different types of preservation plans that we have there in the executive summary for you. MR. JAMRO: Good morning, commissioners, Ron Jamro, your museum director. And I apologize, it's a little hard getting through that hallway at the moment, it's kind of jammed. But as an historic site, Roberts Ranch's credentials are by now well enough known. And as one of Collier County's premier historical resources, it certainly is preservation for future generations and merits our careful consideration. We took what you had to say to us last time to heart and began to search for options that would help to preserve the ranch without resorting to general fund tax dollars. It is a rather involved exercise that ultimately begins with a board decision on exactly how much of the ranch the homestead can and should be preserved. At least three plans are presented to you in your summary. The first limits our efforts to restoring only the original 4.1 acre site that was gifted to the county by the Roberts family in 1996. There are advantages and distinct disadvantages to this plan; the greatest of which I think is perhaps the risk of one day seeing an historic remnant of the ranch sandwiched between modern development, and too small to be truly useful or completely believable. The second plan, plan B, involves a significantly larger site, encompassing all of the historic structures and elements by purchasing the adjoining 8.8 acres, that's tract D, of the original homestead. And that is what Mrs. Sherrod had come to you with a public petition in September to ask about. The costs associated are naturally higher with this plan, but it keeps the ranch buildings intact, preserves the coherent shape and feel of the historic property. The third plan, and the one which in fairness we have to suggest to you as well, is to simply abandon the project. I don't personally support that, but that is certainly an option. Once a particular plan and direction is determined by the board, then it simply becomes a matter of assigning the costs and finding the resources to accomplish the project. We feel that a successful strategy will involve the use of tourist development tax revenues as a catalyst, and to apply these funds in combination with individual and corporate gifts, to leverage a succession of state historic preservation grants. That could be for perhaps half the cost, ultimately. As many as three separate applications might be needed to the state, and the project completed in about five to six years, would be my guess, and that compares favorably to the 10 years it took us to do that process for the restoration and reuse of the museum of the Everglades in Everglades City. That is the essence of it, and I am here certainly to answer any questions the board might have on any of these options. And I know we have some interested citizens as well who can also speak to the issue in various details, if you need that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just anxious to hear more of the details. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I want to hear what else we have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions at this time? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll hold my comments. I'd -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- 'til I hear more. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, you have three speakers on this subject. First two are Dudley Goodlette and Maria Stone. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be The Honorable Dudley Goodlette. MR. GOODLETTE: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name's Dudley Goodlette. I appear before you today I guess officially as my -- in my capacity as representative elect for District 76 in the Florida house of representatives. I merely wanted to -- (Applause.) MR. GOODLETTE: I merely wanted to take a moment of time, afber reviewing your agenda, Madam Chairman, this morning to let you know that in my new office I will lend whatever help I can to complement the important public policy decision that you're about to make this morning to seek historic preservation grant funding for this project. I have worked with Barbara Cacchione and the members of the long-range planning committee with -- during the time that I've served on the Economic Development Council in Collier County. This is a very, very important community project. As all of you know, the Main Street program in Immokalee is a -- we hope to be a successful one. It's clearly an important one. This property is ideally located within that mainstream project. And for all of the reasons that you know so well, and I won't belabor those points, and I assure you that during my term of office I will not abuse the privilege of -- and it is a privilege to appear before you. But this I thought was an important enough subject to appear and to urge you to take -- to move this project forward, and it is a public policy decision that you must make, but I wanted you to know that I will lend the full support of my new office to assist you in that endeavor of going forward. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Maria Stone and then Pam Brown. MS. STONE: Good morning -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. MS. STONE: -- Madam Chairman and commissioners. I'm Maria Stone. I live in Naples, and I'm a former teacher in Immokalee. And I have written 20 plus books, published by my husband, Peter Stone, solely to preserve the folk history of Collier County, hopefully for use in our schools. We must ~reserve the past for the future. The future I'm referring to is the ever increasing population of the children in Collier County. They are the future. I believe preserving local history and teaching it provides children with a sense of wonder and knowledge of times past. It provides a sense of belonging to a community, a sense of loyalty and pride in the roots of their home area. The Florida history is taught in the fourth grade all over the state. It was my view that I should motivate my class here in Collier County, as well as in other counties, by having local natives come to talk about the old days. And children love to hear about the old days. Tell me about the old days. My grandchildren even say that to me. When I was 35, I felt like that was kind of an insult. One local person I invited to my class in Immokalee was Mildred Roberts-Sherrod. After the talk, she invited my class, and for years after, to tour the family ranch. Everything was just as it had been when in operation. The class toured the home and looked at all the pictures and enjoyed the idea of living in a big ranch house. In the back hall were cowboy boots, and I felt like I was still back in cattle country. They went to the bunk house and imagined what it would be like to be a cowboy and live in that bunk house and spend your nights there and rise early to go to the cattle. The hide bins were still there. The smell was still there. The salt was still in the bins. There were some traces of hides. And immediately, the children wanted to know what those were. They were intrigued by them. And Mildred explained about some of it. And so I said to them, "Well, it looks to me like this is a good subject for us to do some research. What is made from cow hide?" Well, they were taken back in time at that ranch to 1914 when it was really in operation. To me, isn't this really what education's about? Mr. and Ms. Roberts and their nine children -- they had two more after they moved there -- have given much to Collier County. Several were teachers, some were in business, all providing jobs and supplying the area with much of their talents. Mildred, would you please come here? Please? This is Mildred Roberts-Sherrod, the youngest daughter of the nine. She has a brother, Bobby, who is still a cow hunter. Mildred, I want to ask you -- are you people aware that Mr. Roberts was one of the very first commissioners when this county was newly organized? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I learned it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, but we won't hold that against him. MS. STONE: Good. MS. SHERROD: He wasn't a politician. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know the feeling. MS. STONE: Now, Mildred, I wanted you to explain to them the trip that he had to take to come to his commission meetings. MS. SHERROD: Well, I well remember it. He had to go to Fort Myers, Naples, Marco, take a boat across to Everglades. I made one trip with him, and it took three days. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's dedicaCion to the County Commission. MS. STONE: It certainly is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you folks talk about traffic today. MS. STONE: What part did you play when they were cow hunting? I believe you told me you were the person in charge of water. What did they call you? MS. SHERROD: Oh, they didn't let me do that 'til I was 65 years old. Poppa wanted -- thought girls should stay home and do girl jobs. But I had a little jeep and I asked my brother if he didn't need a water boy; I wanted to go along on the cattle drive, which we drove from south Hendry County out to west Hendry County. Took two days, and it was quite an experience. It'd take a long time to tell about it. MS. STONE: Do you have anything else you'd like to share? MS. SHERROD: No, there's -- MS. STONE: There are so many things. MS. SHERROD: Yes. MS. STONE: And I know you have this book because I left it with you the last time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying it, reading it with my kids and letting them know where we are, who we are. Thank you so much. MS. STONE: Well, I hope the rest of them get a chance -- thank you, Mildred -- to read it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we move on? MS. STONE: Now, not only was he a commissioner, but he and the two sons were also on the board of cattle -- Florida Cattlemen. Very active. I'm not scared in front of kids, I'm not afraid up here, but I'm just so anxious to see this come about. On this same ranch, in 1870, on this same spot, Captain Hendry built a log cabin. I would like to read you just one sentence. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ms. Stone, I appreciate this, but we have time allocations -- MS. STONE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and I think many of us are aware of -- MS. STONE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- the history. I appreciate your dedication to this, and I know you're enthusiastic about this project. MS. STONE: Well, can you please give your support to this? We need it for our future generations. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, ma'am, I understand. MS. STONE: We must not let this prize slip away. We'll be sorry in the future. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker, Madam Chairman, is Pam Brown. MS. BROWN: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, Pam. MS. BROWN: My name is Pam Brown. I am the Main Street project coordinator. I'm also working with Visit Naples and Visit Florida in their ecotourism, trying to promote our area. My family, like the Roberts family, is one of the pioneer families of Immokalee, so my interest is also personal here to how this project is going for us in Immokalee. We have a lot of things that we have to offer out there. We want to be able to enhance Naples, to show that there is (sic) things over there that we do have. It's very vital for us. We're working with Lake Trafford now, trying to get it restored. We're also working with Pepper Ranch and Preserve and our Main Street, and we'd really appreciate it if you would consider doing this for us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers? At this time, commissioners, you have seen the proposals before you. I'll entertain any discussions, or if you have any questions regarding this. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's one down there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was -- I guess it was mid last week, I was out in Immokalee talking about architectural standards and some of the problems they're having in meeting their architectural standards we adopted and whatnot. And that discussion kind of turned into not just architectural standards, but a long-term vision for the town of Immokalee. And it is, it's distinctly different than the coast and needs to be treated as such. We've invested a lot of money in Immokalee, through an incubator project out at the airport to try and get an economic base going there, through grant applications that are resulting now in lighting, plantings and what not. And what has kind of failed to happen in all of that is it's kind of like working on one piece of a puzzle at a given time and never really putting them together to create a whole to get a single picture of what Immokalee can or should be. I think in looking at purchasing this land and making it a passive area for visitors, I think that's a fine idea, but I think it's an incomplete idea. If this project is going to be successful, it's got to go beyond a passive location for people to show up and visit and learn about history. It's got to become an engine of sorts to draw people to Immokalee. And from that point you will see some of the shops along main Street start to enjoy that traffic, you'll see some of the businesses in Immokalee, the restaurants in Immokalee start to benefit. I guess from my side, rather than saying that, you know, it's incomplete, let's get a new plan, I think we're actually looking at step one of something that we can use to provide a year-around economic engine in Immokalee. You may remember when through TDC funds we funded Rick Compton of some amount of money to do a traditional Seminole play somewhere out in the boonies of land he had secured that has never materialized. We probably could have burned that money and at least provided warmth for somebody, but we don't have anything to show for it. The idea came to me as I was going through Immokalee that if we have a historical site -- and we have no shortage of organizations in this town, such as the Naples Players and others at differing levels -- we might have an opportunity on this site to have some type of a theater production year round that would portray the history of Roberts Ranch, the history of Immokalee, bring people to Immokalee, bring them there on motor coaches, you know, 40 and 50 at a time. And I know, Commissioner Norris, you were out west, you mentioned, and gone to places where they had active shows. I think what we're looking at, although it's gozng to be difficult to find a positive funding mechanism, is an opportunity that if we go a little bit further than what's being proposed here today, we could provide a real economic engine in the tourism base for Immokalee, that if we let this slip away we're probably never going to have a chance to do it. So I would like to look at the option of proceeding with matching state funds to try to accomplish the acquisition, only if it's a part of a greater plan to bring this site together as a generator to draw people out there. Because honestly, I've been to passive historical sites before; they're nice to walk through, but they don't generate a lot of traffic. You need something to bring people there. If we're going to go that far with it, great. If we're going to go halfway and stop, then I think we're wasting our time and our money. And I think it just comes down to what level of commitment financially we as a board can make to see this happen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a good suggestion. But one of the things we have consistently tried to do when we've put various projects together or commit public money is prior to making that commitment, making sure there is something on the other side; making sure there are private funds being raised as well, making sure there's a private commitment. I like the idea of having some sort of active thing there, but whether that's our historical group or someone else, needs to make a commitment and have that formally in place; who's going to participate, how is it going to become a reality, rather than just an idea, before I'm comfortable committing any money. Secondly, we can do that, frankly, on either one of these, whether it's preservation plan A or preservation plan B. I'm more comfortable with plan A for a couple of reasons, and not the least of which is the money. And we might explore B again in the budget process, but I hate taking additional monies just out of the blue in the middle of the year. You cannot compare that in a prioritization process the way you can during the budget process. And so we're six months away from starting the next budget process, and that's probably a more appropriate time. And one of the things that bothered me, and this is an uncomfortable thing to say, but one of the most passionate advocates who got up three or four weeks ago on the issue before us here did not identify himself as such, but is the realtor for the property and stands to gain personally. And that just -- that doesn't diminish the value of the property or the value -- the historic value or the educational value, but I wanted to make sure the board and the public knew that at least one individual who stood at that podium and told us what a great idea this was and how important it was for the community also stood to make what I assume is three percent of $500,000, should the county sell it for $500,000. And that at the very least should have been identified to us. I don't worry as much about development squeezing us out when we talk about the Immokalee community. There's two thoughts there, and I've mentioned to you all before, I grew up in New England, and when you go in Boston, it's actually not a bad feel when some of the developed area is broken up by historical areas. They obviously couldn't reserve all of downtown Boston; however, there are certain areas that are set aside, and it's very refreshing to have that modern development broken up that way. But secondly, in discussions on TDR's and other topics, we've had discussions as to how quickly we can expect Immokalee to develop. And I don't think there's a real threat of development squeezing that out in the near future, certainly not in the six months before we get into the budget process. So I would suggest that we pursue, in concert with our historical folks, putting together a plan like you've laid out, but doing that for the time being on preservation plan A and then consider B in the context of the whole budget in the coming budget year. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would weigh in for preservation plan B. I think that to ask the project to complete itself before it's started is unrealistic. And if what we're -- you know, I think that we're putting the cart before the horse here unless we commit to the project or commit to its complete undertaking, and then all of those details that you'd like to see flushed out, Commissioner Constantine, can be done, and this is a phased project. This is something that will require matching grants over a three-year period. It's something that we'll see phased in. I think that we are -- I really honestly think that we as a commission and city council for the City of Naples and others, we're at a unique position in the history of the development of Collier County where, you know, we talk about use it or lose it. This is the time zn history where we are either going to preserve what we have that will become downtown Boston or will become 100 years and 200 and 500 years old, or it will be gone. And I don't want to be the commission that lost it. I want us to preserve it and I think we have to do that with plan B. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'm -- I had a conversation with Mr. Jamro, and I -- I could support plan B or plan A on the condition that we could get -- we could have secured the 50 percent funding from the state grant system. And also, that if we could arrange the funding so that we could pay our portion of it over a 10-year period, for example, rather than all at once. But even so, I was still not too excited about getting into the project. But now that Commissioner Hancock has suggested that we could use it for programs and shows and expositions or whatever of the -- and bring some tourism into Immokalee, I'm certainly more receptive to the idea. Because one of the things that's bothered me about this property all along is that other than being a cattle ranch, it has no particular historic significance. It doesn't have -- the Magna Carta wasn't signed here or anything like that. It's just a cattle ranch. It's -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a period. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Some of the places that I toured out west had other historical significance beyond being just simply a cattle ranch, and that made them different. This one zs not that, it's a cattle ranch. But it may be the last cattle ranch, so that puts it up the list a little bit as far as historical significance. But if we can combine Commissioner Hancock's suggestion with the funding options that I'm -- I have discussed with Mr. Jamro, then I could support the project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did Mr. Jamro indicate that was a reasonable possibility? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll let him indicate for you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. JAMRO: If I may, just several points very quickly. Commissioner Hancock, you're reading our minds. We've talked about cowboy poet festivals; we have people all over the state ready to do just a thing right now at the site. Commissioner Constantine, the reason this was brought to you in the urgent manner it was is because there is a contract on that ~iece of property or proposal to sell that piece of property, so that zs why we're here trying to almost force the issue, because that would disappear very soon. That's why we're working fast now. And I think that we would be obligated to find 50 percent of the grant, basically. Not all necessarily from the Board of County Commissioners, but from individual donors/corporate sponsors, who I really think are waiting in the wings to help us on this and are waiting for a demonstration of support from you first as the -- to get the ball rolling. I believe we could almost guarantee you that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the 10-year funding possibility that Commissioner Norris mentioned, is that something that we could do? MR. JAMRO: I'm a historian, not a financier. That would -- I would defer that to the -- to our legal team. And I think Mr. Olliff has some thoughts on that as well. MR. OLLIFF: Generally, I think what was suggested in the fiscal impact statement is that you would have to take down some sort of a long-term note. I think in either of the options, we would look at funding either through the MSTU, the tourist tax or general fund or whatever the board decided to do, and then do that over an extended period of time so that the annual debt service cost would be something manageable for the project. I don't think the board's willing to step up and provide the 600, $500,000 that it might take to ~rovide the 50 percent match up front, so I think in all of the scenarmos we anticipated a long-term payment process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question, Mr. Jamro. Who owns the property right now? Roberts' family? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh. MR. JAMRO: Collier County owns the 4.1 acre tract, and the 8.8 is the estate. The estate still owns that portion it. I guess the reason is we really can't even initiate the grant process until we have some sort of, you know, cash on the line at least pledged towards the project. Then we can go -- and the first window for that is in June, so that's -- we would be working towards that deadline. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, does the -- since the estate, the Roberts family owns the property, do they not share our enthusiasm for its historical significance? If they're willing to sell it to a commercial purchaser, are they not on board in this project? MR. JAMRO: Oh, I think they are. I think -- it's a rather large group of people, and in any large group of people you're going to get people who are very interested and excited about history, others who really don't care very much for it. And I think that may be, you know, part of the problem or process there. But they'd have to answer that one for you. I couldn't attempt it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I've been told by others, and it's just secondhand, but that they're having other opportunities certainly to sell the property that have been resisted over time in the hope that we could come to some kind of preservation opportunity, and now it's just, you know, been a long time and they're ready to either take the offer that's on the table, sort of fish or cut bait. MR. JAMRO: I think that's the financial reality. You know, I'm sure you'd like the money, you know. It's time to sell if there's a buyer. We're hoping that maybe we can be the buyer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have a comment. It's my turn now. It's a little frustrating once in a while sitting in this chair, because I try to let everybody else say their peace first before I speak. But I have to tell you that this particular project, I'm excited about the Roberts Ranch. And I guess this comes from a background of having lived on a farm in the Midwest and seeing some of those farms that were the typical small farms destroyed. Not really destroyed, but disintegrate into big corporations that are now forming and farming huge, huge, huge sections of land. So the farm that many people knew and recognized, it's gone. And once it's gone, you don't get that back. Because buildings are destroyed, the whole concept is destroyed. I also, like Mr. Norris, have had the opportunity to visit what they call a living farm, which is located close to the capital in the State of Iowa. And it's a very viable working area that people can go to, and it's a huge attraction for people to go. And it starts back in the Indian days, and there are sections divided out, and then it comes up to the farm life back in the Thirties, Forties -- Thirties obviously were pretty depressed -- and the Forties and the Fifties. And it's an exciting thing because kids -- our kids today have no idea about what life was like. And you can read it in a book, it's one thing, but to see it is something else. And I think our kids here in Florida need to experience and be able to see some of the early ranching that was done. And this is kind of a -- it is a historical event. And it is certainly part of Collier County history. Yeah, there's a price tag to it. And I guess I was excited about this because I have spoken with the Sherrod family, and we talked about some of the things that we could see. I could see this becoming a working ranch, obviously small scale, but some things that could be done there. It does take planning, but before you can begin to plan, you've got to have the property. The question could well come in whether we need all of the property. If there was any opportunity to purchase and negotiate out some of the ~ortions where the buildings are -- I really am not in favor of moving those buildings, because I think you're going to -- I think you'll destroy them. But if there was any way to negotiate out the location of those buildings -- and again, I question whether we need all of this property to do what we need to do. I don't know if that's a viable option. I would like to -- that's number one. I'd like to just see if there is that possibility. The second thing, as far as funding, there are other groups other than the state. I believe you have a Cattlemen's Association; you've got a group called the Cracker Cattlemen's Association, separate group, that I think would be possibly really interested in maybe getting involved in this kind of thing. You're talking about the cattle industry. It's a big industry. And I think it's something that we need to pursue and look into funding from these people and see what they may do in terms of participation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I'd like to see us go with whatever we can do. But I would like us to proceed one more time. I'd like to check out and see what we could glean from the location of those buildings. And if we don't need all that property, then that's fine, they can certainly put it back on the market and sell whatever it is that we don't need. But let's take a look one more time and see if there's any possibilities of that. Sure, I'd love to have the whole thing. I'd like to buy the whole corner, I mean, the entire works. But you're talking about a chunk of money. And I'm not sure that it's really necessary to do what we need to do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The other option would be that we could proceed with B and if we didn't want all of the property, we could declare it -- sell it ourselves. That would be another avenue. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a possibility. There's certainly that possibility. So I think we've got -- I think we've some options here, but I'd like us to proceed with this and look into -- and Ron, with your expertise in looking at the site and looking what's there, as far as the historical buildings and, you know, looking at it from that angle. And then I agree with Commissioner Norris, I think personally -- and Commissioner Mac'Kie -- I think we should go ahead with preservation plan B, with the idea that what we really need we can take out of that, and what we don't need, then perhaps we can look at other alternatives for it. But I think there's a real -- I think this is a viable thing that we need to proceed with. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The history lover in me loves this and thinks it's great, but the fiscal conservative in me has some very real worries. And Commissioner Mac'Kie said those details can be flushed out later, but I just -- I worry about that approach to it. We have had other things where that approach has not proven successful. We don't know what private funds are going to be dedicated to this, we don't know what state funds are going to be dedicated. And I realize there needs to be some process before you can get into the state funds, but I like the idea of the living history and the working ranch type thing, but we don't know who would do that, who will fund that. We don't know any of those details. Ron, you said you think you can practically guarantee there are contributors standing in the wings? I would like to see some commitment from those people so that it's a true guarantee. And lastly, I think it's -- I would prefer, if we're going to move forward, to do your first suggestion and that is let's let Mr. Jamro and crew look at this and see if there are parts we do not need instead of buying something and then trying to sell it in what is admittedly a slow market out there after the fact, if we don't need certain parts. I don't think that's a good business approach. Let's see if there is a way where we can pick some parts. And if not, that's fine. But I would feel more comfortable if we laid out some of those details. It sounds like you're asking them to come back a third time anyway with some parts of it. I would feel better, anyway, if when you come back, Ron, if you could have a commitment from some of those private contributors. And that may be contingent upon the county's participation, but at least we'll have some specific details to fill in those blanks. MR. JAMRO: I guess if it's not important to us, it's not going to be important to a lot of these contributors as well. It's a who's going to make the first move. It was the same dilemma we faced 18 years ago when we started building the Collier County Museum, who will support it. Well, there's your proof. You know, I think those folks are still there. And I don't know, we had talked about that, possibly of dividing that up. There was some sort of -- the frontages or something couldn't be subdivided and it was decided, well, the grove is worth saving as well, so -- you know, Collier County's original citrus grove -- and that would capture an element of that. And in the long-term master plan, that provided for the church to be restored as well to that area. So the land -- and the buildings are sort of sprinkled across it, so it is going to be hard to cut out little enclaves there, but it's certainly worth exploring, I think. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I wasn't interested in -- maybe I didn't make that clear, Ron. I don't want to chop up the property so you get bits and pieces, but if there's some way that we could take a look at where those buildings are located and more or less draw a straight line and say okay, this encompasses everything that we need. Now, is -- how much of that section, that part of the land that they want to sell us, how much of that do we really need and then how much is, quote, surplus. I guess if there's a chance that we're not going to get this, I'd rather take part of it and do it well than not take any part of it at all. I mean, my druthers, I want the whole thing, okay? And I think -- and I agree, I think if -- we're going to have to put up or shut up, okay? And I think we're at the point where it's step forward and say we're going to do this project or we're not going to do it. And I'll go along with that. But at the same time that I'm saying that, I want somebody else sitting back there saying and analyzing and looking at this whole site and saying this is what you really need and maybe this is something that you don't need. At least give us the option, okay? That's all. But I'm willing -- I'm willing, if I've got two other people here, to go forward and say let's do it. But I also want people looking at this and giving it some scrutiny and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let me see -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- good thought. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- if we can get it going here. I'll make a motion that we proceed with option B, contingent with a contingent contract that we can procure 50 percent of the funding from state grants, and that we can get some sort of extended payment period for the other half. And also contingent on some significant participation from private sources. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since we aren't even going to be able to apply until June of next year for those funds, one, we don't know if that's going to be acceptable, and this is one way to find out, but as we were going through this discussion, I've made some notes. And I'm always concerned when we do something like this that we don't give sufficient or specific enough direction in a number of areas. So let me, if I may, list a couple of observations and some things that I would like to be included in the direction. One is that if you look at the difference to the cost between plan A and plan B, it's a difference of 8.8 additional acres for $300,000 difference. That's $33,000 an acre. I think it'd be silly of us, if we're going to make a commitment in any way, shape or form under plan A, to make a minimum commitment equal to that under plan B, you know. And if there are additional funds that need to be sought, then seek them. But to get an additional 8.8 acres for $300,000, we need to make that happen. Because financially, it would make -- it wouldn't make sense to do anything else. If we're already going to do A, then B just makes all the more sense. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's why I went there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The two -- couple of things I think that maybe we'd give additional focus is that we as the county will focus on the cost of land acquisition. We encourage the Friends of Roberts Ranch to focus on raising the funds for restoration. Restoration is a big cost involved with this. And I think if -- since we'd be underlying property owners, or be the property owners, land acquisition costs make sense for us. However, restoration, we need to put something on their shoulders, as Commissioner Constantine just said, to bring the community into it. I think restoration's a good thing to do that with. I think we need to ask our staff to look at the viability of some type of a seasonal show that may complement the harvest of annual crops out there in such a way that it draws people to the site. That potentially could be a revenue producer to offset acquisition costs in the long term. It's very gray right now, but I think it ought to at least be looked at for similar shows elsewhere to see if that's viable and to see if they could produce revenue. And the other ideas that -- do we have a farmer's market on Main Street out there already? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Okay, then we'll scratch that one. Okay, those are the things I just want to raise as points that I think we need to consider and really try and make plan B work as best we can. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't have any objection to including those in my motion as direction items. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second agrees. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Constantine has a question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have some sort of appraisal process when we purchase it? It's just when we look at buying this 8.8 acres for $500,000, that's almost $60,000 an acre. That seems like a pretty high price for property in Immokalee. And I'm wondering, how did that number come about? MR. JAMRO: I think when the property was -- when the PUD was prepared in '92 or something, you know, some sort of assessment was made. Because that's one of four sections that are available for sale that's going to surround the historic site. I would have to research that. I really don't know what the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That just seems like kind of an important detail. MR. OLLIFF: And to add to that, because the family or the trust was in negotiations with another potential buyer, we didn't have the opportunity to actually sit down and try to negotiate a price. So we're giving you our best rough estimate that we've got at this point. And I don't really have a good number until we sit down and either get some direction to negotiate or get some appraisals, as you suggest. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think negotiate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure, negotiate -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think negotiate's probably the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we're not coming to a specific price today? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, but I think we've got an idea here at what -- at this point in time. But at the same time, I would certainly say, you know, you go forward and take a look. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that would be silly not to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that a state law? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: We also have the legal requirement -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- for appraisals. That will be part of the process before we get to the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There's nothing to talk about. MR. OLLIFF: Actually, two -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think one thing -- MR. OLLIFF: -- separate appraisals. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- to clarify, really, the intent of my motion is that I understand that we're not going to be able to get an answer on grant funds until June or so of next year, maybe a little later than that. But that is the critical part of our commitment here today as far as my motion goes. If that's not acceptable to the family, then that's the way it is. But that's what this board needs to do for our own protection. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two more questions. One, what is the source of the county funds that we're dedicating? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I was hoping we were going to get to that discussion. I hope it's going to be the TDC option. I mean, there's general fund, there's TDC and there's an MSTU. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we change TDC so we can now buy capital projects? Is that the one that's pending? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the one that's pending. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Significant private funds was part of your motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, it was. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is -- how do we define significant? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I think that's going to be in the eye of the beholder. I would think 50 percent of match of our commitment, ex-state, would be significant. Five percent I don't think would be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I suspect I'm going to be in a four-one minority; however, I'm -- and it's not for lack of supporting historical endeavors. But I don't think that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, we'll mark that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we have enough answers from the fiscal end to go ahead with this, so -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, those answers -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I won't belabor it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- can't be answered here today is one of the problems. We can't determine a funding source today. That's going to have to be discussed at a future time. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Along the same lines from a staff perspective of trying to understand the direction of the board here, I'm trying to determine how we can determine the other contingencies will be satisfied before the county is in the position to make its commitment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well that's -- see, that's the catch-22 here. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If that's -- if that sort of contingency in the real estate offer, the contract that we deliver to the estate, that's not acceptable to them, we're out. MR. FERNANDEZ: All right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As I understand it, we -- what we're proposing is that we'll draft a contract to make an offer to purchase the property from the estate. In the -- the contingency that we don't have control over two of them, one is contingent on state grant matching -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and the second contingency is contingent on significant local private match. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER NLAC'KIE: And they will accept or reject that, and they'll probably give us an amount of time, you know, in which to fulfill those contingencies; you know, hopefully enough time to be able to go through the state process, that the contract will remain with that contingency. Mr. Weigel can draft that for you all day long. MR. JAMRO: I should -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It won't take him that long. MR. JAMRO: If I may, commissioners, while -- we have every assurance that the folks in Tallahassee really like this project. We've talked to them on and off for 10 years about this project. I can't give you a guarantee that they will fund it in a partichlar year. They -- we may skip a year. That we won't know until the state review process in Tallahassee, the state budget is set, and the new Secretary of State, you know, makes a decision. As long as you understand, I'll do my best to get you that money. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But I think your argument is that the County Commission has stepped forward -- assuming that the motion passes, the County Commission has stepped forward, offered a contract, and it's time for the state to get aboard or risk losing the project forever. MR. JAMRO: Oh, I think your move today is key, absolutely -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think -- MR. JAMRO: -- to that process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Norris, I think there is one option that falls in the middle of the fish or cut bait approach, and that is that if the state is unable to go to the maximum, which is 300,000 in a given year, it's very unlikely that you would achieve that maximum -- MR. JAMRO: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- two or three years in a row. If we took an eight to 10-year financing window and applied year after year after year to do it in piecemeal fashion, if at some point we see those funds are not going to come, even though we may have acquired the property in advance, we know the property has a market value because there's a contract on it right now. So we could just turn around and do what we tried to avoid which is sell the property, you know, if we negotiate a good enough price out of the chute, and not hurt ourselves or the taxpayer in the process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what I assumed the long-range financing option was, to cover that. Because it's a three-year grant and we can't get a three-year commitment. But the long-range funding financing would cover that contingency -- MR. JAMRO: Could be a five-year grant -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- after the first year. MR. JAMRO: -- could be a six-year grant. You never really know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. MR. JAMRO: And remember that you can only, you know, use the funds within the last five years, like the security system we put in at the ranch this past year. We can apply that to this very first application as county funds committed to the project, so you're already 5,000 up. The 5,000 that the Friends organization paid for a consultant to do the master plan, development plan, now we're 10,000 in the red, or in the black. But no, I think I hear you, you want preservation, but you want painless preservation, and we can do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We want it all, Ron. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's -- MR. JAMRO: We're going to make a believer out of Commissioner Constantine yet. I really -- I'm pledged to that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, let me call for the question. Ail in favor? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one. Next item on the agenda is an appointment of member -- oh, I'm sorry. MS. SHERROD: Ms. Berry, I would just like to say that this was not our family's idea, it was suggested to us by other people, because we don't ask the county for anything. But you mentioned getting more land. You know, we're in a trusteeship now that's spread out over too many. I, and I feel like there were others, would be glad to give their part, if you really want it and you want to do something with it. And that would give you more land for less money is what I'm trying to say. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's great. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's very gracious of you. Thank you. (Applause.) MS. STONE: Can I just explain the paper I gave you, Madam Chairman? I don't have enough to go around, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We need to move on. MS. STONE: -- this is a proposal of Eco-Tours, and on the back pages it explains about what can be done at the ranch. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, thank you. MS. STONE: Thank you. And Mr. Constantine, there's been a Winn Dixie in Immokalee 20 years. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You may want to do your shopping there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's apparently going to be a second one there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-420 APPOINTING LOWELL LAM TO THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER AUTHORITY - ADOPTED Okay, moving on then to item 10(A), appointment of member to the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, one opening, one applicant -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'll make a motion we support Lowell M. Lam. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Motion carries five-zero. Item #10B RESOLUTION 98-421 APPOINTING DONNA FIALA TO THE BAYSHORE/AVALON BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ADOPTED The next item is a member -- or I'm sorry, members to the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman, I'm trying to get to the page but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One of the questions that comes up is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 10(B) . COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Ms. Fiala has applied, but I think the rules are you have to either live within the boundaries or have property -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She does. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She has property? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She has property on Shore View. So Ms. Fiala was a definite -- I'd like to recommend her. And I think it is just one member that we were appointing, and I'd like to nominate Ms. Fiala. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the appointment of Donna Fiala to the Bayshore/Avalon Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now we're moving. Item #10C RESOLUTION 98-422 APPOINTING KAREN ACQUARD AND STEPHEN GREENBERG TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COMMITTEE - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, next item has two openings and two applicants. I make a motion we approve Ms. Acquard and Greenberg, Mr. Greenberg. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, motion to appoint Karen Acquard and Steven Greenberg to the Golden Gate Estates Land Trust Committee. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #liB PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS Mr. Fernandez, do we have any public speakers -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- under public comment? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have one speaker. A1 Perkins. MR. PERKINS: Good morning, commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, people at home. Take note -- ms it on my five minutes or yours? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know where that came from, Al. Go ahead and speak. MR. PERKINS: Okay. Speaking for the Belle Meade groups down in the past, needs -- need to touch base on Miller Boulevard extension. We just got done with a hurricane who missed us, luckily. It could have been a disaster here. Miller Boulevard needs to be put in and now, while we've got the opportunity. I don't want to bury any kids or adults. The Wildlife Federation bought property out in Golden Gate on the Miller Boulevard and is deliberately trying to hamper the installation of Miller Boulevard extension. Now, they put more stock in animals than they do children and people; consequently, they haven't done any effort whatsoever to stop the hunting mn the south blocks nor in the Belle Meade area. Neither has the Wildlife Federation nor the Conservancy. But not once did they open their mouth about hauling trash and garbage to Pompano and put the pollution over there instead of here. Keep this in mind, people. Now, I want to know when Nancy Payton, Bradley Cornell and Guggenheim sue Myra Daniels and the Philharmonic to stop putting in the amphitheater, 1,600 seats. Is that 1,600 cars, parking lot, heat, asphalt, roads, concrete? Which side of the fence are these people on? And by the way, those three are all democrats. In '92 -- if you don't believe me -- and I tell you, don't believe me, find out for yourself, but take the time to find out, people. In '92, in Fort Myers, Greg Brock of the Department of Natural Resources, as it was called then, was up there for a meeting about the Belle Meade, and the Conservancy instigated this action in '92, okay, to put the Belle Meade on the CARL program. This is a cloud over the land. It devaluated the land, and it ended up being with the DEP Fish and Game Wildlife Conservancy that's collusion to extort property and lands. We had a meeting to take and get the Belle Meade off the CARL list. At that time most of you people weren't here. John was. Bill Brannen of the Conservancy, the spokesperson, had an open heated argument with Michael Volpe at that time, because Brannen said it wouldn't do any good to write a letter to the governor. Ail of a sudden, the fix was in. Like a dumb jerk, I pay attention to things. People, this is a gift giver guide. Gift gzver guide, okay? