Loading...
BCC Minutes 11/28/2000 RNovember 28, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, November 28, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: ALSO PRESENT: James D. Carter, Ph.D. Jim Coletta Donna Fiala Tom Henning Pamela Mac'Kie Tom Olliff, County Manager David Weigel, County Attorney Page1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA Tuesday, November 28, 9:00 a.m. 20OO NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (941) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M. 1 November 28, 2000 INVOCATION - Pastor Jim Nite, Grace Bible Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. Swearing-In of New Commissioners by Judge Brousseau. APPROVAL OF AGENDAS A. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA. B. APPROVAL OF SUMMARY AGENDA. C. APPROVAL OF REGULAR AGENDA. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. October 24, 2000 - Regular Meeting PROCLAMATIONS AND SERVICE AWARDS PROCLAMATIONS 1) Proclamation designating December 1,2000 as "Worlds AIDS Day 2000". To be accepted by: Ms. Andrea Taylor, from Planned Parenthood and Russell Fox. SERVICE AWARDS Five Year Attendees: 1) John Biedenharn, Solid Waste - 5 Years 2) Michael Berrios, Information Technology- 5 Years 3) Douglas Church, Wastewater- 5 Years 4) Della Mitchell, Library - 5 Years 5) Karen Clements, Building Review - 5 Years Fifteen Year Attendees: 6) Danny Morris, Ochopee Fire Control- 15 Years 7) David Weigel, County Attorney - 15 Years 8) Cynthia Long, EMS Billing - 15 Years 9) Barry Gerlack, Utilities/Wastewater- 15 Years Twenty Year Attendees: 10) Beato Guerra, Road & Bridge - 20 Years 2 November 28, 2000 C. PRESENTATIONS APPROVAL OF CLERK'S REPORT A. ANALYSIS OF CHANGES TO RESERVES FOR CONTINGENCIES. PUBLIC PETITIONS Request by Kirk Sanders for Public Petition to discuss an after-the-fact Variance No. V2000. Request by First Assembly of God Church, Michael Davis of Signcraft; and William Hoover of Hoover Planning & Development to have the BCC consider directing the County Long Range Planning Staff to amend the Future Land Use Element. 8. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 1) THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE DECEMBER 12~ 2000 MEETING. Consideration of an alternative road impact fee calculation for a self-serve car wash facility in Immokalee. 2) Approve a resolution to establish a policy to consider requests to release County liens assessed on privately owned property which has been donated to non-profit agencies for affordable housing. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of land by condemnation of fee-simple title interests and/or perpetual, non-exclusive road right-of-way, sidewalk, slope, utility, drainage, maintenance, noise abatement interests and/or temporary construction interests by easement for the construction of the six-laning roadway improvement for Livingston road project between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge Road Project, CIE No. 52. 2) Approval of the recommended management entity for the purpose of providing Collier County area transit system service and support as identified in RFP #00-3146 and authorization for the Transportation Administrator or the Transportation Planning Director to enter into, modify or terminate a contract with the selected management entity. 3) Approve contract for professional engineering services by RWA, Inc., for Golden Gate Parkway six-laning design from Airport Road to Santa 3 November 28, 2000 Barbara Boulevard, Project No. 60027. PUBLIC UTILITIES PUBLIC SERVICES SUPPORT SERVICES Request BCC affirmation of support for financial management system replacement project. F. EMERGENCY SERVICES G. COUNTY MANAGER Recommendation that the Board of Collier County Commissioners consider supporting the Florida Association of Counties efforts to organize to propose that Florida be allowed to use post-census local review and call centers to improve the Census 2000 information. H. AIRPORT AUTHORITY 9. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A. Appointment of Commissioner to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. B. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council. OTHER ITEMS A. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY C. PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE HEARD IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING STAFF ITEMS 12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - BCC 4 November 28, 2000 A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS 1) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2000 MEETING. Petition CPSS-2000-1, Dwight Nadeau of McAnly Engineering and Design, Inc., representing Carmen Cali, contract purchaser, requesting a small scale map amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element (GGAMP) of the Growth Management Plan to designate 9.54 acres, located on the south side of Randall Boulevard and ¼ mile east of Immokalee Road, as "Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict". ZONING AMENDMENTS 1) Petition PUD-95-02(1) Steve Loveless of Palm Foundation, Inc. requesting a rezone from its current zoning classification of "PUD" Planned Unit Development known as Bailey Lane PUD to "PUD" in order to reduce the front and rear yard setbacks for single family dwellings as well as the distance between structures and the rear yard setback for accessory structures. The subject property consists of 24.76 acres and is located on Bailey Lane off Airport Pulling Road in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 2) Petition PUD-99-25 David E. Crawford, AICP of Vanesse and Daylor, LLP, representing John and Dora McMullen, requesting a fezone from its current zoning classification of "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Hammock Park of Commerce PUD for a commercial retail and office development. The subject property is an undeveloped 18.15 acre parcel located on the east side of Collier Boulevard at the terminus of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 3) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 107 2000 MEETING. Petition PUD-2000-09 Brad Hedrich, P.E. of Hedrich Engineering Inc., representing Meridian Land Co. requesting a rezoning for property currently zoned "A" Rural Agricultural, "RSF-3" Residential Single Family and "ST" Overlay to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Madeira PUD for a maximum of 436 residential dwelling units for property located on the west side of Livingston Road, approximately % mile north of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846), in Sections 13 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 145.93 +/- acres. OTHER 1) Board approval of Budget Amendment 99-328 as relating to fire plan review fees. 5 November 28, 2000 2) Adopt an ordinance creating the Pelican Bay dependent district and dissolving the Pelican Bay MSTU. 13. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS A. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 24, 2000 MEETING. Petition A-2000-1, Edward J. Fullmer, Vice President and Acting President, representing the Goodland Civic Association, appealing the interpretation of the Planning Services Director that the Dolphin Cove Site Development Plan (SDP-98-40) was consistent with the Purpose and Intent Section (Section 2.2.9.1) of the Village Residential (VR) Zoning District of the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordnance 91-102, as amended), on the date of staff approval of the SDP (November 12, 1998). SDP-98-40 authorized the development of a 76-unit multi-family project on Bock Y, Tract 1, Goodland Isle Subdivision (Plat Book 6, Page 7). B. OTHER 14. STAFF'S COMMUNICATIONS 15. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMUNICATIONS 16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. 1) This item has been deleted. 2) To approve a resolution endorsing the Pace Center for Girls, Inc. as a sponsoring agency under the Florida Enterprise Zone Community Contribution Tax Credit Program. 3) Lien Resolution-Code Enforcement Case Numbers; 90107038/Kendall, Sheryl; 90107041/Kendall, Sheryl; 90107042/Kendall, Sheryl 4) Lien Resolution-Code Enforcement Case Numbers; 1999050782/Richard Vetter; 1999060912/Stuart O. Kaye TR; 1999051395/Mimon Baron; 6 November 28, 2000 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) 1999050574/LaRue; 1999080428/Henry Crawford Lien Resolution-Code Enforcement Case Numbers: 1999040928/Asbell, John; 1999040927/Asbell, John; 1999090445/EMC Holdings; 1999090604/Catete, Jose & Lucila, 1999090559/Torres, Gerado & Criselda Final Acceptance of water and sewer utility facilities for the Carlisle AIKIA The Colony. Final acceptance of water utility facilities for Twenty-First Century Oncology Lab. Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Fiddler's Creek Phase A2, Unit Three" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Majorca at Fiddler's Creek" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mediterra Parcel 107" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Tarpon Bay" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Eden at the Strand Replat- 1". Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Lot 2 Capri Commercial Center Replat". Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Pebblebrooke Plaza". Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve Workorder WMI - FT - 01-01 within Contract 99-2981 with WilsonMiller for fixed term Land Surveying and Photogrametric Services. Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Mahogany Estates", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. 7 November 28, 2000 17) Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Bellagio at Fiddler's Creek", and approval of the Standard Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the Performance Security. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 1) This item has been deleted. 2) Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of land by gift or purchase of fee simple title interests and/or non-exclusive, perpetual, road right-of- way, sidewalk, slope, utility, drainage, maintenance, noise abatement wall interests and/or temporary construction interests by easement for Livingston Road between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge Road project, CIE No.52. 3) Authorization for Metropolitan Planning Organization Task Order. 4) Recommendation to approve the purchase of one (1) water truck, in accordance with Bid# 00-3157. s) Approve a donation agreement for a parcel to provide for expansion of the Lely area Stormwater improvement project. 6) This item has been deleted. 7) Recommendation to extend contract #98-2821, contractual services for traffic signals and streetlights. PUBLIC UTILITIES 1) Amend Right-of-Way License Agreement with Florida Power and Light Company for 20-inch Radio Road Reclaimed Water Main Extension, Project 74036. 2) Approve Budget Amendment for final payment for "Odor Control" repairs and modifications completed at the Naples Landfill, PUBLIC SERVICES 1) Approve Change Order #5 for Sugden Park Landscape Architectural Services. 2) Approve a Change Order for Max Hasse Community Park, Phase II Landscape Architectural Services. 8 November 28, 2000 3) Obtain Board Approval for Library to Apply for a Community & Library Technology Access Partnership Grant. SUPPORT SERVICES 1) This item has been deleted. 2) Approval of lease agreements with Decaster Capriole Joint Venture and R. Y. R. R., Inc. in order to relocate Transportation Planning and Engineering. 3) Re-Appropriate training funds in the Human Resources Information System Capital Projects Budget. 4) Approve funding for the Agenda Coordinator position in the Department of Public Information. 5) Approve a Budget Amendment to cover costs associated with the production of the "County Highlights" television series. 6) Award of RFP 00-3125 "Annual Contract for Countywide Exotic Vegetation Removal". 7) This item has been deleted. 8) Recommendation to award Bid No. 00-3137 - Annual Agreement for preparation and delivery of title commitments and to authorize staff to identify other additional qualified firms. 9) Authorize the Chairman to execute a revocable temporary license to Florida Power & Light Company that will benefit the installation of electric utility facilities at the Golden Gate Community Center and adopt the necessary resolution. Approval of a First Amendment to Lease Agreement with Billy Boy Carryout, Inc. 11) Approval of the Collier County Group Benefit Plan Health Insurance Plan Document Effective January 1, 2001. Approval of a Lease Agreement between Collier County ("County") and Heritage Square Real Estate, L.L.C. 13) Appropriate funds to complete the Golden Gate Government Services Building and Sheriff's Building improvements. 9 November 28, 2000 F= H. I. J. 14) This item has been deleted. Award RFP ¢¢00-3109 "Janitorial Services" to Golden Mark Florida Corp. and authorize staff to negotiate agreement with selected vendor for annual janitorial services. 16) Approval to award Bid No. 3166 for the purchase of plumbing parts and supplies used in County repairs and maintenance. 17) Approve Repairs and Unanticipated Capital Improvements for County Buildings. EMERGENCYSERVICES 1) Award Bid #00-3153 for the purchase of budgeted medications for the department of Emergency Medical Services. 2) Award Bid #00-3138 for the purchase of budgeted uniforms for the Emergency Medical Services Department. 3) Approval of a competitive grant submittal for Emergency Management Activities. COUNTY MANAGER AIRPORT AUTHORITY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE 1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS 1) Accept an Article V Trust Fund Grant-In-Aid of $57,815 from the Office of the State Court Administrator and Authorize Chairman to Sign the Agreement, 2) Authorize the expenditure of funds for the purchase, disassembly, modification and installation of high-density filing equipment for Central Records and Human Resources. COUNTY ATTORNEY 1o November 28, 2000 17. 1) Approval of the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the easement acquisition on Parcel 283 in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Adalberto A. Herrera, et al (Golden Gate Boulevard Project). 2) Authorize the making of an Offer of Judgment to Defendants, Garrett F.X. Beyrent and Teryl H. Brzeski, for Parcel 99/915 in the amount of $2,400.00 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Anthony D~Antuono, et al., Case No. 91-3983-CA. SUMMARY AGENDA -THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF, THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THE ITEM. Petition DRI-99-3, Alan D. Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., representing Collier County Board of County Commissioners, requesting Development of Regional Impact (DRI) approval for existing and new government office buildings for property located at the northeast quadrant of Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) and Airport-Pulling Road (C.R. 31)in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Petition PUD-2000-02 William Hoover of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. representing Mark L. Linder, Trustee, requesting a rezone from its current zoning classification of "A" Rural Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Hibiscus Village PUD for a residential development. The subject property is an undeveloped 57.82 acre parcel located on the west side of Collier Boulevard approximately % of a mile north of Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Petition CU-2000-12 James McCord, representing American Dream Builders, Inc., requesting a Conditional Use for a model home in the "E" Estates Zoning District for property located at 4050 13th Avenue S.W. in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5.0 acres. Petition R-2000-3, Steve Morgan, Morgan and Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc., representing M.B. Morgan and R.E. Shaffer, requesting a rezone from RT to C-3 for property located at the corner of U.S. 41 and Barefoot Williams Road, in Section 33, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, 11 November 28, 2000 consisting of 4.38 +/- acres. Petition PUD-2000-14 William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. requesting a rezone from "A" to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Brittany Bay Apartments PUD for a multi-family development of 128 affordable housing units and 350 standard residential units on property lying on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 4/5 mile south of Immokalee Road in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 58.6 acres. 18. ADJOURN INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383. 12 November 28, 2000 November 28, 2000 Item #3A, B,&C CONSENT AGENDA, SUMMARY AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have everybody-- a lot of standing room only this morning. It's a big day for Collier County Commission. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Amen. CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is our meeting of November 28th. We're going to swear three new commissioners here shortly. If all of you would join with me in the invocation by Pastor Jim Nite of Grace Bible Church, followed by the pledge of allegiance. REVEREND NITE.' Would you pray with me. Father, at this time of Thanksgiving, we stop and express to you our gratitude for this country, for how you have blessed us in so many ways, materially, personally, and we just stop and say thank you. Father, also as we think of our country, there's a sense of uneasiness as we wait for the resolution of our own presidential election. We know that you're sovereign, that you're in control, and we rest in that. We would ask that those who work with this process would be characterized as people really of goodwill, people characterized by righteousness and justice, people of peace. But we entrust this whole process to you as we wait. Father, we thank you for this community. Again, we have been blessed so richly to be part of this, and we're grateful as we -- as we come together to conduct business. I would ask that you would give the commissioners as they're returning, the three that are new, I'd ask that you would give them wisdom, really your wisdom. I would ask that you would give them a real sense of integrity. Protect them from those who would seek to unduly influence them. I'd ask that you would cause them to be people characterized by compassion, aware of, sensitive to the needs of those within this community. We really again ask for your wisdom as they meet and as decisions are made. Father, we again are thankful for how we've seen you work Page 2 November 28, 2000 in our lives. We are thankful for your love, your grace, your mercy that's been expressed to us in so many ways. I come before you in your Son's name. Amen. (Pledge of allegiance said in unison.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: ***All right. At this time, I know what many of you are in the room for. It will be a great privilege for Collier County to swear in three new commissioners: Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Henning. At this time, Judge Brousseau, I believe, is here. If the three new commissioners would step to the front, they will be duly sworn as commissioners for Collier County. JUDGE BROUSSEAU: It's an honor to be here. And as I was standing there, I was hoping that I didn't have to sign in. This is a very joyous important moment in your life. You and I have been elected to office. It was not an easy task to win the vote of the people, yet it will seem easy compared to the job that you're about to undertake. Due to recent events, the citizens of Collier County have high expectations, and you must show them that you are honest and be frank in all things that you do. I recommend, if you haven't already, that you read the constitution in the State of Florida from which all power comes. I'd like to take the liberty of reading the preamble in the first sentence. We the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, ensure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution. And now the first sentence in the constitution. Section 1, political power. All political power is inherent in the people. It's easy to for -- sometimes for us to forget that we serve the people and the people don't serve us. If you'll raise your right hand, repeat after me. (The following was repeated by the newly elected commissioners:} JUDGE BROUSSEAU: I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the constitution of the state; and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of Collier County Page 3 November 28, 2000 commissioner of which I am about now to enter, so help me God. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, we'll take about five minutes so you could all come up and congratulate these folks. Take about a five-minute recess. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, we're alive and well, the Board of County Commissioners. Congratulations to the new commissioners. We welcome you to the dais. It would only be appropriate for me to allow you to say a couple of words. I know you're all politicians, but I say a couple of words, and welcome you to the dais. So Commissioner Coletta, I'll start with you and anything you want to say, you've got a couple minutes to say it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner Carter. I just wanted to thank everybody for the tremendous reception today, and I'm going to work very hard for you. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. You took the words out of my mouth. Thank you for being here, thank you for your support. And I'll do all in my power to make you proud that you put me here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I want to thank the staff for making us look good over here. And during the orientation process, I've gotten to know quite a few people that we have employed here in Collier County, and I just want to thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just have to say, I woke up this morning with a song in my head about it's a new day dawning. It is. It's going to be wonderful. I am so grateful to be here serving with all of you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Likewise. I think it's a new era for the Board of County Commissioners. It's a new era for Collier County. We are going to move forward. We're going to do a lot of wonderful things. You are going to be proud of everyone sitting on this dais. And we are going to do the best that we know to Page 4 November 28, 2000 serve the public as the best of our abilities. And so with that, I will move into our new meeting. And Mr. Olliff, do you have any additions to our agenda this morning? MR. OLLIFF: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And on behalf of the staff, welcome to the new board. We too are excited and look forward to the opportunity to work with you. Without any further ado, I think we've got a lot of work to do. So if I can, I'd like to walk you through the changes to your agenda this morning. You should have a change list and I'll walk you through those, more for the public's sake, I think. The first item is an addition where we're going to add Item 10(C} to the agenda. That's under the Board of County Commissioners and it's a request by Commissioner Carter that the board consider obtaining what's called the old icehouse building from the Naples Airport. That would be 10(C}. There's a request to move Item 16(B}, as in boy, (2) to 8(B)(4}. That's at staff's request. That is an item to adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of land for Livingston Road. The next item is also a moved item. It is at the request of Commissioner Fiala. We are asking that Item 17(D), as in David, off of your summary agenda be moved to 12(B)(4). And that is a request for a rezone from RT to C-3, and it's property located on the corner of U.S. 41 and Barefoot Williams Road. That's Item 17(D) moving to 12(B)(4). The next item is a change, and it's Item 8(B)(2), and it's simply a change in the wording of the executive summary regarding recommended management entity for the purpose of providing Collier County area transit system service and support, as identified in RFP-003146. That's a staff request. Just a language change there. The last item I have for you is actually just something I need to read into the record for Item 17(E), which is also on your summary agenda. And for clarification, the attorney's office has asked that we tweak the recommendation to read that it is an item to authorize the chairman to sign the attached agreement authorizing affordable housing density bonus for improved -- and improving covenants and restrictions on real property. So that's just a minor language tweaking that we've done to the recommendation there. With that, Mr. Chairman, I think that's all the changes I have Page 5 November 28, 2000 to your agenda. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to add one other thing. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just a minute. I have to go to Mr. Weigel. Mr. Weigel, do you have any changes? MR. WEIGEL-' No, none, thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: None. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Learning the process. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's all right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd just like to add on Item 17(A), which addresses the new Collier County expansion, the government complex expansion, I found that there are going to be a lot of-- there's going to be a tremendous traffic impact on the Glades and the Lakewood communities, and I would just like to be -- to go on record to say I'd like to work very closely with the Transportation Department to see if we can find some alternative routes for access and egress of our government complex, as we add 1,000 new employees and many more people coming to visit those facilities. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Fine. That was a DRI, and we are not removed from the DRI process as a county. And that's why we had to go through the Southwest Regional Planning Council. It was approved by them, and that's why you see it on our agenda today. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No changes, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. And I have none. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve the consent, summary and regular agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before we do that, is there any public speakers on the consent or summary agenda? Seeing none, motion to approve. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Page 6 AGENDA CHANGES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING NOVEMBER 287 2000 ADD: ITEM 10(C): Consideration of obtaining the old ice house building from the Naples Airport. (Requested by Commissioner Carter.) MOVE: ITEM 16(B)2 to 8(B)4: Adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of land for Livingston Road between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine Ridge Road project, ClE No. 52. (Staff request.) MOVE: ITEM 17(D) TO 12(B)4: Petition R-2000-3, Steve Morgan, Morgan and Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc., requesting a rezone from RT to C-3 for property located at the corner of US 41 and Barefoot Williams Road. (Requested by Commissioner Fiala.) CHANGE: ITEM 8(B)2: Change in wording of Executive Summary regarding Recommended Management Entity for the Purpose of Providing Collier County Area Transit System Service and Support as Identified in RFP #00-3146. (Staff request.) NOTE: November 28, 2000 Item #4A MINUTES OF REGULAR BCC MEETING OF OCTOBER 24, 2000 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve October 24th, 2000 regular meeting minutes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second for that? I'll second it. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign. (No response.} CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING DECEMBER t, 2000 AS "WORLD AIDS DAY 2000" - ADOPTED All right, that moves us to proclamations. And Commissioner Mac'Kie, I believe you have one for us this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. I have a proclamation for World AIDS Day, 2000. And I'd like to ask Andrea Taylor and Russell Fox, if they're here, just come stand, if you would, please, right in front of the dais while I read the proclamation, and then we'd welcome you to make a comment. Yeah, just face the cameras, if you would. WHEREAS, the global epidemic of HIV infection and AIDS requires a worldwide effort to increase communication, education and united action to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS the joint United Nations program on HIV/AIDS observes December 1st of each year as World AIDS Day, a day to expand and strengthen worldwide efforts to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS; and WHEREAS, U.N. AIDS estimates that over :34 million people are currently living with HIV/AIDS, with young people under the age of 25 accounting for more than half of all new infections; and WHEREAS, the American Association for World Health is encouraging a better understanding of the challenge of HIV/AIDS nationally as it recognizes that the number of people diagnosed Page 7 November 28, 2000 with HIV and AIDS in the United States continues to increase, with 850,000 people in the United States now infected; and WHEREAS, Collier County has 706 AIDS cases reported as of July 3tst, 2000; and WHEREAS, World AIDS Day provides an opportunity to focus local, national and international attention on HIV infection and AIDS, and to disseminate information on how to prevent the spread of H IV; and WHEREAS, because men represent the majority of people living with HIV/AIDS, the World AIDS Day 2000 theme, "AIDS, all men make a difference," urges all men to increase their awareness of the risk of HIV/AIDS for themselves, their partners and their children, and to use their influence in their families, among their friends and in their communities to help stem the tide of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida that December 1, 2000, be designated as World AIDS Day, and urge all citizens to take part in activities and observances designed to increase awareness and understanding of HIV/AIDS as a global challenge, to take part in HIV/AIDS prevention activities and programs and to join the global effort to prevent the further spread of HIV/AIDS. DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of November, 2000, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, James D. Carter, Ph.D., Chairman. I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. (Applause.) MS. TAYLOR: Thank you for recognizing HIV as being an important issue in our community in Collier County. And I'd like to personally thank everybody here and welcome everybody to the World AIDS Day observance this Friday, December 1st, in Cambier Park, beginning at 6:30. MR. FOX: And as somebody living with the virus and this is my fourth time accepting the proclamation from the Collier Commission, I thank you once more. Thank you. Page 8 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. (Applause.) Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, moving to service awards. Always a special part in every county commission meeting. We have an opportunity to recognize our employees for their years of service. And we're going to start with our five-year attendees. We bring them up as a group because they say gee, we're kind of bashful, we don't like to come by ourselves. So following that direction, I will invite the following people to come up for their five-year pins. That would be John Biedenharn, who is with solid waste; Michelle Berrios, with information technology -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That would be Michael. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's right. It's Michael, excuse me. Contact is not always doing what it's supposed to. Della Mitchell, library; and Karen Clements, with building review. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, moving forward to the longer service personnel who have been here for some period of time. The first one is no stranger to any of us and that is David Weigel, our county attorney for 15 years. David? (Applause.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: And in EMS billing, Cynthia Long, 15 years. (Applause.} COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A tough but important job. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Congratulations, Nora. Thank you. And the grand winner this morning, Beato Guerra, in road and bridge, 20 years. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Congratulations, sir. Thank you for your years of service. (Applause.) Item #7A Page 9 November 28, 2000 REQUEST BY KIRK SANDERS FOR PUBLIC PETITION TO DISCUSS AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE NO. V2000 - STAFF DIRECTED TO MEET WITH MR. SANDERS REGARDING GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, that moves us to public petitions. That will be Item No. 7(A), request by Kirk Sanders for public petition to discuss the after-the-fact Variance Number V, as in Victor, 2000. MR. SANDERS: Hi, I'm Kirk Sanders, and I was here for -- to see if I can do a variance on a property I had purchased in 1999. 1139 Sperling Avenue is the address. And I purchased the house and a guest house, and it was called a playhouse. And I'd like to convert it over to a storage unit. And basically I just wanted to see if I can -- what I needed to do. And I applied for a variance, and it had been recommended for approval until I missed the last meeting, which was on September 12th. Actually, I was a little bit ignorant to the law and the system, and I showed up at the August 17th meeting, and everything seemed like it was approved, but evidently it was just recommended for approval. And basically that's why I'm here today. So -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: The meeting where you had it approved was a planning council, I believe, sir. MR. SANDERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, I remember this, and I would very much like to give this man an opportunity to be heard, because our cumbersome and sometimes confusing system. Is there a way? I'd like to give him a chance to come back and make his pitch, because I remember this. We got to his after-the-fact variance and we just kind of went huh, he's not here, maybe he's changed his mind, motion to deny. MR. MULHERE: I think -- Bob Mulhere, planning services director, for the record. I think I'd have to defer for the county attorney's office, because the only way that I know that an item can be reconsidered after it was denied is through reconsideration, and I think the time frame has expired. MR. WEIGEL: That is the case, typically. I'll refer back to Page 10 November 28, 2000 Bob here, and looking for a potential procedural solution, and that is, is there any similarity here, Bob, do you find to other matters that have come before the board, land use matters, that may come back in six months thereafter? MR. MULHERE: Correct. This could be reapplied for after six months have -- unless the application was materially altered and different. But I don't really see that as being applicable. So we could meet -- I'm sorry, your name again? MR. SANDERS: Kirk Sanders. MR. MULHERE: We could meet with Mr. Sanders. I'll have Chahram meet with him right now outside in the hall and we'll set up a meeting. And it will take a few months to go through that process, but after six months, you can reapply. I'm not sure that there's any other way procedurally that we can handle it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sufficient direction from the board to have Mr. Mulhere through Chahram to meet with the petitioner to go back to the process? MR. MULHERE: Sure. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, we have three that agree with that? Okay, I think that's sufficient direction. Thank you very much, sir. Item #7B REQUEST BY FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH, MICHAEL DAVIS OF SIGNCRAFT; AND WILLIAM HOOVER OF HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE THE BCC CONSIDER DIRECTING THE COUNTY LONG RANGE PLANNING STAFF TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT - STAFF TO PURSUE THE ISSUE AND REPORT BACK TO THE BCC All right. I see a second one in here. Has that been removed from the agenda? William Hoover? Right here is Mr. Hoover. Okay. Mr. Hoover, it is your turn. And I stand corrected, it is on my agenda. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's there. CHAIRMAN CARTER: First Assembly of God Church, Michael Davis, Signcraft, and William Hoover of Hoover Planning and Page 11 November 28, 2000 Development. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on, Bill, the clock's running. Talk to us. Time's clicking away. MR. HOOVER: Good morning, commissioners. What we're here for is if you look at these two maps, the -- this map right here is the Future Land Use Map, a portion of it. And the area the subject property is in is in the northeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard. That's an urban fringe area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the -- this is the big development or the big facility that the church is -- MR. HOOVER: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' The homeless and otherwise a lot of facilities being built there. MR. HOOVER: Right. So it's a rather intense facility. And to the east of it is the Swamp Buggy grounds. And on our west boundary is Collier Boulevard. South boundary is the Swamp Buggy entrance or Rattlesnake Hammock Road. On the -- if we went across the street to the northwest corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard, the -- for affordable housing project, you could ask for 15 units an acre density, or without an affordable housing project you could ask for seven units an acre, because it's in a density band. However, on the --just going across the road, the maximum density permitable under the comprehensive plan is 10 times less than that, 1.5 units per acre. Which is sort of odd, I guess, to say the least. So what we're proposing is that if you look at the zoning map, that the area in yellow would be eligible for affordable housing or some type of increased density where affordable housing projects would also be permitted in there. This area is the urban fringe, which I think is partially intended -- the urban line is further to the east. It's about a quarter mile east of the Swamp Buggy grounds. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' So why is this something that you aren't just applying for through the regular process? Because I think this is a great idea, it's makes a lot of sense. Why are we talking about it today instead of just -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think Mr. Mulhere needs to comment on that. Page 12 November 28, 2000 MR. MULHERE: For the record again, Bob Mulhere, planning services director. I would say just a couple of things. It's not uncommon to have a transitional zone. It's a common planning practice to differentiate between an urban area using a urban fringe zone before you move into the rural area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But this -- MR. MULHERE: But I do agree with Mr. Hoover that at face value this area looks to be very appropriate, given the surrounding land uses. And on face value, we don't object to it. We could work through the comprehensive plan amendment process. The one caveat that I would throw out there is at the same time we're working through the rural fringe process, we're looking at some opportunities to enhance affordable and workforce housing through that process. And this comprehensive plan amendment would track very closely, I think, in timing to what we're doing in the rural fringe area. So I'd like to perhaps look at this issue in a broader way. Although on this specific piece of property, it seems to me to make sense. But there may be other implications or other applications here that we will deal with through the rural fringe assessments. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That makes sense to me. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I think all we have to do is give staff direction to pursue that with the petitioner. MR. HOOVER: Yeah. I would like to answer Commissioner Mac'Kie's question. Looking at this zoning map, the First Assembly of God Church, they only own the northern one-third of this area. And so we've got other areas that would be coming in with this. So that's -- and we couldn't do that without written property permission from all these other property owners, which would -- may take us several years to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got you. Unless it's a staff or county commission initiated amendment, which is what you're seeking today. MR. HOOVER: Yes. So it seems like it makes good planning, rather than coming in and us bringing one project at a time. I think Whippoorwill Lane is an excellent example of that, where the county took the initiative and they did a sector plan. And we ended up with some of the best planning that's been done here in Page 13 November 28, 2000 the t0 years that I've been working in Collier County. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So you want a big picture approach to this, and I think you can work with staff to do that, and I think there's sufficient direction on this board to go forward with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Just to clarify. I would prefer that we look at these issues, and if need be we'll come back to the board with a staff position on this. I'm saying at face value it looks to make good sense, but we really haven't had an opportunity to completely evaluate it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. We would expect you to come back to us on that basis, Bob. MR. MULHERE: Okay. MR. HOOVER: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, the only -- if I could just say one other thing about it. The only other thing that I want to be careful about, when we say we're going to look at it in the big picture is I've encountered this some with the Gateway Triangle redevelopment and Bayshore and that kind of stuff. Sometimes the private sector is ready faster than the government catches -- you know, so let's not slow down a good idea -- MR. MULHERE: No, I -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- is my only caveat. MR. MULHERE: I concur. Just in terms of timing, the fringe process probably will track quicker than it would take to do a comprehensive plan amendment in the next cycle, so -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to ask also, does that -- at that point in time, do you then present to us what type of affordable housing we're talking about? I mean, it could be mobile homes or, you know, whatever. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to know what type we're talking about. MR. HOOVER: What we're thinking is apartment buildings, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But we'll get to see all of that. First, we'll see a comp. plan, then we'll see zoning, then there'll be, you know, specific site development plans. So it's just a long process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Paget4 November 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's a long process, and this gives staff direction to come back to us with that picture, Commissioner Fiala. MR. HOOVER: So you'd get to see it a minimum of three more times. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Hot dog. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You'll know it well before it's over. MR. OLLIFF: Just to clarify. I want to make sure that I understand what the direction is. We're going to be bringing back a proposed Future Land Use Element amendment for the board to consider a comprehensive plan amendment for the board to consider before we actually go off and spend the staff time to actually develop the specific language and work it through all the advisory boards. We're going to bring it back to you first before we go through the advisory board process and the public hearing process. So we will come back. Because this is a public petition, we will come back to you with a regular staff item at a future agenda within the next two to three meetings and then make sure that that direction's clear from the board. MR. MULHERE: Right, with our recommendations. That was my intent. MR. OLLIFF: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have to put this in a form of a motion? CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. All we have to do is give staff direction at this point. All right, that takes to us Item 8(A)(1). This was -- has been continued to the December 12th meeting. Item #8A2 RESOLUTION 2000-445 ESTABLISHING A POLICY TO CONSIDER REQUESTS TO RELEASE COUNTY LIENS ASSESSED ON PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN DONATED TO NON-PROFIT AGENCIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING - ADOPTED Moves us to Item 8(A)(2), approve a resolution to establish a policy to consider request to release county lien items assessed on privately owned property which has been donated to nonprofit Page 15 November 28, 2000 agencies for affordable housing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I be so bold as to butt in here, Michelle, and just tell the new members of the board, this is something I'm extremely excited about. We should call this the James Lorenzo Walker Act, because this started because Mr. Walker came to me with a piece of property that he had acquired through a tax deed, a tax certificate sale. And afterwards discovered that the mowing lanes on this property were worth more than the property. Offered to give it back to the county, as opposed to going through the foreclosure process, and we couldn't take it back because the liens were of a higher value than the property, and other reasons. But we couldn't take it. So our brilliant staff has devised a way that these liens can be paid through state affordable housing money if those lots are given, donated to entities like Habitat for Humanity to build affordable housing on. I think this is just a fabulous result. It took us a long time to get here, but I hope that everybody is going to support it. It's the right thing to do. That was my pitch. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I see this as a no-brainer item. And if there's no discussion from the board or no comments from the public, I'm ready to make a motion on that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you want to make a motion, that's your privilege. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we approve this agenda item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Discussion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One speaker. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one question. Is there any possibility that we could expand this to also include Social Service agencies, that they're having a hard time now to find adequate facilities? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sure that Mr. Mihalic would be able to investigate it. And if they're eligible for SHIP money, that's a real good suggestion. MR. OLLIFF.' My suggestion would be that we -- we -- if that's the board direction, that we bring back a proposed -- if that's possible, we bring back the report, yes or no, and if it is possible, that we have an amending resolution that we could do Page 16 November 28, 2000 after the fact. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That would be fine. We have one public speaker, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: You do. It is James Lorenzo Walker, who I doubt very seriously is going to try and talk you out of this. MR. WALKER: I think Commissioner Mac'Kie has had it clearly explained to you. And this has been going on since t985. And we would like to get it taken care of. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's fine. We appreciate that, Mr. Walker, and I know that you wouldn't talk us out of it. MR. WALKER: Ms. Edwards has been working on it -- Ms. Arnold now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's how long that it's been. MR. WALKER: I mean, if there's any questions that you would have about it, I mean, I might could have an answer. But I think that everything is going fine. The motion's been made and seconded. I'm ready for a vote. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Only comment I have under this, Michelle, is under liens released. I think that this needs to be an administrative decision. We don't need to have it come back to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. MS. ARNOLD: I think for -- as a formal measure, we do. We have to have your formal authorization. It could be on the consent agenda. it doesn't have to be a typical item. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right, okay. Thank you. We have a motion, we have a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you, Michelle. MS. ARNOLD: That was a neat one. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Those are the nice kind, aren't they? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I got to be here for the win after a couple of years of fighting. Item #8B1 RESOLUTION 2000-446 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BY CONDEMNATION OF FEE-SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS Page 17 November 28, 2000 AND/OR PERPETUAL, NON-EXCLUSIVE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALK, SLOPE, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE, NOISE ABATEMENT INTERESTS AND/OR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIX-LANING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT BETWEEN GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND PINE RIDGE ROAD PROJECT, CIE NO. 52 -ADOPTED CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, that takes us to Item 8(B)(1), adopt a resolution authorizing the acquisition of land for condemnation or fee simple title interest, et cetera, et cetera. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to make a motion to approve. These -- these board members are on our agenda, on the regular agenda item. It seems to me they ought to be on consent. They're road projects that we've already said go forward and do it but they can't legally be on consent, otherwise they would be. CHAIRMAN CARTER: They are just links in the chain as we move the process forward. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Thanks for the nice presentation, Norm. Item #8B2 RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING COLLIER COUNTY AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM SERVICE AND SUPPORT AS IDENTIFIED IN RFP #00-3146 AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATOR OR THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO, MODIFY OR TERMINATE A CONTRACT WITH THE SELECTED MANAGEMENT ENTITY - APPROVED Takes us to Item 8(B)(2). We have had a word change there this morning. It's approval recommended management entity for the purpose of providing Collier County area transit system Page 18 November 28, 2000 service and support, as identified in the RFP No. 00-3146. MR. HOPE: Good morning, commissioners. I'm David Hope, your public transportation manager, and I wanted to bring you up to date on where we stand with our transit project at this point. We're going from a planning phase into the start-up phase at this time. The next step is to hire someone to manage the day-to-day operations of our transit system. To do that, we issued an RFP on October 20th for transit management entity. We had about 31 interested parties. Of those, six wrote back and declined to submit a proposal, and only one submitted a proposal. That's McDonald Transit. And in their proposal they gave an overview of what they do and how they do it around the nation. They have 18 properties around the country in nine different states, two of which are in Florida, one in Ocala, their smallest property, and one at Daytona Beach. And they have proposed to manage our service for us. The selection committee reviewed their proposal and did recommend that they be selected to manage the transit operation in Collier County. We looked at their approach to the service, their cost and their qualifications. Their qualifications were very good. Again, 18 properties around the country, two in Florida. Their approach meets our time line and incorporates all of the issues in the RFP. Their cost, we have some issues with that, but we would like to recommend to the board, allow staff to negotiate specific line items with the entity to stay within our budget for the first and subsequent years. So our recommendation is just that, that the board approve McDonald as a transit management entity and authorize the chairman to sign a contract with McDonald to authorize staff to negotiate certain items with McDonald Transit. And then based on that negotiation, sign the contract. There are two changes to the executive summary as well I'd like to mention today, based on a talk with the assistant county attorney last night, and I can pass those out. It's strictly a minor change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They gave them to us. MR. HOPE: Okay. Well, this might be a new one subsequent to that. It takes out a couple of words. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Do you have a question, Commissioner Page 19 November 28, 2000 Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. I just had told the county manager I was going to use this item as an opportunity to talk about a couple of things on the transit system. I don't have an objection to this particular company, if they're qualified. But as is not a surprise to anybody, the City of Naples is having some real concerns and reservations about how our transit system might affect city residents. And I have been assured -- I have had a couple of-- I've had three issues that I'm concerned about. One is, forgive me, I'm a woman, the way the buses look. I want -- I was told by Gavin Jones, our former MPO coordinator, that I would get a second look at these buses before it was a done deal. And I haven't. But I understand from our county manager that I'm going to love them. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There you go. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there it is. And that's not too bad. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Looks like a trolley. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it looks like a trolley, and that's what I was wanting to -- that's what I was hoping. Of course the color scheme we can talk about, right? CHAIRMAN CARTER: You talk about me micromanaging, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. This is so important, though, you guys. I mean, this is such an important -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we can either start this right and it will be a success or we'll start it wrong and it will fail. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about purple? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Purple's no good either. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I'm not seriously talking. I mean, you guys will make the right decision on that. The other two issues that I had -- I'm grateful to see that. That does look a whole lot better than those buses that I was afraid we were going to get. The second issue has to do with the concern that people have about diesel and whether or not it's going to be pollution for this community. I have been assured by staff that that is a Page 20 November 28, 2000 maintenance question and that if we have adequately maintained buses, that it's not going to be a pollution problem, it's not going to be a smell. Can somebody talk about that and tell me what we're going to do? What we can expect from a diesel system? MR. HOPE: I can tell you, commissioner, that we did have access to one of the vehicles that we're purchasing several months ago, actually running and parked in front of the center of Horseshoe. That engine did not emit a great deal of smelly pollutants. We did actually smell the tailpipe and it wasn't that bad. They are newer engines. There is some pollution. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is that a new part of your job description, smelling tailpipes? MR. HOPE: Well, I wanted to be sure it was okay. It seemed to be okay in my opinion. What we have done, in addition to that, is based on Mayor MacKenzie's request is we're trying to alter the tailpipe itself so that the exhaust goes directly down as opposed to straight back towards any vehicles, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And is that something that we'll be able to do? MR. HOPE: The tailpipe? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. HOPE: I believe so. That's an issue for fleet maintenance. As long as there's no safety concerns, we should be able to do that. I don't think there will be any. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And then the other thing that does have to do more specifically with this, with the operator, is whether or not -- do they have experience in working with communities? For example, the routes are a problem, are considered by some to be a problem within the City of Naples. And I wonder if the operator would be the entity that would communicate with the City of Naples, or will that remain the county staff's responsibility? I want to be able to work that out. I understand that those routes are not in stone yet. And I want to be able to work with the City of Naples again, because I want this system so badly, I want it to work. I don't want to offend people and make it something that we lose the big picture because of a small fight. So is it the operator or county staff who will work with me and with the City of Naples on that issue? Page 21 November 28, 2000 MR. HOPE: I'd like to have us both involved, in my opinion, have the operator involved in every step of the way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And -- but staff would stay -- MR. HOPE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- involved in that. And for the record, we're still in the process of finalizing those routes. MR. HOPE: Yes, the final plan goes to the MPO early next month and then back to this board on the 12th. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And in the meantime, prior to that, I'd like to meet with you and with some city officials to see if we can make everybody happy, or as happy as we can get. MR. HOPE: Certainly. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I agree, Commissioner Mac'Kie, we want to do all those things. And I don't want our buses blamed for some smelly diesel automobile owned by somebody in the City of Naples or some truck that goes through there that uses diesel to then begin pointing fingers at the transit system in saying you guys are causing the problem. So I agree with Commissioner Mac'Kie, we need to have a way to make sure that if there's a problem, it is not us, it may be something else. So we don't want to end up being a bad guy because somebody else didn't do something right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, being in the automotive business for a number of years, technology has changed and we've really cleaned up the emissions and the pollutants coming out of the tailpipes of these vehicles. So I can understand there are concerns out there and I can appreciate it, but from my experience is that we're not going to be seeing those like we have in the past. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Could I entertain a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER FIALA: So moved. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So moved by Commissioner Fiala. Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you very Page 22 November 28, 2000 much. Item #8B3 CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES BY RWA, INC., FOR GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY SIX-LANING DESIGN FROM AIRPORT ROAD TO SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 60027- APPROVED That moves to us Item 8(B)(3), approve contract for professional engineering services for RWA, Inc. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was it just me or was there no executive summary to go with this item? CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, there's one right here. It's really another link in the chain, as I understand it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I didn't have one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, mine is like Donna's. I had the contract but no executive summary. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You didn't have this nice beautiful thing here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, didn't have that lovely thing, SO '' MR. OLLIFF.' We'll talk to the printer about that. MR. FEDER: My apologies, I've got one here and I'll be happy to give it to you, Commissioner, afterwards. Basically for the record, Norman Feder, your transportation administration. What we're asking for in the executive summary is for your approval of RWA, Incorporated to be the professional engineering firm for design of Golden Gate Parkway, six-laning design, Airport to Santa Barbara project, previously approved by this board. We're bringing it to you today, just your authorization for us to proceed based on that. There's two things I'll raise to your attention. The first being that the six-laning is being brought in in a time frame to coordinate with the interchange at 1-75 being developed by the Florida DOT. Additionally, we are in this design contract going to be establishing the footprint or the right-of-way requirements for a potential future interchange at Airport and Golden Gate. We will Page 23 November 28, 2000 not be designing out of this contract any structures for future interchange, but only establishing the footprint to protect the right-of-way for the future. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm happy to support this. I want to -- I'm almost tempted to move approval with a condition that they work with Dover/Kohl on the community character study, because there has been some question, there's been some miscommunication, I think, on whether or not this roadway is going to be designed or at least that Dover/Kohl in their community character study is going to be in the loop. And I want them to be in the loop. MR. FEDER: Commissioner, I guess the question I'd have is we already have the structure to go six lanes on this. And with an interchange, what issues would they be raising? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have any idea. And I don't want to change six lanes. I'm not beginning to touch that. I'm encouraging that the designer coordinate their efforts with the community character committee to see -- MR. FEDER: And we will go back and discuss with them to understand any issues they may want to look at. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I'll make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that. COMMISSIONER FIALA.' I have a question. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Just one question, if you don't mind. MR. FEDER: By all means. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you explain to me, being that I haven't done much traffic engineering or road engineering, how they can design a road when they're not quite sure where the 1-75 interchange is going to actually be located, being that there's been some controversy over that? MR. FEDER: The Florida DOT project is going off of the actual interchange for some distance, depending upon what they structure there. Actually, the concept they have, they'd be doing a little bit more of Golden Gate Parkway, we'd be doing a little bit less, but they're fairly complementary, consistent. Basically our project is picking up from that project for the interchange and then going to the west, if you will. Page 24 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER FIALA: What I was concerned with was if they put together a design -- MR. FEDER: Ours is not predetermining that interchange. COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- and then we'd have to go back and redo and we wasted that money. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, I'm going to trust Norman Feder's experience with FDOT to make sure that we don't end up having things that end up like this. MR. FEDER: You won't. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That it will work. But it's a good question, but I trust that we will get there. Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has nothing to do with the design of the interchange, it's just the Golden Gate Parkway? MR. FEDER: That is correct. We're coming to the area of their design. This will not influence that design one way or another. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Which has not been set, as far as FDOT's concerned. MR. FEDER: That's my understanding as well, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And there will probably be an MPO discussion, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, we have a first and we have a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Item #8B4 RESOLUTION 2000-447 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF LAND BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS AND/OR NON-EXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL, ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALK, SLOPE, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANE, NOISE ABATEMENT WALL INTERESTS AND/OR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD BETWEEN GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND PINE RIDGE Page 25 November 28, 2000 ROAD PROJECT, CIE NO. 52 -ADOPTED Okay, that takes us to Item 8(B)(4), resolution authorizing acquisition of land for Livingston Road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I assume this is coming off of consent because of the exact same technical reasons, this is another one that has to be on the regular agenda? MR. FEDER: Actually, by gift or acquisition it can be on the consent agenda. It was just a companion to the one on the whole agenda for eminent domain. So it's basically the same issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second that motion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Item #8E1 REQUEST FOR BCC AFFIRMATION OF SUPPORT FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REPLACEMENT PROJECT - STAFF TO PROCEED All right, that takes to us Item 8(E)(1), request for BCC affirmation to support financial management system replacement project. MR. CARNELL.' Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, Steve Carnell, your purchasing and general services director. The item before you is in follow-up to a very important project that we are working jointly with in the board agency and the clerk of courts agency, and the supervisor of elections as well, to update significantly our business management practices and through the acquisition of a new hardware/software network solution that will bring in new applications and also integrate to existing software that we have at the present time. This is a project that the board authorized funds for in the current budget year during the budget cycle this summer. Part of the budget plan included using half a million dollars worth of funds from the clerk of courts; the source of funding specifically Page 26 November 28, 2000 being the public records trust management fund. And the clerk is directly accountable to the State of Florida for the expenditure of these funds, and so he's requested, as we kick the project off and commence, that we get a formal affirmation on the record from the board for support for this project before we begin the expenditure of those funds. Again, the clerk has to report to the state in terms of the expenditure of these funds for the project. So this is really just a formality. It's a step to initiate and commence the project using these state revenues in part to fund the project. So with that, we would request your support on this matter at this time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I would recommend to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to affirm the support of the board and the clerk agencies to move forward and commence work under the financial management systems project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a first and a second. Any discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you, Steve. Item #8G1 BCC TO SUPPORT THE FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES EFFORTS TO ORGANIZE PROPOSING THAT FLORIDA BE ALLOWED TO USE POST-CENSUS LOCAL REVIEW AND CALL CENTERS TO IMPROVE THE CENSUS 2000 INFORMATION - APPROVED Okay, that moves us to Item 8(G)(1), county manager, recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners support the Florida Association of Counties' efforts to organize to propose to Florida be allowed to use post-census local review and call centers to improve the Census 2000 information. Bottom line as I see it is that we want to make sure we've got the numbers right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. Page 27 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Carries. Item #10A RESOLUTION 2000-448 APPOINTING COMMISSIONER COLETTA TO THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL - ADOPTED Okay, that moves us to Item 10(A), Board of County Commissioners. Appointment of commissioners to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question about this. Is this to fulfill a term, or is this a four-year position? I mean, what is the -- exactly the status of this? There's nothing on here. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, Commissioner Constantine was there, and he would of course have left the board -- left that board when he left office under the normal schedule. Since he left early, that position has been vacant. And now it would be a replacement of that person. How long the term is is an interesting question. I do not know the answer to that. MS. FILSON: Once you're appointed on the Regional Planning Council, you'll remain a member until the board appoints someone else. So -- or unless you are -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sort of like being a Supreme Court justice. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lifetime appointment. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're there as long as you're in office or unless you decide to remove yourself or unless the board changes the policy and only wants a commissioner to serve for a certain period. I currently serve on that board. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Carter, I think you're going to find that the three new commissioners all express an interest in this particular position, myself included. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, then, I think it's time for somebody to say something. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in this, working with the entities here in Southwest Page 28 November 28, 2000 Florida under a regional basis, and we brought that forward before the campaign. I will yield to our -- my colleagues for the interest in that position, and I'll wait for Commissioner Fiala to make a comment on that, and I'll ready for a motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to -- I personally am not excited about that service, and am glad that others are. So whoever is interested, speak up. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same with me. I would like to defer to Jim or Tom, if one of you would like to work on that. I have some things I have to accomplish before I get there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that we all do, Commissioner Fiala. But again, I'm going to yield to that and recommend that we appoint Commissioner Coletta for that position. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We have a first and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous votes of ayes.) COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know whether to offer you my congratulations, Commissioner, or my condolences, but you'll do fine. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I look forward to it, I really am. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You'll find that it's a very, very interesting group to sit with. And I'll be please to be able to serve there with you. Item #10B RESOLUTION 2000-449 APPOINTING ERICA LYNNE AND WILLIAM W. HILL TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL - ADOPTED All right, that moves us to the next item, is the appointment to members of the Environmental Advisory Council. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two applicants, two positions, I move their approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second that motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 29 November 28, 2000 (Unanimous votes of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. Item #10C CONSIDERATION OF OBTAINING THE OLD ICE HOUSE BUILDING FORM THE NAPLES AIRPORT - AUTHORIZATION GRANTED FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT TO USE TDC RESERVE FUNDS; COUNTY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO DEMOLISH AND REMOVE THE SALVAGEABLE PART OF THE ICEHOUSE SUBJECT TO ALL PARTIES' APPROVAL IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000 AND STAFF TO BRING BACK A PROJECT FOR RECONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING USING THE SALVAGEABLE PARTS - APPROVED All right, that takes us down to the icehouse. I put this on the agenda at the request of some interested parties in Naples in terms of preserving this World War II building. And before I have a discussion on it, I would want to -- I want to thank the Naples Airport Authority for giving us the opportunity to discuss it as a Board of County Commissioners. And also to Ted Soliday, who is the airport chairman there, who graciously said we will wait until you all reach a decision on whether or not you want to preserve this building and handle it accordingly. There is a pretty tight time line here, as I understand. So I think what we need to do is hear from staff, Mr. Olliff, in terms of what this will entail, what it's all about and whether or not the Board of County Commissioners wants to take this under consideration. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Jamro, your museum director, has done as much research as we can possibly do between the middle of last week, the Thanksgiving holiday, and today. But I think we've got at least enough information that hopefully the board can make a decision from it. Mr. Jamro? CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many speakers do we have on this? MR. OLLIFF: You only have one. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Only one. MR. OLLIFF: But I will make note for the record that the Page 30 November 28, 2000 Airport Authority board and the director are here, should you have any questions for them. MR. JAMRO: Good morning, Commissioners. Ron Jamro, your museum director. I think I have everyone's points of view on this matter. And like with most historic preservation projects, they are always come up at the wrong time and when least expected. And so we have got some information together for you today. This is the last of the surviving or the original complement of structures built by the U.S. Army in 1943 at the Naples Airport. Once over 40 buildings, now reduced to just a single one. We call it the icehouse. It is more properly known as the cold storage facility. And it was right across from the railroad station in the war days. It is no doubt historic. It is one of the last surviving buildings of the World War II era in Collier County. In fact, it may be the only one. I think there was a small hut at the Immokalee airfield built during the war. That was demolished in the mid Eighties. There's a Quonset hut down in Goodland. And that's about it for our military building inventory in Collier County. So it does have some significance. And no one is arguing that the men and women who served there deserve to be remembered. It's just a question of how we go about that. As I -- where I see it or from where I sit, there are three options that you could consider. The best, ideally, you would want to restore a building like this on its original location on-site without moving it. That the building keeps its historical relationship, it becomes eligible for the national register of historic places. It just retains more of its ability to influence and to grab people, if you will. The history just means more meaningful there in the relationship to the rest of the airport. If that is not a possibility, then I think you need -- we had talked about possibly relocating it to the museum itself. We have some room for that. We'd need modify the parking lot a little bit. There are some concerns about the structural integrity of the building, whether it would survive such a move. The floor most certainly would not. There are some masonry cracks that are a little troublesome, worrisome. We've been poking around for the better part of two days in that building now. The termites Page 31 November 28, 2000 have had a field day since the soldiers left. They've had, you know, a lot of damage in that regard. But the roof is surprisingly intact. And it is Florida hard pine. It is massive beams. It would be a shame to demolish that. The roof is excellent. But the walls are pretty well shot. So that is also the most expensive option. We're talking there in the neighborhood, we feel, of about 300 to $336,000 to move that building. $75,000 of which would be just the move. And then there's also the surprises of once it's here, what do we got. A third option that Charlie Abbott from the building committee, the Friends of the Museum, devised and which is worth considering as well is to relocate elements of the building, such as the roofing timbers, and to replicate -- we have an architect, draw the building precisely and replicate it at the museum for a fraction of the cost. So you could say maybe we have 40 percent original in that building, so that would maintain some of the historical integrity. No, it's not eligible for the national register and it's not really 100 percent. It's a little bit of Hollywood there. But so is Williamsburg. It still does a great job of teaching people about their past. As a war memorial -- we've been searching for a war memorial. As you know, we've acquired a Sherman tank and now we have got a lot of artifacts and displays that we could make a very nice display honoring the men and women at the Naples Air Base. It would be a wonderful gallery addition at the museum. And I think we could accommodate it from the site plan. It could be juggled in there without too much trouble and would provide a shelter for the tank as well, which is great. So those are three. There may be more, but I can't come up with any. And hopefully that's a -- that will get your thought process started out on this anyway and give you a balanced view of this whole project. And I think it's heartening to see so much interest in historic preservation in Collier County. That's been a long time coming. I applaud it, so -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: The third option, you said a fraction of the cost, Ron. Can you give me an idea of what that fraction means? MR. JAMRO: We're thinking about 100,000. So we're about Page 32 November 28, 2000 a third of the cost of moving it. We would save all the moving expenses and that kind of thing. Truthfully, I spoke to Tom Doyle. I've moved a lot of buildings with Tommy Doyle, some which had no floors, no tops, no sides. And he feels that this one would go, but he's not guaranteeing it will all come over here. And that's what's got me concerned. There's just a little bit of hesitation there. The good news is that he's ready to roll. We are ready to move. I know the airport has been very gracious in giving us this time to consider this. And my hats off to them as well. And so we would want to get something in motion, if that's your desire. We could move fairly fast on this, if that's the -- if you are so inclined. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess a question for -- about the money. What kind of funds -- what would be the source of funds? MR. OCHS: It's time to talk money, they waltz me up here. Good morning. For the record, Leo Ochs, public services administrator. The museum operations and capital are funded currently through TDC funds. There's approximately $43,000 currently in the reserve for Category C funding, which supports the museum operations in the county. In speaking with the budget office and Mr. Mitchell from the clerk's finance department earlier on this project, he would recommend to the board that if you want to go ahead with the project, that we would roll the financing of this into our commercial paper program, which he is currently in the process of refinancing. And then we would pay that off over a period of time through TDC funds on an annually budgeted basis. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would this have a negative effect on the existing county museum facilities? You know, as we've talked in the past about Wilkinson house and others, there was concern that we were gutting the museum budget. I don't want to do that. MR. OCHS: No, we certainly wouldn't recommend that to you if we thought that it was going to put our current operation in jeopardy. I must tell you, though, in discussion with Mr. Jamro, we obviously have commitments currently for restoration projects at Roberts Ranch. Also in our three to five-year capital planning, Page 33 November 28, 2000 we would like to add a wing to the current museum here at the county government complex, because we're running out of room. So I wouldn't say this is our top priority. These things come along and sometimes when they're least expected. And the difference between this project and those other two is that we have some time on those, where a decision needs to be made fairly quickly on this particular building. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And this would give us a facility for the tank and other World War II artifacts by saving the roof, is what I'm understanding and then constructing the rest. MR. OCHS: That's correct. That's the primary benefit for us from an operations standpoint. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I will tell you, I had come into this meeting thinking this was a great idea but not very likely to be practical. And it sounds like that there may be a practical solution if we can save the parts of it that, you know, that are structurally sound, the roof, if that's the piece that's best, and do it in a really efficient way. You know, that's don't try to move the building, let's try to move the pieces that are significant. The only question that I have as I've spoken with a couple of people on the Naples Airport Authority, and although I appreciate their being gracious and giving us this time, I -- there is some significant important projects being planned for the Naples Airport, and I don't want to interfere with them. I wonder if Mr. Soliday might tell us whether or not if we were to go forward with some limited removal, if it's something that would be -- I know the Naples Airport Authority rejected this possibility of preserving this building. I just don't want to interfere with some really grand plans that they have. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, rejected on the site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, rejected on the site. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Soliday? MR. SOLIDAY: Good morning, commissioners, Chairman. Ted Soliday, executive director of the Naples Airport Authority. I'd like to congratulate the new members, and look forward to working with you all. On behalf of the Airport Authority, I obviously have not have an Authority meeting so that I can have specific direction from the Authority, but they did all get notified when Tom called me and indicated that he'd like us to slow this thing down. Page 34 November 28, 2000 And I will tell you that he called us on the same moment pretty close to when we were getting our permit to take it down. In fact, some of the doors have already been given away, even to the museum, and are gone. And we're concerned about an open building sitting there. I'm comfortable that the Airport Authority will be willing to work with the members of the County Commission and to look for alternatives. This last alternative, that has funding and it has some ideas. If they really can move fast, I think will move -- will be workable. I'm concerned about the -- make sure you understand that the alternative of leaving it there does not work, even the alternatives that have been presented. I have to congratulate the individuals that have shown this energy. You all know that I am a war veteran myself and I respect their efforts substantially, as does the Authority. Just for the record, I want you to know that the Authority has looked at this removal, dating back many master plans. But in the last cycle, in 1995, infamous master plan, an entire environmental assessment, a number of public meetings. And I do understand that it gets overlooked. People don't really understand that the building is part of that whole process. But then again, we have been working with your staff and appreciate that on this major update or improvement of the Airport Road side of the airport. It is a $7.6 million project. It abuts the hangar project. And in fact, there's much more impact from our $7.6 million project than there is from the hangars. But it is a very -- two very important projects that the Authority has underway. I'd be happy to answer any specific questions and I have some pictures, if you'd like to look. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to say that for new members of the board, one of the projects that the Airport Authority is doing is a great gift, as far as I'm concerned, to the county transportation system. And if we can preserve a portion of this for a reasonable cost out of TDC money without slowing down those transportation projects that are so critical, that's what I'm willing to support. But that has to be the first priority. We cannot -- because they have grant money and stuff, you can't slow that down and mess that up. It's too important. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can we do that, Ted? Can we like save the roof and get these parts out of there and not slow your Page 35 November 28, 2000 project? That's what we're -- I guess that's what we're trying to MR. SOLIDAY-- Well, sir, I'm not an engineer. I've always been safe by calling myself a planner and now I'm the executive director. So I can't answer that question, sir. Literally the ball is ready to swing this afternoon. It is a danger having that thing open right now with the doors off and what happens at night. We have security people, adding additional eyes and ears to that building each day. If we can work with the county folks and your -- I mean, even on these projects we've used your county engineers and your staff; have been very appreciative of their relationship, all are very - we're working and except right up against that building is area that you have under easement for the water management. And of course that's a major part of this next project. And if we could get some help so that we could move quickly. The contractor has been patient for over a month and a half. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see Mr. Abbott, and I know he's the guy who knows about construction stuff. Charlie, is it possible? How fast could we do this? MR. ABBOTT: I'm Charlie Abbott from the Friends of the Museum. I would say it would take us, if we had a full month, would be just wonderful, but if we had to do it a little quicker, we probably could. It's -- we're starting from a cold start at the moment. But disassembling the roof and tearing out the doorjambs, the stuff that we would want to save could be expeditiously done. Just depends on getting the crew in there. MR. SOLIDAY.' I think the doors, the doorjambs have already been torn out. MR. ABBOTT: Well, yeah, the doorjambs. I mean, so much is rotten in the building that we would want to make sure it was a little bit safer so it wouldn't just collapse. When you start taking things apart, they have a bad habit of all coming apart at once. And so some of the king posts in the building in the walls being next to a freezer have been rotted over the years because the termites had the water source and all that good stuff. We can handle it. It's a conventionally framed structure and we could knock the rafters out, knock off all the sheathing, try to Page 36 November 28, 2000 save all of the roof sheathing and all the rafters and the big beams. Everything's rough sawn timber that I think was probably cut here locally. It's got that red color of old Caribbean pine, Dade County pine. So I don't like to say much less than a month. COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Mr. Abbott, question. I commend you on all you've been doing for the museum. I've been involved in some of your other projects. I do have some concern about the $100,000 minimum cost we're talking about. That's real money. Is there any other kind of funds available, or is there a volunteer force that could come in and do this for nothing or almost nothing? MR. ABBOTT: Well, we're pretty tapped out on our nothing part. We've been doing a lot of that for a number of years, and we can't afford it as a group. We -- as a Friends group, we undertake significant issues in like buying the tank and a few other things. So our fundraising is pretty much tapped out at the moment. This was not something that we would have cheerfully chosen. We're here today because of public pressure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you think you might get some of the military forces into town to help? Are there -- MR. ABBOTT: We already are approaching some of these people concerning our tank funding and such. And so, no, ma'am, I would not think that it would be a viable thing. If the TDC money of the 40 something thousand was committed to it, a couple of three year's worth of that would totally cover the cost of a new structure on the site at the museum or here at the Collier County complex. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me come back, Mr. Soliday, 30 days if they get this done. What does that do to you? MR. SOU DAY: I can't honestly answer that question, either, sir. I would go before to our contractor. I know from the building standpoint that we have not yet received the buildings. I don't know what their schedule is. Obviously the worst scenario is they put everything back one month. I don't know what the impact is. It's a holiday season, so maybe it's not a major impact. But then again, I can't answer that, sir. I will get that answer back to you today. MR. ABBOTT: We can work on our end. We have a problem, though, with I'm going to be gone for a good chunk of December. But there's other people who can fill in for him, from the Friends Page 37 November 28, 2000 standpoint. MR. SOU DAY: If I could point out one other thing, too. The other political problem I have to deal with obviously is I have to get the Authority to come back together, because I take my direction from the Airport Authority. And with all due respect, and I think I need to -- they have listened to this three different times in the last three months and have taken a lot of care in trying to make their decision. Obviously one of the main things has always been cost. And if this is one that is being taken care of, I believe the Authority would consider that and try to work with you in all regards. But as the Authority executive director, I still have a responsibility to take it back to them. CHAIRMAN CARTER: If we came up with a framework this morning that said -- I'm going to say some what if's, some conditional things that you could take back and present. If we could craft this here on the dais this morning, then you could say yea or nay within that certain time frame, and if we looked at how we were going to pay for this, salvage parts and do everything. And if you all said yes, this board said yes, we could work within that and get that over to the property, create this building which would be more than one purpose that it's going to have -- saving some history, but it's also going to provide additional facility for World War II artifacts, then perhaps this would be a direction. So that by our meeting in December that we would know where we stand on all of this. Do you think that's doable, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLI. IFF: I'm not sure from what I hear Mr. Soliday saying that the project could wait until your first meeting in December for the final decision. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. I mean we craft the what if's saying that here's the conditions on which we could do it. If it's acceptable to them, we would just go forward. Otherwise our decision this morning has to be we will expend this amount of money, we will do this type of thing, and this is how we're going to frame this so that we can give it to them and they can go and say yes, that 30-day delay won't hurt us. If they say no, we can't live with that, then it's all done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Abbott. Put you on the spot, Charlie. I want to spend the museum's Page 38 November 28, 2000 capital money as carefully as possible. And I have been told that this is not -- by people who have crawled around in this building that it's not a terrifically significant piece of history. If you were voting, Charlie, would you vote to spend that 43 grand on this building and do that commercial paper, or would you leave that money there for another way to spend it for capital projects for the museum? MR. ABBOTT: It's -- you put me in a real bind on that. I'm going to give you a conditional answer as a result. I've inspected the building as well. I was very happy with what I saw on the roof framing. I was not happy with a single other thing about the building. I could do it as poorly as that and Ed Perico of the building department would be all over me for it. It's not an architecturally significant building. It's got numerous cracks. I think that anything below the roof level ought to be seriously considered, but then have large dumpsters there to take most of it, save the parts that are valuable to us that we could resurrect a building. I could build one exactly like it, but like I said, I would be in trouble from modern standards and codes. But we could put it back together. The 43,000 is here and now, if it's the public will to do it. The Friends would love to have a building to protect a very valuable asset, that Sherman tank. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's my question, is if we're going to say here, take this $43,000 and build a shelter for your tank, I'm just saying, would you want to spend part of that money taking the lumber from this roof, or would you say that's a waste and let's just go -- MR. ABBOTT: I would take the lumber from the roof. I think that that's not a real tough one to disassemble this thing. It's put together the old time way. It doesn't have any hurricane straps which that's kind of a wonder it lived through Hurricane Donna. But it's put together old timing with big spikes and it can be driven apart. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And let me ask you one other thing: If all we were going to do was save the roof lumber, would that take a month? MR. ABBOTT: No. That's why I'm saying -- I'm saying a month because I think we might need a month to get it. We're in the part of the year where you are interrupted with all sorts of Page 39 November 28, 2000 other projects. Everybody is busy building. I'm going to go have to try to draft people or work through the county's contracting system, see who can do these kinds of things and do it promptly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Olliff, if we wanted to have some county staff people to go take off the roof lumber, do we have people in maintenance or otherwise that we could assign for that task? MR. ABBOTT: We've got a jail full of prisoners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a great idea. MR. OLI. IFF: My suggestion would be -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, but they've never done any honest work, Charlie. MR. ABBOTT: Don't worry. We use them at the museum all the time and we're very happy with what we get. MR. OLLIFF: Well, my suggestion would be if the board wants to go ahead with this project -- first we've got one public speaker that we ought to hear from. But if the board wants to go forward with this project, that we probably execute some sort of an agreement or authorize me to enter into an agreement on behalf of the county with the Friends in order for the Friends to be able to do this project without having to go through a lot of what would be standard county bureaucratic process. Because frankly, our system is not set up to be able to respond quickly for projects like this. And through the Friends then, we've got the ability to do things creatively by either using prison staff or being able to use our own facilities management staff. Second thing you need to keep in mind is if you are going to use TDC monies, you need to recognize that those TDC monies are going to have to go back through the regular process, go back through as a request to the Tourist Development Council and then be brought back here to the county commission for final approval. And you would be expending some of your own money and putting it at risk until a final decision was made in order to be able to replenish those monies with TDC monies in the future. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just for the board's -- not like you don't already know this, but if they -- if TDC recommends negatively, we still have the final decision on that money, whether they -- I'll tell you what I'm willing to support. I'm willing to support having -- giving Tom the authority to investigate if Page 40 November 28, 2000 there's a way to have county staff or otherwise do this promptly in a limited way, you know, remove the roof lumbers or something. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: With a ceiling on the dollars. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, with a -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Like maybe $10,000 or less. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now you're getting into a scenario where we don't know. I can't go there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd rather tell Tom to be reasonable and see if he can come up with some rational plan to save maybe some of the lumber to be used and that's it. You know, not much more than that. MR. ABBOTT: The lumber is unusual in that, first off, it's full saw and not lumber. It's got the saw marks on it. It's never been sized. So two-by-eights in that building measure a full two by eight inches. And so like I said, it's very old-time lumber and consequently, it's never been touched by termites in a building that's been full of them and it's because of the high amount of resin in the wood. It was a naturally preferred building material in the old days for that very reason. It was vermin proof. And so that's what makes me think -- it's lumber that I couldn't put my hands on without significant expense nowadays. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So there's a value there. MR. ABBOTT: There is a value in the lumber. And all these things -- it's clear framed so there's a ridge beam down the middle with full length rafters. There's no trusses here, there's no scabbing on. It's an old-time job that's very nice. MR. SOLIDAY: There's a challenge. I have to make sure I understand whether the consultants or the contractor's bid assumes some reuse of this. I have no idea. And again of course I've got to take it to the Authority. I would tell you that we do have a special meeting scheduled for Thursday of the Authority. I just talked to your attorney and obviously he doesn't represent us, but I believe we can re-advertise that special meeting and include this as an agenda item, and of course get this information so that our Authority can have that and work with you with whatever you direct us to do. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sounds like a solution. Page 41 November 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Just one question for our county manager, and he's already answered one of mine with the process with the TDC funds. Is this going to trigger a permit process, and how long would that take, if so? MR. OLLIFF: The answer is yes, you're going to have to have some permits. And I guess the most critical portion of this is actually the demolition and the movement of the material to the museum grounds. Once it's out of the Airport Authority's way, I'm not sure that there's nearly -- there is no time pressure at that point in terms of reconstruction and use of the materials. Charlie, you may be able to help better in terms of whether there's an actual demolition permit that's going to be required in order to do that. MR. ABBOTT: There is a demolition permit, but I could have one this afternoon. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't you have one already? MR. SOLIDAY: We have it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have a demolition -- MR. ABBOTT: Okay. Then fine. They're usually given to remodelers because you need to have a demolition permit first to figure out what your real permit's going to be like. The only issue I urge you all to consider, is if we're going to do the building to use this lumber, that a new concrete like building could be built relatively quickly so that anything coming off this building could go to a use. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah, absolutely. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me ask you this, Charlie. And then maybe this is an interim step that Commissioner Coletta could feel comfortable with. Could you give me some estimate of what it would take just to pull the stuff out of there and get it over here? I'm not talking about building a new structure, but we're looking for I guess an interim dollar amount. MR. ABBOTT: With the money-- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' To get the lumber off the roof. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Off the roof and any of the pieces you want -- MR. ABBOTT: Depends on the labor source. If it was a relatively inexpensive labor source, where we'd only be providing supervision, we could do it for less than 10 grand. But I don't Page 42 November 28, 2000 want to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it. MR. ABBOTT: -- commit to that yet until we know a whole lot more about what's available to me. Are there a bunch of trustees? Are there different groups of people? How would we insure it? How would we do our -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about maintenance people? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, what if we said -- let's say we don't know, but let's say we give them a budget of $20,000. MR. ABBOTT: 20,000 would do it. I could have it commercially done for that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we'd like it done for less than that. MR. ABBOTT: Sure. CHAIRMAN CARTER: But it gives you a window. I don't want to tie your hands and you say I can't do it because I need 11,000, you approved 10. I'd rather give you up to an amount, give it over there and then come back and say, I've got this much left in the original budget, this is what it's going to take to build it and get the -- MR. SOLIDAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It gives us a number to deal with. MR. ABBOTT: The Friends could commit to that. But bear in mind, everybody's talking about board meetings. I haven't had a board meeting of the Friends on this, because this is a surprise to us. But they will play ball. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's what I'm saying, we do a framework that says that if -- and this is the way it's put together, and the county attorney can help us with this, that says if we do these things, we make these commitments providing the boards approve it in their respective areas, we move forward. If they shut it down, it's all over folks. We've tried and it's done. MR. ABBOTT: Sure. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if you could maybe hear this one public speaker, I may be able to help you sort of put this all together. Marden Collins? MS. COLLINS: There are two, also Dale Mohrbacher, on this. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Have they signed up, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Okay. He signed up for another item, but if this Page 43 November 28, 2000 is the item he wants to speak on, then the next speaker will be Dale Mohrbacher. MS. COLLINS: Thank you so much, commissioners, for your special inclusion of this, and the committee, and Mr. Soliday, Airport Authority. We know this is sort of at the last minute. Even though you say it's been going on, we weren't aware of it until -- I wasn't until September at the Airport Authority meeting. I was there and I asked them, please, don't do this. This is a unique building. It is the last remaining structure from the Army Air Corps training base there. And therein lies its value. You've kind of preempted us because your minds are already made up, I feel like, what you want to do. But hear us with an open mind. It is the last. And therein lies its value. It's simply irreplaceable. It's a tangible relic from the past, from a time when all our country and all our people were united in a single cause, This is a fitting place where artifacts and photographs can both pay tribute and teach a younger generation about sacrifices made, the high price that was paid. And what part of -- not only Collier County and Florida but Naples paid -- had in this. Yes, I understand that the cost would be high and the inconvenience great, but it is doable. We've -- I've spoken with people now and heard other sides of this. There's an alternate plan, which Dale will be happy to show you. He's proposed this plan and presented it. And certainly it deserves careful consideration. Many people have voiced their support. I have here petitions from our wonderful Aviation Day recently, as I stood where people parked, and there were 50 people in a matter of just a little over an hour that said yes, we want to do this for our children. Most of them had children that they brought to the airport to see the airplanes that signed this petition. And there's so many ways that we could enhance this building to make it a wonderful thing for our families. Buildings in worse shape have been restored than this. And I believe recently this very county commission spent a great deal of money on a park for dogs. So what -- do we compare that to our World War II veterans? A monument for them, a museum for Page 44 November 28, 2000 them, for our children, for our heritage? I ask you to put aside for a time just problems here and share with me my vision. A restored, attractively decorated museum, bringing parents and their children to Naples Airport. It could be done. It isn't impossible. Listen to what Dale has to say, too. And I thank you very much, all of you, that have listened to me. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Mohrbacher? MR. MOHRBACHER: Here's our subject. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that's not gorgeous. MR. MOHRBACHER: No. And it's a warehouse, quite frankly. And up until just a few days ago it was in better shape than it is now, because someone has vandalized it. It's still in excellent shape, and I take exception to the remarks that the structure is in bad shape. It's got one minor crack in one corner back here, and it has a major crack in the corner you can't see there. Both, I think, can easily be repaired with some epoxy and some rebar. The buildings been here for almost 60 years, folks. It's held up better than most buildings in this town. It's the last vestige of Naples Army Air Corps Airdrome. In our opinion, it rests on hallowed ground. It should neither be removed nor destroyed. The icehouse is slated for demolition by its owner, the Naples Airport Authority, as it interferes with their quest to erect 40 new hangars. Here's the fundamental problem: This area here has no plans for any construction whatsoever other than filling in the ditch along Airport Road and this already demonstrated enhanced turn lane. I've used the airport's engineering, I've used the airport's architectural plans to derive this drawing. It is exactly to scale within this region right here. This is the hangars that are currently existing. These are the ones they wish to add here shortly. The blue thing is the icehouse. The reason the icehouse has to go, according to the airport, and they are correct, NFPA, National Fire Protection Association, says 50 feet between commercial buildings. The solution is so simple. The solution is to chop off two hangars from this structure, chop off two hangars from this structure and add them here and add them here. Now, I've heard remarks about underground utilities. Those utilities, folks, have not been installed. They're on a blueprint. Page 45 November 28, 2000 They're on a CAD drawing system in a computer that can easily be changed. The airport did not investigate this plan. They did not ask their architect, as far as I know. I'm not trying to berate the airport, but I don't think this got fair attention by them. I'm sorry, it's a very emotional issue for me here. We've worked very hard and had very little time to put this together. We were not given fair warning. Nobody in this county was. Now, this building -- here's your roof structure. And it's true, I was initially told it was termite ridden, rotted. I know these pictures aren't the best pictures and the best I could show you. This part of it is a section of the roof I like to call Uncle Tom's Cabin. I wouldn't mind moving in up there, it's so great up there. Literally you could put a small home up there. It does not have a truss section, Mr. Abbott. MR. ABBOTT: I said conventional frame. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what he said. MR. MOHRBACHER: I'm sorry, you said there were no trusses. 70 percent of the roof is trussed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's not debate that. MR. MOHRBACHER: I understand. And I'm not going to get into our friction with that organization. I just want to tell the facts on this story, folks. It's very important that people know the truth about this, and that's why. I'm sorry if I have to take exception to some things that were said. The only termite damage I could find is this rear doorway which is inside the building. That's the termite damage. I've been told there's more termite damage. And I've crawled through this building not less than five times with a video camera and photographic equipment. I'd like someone to show me the other termite damage. Someone has hacked up some of the electrical wires within the last few days, in a very mysterious fashion. Fortunately the building was all done in what's called electrical metallic tubing, and wires can easily be pushed in. Running the pipe is the hard part. Sticking the wires through them and connecting them is the easier part of this job. And I thank you for tolerating me. I'm a little emotional on this. I've been working day and night on it for two weeks now. Very little warning. Page 46 November 28, 2000 Again, the utilities that the airport says are going to be a problem have yet to be installed. And from what I had done on my research showed that we're talking about moving these things over a few feet. First of all, we're talking about moving them on a blueprint, which nobody has attempted to do. So in my opinion, this is very doable. This just takes cooperation. This just -- I know I set the airport back. It was a last minute thing. May I have an extension, please? CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need to wrap up, sir. MR. MOHRBACHER: I sure will. Our primary goal is to simply save this structure from the wrecking ball until the proper authorities, you folks, can meet on it. We don't need the airport to restore this building. You don't even need to restore it. It's a warehouse that's been sitting there for almost 60 years. Right now all we have to do is coordinate a plan with the airport where that building can stay on the hallowed ground. As far as people to fix it up, the history department at FGCU has already made inquiries. They have basically a hands-on program they need for their students. They need to go out and work on projects like this. No one has even contacted them on this. This is one of Collier County's treasurers, folks. I think we really need to hang on to it. The most important part for Collier County is this would be a stepping stone to the Collier County Museum, which is buried back here on the property. Now, a lot of you know that that museum is back there, but I dare say, the vast majority of people that come to Collier County don't know it's back there. The highly visible location of the corner of Radio and Airport Roads with this proposed satellite museum would thereby act as a stepping stone and inform people hey, for more of Collier County's history, let's go down the road. It's just two miles down the road, and you can go see the rest of the museum. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to need you to -- MR. MOHRBACHER: This is so symbiotic of -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- wrap up here. I know how emotional you are about it and how much you value it, but I do need to have you wrap up. MR. MOHRBACHER: Thank you for your time. Page 47 November 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, questions for the-- Mr. Olliff, you may have been able to work on something while we were listening to this. MR. OLLIFF: I don't think that we, as the county, can make a decision about whether or not that building is going to be able to remain on the airport grounds, and so I think we are working from the premise, from what we've been told from the Airport Authority, that the building needs to be removed. And just based on that premise and then the discussions we've had before, it sounded like the board was heading towards a motion that would include the following: It would include authorization of a budget amendment to be able to use the reserve funds within the current museum TDC allocation; it would be authorization for the county manager to enter into an agreement with the Friends of the Museum to demolish and remove the salvageable portions of what is the icehouse building there at the Naples Airport. That agreement would have to be subject to the approval of both the Naples Airport Authority and subject to the approval of the Friends of the Museum; that the agreement and the budget amendment at this point would be a not to exceed amount of the $20,000, which was the maximum amount of monies that, I believe, we were told that the demolition and relocation of those salvageable parts can be made for. And that finally the staff, I think then, given that, could bring back a separate item which would give you a little better ability to look at a project of reconstructing some sort of a building there on the museum grounds at a little firmer price and a handle on the funding sources for that. But that could be a future item that you could direct us to bring back to you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I would like to ask Mr. Soliday's opinion, or ask him if the Airport Authority has considered restoring this World War II building. MR. SOLIDAY: The Airport Authority has talked -- in fact, I had Mr. Mohrbacher, Dale -- I know him by Dale, so I can't say his last name. Mr. Mohrbacher -- at their meeting and they have considered it. Members have actually crawled through, just as he has, and he has. Page 48 November 28, 2000 There are a lot of other things. We've also talked to our contractors. We do have two separate contracting groups that are working there. And some of the information he was presenting to you is not completely informed, and so we can provide additional information for him. It provides a lot of problems on both projects that we have going. COMMISSIONER HENNING: There was a consideration or there was not a consideration? MR. SOLIDAY: Yes, sir, there was. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are you saying that there was a consideration to -- as Dale had said, take the two hangars at the ends and put them on to the other ends? Was that considered? MR. SOLIDAY: Ma'am, to do that -- and he's talked about the fire code, if we build a hangar that's larger than 12,000 square feet, then we have major costs associated with firewalls, and so those last -- that last hangar or two would require a firewall and a lot of other costs. What he's talking about, the utilities that we've talked about, aren't utilities that are in a design capacity. Those are the main utilities that are running north and south along Airport Road. For some reason they don't go very well in a straight line. They run right literally adjacent to the front, the water particularly, right -- and it's a 16-inch, I believe, line. Somebody can help me from engineering. I'm definitely not an engineer, but they are major utilities. At one point we were going to relocate these utilities so that we could make that area even better looking in the future. The cost of that was huge. So now we're using the utilities as the layout for our sidewalks, because you need to have ground on top of it. So our sidewalks are going to go with the utilities up and down there. We will have sidewalks the whole mile distance. So we have looked at all of that. We were trying to get as many hangars as we could. As one of our members said and it was reported in the paper, if we could have built more hangars on each one of those, our direction to staff was to build as many as we could and not interfere with the utilities. Your easement for the road and security and safety areas, there's a lot of factors involved there that I'm sure that I just did not say to Mr. Mohrbacher. Page 49 November 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, thank you. So I think the question has been answered, they looked at all the possibilities. They did not think it was feasible to do on that site, is what I'm understanding. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's what I understand. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask one more question? CHAIRMAN CARTER: You may ask one more question, then I'm going to make a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is there any way -- I know I've been in other airports, having come from the airline industry, where they have preservation right on the airport. And it seems that a military base or a military history seems to fit well in that area. Is there any way -- I realize the time constraints are here, you have a lot of things planned, and I'm sure that there are future hangars planned as well. Is there any way that this could be incorporated into this? I realize that time is of an essence, but is there a way that we can preserve this? MR. SOLIDAY: I believe as our vice-chairman was quoted in the newspaper, I believe our Authority decided that not all military buildings need to be preserved. And I believe that was the position they decided on after considerable discussion and consideration. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Actually, your vice-chairman just came in the room. And if the board would indulge us, I wish -- I've had a conversation with Mr. West, I wish the rest of the board could hear his thoughts on this topic as well. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, I'll entertain that, but then I would like to move this item through a motion and get it decided one way or the other. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks for coming down. MR. WEST: I'm not sure where you are in your -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: For the record, you have to identify yourself. We're having a discussion on whether it should be preserved at the airport or that we have crafted a direction that says we will take the roof and other salvageable parts and move it over to the museum property and construct another building using parts from that building to house our tank and other World War II artifacts. MR. WEST: For the record, Eric West, commissioner and Page 50 November 28, 2000 currently vice-chair of the Naples Airport Authority, which has responsibility for the Naples Municipal Airport. As I think you may have been told earlier, this has been on our plate since September. It is not as if the commissioners on a formal scheduled agenda item haven't considered it. In fact, they've done it once on a formal basis and one unexpectedly in a public comment at a subsequent meeting in October. Both times they've considered it seriously. Both times they voted against it. The reason for that is that there's a belief that the building itself does not have merit. Secondly, if there is a concern about preserving the history of the air base from World War II, that's worthwhile, but there's a much better way of doing it. The third reason is, and I think you obviously have touched on it already, the interference with the Airport Road project, which is the single largest project the airport has ever done at 7.6 million. And that is a four-objective project. And there's real concern about interfering with that project. And fourth, in the conversations that have occurred over the last three months, there has been a deafening silence on funding as to how to get all this done. And it's not just whatever tune-up needs to be done from a capital standpoint, but there are operating cost issues, there are rent issues because we have to be concerned legally about diversion of revenues as an airport authority. So my belief is that it is not feasible to leave the building where it is. I don't believe there are the votes there. They've considered it twice. And in today's environment of how many times are we going to count and recount, I don't think that's going to go very far. To the extent that I hear now an alternative here, which sounds like sort of is there some way we can make this kind of a win-win kind of a situation in terms of preserving the roof trusses, I would be interested in pursuing that as one of only -- one of five commissioners. But time is of the essence. This -- we're essentially going into a three-month delay to the extent that well, we're going to study it and we're going to have architects and we're going to get permits and we've got to get it organized. You know, another two months. We're now talking about a five-month delay on the project. But let me try to think about making this a win-win situation. Page 51 November 28, 2000 If the idea is to try to -- that the alternative of leaving the building where it is, is a dead issue and therefore what we want to do is preserve the roof trusses, I would say let's try to figure out how that can get done but on a very, very timely basis. And to stretch our thinking, can we stretch our thinking to literally get those roof trusses done this weekend? Could we do that kind of stretch? If we're talking about what I know as the weekender program for the jail, I bet that schedule can be reworked. So now it's a question of having somebody on-site that those roof trusses be taken off in a safe and orderly manner. Let's try to get it done on that basis. And even there, I don't think that the trusses would have to be moved onto your site. We can figure out a place to store them away from the project on the site. So we're just talking about taking the roof off and doing it in a manner that is safe. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the county paying for that out of hopefully TDC money up to 10 to $20,000 is what we're talking about expending on that for that purpose. And then looking at how to use those roof trusses, perhaps over on the county museum property to have a shelter for this World War II tank that we have purchased or that the public has purchased. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yeah, we're talking trusses and perhaps other salvageable parts out of that building in a quick inventory that could be done, Mr. Abbott, and you did not have an opportunity to hear his discussion about that. We're on the same page. MR. WEST: I think that's already been done. I think we've already made presentations of refrigerant gauges to Ron Jamro. And so I think that's already been done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're talking about at the most a month. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That was getting it off your property. That's where we were, getting it off your property. But if there's a way to get it removed and set on your property and then move it, that changes the time line but it meets your time line. It would help with us our time line. And whether we use weekenders or whether we use jail personnel, that may be a possibility. We might be able to work through all that. That's what I understood from your points that Page 52 November 28, 2000 Mr. Olliff was making before you came into the room. MR. WEST: Yeah, again I'm arguing to do a real stretch on the thinking, real stretch to try to make it a win-win situation. And I have no knowledge. I've never looked at the contract terms of the two. We've got two contracts there that are already underway, they're already in process. I don't know what those contracts say in terms of the demolition and, for example, what rights were included in the bid of the contractor to those roof trusses. I don't know that factually right now. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we don't either. What we want to do is craft from this board to say if it's approved by your board, by the Friends of the Museum board, we have done what we can do to give you a framework to make that decision. You can deny it because of contractual problems or any other reason. What we were saying is, we're going to commit "Y" number of dollars, up to $20,000, and Mr. Olliff has certain points that he can reiterate in a motion back to us of which I would like to move for that would give you the framework to say yea or nay to us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm willing to support the items that were listed in Mr. Olliff's little summary there, with the addition, perhaps, that -- and we have this message that Fred Tarrant from the City Council has asked us not to make a decision until City Council has the opportunity to discus it, if the City Council wants to come up with some of the money or to share somehow in the cost of this demolition and removal, we'd be happy to entertain that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'd be happy to take money from the city, but we can't wait until the council meets until this frame is brought forward to the Airport Authority, which is going to meet, I understand, Thursday. MR. WEST: Correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I want to give them the framework. If the city council wants to loin us in that, boy I'd sure love to have them on board with us. But we can't wait until they meet. MR. WEST: Yeah. Again, at the risk of being somewhat repetitive, to the extent that the Airport Authority is scheduled at a special meeting all ready to meet this week, funding is a big issue. It sounds like there may be a way out of that box. But I would also say to you very strongly that timing is going to be absolutely critical in which way that vote is going to go. That's Page 53 November 28, 2000 why I was urging -- that's why I was urging stretch in terms of saying can it get done this weekend? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta and then Commissioner Fiala. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I have a concern. We have already had vandalism out there at the site. And I heard mention that the lumber has a certain amount of value. Once this is disassembled and if it's left at the site, will it be a secured site or will it be open to the public where we might lose the efforts of our work? MR. WEST: I would have to defer to the director on that. MR. SOLIDAY: I think some of that vandalism was something that the Authority had already approved to give away some of the doors, and we had -- so some of the doors were electric doors and piled up. So they would have done the wires. We -- as soon as we took those doors off and in fact gave some to the museum, we have been watching it very carefully. I think the call from Tom Olliff to me was as the doors were being taken off. And I know that they did get into the electrical, but we also have had people who were looking, where you looked at main beams and so on where you knocked down a couple of walls, or knocked into the walls so you could see what was behind it. And so I'm not sure that there is vandalism, but we are watching it with our security right now. And that's one of the concerns about timing also. The building is open in three different doors. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to move approval of the items outlined by our county manager a moment ago. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that. Discussion by the board? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Discussion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Discussion. I believe -- excuse me, Commissioner Fiala had something. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. One of the -- I wanted to add -- thanks, Tom, I appreciate that. I just wanted to say I realize time is of the essence, but that building's been there for 60 years, and to take it down because of a couple of weeks when we could preserve it, we don't have Page 54 November 28, 2000 many things left here in Collier County that we preserve. It seems that we're -- so often we're just bulldozing things down rather than preserving them. And as long as we can't leave it on this site, at least if we can take the money and take a little extra time to get it off the site and allow the museum to take it under its fold, I would like to do that. And I think, Tom, that that was a very good outline that you gave us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, we have a motion, we have a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. If you could frame that and give it to Mr. Soliday and to the Airport Authority, Friends of the Museum. I think we have done a good job of doing what we can do in accommodating everybody's concerns. Thank you. We need to take about 10 minutes. I'm getting that look from our court recorder. So we'll take 10 and then be right back. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're back in session. Let me tell you what the schedule will be, please, so you can plan accordingly. We're next going to public comments, or general topics. And if we have any speakers signed up, Mr. Olliff, I'll listen to those. Then we were going to public hearings. We're going to take the first item, A-1. We're going to take B-l, and we're going to take B-2. Then we will break for lunch for one hour. I'm hoping that we will probably be ready to do that around 12:30, and that will be 12:30 to 1:30. We'll come back, resume public hearings, taking Item B-3 and the rest of the agenda. So all of you can plan accordingly. All right, we're assembled, we have everybody present. Public comment or general topics today. Anybody signed up? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir, you have no one registered. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No one has signed up. Item #12A1 PETITION CPSS-2000-1, DWIGHT NADEAU OF MCANLY Page 55 November 28, 2000 ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, INC., REPRESENTING CARMEN CALl, CONTRACT PURCHASER, REQUESTING A SMALL SCALE MAP AMENDMENT TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT (GGAMP) OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO DESIGNATE 9.54 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RANDALL BOULEVARD AND 1/4 MILE EAST OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, AS "RANDALL BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT" - CONTINUED INDEFINITELY AT THE PETITIONER'S REQUEST That moves us to public hearings. That's Item 12. We will take Item 12(A}(1}. This item was continued from the October 24, 2000 meeting. It's petition CPSS-2000-1. Dwight Nadeau of McAnley Engineering and Design, Inc., in regards to Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm David Weeks of your comprehensive planning staff. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. If we'd be all nice and quiet so we can hear Mr. Weeks. Thank you. MR. WEEKS: This is a petition to amend the Golden Gate area master plan. I'd like to point out that this is different than most of the comprehensive plan amendments that come before the board. This is not part of the annual cycle. This is a freestanding petition. It's called small scale because it is limited to property that is 10 acres or less in size and it can be a map amendment only, and that is what the request is here today. The subject property is about nine and a half acres and it is a map amendment to the Golden Gate Future Land Use Map only, to designate the site as Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict. The subject property is located on the south side of Randall Boulevard, as shown on the visualizer, and you also have this in your packet. And it's about -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weeks, my apologizes, I need to interrupt. We need to have all people participating in these to stand and be sworn. And we have to have disclosure on the part of the commissioners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. He's saying this is legislative and not-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Legislative, we don't have to do this? Page 56 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do we do disclosure, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I'm just looking. Is this Randall Road? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. WEIGEL: It's legislative. Disclosure is not required. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Until we get to the zoning amendments, we don't have to do anything. Excuse my interruption, Mr. Weeks. Please continue. MR. WEEKS: The property on the south side of Randall Boulevard about 1,000 feet east of Immokalee Road. To the north of it is the Orangetree PUD. The specific area right to the north is designated for residential development, single-family villas, townhouses. To the -- immediately to the west and south and east is property zoned estates and designated residential estates. One tract over to the east, that is about 330 feet, is the Division of Forestry fire tower site. I mentioned, let's see, about 1,000 feet to the west is the existing Randall Boulevard subdistrict, about seven and a half acres. And there's some commercial development there and some planned, and then beyond that is a fire station. And commissioners, you may be aware that there's also road construction currently underway to change the configuration here at Randall Boulevard so that it intersects with the street to the north. And that's curving into that triangle of Orangetree to make a direct alignment. The subdistrict that is being requested will allow a variety of convenience and neighborhood commercial type uses; gas stations, food markets, hardware stores, professional offices, child care centers, et cetera. I'd like to jump briefly to go to some of the history of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and then come back to the subject property more specifically. This is the Golden Gate Master Plan, Future Land Use Map as it was adopted in 1991. These circles are half circles that you see on the map, or neighborhood centers. Each of these were eligible for five acres of commercial zoning; the balance of those which would be up to 20 acres, if it's a full circle, will be limited to single-family development and conditional uses. Also, the original Randall Boulevard center on Randall Boulevard allowed for five acres of commercial. It was Page 57 November 28, 2000 preexisting zoned commercial properties, so the master plan simply recognized that. A big change occurred about two years after this master plan was adopted, that neighborhood centers here at Immokalee Road, at Oil Well Road and at Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, were all three removed, and then the one at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard was changed to a future neighborhood center, simply meaning it did not allow any further commercial zoning at the present time. Moving up in time to 1997, when the evaluation and appraisal report based amendments were adopted, the status stayed the same except here at Pine Ridge and 951, Collier Boulevard, that neighborhood center went from five acres of eligible commercial up to about 22. No other changes occurred. The result of that is that the amount of commercial zoning allowed in Golden Gate Estates east of Collier Boulevard in 1991 was almost 49 acres. Today we're down to 38 acres. We went backwards through the removal of those neighborhood centers. But of course the population has increased out there. It may sound like I'm supporting the petition, but hear me out, Staff does not question that there is a need for additional commercial zoning in the Golden Gate Estates area. Our question is what is the appropriate magnitude of that development? What's being asked for here is nine and a half acres; however, there are intervening properties to the west, approximately 15 acres, which in staff's opinion, if this is approved, will eventually go to commercial as well. Result being those approximately 25 acres, plus the existing Randall Boulevard commercial, plus the eight acres in Orangetree, we have about 40 acres of commercial potential, which is equivalent to one quadrant of an activity center. Our question, is that the appropriate intensity or magnitude of commercial in the Estates? The second issue is the location. At build-out, Golden Gate Estates, west of Collier -- east of Collier Boulevard, including Orangetree, is expected to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 population. Clearly there's a need for more commercial in the Estates east of Collier Boulevard. Staff does not take issue with that. Page 58 November 28, 2000 Where is the appropriate location? Originally the neighborhood centers had this commercial spread out. Now it's limited to this existing Randall Boulevard area, the existing Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevards, in both cases a little over seven acres, and that's it. Oh, and then the 22 acres within Orangetree. What about this population up here near Immokalee Road or DeSoto Boulevard? At the farthest point from the subject site is about nine miles away, and certainly allowed the population to be even closer. But this is somewhat centrally located where the petition is at, but in staff's opinion it should be disbursed. It should be spread out to serve the population. So our issues primarily are the magnitude of what's requested, the impact upon those intervening properties to the west, the domino effect that we would see occurring, and the location of this proposed commercial in relation to where there is a need for more commercial. You might recall this area here, Golden Gate and Wilson, just earlier this year, two of the commissioners were here when that was approved and added five acres. You recently transmitted an amendment up to the Department of Community Affairs over here at -- doesn't show -- Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard for about 48 acres, if ultimately next February or so you adopt that, and that's another 48 acres that will in part be serving this area of the Estates east of Collier Boulevard. The Planning Commission heard this item on October 5th, and their recommendation unanimously was to deny this petition. There generally was a consensus that this was premature. I think the commission is aware that the Dover/Kohl study, the community character and design study, is underway, and you should be receiving a draft, I believe, in January. The opinion of the Planning Commission generally seemed to be let's wait and see what that shows. If that shows that this intersection around Randall and Immokalee should be commercial area, then maybe at that time we would -- that they would view it more favorably. Staff's opinion is similar. If the Dover/Kohl study shows the Randall/Immokalee Road area as appropriate for commercial and of a magnitude comparable to what we would see happening Page 59 November 28, 2000 here, if this petition is approved, and if the commission is receptive to that. If you look at it and say yes, this seems like the thing we want to see here, we want this magnitude of commercial, this amount of commercial development at this location, then of course the staff position could change. At the Planning Commission hearing there were three speakers opposed to the petition. And subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing, about two weeks ago, the petitioner, as a courtesy, provided to staff a copy of petitions signed by approximately 1,100 persons. And if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read very briefly just two sentences into the record what those petitions state. The first is a text format, just a bunch of lines to sign. And at the top it says: We the undersigned support a shopping center in the Randall Boulevard corridor between Eighth Street Northeast, west to 384 Randall Boulevard. That would be to the east side of the fire tower, over to the existing commercial development. The second is a map of the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Plan. And again, there's a few statements at the top. The undersigned does hereby give their support for the following: Support of the Randall shopping center PUD -- that's a petition that's companion to this item -- support for the Growth Management Plan amendment for Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict, a small scale amendment. Our neighborhood needs a shopping center at this site. It is the appropriate location. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions for staff? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question. When does the master plan come up for review again? MR. WEEKS: I believe it would be 2002. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When was the last time it was reviewed? MR. WEEKS: 1996 was the actual evaluation and appraisal report. And then amendments based on that were adopted in '97. COMMISSIONER HENNING: When was there a citizen's committee for the Golden Gate Master Plan input? MR. WEEKS: That would have been '96 and probably -- '95 and '96, both. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I ask you to read that petition just one more time, please? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. Both of them? Page 60 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just the first one. MR. WEEKS: Okay. We the undersigned support a shopping center in the Randall Boulevard corridor between Eighth Street Northeast, west to 384 Randall Boulevard. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That was the 1,100 people? MR. WEEKS: The combination of the two. Almost 900 were on this format, and then a little over 100 signed the map with the text at the top. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, are you ready for the petitioner? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Nadeau, and then John Cardillo represents the petitioner. MR. CARDILLO: Members of the commission, my name is John Cardillo and I am representing Carmen Cali, along with Dwight Nadeau, who is the planner, who will get into the specific technical things with respect to this petition. But first I'd like to congratulate the new commissioners for their election to this commission, and also the standing commissioners on the new regime. Everybody is looking forward to this. This is a map change. That's what we have before us is a map change. And in January, or some other time, provided you approve this small map change, will be a zoning request before you. And I say it's a small map change because I want you to take a look at something. This is a map identifying where the people who signed this petition live. All those red dots represent the people who have an interest in having this petition for the map change, and then subsequent zoning change changed. Now, if I might, you will see -- before you do that, you will see all those red dots are people who are speaking to this commission. Because most of these people are working people. They cannot be here today. They are speaking through that petition and through that graphic. Now, there are two yellow dots up there. And if you can see them -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. CARDILLO: Okay. There, and the next one, okay? And that's the area that we're talking about. And the yellow dot on the left is the Mobil Station. The yellow dot on the right, and that's Randall Boulevard, is the fire tower and the maintenance Page 61 November 28, 2000 barn. So that's the area we're talking about. And it is right off Immokalee Road. And so what we're talking about is a map change to allow a yellow dot in between there -- the green dot, excuse me. We really thought about the color and I got it backwards here. That's it. That's all we're talking about is that particular area. It is -- there are two things, and I'm just going to do an overview and then Dwight will talk about this. But there are a few things that we want to point out initially. That area is right off Immokalee Road. It is naturally a commercial area. It is naturally a commercial area because you've got a Mobil Station on one side and you've got a warehouse -- a maintenance shed and a fire tower on the other side. And yet the staff is recommending that we actually take this commercial project and bring it nine miles to the north. I don't see too many red dots nine miles to the north or northeast or wherever. It's then saying well, if that's not appropriate, then it should be a little farther to the west near the Mobil Station, which is conditional use, which is not for sale at this time or -- but I want to really suggest, who's building a house between a maintenance shed and a Mobil Station? That's the logical space for a commercial. Now, there is a question there. I have a concern about domino theories and that this whole place will be commercial. Well, that's the logical area. But each one of those petitions comes before you and you have to rule on whether or not those things should be changed. Right now we have Carmen Cali and his project. There were two recommendations made to the Planning Commission. One recommendation was from the comprehensive planning section, which recommended against this, solely because of where it is. That is, is it one plot over or one plot to the left or one plot to the right? But they generally agree. And David was concerned that you might think he's supporting our petition. I think in his heart he is. But from a structural point of view, in the box-type thinking, in the box-type thinking, he has to say well, it should be moved somewhere along that line. That's one recommendation. But the other recommendation to the Planning Commission was from the current, current planning services; that is, it's the Page 62 November 28, 2000 here and now. What do we need now, not in 2005. What are these people needing now? And their recommendation was approval. Well, the Planning Commission didn't approve it, based on conflicting recommendations, and maybe we should move this thing one lot over. But I do want to read that part to you, because I think that you all just got your packages. I don't know how much you've really had an opportunity to study this thing. And I don't want a decision made without having really studied it. But it said that the Collier County Planning Commission recommends approval of the Petition PUD 00-011. Not before you at this time, the Randall shopping center PUD document and master plan, subject to Department of Community Affairs ratification of the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment creating this Randall Boulevard sub -- commercial district, along with the conditions of the approval that have been incorporated into the PUD document. Now, there are two things I'd like to give you and then I'll wrap this up. The first is, I would like to give you the petitions that we're talking about. I'm going -- okay. Give it to them? Okay. Jim, this is -- these are the originals. These are the original 1,100 and change signatures representing those red dots. Those are the people that are speaking to you. The other is a copy of various letters of consent -- of intent that these people would lease from that commercial district, if this gets approved. Now, why is that important in this particular case? Most developers go in and they have their leases, et cetera. Carmen Cali is a builder. He is not a speculator in land. He's a builder who has lived in Golden Gate Estates for almost 20 years, raised his family there. Our families played ball together. We worked together. He is a solid citizen in the community and a respected businessman and builder. Now, the fact is he will be building those buildings. So this is a monumental investment for him in the sense that he buys the land, he builds the building, and he's not going to do that without having people who are willing to come into his project. And among those things that you will see is the post office. People have to travel nine miles to a post office, a grocery store, a furniture store, things like that. Now, some of these things are Page 63 November 28, 2000 on Carmen Cali's letterhead and some of them are on the store owners'. But they are basically showing an intent that they would go out there. The -- I think that when you look at the project and what Dwight has to say and questions that Carmen can answer, you will see that this is here and now. It is compelling. Yes, there is a vocal -- although I think a minority but quite vocal -- opposition to this. Some people just don't want any commercial development, or some people may say well, look, that may take away from my other area, or Carmen, you're just not in the club. Whatever it is, I think that you've got to think maybe a little bit outside the box. But what's really good for the safety of the people, keeping people off of Immokalee Road, servicing the community and what is in the general best interest of the community. And I think that after you listen to this, you will feel that this has much more substantial ratification than what the Planning Commission said and move the property. Thank you. MR. NADEAU: I always have to do that. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Pleasure to be before you. And welcome the new board members to the community and their public service. For the record, my name's Dwight Nadeau of McAnley Engineering and Design, representing the petitioner, Carmen Cali, in this map change. And I had an exhibit for Dave. Could you just throw that up for me, Dave? It's the Future Land Use Map. MR. WEEKS: It's there on the visualizer. MR. NADEAU: Oh, it is. The visualizer is not turned on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There we go. CHAIRMAN CARTER: There we go. MR. NADEAU: There we go. What effectively we're doing is there is a small red dot to the right of the existing Randall Boulevard commercial shopping district. We're proposing to add that 9.54-acre piece of property into the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict to provide for a limited number of uses. In your agenda pack, you see the 13 or so land uses that are provided for in the Future Land Use Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. You were -- one of the reasons why the Planning Commission had a problem with what was being proposed is they Page 64 November 28, 2000 didn't know it was going to be gone into a shopping center. You have a post office that has been presented to you, a Say-A-Lot grocery, gift shops, beauty shops; a whole diversity of services that can try to satisfy the commercial consumptive demand of your residents in these areas. The project, when built out, could capture as many as 1,300 trips per day on Randall Boulevard. Well, as Dave explained during his presentation, there were neighborhood centers that were being reviewed as a part of the evaluation and appraisal report for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The residents didn't want neighborhood commercial at those minor intersections of Oil Well Road and DeSoto, they wanted it more localized. They didn't want it there. So this board and two -- two members of this board voted to remove those neighborhood centers. Well, without those neighborhood centers, now we're left with something ambivolous (sic). We don't really know where the commercials should go. Let me just put it into perspective for you. At the end of the new commissioners' term in four years there's going to be a demand in this area of 27.06 acres. And that has removed the areas that were just recently adopted that they've explained to you on Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. You can see by the scattered drawing, that's accurate as to where the locations of each signature came from, that people in Orangetree and Waterways -- these two things. MR. CARDILLO: These two belong up here. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need to be on the mic. MR. NADEAU: Those two zoning maps, with the pins in them, belong north of Orangetree. Now, the people in Orangetree have been waiting for 16 -- 15, 16 years for commercial to develop in Orangetree. People are moving out of town, and it was evidenced by Mr. Cali's collection of the signatures. People are moving out of town because there's no services. People want to be able to drive home with a warm pizza and have solid ice cream. Why isn't it developing? I don't know. Possibly the land prices are too high. But when there's a demonstrable need, we shouldn't -- and we keep waiting for another study to protect the health, safety and welfare of the members of our community. We'd like to stop all of the tragedies that are occurring on Page 65 November 28, 2000 Immokalee Road. The realignment of Randall Boulevard intersection and the signalization of that is going to help tremendously. But don't you feel that removing 1,300 trips from having to go to Immokalee Road have some weight in your decision on this map change? There's no zoning change here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dwight, may I ask you a question? MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The most persuasive bit of information for me would be this 1,300 trips a day. I am already persuaded that there is a need to provide some kind of neighborhood commercial services in the northern estates. It's the fastest growing part of the county. I hope that the people who live there want to have some limited commercial services. And I hope that frankly because the urban roads can't take much more traffic. So what do you have that supports your statement that 1,300 trips a day would be diverted by this center? MR. NADEAU: It's just based upon the transportation analysis included in your package, where that number of trips could be captured. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And why do you keep saying could be? MR. NADEAU: Well, I can't guarantee you that there's going to be 1,300. There might be 1,000, there might be 2,600. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think, Commissioner, it really depends on who leases the space. MR. NADEAU: That's exactly correct. Exactly correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And that would alter it significantly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not particularly -- you know, with all due respect to our long-range planning staff, I tend to think the market tells us where development is appropriate, better than studies and theories. And if this is where the market is ready for a piece of commercial development -- and thank God you've got this map with this kind of support, because I'm always concerned that we are doing something to Golden Gate Estates instead of for them. It looks like in this case it's doing something for them, according to 1,100 of them. Unless one of you know something I don't. MR. NADEAU: Just to further that argument for you, Page 66 November 28, 2000 Commissioner, there is roughly 2,600 registered voters in the Big Corkscrew voting district. We, with 1,145 signatures, we have roughly 46 percent of the constituency out there. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Other questions for the petitioner, please? Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: How many -- I wonder how many of those 1,100 would travel to a Dollar Store or to a Say-A-Lot? Would they be -- would they prefer maybe to go to something like a Publix or -- I'm just wondering if the particular stores that you've mentioned -- and of course you've mentioned postal, but you don't have that secured. You're hoping for that. How many people would actually travel there to go to a Dollar Store? And what I'm concerned with, I'll make it one step further, as I see the deterioration of this shopping center over here, Golf Gate Shopping Center, we get a Dollar Store and then we get a rental furniture place. I don't know if that's in the best interest of Golden Gate Estates. I would have to ask people who live in Golden Gate Estates, but that's my comment. MR. NADEAU: Well, it may not be a Dollar Store. They've shown interest. What we need to do is provide the services that the residents want. And we will come back to you with our zoning. Right now we're not talking about the specific land uses. It's the need for commercial. If you don't want to have a Dollar Store in the Randall Shopping Center PUD, which is not before you today~ it will come to you at a later date, preclude me from putting a Dollar Store. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In other words, when we do the PUD, we can talk about specific uses or specific -- MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- categories of uses. MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. For example, one issue that has to be addressed in zoning is compatibility, compatibility with the neighbors around. Even though you can see we have tremendous support of the neighbors nearby and around the property, the PUD master plan, which you're not ruling on today, is using estates development standards rather than -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Go ahead, go ahead. MR. NADEAU: Estates development standards rather than a commercial development standard. So we have a 75-foot front Page 67 November 28, 2000 yard and we have a 75-foot rear yard and 30-foot sides. What you see on the board there is approximately 135 feet of buffering from the lands to the south. If it gives you any further good feelings about the map change that's coming before you, I will agree, as would Mr. Cali, the petitioner, we'll live within 100 feet, or a 125 feet, whatever that might be, if we get to the zoning process. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, what I am worried about is the domino effect. I pay special attention to that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. I'm probably as close to this as anyone could ever get in this world. I chaired the master plan, the original one. We put the activity centers in and they were -- went before the commissioners and they were struck out. I predicted at that time we would be here one day with this very problem. Five years later, when it came before for review, I went back before the review board for the master plan, had them reinstated, went back before the commissioners and they struck it out again. So there is a need. There's an absolute need. But the master plan that was put together originally, basically it served its purpose in that it has controlled growth out in the Estates where no place else in the county have you been successful in doing this. And the integrity of the master plan, even though it is flawed and it does need a revamp, I think that we need to respect it as much as possible. I question staff right now, is there a possibility that we could have our master plan review earlier than 2002? Could we move it up to maybe six months from now? Have this whole process going and we can involve the whole of Golden Gate Estates like we did 10 years ago. MR. MULHERE: Bob Mulhere, planning services director. Certainly we don't object to taking the direction of the board and looking at the Golden Gate master plan. Six months, I think, is a little aggressive, given all of the other projects that we have on our plate. We could come back to you and tell you what things we could not do, given the existing resources, if we were to do that during that period of time. I'd have to do an evaluation of that. But I understand your concern. I think we certainly Page 68 November 28, 2000 could move it up quicker than a couple of years. What David was referring to is the statutorily required evaluation and appraisal report, which is every five years, approximately. So 2002 we would do it again. There's no reason why we couldn't do that quicker. I'm just a little hesitant to commit to six months at this point in time without having -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll talk to you more about that later. But I agree with Mr. Call, that there is a deficit out there of commercial property. I do have questions about what's being planned with this particular unit. But I'd like to hear the rest of the presentation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask a question of my colleague there? Commissioner Coletta, do you -- because you do know this area much better than I do, are your questions -- are your doubts concerning this project more related to what uses or whether or not a commercial use is appropriate for that particular piece of land? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have questions of if it's appropriate for that piece of land. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, I appreciate that. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, you still have one party of the petitioner left, and then you have six registered speakers, and then perhaps we can -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Perhaps we can go to that and then we can ask additional questions. Do we have another presenter as part of the petitioner?. MR. NADEAU: Yes, I'd like to introduce the petitioner, Carmen Cali. MR. CALl: Good morning, Board, and congratulations for your win and hope to have many years of successful Collier County planning. When I was here in front of the Planning Commission the last time I was voted down. And I really had to evaluate what -- where were the people and where was my support at. I went out and did a door-to-door campaign, along with going to the Max Hasse Community Park, the library, different other community locations where people were there and asked for support of people that lived east of 951 that would like to see a shopping center on Randall Boulevard. I believe that the shopping center on Randall Boulevard Page 69 November 28, 2000 would capture the approximate 1,300 trips per day off of Immokalee Road, which is the number one goal. The commissioners, the past commissioners, have a state of emergency on the roads. I don't know if the new commissioners are aware of that. I've spoken to several people in going door-to-door and the thing that most emotionally concerned me was the fact that people were moving out. I saw elderly people packing boxes, leaving Collier County. Younger people leaving Collier County. And I only spoke to approximately 1,200 people. And I heard of three people moving. So, if we have 10,000 living out there -- and that was in a one-month period -- how many more people are leaving the county and how much tax revenue are we losing? I also spoke to a girl that was in a head-on collision on Immokalee Road. Her husband, an athlete, had his femur bone shattered. She will not drive on Immokalee Road. She won't go on it at night. And there's definite support that I noted when I was out getting signatures. I'd say approximately ninety-five percent of the people that I spoke with supported the idea, and a lot of them even thanked me for doing this. So, in God we trust. And it's in your hands. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We need to go to registered speakers. MR. OLLIFF: I'm going to go ahead and call the first and the next speaker so the second speaker can be prepared. The first is Christopher Sutfin followed by Patricia Humphries. MR. SUTFIN: Good morning, Commissioners, or I guess it's now afternoon. For the record, my name is Christopher Sutfin. I'm a retired CEO now living permanently in Bay Colony in Pelican Bay. In the two years that we have been spending most of our lives in Florida, my wife and I have traveled a good bit from North Naples to Immokalee. And the growth in that area has been obvious. What has been equally obvious is the complete lack of commercial infrastructure anywhere between Interstate 75 and the City of Immokalee. If we want a sandwich, there's no place to get it. If we simply just want to stop and take a break from that rather boring drive, there's really no place to do it. Page 70 November 28, 2000 I've seen the articles in the Naples Daily News discussing this project. And one of the things that got mentioned, it was mentioned here again today, is traffic. Traffic is going to get worse. Well, I'm not a planner, I'm not a traffic expert, but any time you get people driving fewer minutes, fewer miles in their car, traffic goes down. And that's axiomatic. I personally support this project. I don't live in the estates but I do travel through it and I would be a customer. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Patricia Humphries will be followed by Karen Acquard. MS. HUMPHRIES: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pat Humphries. I'm a board of director (sic) for Collier -- sorry, Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association is strongly opposed to the amending of the future land use map for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a planned unit development. We are concerned that the approval of this project would ultimately leave fifteen acres of residential land trapped between the PUD and the Mobil station commercial property near the intersection of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road, forcing the property owners to seek a commercial rezone. This would ultimately result in a mile of strip malls along Randall Boulevard. With two ten-acre commercial sites already in place in Orangetree, we are looking at the possibility of forty acres of commercial property in the Randall/Immokalee Road corridor. In addition we feel the shopping center is premature and should be postponed until the Dover/Kohl community project is in place. On October 5th the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association appeared before the Planning Commission and voiced our objections to see this project. At our October 18 meeting a motion was made and carried by the Association to not support this shopping center. On October 23rd we continued to voice our objections by letter to the commissioners when this item appeared on the agenda for your October 24th meeting. The mission of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association is to preserve, protect and promote the estates way of life. This project does none of those things. If anything, it is a contradiction. I sympathize with the people in the estates who want services but there are also people in the estates that want no Page 71 November 28, 2000 commercial activity. So we have to compromise. The stores are getting closer. Pebblebrook Plaza with the Publix will be opening soon on the corner of Immokalee and Collier. It's on the agenda today. Walgreen's will start construction in the summer. Orangetree has been negotiating with Publix to fill one of their ten-acre commercial sites. I ask that we all be patient as I feel it will be worth it in the long run. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Karen Acquard followed by Linda Hartman. MS. ACQUARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record my name is Karen Acquard. I am the president of the Golden Gate Estate Civic Association but I am not speaking in that capacity today as you'll understand why. I'm sorry if there are a number of people that feel that the members of the civic association are against them. It's not that we are against them, we're for the area. Many came to the last civic meeting and most of them seemed to live off Everglades Boulevard and Desoto, out in the areas where the original activity centers were planned. Mr. Cali says that he is from the estates. He is technically but it's in the Logan Woods area off Santa Barbara. He is very convenient to Vineyards Shopping Center. I live off Randall behind the proposed area. Services are needed. I'm not going to argue that. But we deserve quality stores, not an overabundance of commercial property. It is not the civic association that has kept the stores like Publix and Winn Dixie out of the estates. The stores themselves are waiting for better demographics. In short, they don't feel there are enough people to support a major grocery store. They are moving out towards the estates. Publix has stated that when their Pebblebrook store makes a profit, they will be looking at the Orangetree PUD for their next store. They are projecting that the population will have increased that much within approximately two years. I happen to be one of those that believes that when the -- there are enough people out there, the big stores will be fighting to build, because they do want our business. Until then we have to be careful not to listen to all the empty promises of those who would stand to make a profit at our expense. Knowing full well there aren't enough of us to get the quality stores, they come Page 72 November 28, 2000 here and they promise the moon and they deliver -- and they can deliver anything once the rezoning is complete. Nothing holds them to what goes in there once it is rezoned. Many people signed the petition because they were under the impression that it was going to be a big grocery store as the anchor store. Many of the people who signed the petition are not from the -- that area. If they come shop there, they are going to increase the traffic flow in that area. However, I would like to know how many of them would shop at the store -- I went to Save-A-Lot -- if they knew that when they got to the store they would not be able to buy paper towels, toilet papers, Kleenex, foil, plastic wrap, garbage bag, food storage bags or containers, diapers, formula, baby food or any baby products, laundry products, dish products, cleaning product, personal products such as deodorant, shampoo, razors, lotions or lip balm, any first aid products, over the counter or prescriptions medications, ointments, Band-Aids, soft drinks, snack foods of any kind, such as chips and popcorn. And, heaven help us, you can't even go get a can of soup and a box of crackers there. We get more service right now out of G's and the Mobil station than what Save-A-Lot would ever give to us. We deserve quality. We would deserve to be able to go to the store and get full service, not still have to run in to Pebblebrook or the Strand in order to get these simple products. As I stated, once the rezoning is approved, the developer can put in anything, no matter what they promise the people. And, by the way, those are letters of interest, not letters of intent. I looked at them. I have to compare Mr. Cali to Centre Fund. Centre Fund worked with us between a year and a half and two years. There were no guarantees that there would be a Walgreen's at Wilson Boulevard. There still is no guarantee. All we have is Centre Fund's word. They earned the support of the association and the area residents because they were willing to take the time to work with everyone for the stores that the area residents said they wanted. In short, they earned our trust. Mr. Cali, on the other hand, has done just the opposite. He keeps trying to push this rezoning through with empty promises. Instead of working with the civic, he tried to take it over. Instead of asking what services and stores the people wanted to Page 73 November 28, 2000 see out there, he brought in people to say they wanted the stores that he was willing to supply. These tactics do nothing to help prove that his word is any good. I ask you to please not rezone this area. It is premature. We should develop the commercial area in Orangetree before we rezone area that is labeled as residential. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Linda Hartman, followed by Mario Valle. MS. HARTMAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. Linda Hartman. I'm a board member of the Golden Gate Estates Civic and a twenty year resident out in the estates. All of us out there, most of us believe -- well, we know we live in one of the most beautiful areas in the whole world. Where on earth are you going to be so close to the ocean, have trees, have land, places for our kids to grow. We love our area and we're very, very proud of it. Yes, we do need some commercial growth, but we would like to see it not done piecemeal. We have a master plan that's in effect. It does have some problems and we really are looking in the civic association for, as Commissioner Coletta said, to be looked at a little earlier than a couple years from now. It needs to be done now, but there is a good -- the Dover/Kohl community character plan that's out there, they are looking at that area now. I don't believe we should rush into taking another little piece here and another little piece there and doing things that wouldn't be beneficial to the area in the big picture. We need someone to look at that big picture. We need to go by it, put it where the residents want and look at -- well, that's the way we're looking at it right now. We didn't know too much. We feel that the -- we have some concern over the way the petitions were, were presented to the people out there. In fact, one of our members' name is on that petition and she didn't even sign it. So we don't know what's going on with that petition. We know there were a couple members out there at the last meeting. We heard two days before that they were going to be at the meeting. And our main 350 plus membership did not even get a chance to say what they thought. The civic association is a representative of the people out there. We inform the people of what's going on, both sides of an issue and have them vote for it. We have not as yet been able -- Page 74 November 28, 2000 had the opportunity to get everybody together and see exactly what they want. And, like I said, my main problem with it, and from what we have talked about in the past out there with other areas that have wanted to cut into our commercial -- into our residential out there, is that, please don't do it piecemeal. We need to do the right thing at the right time and to look at the big picture. So I thank you very much. We really are opposed to this. Thank you. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Mario Valle followed by Ed Frick. MR. VALLE: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, Mario Valle. I am the president of the Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce and a board member of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, however, I'm not speaking for those organizations today. I am speaking on behalf of Creative Homes. We are a residential single family home builder who builds primarily first-time home buyer product, ninety-nine percent of which is out in the Golden Gate Estates area. None of us would venture to say that commercial needs out in the estates is not necessary. However, based on the fact that, knowing when you go into an area to develop it, which we have done north of the fairgrounds, in there. We first went in and put maybe five or ten houses on a block. Then, within the course of only a year and a half, fifty homes went in into that area. So we know what the domino effect can have, especially when you go into an area. So it's our big concern with the residents and their safety, when you go down that Randall corridor right off of Immokalee Road onto Randall, having one commercial center, a vacant piece of property for future development and then another commercial center -- we see that happening with what's already occurred on Golden Gate Parkway where you have piecemeal shopping centers down the road. It provides for a nightmarish traffic approach and drainage problems, which transportation has contacted the chamber to help them in putting in a new light fixture and drainage development with the reconfiguration of that area over by Coronado and Golden Gate Parkway. That is going to currently cost the county, if it does go through, somewhere in the neighborhood of $270,000, plus those merchants are going to have to expend an additional $70,000 for Page 75 November 28, 2000 that project to take place in order for it to be an improvement. What we are trying to see is that this area is premature and that that domino effect will in fact take place and we will have the same exact situation out there in the estates where drainage issues are a bigger challenge than they are in a totally urbanized area. That's our concern and that's one of the issues we'd like you to be aware of. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Mr. Frick, followed by your last registered speaker, Mary Richardson. MR. FRICK: Distinguished Commissioners, my name is Ed Frick. And am I pro-commercial development? You better believe I am. But I am anti-commercial development if a commercial development fails to serve a community which it's designed to serve. I'm anti-commercial development if it fails to create its consumer base and become aware of its goods and services in advance. And I really am against commercial development when it creates a profit center for a given few at the expense of many. In other words a shopping center for what? Until such time as this becomes acceptable publicly, I personally am terribly opposed to this agenda item. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Mary Richardson. MS. RICHARDSON: Hi. My name is Mary Richardson. And you'll have to forgive me. I'm not used to getting up in front of a crowd and I'm a little nervous. I'm a contractor, residential contractor in Golden Gate. I've lived in Naples for forty years. I've lived in Golden Gate for twenty years. We lived in the estates quite a ways from town. It was an agricultural part. I don't know if it was actually considered the estates or not. It was on Rivers Road. We sold our home because there was no conveniences out there at that time and we moved into 39th Street where we were closer to grocery stores, doctors' offices, post offices, things that, you know, we didn't have to travel for thirty-five, forty minutes to use. I loved the estate area. The only thing that I didn't like about the estate area was that I had no conveniences at all. We build homes mainly for first-time home buyers, young couples, young families just starting out. They move to Golden Gate Estates because they can afford to buy land there. The property there is the most reasonable property in Naples. And this is why these first-time home buyers buy there. These people Page 76 November 28, 2000 don't shop at Publix. They can't afford Publix. They shop at discount stores and they need stores there that they can afford to shop at. The one lady said something about not having paper towels. Well, if Walgreen's come in, there will be paper towels at Walgreen's and there will be groceries at Randall, and both facilities would be close to where they are proposing for these thousand people that petitioned that they would like to have these conveniences there. I helped obtain these signatures. I spoke with these people. I asked them what they wanted. They were done properly. I helped get the signatures myself. And I told them what we were planning and what we were trying to provide for them there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you tell us what you told them? I'm very interested in that, because that -- that seems a real relevant point to me. MS. RICHARDSON: Okay. I told them that we were going to build a shopping center there and that we were requesting for discount stores like Save-A-Lot where they could buy groceries, and affordable groceries. And they were, most of them, for it. The one thing that they were against was the Family Dollar. They did not want just any store in there, but, like, that was brought out before, we can control that at a later meeting. Right now we're just asking for permission for zoning for commercial. We need commercial. My two daughters live out there. My one daughter was just in an auto accident on Immokalee Road. I don't like the idea of my grandchildren having to go into a car on Saturday when they could be home playing in their yard and buying groceries right down the street. And they live right around the corner from Randall. And they would use the facility all the time. And most of the petitions that we received were from people in that area that wanted facilities there. I made notes because I get nervous and I lose my train of thought. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I apologize for interrupting you, I just really did want to know that. Thank you for telling me. MS. RICHARDSON: Yeah. Okay. I am for the shopping center to be built there. I also own a piece of property between the proposed and the Mobil. And I have two and a half acres, my Page 77 November 28, 2000 husband and I. We bought that not intending to ever build a house there. We bought it for an investment because we just assumed that that was, you know, a perfect place for a commercial area. I mean, especially with the way they are changing the road now, I mean, it's going to even be closer to the proposed area now for where the exchange is coming off. And I'm -- like I said, I'm for it. And we had a lot of new members at the civic association because we told them, you know, that they were going to be voting. And they were all for it, they wanted it, so they joined the civic association because of that, because they wanted to have a say in what happens in the Golden Gate area. And we do plan to attend civic association meetings and become part of it because I feel there are more people in Golden Gate than just the 300 civic association members, that would love to see a commercial center there. That's all I have to say. Thank you for your time. MR. OLLIFF: That's all your speakers. MR. CARDILLO: Commissioner -- Chairman Carter, if I might ask the liberty to have -- Mr. Cali would like to take a moment just to address the things that were cast upon in his motives and character -- it won't take a minute -- by some of the speakers. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, all right. I will -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think his character is in question. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't think -- your character is not in question. COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's a fine, upstanding citizen. CHAIRMAN CARTER: People have different opinions about issues. MR. CARDILLO: Well, the other issue had to do with the signatures and he did want to address that. All right. Well, I can tell you what -- well, you would probably tell -- there is -- on that petition there are two lines of a signature which have been crossed out -- was it three? Come on up here. Do you mind? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let's quickly deal with it because that's not going to be an issue in me making a decision here, and I don't question your character at all, Mr. Cali. MR. CALl: Okay. Those signatures that they were speaking about that were illegal signatures -- and also, Mr. Coletta, the Page 78 November 28, 2000 evening of the civic association meeting, said that there were illegal signatures. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I said nothing of the sort, Mr. Cali. MR. CALl: When you were coming out of the meeting -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I did not. MR. CALl: Okay. Well, I was under the impression that you felt that I had illegal signatures also. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I did not. I exercised no opinion at all. I took no vote at that meeting. MR. CALl: My point is that the day after the Planning Commission meeting when I spoke to you and said that I was going to go out and get the signatures, I went on 24th Avenue Northwest, the street right behind the Randall Shopping Center area. And on that street I went to Mrs. Acquard's home. Mr. Acquard allowed me into their home, was very receptive. Mrs. Acquard's mother, I believe, or mother-in-law -- I'm not sure who she was -- she took the petition in the back room, she signed Mr. Acquard's signature because his hand was broken. She signed her signature and she also signed Mrs. Acquard's signature. I did not know who she was. And I did not obtain those signatures illegally. And I did give Mrs. Acquard the opportunity to remove her signatures and all of them from the petition, cross them out and put their initials on them. The only other thing I would like to add is that I did not try to take over the Golden Gate Civic Association. I tried to work in harmony with the Association. My first phone call to Mrs. Acquard two days before the Planning Commission I thought was sufficient, that she would allow me to present it to the association in a timely fashion. I appeared in front of the Association -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Cali, I mean, I under-- I think we understand all of that. And I think at this point I just really have to cut off the discussion and take it to the board for -- MR. WEEKS: No rebuttal as far as zoning issues? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think everybody's had a chance to say what they need, unless there is a specific question by board members to petitioner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have a question for staff. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Question for staff. Page 79 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you show us on the -- on the map where the Orangetree Shopping Center or commercial area is in -- related to this petition? MR. WEEKS: Right here. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. Up on -- it's on Oil Well Road? MR. WEEKS: Yes. There's a fourteen acre parcel up here at Oil Well and Immokalee Road where the existing G's North is located, right at the intersection. That's about fourteen acres total. And then there is an eight-acre tract right at that triangle of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now, those are approved commercial areas that could be developed today. Are those PUDs or are they zoned specific C-3, 4, whatever? MR. WEEKS: Both of those are commercial tracts within the Orangetree PUD approved back in 1986. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Interesting. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I know that -- and, Commissioner Coletta, maybe you could help out -- when was the last time that the residents of Golden Gate Estates was polled for -- on a survey of their needs and wants in the Golden Gate Estates? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's a good question. It's been many years now. The last survey that I know of was done by -- at that time Commissioner Constantine through the Golden Gate Chamber of Commerce. I can't recall the results, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That was a long time ago, back in probably the early nineties. And I know that the complex -- the complexity of the residents in Golden Gate Estates has changed. Many of them that I know in this area resemble those red dots. They do want commercial out there. But I'm really concerned of doing the right thing in Golden Gate Estates. Like Mrs. Hartman alluded to, it is a very pristine area and I think that we really need to plan. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I couldn't agree with you more. That's why I was suggesting that we try to reconvene the master plan review, which is all encompassing. If everybody involved -- and I hope Mr. Cali holds on to his land rights out there -- and see if we can come up with something with the master plan in conjunction with the Page 80 November 28, 2000 Dover/Kohl study that's taken place to make something that will meet the needs of everyone and especially the commercial thing. And possibly Mr. Cali will have a place in this. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let me just kind of poll the board here. Is there support or not support for this petition? And if there isn't support, then we can allow the petitioner to withdraw. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll just go ahead and say, I continue to be open to this because I think there is a need for commercial development in the northern estates and -- and because this is merely a map amendment. I would propose to accept this with no promises on a rezone. You come in and you take your chances, depending on what quality of a project you bring in. But I think -- I've got to tell you guys. I worry when we are persuaded by who is in the room. I really think we have to look at those 1,100 dots on the map over there. I haven't heard anything that makes me think they were misled. And the hard part of this job is to represent the people who aren't in the room. And I think that the lady who spoke before about that, you know, a lot of people who are building out in the northern estates, some are people who want to live in the country. Some are people who want to live in Collier County and that's where they can afford to live and they are starter homes and families and I think they need to have some sort of services. End of speech. I'm willing to support this with no promises on the rezone. We will see what you can -- what you bring. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think that it's -- the timing is just not right. I believe that what we should do is more so not just the Dover/Kohl study but also the growth management plan for Golden Gate Estates. Like Commissioner Coletta has said, it needs to be revisited. And I don't want -- I want to make the best decision that I can for Golden Gate Estates. And I don't feel comfortable at this time of-- approving this petition. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's echoing my sentiments exactly. I think that the -- Mr. Cali has hit the nail right on the head. There is a desperate need for services out there. I think what's being offered at this point in time is not really conducive Page 8t November 28, 2000 of (sic) what we want to build out in Golden Gate Estates. We're not looking for discount stores. We're looking for first class supermarkets, first class stores. We're looking for services that will complement the area, not just to fill in a shopping center. And I'm sure that I would like to work with Mr. Cali and I'm sure everyone else would too to see that this can happen in the future. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I -- I totally agree. I think that, first of all, this is premature. Mr. Cali has given a marvelous presentation. He seems like an awfully nice man. But I do believe it's premature. I think that discount stores in this area right now -- we're talking about level of service here but you've got some lawyers and attorneys and people going out into that area who like to have a little bit more land. The property values are rising. I have a daughter who lives there, and it would be difficult for her to get to this area, even though she lives deep in the heart of the estates, and I doubt that she would go there, even though she is of moderate income, just because she would be looking for a store that she could shop at rather than the ones that are being offered. So at this point in time I would like to put that on hold until we have the master plan in place. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I count three that says that they will not support this. You have an opportunity to withdraw. MR. CARDILLO: Would the chair allow us to continue this thing until after that study comes in rather than withdraw it at this time? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Oh, yes. You can be allowed to continue indefinitely. MR. CARDILLO: All right. Well, that's what-- I've just discussed that with Mr. Cali and that's what we would move to do, CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MR. CARDILLO: To continue this matter. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So the petitioner is choosing to continue. And thank you very much for your presentation. And thank you, Commissioners. MR. CARDILLO: Thank you, Commissioner -- Mr. Chair, for your courtesies. Page 82 November 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Wiegel? MR. WIEGEL: Although the petitioner has indicated his desire to continue, it will actually be a vote from the board to continue it indefinitely. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. So I'll entertain a motion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- to continue. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Before I voted I wanted to hear from Scott. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I didn't vote yet. MR. OI. LIFF: I just wanted to propose that when it comes back it's going to need to be readvertised. I would suggest that the readvertising costs be borne by petitioner. MR. CARDILLO: Understand and agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Part of my motion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Mr. Olliff, I know we had planned to hear two more, but unless these are going to be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're hungry. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I hear the nibbling here, over here in my left ear. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I hear the stomach growling. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I will recess until -- it's quarter to one, we'll be back in the room at quarter to two. So that will be 1:45. (A lunch recess was had.) Item #12B1 Page 83 November 28, 2000 ORDINANCE 2000-78 RE PETITION PUD-95-02(1) STEVE LOVELESS OF PALM FOUNDATION, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM ITS CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS BAILEY LANE pud TO "PUD" IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS FOR SINGLE FAIMLY DWELLINGS AS WELL AS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES AND THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ACCESORY STRUCTURES, LOCATED ON BAILEY LANE OFF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD AND CONTAINING 24.76 ACRES - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're back in session for the continuation of public hearings. We are to Item 12(B)1, PUD 95-02. Steve Loveless of Palm Foundation, Inc. requesting a rezone, All people involved in this will need to stand and be sworn. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Before you present, are there disclosures on the part of commissioners? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't think I have had any meetings on this matter. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nothing. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm a Mrs., but it's okay. You know what, you mean meetings with anybody from this development? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. You have to disclose whether you've had any meetings. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, no. I haven't. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It has nothing to do with whether you're a Miss or Mrs. (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: I thought you called me Mr. Fiala, so I thought I -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no. Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh. I just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hard to get used to, isn't it? Page 84 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER FIALA-' Yeah. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. You need to get one of those ear trumpets and -- (Laughter.) COMMISSIONER FIALA: There you go. It might work. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. No disclosures? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have not met with the petitioners. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Steve Loveless of Palm Foundation, Inc. is requesting this rezone from PUD in order to revise some setbacks. This PUD was approved for single family homes and zero lot lines. And we have two sets of setbacks. They platted all the lots for zero lot lines, smaller lots, and they were building on it for the past several years. However, market conditions have changed. Now people are asking for larger homes. What he is doing is taking a lot and a half and building a larger house. However, the PUD requires larger front and rear setback for single family homes, the larger homes. He is requesting to reduce those setbacks to the ones that are already built to have the same setbacks so all the buildings are on the same line. Basically this is the extent of the request, reducing 25 to 20 for the front setback, which will be similar to the ones that are built already with 20 foot setbacks since he was building villas. And rear yard setbacks from 20 to 10, again similar to villas, and accessories from 10 to 5. And this action will allow a distance between structures from 15 to 10. Planning Commission reviewed this petition and unanimously recommend approval. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Can you tell me what size home he can build there today, or do you have to wait until the petitioner comes? MR. BADAMTCHIAN The minimum size is 1,200, but by putting a lot and a half he can build a much larger house and also reduce the density, since he's taking a lot and a half to build one house instead of one lot -- one house per lot. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So he's talking about reducing density or building bigger houses? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically he's building larger houses, Page 85 November 28, 2000 which he can build less of them. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't see in here anything about Environmental Advisory Council. Did this go to them? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This thing was previously approved in 1995 and this request is just to change the setbacks. No, it was exempt from the EA -- Environmental Advisory Council meeting. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala, a question for Mr. COMMISSIONER FIALA'. Thank you. I noticed in the executive summary it mentioned that there were seventy-five units and that's all that we were talking about. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The maximum is seventy-five units. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's how many homes they can build, correct? COMMISSIONER FIALA'- And yet, when I saw the rezone finding, findings it noted here in Item 6, it said the additional dwelling units could cause increased noise. And then over on 7 it said urban intensification. And I was wondering -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Those are -- COMMISSIONER FIALA.' It conflicts with one another. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Those are PUD findings and rezone findings. Basically the question is, if building here will increase the noise? Yes, it will. But with or without this rezone, the impact is going to be there because it was already approved. But those are the answers to the questions. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But no additional dwelling units? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No additional dwelling units. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Even though it says additional dwelling units? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Correct. Because the question asked additional dwelling units will add noise, they are not and that's the answer to those questions. That's the way they are phrased. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, well, it says, yeah, whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. And then the response in kind was the additional dwelling units could cause. So I had some confusion. I'm sorry. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Dr. -- Page 86 November 28, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN-' As I said, staff recommended approval and the Planning Commission, they unanimously recommended approval. There were two people at the Planning Commission who objected to this. And they were -- one was from the Poinciana Village, which is in here, the other one from the cottages. The cottages are located in here. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And their objections were? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically they were saying that by reducing the setbacks they are going to remove the existing trees. And, because of that objection -- one of them was -- the house was located right in here, adjacent to this. And the other one, I believe, lived somewhere in here. So, because of that, the applicant agreed to revise the master plan and leave that area the way it was already -- this area was left the way it was originally approved in 1995 and the changes will only affect the remainder of the PUD which is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can you show us -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: So, if I'm following this correctly, he will not change setbacks in this area? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. He will not change the setback in this area because somebody who lived in here objected and somebody who lived in here objected. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you show the -- take that map off. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Remove that one, if you would, and show me on this map which is going remain the same. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there anything on this map that abuts existing homes? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: From basically here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- all the way to here -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- they are staying the same. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I wanted to know -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: undeveloped property? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: CHAIRMAN CARTER: And this is -- to the other side of this is This here is a golf course. A golf course. Okay. Page 87 November 28, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: An this one is a multi-family tract of Hawk's Ridge PUD. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. I need to hear from the petitioner. Any questions of the petitioner by the board? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No questions from this side. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. What's the pleasure of the board? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the petitioner here? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, he's here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Any public speakers? MR. OLLIFF: The petitioner is here. There are no public speakers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second the motion. MR. OLLIFF: Close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Close the public hearing. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Close the public hearing. Is there any further discussion by the board? All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Opposed by the same sign? Aye. Motion carries 4-t. I don't like changing setbacks. Okay. We move to Item Number (B)3, or am I ahead of myself here? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think so. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 2000-79 RE PETITION PUD-99-25, DAVID E. CRAWFORD, AICP OF VANESSE AND DAYLOR, LLP, REPRESENTING JOHN AND DORA MCMULLEN, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM ITS CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS HAMMOCK PARK OF COMMERCE PUD FOR A COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND OFFICE Page 88 November 28, 2000 DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AT THE TERMINUS OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think I am. Item (B)2. David E. Crawford, AICP of Vanesse and Dore -- and Daylor in regards to PUD 99-25. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Commissioners, good afternoon. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Mr. Crawford-- MR. OLLIFF: Excuse me. I think we need to swear in -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' We have to swear -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: We've got to swear everybody in. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. MR. OLLIFF: Chahram, they need to go through disclosure as well. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have no disclosure. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta, disclosures? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN CARTER: To my knowledge I have not met with the petitioners or anyone else on this in regards to this particular situation. MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' Mr. David Crawford representing John and Dora McMullan requesting a rezone from agricultural to planned unit development for a commercial development. The property is located along 951, also known as Collier Boulevard, at the terminus of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The site consists of 18.15 acres. This parcel is located within an activity center and therefore they are entitled to request for a commercial rezoning. They are asking to have a PUD with uses similar to C-4 and C-5. On the north side they abut a C-5 zoned property. On the east side there is the vacant 18 acre tract, then the swamp buggies. To the south it's zoned ag. and it's vacant. To the Page 89 November 28, 2000 west, across the street, they are adjacent to Naples Forest Country Club and Sierra Meadows PUD. Both of them have commercial tracts at the intersection. This project will generate 10,648 -- 45 weekday trips. The road is already four-laned in this area and it's functioning at an acceptable level of service. This will -- this project will exceed the 5 percent of the level of service C designed volume. However, it will not lower the density. the level of service. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. It will exceed the 5 percent threshold. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that road is in such good shape that it won't -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It will not lower the service, correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This project was reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council and by a vote of 4 to 2 they failed to take an official action. The rule requires at least 5 votes in order to take an action. There were 4 votes against this project, 2 votes in favor of it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that what kept it off of summary agenda? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. And the reason for it -- I basically wrote what they said. They said it goes contrary to the spirit of the preservation requirements, the land development code. We have preservation requirements, however, preservation requirements allows for removal of trees and re-planting trees. Basically I have some pictures, if you are interested, to show what is existing on the site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I am. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I wanted to ask before. When you were asking about level of service, did you mean level of service C or D, Pam? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Whatever the adopted is there. I don't know. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Level of service C. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Chahram, on Collier Boulevard, I'm sorry. It will not lower Let me get that straight. Page 90 November 28, 2000 the frontage, what's the proposed zoning for that, C-4, C-57 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Basically there's a PUD which would allow C-4 and C-5 uses. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mixed? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. There are some uses picked from C-4, some uses picked from C-5, yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Otherwise the Planning Commission reviewed this and by unanimous vote recommended approval, and staff also recommends approval of this petition. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I read in the staff report something that was important to me and that was, it's unlikely that I'm going to go against a recommendation from the EAC, but in this case it said that staff went back out on the property after the EAC? Did I understand that correctly? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Our environmental staff is here. He can answer this question. I did not go to the site after the EAC. I don't know if he did or not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, if I understood it correctly, it was that, despite the EAC's concern, our staff thinks that the environmental net positive here is to nuke what's there and plant native. Did I get that correctly? MR. LENBERGER: For the record, Stephen Lenberger, development services. Yes. Staff went out to the site. We went out prior to the EAC meeting. We did not go out afterwards. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: The back half of the site is heavily impacted with melaleuca and we believe that replanting on this site is appropriate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there any -- is there any preservation of existing vegetation on the site? COMMISSIONER LENBERGER: There's none proposed by the developer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are there any areas that you would advise are worthy of preservation? MR. LENBERGER: Most of the quality habitat's in the front, and it would be difficult to retain that. So the petitioner is proposing to landscape the northern property line, as well as the retention area, with native vegetation. Page 91 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So what you're saying is the good vegetation is along 951 or Collier Boulevard? MR. LENBERGER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And there is a big canal there. MR. LENBERGER: Adjacent to it, yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: How much of that is -- could be preserved in front as a, for lack of another term, a buffer, a good quality buffer and how would that affect -- and I'll hear from the petitioner how that would affect the development of the site, but is that possible to -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We will require a -- we will require a 20 foot wide landscape buffer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Twenty? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Chahram. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I had a question. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question of staff? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you. I have to explain to you, I'm a very literal person, okay? Everything is black and white to me, so I ask a lot of questions. Please excuse. Okay. I read in -- on Page 2 it was talking about, "At this point in time staff has not developed a method by which the estimate -- to estimate the cost of the particular land use development project. Such a model in our opinion would be terribly misleading because there is no certain way, particularly with respect to housing projects, to determine their value and likelihood." I wanted to know what -- and then it says, "Not all of the authorized development will occur." What did all of that mean? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's boilerplate language we use and most of our staff reports, you will see that. Basically it questions how much it's going to cost the county and how are we going to collect impact fees? At this stage it's real hard to answer that question. They are asking to build up to 200,000 square feet, but we don't know if they will build 200,000 square feet. Most shopping centers they ask for more than they can build. And most residential developments they ask for a number of units more than they can build. Page 92 November 28, 2000 So that's basically boilerplate language. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. And if I could just add to that, commissioner. When Bob Fernandez was our county administrator, there was some frustration expressed on this board about the meaninglesshess of the physical impact section of the staff reports. And we said, Gad-dangit, tell us what this is -- how much money is coming in from these projects and how much is going out so we can know if it's paying for itself. This is as close as we were able to get. Not much, but -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. When it said housing projects, I thought we're not talking about housing projects. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. COMMISSIONER FIAI.A: So I couldn't figure it out. But thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just make an assumption, if they're asking up to -- you might put it -- I put it in my calculation, if they can do it and it's economically feasible, they are going to do it. So that's always my criteria. But if they tell me they are going to do it, they probably will, if it's economically feasible to get there. So that's just how I calculate it. But let's hear from the petitioner. Good afternoon, Miss Bishop. MS. BISHOP: Good afternoon. Karen Bishop for the petitioner. I'm not David Crawford, just in case any of you guys were wondering about that. I would like to address a couple things, one about commercial is that, you know, typically commercial, you get more than what they take, because they don't need the services, the police or the fire or the emergency service, to the level that residentials need. So all in all commercials -- commercial properties create more money than they utilize in services. So that's something just as a key, you know, a rule of thumb in general. Also I would like to address the environmental aspects of this. Now, I would like to believe that most of you people who have seen my projects in the past know that I try to save as much as I can on a site that's worth saving. Unfortunately this is not one of those sites. The buffer along the front is literally Brazilian pepper, which is what you get along fringes of Page 93 November 28, 2000 development areas to begin with. The site is mainly melaleuca. And, even though it does show up to be as wetlands, one of the reasons that is is because there is a road on the south side, which is the Sports Park Road, that doesn't allow any drainage to continue through. So what you end up having is a pool. You've got 951, you've got the Sports Park Road and the Sports Park. So the water comes in and has no place to go. So you end up having this, as well as the large infestation of melaleuca that I wanted you to see there. And it is our -- you know, if we had the opportunity, we would save every good thing there is. But what you have is one tree, one little spindly tree in a big area of melaleuca. Just the bulldozers running around that area is enough to kill the tree. So what we propose is to mitigate the wetlands during the permitting process there, which means we'll buy mitigation land probably in CREW, and then we would plant native vegetation, which is the easiest to maintain in these colder areas, as a part of the SDP process when that happens. And as far as the type of commercial that are going to be here, like Chahram said, it's market driven. And the owner, as soon as we get our environmental permits, will put it out on the market. Someone will buy it and then they will choose what it is that they're going to put there. We'll go through the permitting process at that point to determine that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: In terms of the drainage issue -- and you spoke to that well, that it's all flowing in there. Now you develop it, where does the water go? MS. BISHOP: It's going to the canal, is where it's going to end up going eventually. I have my drainage engineer here to discuss that but we won't be draining to the south because there is in fact no place to go. So the outfall would be to the canal, which is pretty typical along all of those projects on 951. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Is there any interconnectivity with anything along there that will help us in our overall future planning as that area is developed? MS. BISHOP: I see an interconnection to the property due east here, and my owner in fact does own that. But right now on the comp. plan that shows as residential so we weren't too inclined to, to look at that as residential at this point and probably will be coming back at some point to create some other Page 94 November 28, 2000 district for that area other than residential because we personally don't believe that, between a sports park and a commercial center, that a residential is appropriate. At one time these -- my owner specifically tried to get all of these property owners together to come up with one overall plan here but unfortunately that proved to be bigger than he could possibly get. I think that certainly access management gives you an opportunity to look at commercial centers and request -- require some sort of unified access so that you don't have 27 connections on 951 along that area. So I see that as certainly an open opportunity here and with our parking lot layout, we could certainly see some sort of frontage road, I think, that might be appropriate. Obviously we're anxious -- we're lucky and anxious to utilize that road to the south because there's a light there. So utilizing that for the other properties I think would be a great idea. And I'm a big advocate of interconnection so I would think that that would be something that could be done for us. The parking lot could dead-end at the northern property line. And when that next gentleman comes in with his commercial, he could connect to that and then we could have an interconnection there. And I think that would be a great idea. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Can we also -- MS. BISHOP: And then there's less connections across Clarence's ditch, too. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So could we then also put in this frontage road and we could, you know, I mentally will note that but I would like staff to note that, as anything that develops in the future that you have set the model or standard here that you're doing it, you're setting it aside so that if anyone else comes in here in the future, regardless of who sits as a commissioner -- MS. BISHOP: Right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- realizes that that has to be a continuum here in terms of interconnectivity and frontage road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That it was a road to somewhere. MS. BISHOP: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The onus is on our staff. We understand that you're doing what you can do and it's a good Page 95 November 28, 2000 thing. And now what I think you're hearing from the board is, watch the next piece of property or draw a line on a map, whatever it takes, to make that a requirement when they come in, MS. BISHOP: Well, and you have another difficulty in this property also. Just to the south of this -- I mean to the east of this property is the big mama FP&L easement that goes through there. It's like a hundred feet wide and it just -- just cuts all those properties in half. So you have this ability where you're going to have some difficulty with the pieces between the Sports Park and this commercial area. And this frontage road doesn't have to be dedicated just to frontage. It could be a parking lot with just the roadway interconnection between it. Then it functions well as a part of the project and you're not so much giving up land, valuable commercial land that you can't use, for anything but roadway. But you're utilizing it as a part of moving the people from one commercial area to another without them having to go back out on the main drag to be able to get there. So that is a good thing for us to try to do. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You know, Karen, we're talking the same language. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. A question. That road that leads to the sports park, is that a county road or a private road? MS. BISHOP: I don't know. I'm sorry. I think it's a county road but I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you know, Chahram? MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' I'm sorry? MS. BISHOP: It's private? CHAIRMAN CARTER: The question by Commissioner Coletta COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is the -- that road leading to the sports park area, is that a county road or a private road? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, it's not a county road. It's a private road. MS. BISHOP: So it's private? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's a private road. MS. BISHOP: All right. So the question is, do we have an easement over it? And I'm not sure of the answer at this point. Page 96 November 28, 2000 We in fact do show access off of that area, so I'm making the assumption that there is an access there. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, if there's an easement granted to them -- MS. BISHOP: Right. And so once I have an easement granted, then I can grant other easements across it, as long as my easement doesn't preclude that. But I'm suggesting to you that my client would not want to be the only one who could use that because it would be to his advantage to have other people come through -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. MS. BISHOP: -- his commercial. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I'm hearing we -- from our staff, "we believe." Is there some way we can get clarification? I would like to know if we have that right. MS. BISHOP: The survey -- the survey that I have says there is a thirty-foot road right of way, utility and drainage easement and it's been recorded. So there is some sort of access across it. And it's on my property, so apparently I have half the road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There you go. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MS. BISHOP: Right, so - correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mrs. Bishop, did you say that the -- your client is not going to develop this property, they are just rezoning it? MS. BISHOP: No. My client may develop it himself, he may sell to a commercial developer or to a commercial builder. Sometimes developers develop the piece and then sell the buildings to a builder -- a commercial tenant of sorts. So he hasn't decided at this point what he's going to do. He's had this land for a long time. He just wanted to get the zoning taken care of and then move forward. He actually wanted to do both pieces but, like I said, before we have had a little trouble with the comp. plan issues on the back half so we're going to wait a little longer for that one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we don't know what is going to be on the front side of Collier Boulevard? MS. BISHOP: At this point he has no buyers for the -- tenants. He has no tenants for that at this point. So we really Page 97 November 28, 2000 don't have an idea. I can -- I happen to know-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: My concern is -- MS. BISHOP: -- this gentleman myself. I can tell you that so far I have not seen anyone build low quality anywhere in this town in the last ten years. So I can't imagine that it's going to be something that the market wouldn't be driven towards COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, exactly. But my concern is, is maybe having a transmission shop in the front and a restaurant in the rear. MS. BISHOP: No. We wouldn't be having those kinds of things there. I don't believe that we have -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: How can we avoid that? MS. BISHOP: -- transmission shops -- well, we specifically listed certain uses in our zoning. I -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And C-5 is allowed -- a transmission shop is allowed in C-57 MS. BISHOP: I believe so. But I don't believe that that's -- he had in mind a business park here. Business and industrial park is what he had in mind, something like Trade Center Way or something like Railhead. So he did not have in mind the kind of thing that you're discussing now, which would be transmission shop. CHAIRMAN CARTER: However, I believe it's our prerogative to exclude certain things. MS. BISHOP: And I would be happy to exclude a transmission shop. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what I would like to -- maybe from the petitioner, is to set some kind of criteria for the frontage of Collier Boulevard, of the uses fronting Collier Boulevard. MS. BISHOP: Well, just -- I didn't know -- I don't know if you know this or not, there is a -- we now have architectural standards for commercial that disallow nasty looking things as a better -- you know, without coming up with a better -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we know that we'll have architectural standards that -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: On the building, but the use -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: The use is the consideration. MS. BISHOP: Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. The uses that can Page 98 November 28, 2000 change the aesthetics of it, take away from the architectural structure. A body shop, storage out front. Right on Collier Boulevard, things of that nature. MS. BISHOP: And I'm suggesting that those are not the kinds of things that he wants there either so those are the kinds of things -- I don't know how to fashion that language for you but I would certainly be willing, and so would the owner, to make sure that those kinds of things are not there. COMMISSIONER HENNING: So you're going to have -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We have two tracts, Tract A and Tract B. Let's say the front portion, call it the Tract A, and limit the uses there, saying that Tract A can only have these uses and Tract B, which is the back portion, can have all the other uses. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I understand it's going to be a mixed use, C-4 and C-5. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. All the uses are listed in the PUD document, which you have a copy of it. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we put the C-4 -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They do not include all the uses in C-5 and C-4. It's some of the uses. MR. OLLIFF: The point I wanted to make was, you need to recognize, this is a PUD. And while he's saying the uses are C-4 and C-5, it's not the full zoning allowable C-4 and C-5 uses. This is sort of a negotiated type land use agreement. So they have selected certain C-4 and C-5 type uses that are listed in the PUD document. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Maybe we should have language saying that in the first 500 feet there shall be only retail and offices uses. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm happy with that. MR. OLLIFF: Chahram, can you point them to the page in your package that has the listed commercial uses? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I don't know if it's stamped. I don't know what page it would be. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So, Commissioner Henning, what you are suggesting is that the front part be limited to retail and office? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It would be Page 50 stamped at the bottom right corner. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me? Page 99 November 28, 2000 MR. OLLIFF.' Page 50? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Page 50, 5-0. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. You have eating and drinking establishments, restaurants, food stores. MS. BISHOP: I don't think we have enough room there for a food store, but you never know about that. There could be one there, I'm assuming. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Social services? MS. BISHOP: That would be things like clubs, you know, like a dance club or-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Social services? MS. BISHOP: Social services has about 50,000 things that could be in there under social service, if you look at that section in the SI -- MR. OLLIFF: C. MS. BISHOP: -- SIC book. I don't know if you guys have one of those but, you know, there is about 50 million things that fall under social services, which include clubs and those kinds of things, social clubs. MR. BADAMTCHIAN'. And most of the offices also are under social. MS. BISHOP: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions of the petitioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just one, if I may. Have the surrounding landowners been notified about this proposal? MS. BISHOP: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We have not gotten -- actually I've spoken to my direct neighbor, I think his name is Pastatini (phonetic), myself. And he's just anxious to see what I'm doing because I think he's going to come next with his zoning at some point. He's directly beside me. But this is -- because this fits within the comp. plan and everyone pretty much knows what's going to be here and all of these people in the past were at one and the same table, trying to work with the master plan of this area -- even though that never did solidify, but -- so everyone is aware of what's going on here. I think they are happy that, that the quality of the project that we're proposing is the first one on board. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Back to Commissioner Henning's Page 100 November 28, 2000 question, Item Number 3 is the one that concerned you, I believe -- it concerns me also -- on that list, if we skim over the rest of them, are there any others in there that bother you or bother any other commissioners? If not, we could probably eliminate or put that group to the back of the project. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, Commissioner Carter, Mr. Chair, there is a need for such type zonings, automotive repair and rental stores and things of that nature, in Collier County. But I just would like to kind of stair-step the uses as I'm stating now. MS. BISHOP: Okay. I have no -- I think that's fine. I would be happy to do that. I think that's a good idea. I understand what you're trying to do from a community characteristic standpoint and I think that's an awesome idea. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And I think primarily what I'm hearing here is that if we could put that somewhere, if it's around the Sports Park-- MS. BISHOP: Right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- that's not an issue. What we're trying to do is to keep it away from potentially other areas where it may create problems for us and plus -- MS. BISHOP: That's fine. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- we will see this again on a site development plan that will come through eventually. MS. BISHOP: Right. You won't see that but the staff will see it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we may see it on consent agenda, but -- or on -- yeah, on consent agenda. But, you know, just keep aware that you will probably see it again, but you're going to have to look for it. MS. BISHOP: Okay. So what I can do, then, is I can take Number 3. Is there any other one that you are also looking at? I was looking at this miscellaneous repair services. Maybe that might be something too. And say that those two items must be in the B section of the PUD, which is the back half as opposed to the front half? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you give us some examples of social services? Is that -- MS. BISHOP: I don't have my SIC book. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that like fraternal orders and Page 101 November 28, 2000 MS. BISHOP: Those kinds of items, right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And is that like women's abuse shelter or -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Homeless shelter. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Homeless shelter. MS. BISHOP: Those things could be a part of that. I don't have the list specifically. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who's got the SIC code with them? MR. OLLIFF: You have a copy in your office. I'm not sure the planning staff has one right here. Do you? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They used to always bring it to these meetings. Because I always ask that. There. She's got it. MS. BISHOP: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are there other questions for the petitioner? Other questions for the staff? Do we have any public speakers? MR. OLLIFF: No, sir. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Close the -- if there's no further questions, then close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I'm satisfied with the social services. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we closed the public hearing. You still get to answer (sic) your question, but we're not going to let anybody else talk. It will be up here. MS. BISHOP: It's number -- Social Services, Number 821, Group 7351. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Why would they say -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We like children. We're not trying to stop them. MS. BISHOP: Would you like to look at the groups for the auto repair also? COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I want to take this opportunity, if you do have cell. phones in the room, I would ask you to turn them Off. Are we okay? Do we have an answer to Commissioner Henning's -- Page 102 November 28, 2000 MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Henning, you're okay? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're just checking. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I"11 move approval, subject to the consideration. Mr. Henning, how would you want to phrase that? COMMISSIONER HENNING: That the intensive use, Number 3, automotive repair, and I think the small repair was in there also, to move that in the back of the property. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So that that would only be a permitted use in the -- describe it for me, Chahram. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Shall not be permitted within 500 feet from -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Collier Boulevard. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- from Collier Boulevard, something like that. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 500 feet. That would probably work. I"m trying to remember the width of the canal, which is about thirty feet, so -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The canal, I believe, is 100. MS. BISHOP: 100 foot right of way. COMMISSIONER HENNING: 100 foot? MS. BISHOP: It is. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But when we are talking 500, we are measuring from their property line, not the canal. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Within 500 foot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That will be my motion. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any further discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries. I think we gave sufficient direction to staff on that one to watch for the future development in here so that we continue to have our protected right of ways, interconnectivity, whether it's a frontage road interconnection between those, et cetera. Item #12B3 Page 103 November 28, 2000 ORDINANCE 2000-80 RE PETITION PUD-2000-09, BRAD HEDRICH, P.E. OF HEDRICH ENGINEERING, INC, REPRESENTING MERIDIAN LAND CO., REQUESTING A REZONING FOR PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED "A" RURAL AGRICULTURA, "RSF-3" RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND "ST" OVERLAY TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS MADEIRA PUD FOR A MAXIMUM OF 436 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, 3/4 MILE NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS BUT WITHOUT EUCLID INTERCONNECT Okay. That moves us to Item (B)3. This item was continued from the October 10th meeting. This is PUD Number 2000-09. Representing Meridian Land. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I disclose that I have had many, many, many, multiple conversations. I know, he's going to swear people. Oh, that has to be before my disclosure? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Okay. Let's have a swearing. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Now we'll have disclosures by commissioners. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have had many meetings with both sides, both parties in this petition. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have -- to my knowledge, I have had no contact with either side. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Prior to becoming a commissioner, I had the spirit of the sunshine and understanding. I secured tapes that I got to people that were running for the commission seats. They weren't actually sitting commissioners, of the Planning Commission meeting on this very subject, so that they would be understandable -- understanding what this whole situation was about. I also met with Jack Coyner and residents of the Armadillo Acres and talked to Stewart Carter last night. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Fiala? COMMISSIONER FIALA: To my knowledge I have had no access to it. I didn't even get to watch any tapes or the Planning Page 104 November 28, 2000 Commission. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have met with the petitioner. I have met with the president of Willoughby Acres on this issue. I also have recused myself from two previous presentations of this. I have communicated with the county attorney this morning. I will recuse myself from the vote again, but I will participate in the discussion by asking questions of this project -- on this project, but I will not render my personal opinions. Does that sufficiently cover me, Counselor?. MR. WIEGEL: Oh, that's just fine. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. And, as far as I know, those are the only contacts that I have had, unless, you know, I've met them in Publix or at a rotary club or the Chamber of Commerce. Well, I could have met them anyplace in town, but, to my knowledge, I know that's where I was. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Murray and I'm with the planning services department. If you will indulge me, I have a rather lengthy prepared presentation, so sit back and relax. The petitioner is requesting to have land rezoned from its current designation of RSF-3, which is residential single family at a density of three dwelling units per acre and rural agricultural, to PUD, or planned unit development, for the purposes of constructing a private, deeded residential development at a density of three dwelling units per acre, for a total of 436 dwelling units over 145.37 acres. I'm going walk over to this map and try to acclimate you a little bit better as to the boundaries of the property and surrounding projects. The subject site is indicated in the lines in red here. To the south we have Immokalee Road. So this project is north of Immokalee Road. The project is also east or -- I'm sorry, west of the future Livingston Road. There is a 275 foot FP&L easement between the eastern boundary of the subject site and Livingston Road. It doesn't show up too well on this map. Livingston Road is planned to head to the north. It does a small bend and terminates at the section line where it then becomes an east/west road. That's all in the planning stages at this point, although portions of Livingston Road are currently constructed. Page 105 November 28, 2000 The western boundary of the subject site abuts portions of the Candlewood subdivision. The southern boundary of the subject site abuts the Willoughby Acres subdivision. Portions of the southern boundary of the subject site are directly north of the northern terminus of Euclid Avenue and north of the northern terminus of Lakeland Avenue. The northwestern boundary of the subject site abuts Imperial Golf Course Estates, which is developed with single family residential. To the north of the subject site we have undeveloped agriculturally zoned property. Directly north of this property, although it's currently unzoned, is -- or not zoned to allow this use -- is in the planning stages for the Royal Palm Academy, which is an educational facility. Additionally, I am aware that the school board owns property to the west, northwest of the subject site. The remaining portions of property are all zoned agricultural, undeveloped. And that would be just south of the east/west connector of Livingston Road. So that should give you some sort of perspective on how this property relates to surrounding development. There are three properties internal to this site that are not part of the rezoning request. If you look on those -- this map, those are the properties that are shown in orange. All currently take access through the subject site but will be afforded access to the project's main road which traverses the project, as shown on this PUD master plan. And the main road through the project is shown in yellow. The petitioner proposes access to the subject site via one main point of ingress and egress, that being from Livingston Road. Along the site's northern boundary the petitioner indicates a secondary means of access to the site, however, I do need to point out that there is no existing right of way along the northern boundary nor at this moment is -- is it certain that a right of way will be developed there. So I just wanted to point that out. I'll come back to that in a more detailed discussion later on. The southern 100 acres of this site is currently zoned RSF-3. That would be from this boundary line south. That allows -- currently allows single family residential development at a density of three dwelling units per gross acres. The northern 45 acres is presently zoned rural agricultural. And the agricultural Page 106 November 28, 2000 zoning district within the urban boundary of the county, and with this project -- and this project is within the urban boundary, are usually considered a holding zoning district until urban densities are requested for development purposes, usually through a rezoning action such as this. This petition will effectively remove both of the current zoning designations of the property and replace them with a zoning designation of PUD. The PUD zoning designation carries with it, if you will, development regulations and density restrictions which are specific only to that development. These regulations are contained within the PUD document, the PUD master plan -- which I showed you earlier -- also governs development of this site. And you should have a copy of both of those in your packet. With that information in mind, I would like to proceed with a summary of staff's findings and recommendations. The property is located, as I said, in the urban -- excuse me -- within the urban mixed use residential land use classification as designated on the county's future land use map. The requested rezoning to PUD to allow single family, zero lot line and attached single family development at a density of three dwelling units per acre is consistent with the future land use element. The executive summary you were provided goes into detail with respect to the consistency analysis relative to applicable policies of the future land use element. If you have questions about that consistency analysis, I would be happy to answer them for you without re-hashing the details of those. But I would prefer to say at this point that the petition is consistent with the various applicable policies of the FLUE. Staff's consistency analysis also involves a compatibility analysis. And I think that you will find that the pro]ect's proposed density of three units per acre and dwelling unit types are compatible and indigenous to the surrounding area, specifically noting that the Willoughby Acres subdivision to the south is zoned RSF-3 and developed with single family residential development. That is the same with the abutting subdivisions to the southwest, west and nearby developments to the east. Therefore it is staff's opinion that the proposed development with the project -- within the project is compatible to surrounding development. Now I would like to touch on a little summary of the Page 107 November 28, 2000 environmental impacts and water management. There is an existing slough that runs through the site in a northeast to southwest direction. And on this plan you'll see, it's the stippled area that runs that way. The slough is a vital part of the North Naples drainage network. Construction along the slough is closely monitored and watched by Department of Environmental Protection and Corps. of Engineers. The slough continues southwest through Palm River to the Cocohatchee site and offsite discharges to the slough. Approximately 50.99 acres, or 62 percent of the total 81.77 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on this site will be impacted by this project. The petitioner is currently going through the wetland permitting process with the Army Corps and South Florida Water Management District. That number could be more or less depending on the outcome of that permitting process. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sue, can I interrupt you again, just to make sure I heard that correctly. The amount of wetlands that would be impacted by this -- could you state that for me again, please? MS. MURRAY: Certainly. There are a total of 81.77 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on site. Sixty-two percent, or 50.99 acres, will be impacted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' That -- that's -- and that was basically the reason the Environmental Advisory Council recommended against this project. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because that's -- it's pretty shocking, frankly, that that's allowable. MS. MURRAY: I do need to state that the Environmental Advisory Council was not able to forward a recommendation. They had voted on a recommendation for denial and the vote came out 4 to 1. And they are required to have 5 votes to forward a recommendation to you. Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands proposed by the petitioner include exotic vegetation removal and hydroperiod enhancement within the slough. Off-site mitigation is also proposed. Objective 6.2 to the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' I'm sorry. What kind of-- do we Page 108 November 28, 2000 know yet what percentage, what kind of offsite mitigation -- MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand they will have to clear out the vegetation and improve the flow way in the slough. But outside, off-site mitigation, what ratio are they going to have to mitigate? MS. MURRAY: Well, some of the -- the petitioner will probably be better able to answer that, but I will just tell you that some of the mitigation will involve replanting at certain -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Within the slough? MS. MURRAY: Within the slough. The mitigation will also involve the removal of melaleuca and exotics. The mitigation also involves the purchase of off-site wetland impact credits in the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's what I was curious about, is at what ratio of acres -- I know it's not done that way when it's in mitigation banking, so it makes it all the more confusing. MS. MURRAY: Yeah. There is a formula that was developed by South Florida Water Management District which develops the ratio, the answer that you're seeking. But I don't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they'll tell us that. MS. MURRAY: They will tell you that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Objective 6.2 of the Coastal and Conservation Management Element states there shall be no unacceptable net loss of viable naturally functioning marine and freshwater wetlands. The county presently does not maintain a wetland permitting function. The Board of County Commissioners has historically chosen to allow permitting for wetland destruction and degradation through federal and state permitting agencies consistent with their requirements. Consistent with policy 6.3.4 of the Coastal and Conservation Element the county relies on state statutes to delineate wetlands through the county. Policy 6.2.9 states that wetlands, including transitional wetlands, shall be defined pursuant the current definitions of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Additionally Policy 6.4.2 of the Coastal and Conservation Element allows for flexibility in the form of area trade-offs or Page t09 November 28, 2000 mitigation allowed in the determination areas within developments to be preserved. Consistent with those policies the petitioner plans to impact -- again, like I said -- 62 percent of jurisdictional wetlands and is attempting to preserve those wetlands which should have the highest potential for restoration, including the majority of the central slough. Mitigation proposed, as I mentioned, exotic vegetation removal, hydroperiod enhancement, and off-site mitigation. I understand that the petitioner has purchased 29 credits in the Panther Island Mitigation Bank, which was calculated by the procedure and formula developed by the South Florida Management District. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Have they got their South Florida -- their district permit yet? MS. MURRAY: They are in the application process. I did include a number of comments in your packet from their preliminary review. As of this morning I received a second letter, which was dated, I believe, September 29th. I have copies of that if you would like. My apologies for giving it to you at the last minute but I did not receive it until this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to see it. MS. MURRAY: I'll have somebody hand that out to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Susan, I have another question on environmental issues, but I don't want to interrupt your very well thought out presentation. MS. MURRAY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So tell me when is a good time. MS. MURRAY: While he's handing that out I'll say that, in accordance with the Land Development Code regulations, 31.70 acres of native vegetation preservation has been determined to be required within this PUD. And that is a minimum requirement. And the applicant does meet that requirement. Fourteen gopher tortoise burrows were found in a survey conducted at 50 percent to 70 percent visual coverage. This indicates that a maximum of 28 burrows may exist on site. The estimated tortoise population is ten individuals. Uplands targeted for preservation on the project site may be used for the relocation of gopher tortoises. Now I need to discuss a little bit about stormwater. The water management system for this project consists of a series of Page 110 November 28, 2000 retention, detention areas and lakes, some interconnected, that provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during rainfall events. Those areas are indicated here on your master plan, the cross-hatched area. Before construction can begin the project will be required to be permitted through the South Florida Management District and Army Corps of Engineers. Staff has also imposed additional stipulations which require that prior to the issuance of construction permits, the petitioner shall submit detailed field topographic studies which shall conclude that there will be no significant adverse impacts on surrounding properties caused by the installation of the proposed control structure with overflow weir and filling within the historic low-lying wetlands slough. If you have questions about that, I have staff here with me to help you answer those questions as well. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman, if I may. How are we going to make sure that there's not going to be a negative impact on the neighborhoods with the onsite retention of water, that it's not going to flood the neighborhood? MS. MURRAY: I will tell you, and again a good question to ask of the petitioner because they will be able to go into the detail of how they do that. We rely on the permitting agency, South Florida Water Management District, as well as this additional stipulation which says that they need to provide additional studies to us to ensure that that is not going to be the case prior to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let's say that everything looks okay but it just doesn't work, the plan just doesn't work and there is a lot of substantial problems with neighboring communities, what kind of legal ramifications would that cause trying to correct that problem? MS. MURRAY: That's probably not the best question to ask me. It might be more directed towards the attorney, but I guess what I'm trying to do is reassure you that all of this modeling and everything is done through the permitting agencies and with the review and approval of the permitting agencies and, to some extent, with our own staff. I could tell you, building permits would not be issued prior to the applicant receiving the appropriate permits from the water management district and the appropriate okay from our staff to move forward. Page 111 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: Sure. MR. MULHERE: With that in -- Bob Mulhere, planning director. In response to your question, our engineering staff will also review, as well as the Water Management District, the water management plans. And if those designs on paper demonstrate that they will adequately handle stormwater management, then the next step is to construct it in full accordance with those plans. And we're involved in that inspection process, so we go out and inspect the water management system and construction process to ensure that it has been constructed consistent with the plans. If they don't do that and it doesn't work, then we do have recourse. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. If it doesn"t work, if we put a stamp on the plans and it doesn't work, we could still -- there still is recourse? MR. MULHERE: Correct. MR. HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they didn't build in accordance with the plans. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. If they build in accordance with the plans, according to the engineering of the Water Management District, then it will work to control stormwater and manage stormwater on their property and discharge it appropriately. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Frankly, if it didn't work after it was certified by an engineer, somebody would have a cause of action against that engineer for malpractice. I don't know if it would be Collier County or the people who live there, but that engineer better get it right. That's why he gets the big bucks. MS. MURRAY: That's a good point. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Just as a side comment or question to be raised, for Majestic Pines we did go through that whole drill and we blew it and we had to go back in there and re-do some of those things. That is a concern for me and a question I would raise is, how we will protect the surrounding communities and not have a repeat of what happened at Majestic Pines. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, Commissioner Carter, Page 112 November 28, 2000 thank you. Who ended up paying for that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Was that the county? CHAIRMAN CARTER: I believe some of that became our responsibility, that we had to redo it. If I remember correctly, we had to do it at our expense because we had failed in the process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who is our -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: Commissioners, Stan Chrzanowski with engineering review services. When these projects have been designed, generally now -- they used to be designed by hand about fifteen years ago but now everybody uses computer programs, and most people think that machines do a better job of computing because they don't make mistakes. I think we've seen that lately. (Laughter.) MR. CHRZANOWSKI: So we have to trust what the computer says. And if the computer says that it's not going to flood, that is based on the data that they put into the computer program. Projects are designed for generally a 25-year, 3-day storm when it comes down to the road elevation. And a 100-year, zero discharge storm for building elevations. A 25-year, 3-day storm is around like a 9-inch storm. I have personally seen a storm drop that amount of water in Golden Gate City overnight. A storm like that will overflow the system and it will cause back-up and you'll get some flooding. I have seen a similar storm right after we installed the drainage system -- and Jack Plenar (phonetic) will vouch for that -- right after we installed the drainage in Willoughby Acres, we had a 9-inch storm over the span of, I would say, a day. And it caused the system to back up. The hard part will be, when the system backs up, if you didn't have a rain gauge there, you won't know that the system was designed improperly because this storm will back the system up if it's over the design storm. If the system is designed according to the proper criteria and put through the computer program that everybody uses, and the district has their own programs that they check it with, it should work. Any questions? COMMISSIONER FIALA: One little question, and I don't know if this will have any bearing on it at all. But when we were Page 113 November 28, 2000 talking about impacting the slough a little bit, would that mean that the sheet flow then might also become a problem if the stormwater management -- MR. CHRZANOWSKI: When you're talking about the slough, you might consider the slough to be like a river. If you build on the bank of a river and you don't put a whole lot of impervious area in there, you're not going to shed a lot of water into the river. You're not going to cause the river to rise up a lot, but rivers have what they call a flood plain on both sides. Now, there's -- according to FEMA, there's no flood plains in Collier County. But I would consider that area a flood plain. As the river rises up, it tends to flood out over the banks. If you use up a lot of the flood plain with development, it forces the river higher, in this case the slough. The developer is still going through a lot of discussions with the water management district and we have not been part of those discussions. We never are, right until the end. The district has a much bigger staff than we do, much better computers, much better software, and they get paid a lot more for permitting. A lot more. They do a good job, too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, thorough. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner Mac'kie, as you mentioned, the EAC's main concern in discussion was focused around the petitioner's plan to impact the wetlands, so I won't go back over that. And you are aware of their vote. Okay. Now onto traffic. As I mentioned previously, approximately a hundred acres of the proposed project is already zoned to permit single family residential development at a density of 3 units per acre. Since the petitioner is requesting a rezoning to 3 dwelling units per acre for single family use over the total 145.37 acres, any traffic generated by development on the 100 acres of the site, which is already zoned to permit similar development, is typically not considered as an increase in impact to the county's road network as a result of this rezoning request -- pardon me, as a result of this rezoning request. That is because the property is already eligible for development today. Therefore, for growth management plan consistency analysis purposes, it is only necessary to analyze the additional traffic that will be generated as a result of the rezoning of the 45.37 acres of this site which is currently zoned rural agricultural. Page 114 November 28, 2000 With that in mind, the ITE trip generation manual indicates that the total traffic for the 45.37 acre site will generate 1,318 average weekday trips with approximately 138 trips in the PM peak hour. The subject site's generated traffic will not exceed the significance test standard which is 5 percent of the LOS "D" design volume on Livingston Road after trip adjustments and assignments are made. In addition, once this road segment is constructed, the project trips will not lower the level of service below this road's adopted LOS "D" standard. Furthermore, the site-generated trips will not exceed the significance test standard of any segment of Immokalee Road, therefore the project is consistent with policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the transportation element. I did want to point out for your information that the total traffic for the 145.37 acre site is approximately 4,192 average weekday trips. And a consistency analysis was also run with that figure and the project was also confirmed to be consistent with the applicable policies in the growth management plan transportation element with regard to traffic at that level. Next I would like to touch on policy 9.3 of the transportation element relative to transportation interconnection between projects. But before I get into a discussion regarding the transportation interconnection issue, I would really like to describe a little of the history of this petition because I think it's important that you understand a little bit of why this petition's been in our possession for so long. When the petition was originally submitted the petitioner's application indicated that the southern boundary of the site abutted the northern terminus of Euclid Avenue. This was the outline of the original site boundaries that were submitted, and you'll notice that this is the northern terminus of Euclid Avenue, and the southern property boundary in this area abuts the northern terminus of Euclid Avenue. The petition in that form was brought before the Collier County Planning Commission for consideration on August 18th. It was staff's understanding that, after the Planning Commission meeting and just prior to the originally scheduled Board of County Commissioners hearing date, it was discovered by the petitioner that two commissioners had potential conflicts of Page 115 November 28, 2000 interest and were, in all likelihood, planning to conflict out of the discussion and subsequent voting on the petition. It was staff's understanding that this conflict stemmed from the potential for the project to have a transportation interconnect with Euclid Avenue, which would likely result in traffic impacts within the Willoughby Acres neighborhood. Apparently two of the commissioners had interests in that neighborhood which were deemed by the county attorney's office to give the appearances of a conflict. In order for the board to take action on this petition, four commissioners are required to be eligible to vote. In order to approve this petition, four commissioners are required to vote in the affirmative for the petition. Because two commissioners were, in all likelihood, planning to conflict out, the petitioner was unable to obtain the necessary votes relative to project approval. I do want to point out that this requirement is a statutory requirement as well, and this issue did surface in September. Subsequently, as a result of the conflict issue and in an attempt to be heard under the previous commission, the petitioner revised this rezoning application to remove approximately 20,000 square feet of property. That 20,000 square feet was found at the northern terminus of Euclid Avenue. And you can see, it's this rectangular portion that's now excepted out. As staff understands, this was done in order to eliminate or reduce the likelihood of conflict among board members by, in effect, reducing the project's ability to physically connect with Euclid Avenue. Specifically that property was the rectangular piece that I pointed out, and it abutted at that -- at the original submittal it abutted the northern terminus of Euclid Avenue. At the time of the revision the petitioner also added a secondary access point, which is this access point here to the north. That was also added. It was the petitioner's opinion that the addition of the secondary entrance and the elimination of the project's direct abutment to Euclid Avenue would allow the project to move forward in front of the Board of County Commissioners without the conflict of interest issues related to the Euclid Avenue. The planning department staff did not share the same opinion that the elimination of the property from rezoning Page 116 November 28, 2000 consideration negated staff's responsibility to address the interconnection issue between the projects as required by the growth management plan, and, in fact, after careful consideration, moved to ensure that it was clear that it was the desire of staff to have a public road network in the area through the subject site linking with public roads within the Willoughby Acres subdivision and continuing north. More specifically, it is staff's desire to continue the public but local road network that has been historically established through the subdivision and development of land from Immokalee Road northward along Euclid and Lakeland Avenues, through the subject site, and continuing north to a point at which it intersected somewhere along the future east/west leg of Livingston Road. Let me back up a little bit and tell you a little bit about what has historically happened in the development of the Willoughby Acres subdivision. It has historically occurred, several blocks at a time, through the subdivision of property and the extension of public streets northward from Immokalee Road -- in all likelihood the extension of the subdivision beyond its current boundary at the northern terminus of Euclid Avenue was terminated due to significant environmental constraints and costs associated with development further north, and that would be specifically the subject site. Although these constraints and costs exist today, historically what you are seeing is a rise in property values and housing costs to offset the costs of various mitigation programs which exist today relative to environmental concerns. One of the most notable features of the existing Willoughby Acres subdivision is the manner in which the local road network was laid out. The subdivision is laid out in a manner in which all traffic that wishes to enter or exit the subdivision is funneled onto two major north/south spine roads. Those spine roads are Euclid and Lakeland Avenue, both of which are comprised of a 60 foot wide right of way with a separated sidewalk on one side of the street. Approximately nine side roads within this subdivision feed into those spine roads with almost all of the driveway cuts leading to residences located on the side roads, not the spine roads. There are only approximately three driveways along Euclid and Lakeland Avenue. This type of design encourages residential activity on side Page 117 November 28, 2000 roads where driving speeds are typically slower and users of the side roads are limited, that is, they are typically residents of that specific street. It directs residential levels of activity off of Euclid and Lakeland Avenue, thereby allowing Euclid and Lakeland Avenue simply to serve to collect local traffic traveling at higher speeds and greater volumes where pedestrian activity is lower and driveway cuts are virtually nonexistent. In summary, this is the subdivision which has developed historically to the north by extending an existing public road to a point at which it has stopped at the southern boundary of the subject site, largely due to environmental concerns. Euclid and Lakeland Avenues are roads which have been developed to function in a manner exactly as they function today, by collecting and providing access to higher volumes of traffic at higher speeds from the side streets rather than allowing the traffic onto side streets where higher levels of residential activity exist and where the possibility of pedestrian vehicular conflicts is increased. This is literally a street scenario and a local traffic circulation pattern that exists nowhere else in the county. This is a perfect condition (sic) of how a collector, minor collector roadway system should function. This does not exist in Naples Park and it does not exist in areas commonly known as Golden Gate City. Relative to Policy 9.3 of the transportation element, that policy states that the county shall encourage the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate a convenient movement of-- throughout the local road network unless such action will promote through traffic. Although the subject site does not directly abut existing public roads to the south, the Board of County Commissioners should consider requiring an interconnection between the subject site and neighboring properties to the south and north. Staff feels interconnection through the subject site on public roads will facilitate traffic movement through the subject site and the abutting projects which is consistent with policy 9.3 of the transportation element and is consistent with the board's recent policy direction to require interconnection between projects. Both the intent of the policy directive and the growth management policy is to limit the impacts and reduce traffic on Page 118 November 28, 2000 the county's arterial -- arterial and collector roadway network. An interconnection to the south and north -- and when I say south and north, I mean south at Euclid and north at the northern boundary of the subject site where they have indicated that they will have an entrance -- will facilitate traffic movement on local roads between the subject site, Willoughby Acres subdivision and properties to the north but will not necessarily promote through traffic. This will result in a secondary road system which primarily serves residents of the subject site and the existing Willoughby Acres and surrounding subdivisions which equate, at this point, if this project was built out, to over 1,250 dwelling units, and will reduce traffic impacts to segments of Livingston Road and Immokalee Road, provided the project is developed with public roads. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Susan, may I ask a question? MS. MURRAY: Certainly. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I really don't like to interrupt you, but I need to ask this question. There are two possibilities for interconnecting on the south. That would be Euclid and Lakeland. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have not heard -- and maybe I missed that -- where you would propose that both of those roads be interconnected into the proposed site. The proposed site is a gated community, therefore my question would be, how -- how would this really promote interconnectivity if we're putting a gated community in the middle of all of this? And otherwise my question would really be, if this proposed project was not a gated community, would we therefore truly be promoting interconnectivity through this proposed site in the future, versus blocking an area with only access in and out of the proposed community but not assisting the rest of the already developed areas? MS. MURRAY: Yes, Commissioner. Your observation is along the same lines of planning staff's thinking. And that is that -- first of all, let me point out that we are not opposed to the idea of an interconnection at Lakeland or Euclid Avenue. I mean, we are recommending Euclid Avenue for various reasons. Specifically, there is an unrecorded subdivision at the northern terminus of Lakeland Avenue that's commonly known as Page 119 November 28, 2000 Armadillo Estates. There is a private access easement from the northern terminus of Lakeland north through the subject property that provides access to property owners off of that easement. CHAIRMAN CARTER: But if we were looking at the purest of interconnectivity -- MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- we would look at both of those coming down to a funnel cloud (sic) along Immokalee, which has already been blocked before it can get to Livingston because of another development in there and, for safety considerations, we could continue that. So we've already built in some difficulties from the past. MS. MURRAY: That's -- if I understand the point you're trying to make is that, by gating this community you effectively cut off the ability to establish a local roadway network from the east/west leg of Livingston Road through to Immokalee Road. That is correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's -- that's right. And also, if we get to the bottom along Immokalee Road we do have a frontage road but it is stopped because we cannot get by one development. As we go up by the Strand, we have determined, I believe, in past meetings that there was a safety problem -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- continuing that and making the turn -- if I'm right, Commissioner Mac'kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So we have historically shot ourselves in the foot through some of the things we have attempted to do. And now we're trying to, I guess, retrofit a concept into a community that's -- where, whether it works or not works, that's a discussion by this board, but also the interconnection to the north of that and also we're dropping a gated community into the middle of all this. If I'm on track with all that -- MS. MURRAY: I think you are. If you're implying that there is no way to connect to Immokalee Road, I don't think that's the case. Is that what I heard? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, we would only have one connection and that's coming off of Euclid into that intersection. MS. MURRAY: Euclid and Lakeland. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Lakeland does not give us a chance to Page120 November 28, 2000 get across the canal. MS. MURRAY: To Immokalee, correct. Correct. That is correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So it comes down the road to nowhere. MS. MURRAY: You have Euclid and then you could travel further west on that frontage road and to the lighted intersection of Airport and Immokalee. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. And you would have to turn and come back because you cannot go east because we run into difficulties. MS. MURRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. MS. MURRAY: The PUD master plan shows a connection between the subject site -- let me take my focus off of the southern boundary and shift up to the northern boundary because there's issues there that we've hashed out that you need to be aware of. The PUD master plan, as I pointed out, was showing an entrance and exit point off the northern boundary which at this point basically leads to nowhere. There's no existing right of way here. There is, however, an easement, 60-foot wide easement, that runs across the northern boundary of this property in an easterly and westerly direction as well. What we kind of want to point out here in support is that Imperial Golf Course Estates to the west has one point of ingress and egress, that being to U.S. 41. And if you've ever been in that development, it probably takes fifteen to twenty minutes to get to the furthest eastern point of that project, which, from a public safety standpoint, is not a good design. We try to encourage all of our PUDs to have two points of ingress and egress, even if they are gated communities, for safety considerations as well as traffic circulation considerations. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So if I'm following this, it's proposed that we establish an exit out of there which would then take us east to come across over to Livingston? MS. MURRAY: That's correct, or some other means of providing access. If it's not directly to Livingston, perhaps some other northerly road that traverses the properties to the north. I don't think I need to touch on that issue. We've crafted Page 121 November 28, 2000 stipulations in the staff report that are requiring the petitioner to dedicate 30 feet along the northern boundary to facilitate that type of interconnection, and I'll leave it at that. You know, I think I'm wrapping it up. I'm getting cotton mouth, so maybe that's a good sign. (Laughter.) MS. MURRAY: No, I'm not. In summary, staff believes that the rezoning request for single family and residential -- I'm sorry. Let me back up for one quick second because I've -- there is another issue that, as of this morning, was unresolved and that has to do with our parks and recreation department. And there are stipulations in the report that pertain to this. Just prior to the Planning Commission hearing it was discovered that the parks and recreation department needed a neighborhood park in this area at a minimum size of one acre. And it was requested of the petitioner that they dedicate this land for use of the residents in the Willoughby area as well as use of property owners -- future property owners of the subject site. The needs of the parks and recreation department are that the site be accessible to the public via sidewalks. This is not a vehicular access park. The petitioner is proposing a half-acre site here. We had a meeting with them last week and they did agree to provide at least a minimum of one acre, however, the issue that is unresolved as of today is how to access the site. This location is north of the northern terminus of Lakeland Avenue and, as I pointed out to you, the unrecorded subdivision and private access easement that exist there will make it very difficult for people -- the general public to access that park because that access -- that easement limits access to property owners of that subdivision. So I wanted to point out that is still an unresolved issue that perhaps the petitioner will be able to address in their presentation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So it's a park without access? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's not -- it's useless. Either, you know, let's talk about a useful -- this is a real good idea and I hope this board -- I wish I had watched for it and then didn't. But, you know, we need to be asking for these at least minimum one-acre dedications of parks in these big PUDs that come in like Page 122 November 28, 2000 this, but it's not meaningful if nobody can get to it. So, thank you, but, you know, we've got to do better than that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Or we have to address being able to get to it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. But this project has a lot of problems. I mean, that's a small one, in my mind. MS. MURRAY: Let me sum up that our recommendation is that we do feel that a rezoning request for single family residential at a gross density of 3 dwellings an acre is consistent with applicable elements of the growth management plan, with the exception of Policy 9.3 of the transportation element, which deals with interconnect. I did promise the petitioner I would put on the record that your staff report indicated that they had ownership of this 20,000 area foot piece of property that was excepted out. They do not. It's unfortunate, at one time they at least had some sort of control over the property, that they could request a rezoning on that, but apparently that's not the case any more. Unfortunately that doesn't allow us to exact the necessary property to make that interconnection at that point, which would lead you -- you understand if you wish to make that interconnection, it would likely have to occur through condemnation proceedings. I'll leave it at that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did they -- did they own it at one time? MS. MURRAY: I don't believe so. That's not what they indicated to me. You do not need to own property in order to request a rezoning, but if you have it under contract -- a lot of properties come in under contract for deed subsequent -- or to a rezoning or request approval, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, you know, that's a potential to really undermine the county's effort to require interconnection of neighborhoods, if you just contract for everything but one little piece so that you don't own what's necessary for the interconnection. I'm not suggesting you guys did that, but we want to watch for that and be sure that doesn't happen in the future. MS. MURRAY: I'll let the petitioner address that ownership issue with you. But they do not own the property and I did Page 123 November 28, 2000 indicate that I would indicate that as such on the record. With that, we have a number of stipulations that we have crafted and you will find in your executive summary. And I have a number of staff here that are willing to answer questions. And at this point I was asked to turn the presentation over to Norm Feder and Don Wolfe who have some commentary on the transportation issues. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Susan, before he comes to the microphone, just a question on my part. On the September 21 communication back to Mr. Hedrich, there were some 29 issues that -- MS. MURRAY: From the South Florida Water Management District? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Right. Who will answer that, the petitioner or you? MS. MURRAY: The petitioner. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm just going to say, too, because I'm being critical, I want to be fair, that that letter and the one that's in our packet, that doesn't mean much about whether or not this is an environmentally shocking project. That's just part of a process that you go through. I mean, having been in that in my former life, that's just part of a process, to get those big thick letters from the agencies. It doesn't really mean like there is a red flag waving here. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm not suggesting there is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRMAN CARTER: But I would like to see what the responses were to those. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MS. MURRAY: Typically I know you-all have asked for them in the past and then there was a number of them, so I just wanted to go ahead and give you the most recent copy that we had. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder, transportation administrator. I'm going to be extremely brief. You have had a long day already. But I did want to point out something before I have Don Wolfe, your transportation planning director, speak to some specific issues on this project. I wanted to point out a broader Page 124 November 28, 2000 issue that's going to be brought to you repeatedly, I think, by many different forces over time. In particular I know by myself and my division, to raise the concern that what we're facing in this county as we seek to develop and expand the arterial system, is a constant process of direct connection by local roads and basically a lack of a collector system that needs to complement that arterial expansion. And here you're faced with -- with pretty much an iljustration of just that, the concept of a gated community with essentially its access solely off of a future arterial and not a controlled access arterial as the only way that it's going to secure access. If we are to have the arterial system that we're to expand right now function, we need to encourage that access not be off the arterial but rather whether it be for a gated community. And there will be more in the future, whether it be for retail and commercial, that it be off of a collector road system that is either developed, enhanced or newly built as part of that development, or else we will not have the development of that arterial system basically function in the future and we will not have the development of that collector road system if we continue allowing access directly to the arterial system. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I ask you a question, Norm? I absolutely endorse every word you just said. I know it's critical and I know it's going to be really difficult for us as we face -- you know, these are going to be the toughest questions this new board is going to face, are the ones you just described. MR. FEDER.' Very good. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do we address those? What -- what traffic planning opportunities -- what's the answer to the neighborhoods through which we seek to drive? I mean, how do we address -- they've got a 60-foot right of way, an old road not designed for this purpose, we need to interconnect through there. What do we do? We can't just put a thousand cars on their road and tell them to suck it up. MR. FEDER: First of all, you've got a couple things you'll have to do and in some cases we're going to maybe have to come in and retrofit. The first thing I was relating to is, as we have new development come in, we need to encourage them. Even that east/west that was noted that maybe doesn't lead that far today -- Page125 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's somewhere. MR. FEDER: -- that segment needs to be developed. We cannot lose any opportunity as that process goes. To the issue -- particularly if you're saying Euclid today, that is, while only 60 feet wide -- which I would rather see greater, but it is a minor arterial and is a classic of a minor arterial in that you do not have, other than very minor driveways on it -- I think there was three -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. MR. FEDER: -- any direct access off of it to the residential. Now, I'm not encouraging that it become an arterial. Please understand, but -- major arterial, but that is the classic, if we have it anywhere, and not many places do we even have that. So we need to try and respond to it. I keep hearing -- and I know your point is well taken. I'm going out to meetings right now where the community tells me there is no such thing as a collector road in their neighborhood. They want me to close off both ends. And the question I'm going to ask, generally, to those communities when they say that the only traffic that ought to be there is the traffic that accesses driveways within that neighborhood, is, whether or not I do close off those ends and if they are going to operate and maintain those private roads, because that's what they're asking for, a private road system. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But even that -- even that, good Lord, I mean, that's Foxfire. You know, we don't want to offer them that. We don't want to do that. We want to -- what I'm asking you for is what is a creative way? How do we provide a solution for these roads that weren't designed -- and I'm not suggesting you have the answer today either. MR. FEDER: No. I'm saying we need to identify that basic grid, develop it as it comes forward. And the ones we identify that we have to do some retrofit, we may have to come in and pay the dollars to go forward and retrofit and create the situation that allows them to function as that secondary system that's needed to complement the primary system. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think, along those lines, if we re-look at the road, which is like a bowling alley with maybe one stop sign in it, it becomes a race track and you get school buses on there and you get pedestrians and it's just a disaster waiting to happen. And we need to find a way for traffic calming or a Page 126 November 28, 2000 roundabout -- I don't know what -- I'm not saying what is right, but we must find a way to calm that. And there may be even a question about how we measure the traffic on these roads where people see the little snakes across the road and they say, oh, slow down. But if they didn't see that, they are pedal to the metal and right down that road. So my-- MR. FEDER: Yeah. We've got education enforcement -- education enforcement as well as engineering and engineering applications as well. I will note that, if we go too far in the traffic calming, we've removed its opportunity in that secondary road and it becomes a local road again. So that's the balance we've got to see. But I agree. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, you've -- is that a sidewalk roadway? MR. FEDER: No. It is not today, to my knowledge. Is it? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, it's not. MR. FEDER: No, it is not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One side? CHAIRMAN CARTER: One side. Part of one side. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of one side? MR. FEDER: One side. MS. MURRAY: Yes. Euclid Avenue has a sidewalk on the east side. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We will take a quick break so you can switch machines and then we will hear from the rest of the transportation department. (Brief recess.} COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll call the meeting back to order. If you can take your seats, please, and be quiet, we'll get on -- back on the record. Yes, ma'am. MS. WOLFF: Good afternoon, commissioners. For the record, my name is Dawn Wolff. I'm the transportation planning director. Please excuse my voice. I'm still trying to get over a cold. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. MS. WOLFF: Last week I met with development community -- community development staff, as well as the applicant in regards to the transportation situation, and the internal axis. From the transportation department's perspective, we did indicate to them that our position was to see a public road to Page 127 November 28, 2000 Euclid, connecting through the property, connecting with Euclid over to Livingston Road, currently a two-lane facility to be expanded to a six-lane facility from Immokalee Road up to the east/west Livingston extension. The applicant at that time said that they were not conducive to doing anything other than a gated community. We indicated at that time that we would stand behind the comprehensive plan policy requiring interconnect, as well as the policy position that the board has taken recently, as well as efforts from both the planning department side and transportation department side in strengthening our transportation network, including the arterial system in evaluating the interconnectivity applications that we have available to us. This is as Mr. Feder indicated and as well as Susan's indicated that this is one of the few opportunities we have of utilizing an existing minor collector and making a connection. Although it may appear at face value to be creating the opportunity for all of the trips to be accessing Immokalee Road versus via Euclid, it is also opening up an opportunity under a local road system for those trips in the Willoughby subdivision wanting to head north to have the option of going either to 41 or to using Livingston and moving -- moving to the north extension. You are, therefore, moving traffic in both directions versus in normal A.M. and P.M. where it's more directionally related. So in some ways you're gaining a certain amount of capacity on a road and splitting up which way your traffic is going. Willoughby is a much -- in that area of Willoughby, Euclid and Lakeland you have over 1,200 possible residential units. We're talking over 400 in the Madeira PUD. When you balance those numbers out, adding how you can redistribute the traffic through that area, you can have a net gain in capacity on that road. But the road can also be developed in such a manner that is conducive for the individuals who live between the two subdivision areas, but not conducive for through movements. As they are showing their alignments through there, that alignment could still be utilized as it is a meandering alignment. And they do show a certain degree of -- more of a circular or a roundabout type facility on the Madeira property. That is not conducive to through movement traffic. But it is conducive to make the Page 128 November 28, 2000 opportunity available for those who live in the northern side of Willoughby Acres who want to go north to go north, or those who live in the southwestern area of Madeira, to take that access south and go south towards Immokalee and then south into Naples versus congesting everything out onto single points and thus increasing left turning conflicts rather than reducing them. From that perspective we continue to endorse the fact that these should be public roads as the primary access through this point and that being the connection point over to Livingston Road, as well as pursuing a connection south to Euclid. CHAIRMAN CARTER: How many speakers do we have on this issue here? Well, we have to hear from the petitioner. I think it's time to hear from the petitioner. MR. SALVATORI: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Leo Salvatori. I'm a partner with the law firm of Quarles and Brady. We are counsel for the petitioner, Meridian Land Company. I have with me today Tim Hancock, who's the land planner for the project. Tim, as you know, is a former county commissioner, but his two-year exclusion from lobbying the commission has ended as of about 10 days or so ago. And he's now able to make a petition to you, and he will be later on today. Also with him I have Brad Hedrich and Shawn Weeks from Hedrich Engineering who are the engineers for the project. They will be able to testify as to the drainage issues and some of the environmental issues that we've heard about. In short, the project is fairly simple with a number of issues that need to be discussed. It is looking at a project for three units per acre, single-family. It's really patterned after the Crossings or the Monterey. They're looking for a single-family community that would be compatible with the balance of the development surrounding this project, which is also single-family. They have the ability, of course, to come in at four units per acre. And indeed if we were to have a public road running through this project as it's been suggested, we'd actually be entitled to build a project of five units per acre. So during the course of this discussion, I don't want anybody to be lost with the irony that we are a project that has less density than we could get, because there's a public road there. And further to looking to not have traffic going through a single-family community that I'm told does not want it. Page 129 November 28, 2000 So we have a developer that wants less density and less traffic. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I was just going to say that for the benefit of the new members, that you would have the right to apply for up to five. MR. SALVATORI.' I agree with that, Commissioner. I know that. But it does -- it smacks with irony, that I don't want it to be lost on anybody that we have here today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. MR. SALVATORI.' During the course of this process we have met with a number of residential associations, Imperial, for example, had concerns with regard to landscaping buffer and we've reached an agreement with them. We have met with residents of the Willoughby Association, made a presentation to them. They were almost all uniformly concerned about through traffic coming through there community. Just from the voices I heard in the rear, I presume there were quite a few residents here from Willoughby that may want to speak, or if they wish to save some time, if they wish to stand here today to let their presence be known, I'd be happy to let them stand and let you know that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are these people who are here from Willoughby in support of your application? MR. SALVATORI: I don't know that. But what I can tell you is this, when we met with the Willoughby Association I didn't find anybody there that was enthused at all about the possibility of interconnection, because they didn't want a lot of traffic going through the streets for all of the reasons that you have seen and are familiar with. That is a fairly thin road. I personally, I'm not a land planner, but I didn't think it was really designed for that purpose and some of these issues can be addressed in ways that can save them the problems without having traffic going through their community that help promote interconnectivity. I would also add that your policy 9.3 has two factors there that we take issue with with the staff. One in terms of promotes interconnectivity, well, we have done that. We are not denying interconnectivity. We do have interconnectivity along the northerly border. We have done that. The staff has taken a very strict interpretation claiming that interconnectivity meant Page 130 November 28, 2000 everywhere. It doesn't say that. That's just a position that we may disagree with them on, and that's something that the commission may need to resolve at some point in time. Also 9.3 also provides that interconnectivity may be a good idea so long as it does not promote -- let me use the right words here -- through traffic. And, again, I'm not a land planner. I have great respect for Mr. Feder and his staff. But looking at the map it strikes me that this would promote through traffic through Willoughby, because you're going to end up with not only residents from the Madeira project but also properties to the north going through Willoughby to access Immokalee Road where it ends. And I question a lot whether this is a good idea. Because my understanding is that Livingston Road, once built out, has a level of service A designation. The best level of service you can get, not only for when it's built, but also from now through the year 2020. So I don't know why we're trying to relieve congestion on a road that has 20 years of level A service available, if my understanding is correct as to the level of service that's available. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, Leo, that's because 20 years ago there was a board who said the same thing, and didn't do it for Immokalee Road. And we're trying not to repeat those mistakes. MR. SALVATORI: You know, I can appreciate that, but, I guess, if this was a newer subdivision to the south of us that maybe this was designed for this, had been contemplated at the time, I'd be more sympathetic to that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's my -- that's the chair's MR. SALVATORI: I know. Just personally, I don't -- obviously, professionally my client does not think it's a good idea at all and the land planners can speak to that personally. I've lived here 30 some odd years, I don't think it's a good idea either. I'd hate to have those cars going through my neighborhood, that's a family community. It just is. It may not be the best place for that. This petition has had a fairly long history because of the conflicts involved. But a couple things I do want to bring out Page 131 November 28, 2000 before Mr. Hancock assumes the podium. First, when we went before the environmental advisory board, we did have a staff recommendation of approval. We did not get an official recommendation because of the lack of a quorum. However, there were two reasons that were generally advanced when the discussions took place that they did not like the project. One was that they felt that too many wetlands would be impacted. However, I believe you're going to find when the testimony begins from Mr. Hancock, from Mr. Hedrich that it looks like the amount of wetlands we're going to be impacting actually is reduced by about 45 acres, as the result of additional studies and soil tests that have been done. So the amount of property that is subject to the wetlands impact has been significantly reduced. Secondly, one of the members on the environmentally-- excuse me, environmental advisory board, need more caffeine, philosophically did not like wetlands thinking. And Susan was correct, the amount of wetlands mitigation banking that we have contracted to purchase is, I believe, 29 credits. However they formulate that, I don't know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is somebody on your team going to know that? MR. SALVATORI: Mr. Hancock probably will. It's fairly expensive, as I recall, the amount of impacts came to close to a million dollars in fees. There is a clause in there which allows it to be reduced if the number of wetlands impacted are reduced. And, of course, we will see that declining as a result. One of the gentlemen on the board, though, philosophically just did not like wetlands mitigation banking. So he was going to vote against it, if there was any project that had wetlands mitigation banking on it. Frankly, that's not fair. Florida statutes allows for it. He's imposing his own philosophy, but so be it. We did go before planning, a closed planning commission. And we did get approval from them I believe on a 6/1 vote as I recall without interconnection at that point in time. There were 18 staff recommendations that were made in the report, I believe 15 of them are just fine without any qualification. One that we -- we didn't have any problem with is we have Page 132 November 28, 2000 an alternative sidewalk plan that we'd like to present, which is a little bit different than the sidewalk plan that the code would impose. Frankly, either one is fine. We just think that our alternative plan is a little bit better. It's not one to actually save money. The alternative plan will actually cost my client more money. But from a planning perspective we think it's better. And we'd like to make that presentment to you. We do disagree with the interconnect issues that arose because we don't think it was appropriate as it relates to connecting with Euclid Avenue to the south. Because of this evolving process, the number of months involved, let me give you a little story about this 20,000 square foot carve out which is actually 1.3 acres. So it's closer to 60,000 feet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are you saying? MR. SALVATORI: The carve out that we heard about. You asked a question and I saw you looking at me. The parcel of property in question was a five acre tract that our client had under contract to purchase. And in the contract the seller had the right to keep some of the property. When the time for closing on that parcel of property came up he wanted to keep 1.3 acres, 1.4 acres of property. And, frankly, in an area that we didn't think that he was entitled to keep it. He insisted on it. In any event this was after the conflict issue arose and it was after the staff had advised us that they would not take the interconnect issue off the agenda. So there was no reason for us to carve it out at that time. So we said you can keep it. Frankly, the only reason we really wanted it was because it would be cheaper for us to buy that property and keep it because it'd be cheaper for us to have it. It's almost all wet. Wetlands mitigation banking wise we'd save a lot of credits if we'd been able to purchase that piece but the only way we could acquire it was to let him keep the 1.3 acre piece. So does your code have the potential to devious plots and such that you're indicating, Pam, sure it does. Were we being devious, no. Was there a general intent to do it initially, yes. When we wanted to go before you and get the conflict issue behind us, and we were going to tell you up front that's what we were doing. Page 133 November 28, 2000 However, it didn't come to that. The second issue was on the park issue. As I think you know, a project of this size does not require the dedication of a community park at all. We don't have an obligation to do that. However, Maria requested and we agreed that we would donate, initially we talked about a half acre to an acre, and then she came back with an acre and we said that would be fine. And we will, in fact, provide an acre. It came up afterwards, after we designated this particular area that it would be a good place to have it. Apparently, the county doesn't have access to it. You know, in all candor that -- I'm not sure if that's our problem. We don't want to provide you with a park that you can't use or can't access. But we have told Maria that we will work with her in one way, shape or form to see if we can work out something. And I presume that'll be worked out in the site development plan of process. But I did want you to know we were made aware of their access problem. We will try to deal with it as we can through the site development plan of process. We're trying to be good neighbors. So with that, unless you have any questions of me right now, I'd like to turn over the microphone to Tim Hancock who will present the plan. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Commissioner Henning. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'd like to know about all the carve outs in the land? MR. SALVATORI: Well, the -- Commissioner Henning, the property involved, I believe, comprises approximately 24 different parcels of property. And I think we've closed on maybe about half of them, and the other half will be involving to close over time. We have a few carve outs. I think the -- looking at Livingston Road, there's a notch that you see against it. If you don't mind, maybe I could walk over and use Susan's podium. It might be better to explain it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There's a mike on the wall, too. MR. SALVATORI: Better? This carve out here, unless I'm wrong, I believe we actually have acquired, is that not correct? We didn't think we were initially going to be able to acquire it. We actually do own this parcel of property. We were able to acquire ownership after the PUD was filed. We don't have any development plan for this particular parcel. So we have not Page 134 November 28, 2000 amended our petition to include it. Because we don't need to. It will be part of our restriction -- restrictive covenants, but it will not be part of this. This particular carve out is owned by a gentleman, Henry Murphy, who, I believe, is in attendance here today, who has access off of Lakeland Boulevard through private easements owned by him. We have attempted to negotiate a purchase with him. Our clients were not able to reach terms. So he will keep his parcel and we will have him landscaped, buffered as well. This particular parcel of property is owned by Dwyer, I believe is their last name. And we have discussed with them putting the landscaper, buffer with them. They are both comfortable with that. I believe they're both teachers. They couldn't be here today. But they have been at other public meetings. I have not seen them here today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And where's their access to their property? MR. SALVATORI: I think they come up through Euclid right now. However-- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they"re going to enter your project -- MR. SALVATORI: No. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- to their property? MR. SALVATORI: No. We have talked with them about -- they are going to relinquish their easement right so we can terminate this easement, in return for which they'll have access through the main drive that goes through the project, which was on another map that Susan had. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that in the document? MR. SALVATORI: I don't believe that's in the PUD document as I recall. But it is in discussions that we've had with them. Part of the reason why you want that, is that -- I don't have the right map up here now, but this is the wetland slough that goes through here. Euclid actually bisects the wetland slough and acts as a dam to the slough. The permitting agencies would have much preferred that road be out to allow the flow of water. Getting rid of Euclid actually promotes drainage and it would alleviate the potential for flooding. Which is, again, one of the ironies that we're promoting here today that the engineers will get into. But this promotes better drainage here. They will have Page 135 November 28, 2000 access through the community in that route. And I believe these other little carve outs just reflect who we're able to buy. One parcel of property our client did want to buy was this parcel here. Because it's, I don't think any piece of it was dry, as I recall. All of it is within the wetland slough. However, we were not able to even get him to respond to our requests for it. I'm not sure what he's going to do with it. But, again, the roadway system is designed that he will have access to it, if he chose to do it. I will respectfully say this to you, I don't think he's going to be able to develop it at all. Just given the number of wetlands on that issue. It is within the middle of the slough. And that slough is one, I may not be using the right term, but it's one that South Florida has designated, it's one of regional importance. So I don't think they'd be too keen at all about seeing anything being built on that particular development. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you. MR. SALVATORI: So with that, unless there's any other questions for me, I'd like to turn the microphone over to Mr. Hancock. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Welcome back. MR. HANCOCK: Oh, I like this side of the microphone. Good afternoon. Congratulations to the three of you and Godspeed. My name is Tim Hancock. I'm the director of Collier County Services with Vanasse and Daylor. I am pleased to be here today representing as the planner for the project Madeira PUD. Before getting into my testimony today, I would like to proffer as experts, myself in the area of land planning. I have 10 years' experience. I'm certified as a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I think most of you are familiar with my credentials. And I ask that I be accepted as an expert in the area of planning. In the same breath, Mr. Brad Hedrich, a professional engineer and president of Hedrich Engineering, more than eight years' experience in Florida in civil engineering. He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida. And I ask now that the commission, either want either the two of us to determine our credentials or accept both of us in the areas of planning and engineering as experts. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' So moved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Page 136 November 28, 2000 Opposed by the same sign? (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Your motion carries. You're now experts. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you very much. It was much easier than I expected. As mentioned previously, there is -- there's somewhat of a storied past here in the carve outs. And I have heard so many conspiracy theories about this project and we've come back to this room so many times, I'm starting to feel like Bill Murray in the movie Groundhog Day. If we can just get passed today and get a decision, I think we'll all be relieved. Obviously, we would like the decision to be one of approval. And I think in our presentation of facts today, not rhetoric, not assumptions, facts based on science, based on experience, you will find that this project merits your consideration and your approval. I hope that you'll agree with me. There are some residents that are here for the fourth or fifth time on this matter. Each time we've had a subsequent public hearing, that number's been cut in half. At one point there were some 40 or 45 residents from Willoughby Acres here. And we're in a unique position on this project. And as we get into interconnection I'll highlight that a little bit more. But usually as an applicant, you've got a group of residents who are opposing your project. That's fairly typical. If those you can get to and work with, you can usually have a positive result with. And those that you can't, that refuse to work with you, show up in your forum and you're at odds. The primary issue of concern to the folks that have been expressed to us from Willoughby is one of interconnection. We find ourselves in total agreement with them. We see no reason, we see no basis, and we see no benefit to the interconnection, particularly to the folks in Willoughby. And, again, we'll address that in further detail later. Ms. Murray has done a terrific job of addressing the surrounding properties and zoning. We have nothing else to offer in the area of whether or not this project is, in fact, consistent with the future land use element. We agree that it is. We have nothing to offer in the area of compatibility, because we agree with Ms. Murray and staff that this project is, again, compatible with the surrounding land uses. We are compatible. We are consistent. And our traffic impact is not deemed to be significant. Page 137 November 28, 2000 Those are usually the three big ones in these types of hearings. These we agree with staff, we are consistent and compatible and we are within the guidelines for the growth management plan, and the land development code, as this project is proposed here today. With the exception of some disagreement on the application of policy 9.3. Again, something we'll move into. Let me go ahead and give you an overview of the project that gives a little bit more detail about the land plan, than -- that was previously provided by Ms. Murray. And in saying that, in your package, you have reduced versions of the site plans and many times the details on those site plans get somewhat lost as they get reduced. What I'd like to do is pass out to the members of the commission, for your use, if you wish, full-size copies of the project master plan, and the stormwater management plan. I will put this on the board for your view also. So that you can -- we can refer to it. As previously identified, the project consists of approximately 145 acres. As proposed, the density is proposed at three units per acre for a total of 436 units. The density of three units per acre is derived out of our future land use element, which allows for properties in the urban area to request up to four units per acre base density. Should there be an interconnection to more than one arterial or collector roadway, you have the ability to request up to one additional unit of density. Therefore, as stated earlier by Mr. Salvatori, if this project had a public road interconnect, or an interconnect to a second arterial or collector, we could be requesting here today, completely within and consistent with the growth management plan up to five units per acre. We are here requesting three. The reason for that is many-fold, and ironically enough the least of which is the environment. As you look at the project itself, what you notice first and foremost, and the dominant feature in this project is, in fact, a fresh water wetland slough that moves from the northeast of the project down through to the southwest terminus of the project. This is not an isolated wetland. This is a part of an overall larger system that feeds from rainfall as far as 1-75, flows water all through the slough and ultimately into the Palm River -- the Palm River water management system Cocohatchee canal, well downstream of Page 138 November 28, 2000 where we are at this point. This slough comprises approximately 30.77 acres of the 145 acres subject to this petition. The county has a native vegetation requirement. That requirement at 20 percent, requires us to protect approximately 31 acres, and preserve 31 acres on this property. The slough makes up 99 percent of that native vegetation requirement. But there's another element of the slough that I think is critical, and Commissioners Mac'Kie and Carter have seen this time and time again. What happens is typically you will come in and your preserve, to meet the native vegetation requirement, as much of the wetlands as you can, because that reduces your permitting cost. Ironically, in the preservation of this slough, we are preserving both wetlands and uplands. And I challenge you to find that kind of diversity in a native vegetation requirement in meeting that requirement, in projects you've seen and will see in the near future. The purpose for preserving that is that this is a regionally significant project. The only way that this slough is ever going to be preserved is if someone puts all of these parcels together and develops this as a single unified plan of development. You can ask your stormwater management director, Mr. Boldt, it has been a concern of the County for a long time that these small parcels that make up this area, really did not give the county the ability or the opportunity to easily make sure that this slough was preserved. This project accomplishes that. In addition to preserving the slough, what is being proposed is an overall improvement in the function and the environmental vitality of the project or, excuse me, of the property. This slough right now has several impediments. As with any wetland system we have seen some infestation of some exotic species, Melaleuca, Brazilian Pepper, in addition, there are roadways, legal and not so legal, that bisect this slough. Those roadways act as an impediment of flow and all of the rainwater that flows falls, not just on this project, but north and east of it on this side of 1-75, flung through this slough, hits those impediments and back up. As a requirement by the South Florida Water Management District, those impediments will have to be removed. So we will actually be increasing the capacity of the slough to handle rainwater. As I get into some of our specific drainage Page 139 November 28, 2000 issues, I think you'll also see we will be reducing our flow to that slough to even increase the improvement schedule. When this project is fully completed, this slough will be protected. It will be placed in an easement and it will be improved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who -- will there be a conservation easement, water management easement? What will be the nature of-- MR. HANCOCK: Obviously, we would prefer not to have the easement to the South Florida Water Management District. We would prefer a private conservation easement that deed restricts the property, and the district will require that as a part of our permit in all likelihood. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And likely, the management of the slough will be whose responsibility? MR. HANCOCK: It will be the property owner's. So if the slough stays under the ownership of the development and ultimately the homeowners' association, what will happen is a fund will have to be set up, an annual maintenance cost of removing exotics within the slough, becomes the responsibility of the property owner. I think you would find that far advantageous than the responsibility of the taxpayer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask you one other question, just about that little piece that's cut out of the middle that Leo was talking about, that it's a wetland -- MR. HANCOCK: This piece here, Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. It looks to me like on your water management plan you've got a perimeter berm around that parcel. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. And Mr. Hedrich -- excuse me. Let me ask Mr. Hedrich to address that specific question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. My concern there, Mr. Hedrich, is how will that slough function with the perimeter berm blocking off a big portion of it? MR. HEDRICH: Just for the record, my name is Brad Hedrich. I'm the president of Hedrich Engineering. In that particular case the slough itself will not have any berms in the slough. The only place the berms will be is protecting the developed plan from the slough. And I can get into that more later, but the idea is to hold back water in the developed areas Page t40 November 28, 2000 before it goes into the slough. And, in fact, Stan Chrzanowski before had mentioned the design for a 25 year storm event. And in our developed areas the water stage is over two feet higher in our developed areas than it is in the preserve area. Part of that is to insure that there will not be any adverse effects to people that drain into the slough right now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want to take too much time on this, because there's probably a perfect -- I'm probably reading it wrong, but in your map here where it says 70B preserve, there's an arrow pointing to off three not platted. MR. HEDRICH-' Correct. That's a -- what we call a basin boundary and what we do is we have to model how much water -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me ask you a question. MR. HEDRICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because you're going to tell me more than I will understand. MR. HEDRICH: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE It has an arrow pointing to it that says perimeter berm, see peak stage table, and then there's an 80 down here that is a separate -- you own this piece of the slough. How is this slough going to function with this chunk of land in the middle of it that you don't own? If, in fact, there's a perimeter berm here between 70B and off there. MR. HEDRICH: There is no perimeter berm there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then, let's you and I talk off of the record. Because I don't understand this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: While pursuing that one, may I ask a question? Do you have a road across the slough? How will that be constructed so that we don't get blockage from the south? MR. HANCOCK: Very good question. In the initial design of this project, if you note, the one place in which we have shown a road crossing is the narrowest portion of the slough. That wasn't by accident. That was going to do two things. It was to have a minimal effect on the flow of the slough. And the second thing was to reduce the environmental impact to these critical wetlands that make up this slough. If the county were to require a public roadway extension from Euclid, it would have to be designed in such a way, with structures underneath the road to allow for the flow of water. Page 141 November 28, 2000 Interestingly enough, the part of the property of Euclid extended straight north, we don't own that. It actually runs into what you called off three, that parcel. But could you construct a road that would allow water to pass under it, sure. It's done every day. It's expensive. Would it have a positive or negative effect on the flow, in high rainfall situations, it would serve as a partial impediment versus nothing being there. But those would be more than typical rainfalls. The real damage is done there in that this 30-acre slough we're trying to preserve, the impacts to that slough should be minimized. And by promoting additional roadways through the slough, we're no longer minimizing those impacts. CHAIRMAN CARTER: But your roadway between 60 and 70A will have, what, culverts underneath, or will it just be a piling kind of thing where the water flow -- MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. You'll see basically, you know, concrete structures beneath the roadway that will allow for the flow that is anticipated and modeled. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It says two four by eight concrete block culverts, if I'm reading it right. MR. HANCOCK: Correct. And that's subject to permit by the South Florida Water Management District. And as was mentioned earlier, and I want to hit this very briefly, because it's important. This project is being held to the same standard as every other project that is being built today by the South Florida Water Management District. And for those of you that are not familiar, for the permitting process, this is our application. This is not something that is done lightly. This is not something that is not reviewed in meticulous detail. And we have examples all over the county of where projects have been permitted correctly. You may find an example here or there where an undersized pipe was installed and it had to be corrected, but for the most part, the district does a good job permitting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I haven't yet learned to understand what it means to buy so many credits in a mitigation bank. But can you tell me, if this were under the old way, that you had to -- you had to mitigate at a ratio of five to one or 10 to one, or something to one. What would the mitigation ratio be? MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner MAC'KIE, if I may, if I can get through kind of the drainage issue by itself, and then -- and do Page 142 November 28, 2000 that, then my next issue is dealing specifically with environmental. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No problem. MR. HANCOCK: And I'm sorry, it's opposite. Let me go ahead and finish the environmental and we'll come back to the drainage. That's what we started with. It was mentioned that 29 credits have been secured in the Panther Island Mitigation Bank. The manner in which predators establish is what's called a RAP analysis. The RAP analysis basically on a scale determines how viable is a wetland, how healthy is it. For example, something in the slough may be nearing what we call a 1.10 RAP analysis, maybe a .9. Meaning it is very viable. It has some problems with it, but it can be restored easily. When you get into isolated wetlands out on the property, small pocket areas that the hydro period has been altered some 20 years prior, which is the case for the majority of this property, those may have a RAP analysis of .1. How does that translate? If I have 10 acres of .1 RAP analysis, 10 times .1 is 1.0. That's one mitigation credit required. That's a very gross analogy, but that more or less is how it works. We go out and our biologists do the RAP analysis in the field. That RAP analysis is then taken to the district. The district comes out, walks the site and in that walk determines whether or not they agree with that RAP analysis. Let me go ahead and take that question into the next level before getting into drainage. This is what's the -- what's called a flux map, Florida land use classification and cover system. What it does, it assigns a three or four digit code to every type of vegetation there exists known to man. And these numbers you see correlate to the flux code over here. Some mean this is pineflat woods. Some mean this is cypress hammock and so forth. And you can see that they didn't leave much out. Just on our property alone there's well over 25 flux codes. What this map shows you, when our ElS was submitted, the environmental statement for the project, this shows everything that by vegetation alone could be considered wetland by the permitting agencies. You have a copy of this in your packet. It was submitted with our environmental impact statement. The next step in permitting with the Army Corp of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District is to come in and determine if, in fact, these are true wetlands. There are Page 143 November 28, 2000 three ways to measure a wetland. The first and most obvious is looking at the vegetation. For example, we were talking about the RAP analysis of a .1. I can stand here and look at what looks to be an entire sea of pine trees. And amongst those pine trees is a cypress. That's considered a wetland, if we're going by vegetation alone. Because a cypress is a wetland species. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask staff, what packet? I can't find it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you've got the big -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm looking for that one now, MR. HANCOCK: This would be contained within the environmental impact statement, and didn't the commissioners receive those? MS. MURRAY: You received a copy of the report. You do not have the ElS. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you have a map that I could look at up close? I'm sorry for interrupting you. MS. MURRAY: Give me a few minutes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go ahead. I just wanted to look at that myself. MR. HANCOCK: So what we have said all along at the environmental advisory council and at the planning commission is that the majority of these wetlands in here that we show are very poor quality wetlands. They are isolated. They may not even be wetlands. But we are being conservative, as you should when you submit an environmental impact statement going by vegetation alone. The next step is to look at the two other factors that determine a wetland. One is soil type. There are two -- now, there are a million soil types, but the ones you look for are called hydric soils. Hydric soils are generally dark in nature and they appear dark, because they are inundated by water for excessive periods of time. Hydric soils are a second indicator. How does something hydric become non-hydric? Because, obviously, at some point there were hydric soils here, because they're a wetland species. The answer in this case is the construction of 1-75. It takes approximately 20 years for hydric soils, when the flow of water is cut off, for them to become non-hydric. When we talk about reduced hydro period, what that means Page 144 November 28, 2000 is the water flow to this area has been artificially severed or severed in some fashion. That's the case on this property. Twenty years ago 1-75 arrived. Twenty years ago the flow, the sheet flow of this area was reduced dramatically. As a result, the majority of these soils -- and we have taken soil samples all over the site, and have a soil scientist onboard doing that. The majority of their samples show that half of these areas you see in yellow are no longer hydric soils. So we have an indicator that says this is changed dramatically. These are not quality soils. Wetland plants cannot survive unless hydric soils are present. In those areas they are not present. And let me show you the effect of that. These are where hydric soils today exist. And as you can see, what used to be some 90 acres of wetland is now 45 acres. This isn't voodoo science. This is taking an auger out in the field pulling soil up from the earth, and examining it. As if that's not enough, the next indication is hydrology. How near the surface is the water table? Because as the water table rises up near the surface for a set period of time, the hydrology may exist that wetland plants could survive. That being the third criteria we have to submit to the Army Corps of Engineers and the district for their consideration. In performing that study you can see, if you look from this to this, the two are nearly identical. So what you have is, at first blush, you have wetland vegetation comprising approximately 90 acres. Further investigation from the two other criteria, which are basically hydrology and soils, show that only 45 of those 90 acres are wetland. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's my observation from -- from what I've learned on this board is that probably soils is the most reliable of those, because there may or may not be vegetation. Their water tables are going to depend on whether it's been a dry year or a wet year, but hydric soils is a really good indicator of what is, in fact, a viable wetland. And I'm very surprised to see that you're basically talking about the slough and a little bit down there. Of the yellow on that map, Tim, what -- how much of it is proposed to be new? MR. HANCOCK: Of what you see on the map and let me -- let me -- what you just stated is generally correct. You're right. In a Page 145 November 28, 2000 given year water tables can fluctuate. But it just so happens that across future Livingston Road there are two monitoring wells that have been there for 20 years. They confirm the hydrology report that we are preparing. We have 20 years of data just across Livingston Road, that tells us what we know, which is 1-75 has severely reduced the viability of wetlands being retained in this area. To answer your question more specifically, Commissioner MAC'KIE, of the 45 acres of wetland that you see on this plan, 30.77 are in the preserve, and will be set aside. So what we're really talking about here is -- and I'm saying 15 acres -- is a 15-acre impact. Now, because we have data that shows that those areas do have hydric soils and hydrology, you can imagine the quality is a little bit higher. Therefore, the RAP analysis is a little bit higher. So instead of purchasing 29 credits to address, you know, a larger acreage, we're probably going to have to purchase between five and 10 credits to address the smaller acreage. That will be a part of the permitting process. And the South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers are those agencies that determine what that RAP analysis is and what we must do to mitigate off site. The important thing on this project is, in my opinion, from an environmental standpoint, is that a significant fresh water wetland slough that performs both environmental and drainage functions will be preserved forever. If this PUD is not approved and we go back to the minimum parcel development style that we've seen in the past, that has occurred and actually is the basis of Willoughby, please explain to me how many wetlands have been preserved in Willoughby. Now, it was under a different set of rules originally. But even the stemming northward in Willoughby, we have not seen the type of mass preservation you're going to see with this project. I'd love to tell you that we're being altruistic and whatnot, but it's the way things are done. It is a cypress slough. It needs to be preserved. And as a part of our application it will be. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have a question, Mr. Hancock. You know the tortoise turtle, there's some upland protection area. Will you protect that entire population in there in your plan? Page 146 November 28, 2000 MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And we have some final numbers on that for you. Unlike the vote count. What we have done is we have completed the walk of the site 100 percent. There are 10 gopher tortoises on-site. We have 20 active burrows. That means -- equates to, because you can't stick a camera down every hole and figure out how many turtles you have. What we have in the said equation is two active burrows equal one gopher tortoise. We have 10 active tortoises. That equates to approximately two acres of upland preserve, which we will accommodate on-site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: On-site. MR. HANCOCK: As a matter of fact, and this is something I learned in this process, we have to recover the tortoises, pen them, feed them and care for them during construction. So we get to be tortoise keepers. And then when the construction is done to where the tortoises can exist in the preserve areas and live in those areas, they will be released. But until that time, as a cost of development, the tortoises will be cared for. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' But the good news is on-site. Because -- MR. HANCOCK: On-site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- off-site it apparently causes respiratory illnesses and a lot of problems for gopher tortoises. MR. HANCOCK: Correct. And there are -- there is an excessive population as I have heard in the area, but fortunately on this property we have found 10 tortoises and will require two acres for them to -- for them to thrive. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that will be on-site? MR. HANCOCK: It will be on-site. That's correct. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But will -- if you put them on-site will -- how close to the natural vegetation will it -- natural environment will it be for these gopher tortoises? MR. HANCOCK: Well, gopher tortoises only exist predominately in sandy soils and upland areas. So in reviewing what two acres on-site -- and, again, this is a permitting issue for the agencies, in reviewing what two acres are set aside, the type of habitat is a primary criteria there. So while you see -- may see a small mixture of the habitat, they will have to have the same type of soils they need to Page 147 November 28, 2000 burrow, the same type of soil they had historically fed in. Fortunately, they don't roam great distances. So it results in two acres. But there will be -- the two acres of habitat that is critical for the survival of the tortoises, and that will be reviewed by the agencies. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can you show me where they are now, perchance? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, I don't have a location, Mr. Hedrich has one. Always bring the file. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How do you contain them within this area? MR. HANCOCK: Generally, fencing. You will -- they-- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a special tortoise fencing? MR. HANCOCK: Believe it or not you have to -- you have to -- and when I was at Wilson Miller 10 years ago, they were developing a camera system to snake down into the burrows to figure out if he's in there before you go destroying the burrow to get the turtle out. So you have to go collect them and put them in a pen. Now, the alternative is the state allows for -- the alternative is that the state does allow for a take permit. At this point that's not where we want to go. We don't -- we see the ability to accommodate them on-site. That is our primary preference. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any other questions for Mr. Hancock? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, there are a couple other issues. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: Let me -- I apologize. One of the problems we've had is there has been, unfortunately, a tremendous amount of misinformation regarding this project. And unfortunately it extends my time here. Of course, Commissioner Carter, at any point if you feel I've extended my time too much I will be at your discretion to have a seat. Let me go ahead and go into an issue that has been raised and that is the one of drainage. The exhibit here to my left is a Collier County Drainage Atlas with our project superimposed and the proper location. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we get the cameras to switch to that because we'll be able to see it better? MR. HANCOCK: This is where you find out if they're actually Page 148 November 28, 2000 playing poker in the camera room. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on, Kate. MR. HANCOCK: While she's moving over to it, let me go ahead and describe some of the things. There were concerns when we first brought this project up, that the project may, in some way, shed water to other parts of Willoughby. We know there have been flooding issues in this area. It's no secret. Everybody is aware of that. And there have been some design issues that have had to be corrected and whatnot. We don't have a dog in that fight. We understand that there are drainage issues for some properties over here. The question that's pertinent to this application is what does this project do to exacerbate or alleviate or have a neutral effect on those properties. This is a Collier County Drainage Atlas. And, again, I wish we had a shot of this for the folks in the audience. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think Tom's gone to help us with that. MR. HANCOCK: Man of many trades and skills. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, many skills. MR. HANCOCK: What this shows is, and as the camera comes to it and the public can see, is you'll see a red dotted line. That is what is called a basin line. That basin line defines, quite literally, if a drop of water falls on the south side, it moves in a southerly direction. If it falls on the north side, it moves in a northerly direction. So basically properties that are on the south side of that red basin line drain in this direction. The properties on the far side drain in the other direction. What that means is the vast majority of Willoughby, with the exception of two streets up here, isn't affected by this project at all. It's not even in the same drainage basin. Well, let's go one step further and talk about the project design, as far as drainage goes. You are required by the South Florida Water Management District to discharge no more water, post development, after you've developed, than you discharge before you were developed. As a matter of fact, on this project, we will be discharging less water than originally was discharged by the raw acreage. How's that accomplished? It's accomplished by virtue of -- there you go, Tom. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, Tom. MR. HANCOCK: It's accomplished by virtue of what you see Page 149 November 28, 2000 as the extensive lake system here within the project. These lakes are constructed for the sole purpose of receiving water, of storing the water, of allowing the hard metals and sediments to fall out, thus pretreating the water before the water is bled off to ultimately drain away from the project. By the proper engineering design that Hedrich Engineering has put together for this project, we will be storing more water and releasing less water than was previously available on the site. You may -- you may have heard if you watched the tapes, and I heard some of you did, some discussion about a weir that was planned at the end of the preserve. Under the current design, we have held more water on-site, discharging less, therefore, that weir is no longer required. So any discussion or concerns you heard about this weir and its ability to hold water back, that weir is not a part of our water management plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How is that accomplished? MR. HANCOCK: That's accomplished because, through the lake system, and Mr. Hedrich hit it in engineering terms. So let me try and put it in planner-ease. By basically raising the elevation of the site, you increase the storage capacity of the lakes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: By increasing the storage you can then bleed off water at a slower rate. And more significant rainfalls won't have more -- that kind of flash effect. And when I say significant, we're talking about beyond a three-day 25 year storm event. That's the -- that's the base line that the district uses for projects of this size. So we're bleeding off less water into this slough, which, remember, had exotics removed, had roadways removed, has a greater ability to handle the water and we're now bleeding less off into it. Any properties today that drain toward that slough cannot be impeded. That drainage pattern must be allowed to move through. So any properties here that drain into this slough today will continue to drain into that slough unimpeded. In addition, that slough will be improved. Therefore, the drainage pattern's improved. And any potential for flooding here is reduced. It's one of those rare instances because of these properties backing Page 150 November 28, 2000 up to the slough, that in accomplishing our project's objectives there is a side benefit on the drainage side to the properties that border that slough. So, again, those folks who live in Willoughby that are down in here, right now their water drains towards the Cocohatchee canal and moves through the Cocohatchee weir system out eventually. This entire basin and this project will drain into this slough, which -- whose capacity will have improved, will move through the existing canal system in Palm River, way down here to Cocohatchee, where it then ultimately out falls this way. That's the drainage plan. That is the plan the district is reviewing. And we feel that it has been improved even over what was previously submitted and shown when we made our original application. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Two questions, Tim. One, Majestic Pines, I don't know where they sit in all of that. They had a concern about flooding, but I think you've answered that question because you can retain the water in the lakes. MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. Majestic Pines is right here. They back up directly to this preserve. I don't know, specifically, of their individual drainage plans. My guess is they drain to a rear yard swale and it ultimately goes over into the slough. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. HANCOCK: Is that correct, Mr. Hedrich? Thank you. That slough will continue. The difference is that slough will have greater capacity than it did previously. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Second question is, is there enough water going into those lakes that you conceivably could use that for watering the lawns and everything within your development and not have to go to potable water? MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately, if you start taking water out of surface lakes and using it for irrigation, that requires a consumptive use permit from the South Florida Water Management District. That's part of the water table. What would probably be preferred, if we can do it, and I don't know if we have designed the system yet. I don't no what the plans are on Livingston Road, would be to tap effluent if it's available. And that - that is -- generally what's happening, for example, I live in Autumn Woods. We have an effluent system that handles all of Page 151 November 28, 2000 the irrigation in our yards. So potable water is not necessary and it's cheaper. So, you know, let me ask Mr. Hedrich, has that been designed into our system yet, or whether it's still under consideration? MR. HEDRICH: Brad Hedrich again. The effluent is available about three quarters of a mile to the south in one of our lakes, and I'll point it out to you. The lake right here is actually not going to be part of the surface water management system. It's being kept separate for the purpose of an irrigation holding pond. So effluent water would be pumped into there and then they would irrigate the project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Again, effluent lines are available. But effluent is a commodity that's hard to come by in this county. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. So what -- there would be an emergency backup well system that in the case that there was not effluent available at that particular time -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: But if I'm understanding it correctly, in your design, is you use that primarily and then back it up with a well system for the irrigation of property. MR. HEDRICH: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Will the flow of water, if you're rerouting the flow of water, will that in any way pollute the canals that it's going into? MR. HANCOCK: Actually, we're not rerouting the water. The water currently flows in the same direction in the same slough. So the route remains the same. As far as any increase in pollutants, the purpose for these lakes is to pretreat the water before it's bled off into the slough. So there are two issues that the district requires in water management permitting. Water quality and water quantity. The quantity is how much runs off and is discharged. Quality is how do you clean the water up before you discharge it. If you can picture, a drop of rain hits a rooftop here, rolls into the grass through a grass swale, moves into a valley gutter, goes through a concrete pipe into this lake system, where it sits for a period of time until the lake level rises and the water's discharged over the weir into this slough. It now travels across the surface of the ground, all the way through the slough into a water management Page 152 November 28, 2000 system here in Palm River. It moves through that system, ultimately finding its way down to the Cocohatchee canal. That's a pretty long trip. And if it's still dirty it was pretty dirty when it hit. So that is probably what, I would say 10 or 15 times more likely to provide a cleaner discharge than the majority of the developments in Collier County. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. My last question, and then I think we're ready to go to public speakers, is it a position in your development plan that we would work for the interconnectivity to the north, which having a road there that would take us to Livingston, that we would have a -- at least an emergency access out of Imperial Golf Estates, or a way to connect them so that they are not limited to the one entrance and exit onto US 41 ? And I may not have all of the correct terminology there. But just let me know where you-all are in your thinking. MR. HANCOCK: Short answer, yes. Now, for the longer response that's always required because I'm paid by the hour. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I could probably accept the short one -- the time of day. MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately, the interconnect issue has become a very hot issue. And like I said, we find ourselves in a unique position of agreeing with the residents to our south, that we don't think it's appropriate. Let me put this map on the visualizer and show you what all -- what our alternative plan is and how we think we fully meet the policy 9.3. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While he's doing that, Norm, have you guys seen this map? Well, that's all right if you haven't. Help him, Bob, to back it out if you would. Somebody, so we can get a better view. MR. HANCOCK: If I may, what's in the staff report, and believe me, I appreciate the position the staff is in. This staff and this commission has and will continue to take heat for decisions that were made in the past and I would say at least six years before. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Before your time. MR. HANCOCK: At least six years. But there's a lot of heat out there on the transportation system. And I was very pleased Page 153 November 28, 2000 to see Mr. Feder come on board. I worked with him on the MPO. I have a tremendous respect for him. And the first thing I read is we're six laning Livingston, I thought, you know, go get 'em, Norm. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go, Norm. MR. HANCOCK: But there is a disagreement here and the disagreement is one that, I think, we're balancing the needs of a community and the needs of the greater community, and which one loses in this case. I don't think there necessarily is a reason everyone has to lose in this scenario. What we have produced to staff is that, because we feel that an interconnection here to the south on Euclid is inappropriate for several reasons. Not the least of which is it would put, not just 436 homes, which equates to potentially 4,000 trips, not all of which would use Euclid. But it could potentially put those trips on Euclid. It also would open up all of the acreage you see up here to using Euclid as a southern terminus of a collector road from a future east/west arterial to another east/west arterial. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We can't see that map. MR. HANCOCK: Let me back up a little bit, then. The other way, there we go. Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because where's the other east/west -- MR. HANCOCK: This is east/west Livingston Road as planned. Again, it's a road that is some 10 years out. I'm sure Mr. Feder will correct me, but I don't believe it's in the capital improvement element, therefore, it's more than five years out. This is east/west Livingston Road. This you see here is north/south Livingston Road connecting down to Immokalee at the bottom of the page. What staff is proposing, because there really is no public roadway at Lakeland. The county does not have right-of-way there. They're requesting that a public roadway be created from the terminus of Euclid through a project, all the way to the northern side of the property. What that will do is that will take all of the traffic in this area and give it the opportunity to funnel, not just through our project, but to get through Euclid and quite frankly to back up at the end of Euclid waiting to get onto Piper, waiting to an imperfect intersection which is Airport and Piper. The bridge at Airport and Piper was installed because the bridge at the far end of Palm Page154 November 28, 2000 River was going to be knocked out, leaving people in Palm River and Willoughby without a lighted intersection to get out. It wasn't designed necessarily to be the southern terminus of a collector or arterial. It was over designed. But it is an imperfect intersection the way it rests today. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Tim, what you're saying is, the people are going to be cutting through this neighborhood if there was an interconnection with Livingston and Euclid down to -- between -- which means, and this is only my feeling, it doesn't make sense of, why would they take that cut through when they can use a major roadway with less obstacles to get to their destination, Immokalee Road or whatever? To me it would seem like a faster and shorter route to stay right on Livingston. MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately human nature is counter to that. For example, when Vanderbilt Beach Road was installed between Goodlette-Frank and US 41, it obviously was quicker, faster, less congested than cutting through Pine Ridge. The numbers in Pine Ridge barely bumped down, because the people that used to use Immokalee to get from Goodlette Frank to 41 now had an option of using Vanderbilt Beach Road. So the traffic that was on Vanderbilt Beach Road was not eliminating all of the cut through traffic occurring on Pine Ridge. People have a tendency to take shortcuts even though they take longer. And residential neighborhoods become prime targets when they are the only other choice. And what is happening here is everyone who would be traveling on east/west Livingston, who wants to avoid a light or two on east/west Livingston and decides that this route may be quicker, are going to find themselves travelling down Euclid Avenue as a result of that public roadway. This project has been in here for seven months. And I'm not blaming anyone for that, but in those seven months, certainly if this was the solution we would have more data on it. We'd have something on it, but the truth is the public roadway requirement surfaced in the most recent staff report, it was not in the initial staff report to the planning commission. At that time, the idea was to take these roads that connected in the project and to connect them to the spine road here so that these people could access Livingston Road. Somehow that changed and now we Page 155 November 28, 2000 have a request for a public roadway through the project. There are two other things about that that concern me. Number one is, on your 2020 needs analysis it shows Livingston Road at level of service A, which on the surface says that outside of -- outside of trying to correct some wrongs that have occurred in the past, Livingston Road does not need a parallel reliever in the year 2020. Yet this road through this project terminating at Euclid is being touted as a parallel reliever for a six-lane arterial road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're saying no, no, no. MR. HANCOCK: I'm reading your staff report. And your staff refers to this as a minor collector configuration. So if you're trying to tell me that people are not going to cut through there I don't believe it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, let me just go to the north. If this wasn't here, what about the north with Imperial Golf Estates and the future development up here that we have a road that does exist out to Livingston? What are we going to do here so that we can take care of Imperial Golf Estates? MR. HANCOCK: What you have here is, um, this is, I believe it's either a section line, but it is a common property line in which there are already reservations of right-of-way 30 feet on either side of that line for the majority of parcels between phase five and Livingston. There are a couple of segments, based on our research, that are missing. We have reserved 30 feet on our side for this east/west road to be constructed. We all know the folks in Imperial have a dire need. When there's an accident on US 41, there's no way out. CHAIRMAN CARTER: That's right. MR. HANCOCK: They're stuck there. I think it's imperative, and I believe this project is an impetus for a transportation fix for the folks that live in Imperial, a second way out. We don't even need to get on the issue of hurricane evacuation. It's so obvious. If this is going to be the case, and interconnection to that roadway satisfies policy number 9.3, it is my opinion that, and I will tell it is our engineer's opinion, and if he needs to come up here and state it I'll be happy to drag him up. That the road traffic that would utilize this road, and terminate on Euclid, qualifies as cut through traffic, which is a violation of policy 9.3. Page156 November 28, 2000 It promotes through traffic on a street that today, it's very residential in nature. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what's your alternative proposal, I'm not following you? MR. HANCOCK: The alternative proposal is this, if you're looking for a way to get people from Livingston Road east/west to Immokalee without using Livingston Road, we don't have an alternative, because the only alternative is to put them on Euclid. We don't find that to be acceptable. The proposal here is -- one of the problems we have is that everybody who builds in this area is going to do and we are doing and take the only option available and access Livingston Road. If the county determines that a parallel reliever is necessary and puts the line on the nap today, makes it a part of the road program, then as development occurs in this area, they can be required to access this roadway and construct the segments of that roadway in exchange for impact fee credits. So you can get this segment built by virtue that it opens up that corridor, which has already been opened by Livingston Road, to increased level of development. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear staff's response to that if we could. COMMISSIONER HENNING: One question, Mr. Hancock. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. Let me take that quickly and let's get staff's input and then we've got -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it still a gated community? CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- a lot of public speakers on this. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Imperial, is that a gated community? MR. HANCOCK: Imperial is gated on US 41, and I would anticipate a gate here also. So others would not be able to go through Imperial unless you -- unless you took their streets by eminent domain. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And Imperial is receptive to this, right? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. They're looking for a second exit out, Commissioner. MR. FEDER.' Mr. Chairman, for the record, again, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator, just a couple of points of clarification, some areas of concurrence and then a couple of Page 157 November 28, 2000 questions if I could. The scenario of concern relative to Euclid and travel all the way to the north to east/west, I have to ask the same question of the applicant, I guess. Am I to understand that you're concurring that these be public roads and that you're not planning on making what you're developing here a gated community? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. I'm referring to the staff report that requires them to be public roads. MR. FEDER: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: We disagree with that. MR. FEDER: And what I will point out to you, a discussion that we had and the presentation, I think you heard Don make was on Euclid, coming across pretty much as you see their conceptlye road which is not up behind me at the moment. But that winding situation on over to access onto Livingston would provide an opportunity for access both from this development down to Immokalee, but at the same time also allow Willoughby Acres access up to Livingston at that point, without having to get up to Immokalee Road. So that was some of the concern assuming that you had that connection, interconnection there. The connection to the north, we agree on an east/west on the northern boundary over to Imperial opening up issues that are going to continue in this area and we're in concurrence there. I don't think we were really recommending necessarily a straight line connection from Euclid all the way up to the east/west and that was not on our presentation or our concept to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody put the map up and show us what you are proposing, please? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, it's on our visualizer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it's a different -- MR. HANCOCK: Let's be realistic, if they can access this road, and there's an interconnection here, then, yes, it is a through road. MR. FEDER: It is a through road, but it is not direct access and people are a lot less likely to go a circuitous route of that nature. And that's what we are pointing out. We are encouraging interconnection between communities here. We're trying to provide for some opportunity for neighbors to be able to access different facilities, in this case, Livingston as well as Page158 November 28, 2000 Immokalee, without having to always be on the principal arterial. Yet at the same time, I think you'd find even with Euclid as straight as it is, and I think that's been pointed out, that is correct. Nothing I can do about that at the moment. But then the continuation coming in a rather circuitous manner on over to Livingston connection and then possibly through another internal roadway up towards the north and connecting to a facility that is going to the north side of the property, again, connecting Imperial on over to Livingston, providing options and alternatives for travel movements much like you're going to hear out of Dover Cole, who is observing, very obviously, that we don't have a collector system in this county. That's what we're trying to present to you as staff, but we need to find a vehicle, we need to find a way. Obviously, a gated community would not accommodate any of that. If it weren't gated, then I would question why we couldn't also attach to Euclid, but that's another discussion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry to be so slow, but with the map that's on the visualizer, I can see where Euclid would connect down here. I can see that. And I see where they have a potential access point up at the -- what is that, northeast corner of their property? MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Are we proposing that this yellow road would connect through that R-3 parcel up to that interconnect? MR. FEDER: I think they're proposing -- yes, they have to have a roadway there to develop themselves, obviously. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why isn't that shown on there? I don't understand that. MR. FEDER: Because it would show a connection to the north. MR. HANCOCK: Why haven't we shown all internal roads? Because this is a PUD master plan? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: And we have not completed the SDP phase, which would identify the exact location of those roadways. So I think there are some assumptions here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But there could be, this would -- if we connected through Euclid it would be a problem because Page 159 November 28, 2000 it's a straight shot, but then it would connect to this circuitous road that would take a right-hand turn and curve and then a big turn north. I mean, that's just not a road that people are going to fly through on. I'm more concerned about whether or not they're going to fly on Euclid, than I am if they're going to fly through your development because of the circuitous nature of it. It sounds shades of, what is it, St. Andrew's and all that business that we looked at so many times, that people won't cut through all those curvy roads. You can't expect that they will. That's an interconnection instead of a cut through, because of the circuitous nature. Okay. I'm getting it. MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner MAC'KIE -- COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Can I ask -- oh, I'm sorry. MR. HANCOCK: Commissioner, go ahead. COMMISSIONER FIALA: On Euclid Boulevard you were saying that because it's such a straight shot, the good thing is that there are no -- only three driveways there. I'm thinking of now Central Avenue and how they took that Central Avenue and put some medians down the middle and they -- they slowed the traffic. I don't travel on Central Avenue any more because it's too difficult to travel on it, quite frankly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And how wide was that? COMMISSIONER FIALA: And yet, hum -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How wide was that? CHAIRMAN CARTER: See, Euclid is a very narrow road and it's a bowling alley shot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. CHAIRMAN CARTER: And you're talking apples and oranges when you're talking Central and Euclid Avenue. COMMISSIONER FIAI.A: Well, see, I don't know. I've never been down Euclid Avenue. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I mean, I'm just going to comment on what it looks like physically. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can it be changed to have traffic -- the traffic calming inserted on it? MR. FEDER: Again, again, I think the concern is first of all, you've got the situation out there today. They've looked at traffic calming. There hasn't been the demand with what is out there today. Now, with what we're proposing, we're proposing some Page160 November 28, 2000 interconnection, some added traffic to be presented onto Euclid. Euclid is a straight shot, which is not ideal. It does present those concerns. Having said that, though, it is a facility, which we have very few of, that is a true minor arterial, that serves as a function, not necessarily land access, but access to local streets where you get land access, which is exactly what we need to encourage in this county and finding a way to deal with that is what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I apologize. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' A minor arterial is what? MR. FEDER: A minor arterial is a collector road, if you will, a collector, a major collector. COMMISSIONER FIALA.' I'd like to comment also, because living in East Naples is one thing, and because we're so crowded right now, and we have no place to put any connector roads, if that's what they're called, and I live on Lakewood Boulevard, which is -- which is -- well, as you well know, very impacted as it is and it's going to be even more impacted. Okay. Taking that into consideration, what I want to do number one is refrain from having other people fall into the same mishap that we now live in in East Naples. There's no way to put these connector roads through, and our major roadways are just terribly impacted. And I'd like to see that -- I would like to see us not do that to these other neighborhoods. Conversely, for the people in Willoughby, I want to make sure that they don't have to live on a road like I live in. So we need to do something about traffic calming. So I'd like to just insert all of that now for the record. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, that's all there. And if we don't have any more direct questions of the petitioner or the staff, we have a stack of people who want to speak on this issue. So we need to move this. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to strongly recommend you get to these public speakers, and I'm going to go ahead and call them two at a time. We've only got about seven. But I think given the hour-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, shouldn't we close the public hearing first? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. They are the public. Page t61 November 28, 2000 MR. OLLIFF: No. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, if I may, what's being proposed is in a direct violation of your own policy. And I will allow our legal counsel to address that, but we have to be able to address that before this meeting is concluded. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: First speaker is Ralph Brook, followed by Laurie Stressen-Reuter, and as they're coming to the podium I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that that last presentation of 45 minutes is probably the reason why we don't allow ex-commissioners to come to the commission to make presentations. MR. BROOKS: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Ralph Brooks. I'm a land use attorney with over 12 years' experience, including Assistant County Attorney for Sarasota County and eight years as special land use counsel to Monroe County with the Florida Keys. I've had a very successful record in defending denials of developments and modifications to developments to improve the quality of life. Today, my client is Mr. Henry Murphy. He is the proverbial hole in the donut. His home is right here. Also seen on that map there. This is his current access from Lakeland Avenue on the private easement. He objects to losing his access in that manner. It's also seen here in this aerial schematic, which is overlaid on this development like that. The development would come in here on this previously developed land and be overlaid there like that. That's how you see that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's in the middle of the woods. MR. BROOKS: He's in the middle of the woods. That's his house right here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's him. MR. BROOKS: He owns five acres -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the hole. MR. BROOKS: And it's right here. He's written letters, provided comments to the planning commission and to the planning staff, he's concerned about flooding his roadway access. You'll note that this road here directly abuts his property. His home is built off towards that side of the parcel. Mr. Murray alleges that this rezoning or planned unit development would constitute spot zoning or unconstitutional Page 162 November 28, 2000 reverse zoning. It does not have a logical, rational basis to skirt his property. It sets him up in what the Third District Court of Appeals called the veritable zoning island. The Florida Supreme Court has said veritable zoning islands are zoning peninsulas in a surrounding sea of contrary zoning classifications, is improper and unconstitutional. Spot zoning is the name given to the piecemeal rezoning of parcels leading to disharmony with a surrounding area. Spot zoning is usually thought as giving preferential treatment to one parcel at the expense of an entire zoning scheme. We're taking the existing zoning scheme here, which is RSF-3 and rural agriculture and changing it into a new scheme, the planned unit development. And why are we doing that, probably to preserve slough, other environmental features of the land, you want to encourage cjustering. By cjustering it, you can preserve the wetlands. You can move a house that would be situated entirely within a wetland outside the wetland. That's what cjustering is. If we kept the density at the existing zoning density, we would even have more room to cjuster. You could probably save every acre of wetland, almost, on this entire parcel. You would also be able to save more uplands, perhaps a 50-foot buffer between the slough and the upland area. It could be preserved, as has been requested by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. You have not been given a copy of two letters, at least two letters, one from Florida Wildlife Commission that is submitted to the applicant, another one from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. They are -- have been submitted. What's all -- only in your record is your request to them from the developer to provide comments. You never got a copy of the comments, as far as I could tell. That was some talk about what is permitted under the comprehensive plan. Yes, it's true, you can get the existing density and increase it under the existing comp. plan designations. But under the existing zoning, it's less than they're asking for. That's because there's 100 acres of RSF-3, which gives you 300 units and 45 acres of urban or rural agriculture, which is one unit for every five acres just like Mr. Murphy. It's compatible to the existing zoning scheme. That's -- his land is compatible with the existing zoning scheme. You'd have a logical line in there. A logical drawing. It makes sense. Now, Page 163 November 28, 2000 we're asking you to throw that away. To go from 309 to 438 is a drastic increase in density. Yes, it's allowed under the comprehensive plan, but it's not allowed under the existing zoning. And they're asking you to change that existing zoning. You don't have to change that existing zoning. It's within your legislative powers and in your quasi judicial powers to deny any increase in zoning. And the basis for that is the preservation of the slough and the environmental features of the property, and to allow further cjustering on this property and pull those homes and duplexes -- this is not just single-family homes. This is duplexes. It was stated that this was single-family homes. It also includes duplexes, multifamily units. To pull them out of-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You're going to need to wrap up there. MR. BROOKS: Okay. I'll do it just very, very quickly. Some very important things happening here. They are inconsistent with this policy 7.2. The reason you've had all the debate about neighborhood traffic is they did not submit a neighborhood traffic impact assessment for this rezoning as required by policy 7.2. That was incorrectly waived by planning staff. They are also inconsistent with objectives 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.7 of the conservation element, the future land use element 5.1, and objective five. The application is incorrect. It was submitted to you -- here is the application. Here's a disclosure of interest information. It states that only one property owner owns this property. I found out this is not true today at the property appraiser's office. Meridian Land Company is only one of many owners. There are 11 other owners who have not been disclosed, including land trusts, individuals~ development corporations, a great host of, a number of people, Heritage Homes, other people, who some of your firms may be affiliated with, may have conflicts with, you don't know until this disclosure form is properly filled out. It's also stated that there are contracts for purchase and those were not filled out here. And the affidavit was signed that said that Meridian is the owner of the property. And unless you dispute the meaning of the word is, there are definitely other property owners here. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need to get to that real quick and wrap up. I've got six other people I need to hear. I appreciate your input. MR. BROOKS: Thank you. I'm trying to go really quickly Page 164 November 28, 2000 here. I think these are in the records. There are fox squirrel habitat issues here that have not been adequately addressed. The ElS says there are squirrel nests, but doesn't say what kind of squirrels. They never researched that. It is habitat, potential habitat for wood storks used by Corkscrew. The conduct violates the comprehensive plan if it's not preserved. There's a whole host of other things. I do have some additional comments to make. I don't know if I'll be able to get them in in the five minutes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You can always submit them for the record in writing. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can also submit them in writing -- MR. BROOKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- but I've got to keep everybody to five minutes. MR. BROOKS: Okay. I would urge you that if you have any concerns, like any of these things I wasn't able to get to or the things you raised, just one commissioner's vote is enough to delay this until we can address these further issues that are out there. And certainly if you vote without having been disclosed who the property owners are, you may be in violation of some conflict statute that, without even knowing it, you could be in violation of that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, Mr. Olliff? MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Laurie Stressen-Reuter followed by Joan Overton. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: While they're coming up, the applicant's going to address that ownership question, please. MS. STRESSEN-REUTER: Hello. My name is Laurie Stressen-Reuter and I currently live at 585 Lakeland Avenue in the area designated as Armadillo Estates on the northeast end of Willoughby Acres. Please bear with me as I have five minutes to get through a lot as compared to the two hours and 10 minutes of the petitioner. But first, before I begin, I'd like to clarify a few discrepancies that I have. First of all they -- there was a lot of talk about the Euclid and Lakeland extending to the north and it has never extended to the north. The homes in Armadillo Estates have been there Page 165 November 28, 2000 longer than Willoughby Acres. And that is at the northernmost end of Lakeland. Second of all, it was said that three driveways come off of Euclid and Lakeland. All seven driveways in Armadillo Estates alone come off of Lakeland Avenue. And that is -- does not include the undeveloped lots in that area. Also there was talk about 1,000 additional trips per day being affected by this. Please, bear in mind that that is only the 45 northernmost acres. They are not talking about the 100 acres to the south because they said that that's already zoned. That is not developed. So it would be closer to 4,000 trips a day. Number four, the curvy roads of Madeira slowing traffic, there was talk about that. Yes, it would slow their traffic, but what happens once they do hit Euclid Avenue if it is interconnected? My family recently moved into the Armadillo Estates neighborhood one year ago after living in the intersection of Madison Drive and Euclid Avenue in Willoughby Acres for 13 years. We love the people and the community feeling of Willoughby Acres, but wanted more room and privacy to raise our three boys. We were horrified to learn of the proposed development with all its concerns within 300 hundred feet of our new home. We also felt secure in our privacy in Armadillo Estates knowing that this is a private neighborhood where the residents owned their own street. Never did we imagine that the possibility existed to use our small private neighborhood for a big development through way. My children are concerned that they won't even be able to ride their bikes or roller blade if the proposal passes. I am aware that the development has set aside 20,000 feet of land at the northern end of Euclid Avenue to eliminate the concerns of interconnectivity. This raises two concerns to me. First, since the developer may still have access to the land, can future interconnectivity be obtained after the development is approved? Second, no land was set aside by the developer at the end of Lakeland Avenue. Perhaps this is because as it mentioned, this is a private portion of Lakeland. However, I've heard about a possibility of a condemnation act by the county to make this road accessible. This gravely concerns me and would negatively impact the quality and character of our community. A recent master plan of the Page t66 November 28, 2000 Madeira PUD shows a one half acre to one acre public park at the southern end of the project connecting to the private portion of Lakeland. Again, how does the developer plan to access this park, if the Armadillo Estates portion of Lakeland Avenue is privately owned? I am very positive that the residents of Armadillo Estates, as well as Willoughby Acres, would gladly feel no need for a park, if it meant more traffic through our neighborhoods. We already have many traffic concerns in our neighborhood as you are well aware, and are devastated at what problems an additional 4,000 trips per day would create if interconnectivity is considered. At the July 20th planning commission meeting the members approved the development with, quote, the exception of future interconnects only be made where they abut future development, not existing development, end quote. Well, now, when asked if that meant no interconnection, the reply was, quote, that's a very fair statement, end quote. I feel that if interconnectivity in this PUD is going to benefit all of the public's good it should only access at Livingston and to the currently undeveloped land in the north. In addition to traffic concerns I also have strong environmental and stormwater concerns. Many others share my concerns such as the Florida Wildlife Federation, The Collier Audubon Society, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and the South Florida Water Management District, the Environmental Advertise (sic) -- Advisory Council even denied approval for this project because they did not feel that the developer protected enough of the wetlands. And don't forget about the hundreds of petitions signed by homeowners in Willoughby Acres and submitted at the planning committee meeting in opposition of this POD -- PUD, I'm sorry. Before I close I just wanted to say to you, the Wednesday before Thanksgiving I was trying to get out to go to Publix, and I was at Livingston Road, and I was stuck there for a very long time because of the current traffic. And as I sat there and waited to try to get across that road, I looked to the right and I saw the memorial of the girl who was killed there recently, and to the right I looked and I saw that the guardrail was just destroyed. On the other exit going out of Euclid, one of my best friends' nephew was killed there. There's just way too many red flags with Madeira PUD to Page 167 November 28, 2000 grant a green light by the BCC. Please don't allow this to happen. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Thank you. The next speaker -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: If you're on deck, we really need to have you up here, please. MS. OVERTON: I am Joan Overton. I really don't have anything to say. I wonder if I can relinquish my five minutes to the -- Beth Nelson. All I really have to say has been covered. CHAIRMAN CARTER: You have to speak for yourself and Beth has to speak for herself. MS. OVERTON: Okay. It pretty much has been covered. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. And the next speaker? MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Amy Zeleski, followed by Henry Murphy. MS. ZELESKI: I'm Amy Zeleski. I live at 88 Erie Drive. I just don't want any more traffic coming through because I ride my bicycle around the area and I've got pretty straight teeth now, because I had a car hit me in that area. Thank you very much. MR. OLLIFF: Henry Murphy will be followed by Beth Nelson. MR. MURPHY: I'm Henry Murphy. And I just would like to ask you not to permit this application. To kept it the way it is. I live in the center of this development and the tranquility and the peace of my home and my family would be destroyed. So please consider not approving this application. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE me, you were Mr. Murphy who was represented earlier, you live in the center? MR. MURPHY: That's true. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just wanted to get that straight. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker is Beth Nelson, followed by your last registered speaker, Jack Pointer. MS. NELSON: Yeah, I'm Beth Nelson and I appreciate Joan trying to give me her time because I've -- we've heard so much on, so much off again. It's hard to know exactly what to address CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, you'll have five minutes, ma'am. MS. NELSON: -- at this point. Then I will speak quickly. We hear about the interconnectivity, yes, and it works in some places, Vanderbilt Beach to, um, Pine Ridge through Vineyards Page 168 November 28, 2000 works. The term about collector roads, I've heard misinformation about our streets, the development of our community and nobody has a chance to argue this misinformation. As Laura stated, our roads -- our development was not created by extending our roads northward. So a further extension of that is not a logical extension of what's happened, because that's not how it progressed in the first place. A couple places where this interconnectivity has not been applied, well, Foxfire we know the tragic event with the connectivity there. And now that is a gated community. Pine Ridge Road has managed to keep their streets locked to interconnection. Another one is Piper, Piper Boulevard was supposed to have been connected from Livingston over to the Strand to keep traffic off of Immokalee Road. That has not taken place. I guess there's a berm in the way that was not moved and is not going to be moved so that we have to go out onto Immokalee and back over into the Strand. Diverting traffic through our community would be dangerous. It would also destroy the quality and character of our neighborhood. Sidewalks, there are sidewalks on Euclid and Lakeland Avenues. There are no sidewalks on the streets connecting those two. The children don't play on those streets. The children are out on our streets that are called collector roads. And so far, you know, fine, but put more traffic through there, open us up to traffic and -- well, there was an accident the other day back there, so. Another issue is eminent domain and the condemnation proceedings, they talk about taking our road right-of-way. This is done for public health, safety or the general welfare, but I think that the fact there's nobody living right there to say that this is for the general welfare doesn't benefit anybody but the development that's not there yet, you know, to take our -- this road away. And we've -- we're in touch with an eminent domain lawyer if we need to pursue this issue. Hopefully we won't have to. Like I hear it's on, it's off, and I frankly don't think enough decisions have been made regarding this development to vote on it one way or another. Things have to go back to the drawing board perhaps. I addressed the historical development of Willoughby has not historically been by extending the roads, our homes were Page 169 November 28, 2000 there before most of the homes in Willoughby. Our homes are older. So this historical development idea is not the way it happened. Nor was wetland preservation a big idea 30 some odd years are when they were developing Willoughby. So, no, they didn't consider wetland preservation when Willoughby was developed because that wasn't a big problem. Oh, ease -- access easement that -- the terminology in the latest staff report addresses access easements and the questionability of the ownership, existence and recording status of these easements. Our homes have been there well over seven years and ingress/egress has never been denied anybody to their property. I find it's interesting that the same language was also used in a lawsuit that was delivered on our doorsteps July -- in July. The County was also named as a defendant in this suit, yet affirmed the allegations. It just makes me wonder what's behind this lawsuit because the plaintiff sold half of their lot, whether sold outright or contingent, to Madeira, to Meridian. You know, so why are they listed on the lawsuit against us to take our property? There's something fishy there. I haven't had a chance to dig into that fully yet, but I think it raises some questions. Traffic impact study says traffic is not a problem at this point. And so we could go ahead and dump more traffic onto Immokalee and 75. We have some articles here suggesting otherwise. Anybody who drives on that road, you know, even the two-lane section of Immokalee Road up to 75, it's atrocious. And I would question the numbers behind the numbers in the traffic impact statement. Also there are things that are missing from the traffic impact statements. And there's a table that's not there. It's just incomplete, incomplete and inconsistent. It says -- another thing on the traffic impact or, I'm sorry, the staff report and this was -- somebody mentioned this earlier, further extension of Euclid and Lakeland Avenues was obviously contemplated. Again, erroneous because that's not how it was developed. That's not how things occurred. But it said, which made this site at one time unprofitable, environmental concerns at one time made this site unprofitable. So my question is, the future land use map indicates this project site is located in an area of environmental concern. So Page 170 November 28, 2000 now that it's potentially profitable to develop this area, it's okay to ignore those environmental concerns. I've heard about this slough and preservation of this slough and all these comments I heard that this slough is going to function better and going to be better, well, that's not what the water district concerns say. The water district has several very strong concerns regarding the slough -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ma'am, you'll need to wrap up, please. MS. NELSON: Okay. If you take a look at this, there are several here, concerns that the district has. I heard this pretty picture painted about the preservation of wetlands. Michael Simonik had problems with it. He said the Conservancy doesn't jump out into cases like this unless there's a problem, and it's the wetland destruction. So it's not just Ed Carlson's problem with mitigation. He had problems with the wetlands, as did Michael Simonik and several other agencies, calling for zero wetland destruction and the high density development, and in here the water district also addresses there's nothing in place to see who's going to maintain this slough. Do these people know what they're allowed to do, what they're not allowed to do in these protected areas? I have submitted, and I will close with this. This is the fourth time we've been here for this hearing and that's why people aren't here now. It's hard to take time off of work, and the joke is, well, are they actually going to hear it today. Well, yes, thankfully. But we did submit concerns based on the growth management plan for prior meetings, and I would like those to still apply because the development -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You may submit those and make them part of the record, ma'am. MS. NELSON: Okay. Now they have been -- previously -- submitted previously. Should I resubmit them? CHAIRMAN CARTER: You may do so. MS. NELSON: Okay. To whom do I submit those? Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MS. NELSON: Okay. I -- okay -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes. MS. NELSON: I had a nice little closing written out. Page 171 November 28, 2000 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well-- MS. NELSON: And I do. One minute, 30 seconds. Given the numerous and various concerns regarding this project, let one of your first decisions as the new Board of County Commissioners be a move in the direction to preserve the unique character and quality of our environment and community. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: The last speaker is Jack Pointer. MR. POINTER: Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Jack Pointer. I live in Willoughby Acres. I am here representing the property owners of Willoughby Acres at this particular time. We are here to say that we would like to not have a connection between Euclid Avenue and the neighbors to the north that are planned in this PUD. A couple things that might be considered is that if such a connection exists, not only will traffic come down Euclid Avenue, but the first street that they hit coming south into Willoughby Acres will be Heritage Way. They will go to the west. Some traffic will go to the west over into Palm River and pick up Cypress Way East, coming on down and cutting across another bridge along that particular line. In the period of 1988 to 1990, there was a development to the north of Willoughby Acres. At that particular time we asked this commission and this commission granted that we would not have to put up with construction traffic on Euclid Avenue. They passed a rule that allowed two trucks on Monday, two trucks on Wednesday, two trucks on Friday, with a guard at the north extreme of Euclid Avenue on 12 hours per day, being paid for by the developer. We did not have any traffic, except that which was allowed, all the rest of the traffic had to go up what is now Livingston Road. At that particular time it was just going up the right-of-way of the -- of the electric lines. So we also recognized that at some point in time arrangements might have to be made for emergency concerns going to the north of Euclid. But we would like not to have the connection made. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Thank you. Now does that conclude our speakers, Mr. Olliff? I believe it does. We do have a question of the petitioner by Commissioner Mac'Kie in regards to ownership. Page 172 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please. MR. HANCOCK: Yes. As a part of the original application to the county, copies of all warranty deeds and sales contracts were provided with the original application. They, therefore, should be a part of the record. The application itself with those attached is our submittal packet, so, you know, if he did not review the entire submittal, I don't know if he -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I reviewed every single page, every single word -- MR. HANCOCK: Well, the packet we submit is far thicker than what you receive because there's a lot of information you may or may not need to know. But as a part of that submittal requirement we have to submit warranty deeds or copies of sales contracts showing that we have the ability to request the rezone on the property. So we did that in accordance with staff requirements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're also supposed to, if I could please, on the application itself, either disclose ownership or maybe put a little asterisk or something and say, see attached, because I don't have the deeds. I assumed, because the application says property is owned by a corporation, I was a little troubled by the fact that it didn't tell me who the shareholders were. But it did tell me the president, vice-president, executive vice-president and I didn't recognize any of those names, don't worry about it. But then there's a separate section that says if there's a contract for purchase with an individual or individuals or anybody, list the names of the contract purchasers. And there's nothing there -- MR. HANCOCK: And Commissioner Mac'Kie -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- see attached something? MR. HANCOCK: By not writing see attached, I have to take responsibility for that. Because of the sheer volume of the number of properties that are involved and the number of contracts, you know, I attached them to the original submittal. I did not put see attached on that area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't want to talk about this again. I want to decide something today. I'd really like to see the list, if you can give it to me, to be looking at during the discussions to see if I have to conflict out. I'm about 99 percent sure I don't have to conflict here out, but good Lord, I'm not Page 173 November 28, 2000 taking that risk. MS. MURRAY: I have a stack of deeds if you'd like to see them. MR. HANCOCK: And, Commissioner, my apologies for putting you in that position today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It happens. MR. HANCOCK: The -- outside of that, and, again, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. But there are a couple of items that I think have been left a little unsaid, and I'll be as concise and brief as I can, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. We need to do that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: As opposed to previously. MR. HANCOCK: The single sticking point here seems to be on the issue of where is this mysterious connector road starting and ending. We don't really have anything from staff that says this is the public road we want from you. What we have is a public road through the project. I'm not sure what the terminus of that is. I'm not sure what the start of it is supposed to be. But in any case it seems to utilize Euclid Avenue as a part of it. So it's either going to go from Euclid Avenue over to Livingston, which if you look at the map that I had on the visualizer earlier, there are roadways within Willoughby Acres that terminate at the FP&L easement. If you wanted to connect Willoughby to Livingston, you can do it today. It doesn't have to go through our project for Willoughby to have access to Livingston. They terminate at the FP&L easement in which you can cross Livingston. So the only thing I can figure is the -- their request must be to make Euclid go through the project and connect to a roadway on the north side. I had a discussion with Mr. Feder in the hallway and he's talking about that roadway along the northern part of our project, really should be far more prominent than a 60 foot right-of-way. We have no problem with that. Tell us how much right-of-way you want up there. We will reserve it. We will address that. The problem the through road creates for us is that, number one, it is in your staff report that it is intended as a reliever for Livingston. When I had the pleasure of sitting on that dais, we were not allowed in my recollection to require a public roadway through a project without a clearly demonstrated public necessity. We Page 174 November 28, 2000 don't want a public road through our project. I have yet in today's proceedings seen a clearly demonstrated public necessity for a parallel roadway to Livingston. I, therefore, am left with nothing, other than an attempt to develop policy by virtue of this application. Those policy discussions are important. They are critical. They require a lot of forethought, but to use this application as the horse to piggyback a policy decision is the incorrect forum. We have an application before you today, an application that is consistent with a growth management plan that is consistent with the land development code. I do not know of a policy that allows this board to require a public roadway through our project without demonstrated public necessity. Is it a good idea for some people, I don't argue that. But this applicant has been through this thing several times and only in the latest staff report was that a requirement. And we have yet to see a proposed alignment. So I ask you -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: If there's not any other questions of the petitioner, then I will close the public hearing. Then I'm going to recuse myself while the board has its discussion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask a question of, say, Jack Pointer and the lady named Beth -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. Okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You can ask the petitioner or you can ask staff. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hancock had a problem with 9.3 in our transportation summary. Can you explain that? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Policy 9.3 states basically two basic elements. One, is that interconnection is encouraged. They clearly want interconnection. We are providing interconnection on two of three possible sides. We cannot provide it on the western side because there is no possibility. We're providing it on the north and on the east. The question is do we provide it on the south. Interconnections are not the same thing as a public roadway. We believe we meet policy 9.3 by providing those interconnections. The second part of policy 9.3 is not to promote through Page 175 November 28, 2000 traffic. If we connect to the south, we are putting our traffic through Willoughby on Euclid. MR. OLLIFF: And I will argue to you that that's not what was intended by not encouraging through traffic. I think the policy intention there of not encouraging through traffic wouldn't be through traffic from Livingston to Immokalee as cut through type traffic, because if not, there would be no interconnection. There would never be an interconnection. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. If you're -- if your logic is right, Tim, and I'm not sure. I'm struggling with this question. But if your logic is right then there can't be interconnection anywhere ever. MR. HANCOCK: If it's this board's interpretation that in order to meet 9.3 we have to provide an interconnection to Euclid, whether it be by emergency access, gate or otherwise, we will comply with that. The planning commission requested emergency access. So -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Does Leo have to give us some interpretation here, because we could debate this until nine o'clock tonight, and I'm not sure we would reach any conclusion. So what I'm asking for is can we kind of get a grasp of this, get some interpretation so that we can move forward, and then take the other commissioners' questions. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. We have a concern under this set of facts and this scenario with this road pattern that to require a public road through this development might be an -- what's called over exaction. There's case law that tells us that we can over exact and go beyond the impacts of the development because there are alternative routes that -- that might be available to connect Livingston with Willoughby. That's a concern. There's a similar case having -- Noland case out of California having to do with a view easement. So we do have a concern. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, this is a very, you know, I'm sorry. Let me try to restrain my temper here for a second, because that is extremely aggravating. We have spent hours talking about this interconnection and whether or not it's good policy. If you guys are going to tell us that it's not legally appropriate, please tell us that six months ago or six hours ago. MR. WEIGEL: We couldn't tell you that it's not legally Page 176 November 28, 2000 appropriate because only until it splashes out can we know all of the intricacies of this to provide you. Yes, we have a concern. We always, of course, look to see if there's an over exaction by virtue of the fact that what's been demonstrated today in the discussion, as if there's alternative means for Willoughby to access Livingston, that raises our concern. We were not aware of that until the discussions had at this meeting today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't mean to be critical, David, because if you're not aware of it, you're not. My criticism is in the communication problem that prevented your being aware of that piece of information, because I was aware of it. I knew we had LOSA in 2020 and I knew that we had -- anyway. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If this is something that we cannot legally do, that's one thing. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. I'm going to go to Commissioner Coletta. Ms. Murphy may have something to say. And then we may need to close this, and Commissioner Fiala, we may have to close this public hearing if there's no more dialogue back and forth here, and there may be some other internal things we need to discuss before you-all reach a decision. Commissioner Coletta you -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I ask a question of Mr. Hancock? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Everybody else has. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I haven't had a chance yet, and I'd really like to know. I find a lot of holes through this whole thing. There seems to be a lot of indecision that this thing isn't flowing as smooth as I'd hoped it would. The residents there have real concern. I'm trying to figure out exactly how the community's going to benefit from this project. I can only see some negatives coming down. There's going to be more traffic on the road too, are we going to be able to handle Livingston, we've got a problem with Immokalee Road that's been ongoing for a long time. The residents definitely aren't happy. I mean, they seem to be happy to satisfy with just the fact there's no interconnecting road. But I think there's other issues here that are very deep and very far. I mean, I've seen a park on here that we're not going to be able to access, gopher tortoises that are going to have to be relocated. All these things I know are normal Page 177 November 28, 2000 for the most part but what is the advantage to the community for this project? MR. HANCOCK: There are a few, and, again, in an attempt to be brief and concise. First is a PUD allows through controlled development the preservation and improvement of the slough as a flow way that serves off site properties. Not just our property. We don't need it for drainage. The improvement of that slough is something, I think, your stormwater management director will tell you is something they've been looking for for a long time. That's number one. Number two is, what is being proposed is a low density, high end development. These are not apartment complexes that are going to be behind these people's homes. These are not third story condos looking down into their home, which could be put there under a different development plan. We are consistent with what is going on around us. We are not out of character with the neighborhood. This project will have the -- without an interconnection on Euclid, will have the ability to improve property values in the area as opposed to detract from them. Those are public benefits. Can I tell you that the building of a single home in Collier County is going to benefit the community, I can't. But it is the right of the property owner to request that and that's why we're here today. The ox is being gored on Euclid Avenue. They don't want it. We don't want it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The lawyers say we can't do that, SO. MR. WEIGEL No. We don't say that, Ms. MAC'KIE. MR. HANCOCK: In defense of Mr. Weigel, obviously, this interconnect issue has been discussed in several ways, but the staff report as is currently written is a little different than the last time sit-down powwow, and it wasn't until out in the hallway he and I were discussing this and I expressed to him what I expressed to you, which is that there is no demonstrated public necessity. And to say that 426 homes requires the county to exact a public roadway through the project, I think is very shaky ground particularly when Willoughby can access Livingston through other means. So that was something that was reviewed on the fly, Commissioner MAC'KIE. So this has been, you know, we never Page t78 November 28, 2000 know what's going to come out of this, but we've met with staff before this meeting. We've expressed our concerns. You ultimately are the arbitrator of these decisions. And the fact that they may be an inappropriate or excessive exaction by requiring a public road to me buttresses some of the statements I've made to you today. But please use this project to require the northern access and the east/west roadway to Imperial and the future northern extension of that. Please use this project as an impetus to develop that secondary road system so the folks in Imperial have a way to get to Livingston and folks from this project and every one north of us have a secondary choice, that it could be a public benefit from this project and we are more than happy to reserve the necessary right-of-way along our northern border to make that happen. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. Susan Murphy's been taking notes over here. She may have some wrap-up things that she would like to bring to us, and then I'll go to Commissioner MAC'KIE. MS. MURPHY: Um, I'm going to kind of move all over the map here. Some of the public spoke about a concern over construction traffic on Euclid and I did want to point out that one of staff's stipulations was that no construction traffic would access the site through Euclid. So that will totally alleviate that concern. Back to the petitioner's request, we don't necessarily disagree that a PUD development is not a benefit to the neighborhood in this area, simply because as we've discussed before with the environmental concerns, that we feel a cumulative development in this area, rather than a piecemeal, would benefit the environment far more greatly than individual lots under the current zoning designation. I also want to point out that we disagree, obviously, that the petition meets policy 9.3. Historic development in Collier County has been with public roads. There does not have to -- you do not have to prove a public benefit in our opinion to have a public road. Gated communities and private roads are not a God given right. And we just want to make that point clear to you because that's how we feel about it and that's our opinion. Willoughby Acres accessing Livingston Road through other Page179 November 28, 2000 means, the only discussion I've had with the petitioner on that has been the possibility of blowing out one of these side streets out to Livingston Road. And I don't think I necessarily agree with that. As planning staff, as I've pointed out, those are the areas of Willoughby Acres where you have residential activity, and to blow out one of those streets onto Livingston Road, you are kind of creating another Euclid or Lakeland Avenue scenario by doing that. So we don't agree with that. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We're sure to address all safety and welfare issues, commissioners, of which is your prerogative to approve or deny PUDs. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions, Commissioner MAC'KIE. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably for environmental or maybe, I see Mr. Boldt in .the room, if you guys could come up. I have one interest in cons,dering approval of this PUD, and that is if this slough, if the preservation of this slough is significant environmentally and if the enhancements proposed are significant from a water management standpoint, I believe that I know from my experience that if we don't PUD rezone this property, we're going to likely have a lot of tract development, a grid development, and that will result in the degradation of the slough and in the elimination of the stormwater improvements. Am I right or wrong about that? Please don't hesitate to tell me if I'm wrong. MR. LENBERGER.' For the record, Steven Lenberger, Development Services. We believe that a large PUD is better than piecemealing it, and we agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From the environmental standpoint. MR. LENBERGER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right. You want to hear from Mr. Boldt? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do on the stormwater question. MR. BOLDT.' For the record, John Boldt, stormwater management director. I think your protection here in that we have a stipulation in the PUD that they need to get approval from not only the other water management district, but also from my Page 180 November 28, 2000 department in letters stating that their project is going to be in conformance with the overall regional master plan we're doing right now for this north Livingston Road. We're concerned about the whole regional area, not only this project but other things going on in that area. We have a consultant under contract who is gathering information on there. We'll be doing a computer model. We're going to make sure that their project is in conformance with our study. The only problem I see is in I guess the timing of it, depending on when they want to move forward because my study won't be concluded, you know, for six months or for nine months or for a year before we can bring all of this together. But the key to this whole thing for your protection will be that they'll have to get approval from staff that shows that their project has no adverse impact on that slough and no more pressures being put on it that are going to affect their neighbors. We already have enough problems in those areas that we're dealing with at this time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And my goal would be enhancement, not just a no net negative, but an enhancement somehow. MR. BOLDT: Well, the project in its mass, as they've just demonstrated, even the exotic removal is going to be a great improvement to it, and we wouldn't have that type of an opportunity if you're going to do a piecemeal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, you know, this goes to Commissioner Coletta to the question you had and that is what's the benefit to the general public of this project. I think that if the road connection to Euclid is eliminated, then I believe the neighborhood objection is reduced, and the -- the benefit, you know, the preservation of that slough is really important if there's a way we can preserve that slough and not negatively affect the area, then I'm interested in it. I will tell you I wasn't interested when we started this discussion, because I thought that they were destroying too many wetlands and not mitigating appropriately on-site. This soils map that they showed us is very persuasive, and I'm sure it will be later to the agencies that review it for wetlands permitting. But the idea of preserving that slough and improving the water management is really important. I mean one -- this is just a little letter here from Wayne Daltery, who everybody knows of south -- southwest regional planning Page 181 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: thoughts on that issue. council, and he just briefly refers to the regional significance that's based on the regional importance of the Palm River slough. You know, he's not saying this is a good project or a bad project. I'm just saying that slough is regionally important and its preservation, that our only shot at preserving it is through a PUD. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I think we can now close the public hearing. And I will do so. And then I will turn it over to you, Commissioner Mac'Kie, for further discussions of this board and I will recuse myself, because I have a relative that lives in that area and I would be a conflict of interest for me to vote it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HENNING: If I can piggyback on what you're saying, what's the public benefit, if we can have an interconnection with Imperial, a gated community as Mr. Hancock has said, and taking that interconnection all the way out to Livingston, then we've benefitted the residents in Imperial and also this new PUD to go to -- New Livingston. Right. I see Mr. Feder had some MR. FEDER: Just very briefly, just to point out what I saw in most of the maps was 30 foot off of this property and 30 foot to the north, that would be very much a local roadway and I don't think would meet the purpose of probably a major collector that you'd want to look at in that area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what would be necessary? MR. FEDER: Closer to 120 feet, 60 feet off of each side. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sixty from this property? MR. FEDER: At least, yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Just a fast question, one last one. I know I've heard the people from Willoughby Acres say that they want their roads closed and from the other development also, I wonder if they're maybe shooting themselves in the foot for later on when they want to get through to get up to US 41 or to one of the other roads and then they're landlocked because now it's a gated community. I'm concerned with that. I know that's what happened to us. And so I'm, you know, I'm talking to you from experience. If you prefer to be landlocked you need to Page 182 November 28, 2000 let us know that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I think that's what they're saying although, you know, people who currently live there, and our obligation is to step back and have a broader historical perspective than just -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: I want to tell you what it's like with the Foxfire closing, you can't get any place any more. MR. OLLIFF: And I'm also going to point out to you that every one of these projects that has no other access than your major arterial roadway to get to any service is going to continue to cause you to have to have these big, larger, uglier roads that you keep telling us that you don't want to have and you keep telling us that as a policy, more roads is better than bigger roads, you only have so many opportunities to be able to stand up to that type of policy. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'd like to add one more thing. Is it, maybe a little bit of a scare tactic letting these people in Willoughby Acres think that all the traffic is coming down to them, rather than the gated community saying, oops, now we're going to get their traffic coming through us. It makes it sound so much worse when you talk to an already developed area than to a piece of land, nobody in the piece of land has anything to say, but if it says, all these -- all this traffic is coming through your neighborhood, never says you might be able to access other roads. Anyway. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, gang, what are we going to do? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, Mr. Weigel, do we have the option of requiring this interconnection? MR. WEIGEL: Well, this is the thing, when the question was asked, do we advise yours -- is it advisable, all I can tell you is that it's not exactly clear in the sense we may prevail if we require that in the PUD. Clearly the PUD is a hybrid zoning situation where, in fact, bargaining and compromising is done to reach results for both parties of interest. However, the case law does tell us that you have to look at, in regard to exactions, you have to look to some degree, a significant degree, to the impacts the development itself are going to cause. And so that's why when we finally flesh out and look like -- it appears that it looks like we're looking for an interconnect which essentially may be Page183 November 28, 2000 creating a public roadway through an otherwise private roadway development. Yes, it gives concern. We may prevail if challenged in court. The one thing I'll say and I've had this discussion with former Commissioner Brandt, is that if we're going to have public roads, then they're going to be county public roads ultimately or we'll -- you can't have them on the cheap. That's what it boils down to. And that's kind of an issue that we're facing right here. They would -- they're looking to have a private road with public aspects to it, and we are going to get to a point where we'll have to contest and we'll see where the chips fall in court, I expect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it's a question of how much we pay, not whether or not we can do it. MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely. You can always do it if you pay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The good news is, is I'm sitting as the chair right at this moment. So I'll entertain a motion instead of trying to hash one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll go ahead and make a motion that we accept this PUD with the exceptions of the planning services' recommendations I through 18. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's all of the staff's recommendations. MS. MURRAY: You want to accept that as an -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And include it. MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Right. I understand. Thanks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what about the one acre neighborhood park, is that included in your stipulations? MS. MURRAY: Yes, it is. That would be stipulation number 13 and 14. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does it -- MS. MURRAY: It describes a one-acre upland property that's dedicated to Collier County, accessible by the general public. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there a second for that motion? COMMISSIONER FIALA: Does that not mean it's including the road I have to -- including the connection? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The Euclid -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. Page 184 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: motion for approval. COMMISSIONER HENNING: (Audience interruption.} COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Audience interruption.) -- would be included in your Exactly. Ma'am, please, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we can't, you know. Okay. Is there a second for the motion? Is there a second? Going once, going twice. COMMISSIONER FIALA: You mean second for discussion, right? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Put it on the floor for discussion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just for discussion, I'll second it for discussion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. So you guys are getting caught in fires. It's a hard one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And this is -- this is going to be the hard PUD that we're going to have to either approve or disapprove. And if we don't provide interconnections, it's going to cause problems down the line in Collier County. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: He might be absolutely right, Tom, but the interconnection's got to be a little bit more involved than just joining two roads together. We have a neighborhood that's just totally unable to handle the traffic flow that's going to be coming through, they're going to be -- they're going to be -- their whole way of life is going to be dramatically changed. If we can take this back to the drawing board, and maybe come up with something that the community would accept, as far as that goes. The way it is right now, just to say that the road's going to end there and take off, I find that unacceptable, and I talked to the community leaders of that area and they're willing to accept the -- from what I've been able to gather, the ones I talked to are willing to accept the project to their north. They just don't want an interconnecting road for the very reasons I just mentioned. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And, Jim, you know, I've got to say, boy, do I understand your point. And I'm not sure I could second, how I'll vote on the motion on the floor. But we have got to at some point balance up. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I agree with you 100 percent, Page 185 November 28, 2000 but I've been switching back and forth on how I was going to vote on this too. It's just that right now joining two roads together that aren't compatible is not going to be the answer. I still say this is a good idea. I say the project is a great idea. Saving the waterways and all that is wonderful, but right now we have a real problem with our residents that have been there since day one and I say the thing can be resolved with a little more work. We're talking about the road just ending right there now and joining up and take off down through. We're not talking about anything in the way of how the road's going to be built past that point down to Immokalee Road. We're not talking about any kind of traffic calming devices. These people haven't been involved in that type of process. It's just been a take it or leave it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Mr. Feder, if you want to see this accomplished today, you need to tell, convince this board that you can design a connection to Euclid that will somehow be positive. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no offense. I appreciate the presentation that was made and all staff's time and Mr. Hancock's time, but I don't feel compelled to make a decision in that direction today. I know you've been through this a number of times, and my sympathy goes out to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I think there's another answer, Mr. Feder. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. This isn't it. MR. OLLIFF: And just so the board's aware of this, this is going to require four votes -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. So-- MR. OLLIFF: Four affirmative votes in order for it to be approved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I'll go ahead and move -- remove my motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Withdrawn. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because we'll have to, we're not going to have a -- we have to have a unanimous decision here -- MR. OLLIFF: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- of what to do. Page 186 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So is there an alternative motion since there is no motion for approval on the floor? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coletta? MAC'KIE: We can't do nothing. FIALA: What would be an alternative COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER motion? COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, to deny-- MAC'KIE: To deny. COLETTA: To deny. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We approve it or we deny it, or we approve it without the interconnection. Or we approve it with some other, you know, I mean, we can add conditions. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, we are receiving an interconnection to the north, but we're not going to be impacting the communities to any degree and it's going to be a plus for the other communities up there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And what happens to Willoughby Acres when they find that it hurts them more than helps them? That's what I -- I'm really worried about it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They'll come back here and yell at us about it. That's what happens. COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's 20 years when we're not here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, no, no, no, no. Take a good look at where Willoughby Acres is, it's a built out community, which would at some point in time, you can have four or five accesses to Livingston Road if you ever had to. That's one alternative. I don't know what other roads are going to be going through there. But I'm sure we can make some future planning that would take this all into consideration. I'd be willing to right now make a motion, if it would do any good, that we accept it without the interconnect to Willoughby Acres, and then we can come back at that time and review it later, what we're going to be able to do to solve their problems when those problems ever do come up. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question, Mr. Weigel? Is there anything that would keep us -- since this developer doesn't own that little piece of property, anyway, that would connect to Euclid, if we approve this PUD without the interconnection, is there anything to prevent us from designing a Page 187 November 28, 2000 roadway connection and seeking a condemnation action at sometime in the future, if it could be designed in a positive way?. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Private roads and public road, I think you've -- MR. WEIGEL: Absolutely not, and, of course, I think it really COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's the way to go. MR. WEIGEL: -- what it would look for, what you'd as a -- the commission would look for, is a comprehensive look, so that we have marshalled all of the facts and all of the aspects, as well as just this individual subdivision need or desire so that when we go forward, we have the assurance that we win in court. And besides which if it's all taken care of it in a business-like fashion, it may be merely business rather then court action at some point later on. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Coletta, I'd second your motion if you would add to it an instruction to staff to do that review for the traffic issue. COLETTA: To do a review? MAC'KIE: Yes. COLETTA: I have no problems including COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER in there. COMMISSIONER that MAC'KIE: Then I'll second your motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I have one question. If-- would it be something like with Foxfire, say for instance now it was closed, okay, and all of a sudden they find that they needed that access, but you can't take it back any longer, because now that's a private road. In order to get that road you have to pay 12 million dollars in order to take it by eminent domain. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So, Susan, if we approve this under the motion on the floor, is it to be a gated community? MS. MURRAY: That's what the petitioner's requesting, and if you remove those staff stipulations then they will have the right to develop private roads and put a gate up and exclude -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm going to withdraw my second COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HENNING: not an apples and apples comparison. Commissioner MAC'KIE -- -- unless it's for public roads. Before you do that, -- it's a -- it's Foxfire was a public road. Page 188 November 28, 2000 It was built by the developer and it was turned over to the county. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But as fast as we approve this today, Tom, and say they've got a gated community, and can send the staff to study, all they want to see is if there needs to be an interconnection at Euclid and we need to do an eminent domain action, but once we approve a gated community our damages for condemning and interconnecting will be -- will include the damages for making them take down the gate, and that's a big dollar amount. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Hey, I've got an idea. Just a question, okay, so we have this piece that doesn't connect right now to Euclid Boulevard, right, or Euclid Avenue? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. And so -- but does it have to be gated? Can we approve this PUD without being a gated community so that at sometime in the future, if the people in Willoughby Acres say, we want that road to go through so we can connect, it's not closed off to them? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' You can, if Mr. Coletta will accept that as an amendment to this motion. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if we could, possibly you might be able to help me with this, Norman. Willoughby Acres was mentioned earlier about the problem, if you took one road and tried to continue it over to Livingston, how it would raise the same problem, as all -- any other road that would come directly from the project. If there was two or three roads connecting, if that would be a way around this whole situation, wouldn't it? MR. FEDER: Yes, it would. COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' If that time ever came that we needed to do it. MR. FEDER: Yes, it would. If you had more than one collector road, because, again, you want to utilize collectors if you're encouraging movement within an area. I'm not saying through traffic. I think a key issue here and one I want to encourage you to look at is beyond the issue of Euclid, is the issue that was raised, if we look at 120 feet or 60 off of the property on the north side and established that option for the future for all that land that exists above it, we started the Page 189 November 28, 2000 process of what I came to you at the beginning of discussion today, when I said I'll let staff go to the particulars, but welcome to the issue and the issue is we've got to find a way to develop a collector system in this county, because while I tried to expand the arterials, and they still need to be expanded, even with the collectors, without the collector system they will not function. So I think that is the issue you have today, whether or not to address that here today in this project or you start establishing it at the north for the future, that's the issue that you're wrestling with now. COMMISSIONER FIALA.' So without gates, we could connect to Imperial, right, so that those people have a second exit out of Imperial. They can still get to Livingston. We still don't, at this point in time, impact Euclid Avenue at all because they're not connected yet, but there is future discussion that could be had, if we can solve that problem, is that what you're saying? MR. FEDER: And that is one option, and, of course, if they keep a gated -- actually, the roadway across the north could also be looked at as not really an interconnection because it's outside their gated community, so, the issue interconnection, but nonetheless that is one option. The others I'll leave to your devices. I'm not sure I have the answer for you. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is that one that would be -- you would even consider? I mean, what I'm worried about is, you know, I want to answer the needs for the people in Willoughby Acres, because I understand how they feel, and I've -- and I truly do. I just don't want to see them shoot themselves in the foot in case they find, oops, we did something wrong. I want them to be able to take that one step further if the time comes. If they don't want to, and never want to connect it, great. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, take a look at your map over here -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. This is the place I'm talking about right here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. Well, I'm talking about right here. If we ever had a need for it, we could have two one way roads. One coming in and one going out, if these people in Willoughby Acres ever feel there's a real need, with off ramps and everything else onto a six-lane highway -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: See, there are other options. Page 190 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- we probably don't have to do it for 20 years. That would be an open option. I'm sure that these people aren't going to want to take their gated community idea and trash it, you know, at this point in time. COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Well, if I had a lot of money in a community and all I needed was to eliminate the gates, but I could still have my community, I'd build it. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if you don't have the gates and you already have interconnectivity and the same problem with the roads leading into it, or are you just talking about ending the road there now and then having 'em have this community develop without gates and then at some point in the future, if they wanted to make those roads? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm talking about connecting to Imperial. I'm talking about keeping the roadway-- COMMISSIONER COI. ETTA: Well, Imperial is already a given thing. We're talking about that road in the back. I don't think anything's changed there. COMMISSIONER FIALA.' You're talking about this road -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' No, no. We're talking about up over here. The road they're talking about putting into the back there, and it's going to connect to Imperial. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Their north interconnection -- COLETTA: Right. MAC'KIE.' -- as opposed to the Euclid COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER interconnection. COMMISSIONER right? COMMISSIONER FIAI. A: Yeah, that should be left open, MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. That there would be -- that would be the connection to the back there. That would take care of Willoughby's needs in the future if they ever develop to the point they need it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's right, if they get to that point. I just don't -- even if we gate it up, we shut them off. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Or we can try it as a gated community, but I just -- without a gated community, still, if the roads are interconnected, the problem hasn't changed. It's still the same. Everyone is funneling down that road. COMMISSIONER FIALA: No. They're not connected, Jim. Page 191 November 28, 2000 Here's this little piece of property here. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I understand it, but all it would take is just a simple act and these people would be sitting on the edge from now on out waiting for that somebody to drop the other shoe, and I can understand their -- this is the only problem that I had with this project, you know, they seem to have resolved most of them, I mean, there's a couple environmental problems, some people still have a hole in the donut. But for the most part, I talked to Jim Carter -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: The thing is if they ever decide they want it, they can't have it if it's gated. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand. I understand. We can't go back now and ask Mr. Hancock -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. We've got a motion on the floor. There's not a second for the motion. I think we better ask that the motion be restated. COMMISSIONER HENNING: What is the motion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The motion was that we go ahead with the project without the interconnect, that we allow -- you know, we have the interconnect in the back there, going over to Imperial and that we accept the project as it is, but no interconnect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that would include -- COMMISSIONER FIALA.' And that's with the gates? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- excuse me. And that would include -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' With the gates. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the wider right-of-way that Mr. Feder has referred to, the 60 feet on this project as opposed to 30 feet on this project so there'd be 120 foot potential right-of-way. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: road ends? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: northern boundary. COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER COLETTA: it. You're talking about where the Yes. I'm talking about along the Along the north by Imperial. Yeah. That would be included in COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then I'll second that motion. MS. MURRAY: I really need to get this point on the record. Page 192 November 28, 2000 The gates are not really an issue. The gate is a physical impediment to people using the road. The legal impediment is the fact that the roads are private. So whether there's a gate there or not, it still doesn't mean that the public is going to be able to use the roads. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The question is -- MS. MURRAY: -- the -- right. The roads need to be made public at this point. Otherwise at a later date, I should point it out, if you want to make them public, you are going to be condemning a great cost to taxpayers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But in order to make them public roads -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Public roads with a gate. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- Commissioner Coletta would need to amend his motion. MS. MURRAY: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do you have an interest, Mr. Coletta, in amending your motion to make these roads public? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In other words, making the roads public and then they can be a gated community? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they're public they can't be gated. This is the either or question. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that your -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. Because we're right back to square one. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think that's true, the way you were stating it is you can make them public but still have a gated community? MS. MURRAY: Well, you could make them public and the petitioner could get off of them and have public roads. That is an option, too. I don't mean to throw this into the mix, but that is an option that hasn't been discussed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But that's not on today's agenda, because the roads on today's agenda are the major roads through, and the question is shall they be public or private. They can gate off their side roads if they choose to. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. We're still talking about interconnectivity. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, we are. Page 193 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we're still at that one point with the one hang-up that I have a real problem with. MS. MURRAY: If I understand correctly that is that the roads are going to be public. You have an issue with that and your motion is that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That it be private. MS. MURRAY: -- the road would be private and the community would be gated. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I second the motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And you both agree that they're private roads. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Here's a motion and a second on the floor for -- MR. OLLIFF: Just to be very, very, clear in case this motion actually passed, there's the 60 foot right-of-way that we've talked about at the northern boundary of this property. I think that the developer and Mr. Feder have agreed that that would not be subject to future impact fee credit agreements, that was simply a straight out donation. And I just wanted to make that as part of the record. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And let me just be sure I get it before I vote on this. Well, let's have that stated on the record, please, by the developer's attorney. MR. SALVATORI: That is correct, but only if the motion that is now stated is approved. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Understood. MR. SALVATORI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we approve the motion on the floor, then we have approved this project without the Euclid interconnection, everything else is as applied for. The Euclid interconnection study would include -- it would be rather unlikely, because the cost would be prohibitive because of it being private roads. So we're closing off all discussion of Euclid interconnection, if we approve the motion on the floor. But everything else in this application would be approved. Anybody got anything else? Okay. Any other discussions? Call the question. All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? Page194 November 28, 2000 (No response.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Passes four up. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, bringing it back together, we now move to Item B(4), which was originally 17(P), as in Paul. Petition R-2003, rezone at U.S. 41 and Barefoot Williams Road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE.' Since Commissioner Fiala asked for that to be pulled, should we wait until she comes back in the room? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think it would be a good idea, Commissioner. MR. WEIGEL: She's the one that asked it to be moved. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve? Item #12Cl RESOLUTION 2000.450 APPROVING BUDGET AMENDMENT 99-328 AS IT RELATES TO FIRE PLAN REVIEW FEES - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN CARTER: What we can do is skip down and go to under Other, C(1), board approval of budget amendments, 99-328, as relating to the fire plan review fees. We're asked to deal with that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. This is a mess and an improvement. Going in the right direction. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll second that. Okay, discussion? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it's a great idea. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0, Commissioner Fiala absent. Item #12B4 ORDINANCE 2000-81 - RE PETITION R-2000-3, STEVE MORGAN, MORGAN AND ASSOCIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC., REPRESENTING M.B. MORGAN AND R.E. SHAFFER, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RT TO C-3 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF U.S. 41 AND BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD - ADOPTED Page 195 November 28, 2000 The next one is not going to be short, so we're going to wait for Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There she is. Okay, we're at your item that you requested pull. That's Item B(4), Petition R-2000-3. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I just had a question on that. Let me find it. MR. NINO: If we're going to be discussing the issue, however, we need to swear-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: If we're going to be discussing this issue, we need to have everybody that's participating sworn. (All speakers were duly sworn.} CHAIRMAN CARTER: Any disclosures on the Board of County Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HENNING: COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have none. None. None. CHAIRMAN CARTER: None. MR. NINO: Ron Nino, for the record. Since this item was on the summary agenda, in order to save time, I guess I would ask the Commissioner if there's something specific that I can discuss. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I did. And it probably is a simple answer. This was on the requesting for a rezone from residential tourist to C-3 for a piece of property on Barefoot Williams Road. And I read the whole thing through, and I realized it was the last -- almost the last thing on our agenda. But one of the things that concerned me was it never said what this piece of property was actually for. But it did say the most important facet of the rezoning is that it constitutes a legislative statement that authorizes the use of the land for a specific development strategy. Never tells us what this strategy is. Provided the development of the land can go forward. It may or may not affect the timing of the development because of subsequent permitting requirements. And I thought what's going to happen to the people in the neighborhood behind this specific strategy? I wanted to know that. MR. NINO: You need to take that comment in the context of Page 196 November 28, 2000 the rest of the report that says this property is being rezoned from RT to C-3, and C-3 is that development strategy. Whatever is permitted in the C-3 district is that development strategy. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, what -- I mean, are we -- it seemed like when they said specific development strategy, are we talking about maybe an extra sized pawn shop or maybe a nice new homeless shelter? I don't know what this specific development strategy was, so I wanted to pull that and find out. MR. NINO: The specific development strategy in that context would be anything that's permitted in the C-3 district. Had this been a PUD, then it would have been those uses that were culled out in the PUD as the specific use -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, I'd like to know what's going to go into the people's neighborhood. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tell her what C-3 is. MR. NINO: Anything in the C-3 -- the C-3 zoning district is essentially your mid-level commercial zoning district, primarily emphasizing retail and service uses and offices. COMMISSIONER FIALA: actually go into -- MR. NINO: No, we don't. COMMISSIONER FIALA: But do we know what's going to No, we don't. We have no idea what the -- MR. NINO: The only thing we know is the amount of square footage that is proposed by this development. And I believe it's -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Do you know what's going to go in there, sir? MR. MORGAN: This-- MR. NINO: 13,600 square feet of retail professional office, and 5,000 square feet of convenient store and gasoline station. That we know is going in there. And what is included in the umbrella of retail professional, we don't know. However, the petitioner may shed some light on that. MR. MORGAN: The -- my name is Milfred Morgan, and my partner, Robert Shaffer and I are the sole owners of the property. And we view this as an extension of Hitching Post Plaza, which was built in the 1970's. And we are gearing -- or thinking of this as an addition mainly for professional and retail. And understand we're not fixed, this gas station or the -- we would come in and have different things, possibly. But right now we have in the -- this is a plaza that -- to the west, and a radio Page t97 November 28, 2000 station. We're in the middle. If -- the radio station is to the east. On the north is the Eagle Lake Community Park and on the south is a mobile home park. Presently we have a restaurant, a Habitat for Humanity office, a doctor's office, a beauty shop, patio furniture, picture warehouse, auto parts store, a drapery and curtain store and a Goodwill store. And we would like to have this continued commercial and professional, if possible. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I have to tell you, sir, what I -- the reason I even called this is I'm very concerned that neighborhood is -- neighborhood that is trying to improve itself and trying to look better, and Hitching Post Plaza is not much of an improvement. It looks kind of seedy, you know. MR. MORGAN: Well, Hitching Post-- COMMISSIONER FIALA: And hopefully your place -- I don't know who owns Hitching Post. But hopefully your place will add an improvement rather than more of the same, as it's located quite near to Lely Resort. We'd like to see -- and Lely Lakes is coming into that area. And what I'd like to see are when we're making improvements in the area, that they are improvements and not more of the same. And that's why I was calling that. MR. MORGAN: Well, we are making improvements to Hitching Post Plaza. We have recently done a repaint job to match the same colors across the street in Eagle Lake Community Park, and we have continuing plans to improve it. Now, it was built in the 1970's, early 1970's, and our new addition across the Barefoot Williams Road would be of course a lot more modern than Hitching Post. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I ask a question on that subject? Because I think you raised some really good -- a real good point. And sometimes when we have this, this gives us an opportunity to ask for improvements. If you own the existing Hitching Post -- the ownership of this property that's the subject of the application and the ownership of the Hitching Post shopping center is identical? MR. MORGAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you be willing to bring the existing Hitching Post property up to current code with regard to landscaping, for example, as a condition of approval of this PUD? Page 198 November 28, 2000 MR. MORGAN: Well, it's my understanding that we have brought Hitching Post up to landscaping, according to current requirements. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that correct? Does someone know on staff? MR. NINO: I can't answer that question. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I would like to find out. I appreciate that, because that's exactly what we're trying to do -- MR. NINO: I don't know how that could come to -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- is improve the appearance of the neighborhood. MR. NINO: -- pass. Ron Nino. It was built in the 1970's. Since 1970, as you know, we've probably increased our landscaping requirements 1,000 fold. And we now have architectural requirements. You can take some solace in the fact that any commercial development that occurs, irrespective of where it occurs in Collier County, is going to put its best face forward under today's regulations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what Commissioner Fiala is looking for is some improvement on what's currently there. And what I would like to do is make a motion that we approve the existing -- the project that is before us, with the condition that to the extent physically possible the existing Hitching Post be brought up to current code. And that would include landscaping, parking, architecture. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, within reason. We can't expect him to tear down the building. MR. MORGAN: Well, can I address that, within reason? We have a -- it's fully landscaped in front. It's solid hedges all the way across. Now, if we're to expand that, we'd have to tear out our parking lot and the curbs and create a whole new gardener's effect in front. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that was my reason for saying to the extent possible, reasonably possible. Because I understand, we don't want you to put in trees and have inadequate parking, but to work with staff to come up with an improvement program for the existing Hitching Post that -- to allow the improvements -- to require the improvements that are reasonably possible. Page 199 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER FIALA: An entryway to the Hitching Post mobile home park that would be pleasant to look at and something they can be proud of. And certainly, sir, you as the owner, for you to be proud of. MR. MORGAN: Yes, we want to be proud of this new development and something that is in line with whatever the county wants as far as landscaping is concerned on the new section. But we cannot tear out our parking lot in order to create new land in order to put trees and things like -- there are trees now and there's solid hedges all across the front. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I -- you know, we need -- I'm not sure, Commissioner Fiala, that we can say we're only going to let you have your approval if you agree to these things. But it is an opportunity to ask you if you would agree to make the improvements that are physically reasonably possible to the Hitching Post as -- the residential mobile home development, and also to the existing shopping center. MR. MORGAN: We have no control over the residential home devel -- mobile home. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even that entryway is not something that you have control over -- MR. MORGAN: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the landscape? MR. MORGAN: No. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just the Hitching Post. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, would you be willing to work with staff to make all of the improvements that are reasonably able to be made to bring the Hitching Post up to current code? I'm not talking about taking out parking spaces. MR. MORGAN: Well, it's fully landscaped now, and I don't see how we could add any more to it. COMMISSIONER FIALA: How about if we meet after this meeting? I won't take any more of the county time, but maybe you and I could talk and we could bring a code enforcement officer over there. What I'm trying to do is improve all of East Naples, a rather dilapidated look into a newer more up-to-date look. And can you help us by doing that. MR. MORGAN: Well, I'd sure try to help you, but I think it looks great now with the landscaping there. Page 200 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, come take a look, maybe can I meet you, sir. MR. MORGAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you be able to commit on the record to making the improvements you reasonably can? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I think what I hear him saying is he's done everything he possibly can under the existing property. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Unless he tears out his parking. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Tears out his parking and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, this -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Wait a minute, just wait a minute. Now listen, if he's not in code violation, if he's doing what he's supposed to do on that piece of property today, I don't see how I can require him to do anything else other than is there. So I'm just suggesting that he seems to be a person who's saying yes, I think I've done everything. Will he meet with Commissioner Fiala? I'm sure he would. If it's something that's within his power to do within the existing property, yes. But I can't put restrictions around him on an older piece of property that's impossible to do things I guess to upgrade under the current situation, unless they tear it down. Now, if they tear it down, that's something else. But that's not where we're going here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: All I was doing was asking if he would work with Commissioner Fiala to improve to the extent he can agree to. MR. MORGAN: I'd be happy to meet with Commissioner Fiala. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I make a motion to improve the project. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you very much. MR. MORGAN: Thank you. Item #12C2 Page 201 November 28, 2000 ORDINANCE 2000-82 CREATING THE PELICAN AY DEPENDENT DISTRICT AND DISSOLVING THE PELICAN BAY MSTU - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, let's move on to item 13 -- I'm sorry, we're still on Item C, Other, 2. Adopt an ordinance creating the Pelican Bay dependent district and dissolving the Pelican Bay MSTU. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let me just put on the record, please, that as I have in the previous discussions of this ordinance, I'm going to abstain from voting. Not because of an actual conflict, because I don't have one, but because of a perception of conflict and my desire to be as careful as possible to avoid voting where I may have a conflict of interest. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, I guess we have to have everyone sworn who's going to participate. MR. WEIGEL: No. CHAIRMAN CARTER: No? MR. WEIGEL: No, not on this one. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We do not. One way or the other, we do not have -- MR. WEIGEL: This isn't a specific land use, so we're in good shape. (Commissioner Mac'Kie exits boardroom.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, we don't have to swear in anybody. Okay, thank you very much. Counselor. Mr. Dunnuck. MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, commissioners. For the record, John Dunnuck, community development and environmental services interim administrator. I think we can say now that you're no longer rookies after today's board meeting. What I'm bringing forward today is the adoption of an ordinance creating the Pelican Bay dependent district and dissolving the current Pelican Bay MSTU. This item was brought forward by the community, by the Pelican Bay Homeowners' Association, and through the Pelican Bay MSTU with approval to move forward with an ordinance that will create a dependent district. What this dependent district does is in fact dissolves the MSTU and creates an elected body that would have the official Page 202 November 28, 2000 opera -- they'd be able to handle the official operations of the Pelican Bay district, and then the Board of County Commissioners would have the final budget approval through a veto process. Without belaboring too many of the details, I know we have 10 speakers, I just want to keep it kind of cut-