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Does that have a lot of items under $25 in it? MR. PERKINS: They've got a -- right, but here's the thing, the Conservancy is not even listed in this, and yet they've been in action since '66. If you notice -- and I want to apologize to you people out there, because you do not have the information, and I -- no way in the world that I can show you. In the nonprofit corporation for the State of Florida, it states, any failure to.com~ly with this action is a third degree felony. That's five years mmprmsonment, $5,000 fine. You have a copy of it. On the second sheet -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Al, we're up here. MR. PERKINS: Yes, okay. You have a copy, and I have no way of showing it, okay? You have a picture that shows Guggenheim, Buddy MacKay -- he's not your buddy -- and Vice President A1 Gore. Now, the only thing that's missing in the picture is the Chinese, the Monks, right? Now, where are the Indians, because you're going to tell me that -- I'm sorry, can I complete, please? It's important. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Finish the sentence. MR. PERKINS: Okay. The only thing that's missing in here big time are the Indians. Where are the Indians? They lived out there, they put up with the mosquitoes and all the rest of it since a long time before we were even here. How come they weren't included in this thing? And by the way, your good buddy, A1 Gore, is in town today. I hope you sink him. And I think legal action ought to be taken by the State Attorney's Office against the Conservancy. Put them in jail. Let's clean up the works. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Al. MR. PERKINS: Did I make your day? Did I wake you up, Pam? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you have no other speakers on -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have no other public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- for public comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this point in time, before we start the next two topics, I think we'll take a break to give our court reporter a break, and then we'll convene in about seven to 10 minutes. (Brief recess.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I guess at this point, does everyone have a seat that wants a seat? Or maybe some of you feel more comfortable standing? Just make sure that at all times we please keep the doorways free. So squeeze on down there, Julian, one way or the other. I don't want the Fire Marshal to come up here and reprimand US, SO - - Item #12Al RESOLUTION 98-423 APPROVING THE PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR TRNASMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS - ADOPTED WITH CHAi~GES; AND ORDINANCE 98-83 ESTABLISHING THE 1998 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT ANNUAL UPDATE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Okay, it's been noted that for the item which is item 12(B) (1), which is why many of you are here, we have 40 speakers signed up to speak. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's three hours. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Assuming that each of you will take your five minutes, we'll be here two hours listening to you speak. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll be happy to do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And we can do that; however, you're going to get a lot more tired than we are. So if -- it might be a suggestion to you, if you want to decide, and if you hear the same thing being said that you want to say, repetition isn't going to help you a whole lot. We're happy to listen to you, and if you've got a new point that you need to make, we're more than happy to hear that. But to hear 25 people stand up and say the same thing -- we'll recognize you, and if someone has made your point already, we'll recognize you. And if you want to pass, you can. You can say that someone's already made your point. At least we'll know that, you know, you concur and that's what your statement is about. But I would ask that you think about that very seriously. But if all 40 of you wish to speak and take five minutes, we'll hear you out. Okay, the next item on the agenda is item 12(A) (1), the public hearing for the 1998 Growth Management Plan Amendments. And this might be enlightening to some that Collier County has a growth management plan. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Award winning growth management plan. MR. LITSINGER: To follow that up, Madam Commissioner, and commissioners, good morning. For the record, Stan Litsinger, the planning department. This public hearing this morning is the transmittal public hearing for your 1998 Growth Management Plan Amendments to the Department of Community Affairs for review. This is the first of two public hearings that will ultimately lead to adoption of these amendments as you submit them to the department for comment. The adoption public hearing will take place approximately in the February, March time frame. I would bring to your attention that we have three public petitions to amend the plan today. And we also have four staff initiated petitions. The Planning Commission held its public hearings to make recommendations to you for transmittal of these amendments on September 17th, which was subsequently continued to October 1st. What we will ask you to do today is hear the staff and petitioner's presentations and public comment on each of the proposed amendments, to then take a straw vote on each of the proposed public amendments, to be followed by your vote to adopt the resolution to transmit the amendments with changes at the end of the entire process. If there are no questions on the overall process, we will begin with the transportation element and follow with the capital improvement element and the petitions on land use. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Proceed. MR. JONES: Madam Chairman, commissioners, good morning. My name's Gavin Jones, I'm a transportation planner with the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The amendments to the transportation element are twofold: One is to preserve consistency with the amendment to the MPO's long-range plan that was adopted in February of this year, and the other is the replacement of the road capital improvement plan that was adopted in December of last year. So just bringing those portions of the element up to date. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions of Mr. Jones? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You'd like a motion on each one? Each item? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we want to do consensus on each one and then one motion at the end? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that would probably be the easiest and the quickest way to do it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have about eight speakers on this entire package, and there's no way to know which section of the item this speaker is interested in speaking on, so you may want to consider that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, I'll tell you what, why don't we -- is there anyone that wishes to speak on this transportation segment? Okay, we'll just go through each segment -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we have one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have one speaker on the transportation segment, okay. Then let's bring him forward and hear the -- MR. CONWAY: Good morning, commissioners, Mike Conway. I'd like to quote from the Collier County comprehensive plan. Following the federal policy reflected in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act -- ISTEA, as most people know it -- the Naples, Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization, the MPO, is committed to planning a transportation system that is economically efficient and environmentally sound. The 2010 plan shows the straight route for A of Santa Barbara as financially feasible, but the 2020 plan arbitrarily deletes it, the straight out Route A, and opts for the more costly and environmental, more impact sensitive Route C. Two studies have proven that the straight Route A has less impact environmentally and less cost when all factors are considered. I would hope the commission would adhere to their own comprehensive plan and not delete the straight Route A as a logical and economically environmentally safe route for Santa Barbara. I respectfully request that Route A be included in the Growth Management Plan to be submitted to the state. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I see no need to rehear a decision we've already made. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How about a consensus on the transportation element? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Agreed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Stan, as you go, can you -- ours isn't really broken up as it goes from element to element there. MR. LITSINGER: Certainly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could you just guide us, please, as we start the next one? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. Stan Litsinger, again, from Planning Department. The capital improvement element amendments begin on page 19 of your agenda package. I'll tell you in the beginning of this presentation, very briefly, this is a implementation of the recommendations you made in your previously presented annual updated inventory report last November. We're essentially here adding revenues and projects which were identified and directed in your previous annual updated inventory report. Beginning on page 19, you'll see there's a correction there to identify Vanderbilt Beach Road as a constrained roadway. That's merely to correct a scrivener's error. Continuing on to page 20, we're updating the levels of service in several areas to reflect the most recently adopted amendments to the specific elements which govern those facilities, specifically state roads and federal highways. Then down to A-4, the county potable water systems and the county sanitary sewer system reflecting the most recent county water and sewer system master plans. Moving on to page 21, here again, the same applies. There are no changes at this time to parks and recreation. As you're aware, there's a significant study being undertaken which will probably lead to some changes in this area on the next process. You will hear more about those during your AUIR presentation in November. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, so what we discuss at the AUIR doesn't affect this? Or how does that fit in then, Stan? MR. LITSINGER: In November -- in the November time frame each year we bring you the annual updated inventory report on public facilities, which essentially is a status report telling what you have and what you need, and as a result of your direction to staff at that time, we make the necessary preparations to amend the comp. plan in the coming process. It's about a year long -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. LITSINGER: -- transition period there. So what we're essentially today doing is amending the comp. plan from last year's AUIR direction. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I understand. MR. LITSINGER: Beginning on page 20 is merely a delineation of all the projects that are currently zn the comprehensive plan for this adoption process; here again, subject to change to the upcoming AUIR process in November. If you like, I can answer any question on specific projects. That continues on and follows the direction of the board we received last November. And the final item relative to the capital improvement element appears on page 52 of your agenda package, which is reconciliation of approved costs and revenues to identify the comprehensive plan capital improvement element as being cost effective and available revenues being -- having been approved to fund the projects identified. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Any speakers on this element? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any speakers on this item? None. have a consensus? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. Go ahead. MR. LITSINGER: That's -- that ends the presentation on the capital improvement element. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Land use? MS. TAYLOR: Good morning, Madam Chairman, and good morning, commissioners. My name is Amy Taylor, for the record. I am with the comprehensive planning section and the planning services department. Before you is petition number CP-9801. It is an amendment to the Growth Management Plan. For the record, I will go over the petitioner's request very briefly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Ms. Taylor. MS. TAYLOR: The subject property is located -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't believe -- MS. TAYLOR: -- on Goodlette-Frank Road -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Taylor? Excuse me. I don't believe your viewer is on. MS. TAYLOR: Oh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There it is now. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Speak up, please. MS. TAYLOR: Okay, I will. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pull the mike maybe a little down. MS. TAYLOR: For the record, I will go over briefly the petitioner's request. The petitioner seeks to amend the existing future land use element and map of the management plan to allow for the creation of a Goodlette/Pine Ridge commercial infill subdistrict. These are four specific lands, the 31 acres at Goodlette and Pine Ridge Road. The proposed text change adds language under the urban commercial district, and specifically the petitioner requests a change of land use to allow for a maximum of 275,000 square feet of retail, commercial and office development. Currently, the land use allows for residential and institutional uses. The planning recommendation was transmittal of the petitioner's request. Staff recommends that the proposed change, as submitted by the petitioner, be changed to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge office and institutional infill subdistrict, and that the language be amended to allow office and institutional uses with up to 25,000 square feet of support retail commercial. Staff recommends transmittal of CP-98 as amended to the Department of Community Affairs. The findings and conclusions of the staff are before the board for their consideration. The basis for these conclusions are first, staff's evaluation of the need for additional retail space in the area; second is the transportation impact at the site as a result of this land use change. Once Goodlette-Frank Road is expanded, the level of service of the surrounding network will not be diminished, regardless of the development that is on the site. What is at issue is the impact at the site and on surrounding properties, and the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road. Thank you very much. I'll be available for questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None right now, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the property that's right on that intersection, is that correct, Ms. Taylor? MS. TAYLOR: Yes, sir. Okay, do we COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that it on the -- MS. TAYLOR: That is. The property in the center, right here at the corner, is the property. The orange indicates the amount of commercial within the surrounding area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This amendment would apply to the little gray piece -- MS. TAYLOR: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- not to all of that orange. MS. TAYLOR: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine, questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Anybody to speak on this one? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyone to speak on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Karen Acquard. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. I think she's speaking on another one. MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh, okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there any others out there that wish to speak? Bruce, are you speaking on this item? MR. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Bruce Anderson. I represent the petitioner and property owner on this matter. If there are any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I support it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's no one else to speak on that item? MR. ANDERSON: I would note, I don't believe I heard it in the staff presentation, but the Planning Commission heard this matter and unanimously recommended approval. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If we have no public speakers on it, then consensus on the board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MS. PRESTON: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Deborah Preston, principal planner with your planning section. The item before you today begins in your packet on page 167. This is comp. plan amendment 98-2. The plan amendment before you today is for a text only amendment change. There's no map change, according to this petition. I would like to first clarify that your executive summary had stated that this was being forwarded for transmittal due to staff's recommendation. Actually, staff is not recommending transmittal of this petition, the Planning Commission is recommending transmittal with some changes to the locational criteria. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You'll outline staff's objections for us? MS. PRESTON: Yes, I will. The intent of this subdistrict is to create another small-scale mixed use commercial center that would provide public activities and services to reduce traffic congestion. Staff is not recommending transmittal of this petition because the 1997 market conditions study show that there was adequate commercial in the urban area until the year 2005. Also, staff feels that there are sufficient commercial provisions already allowed in the adopted 1997 Growth Management Plan, including the office infill commercial subdistrict, the PUD neighborhood village center subdistrict, and we also changed the business park subdistrict to allow for commercial up to 30 percent of the total acreage. And we also included the traditional neighborhood district, which allows for small-scale pedestrian type development. Also, the board considered a neighborhood commercial subdistrict during the transmittal hearing to DCA in 1997, and the board decided not to adopt a district that was very similar to this one before you today. The design guidelines that are submitted with this petition, although it will not be adopted as part of the Growth Management Plan, would later be adopted as part of the LDC; the staff feels has great merit and could be included in the TND or in the PUD neighborhood commercial at a later date. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Deborah, can I ask you a question about that? MS. PRESTON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If -- because I do like those development standards. If they -- if we -- the net effect of adopting the development standards without the Growth Management Plan Amendment would be what? MS. PRESTON: Well, when we do the TND, we have put into the Growth Management Plan that we will have standards in the LDC, and staff had been briefly working on that to create a set of standards very similar to the ones that are attached to this petition today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the difference then would be that those standards would apply on pieces of property that would fall under the infill or the PUD or something, instead of this? MS. PRESTON: We could definitely include it in the PUD commercial and also in the TND. Office and infill, you probably want to look at that and see if it's appropriate for office type. Most of those standards limited the size of the building and setbacks and development standards such as those. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the bottom line effect is there would be less property available for those restrictions to be implemented on? MS. PRESTON: If this petition is not forwarded? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MS. PRESTON: Yes, that's true. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like those. MS. PRESTON: The difference -- I was just going to outline for you the difference between what the petitioner's locational standards were and what the Planning Commission had recommended. The petitioner had suggested that we have a minimum of one half mile away from an activity center or other neighborhood village centers, and that distance would be measured from the intersection of the activity center and between the property lines from the neighborhood village center. And there is no spacing criteria from any existing commercial zoning. The Planning Commission changed the distance criteria to be one half mile from the boundary of the activity center and any properties zoned commercial or other neighborhood centers. The Planning Commission also recommended that language would specify that the property must be adjacent -- which means no interfering streets to residential property -- so that we could have that access between residential and commercial. And the Planning Commission also clarified the density allowed in this type of development at six units per acre. I have some display maps. When staff was doing the analysis, we looked at what parcels would qualify under the petitioner's locational standards, and those show up zn blue. There were over 700 parcel 700 acres that would qualify, although that number will be greatly reduced as neighborhood village centers go into place, and that spacing criteria, half of a mile would apply. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have a map that shows us if we adopted the others and not this one what properties would be affected? MS. PRESTON: I don't have a map of that. We did do a calculation, and it was around 123 acres that would qualify. And that would again be reduced as neighborhood village centers were developed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this 123 acres -- since this is -- it appears to be, you know, specific, really. Is there -- can you tell me where the 123 acres are, since you don't have a map? MS. PRESTON: I can't COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because it seems like that what we're going to do is accomplish this goal almost with the others, but the 123 acres is what seems to be in question. And if that's appropriate for commercial with those special restrictions, then am I thinking clearly, it seems to me that would be the reason to vote for this? MS. PRESTON: For -- with the Planning Commission's recommendation, or -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You tell me. Which one has 123 acres? MS. PRESTON: The Planning Commission's standards. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how many acres with the petitioner's? MS. PRESTON: 700. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But 700, then you take out the other -- MS. PRESTON: Right, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that would already be in, and that leaves you with how many? MS. PRESTON: Well, it's going to be greatly reduced, because it's hard to figure it out until you know where the first neighborhood village center gets built -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MS. PRESTON: -- and then the half mile separation starts to apply. But I would say it's probably going to be less than 50 percent of that 700 that would qualify. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The current spacing criteria is what? MS. PRESTON: For the one the petitioner is applying for? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. MS. PRESTON: It's a half a mile from the intersection of an activity center, and between -- and a half a mile from the boundary of any newly developed neighborhood village center. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Typically throughout the county it's further than that, isn't it? I mean, when we had this discussion on the property on Airport Road, it was an attempt to make it a half mile and it was a mile, I think, there. I mean, this is about as small as it would get; is that correct? MS. PRESTON: With a half a mile -- I think we selected a half mile because typically you'll walk a quarter of a mile, and some of those intersections with the activity center, you could run into -- you'd be right next to an activity center, and that's why the half mile came about. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I hear you say you couldn't tell us what other properties would be affected when you -- to do this, in answer to Commissioner Mac'Kie's question? MS. PRESTON: I'm afraid I did not do the calculations for the 123. If you want, I can go in the back and mark those off. It was -- again, they won't be site specific. They could be generally applying because of the spacing criteria once the neighborhood village center gets developed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if there's a lot of support for this, then maybe I'd like to see that. I don't think I support it as is anyway, but I ~articularly don't support it if I don't know what that impact is going to be. If we're looking at impacting a bunch of other places and we don't know where, that's just more planning. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Does the staff support the Planning Commission's recommendation? MS. PRESTON: No, staff doesn't support the Planning Commission's recommendation either. We're suggesting that we don't transmit this petition to DCA, because we feel that there's adequate provisions already in the new Growth Management Plan to address the commercial needs. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I bet we have a speaker on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It says in our packet that the development standards that were implemented in the Land Development Code are included as attachment A. Does anyone else have them? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had a copy myself, but they're not in my packet. Because there is -- there are two steps to this, and I have issues with the first one. But Ms. Bishop represented a property owner that wanted to do site specific, and we shot it down because we said look, we're -- you know, we're not going to amend the comp. plan for this intersection, it isn't right, whatever. It sounds to me like you've gone back and said well, let's take a step back and do it from a general nature that applies to any property that's suitable for a neighborhood village subdistrict. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is what -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we asked her to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The problem I have with this is a neighborhood village center is not one acre in size, it is not three acres in size. That's spot commercial. That is a single use. One acre is a bank branch, a half acre is a 7-Eleven. These are not neighborhood village centers. A neighborhood village center typically is a mixed use development, it has probably four or five uses in it at a minimum -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A dry cleaner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that is connected pedestrian-wise and vehicular-wise to the surrounding or immediate community. That's why it's called a neighborhood village center. I mean, so you don't have to go out on an arterial road and access it from the street. Some of these things, if this is going to move ahead, have to be contained in the Growth Management Plan side with the details of physical location and whatnot coming in the Land Development Code. What I don't see here is -- I see this as giving the opportunity for someone to request of the board a one-acre neighborhood village center, and it's -- there's no such thing. When I think of these things, I think of them more in the 10-acre range, because you need about that much room to be flexible in your design and create something that is, you know, attractive and not a single use. So the low acreage minimum is a real concern for me. I'm not sure why it even started at one acre. The second issue is the design standards, which are not a part of this packet. And I have them -- I've had them for a couple of months. They're very, very good. And I think if we could find a way in neighborhood districts to apply those standards, we should. I'm just not so sure the way it's set up here today is where we want to be going, because I think it's just -- it's getting us back to someone requesting a one-acre rezone for commercial purposes, and I don't think we want to do that. I don't think that involves enough planning and enough forethought the way that -- you know, with the architectural standards we have, we ought to be attaching a higher level of planning with all commercial properties, not just from the aesthetic side or from the land use side, and one-acre spot zones are -- I don't COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're going to end up with a hodgepodge. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- see this as helping us. I throw that out there for Ms. Bishop because I -- MS. BISHOP: For the record, Karen Bishop, representing the owner. The -- your point is very well taken, but most of these parcels, it also has inside of our criteria that you can't create parcels to do this. So all of the parcels are already created, are already shown on the maps to date. I don't believe that there's any one-acre parcels, but there may be one or two slivers out there that would fall under that category. I think most of these are three-acre minimum and go to 13 acres. But you're not allowed to create a one-acre parcel. And pretty much on the collectors and arterials, you don't find that situation occurring. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if we wanted to take that one-acre -- MS. BISHOP: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- minimum out -- MS. BISHOP: I have no problem with that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a problem with three acres. I mean, three acres isn't a neighborhood village either, in my opinion. You know, three acres, you're talking 30,000 square feet, if you really squeeze it in, of retail or commercial space. More than likely, if you're going to do good positive design with landscaping, you're down to about 8,000 square feet an acre, unless you go two stories for office type use. I'm talking single floor retail. We're talking, you know, 24,000 square feet. Again, when I think of neighborhood village, 24,000 square feet, you're going to get maybe two users in there. MS. BISHOP: Right. And actually, ours is less than 10,000 square foot an acre. It's more like 6,000 square foot an acre -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. BISHOP: -- with a residential element above that, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think before you get into some of the details, I need some support here, why we need more commercial space. Our staff has told us we don't, we have a 1997 study, last year, market conditions study, and so it appears to me that this is done for the convenience of those property owners to try to do something that's not allowed under current ordinance, and not because it's what the community needs. And so if you're going to convince me that we should make the change, it's -- I agree with Commissioner Hancock, those tiny little things aren't in, but that's not where my concern lies right now. My concern is I don't think it's necessary in the general sense. I need you to convince me otherwise. MS. BISHOP: Well, the market study did say that we have, you know, an abundance of commercial, but what they didn't say is where the commercial's located and what type of commercial we're building. And so what this is intended to do is to try to bring the commercial to areas where there isn't. And if you look at the maps on where these parcels are going to be, they are not along any of those areas. For instance, East Naples has a significant amount of commercial in it, yet it's not developed because the market doesn't bear it yet to be in place. Most of these -- this element is intended to somewhat retrofit into existing residential areas. It's intended to go into areas where there's already roof tops in place. So it's not so much that I think we have too much commercial or not enough commercial, it's the type of commercial and where it's located. And, you know, I don't consider this an entitlement. I don't think any of us considers zoning an entitlement. It's based on need, how it functions within the community. Ail of those things have to be important. And of the 700 acres that the staff has pointed out, I -- or which is approximately 200 parcels, I did a quick and dirty little analysis by just counting the parcels and putting the spacing criteria in there, and I was able to bring that number down to 25 parcels that would actually be affected, depending on first come, first serve and how these were, I guess, parceled out. Because the problem is that there's a significant amount of these small parcels are located along collector and arterial roads that don't fit the criteria of multi-family or business infill or PUD commercial or traditional neighborhood -- traditional neighborhoods I think is what we call those, TDN's (sic). This is intended to be something that kind of covered that gambit, which is what -- last year, when we came in front of you last year, that was the issue. The issue was these smaller parcels that don't seem to fit anywhere else, and what are we going to do with those. So that's what this was intended to do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said it's based on need. I assume you mean the need of the community, not the need of the individual property owners. MS. BISHOP: Right. You're going to have to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have some documentation for that, to prove that need? MS. BISHOP: I would imagine at the time that we come in we would have to prove that. At this point, we've not created any criteria for the staff to utilize to prove need. What I would do myself would be hiring the guys that did your commercial study and have them do a focused end study on that area to prove the need of commercial within those areas that we would have to -- you know, we would have to prove that ourselves on a case-by-case basis. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just not prepared to transmit to the state without having that document in advance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The point of this, as I'm trying to get it, is that there -- the documentation that we have in the 1997 study says county-wide we have enough commercial. The question that I think exists is whether or not we have adequate commercial in the growth areas in the north end. And as much as I'd like to see redevelopment of commercial properties along the east trail and otherwise, there's a lot of commercially zoned property over there that's not been used because the market drives it. It's zoned correctly, but there's no market for it. There is, however, more market for commercial property in the north end of the county that this would go a step toward meeting the need. I mean, that's just a -- common sense. And I don't have a piece of paper for you either, but that's my impression of just looking at why, as I've studied the East Naples route development area, why the commercial hasn't been used out there. It's market. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I guess I'm just more comfortable with our staff who are planners by trade and are telling us no, it's not necessary. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, you had a question? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think where this amendment is trying to go is a good place. And to understand it, you have to look at the development standards that are attached to it. The problem is that in trying to be not too specific in our Growth Management Plan, it's left an ambiguity that I think is causing at least me a level of discomfort. One of the problems we have is when we went through the zoning reevaluation process, which I think only Tim and John were on the board when that was actually -- we were actually physically going through that. I think you guys were here at the tail end of that, if I'm not correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You and I were representing petitioners trying to get exemptions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Yes, we were. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You were lobbyists at the time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right, we were. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And one thing that happened there when we down-zoned a lot of these small commercial sites was we were trying to avoid strip commercial. That was kind of the whole focus. Everyone saw the strip commercial uses that tended to clutter up roadways and clutter up communities and it was not a ~ositive use of the land for the community. That made all the sense in the world from that standpoint. What we failed to do is come in with standards that say there are certain smaller scale retail or commercial uses that are advantageous to having a certain location, but we just don't want them of a strip commercial nature. I sense that that's where this is trying to go on the smaller end of three acres. One acre's a joke. I don't -- we don't even need to look at that. The smaller end of three acres, if you look at the standards that are being proposed to attach to it, it begins to say if you're going to do this, there cannot be strip commercial, there cannot be certain things. So again, I think the direction is an admirable one. My concern is if we amend our growth management plan, I want to do it in such a way that it does not create -- put this board in a position of simply looking at the design of a project and saying yes or no, I like it or don't like it. Because we know that we -- if we turn something down here, we have to have a very firm legal leg to stand on. There's a lot of attorneys making livings on the appeal process, so we want to be very careful in how we do that. I guess the only way to do that for me would be to alter the acreage to a minimum of three acres. I don't know how we got to 13. Is that the size of your client's property? MS. BISHOP: No, sir, 10 is actually the size of my client's property. That was the architectural license taken by the person who prepared this document, which was Joe McHarris. That was -- he has done a lot of case studies, and based on the case studies all over the United States, he came up with that criteria, which he uses as examples throughout the document that we provided. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think part of the problem with this -- part of the reason why people are more hesitant about that is that that document's not included as part of this packet. Because frankly, that's what is the -- that's what the beauty of this is. I want to see those standards incorporated. And if we add some acreage to the comp. plan commercial that is required to incorporate those standards, that is a net positive. But if you haven't seen those standards, it's hard to envision that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One of my concerns about these 10 and 15-acres parcels that are along our roadways, if we don't provide a good way for them to develop, we're probably going to end up with affordable applications as the only resort for highest and best use of those lands. Because you're not going to put three units or four units an acre on Airport Road. Not unless you have enough acreage to buffer it. And on 10 or 15 acres, you don't. I would rather that be a low-rise office complex that has very low impacts to the adjacent community that doesn't bring what, you know, six units an acre in an affordable housing project would bring in the way of additional people. I think there are positives to affordable housing and we do need more of it, but I think we need to provide more than one avenue for these smaller parcels. So I'm trying to find a way to wordsmith this, and I'm having difficulty with it at kind of this -- at this moment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, is the general idea that if we change the minimum to three acres and required -- you know, required compliance with the development standards? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're probably going to run into a buzz saw at DCA. The state doesn't like you expending your ability to provide commercial lands anyway. And unless we have some type of real attachment that shows a higher quality aspect, then we're gozng to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm suggesting we attach those development standards. MS. BISHOP: We had those attached last year. We had all this detail in that part, and we were -- it was suggested to us that we remove that, because it was too complicated at this point. So we've been working on this for like two years now in trying to get just the right mix of language and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a lot more concise and well organized than it was at this point last year. That's why I would be happy to send it to the state. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things I need to put forward for consideration. And I'm not sold on this, but the range, instead of one to 13, I think realistically, looking more at from three to more than likely 10 is a more reasonable range. If you start getting above 10, you can get into 120,000 square foot shopping center, and that's kind of a Neapolitan. MS. BISHOP: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's not as small -- the small scale I'm thinking about. MS. BISHOP: But we're not -- our criteria for commercial is 6,000 square foot an acre, not 10,000. So it is a much less intensity of commercial development per acre than what you would consider at activity centers. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that 6,000 is dependent upon the development standards. MS. BISHOP: Right, that's depended on everything being a part -- this is intended to be a total package, and yes, that's a part of that specific criteria. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if I'm not mistaken, I think our staff has been given direction in the past to pursue this particular direction. And I think we ought to leave it up to them and not a petitioner to set this in our growth management plan for us. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: John, you stepped on a path that I'm actually on. I was going to mention one more thing and then ask our staff how does that differ from the direction we're working on with the TND's. I mean, what are we not covering with that? That's kind of where I was going. If there's a split here, then let's address the split. If there's not, then let's just let our staff continue on the path they're on. Because the second element that's missing from this is that this is traditional neighborhood design, or neighborhood village center. It's got to connect to neighborhoods. It's got to have a pedestrian connection, or even a vehicular connection. I mean, I'm starting to -- when residential developments adjacent to commercial centers are coming in, I'm starting to look at requiring interconnects here, because we don't want them to have to get out on the main street to get, you know, to the shopping center. So that's not in here. So if we look at that size range and those requirements, how does that differ from TND, which we have given direction for you to work on? MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name's Barbara Cacchione of your comprehensive planning staff. And I think that is the basis of our recommendation not to transmit, because in our plan, we have PUD commercial, we have traditional neighborhood design commercial, and we also have office and infill commercial. The integration that's provided in the TND and the PUD commercial is natural. It's provided for when they come in with their pedestrian plan. It has those linkages to pedestrian and vehicular access. This ms what's lacking in this particular amendment, and that is the crux of why we recommended non-transmittal. If you're talking about another solution to address those small parcels on the major arterials and collectors, that's a different issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I'm talking about. MS. CACCHIONE: And frankly, what we see are those parcels over time will be aggregated, they will be used for certain uses like ALF's and institutional uses and church uses, which always have difficulty locating on property throughout the county. And so that was the reason for the recommendation. If you do choose to transmit it, there is also -- we can also provide that link that ties it to these particular development standards. Our intent was to take development standards along the lines that you see before you and include it when we come back with the PUD commercial so that when they develop in a PUD, it is the smaller scale buildings. And it does work real well with the community and it serves the neighborhood that it's located in. And that's the difference in this petition here. These are going to be basically trips that are attracted off the roadway. They're not really linked in or designed to be linked in with the neighborhood. And, you know, maybe we need to look at other alternatives for those properties, but that is the rationale of our recommendation before you today. MS. BISHOP: I would like to comment on the staff's -- on that particular part of this. It is our intent that these are to be built where there is existing neighborhoods, not where there's PUD commercial. Traditionally, the PUD commercial is intended to work for -- within the PUD themselves, not for the people who aren't in PUDs and around those areas. The traditional neighborhood designs are, from what I'm understanding, residential design with a commercial element inside. And this is not what we're trying to do here. This is the small parcels that would not be aggregated into any other PUDs, because everything around it is pretty much built. That would not fall under those criteria. And as far as pedestrian access, we believe that if we build it, they will come. We believe that anything that's not around us will in fact be a part of a pedestrian walkway system. Now, of course I can't force people to cut a hole in their wall and let me through, but the intent would be that neighborhoods if -- would want access and would go to the point of bringing their pedestrian access to our pedestrian access. But most of the arterial collectors have a pathway system planned. I mean, they may not all be built yet, but they do in fact have sidewalks and bicycle paths that are planned. So I think that covers the connection to pedestrian systems with what we have planned overall on these roadways, as well as what our intent is to do is big common areas, big open space, pedestrian orientated designs, which is all a part of the zoning criteria and the basis for which we created these documents, which is in this big document that apparently none of you have. But that's what we submitted as a part of the whole picture. It's not intended to slice out little pieces, it's intended to be a whole big picture and go into areas that would not fall under the PUD commercial or be appropriate for traditional neighborhood design. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, your point, though, is an important one, though. You're acknowledging it's not designed to link with neighborhoods. If those neighborhoods choose to, or if it happens to work out that way, great, that would be wonderful. But your design doesn't include that. Which goes back and erodes most of the other argument that well, we're trying to do the traditional neighborhood development. And so, I mean, it's not designed to meet the links. We don't know who else will be affected if we do this. We can't lay that out for us right now. We've got a report from just last year that says there is not an additional commercial need. And our staff, our paid planners, the folks who do this every day of the year for us, are saying this isn't exactly what we need. I think we're better suited to give staff the direction consistent with what we did before and try to set up some traditional neighborhood areas, but not this particular plan. I'm not comfortable transmitting this. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm more comfortable with that approach as well. That's why I mentioned that earlier. I think we gave our staff direction and we said let them go ahead and carry the ball on this one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It'd be nice if it didn't take so long. This is the second year we've had the private sector try to do something we've been asking the staff to do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: One member of the private sector, in any case. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, not. There's still going to exist a gap of these singled out 10-acre parcels. And I think we are going to have to take a look -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- at what their long-term best use for the community is. This may be it, but we don't have that information before us today or that comprehensive look today. So, you know, I can count up to three. There's no sense belaboring this. But I do think we are putting a gap in that 10, 12, 15-acre parcel size out there that we're going to have to address at some point. MS. CACCHIONE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, to comment on that, we have had amendments ready, but our plan is not yet effective, so we can't put that into our Land Development Code in terms of the development standards until our plan becomes effective. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's not effective because of the litigation? MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for explaining that to me. I appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I think then the direction is to follow staff's recommendation of non-transmittal; is that correct? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. MS. CACCHIONE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Next item starts where? MS. MOSCA: Morning, Madam Chairman and commissioners. For the record, my name is Michelle Mosca, planning services staff. Petition 98-3 begins on page 176 of your agenda. And the purpose of this petition is to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to expand the neighborhood center located at County Road 951 and Pine Ridge Road. Proposed by the petitioner, the expansion would allow five additional acres for an ACLF -- or ALF, excuse me -- or a conditional use. And also, a reduction in the buffering on the northern property line from 75 feet to 25 feet. Staff's recommendation was not to transmit this petition to DCA for the following reasons: A need does not exist for an additional conditional use site at this location, due to the amount of acreage available for a conditional use site near this site, and due to the intent of the Estates' designation for low density, semi-rural development and limited conditional uses. And finally, the site's location on local roadways, staff used this site as a viable location for a residential development. And one final concern was, due to the future road reconfiguration of White Boulevard and County Road 951 intersection, an access to the site most probably will be constrained. Planning Commission recommended transmittal of the petition with the following stipulations: An ALF site only, buffering from adjacent residential properties at 40 feet, and right turn in and out on White Boulevard. Finally, following the October 1 Planning Commission hearing, staff received five letters in favor of the petition and one letter of opposition from the president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Again, I can't tell -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- if the speakers have registered to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Would the individuals -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- speak on this item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- who are wishing to speak on this, please come over, and if you'll line up over here it will facilitate our -- If I could for just a moment, looking at the number of speakers we have on this item and looking at the clock, at 12:00 noon, as advertised, we will be taking a lunch break, so from noon until approximately 1:00 or 1:15 we will be taking that lunch break. I would suggest for those of you who are thinking about doing similar, you will probably have that time. So when I come up close to the noontime hour, don't be surprised. I just am telling you ahead of time so there's no surprises here about what's going to happen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there any -- do you think it's likely that we'll start the next item before noon? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think we should, because I don't want to get in the middle of the item and then take the break. I don't think that's fair. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if you're after this item, you might want to get a head start on the lunch line. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then we'll say they should return by 1:00, just to be safe. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then return by 1:00. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you would, we're still hearing an item. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think you can exit quietly so we can go ahead and continue with this. Go ahead, Mr. Botner, we'll assume these people are going to be real quiet leaving. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Guys, make friends, be quiet. MR. BOTNER: Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the Board of County Commissioners. My name is George Botner, representing petitioner Hy and Anita Bershad in the matter before you. I just want to mention that we have three speakers as it relates to introduction of this topic to you. First of all, Michael Volpe will be talking about the regulatory framework for the item, as well as some history related to that framework. And then I want to come back and talk to you a little bit about the planning concerns and issues associated with it. And then finally, Mr. Bershad would like to address you in terms of the owners' concerns. So with that, I'd like to turn this over temporarily to Michael Volpe. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me Michael, just a minute. MR. VOLPE: Certainly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: People, you may continue your conversations in the hallway, please. Please be respectful of the members who are trying to continue on with the meeting. Go ahead. MR. VOLPE: Madam Chairman, members of the board, for the record, my name is Michael Volpe, with the law firm of Trieser, Kobza and Volpe. And as Mr. Bother has pointed out, we're here this morning representing Mr. and Mrs. Hy Bershad, who are the owners of a five-acre parcel of land which is located on the northeast corner of White Boulevard, which is, I'm sure the commission is aware, is the extension of Pine Ridge Road and 951. I just want to take a moment just to acquaint the board with the subject property. The subject property is five acres, and it is located at the northeast intersection of Pine Ridge Road, White Boulevard, 951. This is a fully signalized intersection. On the southwest corner, there is a neighborhood subdistrict which allows for commercial development, 3.8 acres of commercial development. And there is an existing VFW post there. On the north -- on the southeast corner, there is an existing model center which has been there. It's a conditional use which has been there in excess of seven years. On the southwest corner, there is a neighborhood subdistrict so designated on the Golden Gate Master Plan. Our petition today is to amend the Golden Gate Master Plan to designate this five-acre parcel within the neighborhood center subdistrict, but limiting that designation to allow only for an assisted living facility. I need to give you just a little bit of history. This property is currently designated as estates on the Golden Gate Master Plan. Last year the owner appeared before the Collier County Planning Commission and received the approval of that commission to transmit an amendment to the Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow for this five-acre parcel to be designated as a neighborhood subdistrict behind the Golden Gate Master Plan, and which would have permitted commercial development. But between the time that we received the approval of the Collier County Planning Commission and the time when we were scheduled to appear before this board, the petitioner voluntarily withdrew his petition. And there are a couple of reasons for that. One of the reasons was this concern which staff has identified having to do with the traffic impacts of a development -- commercial development at that particular intersection. And the other was the sensitivity to the residents of the Golden Gate Estates area as it relates to commercial development east of 951. In the intervening period of time, a couple of significant events have occurred. The first event is that the county, through its transportation services division, is in the process of acquiring .3 acres -- .38 acres of the site. The purpose of the acquisition -- and that is going to occur either under the power of condemnation or eminent domain, or it's going to be based upon a voluntary sale -- is to allow for the expansion of the White Boulevard intersection. As a result of that, it will allow for two turn lanes on that northeast corner. The result of that taking will be that this particular site will no longer be developable for residential purposes without obtaining three variances from the Board of County Commissioners, because of the reduction in the acreage. Back in 1997, we felt that this site was not suitable for -- suitable for residential development. And with the acquisition of this additional property for the expansion of that intersection, which is a fully signalized intersection, our opinion continues to be that it is -- was not then and is not now suitable for residential development. The more important issue -- and then I'll turn this over to Mr. Botner for the planning issue -- and that is that in this intervening period of time, Mr. and Mrs. Bershad, sensitive to the concerns of the residents of the Golden Gate Estates, have looked for a transitional use between the residential estates type zoning which exist east of 951 and the commercial development, which exists on the west side. That transitional use, which we have identified, is an assisted living facility. If this board were to transmit this petition, which would amend the Golden Gate Master Plan, change the designation to a neighborhood subdistrict, the only use that would be allowed under a conditional use criteria would be an assisted living facility. That we believe, and Mr. Botner will elaborate on that, is an excellent transitional use between commercial and residential uses. The other point I would make, and I'd like to emphasize this point, is that under the current -- I'll be just a moment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Continue. MR. VOLPE: Under the current Golden Gate Master Plan, within the estates designation, which is -- this property is currently designated estates. Within the estates designation, group housing, which includes family care facilities, group care facilities, care units, adult congregate living facilities and nursing homes within the existing designation, have been found to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Golden Gate Master Plan. Mr. Botner will point out to you that there are a number of other areas internal to the Golden Gate Estates area east of 951 which currently are designated for conditional uses. And what I am telling you is that without any change at all, subject to the board's consideration of it, a conditional use of an assisted living facility is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of your Golden Gate Master Plan. So in this instance, again, we would ask as a backdrop to this petition that the board consider A, the location of this particular parcel, a major intersection. And it does in fact meet all of your criteria for obtaining a conditional use, if in fact the board were to transmit this petition. Again, the transportation element and the transitional use of the assisted living facility, Mr. Botner will elaborate from a planning perspective. Thank you very much. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Volpe, on that other corner, the southeast corner -- MR. VOLPE: Yes. -- there is a street that comes up there; is is that -- the southeast? No, no, on the other side, closer to the for? MR. VOLPE: Mr. Botner can elaborate on the variances. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. VOLPE: It's because of the reduction in the amount of acreage that would be available, and the minimum two and a quarter acres that's required for the development of a residential site within the Golden Gate Estates area. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. VOLPE: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. BOTNER: Thanks, commissioners. Basically the content of my presentation is to address the issues that have come about and that we've been discussing with staff and area residents. We made a presentation to the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association a couple weeks ago, and I think that there are a number of issues that we have addressed over this past year, as Mr. Volpe has mentioned, because of the fact that we recognize there are some sensitivities in the community relative to any kind of non-estates use on the east side of the canal. I'd like to talk first with you about the issues related to traffic, because that's the first item that seems to come up. The current level of service of our main frontage road, which as you know is White Boulevard, operates at level of service B, in fact, well within the guidelines of service B. The additional traffic that this project, if accepted and agreed upon, would add does not increase that level of service at all. It would still remain level of service B. The closest ACLF to our site, some of you may know, is Canterbury House, located in the Vineyards. And of the 75 rooms, there's only one resident who has a car. These people who live in these types of facilities are not terribly mobile off-site. And there are some seven service people that you might expect to be associated with a development of this size. So the overall demand that this development places on the external traffic network is extremely minimal. Many estates residential properties operate as home base for commercial activities like lawn care services, painting, electric contractors, et cetera, et cetera, which would add, I would say, additional traffic than one would normally expect in a very low density residential area. So that the impact that this project, if accepted, would add is going to be extremely minimal in terms of the context of how that transportation network is actually used. And so far as transportation impacts, to us it seems, after looking at this for over a year, that the reverse concern exists. We're concerned about the viability of this site for its only allowable use, estates residential, extremely low density residential, being impacted by a continually increasing transportation network system that envelopes this site on three of its four sides. As to the need for an ACLF at this site, sort of the marketing aspect of the issue, we don't really concur at all that there are CHAIRPERSON BERRY: that correct? MR. VOLPE: Weber, CHAIRPERSON BERRY: canal. MR. BOTNER: 39th. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 39th Street? Does 39th run all the way through, or does it stop right there? MR. BOTNER: Stops. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Stops right there. Okay, just wanted to clarify that. And you mentioned something about three variances, if this were to be a residence? MR. VOLPE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And what might those three variances be used potentially adequate number of viable ACLF sites. Mike, if you could put up that. The conditional uses that currently exist as opportunities, without going through this process that you have right now, are iljustrated in the diagram that you see that Michael just put up, in the red dots. Those all occur, as can you see, well east of that north-south CR 951 and canal corridor. Our site, located in the black dot in the corner of 951 and White Boulevard, is extremely better positioned to operate in this kind of capacity. You can see the proximity, for example, to full health care services at the Cleveland Clinic, just a couple of miles down the road. Good access and visibility. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: George, just to be clear, those are conditional uses that can come and ask for that, or a couple of other uses - - MR. BOTNER: That's true. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but still would have to get -- MR. BOTNER: Zoning. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- approval. MR. BOTNER: Right. They would not have to do what we are doing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, but it's not our -- I don't want anybody to be confused. It's not zoned that way. Someone that owned the property out there -- MR. BOTNER: That's absolutely true. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- couldn't go tomorrow and start building. MR. BOTNER: Lots of other options for them. And we would like to also suggest to you that we would have a lot less impact on this site than virtually any of the other neighborhood center types of uses that would be permissible, should this be a neighborhood center, operate at a neighborhood center's full capacity. We look primarily, as we screen through the potential conditional uses and determine that the conditional use that would have the least amount of impact and have the greatest amount of sympathy with regard to the context, as an ACLF, a type of residential use. And for that reason, we would like to say that it's a lot more suitable for this site to be used in sort of a transitional use between a very heavily major corridor, 951, and then the adjacent more inland operating residential lots. And as to suitability for estates residential, we do not agree with the staff's recommendation that this is a suitable site for residential. For example, the size. Once one takes away the dedications for Weber Boulevard, White Boulevard, the additional area that Mr. Volpe mentioned that the county transportation would like to acquire, which you see in the -- that yellow shaded area on this diagram, to add a couple of turn lanes, drainage, a sidewalk, considerably diminishes the size of this property. It cannot be without variances subdivided into two two-and-a-quarter acre lots, because the size of the property right now is only 4.11 acres. So the simple math is, is that you wouldn't have two two-and-a-quarter acre lots if you subdivided. That's one of the variances. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right now it's 4.117 MR. BOTNER: As soon as that wedge-shaped piece of property is taken for transportation, it drops to 4.11 acres. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ed? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. I just want to make a minor clarification for the record. We're presently in negotiation for a parcel, as has been represented. However, we've also looked at the potential for taking an easement, as opposed to taking the fee. That hasn't been decided yet, and so obviously whatever road we want -- play on words -- whatever alternative we take, we want to try to minimize the cost to the public. And if we can do it as an easement and help to preserve some value to the land and the landowner, we would try to do it that way, too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the acreage right now, George? MR. BOTNER: Mike, can you pull up the site diagram? Excuse me for one second. The original lot area was 5.23 acres. Weber Boulevard subtracted .2 acres, White Boulevard subtracted .28 acres. This additional acreage that Mr. Kant just referred to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not asking that. What is it right now? MR. BOTNER: Right now it's -- MR. VOLPE: 5.23 minus .48. MR. BOTNER: It's about .48, .475. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's over four and a half. MR. BOTNER: Good question. We should have had a quicker answer for you. The other variance that would be required, should one decide to subdivide this into two to less than two and a quarter acre lots, would be for lot width, the lot width requirement, minimum requirement is 150 feet and we fall beneath that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With all due respect, we're not discussing what you might want to do in some other alternative, what we're discussing is what you have proposed to do with it now. MR. BOTNER: Yes, sir. I'm just saying -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So it just doesn't matter to me -- MR. BOTNER: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- what it would take to do something else. MR. BOTNER: Ail right. The other issue related to the need for an ACLF and its opportunity on this site relative to existing use as residential is that we are surrounded on three sides by public streets, and we are at the corner of a major four-way intersection that has substantial traffic demand placed on it now, and that will only occur to the further detriment of any residential use that might be situated here in the future. And that all relates to an excessive amount of traffic noise on the site. It was measured by staff at 65 and a half decibels of traffic generated noise. The standard that we typically use is the one that is proffered by the Southern Building Code Congress that suggests for single-family residential, it should be 60 or less, so that's a difference of five and a half decibels, which if you know how sound is measured, each decibel is logarithmic in relationship to the magnitude of sound increase or decrease up and down that scale. So the difference of five and a half decibels is significant. And what would you do to mitigate the impact of that? We looked at that. It should be in your staff report, in this application in particular. We designed two different types of buffer systems, and both of those occur in excess of $100,000 in cost to construct to adequately protect this site from that noise. And we also are not able to concur with staff's assertion that Weber Boulevard is an important -- or unimportant consideration. We think that Weber is going to grow over time. It's got to. It's a north-south corridor. It's going to end up being a relief valve for County Road 951. So we can always look for that to grow over time and intensity. Not to mention the fact that it will also operate as a relief valve during the construction of Golden Gate Boulevard. And that's one of the main reasons why the county wants to go ahead and acquire this additional land, to improve that intersection immediately. And then lastly, as this being a suitable site for single-family detached residential, just ask yourself, is this a place -- if you wanted to go live in the Estates, enjoy the tranquility and serenity of that kind of residential environment, is this a place where you'd want to go live? The answer apparently is no, because when you look up and down that entire 951 corridor, less than 10 percent of those lots that face 951 have been developed for residential use. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How about the one directly to the north of this subject property? MR. BOTNER: There is an existing single-family residence, I'm not sure when it was built, and on the aerial appears to be fairly small and isolated in the middle of a five-acre site, 5.2-acre site. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There are several. And I guess the example that is most like this that I would cite is the corner of Vanderbilt and 951. If you just go north of here a little ways, there are two homes side-by-side in the exact same situation, except that the other main roadway that is now Vanderbilt is to the north as opposed to the south of the property. But it's a big chunk of land. It's about five acres, goes from the canal over to Weber, and there's two homes nestled in there. And it can be done. It can be done comfortably. What they've done is left the area nearest 951 wooded, which acts as a great buffer. You expressed concern for sound, and I think anybody building there would have that concern, but there is a way to deal with that, and they have effectively dealt with it up there. That's almost a mirror image. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then on the north side of that particular corridor would be the -- what is it, Vanderbilt Beach -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Vanderbilt Country Club -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Pines -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- or whatever that is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- or whatever it is. But on the -- across from this particular parcel, you have a model home. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which will become residential within five years. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. BOTNER: I guess the final point regarding some of the concerns that we have heard is really a positive one for this application. That's the fact that the MP© has funded a transportation impact study here for this coming year, the results of which were fairly obvious, at least to us, that transportation demands are increasing over time and that this particular site's going to be impacted to a much greater extent in the future than it is even now. And just some quick final comments and I'll turn our presentation over to Mr. Bershad. We feel like an ACLF would do very well here because of its proximity to a service area with a need. We talked about the existing potential conditional use sites, be they church or fraternal organization or an ACLF, or whatever. This site really has a wonderful opportunity in terms of visibility to it and the other factors that we had already mentioned. We also feel that an ACLF is compatible with single-family residential and that it's a forum -- it's a multi-family forum of residential, a very low density and impactive use. And it's probably more compatible with existing estates residential than those other eight sites that are currently available and what we would consider the market available for this ACLF, which is the area east of the canal. And please also remember -- and I know some of the residents have been confused by this -- we are not proposing a commercial use at all, we're not selling to an open public, we're providing for a community health need on the site. And this, as we've said before, does not represent a disruption to the tranquility to the estates' residential lifestyle. It's one that, like I say, we've worked very hard to try to find a way to solve the conundrum of heavily impacted estates lot that's only going to get worse over time, and trying to bridge the gap between existing single-family estates residential and County Road 951 with a transitional use that would work to the benefit of both. As to the staff recommendations -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Respectfully, is the timer off for a reason? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not that I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Respectfully, George, you know, we're five minutes, and we're way past five minutes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've listened to 20 minutes of presentation here. MR. BOTNER: I'm finished with my -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. BOTNER: -- comments. If I could now ask Mr. Bershad, and I'm sure he'll be brief as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you run the timer, Sue? I don't know what happened before, but -- MR. BERSHAD: Madam Chairman and members of the commission. I know that there are many other residents of the Estates who would like to be here. I've spoken with them and, unfortunately, they couldn't be here, but I do know that they have corresponded with the Commission and have sent letters in indicating their support for our petition. About 20 years ago, when my wife and I bought this five acres of land, we thought this might be a very nice corridor for us to basically retire to. And at that time, if you can remember that far back, Pine Ridge was two lanes, County Road 951 was two lanes, one lane in each direction, and those four corners were probably all zoned for the same sort of residential use that currently exists on our piece of property today. But the situation today is very, very different. Today across the street on the two west quadrants of this intersection, a major intersection, we have commercial development. G's is building his convenient center on the northwest side, I don't know what's going to happen on the southwest side, and right across on the southeast quadrant there's the All-American Model Homes, and we seem to be the only quadrant, the only corner, where the county seems to insist that there be basically a one-family home. Now, we don't think that that's fair, and we don't think that that's really practical. It may be practical in other areas, but this is going to be an area, an intersection, which is going to grow rapidly in the future. We reviewed this and we decided that really, as a sensible alternative approach, it made most sense to think in terms of an assisted care living facility for this particular area. There just isn't anything like this in the -- that part of the Estates anywhere to the east. This corner has some particular excellent opportunities. It's a corner that's only a couple of miles from the Cleveland Clinic, it's a good intersection, and yet it's at the very fringe of the Estates so that it's not interrupting the flow of the quality of life that takes place within the Estates. We think that this is a proper and perfect use for this particular property. Now, I know that there are people who say if you go ahead and make an exception for this particular parcel, then you're going to have a domino effect, other people are going to come along and also want exceptions. But frankly, I have enough faith in the County Commission to be able to say that I believe that the County Commission will judge each particular application on its merits alone, and not be swayed by the idea of a domino effect. I just thank you for taking the time to listen to me and I'm brief and I'm concluded. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You need to identify yourself for the record. MR. BERSHAD: I'm sorry. For the record my name is Hy, H-Y. Bershad, B-E-R-S-H-A-D. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Bother, you've had a little more than MR. BOTNER: That concludes our -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- let somebody else come up, please, we'd appreciate it. MR. BOTNER: We're done. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who's next? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Next speaker? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, it's just whoever wants to show up next. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because we didn't have them in order. MR. BLOCK: Ms. Chairman and members of the board, my name is Ron Block, I do live in the Estates. I know that I speak for many of my friends who cannot be here. 9:00 to 5:00 is generally the time of working. I support the petition to change the zoning so that the assisted living facility can be put on the northeast corner of 951 and Pine Ridge. My friends can't be here because they do work, as I said earlier. And I'm not retired, I'm not a paid executive, I'm not being paid to be up here. I am a member of the civic association. I know they have different opinions, and everybody has an opinion to themself, though I don't know if it's always what's right. I can't see how the county can insist at this one corner, the only one of the four corners in the major intersection, should have a one-family house. I have four little girls, and I don't think I would want any one of my little girls running around on this corner, riding a bike or anything over there. I do live in the Estates and when G's hits and a couple of the other places hit, it's just going to get worse. I have relatives getting older and they're going to need a place to live. I'd like to have them on a corner of where I live so I can come visit them. I do work hard, and hey, maybe some day I'm going to need to be there, too. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. WESTALL: Commissioners, my name is Carey Westall. I live -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You want to pick up that mike, Mr. Westall, please? MR. WESTALL: I live on Weber, at this corner right here. And I'm down at this intersection every day, and my wife ms down -- we're down there every day. I watch the existing White Boulevard traffic. And I wish the presenters lived in this area. We're getting new homes. We have a new home right here on this corner on Weber, we have another home that went in here on Weber, we have a home here on Weber. We have another identical five-acre parcel that's more suited and better suited right here against the canal that's located at Weber. The reason why I say it's better suited is that you have no traffic studies, you have no design of this intersection. And the problem I see that's fierce is the fact that you've got -- you have left turn traffic in at rush hour, either on Weber on into this complex, cutting across the White Boulevard traffic. And if you're out there in the morning and see how long that traffic extends as far as you can see, I'm just -- I'm appalled. You need residential here. You can put this commercial development another place, because there are five-acre parcels all along here. I have my friend right here who lives next to me, he came in, he owns five acres here. He tried seven years ago, when he bought it, to take the back two and a half acres and get commercial. He wanted the Planning Commission to approve storage units and he wanted to put them in. He's from Indiana. They said no way. He just did sell that, just sold it this year. It fronts against 951. It's a back two and a half acres. And there's a home going in there. My problem is, is that in the morning and the afternoon at rush hour, you look at this, you're going to have to have a four-lane road. You're going to have to have dividers and separators to let the left-turn traffic go into here. You have a problem that everyone coming west wants to either go straight or turn left, and so you've got to have additional lanes. And the design of this intersection's horrendous, and the impact is horrendous. Because everyone that's going to be working here, they're not coming from the Estates to work here, they're going to be coming down Pine Ridge and 951, turning left into this Weber or this facility. So I worry about that. Then I also see the school bus stop right over here every morning at this area at the model homes. And I know the driver. And I've got a list of people that I have contacted on Seventh Avenue, that is this street right here, the feeder road all along here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sir, you need to be on the mike for our court reporter. MR. WESTALL: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I hate to say that -- MR. WESTALL: I have a -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- all the time -- MR. WESTALL: I have a list -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- but we have the court reporter. MR. WESTALL: Yes. -- of the people on that home -- on the Seventh Avenue area, and I've contacted one dozen of them, and I've contacted three people on Weber. They all are opposed. They're all violently opposed, but they're working. And most of them are in various categories of jobs. And so I think that you first of all have to worry about the impact of that road intersection. And I sure don't understand why that shouldn't be residential to prevent that impact. And then I worry about the fact that the people presenting all of this don't reside there. They're presenting their picture of what good things they're going to do for me on Weber and not live there. So I feel that that's really a negative. MS. ACQUARD: Madam Chairman, commissioners, good morning. For the record, my name is Karen Acquard, and I am here to speak against granting this variance. This is not a case of a desperately needed facility with no place else to put it. There are planned activity centers throughout the Estates, as well as acreage on the other side of 951, right down on Green, as a matter of fact, that are zoned for this type of facility. One of the reasons that they have been giving for not wanting to make it a single residence is the traffic. I can't help but feel that they're wrong when they're talking about seven -- they're counting seven people to take care of 120. I'm coming up with eight or nine categories. I'm quite familiar with nursing homes, having been a consultant at one. You have the nursing staff with aides and orderlies, you have your visiting doctors, inhalation therapists, physiotherapists, activities personnel, clerical to do the office work, dietary personnel, maintenance people, delivery trucks, and none that even addresses the family and friends of these people that are going to come visit. That is going to greatly impact the traffic flow in that area. The other thing is, on the Land Development Code, they were talking about needing a variance to divide this in two lots. Now, my understanding with section 2.1.13, that deals with the reduction of land area that has been reduced below the approved amount by condemnation, then the minimum requirement zs reduced in that area. So I don't see how putting -- dividing that into two lots, making it two model homes that would eventually become two single-family residences and maintain our residency, the fact that this is a residential area. When the planned activity centers are gone, or at a minimum, that's a time to consider changing our master plan and changing residential zoning into this type of thing. But that time isn't now. Thank you. MS. HARTMAN: My name is Linda Hartman and I'm representing the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. Good morning, Madam Chairman and commissioners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just barely. MS. HARTMAN: Can you hear me? Okay. As in regard to the one letter that was sent to the Planning Commission, that letter represented over 200 people. And our -- we have a large membership that is very concerned about this issue, but we were asked to represent them. So instead of one compared to five, try 200. We also had been trying -- many of the members tried to call in yesterday. I was flooded last night with phone calls, I guess because it was a holiday yesterday? They said that they got the operator and all they said was they knew not what they were talking about, just to call back another time, so, yeah, they were kind of upset. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They called -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They called here? MS. HARTMAN: They called the number, the County Commissioners' number. And they must have got the board -- the switchboard. But they said they couldn't tell -- as a matter of fact, when I called to find out -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was here yesterday. I got no phone calls. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I got phone calls -- I mean, not from this CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, not from this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but I got phone calls all day -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- from everybody else. MS. HARTMAN: Well, that's what I got on -- from a lot of our members last night. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It was only a holiday for the bankers, Linda. We were still open. MS. HARTMAN: Oh, were you? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, we're here. MS. HARTMAN: Okay. When I tried to call out to find when this was on the agenda, it took me two days, because it was just under conditional use and it wasn't any names. And I guess it was like five or six people I had to call and they had to call me back, back and forth. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Linda, why didn't you call your commissioner? MS. HARTMAN: Well, I tried the people that had it on the agenda. Okay, but what I'm here to say is as representing the Estates, yes, we are concerned with the traffic flow. And it's going to get worse when we're doing Golden Gate Boulevard, I hope, when that project comes into being. As the Estates grow, yes, we are going to have to make changes. But they're after careful study and input from the Golden Gate Estates residents, not now. Now is not the time for these changes. They're talking about multi-family. I hear multi-family, ACLF, transition to commercial. Well, this is a residential area. It's a unique residential community that would like to stay that way. And we're also concerned with our property values out there. I'm just doing the -- what the people have asked me to talk about. The property values would decrease right around there. There's lots are residences around there, too, single-family dwellings, and I don't see why Mr. Bershad can't have a large single-family dwelling, same as everybody else does, on that side of the canal. That's the northeast quadrant and that's the platted area of the Golden Gate Estates, which we want to preserve. And we'd like -- like I said, we'd like you to vote no to this exception to protect our community. Thank you. MS. THORP: I appreciate the opportunity to speak. My name is Darcy, and I'd like you to vote yes to improve our community. I live at 22nd Avenue Northwest off of Oaks Boulevard. I pass this intersection at least twice a day. A major concern for myself and for others in my generation is the care of our parents and elderly beloved relatives. A facility of this sort so close to home would give peace of mind and would be an added benefit, because we would be able to visit frequently and stay informed on their care. Second reason I have is because it would bless the children of our community. It's very important and it frequently happens through school programs and scouting programs that the children get to meet people of another generation. And as someone so eloquently said this morning, children love to hear about the old days and get to know other generations. I drive past Canterbury House frequently. It is not obtrusive. There is not a lot of traffic coming in and out of Canterbury House, which is an assisted living facility. I spoke with Mrs. Gallerio (phonetic) yesterday, who runs Canterbury House. At max, they have seven people on staff at one particular shift time. Therefore, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you and I hope you will vote for this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask you a question? What is -- what brought this to your attention? What's the interest? Because I have a piece of property up off Oaks Boulevard and that's a pretty good hike away. What's your interest in this property? MS. THORP: What is my interest in this property? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did this happen -- MS. THORP: I pass it. As I said, I pass it twice a day. I'm thinking of my -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How is it you -- MS. THORP: -- regular daily route. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- happened to take time to come here and sit here for three hours on this rezoning? It just doesn't seem like it would impact you immensely, so I'm curious what the connection is. MS. THORP: Well, it does impact me immensely. I do pass it frequently, my children go to school, I pass it several times a day. My interest actually stemmed from something that happened on my street when an individual was allowed to run a commercial business off of his property, because his property is zoned agriculture, but yet he has -- he can go up and down a residential street running his business. That happened earlier this summer when I found out about that, and at that point I began reading and finding out what all you all are voting on, and I decided to become very active in preserving my homesite and my community. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have any connection with the petitioner at all? MS. THORP: No. MR. VOLPE: Madam Chairman, just three quick points. To put this into context, we're talking about an amendment to the Golden Gate Master Plan, changing the designation. Secondly, in this instance we have the recommendation of your advisory board, the Collier County Planning Commission. And the third, by way of analogy, I think both Commissioners Berry and Constantine were trying to analogize this ~articular location with other locations within the immediate vzcinity, and I think that's something that we need to try to do. And the only other area that I'd like to invite to your attention is the Canterbury House on Vanderbilt Drive, which is in a transitional use in a residential area -- it would be on the west side of Vanderbilt Drive -- thinking about how that transitional use relates to the residential development in that area. And Commissioner Hancock can relate to that, because he -- I'm sure he's familiar with the area. So just in terms of looking at how the site would be a transitional use, I think that if you visualize the Canterbury House in that area, Commissioner Berry and Commissioner Constantine, you can see that it is an appropriate conditional use. But we are not talking about a conditional use. And as Commissioner Constantine pointed out, we're talking about a change in the designation on the master plan. At some point later on in time, this board will have by four votes the yea, nay, as to whether this will be developed for a conditional use as an assisted living facility. If you were to disapprove it, it would be developed for single-family residential uses. Thank you. MR. BOTNER: I would like to clarify something -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: George. MR. BOTNER: -- if I could. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thanks, George. MR. BOTNER: Just for a minute. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please, I have a question. Mr. Kant? Has to do with the roadway, Ed. MR. KANT: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: On White. That is a level of service B? How is that determined? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. I don't believe that White Boulevard is included in our transportation data base and, therefore, we would not necessarily have a level of service assigned to it. I'm not sure I know where that number came from, Commissioner. I don't believe that I represented that number to you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I'm not asking -- I -- you didn't. You didn't. But the petitioner did. And my concern is that anyone that's been in that area, the traffic on White is horrendous. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it was D as in dog. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The one gentleman -- MR. KANT: I think -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: When they said B, I thought that can't be, because I have been out there, and as far as the eye can see in the morning, particularly when it's dark -- and I've stood at that corner and campaigned -- and as you look down White Boulevard, all you can see is one string of lights. And if that's a level B, I would hate to see what D or E is. MR. KANT: I just wanted to clarify again the issue of the county's improvements to that intersection's come up in this discussion. We do have an intersection improvement plan. The plans are just about at the 100 percent stage. I'm hoping to get them on the street. It will involve the addition of some turn lanes, improving the safety of the intersection, and I think, as represented by the petitioner, our goal in doing that was to do that in advance of the Golden Gate Boulevard four-laning because we anticipate there will be some traffic bleed-off, and we know that that is already a relatively congested intersection. We also recognize that because of the increase in growth in the area running east along White Boulevard, back into that area off of 16th and 23rd, that there has been an increase in traffic. We'll be happy to, if you wish, to look at the traffic numbers and try to come up and present you with a level of service indication, but we do not have, to my knowledge, at this point an official level of service on that road because it's not part of our roadway database. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I've been very concerned about -- as many of these people know that are here, I've been very concerned about that particular intersection out there. And this was a reluctance before when we had talked. And there has been some discussion about some commercial development and so on out in there. That until that problem is addressed and taken care of, I'm really hard pressed to do anything in that particular area until we address the traffic problem. And I have to be -- I also have to say, too, in all fairness, this is probably one of the most innocuous uses -- the assisted living facility is an Innocuous use, okay? It's not like you've got people constantly coming, going. You can drive by these places and you don't see anything happening. They're very, very quiet. And I, too, checked on places as to how many people had cars, the staffing. And your numbers are pretty accurate. I checked on one other one, and the numbers are pretty accurate. Of course, you have three shifts, but usually the traffic -- the one I would be concerned about would probably be the early morning. And of course that's one of the times out there when it's really bad, so I certainly would not consider turning left into that facility off of White Boulevard. That to me is -- that's not even an option. The entrance is either off of Weber, or forget it. And if you have anything at all on White, it would be a right in/right out, which means you're with the traffic, but there'd be no cross traffic. That's just my suggestion. But until we get this area addressed out there traffic-wise, knowing what's going to transpire with Golden Gate Boulevard, I'm really reluctant to do a whole lot until I have some better information. MR. KANT: That's a very astute observation, Commissioner, because in talking about preliminary site layouts, not -- we're not at the site planning stage on this -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MR. KANT: -- project. But in trying to work with the petitioner and looking at preliminary site layouts, we were looking at constraining access for any use on that, even on a single family. An obvious single-family use would have access off of Weber Boulevard. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Weber? Okay. MR. KANT: Whereas, in this case, because of the eastbound left turns and the southbound left and right turns, there's going to be some access constraints on anything other than a single-family use. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock, you had a question? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, Commissioner Berry, you hit on something that I think is an area that I wanted to delve into, and will just kind of leave it for you guys to deal with. You are not going to solve the traffic problem from the Estates before you solve the land use problem, because it's the land use that's causing the traffic. What you have is a huge subdivision with no services being provided internal to that subdivision. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So what happens is, and we heard it today, why don't -- you know, basically leave us alone. We're residential, we don't want commercial, leave us alone. But then we hear the complaints about traffic on White. Well, the reason you see traffic on White is because if you live in the Estates and you need a gallon of milk, go west, young man. I mean, there's nothing in the Estates of any significant size to serve the people who live there. So every time you need something, you've got to get on the east-west roads, and at 8:00 in the morning back the traffic up from 951 as far as you can see to the east. What this petition is doing, in a very tiny, tiny way, to me is issuing a wake-up call that there are needs of people in the Estates that need to be served -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In the Estates. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in that community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For us to continue to say there are other places for things like this, and it should be, you know, to the west, zs to exacerbate the exact problem you hear complaining about, which is traffic. So it's one tiny use. And quite frankly, when you look at the numbers -- I happen to live behind an assisted living facility. I live right behind Moorings Park. I'll tell you, you couldn't want a better neighbor. I mean, the lights are out by 9:00. You know, great place. They are -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They keep calling complaints in on you now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those kids and their music. So we're dealing with -- if I lived on the other side of it, 951 with all the road noise, this building begins to act as a buffer to residential sites for road noise, for visual sight glare, for the commercial activity across the street. Everything about this from a land use perspective makes all the sense in the world. What I've heard about is traffic, you don't want additional traffic and you don't want commercial. Well, it's not commercial, it's a place for people to live. So I don't consider that commercial. I happen to think that the petition is well thought out. If this were not an intersection at which there was already a partial activity center, so to speak, then I think you'd be dead where you stand. There's no need even bringing it forward. But I think recognizing the characteristics there and recognizing the single biggest issue here, to me, which is if we want the Estates to survive as the Estates, we've got to begin locating certain types of services internal and on the perimeter of the Estates so you don't have to leave the Estates every time you need something. And I think this is one way to do that. This is a step in the right direction and I think it's a good idea. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Talking about the other uses and the partial activity center I think's what you said, a couple of people mentioned the model home, as though that's a commercial enterprise. And it's important to remember, the model home has a life to it, a lifespan, and it disappears and becomes a residential unit. And 39th, which faces 951, has a whole history. There were several of those which were model homes, served that purpose because they were high visibility, but now are comfortable residences. And so to suggest that that corner on the south is not -- is being used for commercial I think is inappropriate. And also, to suggest that this corner is then somehow being singled out and all of the other corners are being used for it zs not correct. Because what you're going to find, if given this, is five years from now, or whenever the model home expires, is they're going to say, well, look, across the street there's something other than residential, now we're being singled out, we'd like to have it. And so that's a slippery slope to get on. There is a characteristic here. They don't face directly onto 951. You don't pull on and off 951. There is the canal there, there is some space there, so it's not a fair thing. But I think when you get on that side of the canal, you've got single-family residential on the south side used as a model home now, and within five years at the maximum will no longer be used for that. And we can say well, it is a fairly innocuous use. Yes, it is. But it is still an adult congregate facility, but it is still a more intense use than two estate-zoned residences, and I don't think we want to increase the use. We've heard our staff say there is no need for additional conditional uses at this site. Again, when -- the amount of time and effort they put into our land plan, I've got to give some credence to that. And I haven't seen -- despite Mr. Botner's extended presentation, I didn't see anything that showed anything contrary to that, why we did need to have a conditional use at this site. There are ample sites existing. The intent, in my opinion, is clearly contrary to estate zoning. It just couldn't be more clear. And we can say well, you could turn onto -- take a left turn onto Weber instead of directly into the property, but there are traffic implications. Karen, I think, outlined, you know, you've got a kitchen staff, you've got an administrative staff, you've got people that come and change the beds and do whatever they do. That is far more traffic than two estates zoned homes. So there is a residential component. And Commissioner Berry even said boy, probably the time you have to worry about that most is at 8:00 a.m. Well, that's when everybody is coming -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Before 8:00. Believe me, it's well before 8:00. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the -- but that's the morning rush hour, and that's when everybody is trying to come west off White Boulevard. So you couldn't pick a worse time for the staff to be getting there. I just -- I don't think it's appropriate. It is an increased use. It's a more intense use than estates. There are any number of residential properties up and down there, so an argument that boy, it's not -- it doesn't work as a residence just doesn't fly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in the interest of brevity, I will say ditto to Commissioner Hancock's remarks. Because we have got to -- I don't want to be dishonest about this, I want to be straight up about it, that yes, it is different from estates. Absolutely, I acknowledge that. But I think it is a tiny beginning towards something that we have to recognize that has to happen in the Estates, and that is providing some services within the Estates for people who live there. And this is not a Winn Dixie, this is where grandma can live. And, you know, I think this is a tiny step in that direction, but an appropriate one, so I support transmittal. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Support. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You support. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do not. I worry on your -- both ends of the spectrum here on the comment that this is a tiny step, because that's how the steps start. And while we can say we know better, there should be things out there, I can't tell you how many times in the six years I've been on the board that the overwhelming voice of Golden Gate Estates has said we don't want those things in the Estates. This is a rural community and that's how we'd like to keep it. And I have a real concern if this board ignores the voice of that community saying how they realistically want to be. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But Tim, realistically, when the presence of that community and its physical characteristics create failure on roadway systems, you have to change the pattern of development to avoid that. We're okay now, but how wide can we make White Boulevard? How far back can those cars be stacked up at 8:00 in the morning? How much of that can you handle? So I think in the near term, I don't disagree with you. My concern is that by the time the need is there to make those land use changes, the land will no longer be available or the development pattern will be set to such a degree that you can't do it. So it's almost like I'm firing a warnmng shot here. Do I think we have to do it yesterday? No. But I think tomorrow's a good day to start looking at it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you think this change will start impacting that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I think the change should stand on its own merit as a good land use decision. But I think it is indeed a recognition, or should be a recognition, of trying to locate services that serve the people of the Estates in and near the Estates to the extent we can. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: At least on the fringe. At least on the fringe. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did you say yes? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, I haven't said anything yet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I heard three yeses. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, you heard three yeses. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I heard three yeses. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a very, very difficult decision to make, and you can call it a political decision, you can call it anything you want to. I can sit up here and say no to transmittal and walk out of here and some people are going to say gee, that was a great decision you made. And I can say yes to this and I'm going to walk out of here and people are going to say you didn't represent us. Either way I'm not going to win. But it's not a case of winning or losing. In this particular case, it's what is the best use for this particular land in this situation. And we do -- this commission and commissions to follow have got to start taking a look -- it's not like you're five miles out into the Estates, guys. You're right -- you're within the urban boundary at this particular location. If you want to look at the urban boundary, you're within it. You may be zoned estates, but you're within the urban boundary. And there's got to be something addressed. And already we've got the commitment, I think, from the Transportation Department to look at that. And many of you know that I have been most vocal about transportation out in that particular area. And it has to happen. And at the same time, I disagree a little bit with you, Commissioner Constantine, obviously you don't have a family and you haven't chased kids up and down the roadway to all kinds of activities and lessons and things like that. There's a lot of -- you've got to ferry these kids around until they get a car or whatever and can travel on their own. I mean, it's a -- there's a lot of trips that are generated in the Estates through parents transporting kids in on these roadways to come in to activities. It's a fact of life. That's nothing wrong with it, it just happens. That's what families do. So there's nothing wrong with it, but we have to address these kinds of problems. And roadways are some of the problems we have to address. So, you know, whether this is the greatest thing in the world or the worst thing in the world, I look at this particular -- and I've said it before, yeah, I can play the hero here and go along and agree with Commissioner Constantine, but I still think that this particular facility is not going to be a high issue or use of this particular type of property. I don't think you're going to see a lot of transportation mssues related to this particular development and this particular kind of use. So I'm going to vote to transmit it. It's not going to make people happy, but that's -- I think that's the direction we should go. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the right thing to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I vote for lunch. MR. BOTNER: Could I clarify something just for the record? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You've got about 30 seconds, because we've got a -- MR. BOTNER: Thirty seconds. I'll speed it up. Darcy Thorp, who spoke with you, I want to make it absolutely clear on the record, she does not have a financial or familial relationship with this project. She does work on staff in my office, and I want you to know that. And I think that that's a benefit to this project, because it was stated earlier that we don't have a personal relationship with the Estates. We do. We are all connected to the Estates in one way or the other. And this is our connection. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks for that. MS. MOSCA: Madam Chairman, may I CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MS. MOSCA: -- add to the record, please? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. THE REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MS. MOSCA: Oh, I'm sorry. Michelle Mosca, for the record. Today we received 13 additional letters in favor, and two in opposition of the petition. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's gone. We transmitted it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Okay, at this time we're going to recess and try and get back here as quickly as possible. (Luncheon recess.) (Commissioner Mac'Kie did not return to the boardroom.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll reconvene the meeting. We have one more item on the public hearing for the Growth Management Plan. What we're doing here is deciding whether we're going to send these things on to Tallahassee. It's called the transmittal. There's no actual votes being taken other than when we get all done here, we take a vote. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is where we beg Tallahassee to let us make our own decisions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're in our begging mode now to Tallahassee, so that's what's going on here right now. We have one item left there, and then we'll get to petition R-98-5, which is I'm sure is why most of you are here. So let's go ahead, and hopefully by that -- by the time we get through here, we'll get two more commissioners and we'll be in business. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, commissioners -- or afternoon, commissioners. I'm David Weeks of the comprehensive planning staff. This is an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan directed by you, the Board of County Commissioners. It is to provide additional opportunities for development in Golden Gate City, specifically on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The property comprises 11 acres, has approximately 31 different parcels under multiple ownership. This will allow for low intensity office and retail development as proposed to serve the surrounding area, Golden Gate City, the nearby Golden Gate Estates, as well as some of the traveling public on Santa Barbara Boulevard itself. It would not result in any level of service changes for roads, parks, drainage, et cetera. The staff and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: -- Commissioner Constantine -- yes? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Never mind. Yeah, I just -- MR. WEEKS: I apologize. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, the only reason I wanted to interrupt is that this looked fairly straightforward, and I know Commissioner Constantine's been very involved in it, and I don't have any problems with transmitting this. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is there anybody that wants to speak on this one? Anyone here to speak on the Golden Gate/Santa Barbara -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's pretty cut-and-dry. It's just a hodgepodge right now, lot of multi-family, and we're going to make so it's all uniform. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I support transmittal. And Mr. Weeks is desperately trying to break in here. MR. WEEKS: Please, Madam Chairman, we've got one minor correction to the language itself as is proposed for the subdistrict. On page 219 of your agenda packet, in the first paragraph, instead of making specific reference to the Santa Barbara Club Condominium, we simply need to make that more general. Something to the effect of owner occupied dwelling units, because there are some duplexes that are occupied by the owners. With that change, that's it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The Planning Commission, as well as staff, recommends transmittal. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So that has four-oh support? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that, I think we need a motion for transmittal for all of these. Ms. Cacchione, is there anything I need to add to that? MS. CACCHIONE: Just that we'll also adopt the CIE ordinance, and that we will have a second public hearing probably in February. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move that we transmit the changes as identified by our consensus vote taken at the termination of each one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we need three votes, or four? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Four. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Four. Three? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For transmittal? MS. CACCHIONE: Three to transmit and four to adopt. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That we go ahead and transmit to DCA according with the consensus position taken by the board at the end of each discussion. C~LAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Comment? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One quick comment. I will support transmittal. I just do want to note again objection to the one item on -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- White Boulevard. But overall, I support the direction of the board. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was number five, petition CP-98-03, that you're objecting to? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And CP-98-02 will not be transmitted, according to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the majority of the board, as I understand it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did that finish that item up? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe that finishes that item. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which brings us. Item #12B1 PETITION R-98-5, DR. NENO J. SPAGNA OF FLORIDA URBAN INSTITUTE, INC., REPRESENTING INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RSF-4 TO CF FOR A COLLEGE FOR 5+/- ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 600 SEAGATE DRIVE WEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH WEST BOULEVARD - MOTION FAILED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: ***Moving then to item 12(B)(1), petition R-98-5. Has to do with a rezone from RS-4 to CF for a college. I'm going to ask that all persons who are wishing to speak to this item please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. Please raise your right hands. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For the point of disclosure, Commissioner Norris, any disclosure? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I've had numerous contacts with each side on this issue, but I will base my decision on what I see and hear in this hearing today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Same. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably easier to name the people I didn't talk to about this. But yes, I've had extensive discussions and will base my decision on the information presented today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And ditto for myself. Ms. Murray? MS. MURP~AY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray with the current planning staff. I'm sure you're all familiar with the site. It's located on the south side of Seagate Drive, between Seagate Elementary School and Naples United Church of Christ. The site is currently being used for the North Naples United Methodist Church site, and as such, it is developed with a 22,000 square foot main structure, which houses areas for a church sanctuary, a fellowship hall, Sunday school classrooms, child day care center and church offices. Additionally, at the rear of the site there is an existing single-story 3,000 square foot structure which currently functions as administrative office buildings. There is an existing parking lot which has 126 paved parking spaces and approximately 150 spaces for grass parking. And the property is currently zoned RSF-4. Surrounding properties to the north across Seagate Drive, we have Pelican Bay PUD, which is developed with tennis club facilities. To the east, the property is located within the City of Naples, and it is developed with the Seagate Elementary School. To the west, also in the City of Naples, we have the Naples United Church of Christ. And to the south, the property is also located in the City of Naples. There are four lots which immediately abut the site which are developed with single-family residential structures, and then the following are -- then further to the south, that property is also developed as single family. Staff is of the opinion that the rezoning of the subject property to a limited community facility zoning district is compatible with surrounding environment, because the Seagate Drive frontage, although largely out of the jurisdiction of the county, is largely developed with similar public type use facilities, as well as commercial uses, which are concentrated at U.S. 41. Furthermore, the bulk of the structures on the subject site are located adjacent to Seagate Drive, and the parking area is located towards the rear of the site, closest to the residential development to the south. Properties abutting the subject site to the east and west contain uses which would be permitted under the CF zoning designation, as well as the present use of the site, as a church would also be permitted under the CF zoning designation. (At which time, Commissioner Mac'Kie enters boardroom.) Staff did examine the possibility of imposing an enrollment cap as a condition of approval of the requested rezoning; however, upon further examination, staff felt that the limited area which is -- the site is five acres in size, and the location of the site was somewhat self restraining in terms of any planned extensive expansion or the possibility of any large-scale university relocating to the site in the future. The nature of International College is that it serves a high percentage of working and commuter students. And the limited size of the site really did not lend itself to the future development of a large-scale university with an expansive student population and significant outdoor activities such as athletics. The Land Development Code's dimensional standards for development within the CF zoning district are specifically intended to ensure compatibility with nearby and existing future residential development. As far as traffic is concerned, the ITE trip generation manual indicates that the existing church generates approximately 768 trips on a Sunday. The day care facility, which is not open on Sunday, however, generates 790 weekday trips, while the church generates 143 weekday trips, resulting in a total of 933 trips per weekday for the two uses, as the site is currently being used and developed. The college will generate approximately 328 trips a weekday, and no trips on Sunday. As a result, it is anticipated that the proposed rezoning petition will reduce the site generated trips by 605 trips on a weekday; the most notable difference being those trips on Sundays, which will no longer occur with the proposed rezoning and subsequent use. Staff's analysis did indicate that the petition is consistent with the required findings for rezoning, and is consistent with the county's Growth Management Plan. At the September 17th Planning Commission meeting, the commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of this petition with the following stipulations: Those being that first, classes in general hours of operation of the college shall cease by 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and Saturday at 6:00 p.m. Classes shall not be held on Sundays. The required rear yard landscape buffer shall be installed prior to a certificate of occupancy to an eighth-foot depth, and shall be 80 percent opaque within one year of installation. Third, related to the proposed college use, no organized outdoor activities may occur on the southernmost 250 feet of the site, unless issued a Collier County temporary use permit, consistent with the applicable provisions in the Land Development Code. Fourth, any future development or redevelopment on the site shall be compatible in scale and architectural design with the surrounding residential community or neighborhood. Fifth, uses on the site shall be limited to conditional uses and any use permitted by right in the CF zoning district, except social and fraternal organizations. Sixth, that use of the existing structure at the rear of the site shall be limited to administrative offices and faculty offices, and that no classes shall be held in this building. Seventh, an appropriate portion of native vegetation shall be retained on-site as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. And last, that the petitioner shall implement an exotic vegetation removal monitoring and maintenance plan for the subject property. That's all I have. If you have questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said 328 trips daily. Is that round trips? MS. MURRAY: Yes. Excuse me while I pull that out. Yes. I'm sorry, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Murray, currently under conditional use as a church, could the existing church be either enlarged or expanded, or could it be torn down and a new church built on-site without coming before this board? MS. MURRAY: Are you talking as it is currently zoned? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am. MS. MURRAY: No. As it is currently zoned, any development or redevelopment or expansion of the existing church would be required to go through a conditional use process and would come before you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only thing that could happen there without a special exception is a residential use. My -- I had a question, just a concern. I obviously have a lot of them. But one that I was particularly wanting to talk to staff about was in the Planning Commission conditions, how will you enforce -- what does it mean to say that any future development or redevelopment on the site shall be compatible in scale and architectural design with the surrounding residential neighborhood? I mean, does that mean that it will have to be -- to be compatible in -- to be compatible with a residential neighborhood, it would just about have to be a residence. Is that what that's saying? MS. MURRAY: I don't think that's the intent. And you are correct in saying that that may be difficult to enforce, because there are no standards related to architectural design and residential neighborhoods. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, my concern is that the Planning Commission has recommended an approval with a condition that could never be met or could never be enforced because they recognize that the potential redevelopment of this property as something other than residential was something that they thought was important enough to try to craft a condition. MS. MURRAY: I will tell you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Perhaps you could suggest something. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Residential use would be good. MS. MURRAY: The community facility zoning district, although it doesn't employ any architectural standards, does recognize that it's a district commonly found within residential neighborhoods, and as such has setback criteria and height limitations that are conducive to development in those area, but that's all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because my last question at this point is just even for the redevelopment of the college, there's no architectural standards that apply to CF. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that wouldn't make sense anyway, because those are commercial standards, and nobody would suggest that a commercial use belongs here. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then there aren't residential standards. And to me, that just makes a point that I hope is obvious. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Perhaps you could explain it later. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll explain it now, now that you offered me the opportunity. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just kidding. Madam Chairman, we have a lot of speakers. I would just hope that we would be able to adhere closely to the allotted time limit and not let anyone go for an extended period -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- like we had on our last petition. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Madam Chair, too, I would tell you that in talking with Mr. Cronin, who is the attorney for the Park Shore Homeowners Association, I know he's going to encourage people who are here as -- you know, as part of the association to just raise their hand or somehow indicate support for his comments to try to cut down on that time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We -- due to the fact that we do have a number of speakers, we will be adhering to the time. If there's no further questions from the commissioners at this time, we'll start the public speakers. Mr. Fernandez? What we'll do is two people kind of at a time, we'll have the first speaker, and if the second person would be ready to go, we'll proceed in that manner. So if you live in the back of the room, you might want to move toward the front of the room. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Petitioner fist, though, right? MR. SPAGNA: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Neno Spagna, and I'm very pleased and proud to be here to speak on behalf of International College. I just have a few very brief introductory remarks. Before I make them, I do want to thank the board for considering our application. And also, I would like to request that at the end of the public speakers, that we be given some time for rebuttal, if needed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so, Mr. Spagna. MR. SPAGNA: Well, okay. Also, I would like to introduce some of the people who are here as part of our presentation team. I'd like to introduce Dr. Terry McMahan, who is the president of the college. He is here to answer any questions that may come up. Also, Wayne Arnold will be giving an explanation of the project. Jeff Perry will be discussing the traffic impact statement. We do have some trustees here as well, and I believe some students, if you have any questions of them. With that, I'd like to go ahead, in lieu of the time constrictions, and ask Wayne Arnold to come up here and make his presentation. And I thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, but this may be an odd question, Mr. Weigel, but I think I'd better ask it, because it's been raised for me a couple times. My home is on that site map up there. It's about -- it actually backs onto the Seagate school property, which is the adjacent neighbor to the subject property, and people have raised a suggestion that I might have a conflict of interest and should not vote. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'm happy to take that question. Typically the conflict of interest comes in terms of a commercial interest or financial interest that you may have, which I think can be differentiated from the fact that you are a mere resident in the area. So I think it's appropriate for you to note this for the record, but I would state to you that you do not have a conflict or the type of issue before you of a conflict nature that would prevent you from participating and voting on the measure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: mere. Thanks. Just wanted to get that out I'd like to stress the term mere resident. A mere resident. Not just a resident, Pam, he called you a CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Arnold, before you start, I know some ~eop%e are coming in late. If you -- if there's anyone that has come in smnce we swore in, anyone speaking to this issue, if you're wishing to speak to this issue and have not been sworn in and you've already registered -- you should have registered by now, if you're going to speak. Is there anyone in here who has not been sworn in to speak on this issue? Okay, Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. Good afternoon. For the record, Wayne Arnold, representing the petitioner and Wilson-Miller. I think we're all familiar with the subject location. It's the current home of the United Methodist Church site, Seagate Drive. It's about five acres. There's about 25,000 square feet of improvements on the site between the sanctuary building, office building, the rear former parsonage building to the rear of the property that's currently used for administrative offices. The intent of the college in rezoning this property is to make it its Naples campus. Its intent is to go in and with minor modification utilize the existing structures on-site without changing their character, without changing very much except for some of the signage and some of the windows from stained glass to more typical institutional type windows. That's our primary objective here. I think it's important, and Ms. Murray's report did a very good job of describing that, but looking at the area, we've heard a lot about this being a residential neighborhood, et cetera. And I don't disagree that we abut residences. But Seagate Drive is not primarily a residential street, it's a collector roadway in Collier County. It's anchored by The Registry Resort at its western end, it's anchored by Waterside Shops at its eastern end. We have, adjacent to our site on three sides, uses that are permitted in the CF zoning district for which we're petitioning for. The existing site has a use on it which is consistent and permissible in the CF zoning district. We are again asking for International College to be a resident here as part of the CF zoning district. And I think one of the factors that led the school to the site is that you have land and building ready in place, they can be there in a very short time frame, very conducive to their operation. They intend to make some minor modifications internally to allow for some mezzanine level library and office space, and that's about it. That's the only immediate plan we have for occupying the site. The church has been there since 1968, I believe. It's been there a long time. It predates many of the residences in Park Shore as a subdivision. I know this is the island of county regulated property in a sea of otherwise city zoned property, but nonetheless, it ms in Collier County and we're subject to Collier County rules and regulations. That's why we're here before you. I think that I'll go right in and talk a little bit about the compatibility issue, because that's what I've heard most about, compatibility and traffic trips. Jeff Perry, you'll hear in detail, some of our traffic analyses, but we do in fact have a great reduction in traffic trips associated with the proposal. The compatibility issue is one that we're trying very hard to be good neighbors. We think we will be good neighbors. Between the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission and those recommended by staff, we feel that those are very adequate to make us good neighbors. We believe it's important that we show and demonstrate that we intend to be. And with that, I think we're willing to make a few more concessions and limit some of the uses on our site so that we can maybe demonstrate to the Park Shore residents that we are in fact very sincere about that. And I think -- you know, I'll go right into those. I think that the Planning Commission did an excellent job in restricting some of the outdoor activities, et cetera. They also talked about limiting hours of operation on the site. In addition to that, I think we're willing to limit our uses on the site to the college public or private schools, parks, museums, churches. We're also willing to make a commitment to restrict a building envelope for ourselves so that we can be assured that we're not going to build out and maximize the site. We've essentially identified an area around the existing southern office building that's there, and we're willing to limit that to single-story construction. We're willing to keep the primary building envelope against Seagate Drive where the primary structure I think those clearly are going to demonstrate that we want to be good neighbors with the school. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have a picture of that? MR. ARNOLD: I do have a small reduction of that. I see the time ticking away here, but I would in fact like to give that to you, if I could. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you put it on the visualizer so everybody can see it? MR. FERNANDEZ: Put it on that machine up there, next to the podium. MR. ARNOLD: What's been handed out to you basically shows the existing conditions, as demonstrated on our color rendered drawing. With that, we've bolded a couple of window envelopes. The one that is probably oriented on the upper part of your page would be the actual southern portion of the site. That building envelope -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I interrupted him, Madam Chairman. If you'd give him just a minute more. I feel bad because I did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We beat all commissioners that interrupt speakers. I'll give you -- give him another minute, please. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. What's reflected there is an approximate 12,500 square foot building envelope on the rear of the property, with the condition that that would only be single-family -- excuse me, single-story construction on that portion. The site that's against Seagate Drive scales out to just over an acre. That envelope's basically what is improved property to the northern end there. The existing structure to the rear of the property is about 3,000 square feet. There are also a couple of modular units that are there that our intent certainly is once the church relocates to its new home, we would remove those structures. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the portables will be gone? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. One of the other conditions -- we're in full agreement with the Planning Commission's stipulations, with one very minor exception, and that's related to the no Sunday classroom restriction. We have recently begun a Master in Business administration program at the college, and the trend has gone toward a more weekend expedited program for MBA programs here in the -- not only this state, but throughout the country. Some of those programs utilize one class on Sunday as part of its weekend wrap-up. What we would like to do is modify that stipulation to condition that to say that no undergraduate classwork would occur on Sunday. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I'd be happy to answer any questions. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had asked him for an additional stip -- an additional condition I want to be sure that they consent to, if I may. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That -q and please don't read this in any way other than just a question, that if this were approved, and you had this building envelope in what's now the parsonage, that prior to construction or any changes there, you'd build a six foot high wall and you'd have hedging, and, you know, we talked about some other -- MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- restrictions before any changes back there. MR. ARNOLD: I think absolutely, that would be a fair commitment and one we're willing to make. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions for the petitioner? Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. PERRY: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, board members. I'm Jeff Perry with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. I wanted to touch very briefly on the traffic analysis portion of your agenda package. The petition -- the staff has indicated that there's a significant reduction in the traffic provided by this petition. To clarify, Commissioner Constantine, the 328 trips that the college will generate are two-way trips. They are total trips. 164 inbound, 164 outbound. The term round trip sometimes leads people to believe that you're going to double that 328 to 600. We estimated the 933 being currently provided or generated by the church site and its activities. In fact, the college traffic generated by the student population, which, incidentally, is less than the student population of the church's preschool, will generate less traffic than the church's preschool. Remember, our friends at the preschool don't drive, so every -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we hope not. MR. PERRY: -- trip -- every child coming there is actually generating four trips, one to drop off and leave in the morning, again, to pick up again -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, assuming there's no siblings. MR. PERRY: That's correct. That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I mean, good heavens. MR. PERRY: There's 170 plus or minus registered, and we counted about 140 that would be actually -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In their own car. MR. PERRY: -- car pooling and that type of thing. I just wanted to make that clear that the traffic that's being generated by the site is far less than is currently estimated. The other important thing that we feel is very compelling is that there's a significant reduction, 85 percent reduction, in traffic in the early morning hours, in the peak morning hour where the church presently with their preschool is competing for space on Seagate Drive with the elementary school, the other activities going on in that particular area. Most of our traffic is generated in the afternoons and evening hours; consequently, we are not competing for the same space on Seagate Drive as the Seagate Elementary traffic. The other thing we wanted to point out is that the traffic we believe coming to and from the current church site, a lot of it -- some of it is generated within the neighborhoods. These are people who live in the city, surrounding area, that either attend that church on a weekly basis, attend the daily activities there; they also perhaps use the preschool facilities there; there's a -- and contrary to the school population of the college that's proposed, where the traffic will be coming to that college is not using the residential streets. The origin and destination study that's included in your agenda package indicates that only two percent -- actually less than two percent of the traffic would be using any of those local streets. They would all be coming to the site from U.S. 41, Pine Ridge Road, coming down Seagate Drive to that site. Only less than two percent said -- of those surveyed said they would be using Crayton Road, where we believe that there's a much larger opportunity for the current traffic coming to that site, coming from the residential streets, coming from the neighborhoods, especially in the morning hours. I think that I'd like to reserve any opportunity to answer any questions you have about traffic, either now or following the other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? MR. PERRY: I don't want to -- given the interest of people wanting to speak, I don't want to belabor the methodology or the analysis that we did, but if you do have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question, when you showed the significant traffic reduction, that's based on the current popula -- current student population, the numbers that you cited for us, or that is based on the projected -- MR. PERRY: For the college? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- student population? MR. PERRY: For the college? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For the college. MR. PERRY: Yes. The current trip generation is based on the current enrollment. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What is current enrollment? I'm sorry. MR. PERRY: Current enrollment is about 200 and -- well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 230, something like that? MR. PERRY: Yeah. The current student population and those attending the college, we need to be careful about those -- about using those numbers, because they're significantly different. The 1998 student population was 290. The average weekday student population is 156. In other words, only 156 of that total enrollment actually show up on any given day. They may be part-time students, they only come for one class or two classes, maybe only one day a week. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have you done a traffic analysis on the traffic impacts of the total number of students that could attend this college? I mean, I assume they would like to add -- you know, tuition driven school, they'd like to have more students -- MR. PERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in class. MR. PERRY: There is a growth potential that we've projected, both for the school -- or the college, as well as a continued use of the church site, should it decide to stay there and continue to grow, as it has in the past. Your agenda package has an analysis, I believe COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Jeff, the church has already said -- I'm sorry, but the church -- that's not relevant because the church has already said they can't continue to grow as they have in the past. That's why they have to move. They are as big as they could ever get and stay on that site; otherwise, they wouldn't be selling it and moving somewhere else. My question is, compared to today's church trips and the maximum usage of the site, if the college use is approved, how do those traffic numbers compare? MR. PERRY: I can't tell you what the maximum use of the college site would be in terms of student population. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How would you know when it's full? MR. PERRY: I beg your pardon? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How would you know -- how would the college know? Surely they know how many students that site could accommodate. MR. PERRY: I would imagine that you could calculate the number of students running classes from some given hour in the morning until some given hour in the afternoon, filling up every single classroom with every individual student. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And assuming that's their goal -- MR. PERRY: I didn't calculate that particular number. We did project -- based on the current growth rates of the student population, we did project out, in your agenda package, five years. We've extended that analysis out to the year 2010. The population -- the student population in -- attending class there will be generating less traffic than is currently generated by the church. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that 10-year projection was done at my request, and I appreciate that. But it wasn't exactly what I was asking for. What I was asking for is what's the maximum traffic impact of the use, if approved for the site? Surely we need to know that before we impose it on this community. MR. PERRY: I'm sorry, ma'am, I wasn't involved in that conversation so I didn't get that message, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, that may be an appropriate question for a representative of the college when they get up; may be able to do the math on that or perhaps already has. MR. PERRY: If I'm told what the maximum number of students attending -- the difficulty that we end up with is that not every student comes for one class and then leaves. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But all those activities -- MR. PERRY: Some stay there -- some might stay there all day long in that given type of environment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that what the ITE -- MR. PERRY: So it's a very, very difficult -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- manuals -- MR. PERRY: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't that what the ITE manuals contemplate, though? I mean, isn't that why -- MR. PERRY: What the ITE manual -- yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what they contemplate. So if we give you a maximum number of students, you -- MR. PERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- multiply it by the ITE factor -- MR. PERRY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that will give us a number -- MR. PERRY: We can give you that number. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that's as valid as the number we have. MR. PERRY: Yes, we can give you that number. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to have that, if it's possible to work that out. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions? Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Ready? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's go to the speakers. MR. FERNANDEZ: First two speakers are Shirley Hingston and William MacIlvaine. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You must be Shirley Hinkle (sic). MR. MacILVAINE: Madam Chairman -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The first speaker was Shirley Hinkle, is that you, sir? MR. MacILVAINE: That's not me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not you? MR. MacILVAINE: I'm Phil MacIlvaine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Surely we can go out of order that one little bit. MS. HENICH: I'm Shirley Henich, H-E-N-I-C-H. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He has the list. We have no list in front of us. MR. FERNANDEZ: Shirley Hingston is the first name I have. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why doesn't Mr. MacIlvaine speak to us while you figure out if that's you. MS. HENICH: No, that's not me. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is Ms. Hingston in the room? MR. FERNANDEZ: She must not be here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So after Mr. MacIlvaine? MR. MacILVAINE: Can I proceed? MR. FERNANDEZ: Judith Pendergast is next. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Please. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. MacIlvaine, go ahead. MR. MacILVAINE: All right. I'm first or next? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're first. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're first. MR. MacILVAINE: I'm first, all right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're the lucky one. MR. MacILVAINE: Madam Chairman, commission members, I'm Bill MacIlvaine and I'm immediate past president of the Park Shore Association. We often hear complaints these days that personally we have never been polled, nor do we know anybody that's been polled, nor have we ever heard of anybody that's been polled. In Park Shore, it's a different question. About 10 days ago, the Park Shore Association sent out a letter to each member of the -- not each member, each person in the Park Shore area, 3,000 plus letters. And we asked these people in Park Shore to give us their opinion. I'm told on good authority that over half the responses to the 3,000 plus have been received, including a number, a good number, from up north, and that the feedback is as close to unanimous as can be measured. In fact, roughly 99 percent to one percent; 99 percent opposed to a change in the regulation here, and one percent agreeing to it, or including no opinion. This is a tremendous outpouring of like minded opinion and active reaction coming from one of the largest and most concentrated tax bases in the city, and in the county as well. Why all the agitation? And why this remarkable turnout today? The County Commissioners have been presented a plan to change the residential zoning requirements on a tiny five-acre plot in Park Shore, the only part of Park Shore which is not in the city limits. This change is to accommodate a nonresidential operation on the plot that would generate an onslaught of up to 500 and possibly more cars later, the so-called traffic study notwithstanding. And that is only the beginning. A proposed campus on this crammed plot will require industrial lighting, security guards and day and night parking as classroom hours are planned to continue up until 10:00 at night. This is an Outrageous disturbance of a residential area. This plan is being considered in total disregard of the desires of an overwhelming majority of our neighbors who have expressed their opinion. There are any number of potential areas in the county for the college, if it must relocate. There are places easy to get to that would not impose a traffic gridlock in an already heavily traveled prime residential community. I urge our commissioners to hear and respond to the people of Park Shore. Please keep our zoning residential without special interest exceptions. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question, Mr. MacIlvaine. MR. MacILVAINE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the question that was asked? You said you had almost unanimous support. Do you know what the wording of the question was? MR. MacILVAINE: Well, we sent out a postcard and we said do you -- we wrote a letter and explained what was happening, and we asked them to fill in four or five different answers: Would you agree to this, would you hire an attorney, would you pursue this in court later on, or do -- you don't care? And we tallied them all up. I'm sure somebody here has an exact tally of all the cards. I have not got a tally. It was just told to me on good authority that we had 99 percent to one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm just curious what the question was. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you'll see it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, great. Thank you. MR. MacILVAINE: It'll come. Okay? Any questions? Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Judith Pendergast, and then Jan Garner. MS. PENDERGAST: Good afternoon. My name is Judy Pendergast. I am a resident of Collier County, and I live in Park Shore, and I'm here today as the president of the Park Shore Association. We're asking you to maintain the current residential zoning. This is a situation of many paradoxes. One is that I -- this is the first time I realize that zoning kind of makes strange un-bed fellows, because the Methodist Church is a wonderful neighbor. In all the time that I've lived in Park Shore, it's just been a joy to be there. So to be on the other side of the Methodist Church is a very difficult position. The second is that Park Shore has one of the highest tax bases in Collier County, and the highest voter turnout. And those two conditions usually correlate very highly with valuing education. And we do. So to be in a situation to be against a college is a very difficult and hard position. It's hard to stand here and do this. So it's important to understand that the college just happens to be on deck to take this spot. We are not against the college, and we are not in any way against growth. Collier County's really dynamic now and we're a part of it, and it's a big reason why we're all here. Two brand new hotels have just gone up in Park Shore, a Hilton and a Marriott. Park Shore was in a position to stop zoning there, to -- they came before the -- many times for zoning variance and so on, and Park Shore went with it. We feel that we have to do our share if we want to live in a place that's having growth and development. But where we feel we need to be strong and stop it is in our residential neighborhoods. And what's happened is, is that this particular site that now wants to be rezoned as CF, which is a semi-commercial thing, nips right -- not only on the corner, but in the center of the first street that is Park Shore. When Mr. Arnold described it, he acts as though Seagate is a collector road and all that. But Seagate happens to be, from West Boulevard to Crayton Road, the beginning of Park Shore on the south side. When you come down Pine Ridge Road to the west, it's an extraordinarily busy commercial area. And we know it well. I mean, you have Home Depot, you have Midas Muffler and so on, then there's gasoline stations. When you come to 41 and you cross 41, Pine Ridge Road becomes Seagate. At the corner of Seagate, you have Barnes and Noble and Rhodes Furniture. And what happens is the commercialism starts to dissipate, the traffic becomes much lower, the noise becomes lower, and then you get to West Boulevard. That's the last traffic light. Starting at West Boulevard is the transition area into the residential neighborhood. It gets quiet on the south side, there's very low lighting, there isn't a lot of traffic, and that signifies the beginning of three neighborhoods: Park Shore, Seagate and Naples Cay. And it seems to me that that's the way it should be. It should be residential. So all we're asking today is that you keep it residential. That leaves a lot of options, we understand that, and we're trying to work on some creative alternatives, green space and so on. I was hoping that we would be able to present something today, and that's not as far along as we would have liked. But we hope that you won't precipitously run and change a zoning that has been residential and change that today. We want to keep it as residential. Now, Bill MacIlvaine talked about our poll, and it's very significant. Jan Garner is our secretary. Jan, will you bring up the results of this? MS. GARNER: Hi, I'm Jan Garner. Good afternoon. The certification from -- what we received back from the association, the numbers who are opposed to the zoning change, as of yesterday, October 12th, equal 1,468 opposed, 39 who are not opposed. Out of the 1,468 who are opposed, 1,055 have encouraged us to pursue the matter through the courts, should it come to that situation. MS. PENDERGAST: Jan, will you show them? MS. GARNER: I will. And these are our signed cards. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have some blanks you could give us so we could see -- MS. GARNER: I do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the way it was worded so we understand the decision? MS. GARNER: There we are. And these are the not opposed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you putting those in as evidence? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MS. PENDERGAST: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've got to now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, they're ours now. COMMISSIONER NLAC'KIE: Yeah, you want to do that. MS. PENDERGAST: Yeah, we would like to read them for the record. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You want to read them? I don't think so. MS. PENDERGAST: Yes, they've been certified. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Fine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need the not opposed that you put away, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We need all of them. MS. GARNER: Oh, you need all of them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All of them. MS. GARNER: Okay. Those are the not opposed. All right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: David, can you hand us some of them? I'd just like to see what the card looks like. MS. PENDERGAST: Yes. Jan, do you have any blanks? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Everybody gets their own stack. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want one to read the wording. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, this doesn't do us good, because it doesn't show what the question was. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you have a copy of the letter? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have a copy of the -- this response doesn't -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have the question? Is that the question? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Many times it's important to understand how -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Billick has the letter. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- the question was phrased to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- understand the response fully. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There, Mr. Cronin has it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Cronin has the letter. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I should have brought my copy. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll collect these down here for the court reporter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have our next speaker? Are you finished, Judy? MS. PENDERGAST: Yes, unless there are any questions of me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Jane Earle, and then Jim Brennan. MS. EARLE: Good afternoon. My name is Jane Earle. And along with 3,000 others, I live on the west side of Gulf Shore Boulevard, in Park Shore. In May, over two-thirds of our -- of my neighbors leave for the summer, as they did this year. When these rezoning negotiations began, it became public knowledge. Now they're beginning to return and still have no clue whatsoever of the current situation which is being consummated here today. We represent over 2,200 units and a large tax base, and we would like to have some say in any rezoning of our neighborhood, particularly when decisions are made in our absence. We are county residents, too. It is unfair for such a major issue as rezoning, which impacts on so many -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, ma'am. Would you suggest then that the county government completely shut down operations during the summer because you're not here? MS. EARLE: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean, that's unrealistic -- MS. EARLE: I am here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- isn't it? And please don't accuse us of trying to slide something under the table so that you're not aware of it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think she's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's just not appropriate. MS. EARLE: I didn't mean it that way, s~r. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's not suggesting that we are doing that, Mr. Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think she is. MS. EARLE: I'm saying that there -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we don't control the agenda. We didn't ask them to apply for this. She couldn't possibly be implying that we are the ones. MS. EARLE: No, I'm implying that so many of the people who go away in May and come back in November aren't aware of what's happening. If we are county -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just think Commissioner Norris' point is that we can't shut down county business for six months. MS. EARLE: Of course not. Of course not. And I don't mean it that way. We are county residents too, however, and it is unfair for such a major issue as rezoning, which impacts on so many in such a detrimental way to be accom -- to be decided to accommodate a real estate sale and a temporary home for an educational facility whose growth potential, by their own forecasts, of 700 students precludes any permanence in the neighborhood and in this location. There are other options available to both these institutions which does not entail the changing of the character of an already overburdened established community. Let our zoning remain intact. Please keep it RS-4. MR. FERNANDEZ: Jim Brennan, then Randy Merrill. MR. BRENNAN: Good afternoon. My name is Jim Brennan and I live in Park Shore, and I am a member of the Park Shore Association board. I was taught that residential zoning is sacred and special. I was also taught that from time to time you must protect residential zoning, and that's why I'm here today. By some fluke in 1989 (sic) we are discussing a zoning change before the County Commissioners instead of the Naples City Council. We all know that the college seeks to have the land changed from residential to community facility. This sounds rather innocuous. I'm talking about the term community facility. However, what the college really wants to do is to change what is now a portion of a residential neighborhood to semi-commercial. Let's call a spade a spade. This semi-commercial zoning is not only unacceptable to me, but to a large number of my neighbors. The proposed zoning change is not compatible with our residential neighborhood. I am particularly concerned about the consequences of the college traffic and noise, the intensity of use of this facility, and the close proximity to an elementary school. For my part, let's keep residential zoned property residential. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Randy Merrill, and then Dennis Cronin. MR. MERRILL: Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you for allowing me to speak here before you today. I'm not going to reiterate the points that have already been made. I know that you'd appreciate that. So would I if I was sitting up there. I do want to address a couple of things that I have heard, a couple of things that I have read, and I want to focus a little bit on the traffic study. I can tell you from where I come from. Where I come from happens to be on that map. I do adjoin the property which would be in that area that they refer to as the 12,000 some odd square foot building site in the upper left-hand corner. I would hate to see that built upon, because that is in my backyard. Being that I live there, I think I have a unique knowledge and firsthand knowledge of the traffic conditions that do surround that site on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. I can tell you that I do not believe the figures that are in the traffic study. I do have it, have read it and digested it. And I think that it's fairly clear that what those traffic studies show are an estimation based upon some industry standard. In this particular case, I don't think you can properly apply the industry standard. There should have been a traffic survey done with traffic counts, actual counts out there to determine what actually is transpiring. In the day care situation, if you'll look at the sub -- at the footnotes, it indicates that they're estimating that one child per car comes to day care. I think that's ludicrous to assume that. And I know for a fact, because I can see them leaving from the portables behind me that on many occasions there are more than one child that gets into a car and probably is car pooling. So I don't think that those figures are accurate. I think even a little bit more importantly is as you look at the demographics, and you have a reversal in the demographics of who's going to that location on what time. Using their own figures from the traffic study, currently there's approximately 54 percent of the people coming to the Methodist Church for day care during the week are coming from the North Naples area. That would be the area north of Pine Ridge Road. That limits the ability of those cars, in all practical use, to use any of the streets other than Seagate and U.S. 41. And, of course, they probably are going to egress in the same manner. But when you look at the International College's figures -- and again, I would also reiterate, this is not against International College, this is against a rezone to CF -- their figures show that if you combine their students from Golden Gate, Naples and East Naples, 66 percent of their students come from that area. So what we have had is the majority of the trips coming from the north, we now have even a greater majority of the trips coming from the south. Which brings up an important point. When I moved there, and I still had to come to Golden Gate to drop my son off at school or if my wife had to go to work in the Golden Gate area, or for me to come down to this complex, I used U.S. 41 or Goodlette Road and Pine Ridge. But I soon learned that's not the way you travel, as these students will soon learn that is not the way you travel to that site. The way you travel to that site from the City of Naples, Golden Gate and from East Naples is by use of Golden Gate Parkway and either Goodlette-Frank or 41 to avoid traffic, and you take either Seagate Drive or Park Shore Drive to Crayton Road to avoid the lights, the left turns and all the traffic on Pine Ridge. To ignore that is to ignore reality. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please don't tell any more people than already know. MR. MERRILL: The problem is, you're not going to know that by a study that you give to students who don't even know where Crayton Road is at this point. They will when they get there. And to ignore that, to say that that's not going to happen, is to ignore what people will do. They'll take the easiest route. The impact on that street, on those side streets, cannot be said to be two percent, it's going to be much greater than that. Again, this is a situation that I believe is not compatible with the neighborhood, is not compatible traffic-wise, and there's a fault in that traffic study. And everything there is estimated based upon some industry standard that might work in other situations, but what we're dealing with is a church, and we're dealing with an institution that we have been told is going to grow to 500 or 700 students. And Commissioner Mac'Kie brought up, plug those numbers into your trips and see where we're going to be by year 2000 and 2001, and it's going to be as much if not more than a church. The final point I'll make is this: If they're going to outgrow this site and it's CF, then what's going in there? Is it going to be some other CF designation, is it going to be another college? Those are the thin~s that you have to ask yourself before you vote. Because if you're going to create the problem five years from now, why not handle the problem today and not rezone it. Let it stay as RS, and let the property be sold as an RS. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Dennis Cronin -- (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: -- and then Jeff Kannensohn. MR. CRONIN: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Dennis Cronin, and I'm an attorney with the law firm of Bond, Schoeneck and King, and I represent the Park Shore Association in this matter. I think that we presented this matter a little bit in reverse. Usually it's the attorney who's springing to his feet to make the initial presentation. But I think we purposely did that so that you could hear from the citizens and the citizens' concerns that are here. These are all neighbors. These are all residential people who have legitimate concerns here. And I think that if you see the stickers that a large number of the audience are wearing here, the RSF-4, it's indicative that we would like to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood and the residential zoning on this site. I didn't have any real prepared remarks. I'd like to respond to a couple of things that Mr. Arnold said in his presentation. I think Mr. Merrill quite correctly has highlighted that the 1.7 or 1.9 percent that Crayton Road and West Boulevard are impacted by is a result of a survey of students from the current site. And I'd like to point out also that the current location is zoned a commercial site in Gulf Gate Plaza. The definitional change for CF was accomplished in June, and I think that, as you may recall, the genesis of this definitional change was International College and was the site. So I think that it's a little bit disingenuous to point to other CF sites adjacent to it when this definitional change was specifically made for International College. The other CF properties that are in the area: Naples Driving Range, the Boy Scout Camp and Collier County YMCA, none of which to my knowledge abut on any residential area or impact on any residential area. So I think that that's a point that you need to consider. With respect to the 80 percent decrease in traffic in the morning, does this mean 100 percent increase of traffic in the afternoon when Seagate Elementary School is dismissing its students? What are the consequences there? I think you're talking apples and oranges to take a Sunday traffic study and average it out over the week. I don't think that it provides any basis for comparison or any meaningful distinction. I think that the college keeps saying what a great site Park Shore is. And I think it's a great site because it is residential, all right? And we'd like to maintain the character of that. I think that to a large extent, the points that we've made may preclude additional speakers. I don't know, I'd like to have our membership stand up, just so you have a sense of how many of them are here and how many are fundamentally opposed to this. And I know that there are other speakers, Jeff Kannensohn, for one, wishes to make a speech. But if there are other people, you may just have to go through the list at this point in time. If there's any questions, you know, I'd be happy to answer them. Otherwise, I'll gracefully depart. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Jeff Kannensohn, and then Robert Rust. MR. KANNENSOHN: Good afternoon. I'm Jeff Kannensohn, and I'm a resident of -- on Whispering Pine Court. Our property immediately is to the south and is on the boundary of the church. We are adjoining next to the administration building and the parking lot. I believe that my comments today -- and I'll try to make them brief -- would be representative of the other neighbors on our street that are also adjoining the property. I wanted to emphasize that the nature of this neighborhood is a quiet residential neighborhood. The church has been an excellent neighbor over the years. We have activity on Wednesday evening and then activity on Sunday morning. But for maybe the two or three months of the high season, we as neighbors do not really hear the cars or are not affected by any of the noise in the parking lot. We are now faced with the potential of a change of use of intermittent parking in the back area to a continual business use of five days 8:00 a.m. in the morning 'til 10:00 at night. That is very troubling to our neighborhood, because we will then be faced with cars coming and going all hours of night 'til 10:00, with the noise opening and shutting doors, the lights in our back yards, all those activities that go along with that. I would also like to point out that the nearest commercial property to us is Waterside, and that property, which is commercial and on U.S. 41, the latest that any of the businesses stay open is 9:00, so we have a lot of trouble with a school which is going to stay open until 10:00 in the evening. We would ask that -- you know, that you consider that. That's a significant impact on the neighborhood and certainly has an impact on the ~uiet use and enjoyment of the Seagate Drive after 5:00 in the evening. Right now if you drive by on that street at 5:00 or 6:00 in the evening, you'll see most of the people riding bikes, walking or jogging, and you don't see very many cars. I'm afraid that will change with a school coming into being. I would suggest that because this is a significant change in the land use, that there needs to be a compelling reason shown for the rezoning. And I don't believe that the college has made its case in this situation. I think the traffic study is flawed for many reasons that have already been pointed out. I will just tell you that we are in a position, being in the backyard, to see the traffic activity in the morning that is generated by the day care. And we've been out a couple times in the morning and at best can count 30 or 40 cars going and coming in the morning. I do not see the numbers that are shown on the traffic study as being representative of what we actually see day in and day out. Also, we are very skeptical of the projection that students coming and going to the school will not be using West Boulevard or be using Crayton Boulevard. I come across town all the time and I can tell you that at any opportunity I will try to get over to Crayton Boulevard. And I just -- I don't think that's realistic to expect that that's going to happen. We would ask that at if -- that at this point in time, since there's not sufficient information, that you table this until the school is able to provide sufficient enrollment information, sufficient projections, and if they can't do that, then just deny the petition. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Kannensohn, have you been over at Waterside recently after 9:00 at night? MR. KANNENSOHN: I have. And I do think there may be some restaurants on the east side. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Barnes and Noble is open until 11:00 at night. MR. KANNENSOHN: I'm sorry? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And there's a whole lot of activity. I was there Friday night, as a matter of fact, after being at the Philharmonic, and they were -- we couldn't get a place to sit down. MR. KANNENSOHN: I would agree with you. But that's -- again, that's before you -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Extremely busy. MR. KANNENSOHN: -- get to West Boulevard. And once you get past West Boulevard -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. But you've got restaurants and so forth open in there, and so there is -- that place certainly is anything but dead after 9:00 at night. It's pretty active. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that part of Waterside certainly is. I think his point was anything that is west of West Boulevard, that's where the dead starts, for lack of a better term. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I hope all of you are happy with that designation, that you're all pretty dead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They like it that way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's your representative informing you the dead starts at West Boulevard. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. I think there's a lot of people here that have got a lot of life, so -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, Club Zanzibar is dead at 9:00 at night. Nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anyway -- MR. KANNENSOHN: Any other questions? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- thank you, I think we're fine. MR. WEIGEL: The next speaker is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Our bar expert. MR. WEIGEL: -- next speaker is Robert Rust. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, Mr. Rust? MR. WEIGEL: Rust. MR. RUST: I'm going to pass. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's going to pass. MR. WEIGEL: Okay, next speaker is a W. R. Hecox or Helox. MR. HECOX: Hecox. They've already covered my subjects. And the gentleman who lives back by that back corner -- THE REPORTER: I need to get him on the microphone. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. He's passing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He's passing. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Hecox waives. Next speaker is Hilde Needils, or Neddis. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hilde? Not here. MR. WEIGEL: Next speaker is Jean Rice, followed by a William Davidson. MR. DAVIDSON: My subjects have been covered. I'm going to pass. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He passes. MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Davidson passes. Jean Rice? Not present. Next speaker is a Horace Lanford, followed by Bill Healey. MR. LANFORD: Thank you for the opportunity, commissioners. I have nothing to add, except I believe -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sir -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Speak on the mike. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- if you're going to say anything, you've got to come to the mike. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even the tiniest -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We don't mean to be rude about this, but we have a court reporter up here that has earphones on, and the mikes are hooked up to this, and that's why it's important. It's not that we're trying to be mean and ugly about the whole thing, but she needs to get this information down and she can't do this unless you use the mike. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just state your name, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: State your name. MR. LANFORD: Thanks for realizing a hearing problem. I'm -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's okay. MR. LANFORD: -- afflicted. My name is Horace Lanford, L-A-N-F-O-R-D. I have nothing to add to what I think has been a very powerful presentation by the residents of Park Shore. I would like to add emphasis to the fact that I believe the traffic study that has been made is fantasy. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Bill Healey, and then Tom Hohmann. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jeff Perry's been hanging out at Disney World, apparently. MR. FERNANDEZ: Doug Lawrason? Angela Worden? Dodie Briskey is the next one. MS. WORDEN: I'm Angela Worden, and I'm a teacher and so I'm very for education. And when I heard there was going to be a college within walking distance, I thought how great. What a mistake. I'd forgotten how terrible the traffic is on Seagate Drive. I go to St. Williams Church, it's right on Seagate. It's among all the other churches that are there. And in the season we have to have a policeman direct traffic. Your traffic study is definitely flawed. That's on a Sunday, granted, but again, they're going to add classes on Sunday. I just really believe that it should stay residential. I think you should think of the future when you're considering this vote. We don't know if this college will get to be such a hot thing that everybody will want to go there and they'll have to expand and then what do we do with an area that has been rezoned in a way that we don't want it rezoned? We have to go through this again, or maybe there's not even that alternative. I don't know enough about government that once something is -- it's over after one time? Well, that answers my question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not necessarily. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, that's not true. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's not true. No, it's not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is not a PUD rezone, this is a straight CF rezone. So anything -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. However -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- permitted under the CF district as it's described would be permitted after today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If that is the motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If that is the motion. But that ain't going to be the motion. MS. WORDEN: Okay. And also, Barbara said well, you know, I couldn't get a parking space in -- at Barnes and Noble. Exactly the point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I didn't say parking space, I said I couldn't get a table. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Plenty of parking. MS. WORDEN: Well, a table or whatever. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Plenty of parking. MS. WORDEN: There -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The parking's not -- MS. WORDEN: The traffic is incredible on Seagate Drive because of the Waterside Shops, because of the Registry Hotel. We don't need to add to the traffic by putting something else in that area that is going to be rezoned. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask you a question, please, before you go? Is your primary objection just the college itself, or the fact that after -- that if it was rezoned there may be some other use in the future come in? MS. WORDEN: I have no objection to the fact that it's a college. As I said, I would love to take classes there, probably. But the problem is that I can see that it's not just a question of my being able to take classes. The traffic that would be created by that situation is an impossible one -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MS. WORDEN: -- so that's my problem. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, I have a question for some of our staff. If this were to be rezoned for this college, is -- the current parking that's on that site, would it accommodate the people that would be attending this college? MS. MURRAY: That would be -- Susan Murray, for the record. That would be examined during a site development plan process to ensure that they comply. But yes, they would be required to comply. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So we wouldn't run into the situation -- I don't mean to point fingers at anybody -- but we wouldn't run into the situation that we're experiencing up there now with the current church with the cars parking everywhere? MS. MURP~AY: Hopefully not. That's why they would be required to comply and hopefully the code would -- is sufficient enough to cover the required parking. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So they would basically be contained within the site rather than parking out over at Seagate Elementary School on Sunday morning, as currently happens now? MS. MURRAY: If they were to do that, they would have to obtain a shared parking agreement. And so yes, the possibility exists that they could do that, but only through a shared parking agreement. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for you, too, on that same issue. What's the maximum number of students -- I assume that the -- well, I shouldn't assume. Is the parking ratio for a college determined on square footage or on number of students? In other words, if they maximize the building on this site within the two envelopes that they've shown us, will there be adequate parking for that number of students on-site? Because again, what I want to be careful that we focus on is not just International College today, but International College in the future. MS. MURP~AY: Right now the requirement is two spaces per five commuter students, and four per five faculty. And there's approximately 126 paved spaces, and approximately 150 grass, which in this case they couldn't use grass parking for this use. The grass parking is only allowable to be used by a church type of use. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So because they have 126 spaces, they could have how many students? MS. MURRAY: It would be two per five students would be required, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What would assume that -- what would they have to do if they wanted to pave over the grass parking? Do they have to come back to this board or just -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: SDP. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Leave it alone. MS. MURRAY: They would go through the site development plan process, they would have to meet water management requirements, landscape requirements, et cetera. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But assuming -- if they paved -- if they parked the site to its maximum capacity, how many students would fit on the site? MS. MURRAY: Well, if there's 126 paved -- you're going to make me do math. I need my calculator. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 276 times five? Is that the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, half the 2 -- MS. MURRAY: Well, 126 are usable right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Assume they pave the other 1507 MS. MURRAY: 150. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: 276 total they have. And they need two per every five students. And their current enrollment is approximately 300, so they would need 150. Does that compute? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, two per five. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I come up with 690 maximum students based on parking alone. 276 spaces divided by two is 138. One space, multiply that by five, you come up with 690. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they could have 700 students if they paved the existing parking and didn't change anything else? MS. MURRAY: And you also have to include the faculty, that's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So it's actually going to bring that number down -- MS. MURRAY: Down. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- one space per five faculty. That's marginal, though, with the total faculty. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 680. Thank 'you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four for five? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Four for five. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Ms. Murray. Wait a minute, how are we doing with our court reporter here? THE REPORTER: Fine, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're doing all right? Okay. MR. WEIGEL: Okay, next speaker is Dodie Briskey and then Shirley Henich. MS. BRISKEY: Commissioners, we appreciate you letting us be here tonight -- this morning to say our peace, or this afternoon, or maybe tonight, if it -- I really come on behalf advocating the integrity of our community and the soundness of our community. I think they're one in the same. I live in the county, I live in Park Shore, I'm active and involved in our community. I'm president of the Crayton Road Association and we are anticipating a lot of traffic. I'm block captain for Neapolitan Way. We are expecting traffic also to come in that way to go up to the school. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you state your name for the record, please? MS. BRISKEY: Dodie Briskey. I'm a member of the Naples United Church of Christ, and I'm very active there. And that's an adjoining property. So this issue is of grave concern to me for a lot of reasons. I have nothing against the university. We've had these people come talk to our board. I've heard them present at Park Shore Association Board. We've tried to get the information and tried to be as fair as we could in analyzing it. But I must say that the homeowners take precedent, as far as I'm concerned, over what the desires are of the university or college to come into the area. When the school -- or college met with the people in the immediate community, they met with and first announced their intentions, they also had the people there from our church. And I have sat down with the people from our church, including our minister, and talked about this. And his idea was that there was no intention of changing zoning. So he thought they would come, they would be there for life. And if that were the case, they didn't see a problem with it, because they also promised that they would give them the parking, extra parking for our church for Sunday. Well, if you're going to have a master's program there on Sunday with instructors and other people coming and going, I'm not sure how that part's going to hold up. But I'll let you work that out with God. Anyway, I think the thing is, if the chur -- our church had known about the zoning and if they had known there was a possibility now of maybe losing some of those parking spaces they were going to get for Sunday, I'm not so sure exactly whether they would have written that letter they were asked to write and which they did write to say it was okay for that facility to come in as their neighborhood. Yes, sir, you're right, it is speculation. And if they had had all the facts, maybe it wouldn't be speculation. The other thing is, with the two percent survey -- and I think somebody else pointed this out -- the survey was the people who probably aren't familiar with how they would get there. And I think you have to realize that this is a factor with us. We have meetings with Crayton Road Association, with the city, with the other community associations constantly -- and I'm not talking about once a month, I'm talking about every week -- trying to find ways to solve the problems on Crayton Road, trying to find ways to solve the problems for the adjoining streets. We cannot take the impact of much more traffic into our area. We are just about at capacity. And during season, our people cannot get out of their driveways safely. I live on the corner of Neapolitan and Crayton, right where everybody stops to go to the store or anywhere else. I almost get rear-ended trying to go into my driveway. It is dangerous. It's a little bit easier going out, I have a circular drive and I can drive a little faster if I see a pop in the traffic. Coming in, you just about get rear-ended while you're sitting there waiting to make that turn. We don't need the extra traffic. Their intention is not to bring it. It will come. It's not something they are going to elect to bring. The other thing is, I think that you're in a unique position. Most often a problem happens and we say if we had only known. You have the opportunity to sit there and know in advance what the potential zs. If this school builds out to capacity and then decides to turn that property over, not only would we have had whatever goes on as far as traffic and problems we have -- will have with that coming, what will come in there next? And what say-so will any of us have to say? If you change this zoning to CF, what is it going to do to the homeowners who live in that community? We're all members of the city and the county and we need your help and we need your support. And we appreciate you letting us come. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Shirley Henich and then Malcolm Yewdall. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He waives. MS. HENICH: Good afternoon. My name is Shirley Henich, and I guess I'm puzzled as to how this parcel still remains under the control and auspices of the county when all the adjoining properties appear to be under the control of the City of Naples. And so I'm wondering if the county could not consider the feasibility of releasing the parcel from county zoning control to city zoning control under the City of the Naples master plan, along with the parcels that now border the property or are clearly affected by any rezoning, such as the Park Shore homeowners, of whom I am one. By doing so, this action would relieve the county of any associated responsibilities which might involve areas of safety, environmental, infrastructure, ordinance adherence, or any other areas that are and can be more properly performed by the city than the county. It keeps the area all under one umbrella rather than -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm having a real hard time, and I held off as long as I could. Maybe you can explain to me how the city can deliver those services better than the county on this one little five-acre piece? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ma'am, before you take that bait, could I MS. BRISKEY: I'm prepared to answer that. I guess -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't mind, let me just tell you this: We can't say dear church, please go into the city. That's in the control of the property owner. So the church would have to decide -- would have to go to the City of Naples and say please annex us. We as the county -- what you're suggesting is just not even in the vaguest possibility. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're not going to kick them out, okay? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not even legally possible. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Or kick them -- MS. BRISKEY: No, I understand. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- into the city or out of the county. MS. BRISKEY: If the church is leaving and wants to sell the property, now that they've vacated, or maybe even prior to -- I don't know the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, as long as they own it MS. BRISKEY: -- intricacies involved -- could this not be turned over to the city -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, ma'am. MS. BRISKEY: -- to control? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sorry. MS. BRISKEY: It would seem to me that it would solve a lot COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, ma'am. MS. BRISKEY: -- of the issues. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But, you know CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It would, but COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- it ain't gonna happen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- that's not the way it works. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: about four hours ago. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: that issue. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: First of all, we would have been home There's that. That -- you know, so it would have solved As much as we would like to have the City Council to decide this issue, it can't happen unless the property owner says I want to become a part of the city. We can't -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the city -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- make that happen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- says they want you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And the city has to agree to that as well. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And the city has to agree as well. That hasn't happened. In other words, the Methodist Church property people, the church, would have to go to the city and say please annex us, and the city would have to agree that they wanted that piece of property. That hasn't transpired. MS. BRISKEY: Well, maybe in the interest of Christianity they ought to do that to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, Christianity on whose part? I mean, you know. MS. BRISKEY: On their part, in order to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See -- but the point being, you'd need to take that to their board. So if you have any points other than the annexation points, you'd want to make them. But the annexation ones really would have to go to the church. MS. BRISKEY: Ail right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At this point you've painted them being in the county as an un-Christian thing, and I'm not really sure how that plays. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, not real well. MS. BRISKEY: Yeah. Well, I guess, you know, it just -- like I said, it sort of seemed like it was just one little pimple here, a sore spot. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll tell you what, if you would read -- as much as I hate to say this, but if you would read this morning's newspaper, you would get a little chronology of how that all happened and -- MS. BRISKEY: Well, unfortunately, I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- why it happened when it did. It happened a long time ago, and it's a straightforward, there's -- nobody's hiding anything. But it is written up in the newspaper. It's very explanatory, and it will tell you just what happened and why. MS. BRISKEY: Well, then aside from that, all I could do is to plead that the property be maintained, zoned as residential. Because I know how these things happen in government, once you get -- it's -- as in business and anyplace else, education, or whatever, once something is changed, it's hard to revert back to that former status in order to maintain the same -- the same environment that's largely there. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Joyce Davidson and then Virginia Shannon. MS. SHANNON: I'm Virginia Shannon, and I pass. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She's passed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Virginia Shannon passes? MR. FERNANDEZ: Erika Cook. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not here? Oh, sorry. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Here she comes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Forgive me. MR. FERNANDEZ: And then Joy Skelton. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ask her to be sworn, because she didn't stand up. MS. COOK: I basically concur. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Erika -- MS. COOK: My name is Erika -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- excuse me. Mrs. Cook? MS. COOK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Were you sworn in? MS. COOK: No, I wasn't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You need to be sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn.) MS. COOK: I concur with the comments that have previously been made. I think they're all cogent. My one concern -- not my one concern, they're all my concerns, and I've sent you each a letter I think that you've gotten. But how -- has anyone thought how many colleges have been zoned directly adjacent to an elementary school? I think the logistics of this is very peculiar and something that has to be looked into, besides the traffic. I think those figures are fallacious. And that's all have I to say. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me just mention one college that is connected with an elementary school happens to be Edison Community College, which is right next door to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Lely Elementary. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Lely Elementary School. MS. COOK: Is that the only other exception? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The only one in Collier County that I know of. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many colleges are in Collier County? MS. COOK: I find it -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We don't have many colleges in Collier County MS. COOK: -- very -- a strange -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- so that's the only one that I'm aware of. MS. COOK: I think that -- and I'm not that familiar with Collier County, but I think it's a very strange mix of youngsters and oldsters. And I think that besides the buses coming and going and the children being there all day, I think it's a real problem. And it's something you definitely ought to think about. Perhaps this should just be researched. I think that the gentleman made the point about the traffic situation. I think we've all realized that there is a problem with the numbers that have been presented. They're certainly questionable. And the time should be -- this should be looked into. And we shouldn't jump to a conclusion. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many more speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Looks like about 20. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: About 20 more. Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Joy Skelton and then Ted Smith. MS. SKELTON: Hi, I'm Joy Skelton. I was quoted in the paper this morning because my interest is my child. I'm a resident, full-time resident, of Park Shore. The reason I bought in the neighborhood is because of the residential atmosphere. I wanted to be close to the beach so that my children could grow up around the water. It is very accessible to hop down Crayton Road on their bikes, on their rollerblades, on foot. We do that a lot. My husband and I bike ride, my children bike ride. My children -- one child attends Seagate Elementary, and we use the church facility a lot. I am not in favor of not selling the property. Our church is growing and it's wonderful. We're doing God's work, we're doing what we're supposed to do, which is growing and serving the people of the community, as is Seagate Elementary School. My interest is my children. I can't say that enough times. I do not want more traffic, more people, more strangers in my neighborhood on a facility that is currently my church property next to my school property with people I don't know that don't care about the same zssues I do. I like my clean, safe neighborhood. The city and the county do a wonderful job taking care of the neighborhood, and I feel safe there. We go to sleep at night a lot of nights with the doors wide open by accident. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I wouldn't tell -- MS. SKELTON: We don't mean to, but I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- too many people that. MS. SKELTON: -- feel safe here. I do. And I like to feel that way and I want my children to feel that same security. With all that extra traffic -- and I too agree that those numbers are fabricated. I use our church facility and I use our school facility. My children do not car pool, we ride bikes and we walk. So I'm not a traffic clogger, and I know a lot of other people aren't as well. I just want you all to take us to heart to see 1,000 people here saying please don't do this. If it were your neighborhood, or your neighborhood, and there was a zoning change to take your nice, safe residential area and put in a facility -- and I'm not not in favor of education, because I have two college degrees. I have a regular college degree and I have an associate degree. I'm an educated, very smart individual, and I want the same for everybody in this community. However, I think there are better ways to do it than to zone. And I'm also afraid of what will come later, as other people have said. Once we let this thing slide in to getting to one point, I'm afraid it will be easier to take the next step beyond, and I'm not in favor of that at all. Thanks. MR. FERNANDEZ: Ted Smith, and then Jean Martien. MS. MARTIEN: I'm Jean Martien, and I pass. I did not swear. I wish I could have. MR. SMITH: I was sworn in. My name is Ted Smith. It's nice to see all of you. The commissioners, I've been before you before, and you've been very nice and you put up with an awful lot, so I want to congratulate you while you sit up there. But many things that have been said -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I sensed a but -- MR. SMITH: -- here today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- coming. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I thought there was going to be a but. MR. SMITH: No, no, I'm just going to explain why I'm here. Because I've lived here, I'm a taxpayer in Collier County, I vote, as the rest of us do. We did have almost -- we have 1,750 members of Park Shore Association. They're not all here today. The young lady said there was 1,000. A thousand didn't show up, but we have the cards there that couldn't make it down here today. And we're speaking for them. We would like very much to see the property, if possible that you can't do it, be rezoned to commercial -- I mean to residence, because the traffic is terrible. If you have a place like they're saying they have 150 parking places and they say one parking place for every two, when you have approximately 300 movzng up to 700 people, where in the hell are they gozng to park their cars? And they say they're coming down a certain way. Nobody drives the same way every day. They look for the shortest way, they look where there's lights where you can cross the boulevards and everything else. The traffic is going to be one bad situation. We have a lot of kids that go to Seagate School. We have a lot of kids in the day care center. Their mothers and fathers drive them. There's extra cars. We don't need any more extra cars in the neighborhood that don't belong. We like to see them come and go. First of all, they're not paying taxes as we do. The school does not pay taxes. Now, write that down, one of the fellows here. We pay taxes for the benefit of living here and paying your salaries. And we enjoy having you as commissioners, and you've done a good job. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: James Conwell and Patricia Johnson. MR. CONWELL: I'll pass. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He passes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Conwell passes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Patricia Johnson, Michael Baviello. MR. BAVIELLO: I pass. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Pass. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mike Baviello passes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Stan Billick. MR. BILLICK: I won't pass. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's not passing. MR. BILLICK: Madam Chairman and commissioners, I'm a resident -- my name is Stan Billick. I'm a resident of Park Shore, as well as the chairman of the administrative council of the North Naples United Methodist Church. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As well as the former Mayor, for anybody who doesn't know that. MR. BILLICK: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But again, we won't hold that against you, Stan. MR. BILLICK: Ail right, good. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the church has a full plate now, and we don't intend to file a petition to be annexed to the city, so we can leave that one aside. Some of the points that I'm going to make have been referred to. But because the church has been intimately connected with this whole procedure, I thought it might be well for you to hear our views. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Speak up just a little. MR. BILLICK: In my capacity with the church, I worked together with other church representatives to accomplish the execution of a contract for the sale of the property involved in this hearing from the church to the International College. Throughout those negotiations, those of us from the church got to know well the representatives from the International College. We were impressed then and have continued to be impressed by the candor, friendliness and reasonableness of their representatives. And most of all, their demonstration of their sincere desire to be a good neighbor to everyone concerned. When the contract was executed, we were comfortable with our belief that the International College was, from the standpoint of the neighborhood, the best possible occupant of the property. Less offensive than a church or any business or even a park having an intensive public use. The only -- the only factual and objective studies that have been furnished to this commission have indicated that the change of occupancy will result in a diminution of both traffic and use of the property. As a resident of Park Shore, my wife and I have received the September 15th letter of the Park Shore Association. We of course did not return our card in favor. I consider that letter replete with unfounded fears and questionable statements. Let me take just a moment to explain. The opening statement said that the Collier County Commissioners are about to change the character of Park Shore. I won't quibble with that, but I don't think this taking care of the zoning of this five-acre parcel is going to change the character of Park Shore. But the letter continues by saying that this change is from property zoned, quote and unquote, residential. To refer to the property as residential is of course highly misleading. The fact is that this property is not now and never has been devoted to residential use. Please let me repeat. This property is not now and never has been devoted to residential use. On the contrary, all of the neighboring properties on Pine Ridge Road from Route 41 to Crayton Road are occupied by enterprises with highly intensive public uses: Churches, school, bank, shopping center, and capped off by that quiet entrance to the residential community that was referred to by a world-class resort hotel. Under these circumstances, it seems to us that it would be a mistake and horribly naive to expect this property to be transformed into a residential use. The better answer, as was described and recommended unanimously by your Planning Commission, is to work with the reality of the existing circumstances and to provide controls allowing both sides of this problem to be good neighbors. May I have about another 30 seconds? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll grant you 30 seconds, Stan. MR. BILLICK: Okay. As a long-time resident -- in fact, a 27-year Naples resident -- I not only believe that we have not harmed Park Shore, but that we have tried to bring them, in spite of their association, a great and appropriate neighbor that is and will be a highly respected and valuable member of this community. I would also call your attention to the fact that the contract for this sale was executed in April, more than five months ago. We have yet to hear a credible traffic plan or a constructive suggestion for the use or sale of this property from the Park Shore Association. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Richard VanBuskirk and then J. R. Humphrey. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. VanBuskirk -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. VanBuskirk waives. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Humphrey does not waive. MR. FERNANDEZ: And then J. D. Campbell. MR. HUMPHREY: Can't miss an opportunity to pontificate a little bit . CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself. MR. HUMPHREY: I'm Jack Humphrey, commissioners, and I was going to suggest that you might have -- if you charged admission this morning, you could have probably met Don Hunter's budget, you know. But I just wanted to cover maybe a little perspective on the thing. Everybody's talked about the facts and whether they're there or not. But I'd just like to bring a little perspective in the fact that certainly anybody whose neighborhood is invaded by something new becomes suspicious and nervous and right away there goes the neighborhood type of an attitude. And I think you'll find that -- you should have seen so far the caliber of people that we have at International College. Aside from the fact that I am a trustee, in spite of that. But just looking at the plan, I was looking -- sitting over there looking at the plan, and the way it's situated with the roads on the side going out to Seagate, the back buffered most of the activity on the other end. I don't think the neighbors at that end are even going to know it's there. In fact, we shouldn't have told them in the first place. We should -- in any case, they are good neighbors and I'm sure will continue to be. I ask your support. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: John, before you go, can you -- John, can you identify yourself for the record? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He did. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He did. MR. HUMPHREY: I'm Jack Humphrey. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He didn't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He did at the.beginning. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, commzssloners. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ail right, never mind. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Jack Humphrey. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jack, I'm sorry. MR. HUMPHREY: Jack Humphrey, trustee of International. MR. FERNANDEZ: J. D. Campbell and then H. M. Smith. Terry McMahan? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait a minute, which gentleman is -- MR. SMITH: Smith. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman and commissioners, my name is Hy Smith. I'm a resident of Seagate. I noticed this morning that there was quite a bit of discussion with reference to certain comments that Martha Dykeman (sic) had made about Seagate residents' position. To my knowledge, no Seagate resident has been polled by Martha Dykeman. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: She's the president of the association. MR. SMITH: She's the president of the association. I am vehemently opposed to the International College, and I think to allege that the Seagate residents are not opposed is a misallegation. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Terry McMahan and Patricia Pistner. MR. McMAHAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. I am Terry McMahan, president of International College, and as you might have guessed, I do support this petition. I was just going to make myself available to answer questions, although there have been a few comments I think I need to address. One gtan did address and that was on the traffic study. There's been a lot of opinions rendered here regarding the traffic study. And yes, we have been in this process for szx months, but the only credible evidence that has been given to the commission today was the report prepared by Wilson-Miller. And I would suggest to you that it is appropriate and in accordance with the standards and should be followed. With respect to the enrollment of the college, I became president in 1991. We had approximately 300 students. And we have approximately 300 students today. Our growth has not come from this community. We have a campus in Fort Myers, we have an extended campus in Sarasota, and we plan to do distance education. Our growth came outside this community. We feel like the Seagate site does provide us plenty of room to grow, and it's very difficult to determine how many students you're going to have in 2010, just as it is for you to determine how many employees you're going to have in Collier County in 2010. But we'll do our best. We've given some numbers to Jeff, and if you'll allow him the time, he'll come back and respond to some of your concerns. There's been a suggestion about the church next door. In fact, the church came next to us and asked us if they could park on Sunday and we said yes. The MBA program is something that we are planning. It is a small cohort group. We don't know that it will be offered on Sunday, because the program's not in existence right now, but we're just telling you that there are other programs around the country that may have Sunday classes. With respect to the church next door, I met with superintendent Bob Lunz before he left. I've met with the Principal gpano at Seagate, and neither had any problems with International College commng into that site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You mean the school, the elementary school next door? MR. McMAHAN: The elementary school next door. In fact, our students have children. I mean, you need to keep in mind that we service an adult population, average age of 30. They have children, they are working, and their children also attend elementary schools around this particular community. Another thing that needs to be said about our enrollment is whether you're talking about 300 students or 700 students, they do not come all at one time. I think Mr. Perry's report indicates that we'd have around 125 students to 150 students on any particular session. We offer classes in block schedules, four-hour block schedules. They come, they attend one session, they leave. And finally, the gentleman made reference to the taxpayers in Park Shore, and I appreciate that. I'm also a taxpayer, and so are our students. And that's why we're here. We're here for our students. They deserve the best. We have determined that Seagate location is the best location for them, and we're here to support them. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Patricia Pistner and John Agnelli. MS. PISTNER: Pistner. MR. FERNANDEZ: Pistner, I'm sorry. MS. PISTNER: I'm Patricia Pistner. I represent the Naples Cay Association. My husband, Steven Pistner, is president of the Naples Cay Master Association and couldn't be here tonight -- today and asked me to stand in his place. Our board of directors and our community is against the school going into a residential community. As it is now, we have an organization that serves the needs of a community that it's located in, rather than a community at large, and we'd like to keep it like that. The other thing I'd like to remind you about is that the developer at Naples Cay can put up an additional 125 units in our community that will add to the traffic problem in the Park Shore area. And when you compound it with the extra traffic that will be coming in for a school as it grows over five years, I think it's something you need to consider before making your decision. We hope you vote no. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: John Agnelli and -- MR. AGNELLI: Madam Chairman -- MR. FERNANDEZ: -- Patrick Griffin. MR. AGNELLI: -- commissioners, my name is John Agnelli. I'm chairman of the board of trustees of International College. I've made some notes listening to all the comments earlier today and thought about coming up and refuting some of them. But I think all I'm going to say is that on behalf of the board of trustees and the college, we are committed to be good neighbors in Park Shore. If we didn't believe the parking -- or the traffic study, we wouldn't be here today. We would have pulled out of this contract a long time ago. We believe that we will not negatively impact the traffic flow in the community that surrounds the school. And I would agree with Mr. Billick, this -- there's been a lot of comments about residential zoning. There's a church on that property. There's no houses on that property, there's a church there. We will be good neighbors. The bulk of the trustees of this college live in this community. And I think it would be a great asset, and it's part of what Naples is all about is what International College brings to the table. So I ask for your support and I endorse everything that's been said in favor of the college. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Patrick Griffin and Susan Phelps. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If we can just -- our court reporter needs a break. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many more? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How many speakers do we have left? MR. FERNANDEZ: Three more. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Three more? MR. FERNANDEZ: Three more after Patrick Griffin. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's take about a seven to 10-minute break and let the court reporter get some time here. (Brief recess.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to clarify a point. It's been my error. We have an order of procedure in our book. Everything's been all right to this point. I was asked in terms of rebuttal. Mr. Spagna, you asked in regard to a rebuttal. You are entitled, as the applicant, to a rebuttal, since this is a quasi judicial hearing, and you are able to have five minutes to make a rebuttal if you choose to do so. I just wanted to clarify that point. That's according to the procedure. So I don't want to gyp you out of anything. We still have -- I think we have what, three public speakers yet, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Four, including Mr. Griffin. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, four, including Mr. Griffin. So we're not ready for any rebuttal, if there is any, at this point. But let's continue then with the public speakers. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I clarify one thing before we go forward? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is International College a not-for-profit organization? MR. McMAHAN: We are. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record show that Mr. McMahan said yes, they are. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Patrick Griffin, and then Susan Phelps. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. GRIFFIN: For the record, my name is Patrick Griffin. I'm a resident of Park Shore. I have put a map on the wall, to which I will go in briefly, and I've submitted a letter and given it to the court reporter and to the three board members. I'm not sure that I've been able to verify all the accuracy of this information, but as a developer, my real point is that I feel this is really in essence a zoning to a change of commercial or a commercial nature, and that's what the letter is meant to point out. And I have also given a letter to this gentleman from the college so he has it. This is a map that I drew -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Griffin, could you use that little microphone right behind you there? Thank you. MR. GRIFFIN: Unfortunately, I didn't have my land planner do this for me. But basically what is red is commercial. Oh, sorry. What is in red is commercial, this being Route 41, this being Seagate Drive. This is Waterside, St. Williams, the tennis facility, which is part of the Registry Hotel. This is the Hilton Hotel, and this is Rhodes Furniture and a couple of office buildings. This orange color is a mixed residential commercial use. And the yellow is basically -- this is a park, this is the one church, this is the church site we are speaking of, this is the Seagate School and this is the other St. Williams site. I've colored this red, because it was my feeling that that's what it will be turned to. And this is residential, which is the blue. My basic point is that when you have blue, either we have parks, schools or a public school or a church backing up to them. And when you have commercial, it is either to -- it's to the north of us or it actually abuts to residential that is a mixed use. With that, I would just read into the record the letter that I wrote to the County Commissioners in reference to the rezoning. This is a rezoning request that is commercial in nature. All property on the south side of Seagate, which is adjacent to residential, has been for not-for-profit organizations, presently three churches and a public elementary school. Note St. Williams, heavily usage in traffic, is located on the north side of Seagate Drive, which is commercially zoned. The price reportedly being paid, three million dollars, can only be justified by a commercial use. I talked to the city attorney, who is a member of the church, and asked him about this. He neither confirmed nor denied that this was the price, so I'm just making the assumption that that was the price. Examples of residential uses, if you turned it into villas. I think I was told you could get 24 villas on the property. And our calculation would be a million, two. Single-family home sites would be about a million five in value. Value of the church, taking a million dollars off of the buildings, and 100,000 an acre, which is exactly what the church is basically paying on Goodlette Road for their new site, the First Methodist Church, 100,000 an acre for residential property, is a million, five. And I use an example of commercial property. If you again take the million dollars off of it, you get $200,000 land value. Divided by the five acres, that's $400,000 an acre. That's $9.18 per square foot. And I compare this in the last two statements. The value of land at $9 per square foot is comparable to commercial property in the activity center located at Pine Ridge and 1-75. Commercial uses were never intended for this property and should not be granted at this time. And I think my last quote is a rose by any other name is a rose. And I don't care what you call it, CF or whatever, this is being rezoned for commercial uses. Thank -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. MR. GRIFFIN: -- you very much. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pat, the $9 a foot you got to, that's for the land value only? MR. GRIFFIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, so -- I'm sorry, you're better at math than I, but you started at three million dollar purchase price, you subtract a million dollars as the value of the building and the improvements? MR. GRIFFIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where did you get that number? What makes you decide that that's worth a million dollars? MR. GRIFFIN: That was just based on my 22 years of development experience, I just felt that that was a realistic number for a depreciated property of that size. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So if the land by itself, if what they're paying is one million for the building and two million for the land, then they're paying about $9 a foot? MR. GRIFFIN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that is -- they could buy that at Pine Ridge and 1-757 MR. GRIFFIN: I can show them numerous sites. There are other locations -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: They could also buy it at Port Royal for nine bucks a foot. The idea that $9 a foot is criteria for commercial, you can buy Port Royal at 10 bucks a foot. Does that make it commercial? MR. GRIFFIN: Well, I don't think that I was comparing this to Port Royal property. I was comparing this as a commercial use to another commercial use. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir, you were comparing the cost of this raw land to the cost of raw land elsewhere, not uses. MR. GRIFFIN: Commercial use land elsewhere. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: By that same definition, sir, if I compared it to a waterfront lot in Port Royal, it would lead me to believe that this is waterfront property. So I just think it's a very flawed concept of how to determine whether it's a commercial use or not by looking at cost as opposed to land use and impacts. MR. GRIFFIN: Okay. I don't agree with you, but that's your opinion. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I didn't think we would agree, but I thought I'd give it a shot. MR. GRIFFIN: Any other questions? Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Susan Phelps, and then David Phelps. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Mr. Phelps here? MS. PHELPS: Yeah. For the record, my name is Susan Phelps, and I'm a resident of Park Shore and a member of the Park Shore Association, and I'm opposed to the rezoning. I'd just like to pose a question. It was mentioned in our general talks with the association members that -- I just wanted to ask if any one of the commissioners has any affiliation, either him or his spouse or a family member, with the International College, whether it be a substitute teaching aspect or any other type of affiliation, as a question to you all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you want to poll the board? MS. PHELPS: Yes, I just wanted to ask the board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly don't. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You live there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't work for the college. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not at all. MS. PHELPS: Okay. I was attracted and my husband was attracted to the Park Shore area in March when we bought our property there. And the reason why we chose Park Shore over the various opportunities to buy anywhere in Naples, there's so many developments going on, more beautiful homes you could get inland, but we chose the Park Shore area because of the preservation of a very preserved residential area that does not have a lot of commercial around the residential homes. So with that, I just wanted to let you know, we selected it and we were very disappointed that this is happening right now. We're very compassionate about the neighbors who butt up against the property, and we know that no matter what kind of landscaping buffer that could be put up, that the air is very warm down here and noise travels very easily. If anyone knows, the properties are smaller in Park Shore compared to Moorings or Coquina; therefore, a lot of us enjoy rollerblading and walking around the sidewalks of Park Shore, because our properties, although we chose them, they are smaller than they are in Coquina and Moorings as well. Therefore, I enjoy walking my dog, for instance, and our children in the future around the elementary school and up and down Seagate Drive. And at this point I walk ~ail¥ right in front of where the proposed property change rezonzng ms located. Now, when I'm walking my dog, and I'm an adult, and I notice that the traffic pulling -- heading westbound on Seagate, pulling a left, turning left into the property we're discussing, those people are concentrating on the traffic. They're not looking at children or any of us that are walking across that driveway. And many times it's a very hazard (sic) and danger to the people, pedestrians, walking on the sidewalk there. In addition, I'm for higher education. I've taught in various and been affiliated with higher education facilities in Maryland, Pennsylvania and Florida, and I'm very supportive of International College. But I would like to see them located on an area that's larger than five acres. I used to live on a seven-acre property in Maryland, and that property is not very large. It's an area that we could cut our -- we could cut the grass on that property ourselves in an afternoon. It's a small area. And I feel, coming from Florida Gulf Coast University, even, where I have been affiliated, they carved that area out of a swamp. They knew they were going to grow. I know from higher education that with these distance learning programs, that evenings and nighttime, as well as weekends, is going to be a strong focus, because they're drawing from working people who are going back to school. I have nothing against that. But the location of that I do have a problem with that. And I'm very supportive of their college, I'd love to see them grow and expand and draw a large number of students to the Internet program that they're doing, their distant learning, but I would like for them to go inland or go to another parcel, perhaps a parcel that they already have themselves as an option, if this falls through. Now, they very well may already have another parcel. But what I'm saying is in the Park Shore area, five acres to me -- I've never seen a college that I've been affiliated with not grow. Every one of them has grown and has expanded. Their -- the demographics have changed. There's no longer the traditional student that's 18, 19 years old. They're older students, they're working students that have families. They're also very hurried in this busy lifestyle. And I'm concerned about the traffic and the busyness and the fast pace of the traffic also, turning across sidewalks and pedestrian areas, very close to an elementary school where my children will be going to. So I have a lot of concerns mostly about the location of this college. Not that I'm against higher education at all. I thank you for your time and I'm really hoping and praying that you all will vote against this rezoning. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: David Phelps, and then Ted Sauter. MR. PHELPS: Good afternoon. My name is David Phelps and I'm a resident of Park Shore, and I'm opposed to the zoning change that's proposed here. I agree with basically everything that's been said to this time as far as the reasons for that, being traffic, lighting, light pollution carrying over in the neighboring neighborhood, nozse, safety issues and so forth. One thing I've had from a previous experience up north is in a zoning hearing change one of the questions asked is how a zoning change will affect the public health, safety and welfare of the area. And it's obvious from what we've heard today that this is having an impact. As my wife mentioned earlier, you know, the university is going to grow. I'm sure that's their anticipation of making it bigger. So obviously there is going to be an impact. And this is a residential area we've just bought into, and one of the attractions of it was that it was an established area, and it was a very peaceful, quiet area that you could walk or rollerblade or bike or do whatever without interference from traffic and whatnot. One of the biggest concerns I guess that hasn't been addressed, and it's -- it's somewhat of a guess as to whether it would happen, but if this does get approved, there's a very what I would consider a lucrative expansion opportunity next door to this site, which is the Church of Christ. Now, I realize that is in the City of Naples and not in Collier County; however, if the school has the resources to purchase a site in Park Shore area, which is, I would consider, rather pricey real estate for something like this when there's other options available further inland at a much lower cost, the idea of having that entertained for expansion I'm sure would be a feasible possibility. And that's my concern, that if this gets approved, that we're going to more or less open Pandora's box and that this thing will fester into what is now -- you know, would be a small college into a much larger college. And that's basically all have I to say. Thank you very much for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker is Ted Sauter. MR. SAUTER: I wish I could get all of us off the hook and all be friends when we leave. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: State your name for the record. MR. SAUTER: I'm Ted Sauter, Dr. Ted Sauter. I'm senior pastor of North Naples United Methodist Church. I'm a 51-year-old resident of the State of Florida, I'm a native, and I've lived six years in Naples and I'm a taxpayer. I used to live in the back lot of that church. Listening to people today -- and I used to debate in college. The most difficult thing to do is to speak when you know most of the people aren't real happy what you're going to talk about. And secondly, you may offend. And thirdly, you have to deal with the fact that there have been repeated statements that are misinformation, unfortunately. And after a lot of thought and prayer, I'm willing to take a little time to look at a few issues that you've heard again and again. You would think that one, the church is in Park Shore. It is not. It happens to be -- never has been in Park Shore. Park Shore ajuts (sic) us. Don't take it off my time. You can say it's a technicality, but it's also true. I've listened at -- our neighbors have talked about how the children are in our portables and how there are two or three children to a car. Preschool children are not in portables. We have six-foot walls behind us that sometimes our neighbors may not be always aware of what we do or don't do. We've been told that we have 30 to 40 cars coming in, that the traffic study was flawed. I have 40 staff in the church in preschool. We have more than 40 cars there every day from just those who draw a salary. We have 145 children in our preschool. Less than 10 of them have siblings, which means that you can figure that's 135 just there. On most nights of the week we have more people and activities than the college does. We want to be friends. We've liked being in that area. We think we're good for the community. We started Seagate Elementary School. We have been accused of being somehow clandestine, that we're not in the city. We've been told today we're good neighbors, and then wondered why we couldn't be kicked into the city because we're not good enough to be in the county anymore, and then called a pimple, which I don't consider -- that's not what I consider praise. But we talked about how we maybe tie up too much parking. It's our friends at St. Williams that take up Seagate School parking. We rent a trolley during the winter months at a cost of several hundred dollars a week in order to bring people from the Waterside Shops. We could expand our program. We like the neighborhood. In fact, we wanted to stay there, but we would have had to go to Friday night services, Saturday night services, appeal for a parking garage and a variety of things. Finally, we've been told about how we got so much money, it must be commercial. The chair of our trustees here said that we're overpaying on our insurance because our appraisals tell us that our buildings are worth two million dollars, and that's what we insured them for. Just an aside. Maybe we could get it. Usually in the State of Florida, where everything is for sale -- and it's been for the 51 years that I've been a resident of this state -- the truth of the matter is, you usually don't begrudge people for getting a good price. If we sold it for a half a million dollars, our neighbors would be incensed that we've drawn down the property values. Seagate people suggested that we turn it into a park. We have tried to put playgrounds and park-like facilities in the south side of our property, and every one of our neighbors objected. And because we try to get along with our neighbors, we went along and we kept that as basically grass and did not put in a playground about three years ago when that was an issue. Our playgrounds are elsewhere. We want to be good neighbors. We want to have good relationships with people, whether or not they ever go to our church. But I want to throw before you, as the County Commission, something I think you need to wrestle with. If you all vote this down, which is your privilege, your neighbors that have complained will be happy for awhile, we will go on and move our church eventually, and the college will do well. The reason this came up is because the college wanted a ready-made campus, they had the opportunity of moving ahead with their program quicker and more successfully in a very nice neighborhood, and that was a fair, aboveboard decision. If we'd gone into the city years ago, who says we would have gone in as residential anyway? We had as much right to say, since the city wanted us, to appeal to be any zoning we wanted. So that's again a moot point. My point is that the college will go on, our church will go on, but I think you need to be prepared for the fact that some of the people who have been most upset would not like a church to be there. I'm letting that thought sink in. I've been told by some of our neighbors that they don't like being next to a church, even though they bought next to us or built next to us. Now, we try to be good neighbors. My point is, if we sell that to a college or to a church or commercial, or we turn it into 20 homes, which we have a right to do, it will not be well received. Thank you. I know you'll look at the overall best interest of the community and thank you for your time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that the last speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: That was your final speaker. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is Mr. Spagna going to -- MR. SPAGNA: No, Wayne will -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, commissioners. I'll try to make this very brief. I just wanted to wrap up and reinforce a few points. I'm not here to debate many of the comments that have been stated, but as said, some of the comments I think were possibly a little bit less than accurate. One thing that's very true, and you can look in your LDC and find this out, the CF zoning district is not a commercial district. It's the district that was designed to implement nonresidential and institutional uses that are allowed anywhere in the residential area of your comprehensive plan. That's its intent, that's its design, that's why the standards that are there are very well equipped to deal with adjacency to residential development. It even says that right in the code. I think the traffic study was not based on some ITE standard. It was based on real data supplied to us by the numerous years of data collected by the church and the day care center. The fact that there's a six to eight-foot high hedge, fences and walls along the rear property line I think preclude anyone from having a clear view of what takes place at the site, and I think it's very difficult for most people who work for a living to imagine everything that happens on your neighboring property during the day. These numbers are very valid and very real. They were prepared by a certified planner. No other evidence has been presented to you to dispute that information that we've prepared. We have four homes that we know are immediately impacted by the zoning change. We've agreed to many conditions and standards that we think are going to go a long way, if not eliminate any incompatibility issue. These standards are things that you normally find in PUD zoning. We're straight zoning and we're willing to give ourselves these conditions because we want to be good neighbors. I also wanted to point out something that Mr. Perry and I were talking about. Let's take an example in Park Shore. How about Venetian Village? That's a commercial shopping center right in the middle, in the heart of Park Shore. Park Shore Drive leads to you Venetian Village. I dare anyone to say that can't be a compatible neighbor with the nearby residential community. It abuts residential across Venetian Bay. Except for the times where they may have special events, as far as I know, it is a good neighbor. And third, I'd just like to point out that your Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this, your staff supported it with imposed conditions. We agree to those conditions. You're heard our commitment to agree to other conditions. We hope you support it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wondered if you were able to get that traffic number we talked about at the beginning. MR. ARNOLD: We do have some traffic numbers. Mr. Perry ran some analyses based on 700. If I might take just one second to point out, the comment was made by someone else here that what other CF zoning abuts residential and they're not aware of any? I just pulled the zoning maps. Ail three other CF zoning district properties in the urban area abut residential development and more homes than we abut. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. PERRY: Commissioners, the college has indicated that about 700 would be the maximum student population. It translates into a daily student population, those that are actually attending and arriving on campus each day, to about 375, given the same ratio of total student population to the arriving students on any given day. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I pause you? Because I need to understand that. And this -- MR. PERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is the question that's been asked by a lot of -- asked of me by a lot of people. The thought is that if you do block scheduling and if the site can accommodate 700 students, that that really means 700 times three blocks is 2,100 students, 2,100 trips. Please tell me why that's wrong, if that's wrong, because they're all telling me that's wrong. Can you explain to me why that's wrong? MR. PERRY: Well, the plant capacity COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or maybe Mr. McMahan could do that if you'd prefer. Because, I mean, that is an operations question. But that -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: They can't accommodate that many. MR. McMAHAN: Their schedules can't accommodate it, number one. Those are four-hour block schedules, four credit hours to be a full-time student is 12 credits. You can't -- a student can't do it. It's impossible. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A full-time student could, right, take 12 hours? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, no, not what he's talking about. You're looking at a block. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't know what that means. MR. FERNANDEZ: Four hours -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Four -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does everybody know what that means? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, that's what you've got at your current high schools right now, you've got block scheduling. MR. FERNANDEZ: I know all about it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, a block is a block of four hours, and to translate that into meaning 2,100 students, you couldn't accommodate them all at one time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It wouldn't work. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Mr. Perry again. Let's just clarify this. You said that 700 -- MR. PERRY: 700 total COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- total student enrollment. MR. PERRY: -- popula -- student population. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 375 on any given day. MR. PERRY: That's correct. And that transla -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that will be split into at least two blocks. MR. PERRY: That's correct. And that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So it would be 1 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 85. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, almost -- yeah, right. MR. PERRY: And that accounts for about 868 trips during the course of a day, based on the student population that would be attending, as well as the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Factoring in the faculty -- MR. PERRY: -- faculty and management and so forth. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But that once again, they don't come all at one time. They're split -- MR. PERRY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- over certain times of the day. MR. PERRY: That's correct, they're split over the starting and stopping of a block. Those are trips in and out, okay. That's not total number of students, but that's trips in and out each day, arriving at different times of the day, according to whatever the block schedule happens to be. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And so for 180 students, you need how many parking spots again? Two for five, right? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Two for five. MR. PERRY: In this instance you probably need, according to the code, probably a hundred and MS. MURRAY: Two for five and four per faculty and administrative. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how many would we need? Somebody do the math. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: About 100 parking spots. MR. PERRY: Yeah, about 100 parking spaces. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: have? MR. PERRY: 12 -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: MS. MURRAY: 126. MR. PERRY: 126. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how much paved parking spaces do you 1207 So we're talking about never needing to pave over the grass parking area. You could never need to pave that. And that's something that would be real important to the people in Park Shore if this were going to have to happen. MR. PERRY: Quite frankly, I don't know why you would want to have to pave over the parking -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, no. And Mr. McMahan -- Dr. McMahan just shook his head no, they would never need to pave over that parking. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: At those ratios. Assuming those ratios hold up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we've got to know -- we've got to have some kind of a maximum -- a build-out potential for this site. And build-out for a school would be measured by number of students -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 700. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because -- so 700 is the maximum number of students forever and ever amen, then they'll never need, assuming the ratios hold up, to pave over the parking. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And on the traffic, if I may, the -- there were several folks that basically outright said your numbers were fraudulent, Mr. Perry. I don't think we need to go through your credentials, just to say alone that they're lengthy and impressive. But let's assume you were off by 50 percent on what the church generates. These new numbers you just gave us are still less than that; am I correct? MR. PERRY: Not less than the 50 percent. They are less than what we estimated the church would be generating today. And we're -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, and -- MR. PERRY: -- talking about -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that number is how -- MR. PERRY: -- a student population -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- many trips per day? THE REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time, please. MR. PERRY: Excuse me. We're talking about a student population at 700 that exceeds the 12-year projection, so we're going out to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. PERRY: I'm sorry, exceeds 2010 year projection. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, let me back in to try and confirm something one way or the other. How many trips per day does the church generate today? MR. PERRY: 933. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Every day? MR. PERRY: Every day. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we're -- MR. PERRY: An average weekday. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Average. MR. PERRY: Now Sundays, obviously the church activity, as has been demonstrated by the witnesses today, church activities on Sunday on Seagate Drive are significant. That would be negligible as far as this land use is concerned. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So from 933 a day, we're talking about, if I understood you correctly, at 700 students to be -- what is it, 375 per day? MR. PERRY: 375 attending, actually, any given day, generating 868 trips. Students arriving and leaving, as well as the faculty. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So 868 trips per day would be the maximum traffic impact at build-out of 700 students, compared to today's church trips of 933 trips per day. MR. PERRY: That's based on 375 students attending. I need to say that with the way the college has expanded its facilities into remote classroom environments, the -- that ratio of attending college to total enrollment could get smaller. In other words, there could be 900 totally enrolled in the college, but still only have 375 attending on any given day, because they hold classes at remote locations in other parts of the county. So I can't tell you that 700 is the magic number. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. But 375 -- MR. PERRY: But 375 is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is the magic number. MR. PERRY: -- a magic number that we can equate to traffic coming in and out of the site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because if I were looking for a max number, I don't care how many students pay tuition to International College if they're studying from home and their computer -- MR. PERRY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and they never leave their house. But what I'm trying to measure is how many trips. And so I -- if I were looking for a cap, it would be 375 students in attendance -- no more than that in attendance per day. That is what would make your number of 868 trips per day legitimate. MR. PERRY: That's correct, 375 students attending class each day COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Attending. MR. PERRY: -- will generate 868 trips -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Matters a lot -- MR. PERRY: -- each day. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- more than the number enrolled. I understand that for the first time. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have one more traffic related question. MR. PERRY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Perry, your analysis of the traffic impacts on the internal Park Shore neighborhood, what will happen to the Park Shore neighborhood traffic-wise if this were converted from a church to a college? MR. PERRY: I suspect that the amount of traffic that is filtering in through the local streets to the existing church-related facilities -- that would be the preschool as well as the regular church activities -- will probably decrease, and it will not be -- it will not be increased as a result of the college, because of the college traffic finding its way to this particular site through Seagate Drive, and not coming from -- those people that are living in the city that want to go to the college have every right to travel Crayton Road, just like every person who lives in the city that travels to the church site today may travel Seagate Drive up through Crayton Road or Gulf Shore, however they plan to get to that particular location. This particular school, college operation, is not going to increase traffic on the adjacent local streets. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think the point is that churches tend to be local in nature for their clientele. MR. PERRY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And, therefore, you would expect most of the people to come out of Park Shore or nearby, and, therefore, when you look at the college, it's county-wide for its participation. And so most of the people that go to the college will one way or the other find themselves at the intersection of 41 and Seagate and from there to the -- MR. PERRY: Almost exclusively. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- to the school. MR. PERRY: According to the origin and destination survey, we did have existing -- of existing people going to college, and obviously that will change over time, there was only two percent that said that they would use Crayton Road. Nobody said they would use West. Everybody else would come through that Pine Ridge/Seagate intersection. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask a question about traffic analysis. It seems to me that your statement that most of the traffic will come from outside the neighborhood because this will be serving a county-wide audience as opposed to a church that serves a neighborhood audience, it seems to me that that argues against your case, because it argues that this is a -- the kind of facility that should be sited outside of a neighborhood instead of within a neighborhood. (Applause.) MR. PERRY: If we were siting the college in a location that required the attendance to travel local residential streets to get to it, I would agree with you. But this is not a local residential street. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And Jeff, I'm so positive that you're smarter than I am about traffic issues, but there's one thing -- if we could do -- if the reality were, as you've described it, that people who live within the city are on roads that feed onto Crayton are the people who have the right to drive on Crayton, if that were the fact, then we'd have no problem. But the reality is that -- I mean, I'm sorry, Crayton Road folks, but I cut across. Everybody who lives in there, anybody who goes there knows that you get off 41 -- I never drive on 41. I wouldn't drive on 41 in season, no matter what. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You people keep your eyes out for her Lexus then. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam, you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's just a few in Park Shore. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam, you live in the city. I mean, we just heard that less than two percent of the college enrollment even anticipated using streets within the city. Let's say it's a whole five percent. So if people are coming generally from outside this general vicinity to this location, for whatever the use, whether it's a church or a school or a hot dog stand, that's not the issue. The issue is that they're coming from outside the area. They're going to use the streets that are most accessible. To get to this location, it's Seagate. I mean, you're going to come up 41 and across Neapolitan and up West and over Park and up another one and back on Seagate to come to this site? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, you know how -- you know where I live. Do you think that I would need to get on 41 or Seagate Drive to get to this complex? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's my point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would never get on 41 or Seagate Drive. I would come up the back side, back roads, just like everybody will eventually figure out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because you live in that neighborhood. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would hope that you -- (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- walk to the college. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'm talking about to here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Jog. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I thought you were talking about going to the college from where you live, and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's my backyard. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- I think you should walk, you know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would think so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have a question for staff. MR. PERRY: If I can clarify just that one point. Out of the existing 251 enrolled population, there's only 28 that live within the City of Naples. Now, there are some that live just outside the city that perhaps would find their way onto Crayton Road, and there were a couple that said that they would. But the vast majority are coming from areas that to find their way to Crayton Road would be going out of their way to get to the site. They're coming from North Naples, they're coming from rural estates, they're coming from -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no, we don't allow that. We don't allow that, folks. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No heckling allowed. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Wait a minute, I had -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, go ahead. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is the most -- maybe we should wait 'til we close the public hearing for this question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it's up to you, you can ask it now or wait. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll wait 'til we close the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have any more questions for Mr. Perry COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- or our staff? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I was just going to make a comment. Go ahead. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If we have no other public speakers listed, okay, then we'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay, most important question for me to be able to base my vote on is do we have a way -- I'm looking at the Planning Commission recommendation number five, and I can't support that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which is? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which is that it's straight CF zoning. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have any kind of mechanism that says that if we rezone this to accommodate the school, that it can only be used for a school in the future -- or for a college in the future or for a church in the future? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's called a PUD. MS. MURHAY: Susan Murray for the record. That question might be better asked of your attorney, but I will respond. It's my understanding that yes, you have the ability to do that, but I would ask that you defer to him. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you tell us what that is? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry, would I tell you what what is? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What will the zoning map say if this is rezoned? MS. MURRAY: It would just -- basically it would say CF, and it would have probably a number identifier that would refer you to a specific ordinance, which would be the ordinance that you pass today, and then you would have to actually read that ordinance to find out what the limitations are. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What I'm really interested in is that in case 10 years from now the International College decides they want to go to yet another location, I would like to see this piece of property have to come back to the Board of Commissioners for approval for the next use. That's what I would like to see. Is there a mechanism that we can do -- MS. MURRAY: I believe if you are permitted to, and it's my understanding that you can, and you restrict the use strictly for a college use, and then -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, for International College is what he said. MS. MURRAY: Oh, for International College specifically? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I suspect that it would be pretty unlikely for International College to sell it to some other college, frankly. I mean, that's probably out of the realm of possibility. MS. STUDENT: If I may, Madam Chairman, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. With the agreement of the petitioner -- and I understand that they will so agree -- you can limit the uses that way. Usually you can't in straight zoning, but as long as the petitioner agrees, we feel that you can. And I understand they agree. But they may wish to put it on the record themselves. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear that from them. They agree to college and college only? MR. McMAHAN: We will. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could you be more succinct? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And brief. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps the -- sorry, sound effects over here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What am I, chopped liver down at this end? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Probably the most challenging part, toughest part of this job, is when we have issues before us and we know good people on both sides of the issue. The final speaker we had talked about how tough it is to say things that some people may not want to hear. And International College has a number of people affiliated with it that I think a great deal of with John Agnelli and Terry and Neno, I think the world of, have known for years. They have also assembled two of -- in my opinion, anyway -- the best professionals they could have gotten. And while some of the people took Jeff's numbers to task, I don't think you're going to find a better transportation person than Jeff Perry and a better engineer/planner than Wayne Arnold. So I appreciate that team. That said, however, I have to be consistent with what I voted earlier today when we were dealing with the plan we were transmitting to Tallahassee. And we were dealing with the ALF issue on estates zoned property, residential area, I voted against that, because it increased the intensity of the use, it went against the clearly designated zoning, and in my opinion wasn't compatible. If I'm going to be consistent, then I have to look at this the same way. And I think a similar situation exists here, where we are at the potential of going against the clear zoning and intent of the property, and have some questions as far as compatibility. Any time anyone applies for a rezone, they have -- we have a series of 17 questions that are asked as part of that application that they apply, and our staff supplies answers to that. And four of those in particular give me pause for concern. Question number six in there asks if it will adversely impact the existing neighborhood. Clearly we have an awful lot of people that think it will. And I think they may be right. Not that there's anything wrong with International College, but from a number of planning standpoints. Question number 13 is, are there substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with the existing zoning. And I don't know that there are. We have any number of churches come before us looking for places. We have churches open regularly, as our community grows in Collier County, and so I'm not sure that there is a le$itimate reason why this property couldn't be used for its existing zoning. And I don't necessarily mean -- I know we have the question as to whether or not with the residential zoning that anybody would necessarily live on that corner. They may or may not. However, I've got to imagine there are other sanctuaries that would like to use that. Question 14, is the change out of scale with the needs of the neighborhoods? According to the neighborhood anyway, yes, it is. And I think that's a legitimate question and a legitimate concern. And then question 15 is probably the strongest and that is, is it possible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use? And I think there are, there's any number. So I think if we do this from a planning standpoint and we look at those issues and we look at the compatibility issue, I don't know that I can support the rezone. I think there are very, very clear questions there. And it's very difficult, because I know so many of the people involved with International College and I wish you all the success in the world, but I don't know that this is the appropriate spot from a land planning way to do it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the petition with the condition that International College agrees that it can only be used for college purposes now and in the future. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to second the motion, and in doing so, Commissioner Constantine, I think you wisely picked out the four most objective criteria of everything listed, particularly number 15, is it impossible to find other adequate sites. I think the answer to that is on any rezone we've ever seen, I mean, is it impossible to find another site? I've yet to run into a single one that it was impossible. So maybe the wording of that needs to be changed, because I'm not so sure that that's appropriate. I guess it's not going to change your mind, I know you well enough to know that. But -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Four years does that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, it kind of happens that way, doesn't it? I guess sitting up here today, a lot of people from Park Shore have looked up at us, with one exception, as being somewhat disenfranchised from your community. We're Collier County Commissioners that you don't have a voice in electing. I just want to remind you that I don't live in the city, but my children will attend Seagate. When I get on a bike and go to the beach, it's on Seagate. I will be picking my daughter up from Seagate Elementary in three years. So I just want you to consider sometimes when you make comments about how maybe others don't understand your position, I think I understand it a little bit more than you gave at least me credit for today. And in saying that, I think the International College definitely would have locked in the kind of neighbor that would have made Park Shore proud. You obviously disagree with me on that, and it sounds like you're going to be successful today. To International College I say I'm sorry, I wish that weren't the case. I think you did a real nice job in what you proposed here today. I think you tried to work with the community far more than most applicants we see. And to the church, best of luck to you. You know, I know it's tough to get a new church off the ground, and I wish you luck, Ted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I can just say one thing, too. This is the -- obviously the hardest rezone question that's come up for me since I've been here. And that's to a great degree because of the respect I have for International College as an institution. It's the only accredited institution, four-year institution, we have in this area. Because of the sincerity, the honesty, the integrity of the people who have represented them, and because of the untold hours of work that they have put in to agreeing to every single thing that I have asked them over and over again, everything I've asked, they've agreed to. What I find, however, is that despite my very best efforts to make a deal that could make everybody happy -- because I'm one of those people, I like everybody to leave the room happy -- I've been unable to do it. I cannot make everybody happy. I can't cut a deal. Even with your -- even with your change that you would agree just to a college use. I thought that what my neighborhood was afraid of was CF zoning, and that's what we worked hard on to get away from. But even with that change, what we've heard today is that they strongly object to the college to -- not International College but a college. And as a result of that, I don't have a choice to do anything other than represent the people who have put me in office and do what they have clearly asked me to do. But I can't do that without saying that the people at International College have been outstanding. I want to work with you any way I can to help you find some other location, and also, to say to the church that your problem is only that you've been such a good neighbor that nobody wants to lose you. I hope that you didn't hear anything other than that from the majority of the people. It's just hard for us to say good-bye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I guess -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Call it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, call the question. I would like to make a comment. Commissioner Constantine talked about being consistent. Well, I guess I'm going to be consistent, too. This way I can make most of Collier County unhappy today. Started off the morning and made a group in my own district unhappy, because I think there's times when that's why we get paid the big bucks to sit up here and make some of these decisions that we do. I personally think that International College, that -- I don't think this would be a bad fit. And I have to tell you, when everybody talks about the neighborhood -- I guess I've been around here, I was here when Seagate Elementary School was built. That goes back to 1963. I was there when they put that school in. It was out in the country. I taught at Naples High School. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was born the next year. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I know. That's why I have a little more wisdom than Commissioner Constantine, based on a lot of experience, I guess. But, you know, and just to see that -- I mean, it was pretty darn clear of what was going to happen eventually down this street. And I grant you, Park Shore grew out to meet this area. And I also remember being on the school board when they talked about putting the park in at Seagate, and maybe some of the same people came forward and raised a fit about the tennis courts and the lights and how obnoxious this was going to be for the neighborhood. And I venture to say there's not one of you sitting out here today that would say take out those tennis courts and ball field. There might be, but if it is, it's because you don't have children and they maybe don't participate in the activities that are over there. But I remember those days. And I remember how hard -- there was another segment of the population that fought for those facilities, and one of those facilities in the neighborhood. And with higher education being what it is, what with distance learning and all those kinds of things, the use of the computer, which, whether we like them or not, they're here to stay and they are a tool to be used in education, whether Dr. McMahan is going to have students parked in that particular building or whether there's going to be instructors and they're instructing using a computer to people located elsewhere, I think you're going to see a lot of that, too. And I think you're going to see more and more. Instead of students coming and being in physical attendance in a building, you're going to have people who are going to come there as instructors and do the instruction, and they may be reaching umpteen students. So when Dr. McMahan is asked in the future what his student enrollment might be, he might be able to say 1,500 students, but that doesn't mean that they're all going to be coming to that campus, or any of the other two sites that they may have. I have no financial vested interest with International College, and I don't have any financial interest in the Methodist Church, but I'm really sorry about the fact that I think you're losing an educational institution in this particular location. And I don't -- in all my heart, I did not feel like it was going to be detrimental to your community. But I'll call the question. Ail in favor? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion fails, three-two. majority vote of four. It needed a super Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 98-84, RE PETITION PUD-98-5, MARK W. MINOR OF Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING WILLIAM E. TOULOUMIS REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "a" AGRICULTURE AND "pud" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS WALGREENS PUD FOR A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER OF 15.68 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED Okay, moving on then to item 12(B) (2). I'll give you a few minutes to exit the room. Okay, moving on to item 12(B) (2), petition PUD-98-5. This is a request for a rezone from agriculture to PUD. Would all persons wishing to speak to this item please stand and be sworn in by our court reporter. (Ail speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, any disclosure on this item, commissioners? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't have any as well. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, current planning services. The site is located in a mixed use activity center at the southwest corner of the intersection of Airport Pulling Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. The western 10 acres of the site is presently zoned as La Fontana PUD, and the remaining five acres is presently zoned agricultural. What this petition purports to do is rezone the entire 15-acre piece from PUD and agriculture to Walgreen's PUD to allow commercial uses, which are generally found in the C-4 or commercial zoning district. Maximum square footage of commercial development will be 156,800 square feet. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ms. Murray, any objection to this? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who took this off the summary agenda? MS. MURRAY: Well, there was some objection from the Emerald Lakes PUD -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's all we need to hear. MS. MURRAY: -- residents to the south that kept it off the summary agenda. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What was the nature of that objection? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The nature of that objection? MS. MURRAY: The nature of that objection. They had concern over the timing of the required landscape buffer along that southern property line. Basically what happened was at the Planning Commission hearing, the petitioner agreed to install the required landscape buffer at the initial phase of development of the project, rather than waiting 'til that tract or area of the project was developed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they voiced their concern? MS. MURRAY: They addressed their concern that way. I also want to point out, and I can cut right to the chase, because there are a couple of issues that you all need to decide on, and that is that the petitioner was requesting additional signage in the form of an additional directory sign. That's one additional directory sign and one development identification sign, each sign being proposed to have an allowable area of up to 250 square feet per sign face. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would we even consider additional signage? MS. MURRAY: I will tell you that the Planning Commission's recommendation was they voted unanimously to forward the PUD to you with a recommendation for approval subject to the following stipulations, and that had to do with signage. And that would be that the directory signs would be limited to one sign with a maximum of 250 square feet for a single entrance on each public street, and would be permitted for multiple occupancy parcels such as shopping centers, provided they contained five or more independent businesses. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How does that differ from our code? MS. MURRAY: The code requires eight or more independent businesses. Additionally, the stipulation they had would allow any out parcel which does not have frontage on Airport Pulling Road may be included in meeting the requirement for independent businesses. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's called having your cake and eating it, too, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think I'd prefer to stick with the code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I can support it with signs at code. MS. MURRAY: It's generally fairly compatible -- comparable with the code except for the counting the number of businesses and then allowing the out parcels without frontage to be counted as -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, since it's fairly comparable, I'm sure that the petitioner will agree to stick to the code. MS. MURRAY: And then the second stipulation was at the time of initial development, the developer would install the required landscape buffer on the portion of the southern boundary which abuts the site on -- against Emerald Lakes PUD. I also wanted to point out that your package indicates a master plan that shows an access point to Tennis Court Lane along the southern boundary. And the residents of the Emerald Lakes PUD also requested that that access point be changed to a pedestrian access point rather than a vehicular access point for which the petitioner agreed to do on the record also, but your master plan doesn't indicate that, so you would need to make that as part of your motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But how does -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What does that tie into? MS. MURPJtY: That ties into the Emerald Lakes PUD, basically -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That goes south to a T-intersection which you have to make a left to go out to Airport Road. You go through a single-family neighborhood, basically, and then you hit some condominiums that go one way or the other to a loop road inside Emerald Lakes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Tim, if we left -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait a minute. If this is going to be a shopping center, though, why would I want to close off this access to it? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You want to close it off for vehicular access, not for pedestrian. Here's the question: I believe at Emerald Lakes there's a median cut northbound on Airport Road. Ms. Murray? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hello? MS. MURRAY: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe at Emerald Lakes there's a median cut, you can go northbound on Airport Road; is that correct? MS. MURRAY: That's my understanding, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ail right. So if I'm in the shopping center and I want to go northbound on Airport, I might use Emerald Lakes as a cut-through to make that left turn. I think it's a minimal number, but the street within Emerald Lakes is your standard 24 feet of pavement with driveways and mailboxes right on it. I think we're just kind of openmng up a situation there that does not give us a better traffic circulation pattern for the people in Emerald Lakes, only for people using the Walgreen's shopping center. So the pedestrian access center I like, because you can ride your bike or walk or whatever. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very similar to what we did at the Countryside. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Originally there was a roadway that hooked to the back. They had some concerns. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, and my only -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the vehicular access has the potential for damage, and that's my concern. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question was, you know, we keep trying to get interconnection and access off of major arterials. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, we -- but we want them planned ahead of time. You may remember, when this came in, we were talking about kind of -- we even asked the question -- of a looped road. And I think it was this parcel here on the corner. You remember that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I remember that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. The problem is that this one doesn't encompass all of the property on that corner. I think this kind of cut-out piece is still a vacant piece of property; is that correct? MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. There's a five-acre piece on the south side. You can notice, it's kind of a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A little notch. MR. KANT: -- funny T-shape -- yeah, a little notch there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We had actually, when we were looking at that piece on another action, had talked about making sure there was kind of a single access -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- road that would access both of them. That's not accomplished here. It's not to say it couldn't be. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But if we close off the vehicular access, won't it prohibit that from happening? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, because you can still do it through that property. You can't do it south of the south property line because you have homes on Tennis Court Lane on the east side. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, is Tennis Court Lane where that one arrow that goes -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to the south, that's Tennis Court Lane? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And you're saying by closing that off, Commissioner, what -- you're going to close them off from going into Emerald Lakes? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Keep people from -- that are in the shopping center from using Emerald Lakes to get through to Airport Road. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, if this -- if we were to design this from the outset -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and we could make it so that we didn't have single-family lots loaded onto this access street, then that's what we're shooting for. The problem is, we're kind of coming in later and trying to retrofit it, and we're going to end up putting commercial type traffic, possibly even delivery trucks, onto a residential street that has driveways loaded onto it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But can't we prohibit that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A sign? When's the last time a sign stopped a truck, unless there's an officer sitting next to it? I mean, delivery trucks go wherever they want to go when it's -- when we don't have enough enforcement people out there. And so, you know, it's like speeding. If you don't -- if you can't enforce it adequately, then people ignore the signs. Same thing with, you know, a truck sign with a slash through it, they're still going to use it. I just -- I have not talked to the residents in Tennis Court Lane, but I've walked that street, and it is very small neighborhood kind of back there. And I'm just -- I'm afraid we're going to get trucks and delivery vehicles and whatnot accessing it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I mean, I don't want that. That's obvious -- I'm not interested in that. I'm just trying to think of some way to COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make that loop. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- help the traffic pattern to make the loop. And -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I think -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- but if we can't do that, why -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what you can do, which will be helpful, is when that five-acre piece comes in that is kind of in that notch, is you require an interconnect between those two. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So on this PUD we would make a notation that when that piece comes in, they're required to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can we do that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about that, Mr. Kant, or -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because that's the one parcel there is no interconnect shown to is the actual vacant ag. zoning there. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services. I would like to invite your attention to two things. If you look at the site map that was ~rovided in your package, you'll notice that Emerald Lake Drive comes mn not at the bottom of the -- or I should say the south side of the first five-acre parcel, but near the south end of the next five-acre parcel. So there is actually -- there are actually two parcels in there that still have to be dealt with at some point in the future. I wanted to bring that ~iece of information to your attention. The other issue ms we're presently under design for the six-laning of Airport Road from Cougar Lane to Vanderbilt Beach Drive. As part of that, because of the traffic issues that we're encountering with the six-lane design, we're giving very serious consideration to signalizing that intersection at what would be Citrus Lake and Emerald Lake Drives. Or I guess Lakeside Drive is what it is. It used to be Citrus Lake. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it's Citrus Lake Drive. MR. KANT: Is that what they're still calling it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. MR. KANT: Be that as it may, that is under consideration right now, because we're concerned than an interesting traffic situation under four-laning conditions could become impossible under six-laning conditions. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the proper interconnect here instead of Tennis Court Lane is the parcel in the notch there, and to require a future interconnect there just makes more sense than going Tennis Court Lane. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that something that the petitioner could agree to? MR. MINOR: Grady Minor for the record. I'm representing Olympia Development Company. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: At this point, it just simply requires -- because your roadway is on the perimeter there, it just requmres showing an interconnect and either stubbing out or being prepared for it. If the adjacent parcels' development plan doesn't allow for it or it can't be accomplished, then it remains. But I'm trying to give you another access point out, and when the next person comes in for development, we'd like them to connect up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Kant? MR. KANT: Again, commissioners, if I may, I would ask also that you -- let's not forget the county'~ access management policy. One of the things that we get concerned about, especially in these activity centers, is the proximity of commercial driveways to one another, especially as they get near corners. We encourage, wherever possible, interconnections, and in this particular geometry, when we do signalize that intersection, if we put two additional commercial drives in the immediate vicinity of that, just to the north, that's going to create some problems. And that's why we would like to try to encourage interconnection among all those parcels, if it's at all possible, and get a -- hopefully a single access onto Airport Road. I believe they have two accesses onto Vanderbilt Beach. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So how would you recommend we do that? Because that's our goal. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we're trying to get to the same place, Ed, we're just going about it a little differently. And you're issuing me kind of a very courteous caution here, but I'm looking for your help in how do we preserve that opportunity at this time without adversely affecting the property under un -- MR. KANT: Unfortunately, my experience has been that when we try to issue a strong requirement for interconnection, we're reminded of the constitution by our attorneys with respect to land use and what we can or cannot mandate. So I'm going to leave that up to the legal issues. I just think from a technical point of view, it's important to recognize that at Airport Road, in that area, I'm advising you that we will -- we would like to try to limit rather than encourage driveway accesses. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I don't know how that -- I hope you do, Tim. I don't know how that translates into whether we do or we don't request an interconnection between the five-acre parcel in this one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what -- correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're going to limit driveway connections there, if we tried to in the future -- I understand there's going to be a light down at Citrus Lake Drive. That means probably the best way to do that would be an access along the common property line between the two vacant parcels between Brighton Gardens and this piece. MR. KANT: That would be a start. Typically we look at mechanisms such as frontage roads, cross access, agreements, those type of things, among developers. We're working with several now. And unfortunately, the one that wants to get in there first sometimes can get somewhat recalcitrant. So it's -- I don't have an answer, commissioners, but I can tell you that that's continuing to present more and more of a problem as these activity centers build out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me suggest, then, because the southern edge of the Walgreen's PUD, where it shows access to Tennis Court, is roughly equivalent to the shared property line between the two vacant parcels. If we require on the very southern property line a connection over to those two parcels, or ask that that be provided, a stub-out on that very southern property, there's the opportunity then for it to connect to two parcels, as opposed to just one, and allow a better fluid movement. We're very preliminary, Mr. Grady, as you -- you know, we're trying to feel this out as we go. MR. MINOR: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Mr. Minor. MR. MINOR: Mr. Hancock, we've met with the Emerald Lakes people, and they were pretty strong about not having any interconnect. In fact, they talked to us about vacating the common Tennis Court Lane that we have that runs east and west along our south ~roperty line. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am talking about not going south. What I'm talking about is -- MR. MINOR: Right, you're talking about -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- when you get to that southern property line -- MR. MINOR: -- leaving there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to make a turn into the adjacent parcel and stub out at the property line, so that at least the opportunity for interconnection exists for that future parcel. Commercially it's a good move. The more you can combine these parcels, the better off your capture rate and business numbers are. So yeah, you've pointed to it correctly. When that road -- MR. MINOR: Just come in at the back. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, give me a little turn and stub out on the property line, and I think that's probably the best we could hope for. Because then you're going to be able to landscape to the very south of that and the folks down south of Tennis Court aren't even going to see the road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And at the risk of saying something inappropriate that you guys are used to me doing, I wish, Mr. Cautero, that that's something that you would have staff watch for and be sure that -- well, here's the risk. I mean, can't wait to work with you, Mr. Carter, but if Mr. Hancock weren't here right this second, I would not have been able to figure that out. So I'm going to be looking to staff to make that recommendation, because we've been real clear we want that interconnection to try to keep the traffic off the main roads. He's not going to be here to design it for us, so please do it on the staff level. MS. MURP~AY: The problem is we get to the point where you're asking to interconnect into residential developments, and we get such a strong residential opposition that it's almost like we have to come to the table saying well, we agree to disagree and you all need to make the decision. But I hear what you're saying. And I think -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But bring it to us, please. MS. MURP~AY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'm not talking about connecting to residential. I mean -- MR. CAUTERO: But -- excuse me, Vince Cautero, for the record. But the possibility does exist in certain instances. I understand where you're going and where you have told us to go in the past, but I can tell you in this situation, just the thought of it made some of those people cringe. I live in the subdivision. I'm walking a real fine line, that's why I've elected not to talk on this issue. And I probably don't want to say anything improper. If you do have an interconnect here, you'll have a very dangerous situation into that area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are we talking about the same thing here? Because the interconnect I'm talking about is one that turns eastward to a vacant ag. parcel that is probably going to be developed in some form of commercial. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not -- MR. CAUTERO: I understand that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. CAUTERO: Earlier in the discussion, that -- we were going in a different direction. We were talking about a possible interconnect. That came up. And I heard that discussion earlier. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's not -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We said pedestrian only for that. No vehicular connection to the south to Emerald Lake proper. We're talking about turning it to the east so it connects with the current ag. parcel that probably will be commercial at some point in the future. MR. CAUTERO: And I would agree with you that it would at some point in the future be commercial, but if I'm not mistaken -- and I would like Mr. Kant to correct me -- I don't believe that that's what the transportation department would like to see in the future. He said he would like to see interconnects or access points kept to a minimum in that area. Therein lies the problem that your community development division has in trying to carry out your mandate. We have to -- we also have to coordinate with the transportation services department. So bringing these things to you, Commissioner, may not be as easy as they seem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. And it sounds like then that, Mr. Kant, our problem is that we think we want something that you know we shouldn't want. MR. KANT: Well, let me try -- Edward Kant. Let me try to get Vince off the hook. And I'll use as an example the Kings Lake subdivision, which I'm sure everybody's familiar with. It's an older subdivision. I lived in Kings Lake when it was first getting started, and there was this beautiful wooded frontage, and then one day we woke up while they were bulldozing it, and my neighbors got all upset, until they realized that they should have read their documents, that there was going to be a 15-acre shopping center out there. And Kings Lake Square works, because it is connected to the development. You don't have to go out on Davis Boulevard to get a loaf of bread. It's wonderful. But that was planned that way. This is an after the fact. And I understand where Commissioner Hancock is coming from. I don't -- we're not trying to get two sides against the middle. And I certainly don't want to get Mr. Minor and his client caught in the middle. The issue is that in these types of -- this is almost going to be a fill-in after -- assuming that this project goes ahead. What do we do with that little five acres that's left? Unless we plan now, as Commissioner Hancock is suggesting, for some type of an interconnect, I'm going to wind up with three driveways inside of 500 feet, and I'm not going to -- I'm not going to be able to come back to you and tell you I have a safe situation there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what I'm asking is the next time one of these comes up, would you please make that recommendation so that -- MR. KANT: We are as vigilant as we possibly can to those things, and we would ask you in this case, and hopefully we -- the applicant in this case would not have an objection to having the provision for some potential future interconnection from those parcels. That's where we were trying to get to. And typically we try to resolve these things at the staff level before they ever get to you. But in this case it bubbled up. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortun -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, Mr. -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Unfortunately, we have to pick a point because they're going to go to construction -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- so, you know, that's where we are today. And that's why the solution I'm proposing may not be perfect, but if it lets somebody get from this parcel to that one without going onto Airport Road, then we've done a better job -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a good thing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- than doing nothing. So I think that's as far as we can go here today. So that's why I have suggested that location. Because then they can use that to access any other parcel within this development. So I think it's the best that we can do on kind of short notice, if you will. And if the applicant does not have an objection to it, I'd just like to ask that at the southern terminus of that road that it turn eastward and make an interconnect and stub-out to that parcel. And then you guys are going to have to deal with that parcel as it comes in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, would -- and there is a possibility that that parcel that we're looking at, the one that doesn't belong to this group, that they would come back and access one of these roads? In other words, there would not be another access out onto Airport Road? Is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ideally, yes, but I think realistically, when they come in, you're going to want to look at how they relate to the parcels to their south and maybe go for a shared access -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Got you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: At the common boundary. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- at the common boundary. Then providing the interconnect -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- gives them a way to get to the corner shops without getting out on the road. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the foresight we're going to be looking for. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All acceptable? MR. MINOR: Yes, we agree. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Does that work? MR. MINOR: We agree. We agree. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I did have one question on signage. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. McMurray (sic), you've seen the new Eckerd Drugs at Pine Ridge and 417 MS. MURRAY: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Something that kind of hit me the other day as I was driving by is there were about eight different signs on the building. Now, each of them is about yea big. But one says drive-thru pharmacy and one says grocery mart and one says whatever. They kept within the size, but they spread them out so much throughout the building that it looks like a sign band peeling around the building. There's a weakness in our sign code if we are allowing the divisions to occur to that degree that they're just little message boards all the way around the store. Now, Walgreen's typically has your Walgreen's and you have two other signs, usually one on pharmacy and one on something else. I just want to kind of put a heads up. We can't change our sign code right now, but I would not want to see a proliferation of what happened at Eckerd's where you have a bunch of little signs around the building. If we have a weakness in our sign code, we may need to address that. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tacky. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I haven't seen a Walgreen's put that many signs on a building, so I'm not as concerned, but then again, I hadn't seen an Eckerd's do it either 'til this one. So I ask you to be a good neighbor and keep your sign pollution to a minimum. Put it all on the big Walgreen's sign, that's what we're looking for. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: First one is Ken Engler and the second one is Mike Terechenok. MR. TERECHENOK: That's me, the developer. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's him. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Ken Engler? MR. FERNANDEZ: Ken Engler. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No Ken Engler. MR. FERNANDEZ: No Ken Engler. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, at this point if there's no further questions or speakers, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'm going to move approval with the stipulations contained in the staff report, plus the additional statement made by the petitioner that they'll provide the interconnect at the -- at that southern terminus pointing in an easterly direction. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask the motion maker to include also that the standard Collier County Sign Code will be abided by? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, that was a change from the Planning Commission. Yes -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- I will amend. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. Ail in favor? Opposed? much. (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you very Item #12B3 ORDINANCE 98-85, RE PETITION PUD-98-3, BRUCE A R3LNKIN, R.L.A., OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING LELY DEVELOPMENT CORPOP~ATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO MERGE THE LELY LAKES PUD (ORDINANCE 93-32) AND THE NAPLES R & D PARK PUD (ORDINANCE 88-44) INTO A NEW PUD TO BE KNOWN AS LELY LAKES GOLF RESORT PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 IN SECTION 29, 30, 31 AND 32, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS Next item then was an item 17(A) that was moved off the consent -- or I'm sorry, off the summary agenda. This has to do with a rezone to merge the Lely Lakes PUD and the Naples R & D Park PUD. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I pulled this off. I just need two quick clarifications, and I'm ready to go on it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The agenda item that was presented to us, our executive summary didn't quite match the discussion I had with the petitioner at one point in time. Maybe we need to swear. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do. We do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're going to swear at you guys, so whoever's going to speak, stand up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail persons speaking to item 17(A) and the item mentioned before, if you'd please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Ail speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a minute. MR. WEIGEL: Disclosures? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pardon me? I'm going to ask them if they have any disclosures. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Shakes head negatively.) COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I have had discussion with the petitioner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I have not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't believe I have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Discussed it with the petitioner briefly, yes . CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Briefly, I just pulled it off because I need some clarification. Perhaps we should have tried to get this done before we went through the big one a while ago -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sure they enjoyed spending the day here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- but the executive summary we have doesn't match the discussion I had with the petitioner, and neither does the clarification that we were presented later. This calls for 749 dwelling units, 150 of which are hotel units. But it never makes that clear in our executive summary that it's 599 residential units as a limit, plus 150 hotel units. MR. BELLOWS: That is correct. And the revision, I thought I put in that that was inclusive of the total of 749, not in addition to. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But it doesn't -- the clarification still doesn't make it clear. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, I see what you're saying, limit it to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It doesn't exclude it and doesn't limit either one of the two features. MR. BELLOWS: Okay, I see what you're saying. MR. RANKIN: If I could speak to that? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sure. Identify yourself. MR. RA/qKIN: Bruce Rankin, with Wilson-Miller, representing Lely Development. If you go back -- and I realize we're working off the executive summary. If you go back to the PUD document itself, what we're proposing is 749 residential units, including up to 150 -- this is probably where the clarification got a little hazy -- up to 150 hotel units. We're trying to keep the flexibility on the hotel units because we don't know where the market's going to be in a couple of years when we get to building it. I think the way to judge it is to look at if -- it could be as many as 749 residential units with no hotel. It could be 599 with 150 hotel, or something in between. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Rankin, the problem was, it was represented to me as 599 maximum residential units, plus 150 hotel. That's the way it was represented to me. MR. R3~NKIN: Well, since I didn't make the presentation, I can't speak to that. But the way -- the language in the PUD amendment was intended to explain it the way I just did. From the standpoint that we don't really know -- I mean, there are different hotel products that could work here, anything from 80 to 150, depending on the market and the kind of hotel operator that -- the kind of operation that would really work within this package. So we wanted to keep that flexible. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Norris, obviously someone affiliated with the project made that commitment. Do we know who that is, or -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, we do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- are they here? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's Mr. Ryan. Can you help us clarify this, Mr. Ryan? MR. RYAN: My name's Joe Ryan with Lely Development Corporation. If I represented it that way, I was mistaken, or we miscommunicated that. Our intent was always for a total of 749 units, of which 150 could be a hotel. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 150. MR. RYAN: Up to 150. So never going over a total of 749. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that does put a little different light on it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A full-blown herring. Let's stop messing around with it. MR. RYAN: If we could give a brief summary of it, it may help explain what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. Go ahead. MR. R3~NKIN: If you'll recall, the original -- and I think the staff report accurately described the original mix, which was 720 units plus 150 hotel units, plus an acre of commercial in the Lely Lakes PUD. And then we combined that with the Lely -- the R & D Park, which was 64.8, 65 acres of mixed commercial and light industrial. Putting those together gave us the opportunity to create two full golf courses on the property that R & D Park was taking an important piece of upland out of the Lely Lakes tract, and fit an opportunity that Lely now sees as probably preferable to the old mix, which is to create a resort/village that would be -- 749 units, a portion of that may or may not be hotel -- abandon the commercial light industrial package, and just retain about 10 acres for service commercial up on U.S. 41, which meets the location criteria, and some service or support commercial within the resort center. If I can just get the plan. The concept -- as you can see, this area here is the old R & D Park -- came into this -- I'm sorry, right into this portion of the property. The concept is to concentrate the resort/village, all of the building construction, the hard surface, primarily in this core, with an opportunity to put some of the residential in in another upland area. This is currently the most -- this is almost entirely ag. field here. This is a nursery, and then this is spotted agricultural and nursery. The idea is to work the golf course in among the lakes, and it allows us to retain three very significant chunks of mostly wetland, but it's actually -- by saving a large area of habitat, we have a mix of upland, wetland, both fresh water and saltwater habitat. And also, it gives us a conveyance across the site to be able to work with the District 6 Stormwater Management Plan and to help improve the drainage from off-site through the property. So what we're ending up with is a family-oriented, ecologically-oriented resort. The concept is that you're playing golf in the natural South Florida setting, and then you have a resort/village that's fairly cjustered. Now, it's a flexibility of what goes on in here, I think, is what we're talking about. And the idea would be to allow up to 150 hotel rooms. Depending on the market, it might be no hotel, it might be all residential. But in that regard, then I would compare the density that we're looking at just in residential to -- the previous plan was 720 residential units plus 150 hotel units, which comes to 870 total units in that mix. We are down to 749 of that same comparable mix, plus we've done away with the equivalent of 55 acres of any kind of commercial and light industrial. So we're coming with a lot less impact, but I think it gives us a much better project. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I think your explanation is adequate there on that. There's one other commitment that we need to recall from the earlier PUD application, and that is on the local streets there from Trail Acres, those people are concerned that that will be used as a construction access or some other access. Now, previously we had committed that those will not be used as entry access, and would only be used as full emergency access with locked gates. MR. RANKIN: That is the commitment we -- at the Planning Commission meeting, we discussed that and made a commitment at that time, and that was part of the motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. And the -- so essentially the only access to the property, general access, construction or completed access, is going to be off of 41; is that correct? MR. RANKIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. RANKIN: If you will notice, there's -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all I have then. MR. RANKIN: There's an arrow here that we're going to maintain through the permitting process, access between the two sides of the property across this wetland, so that we will not need any other access into this property. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I'm satisfied. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then we'll close the public hearing on this item. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll make a motion to approve with the commitment that the access from the local streets will be used only purely for emergency purposes, and that the gates will be locked. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we have speakers? Because there's a lady back there -- MS. WELCH: I would like to address the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Hold on. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure, absolutely. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We'll reopen the public hearing then. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MS. WELCH: In the -- THE REPORTER: May I have your name, please? MS. WELCH: Oh, I'm sorry. Anna Douglas-Welch. I'm a resident of Trail Acres, the small little community you were talkin~ about. And we have a water problem. I know that we're going to be -- they're going to be working on it with South Florida Water Management District in the future. But in the last part of this planned unit development, on page 8-2, environmental, it gives you A, B and C, which is the flood protection plan for the residential development. My question is, is this going to happen during the process of development, or will it happen after development? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It has to -- I'm sure the petitioner will talk to that, if you'd like. But it has to happen during development. They couldn't -- they can't develop it and then put in the water management. They can't do that. MS. WELCH: Well, we're taking an access road right across a main canal. And so what I'm really concerned is, is when they put in that, they're going to have to raise that road somehow. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Perhaps one of the engineers can speak to that. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. And during this next phase, they'll have to go through a preliminary subdivision plat where those permits from South Florida would be required at that stage, which would be another public hearing before the Planning Commission. MS. WELCH: So we would not go unnotified? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. MS. WELCH: All right, that's fine. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that also assures it's on the front end of the process. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'm sorry, did we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have no -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: -- others. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we'll close the public hearing again. And I believe we do have a motion -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And a second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and a second. At this time, I'll call the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #12B4 ORDINANCE 98-86, RE PETITION PUD-96-12, J. GARY BUTLER, P.E., REPRESENTING ROYCE O. STALLINGS, JR., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST AND ADJACENT TO SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR-84), CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 39.82 ACRES - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS AS AMENDED Moving on then to item 17(B), which has to do -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- with rezone of rural ag. to a PUD for multi-family development off of -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I pulled this from the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- summary agenda, and I know you're going to have to swear them in when they talk anyway -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but I've met with the representative of petitioners, and I had two specific concerns. They have -- we've come to a compromise on both of those, and I think Mr. Yovanovich will add those agreements into the record and we can move fairly rapidly with this item as well. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do I have -- will all the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Swear at them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm going to. Would all those persons wishing to speak to this item please stand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Ail speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any disclosures from commissioners? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I met briefly with Mr. Yovanovich this morning. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have met with the petitioner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have met with the petitioner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As have I. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, I met with the petitioner once. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can just tell you the agreements we had, and perhaps move this right along. We -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I had a question, too. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Boy, I'll tell you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm still going to tell you the items that we agreed to. We had a couple of compromises; I had a concern on density and also on architectural code. As you can see, they had the architectural code stuff handed out to each of us. And I believe Mr. Yovanovich is about to stipulate they'll agree to the lower density. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He knows what my question is. It had to do with density. And we haven't talked, obviously. MR. YOVANOVICH: I under -- yeah, I know. The request was that the density be reduced to six units an acre. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the applicant is willing to reduce it to six units an acre. The second was the PUD will be changed to reflect that the architectural rendering in front of you would be an example of what would be included, what we will bill, since we don't have a specific project in mind right now. But that's the architectural standard that we would agree to. Also, there's a master plan I handed out that shows better the interconnect between our residential project and the commercial project to the south -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can guess where that one came from. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- so that would be incorporated into the PUD as well as the PUD provides that we could also take a five-acre portion that would be either a church or an ALF, and we agreed that we would bring that -- we would amend the PUD to require that use, go through a conditional use process. So I believe I have covered all of the proposed amendments and all of the concerns. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have any questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If not, do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What was the final density we agreed to? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Six. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Six. And let the record reflect that more than Mr. Constantine wanted to know about density. Not mentioning any names. However, I'll close the public hearing. I'll call for the question. All in favor -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We haven't had -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think anybody made one yet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'm calling -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion then. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, you'll make a motion. Will you? I'm ready to vote on this. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm comfortable to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And then they all got tired at the same time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I move we approve the item subject to the lowering of density -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that were just made by -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- Mr. Yovanovich regarding architectural code and other standards. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You got a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you. Item #12C1 ORDINANCE 98-87, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-97, THEREBY REMOVING BOTH COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTION PARK AND CORPORATE SQUARE FROM WITHIN THE NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK STREET LIGHTING MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT - ADOPTED Moving on to item 12(C) (1), adopt an ordinance amending Collier County ordinance 91-17, removing Collier County Production Park and Corporate Square from within the Naples Production Park street lighting -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- municipal service taxing unit. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval of staff recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve staff recommendation on this item. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #12C2 ORDINANCE 98-88, APPROVING AN AMENDED ORDINANCE RELATING TO BEACH, WATER AND VESSEL CONTROL - ADOPTED The next item, 12(C) (2), approve an amended ordinance relating to beach, water and vessel control. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Have a seat, Marla. Move approval. MR. WEIGEL: Two speakers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is a great county -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've got speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have speakers on this item? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two speakers, Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Get them up there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is ratifying -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Bill Hanson and Mark Ebelini. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Come on up, guys. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is ratifying past board direction to staff -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've done this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on this matter. Okay. MS. PJ~MSEY: That's correct. For the record, Marla Ramsey, parks and recreation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure -- I'm pretty sure we discussed this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Let's hear the first speaker. Just identify yourself. MR. HANSON: Hi, I'm Bill Hanson, owner/operator of Vanderbilt Beach Water Sports. We've been on Vanderbilt Beach at the Vanderbilt Inn since 1986, well before there was a Collier County Beach Vendor's Ordinance. It was copied pretty much with a lot of the beach vendors in the county parks and recreation, and copied from Lee County's Beach Vendor's Ordinance, which went in just shortly before that. Some of the problems we've been having lately with parks and recreation is their interpretation of the law. And there certainly needs to be some clarification. For instance, when Burr Saunders signed the original ordinance -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There's your trouble right there. MR. HANSON: -- he asked -- yes. He asked parks and rec., what would this effect have on Vanderbilt Beach rentals. And county said it would have none, we already completely 100 percent complied. Now we have four beach vendors up on Vanderbilt Beach. And we have developed some problems with county's interpretation of exactly what we can and cannot do. One of the things that we have been doing for many years is picking up customers at other locations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've got to ask -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I -- MR. HANSON: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- want to stay on the point. The point here is this particular amendment. And if in fact you want to appeal a decision of a staff member, I think there's a mechanism for that. Because all we're talking about here is what are going to be the physical limitations. MR. HANSON: Well, this is directly related to the physical limitations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. HANSON: For instance, parasailing, which everybody's familiar with, cannot happen within the confines of any property limit. You actually have to move. Well, you can't do it on the beach to begin with. You have to be out 300 feet in the water, or 500, as the law is, and move around. What the ordinance doesn't address originally is do we have the right to drop somebody off on our boat who is staying at another hotel? And can we pick them up? Parks and recreation seems to think COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. HANSON: -- we can't drop somebody off. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have to come to your site. That's the whole point of the siting ordinance. They have to come to you, get in the water, and then you can whip them around on the sail, you bring them back to the site that's approved, and then they can get in their car and go home. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment, let's let Mr. Weigel speak, please. MR. WEIGEL: Well, I just mentioned to the board and to the speaker here that any manner in regard to enforcement of the ordinance as it currently exists prior to this proposed amendment is to be cited in another forum and not the forum here today. And secondly, I wrote the ordinance 89-11 that was adopted in 1989. I frankly copied Volusia County far more than Lee County. But the fact is, is that part of the discussion that was had by staff, parks and rec. administrator and the public services administrator at the time prior to Mr. Olliff was in fact issues of picking up people up and down the beach, mother craft as they called them, hovering off the beach and picking up people. And so part of the instance of the initial ordinance was to establish fixed facilities for the business operation, notwithstanding that the use of jet skis or the use -- or parasailing and some of these water sport activities obviously involve the activity itself being out in the water, but never the business aspects of it being negotiated, or transportation outside of the rather narrow confines of the upland permissive area. And the ordinance amendment before you today, the proposal, is essentially a clarification of what was always intended but not written with the specificity as has been determined as necessary, because we're having some problems with interpretation by the owner/operators. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it's not -- so this matter is not relevant for the ordinance today? MR. WEIGEL: I think that any discussion of past operations is really not relevant. There's no question about that. I don't want to think that there's a question of grandfathering based on prior discussions of the initial ordinance, because it did not contemplate the pickup or dropoff of people up and around the beach. In fact, the history will show the discussion had to do with a centralization and a fixation of business enterprises on the beach. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's one of the things we were trying to fix -- or they were trying to fix when the ordinance was originally adopted. MR. HANSON: And I understand that. And if we have a customer on our boat who chooses to be dropped off at their beach location after they have completed the ride -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's not a choice that's available to them. MR. HANSON: -- they can't be dropped off. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How do we enforce that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Marla? MS. RAMSEY: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Somebody jumps off a boat, swims the 200 feet into shore and goes to their hotel. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think honestly, though, this is picked up when -- not when a person gets dropped off every now and then, but when a group or party is picked up or dropped off on a given point of beach in front of a condo or somebody's house repeatedly. They get a little tired of it and they pick up the phone and they hassle our parks and rec. folks about somebody's running an operation right in front of my house. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They express their concern, they don't hassle. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But -- you know, so I think that's what is really happening here. It's not about one person out of 20 days of operation that gets dropped off somewhere. You know, so maybe a five-pound sledgehammer to kill a gnat, but I think the intent here is not to run your operation in front of someone else's private residence, only in front of places in which you have permission. MR. HANSON: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And by the way, I highly recommend parasailing. I enjoy it. A little pricey, but I enjoy it. But, you know, if you're running that back and forth in front of somepod¥'s business all day or dropping people off without their permlssmon, we should have a way to stop that. And I think that's what the intent here is, if I'm not -- am I correct, Ms. Ramsey? MS. RAMSEY: Yeah, that's correct. The other thing is, is that if you let one vendor do that, then how do I prevent other vendors from doing the same thing? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we move on? That's not the subject we're discussing today. MR. HANSON: Well, I'm done. MR. EBELINI: I'm happy I could still say good afternoon, commissioners. Mark Ebelini, representing Bill Hanson and Vanderbilt Beach Water Sports. I'm proud to represent Mr. Hanson and his business for nine years and never for a violation of a water safety or vessel control ordinance, except for recent -- one recent problem that we've had here that is relevant to today's proceeding. And I'll -- there's two issues under this ordinance. First of all, I think I need to clarify that Mr. Hansen has a land-based location at the Vanderbilt Beach Hotel, has had that location for many years, and pays for that location. It doesn't promote any type of pandemonium that the ordinance is trying to prevent. So, you know, we support that ordinance and the control on vendors because Mr. Hanson's livelihood depends upon it. We don't want to have a fly-by-night operation that doesn't have a land-based location, because obviously he pays a monthly rental amount and he would be at a competitive disadvantage. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's a good citizen. MR. EBELINI: Well, the issue here is that the executive summary to your proposed ordinance amendment states that the reason for the section 7-1-A is to prevent a vendor from soliciting business beyond the upland owners' property line. That's what it says the purpose is. Well, if you look back at ordinance 89.11, you'll find that there is a definition of solicitor canvass, and that definition is any act, delivery or exchange not initiated by the prospective customer. Once again, not initiated by the prospective customer. However, if there is an exchange initiated by the prospective customer, it would not be solicitation, i.e. picking someone up. So that's the issue. We don't think that that's what the ordinance says, because it basically attempts to control the land-based operations or activities to be conducted within the geographic confines of the two seaward projections of the property line. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me just a second. But then, Mr. Weigel, if what -- I mean, if my goal is to do that, we need to change the definition of solicits? MR. WEIGEL: Okay, I think -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Solicitation? MR. WEIGEL: -- Tom, you can jump in. I'm willing to jump at any moment myself before -- MR. OLLIFF: Okay. The board needs to be made aware that there is a pending court case in civil court scheduled for November 1st with this particular issue. And I'm not sure that this is the arena that this item ought to be decided in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: The interpretation of the ordinance is already scheduled to be heard by a judge in November, the case has been continued since July of this year, and I think that this is an attempt, frankly, to have this board get drawn into and make that determination prior to it going to court. MR. EBELINI: There's -- I want to clarify this. I'm not representing Mr. Hanson in that case, someone in my firm is. However, the issue here today is an amendment to your ordinance. I'm speaking to the amendment to the ordinance and nothing else. I'm not speaking to any prior case. But there is a dispute. And I think the ordinance, original ordinance, was defective. But we're not getting to that issue. We're getting to the amendment now, the purpose of the amendment, and what we're doing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question for our staff. Do you know -- November 1st is actually a Sunday. Do you know when that's scheduled to come to civil court? MS. RAMSEY: No, actually, the citation was issued on July 3rd. There was a court case on the 27th, which was continued because it was put on a criminal docket instead of a civil docket. It was then scheduled for August, which was continued. It was then scheduled for October, which was continued. And it is now a case -- and I've got here November 1, but that might be -- MR. EBELINI: I think it was a November date, as I understand, basically by reading the file. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I ask that because I wonder if it wouldn't be in our interest to continue this item until after that. It's only a matter of weeks away. But that way -- I think there is a legitimate discussion having to do with definition, but I don't want to do that if that could in any way compromise the county during some litigation three weeks from now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think it compromises us in a negative way, but I will say that the expanded definition this gentleman has provided is based on language in the executive summary, not language in the ordinance itself. MR. EBELINI: Well, the point is that you have a statement in the executive summary about what the ordinance amendment is intended to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A statement is non-binding. The language in the ordinance is what is binding, the interpretation of that language. This could say the intent is for people that are only blue to do this. But unless it is actually in the ordinance, then it is not binding upon the operator or operation. MR. EBELINI: But wouldn't it be important to you as a legislature to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know what we're doing here, sir. I know what the intent is. I don't need you to tell me that. MR. EBELINI: Well, could you tell me -- I've been here since 9:00 -- what is the intent -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll tell you, you make an appointment -- MR. EBELINI: -- if it's not what's stated? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- with me and I'll tell you what that intent is, sir, because I've already stated it once. It is for someone to operate their business within the physical confines of the property line of the establishment that they are attached to. Not somebody else's house, not their condo. Do I need to be any clearer? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I've been here since 8:30, by the way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you what, I don't know that I disagree with the gentleman at the podium, though, in that Mr. Hanson shouldn't be out -- Mr. Hanson shouldn't be going up and down soliciting; however, if I'm utilizing his service and I want to be dropped off down the way and walk up to my condo, I don't really see a problem with that. He should not be down the beach begging for business, but I don't -- MR. EBELINI: He does not do that, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not accusing him of it. The way this executive summary is written would prohibit him from doing that, or any other vendor from doing that. But if someone is riding down the beach and wants to get off and go in, well -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the difference -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- at their request, I don't understand why we would want to prohibit that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, what's the difference between that and a tour group of 100 people -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, could you -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- from doing the same thing? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do, because people who live in residential condos along the beach there don't have a reasonable expectation that a parasailing boat's going to scoop up in front of their home and drop somebody off. And that's the nature of condominium living -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On a public beach. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is that the majority, you know, rules. And unless a particular condominium said we at La Mer agree that you shall have the right to drop off in front of our building, you know, that's an infringement on somebody. It's their home. And a commercial property owner would have that right, too, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand the concern, but it is also a public beach -- MR. EBELINI: Yeah, I was going to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that makes the difference. The condo doesn't own the beach front. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, we don't have to grant a license for him to operate, either. And if the man gets a phone call from someone who says we're staying for a week at ABC condominiums and I've got 15 friends and we want to go parasailing, why don't you come pick us up on the beach and drop us off here, that means for the balance of that day, he is running 15 people parasailing off of a beach directly in front of a condominium, outside of the area that he was granted to operate his license. He is operating a land-based operation in a place where he's not licensed to operate it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can't let that happen. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I disagree. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, it's not the individual person you're picking up and dropping off, it's the abuse of that in the way of groups and whatnot. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Fine. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it looks like a four to one to agree with the ordinance amendment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm happy to amend the ordinance today. MR. EBELINI: Well, I've got one other issue I'd like to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me -- MR. EBELINI: -- to address. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- your time is up. MR. EBELINI: Well, I don't think my time was properly accorded because -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness, I did cut him off. MR. EBELINI: -- I responded to questions and you responded to each other's questions, and I didn't get to speak as to the second issue, which I could have done another three minutes. And that's the issue of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. MR. EBELINI: I don't think I had my time to address the board. That's my question. I could have done that in -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you addressing the board specifically to this ordinance? THE WITNESS: Yes, ma'am. Yea, ma'am, I am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we'll listen. I mean, excuse me, the chair will decide if we listen, but -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I did cut him off. MR. EBELINI: That is true, but I'm just asking for the right to do so, since I've been here since 9:00. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've been here since 8:30. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've been here since 8:00. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The fact that you sat in this room since 9:00 does not -- MR. EBELINI: Entitles me three minutes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- entitle you to dictate how we're going to run the meeting -- MR. EBELINI: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- okay? Ail due respect to you, sir. MR. EBELINI: I'm just requesting the board's indulgence for one minute to explain the other problem we might have with this ordinance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I've just got to say -- MR. EBELINI: If you don't want to hear it, we will deal with that in another forum, but it's really -- it's an amendment and we haven't had the chance to address it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you an attorney? MR. EBELINI: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, and he's been charging by the hour. I used to do it, it was great work to get to sit here since 9:00 and charge by the hour, so you got no pity from me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness -- MR. EBELINI: I don't have pity now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the man was cut off by our questioning and he ought to get his five minutes after sitting here for eight hours. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're spending more time talking than it ought to take him to do it. MR. EBELINI: Well, we have a problem with the ordinance as it addresses -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me, I will grant you the time, but I'll tell you something, if you were my son, I'd spank your bottom, because I think you're rude. MR. EBELINI: Well, ma'am -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay? Now, go ahead and state your point and let's get on with it. I don't want to hear anything else. What's your point? MR. EBELINI: My point is that subsection I of that amendment violates a due process and a delegation. Without so much as a hearing, a letter from the county could hold a person in violation and then impose conditions on his license without a hearing having occurred. And number two, there's also a delegation to the director of parks, and no affront to that woman, the director of parks and recreation is authorized to do something without any standards; so therefore, there's a delegation problem, a due process problem. That's as fast as I can state it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there an appeal process for if you don't like the conditions -- because it's an annual permit. MS. RAMSEY: That's correct, it is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So let's say that parks and recreation director believes you violated your permit. So when it comes up for renewal, they can impose additional restrictions on that permit is how I read this application. MS. RAMSEY: Or we can deny it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or you can deny it. Does this person have an appeal process if they do not like those conditions or think they were unfairly denied? Do they have anywhere to appeal that decision? MS. R3~MSEY: I'm going to defer. MR. WEIGEL: No, there's no process built in the ordinance for an appeal. But the standards -- the standards that are imposed on permit holders, which is a privilege, not a right, is -- are the standards of the ordinance in and of itself. And if a permittee should have a condition placed upon them, upon the adoption of this proposed amendment by the parks and rec. director, they can challenge the applicability and the interpretation of the ordinance in court. They have not provided -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just like if I want an occ. license, an occupational license, and you turn me down, I don't get to take that to the County Commission, I get to take it to a judge. Same deal. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then it's pure and simple. That's what we have courts for; is that right, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Looks that way to me. I mean, I don't get a special appeal to the County Commission if you turn down my occupational license for practicing law. Same deal. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what we should do. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a thought. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which you probably should, just on qualifications alone. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that answers that question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: God, I'm tired. MR. WEIGEL: It's not that an appeal process could be built in, but it was not determined by staff, and we do not think legally required to do so. One could be done at your direction as far as that goes, and we have to determine the appropriate forum for appeal, administrative forum outside of the court. At the same time, I believe that the judicious application of the ordinance by the person or persons so delesated pursuant to the ordinance will allow us to present a case mn court. And if it fails, it fails, and if it succeeds, it succeeds, and we live by what the court will determine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Realistically, though, they can request an audience before the Commission, which has happened on other permit holders in the past, if he thinks something's unfair. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Through the public petition process. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Through public petition process you can ask the board to hear that matter and we can choose to do so. It's not granted in the ordinance, but I think it's happened at least once in the past, at least in the past four years. MR. WEIGEL: Yes, but you would note that any informal appeal or public petition that you heard -- in this instance, since we're talking about an application of an ordinance -- your determination or direction would be directory, not mandatory to county staff, as far as that goes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, you have no further speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, then I'll close the public hearing. Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this ordinance -- or this amendment to the ordinance. All in favor? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one. Moving on then to any communications. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: None, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel, do you have anything for us? MR. WEIGEL: No, thank you. Item #15 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Ail right, Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just one thing. A phone message that we got that's just great news, and that is that the governor and the cabinet voted in favor of the southern Golden Gates Estates acquisition from Avatar today. Just great news. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two items. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm not ready. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have two items. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, state them. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I tried to, if I hadn't been so rudely interrupted by the right half of the board. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But it's such a pattern. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Christmas break this year. We usually take our Tuesday between Christmas and New Years -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think there should be a Christmas break this year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because so much of our staff have family and they travel during the holiday season. I might point out that is a fifth Tuesday this year. And it might be kind of a nice gift to our staff to allow them -- the 22nd would be the final Tuesday we'd be meeting and to not meet that day so those people who do want to travel for the holidays don't have to wait 'til the 23rd or 4th to go. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Personally, I think this board has taken way too much time off in the past. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, he says that on his way out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just kidding. Just kidding. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think we need to take a vote, but do we need to have a consensus to not have a meeting on December 22nd? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly makes sense to me, considering That seems fair. -- otherwise, there's no break. It makes sense to Mr. Olliff. Tom, what do you say? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner, does it make sense to you? MR. OLLIFF: Thumbs up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, no meeting. That settles it. MR. FERNANDEZ: We'll somehow work around it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, gosh. Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second item. A little over a year ago we had a struggle and went through several months and dozens of hours of our staff time coming to an agreement between EMS and the Golden Gate Fire Board on some shared services. At the time we had talked about the possibility of doing that for more than a year at a time, but staff had suggested an annual contract. Again, this year we have spent dozens of staff hours looking at virtually the identical item, but nitpicking back and forth over issues. And I wondered if there'd be any objection, when that comes back, to exploring doing perhaps a five-year agreement with -- maybe annually. If their commission or our commission votes to renegotiate it, great, we can do that, but have it -- the trigger mechanism be required to renegotiate it year after year. Because we're doing the same thing year after year, but we waste their staff time and our staff time doing it every year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How effective -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Why don't we just do a -- say a three or five-year contract with an annual review -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- okay, so both sides have an opportunity to make things better and get on with life for another year. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the private sector. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right, any -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do not talk about it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Any problem and it continues on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the rate of growth in the Estates, I think three-year makes sense. Five-year window in the Estates is pretty long for what's going to happen out there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think a three-year contract makes sense. Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS: Yes, thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You got there fast. MR. OCHS: Two floors, I ran. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're not even winded. I'm impressed. MR. OCHS: For the record, Leo Ochs, support services administrator. Again, take you back to your summer budget discussions on this topic. The current contracts that we have with the independent fire district's service to Collier County Fire District 1 are not predicated on calls on service, necessarily, and that was the gist of the conversation back in the summer when we reviewed this item and were trying to work a budget that would also incorporate an interlocal agreement with the City of Marco now for the Goodland and Key Marco fire service area. At the time of the discussion, we had indicated that we wanted to work on an agreement that was -- would be something that had a basis and calls for service on the board of directors at that point. Since it was late in the process, go ahead and negotiate the successor agreements for one year, making the modification to add the funding for Marco -- excuse me, Goodland and Key Marco, but that subsequent agreements should be based on some kind of cost per service parameters. And that's why we limited the agreement to one year, so that we could do that work between now and next year. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there's really an opportunity to just then plug the formula in rather than start. What I fear is we have negotiated things this year that everybody had agreed to last year, and now we're starting all over. I don't want to see that happen again next year. If we -- what we ought to do is create the possibility that we plug that formula in when we have that in time for next year's budget season but not start from scratch yet again for the third year in a row. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this agreement going to be coming to us? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe we'll address that issue when it gets here. MR. OCHS: And I -- yes, on today's consent agenda you did approve an agreement with East Naples Fire and Rescue Control District and yourselves. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But not Golden Gate. MR. OCHS: The identical issue with them, they signed the one-year agreement based on the direction that staff was given this summer. So you have one of the two independent fire districts that's gone ahead and executed the agreement, and we put it on your agenda today. The second one, the Golden Gate Fire District, has not. So, you know, we can do a different term with them, if you'd like, but I suspect that obviously East Naples will want to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right, and I don't -- the point isn't the substance of the agreement as much as when we make that agreement, let's not redo it year after year and spend all kinds of time doing that year after year, which we have -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a reason we'd want to? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- two years in a row. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why would we want to redo it over and over? I mean, do you support the -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Unless there's problems. MR. OCHS: No, but again, I think -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait, guys, if we're going to get into a full-blown discussion on this item, then we ought to put it on the agenda and go forward and have a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a good point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- discussion on it, because I don't think -- you know, Mr. Ochs hasn't had time to really get everything. We don't have all the material in front of us. Or I certainly don't. Maybe the rest of you have it stored somewhere, but I don't have it. So I would just as soon that before we continue this, we -- if we want to have it on the agenda, let's say that we want to have it on the agenda and we can discuss it at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, why don't you plan on putting that on next week's agenda and put my name in parenthesis after it. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll be glad to do that, Madam Chairman. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With a special thanks to. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you have anything else, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just those two items -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is that all? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and a pleasure to spend the entire day with you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You're sure? We don't want to cut you off from your opportunity to speak, so if you -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, Mom, I appreciate that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- have anything else, we'd like you to have all the time that you need. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know you do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know you do. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wouldn't touch it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I have something. This is for Mr. Ilschner. You don't even have to get up, but if the rest of the board concurs -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just nod yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just say okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- if it's possible, when we have the discussion regarding the Santa Barbara affair, whether it's Santa Barbara or the other roadway, the section C or Conlo Road or whatever it might be, when that comes back to us, could we have a full-blown discussion about the entire roadway? In other words, from this end to the other end -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to have the whole works, rather than just a piece? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, Madam Chairman, we can. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let the record reflect Mr. Ilschner said yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that that's important that we see the whole picture and where that's eventually going to go and how it's all going to tie in together. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, we can do that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: When do anticipate that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And when is that? Do you know when -- MR. ILSCHNER: I do not have a date for you. If you're interested in when we're going to be able to do that, I'll try to get a date for you next week and to give it to Mr. Fernandez to pass on to you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. ILSCHNER: We're going to try to do some modeling to be effective -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But don't get up. MR. ILSCHNER: -- graphic modeling. So it will take a little time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you entertain a motion to adjourn, Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I certainly will. If there's nothing further to come before us, that's it. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary agendas be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF "CARSON ROAD MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION" - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A2 - Deleted Item #16A3 CONTRACT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) TO PARTICIPATE IN GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING EFFORT Item #16A4 AGREEMENT WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TO PARTICIPATE IN SURFACE WATER QUALITY MONITORING OF DRAINAGE BASINS/BIG CYPRESS BASIN Item #16B1 WORK ORDER WMBP-FT-98-15 WITH WILSON, MILLER, BARTON A_ND PEEK FOR RELATED ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROJECT NO. 73057 TO CONNECT EAGLE CREEK PUD TO THE COLLIER COUNTY SEWER SYSTEM - IN THE AJ40I/NT OF $36,000.00 Item #16B2 BIDS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO BID INVITATION NO. 98-2868 REJECTED - STAFF TO RE-SOLICIT BIDS Item #16B3 WORK ORDER #CDM-FT-98-11 WITH CA~MP DRESSER & MCKEE INC. FOR THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATING TO THE UPGP~ADE OF THE M3LNATEE STATION HIGH SERVICE PUMPS - IN THE AMOUNT OF $43,000.00 Item #16B4 CHAlgGE ORDER NINE (9) TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH MILMIR CONSTRUCTION, INC., FOR THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8-MGD EXPANSION PROJECT, CONTRACT #97-2690R PROJECT 70859/70828 - IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,094.00 Item #16B5 AGREEMENTS FOR PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FIRMS - AWARDED TO KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; DAVID PLUMMER & ASSOCIATES; TINDALE OLIVER AND ASSOCIATES, INC.; WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK Item #16B6 RESOLUTION 98-418 APPROVING TERMS OF OFFICE OF MEMBERS APPOINTED TO THE RADIO ROAD BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Item #16B7 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND LONG BAY PARTNERS, LLC FOR USE OF VACANT LA_ND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND THE PROPOSED LIVINGSTON ROAD EXTENSION ADDED Item #16B8 JOINT PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE RELOCATION OF COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES REQUIRED BY IMPROVEMENTS TO STATE ROAD 45 (US 41) FROM SOUTH OF MYRTLE ROAD TO COUNTY ROAD 887 (OLD US 41) Item #16C1 FUNDS TO REPAIR THE DOCK AND SEA WALL AT C~_XAMBAS PARK - IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $65,000.00 Item #16D1 AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR A MAXIMUM EXPENDITURE OF $50,000.00 FROM THE GAC LAND TRUST TO CONSTRUCT RUPJIL SAFETY REFUGE FACILITIES WITHIN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES Item #16D2 CONTR3~CTUAL AGREEMENT WITH EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FOR FIRE AND RESCUE PROTECTION SERVICES WITHIN THE COLLIER COUNTY FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT Item #16D3 AMENDMENT #1 TO LICENSE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND SWEET COMPUTER SYSTEMS INC. (AGREEMENT 97-2668) Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 98-419 APPROVING USER FEES FOR COLLIER COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICES; ADOPTING BILLING Ai~D COLLECTION PROCEDURE; PROVIDING Af)JUSTMENTS AND WAIVERS; AND APPROVING HARDSHIP CASES AND PAYMENT PLANS Item SELECTION OF UNDERWRITERS (RFP-98-2855) IN ANTICIPATION OF REFUNDING THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER/SEWRE DISTRICT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991 - I~AYMOND JA~ES & ASSOCIATES, INC. AS THE SENIOR MANAGING UNDERWRITER AND SALOMAN, SMITH, BARNEY AS THE CO-MANAGING UNDERWRITER Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 PURCHASE OF THE R&S INTEGRATED PRODUCT SERVICES, INC. IMAGING SOFTWARE AND GATEWAY COMPUTERS HARDWARE FOR AN IMAGING SYSTEM Item #17A - Moved to Item #12B3 PETITION PUD-98-3, BRUCE A. RANKIN, R.L.A. OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING LELY DEVELOPMENT CORPOHATION, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO MERGE THE LELY LAKES PUD (ORDINANCE NO. 93-32) AND THE NAPLES R & D PARK PUD (ORDINANCE 88-44) INTO A NEW PUD TO BE KNOWN AS LELY LAKES GOLF RESORT PUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 41, IN SECTIONS 29, 30, 31, AND 32, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Item #17B - Moved to Item #12B4 PETITION PUD-96-12, J. GARY BUTLER, P.E., REPRESENTING ROYCE O. STALLINGS, JR., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RUHAL AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST AND ADJACENT TO SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD (SR-84) IN THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH AND RA/~GE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 39.82 ACRES There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:18 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 CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC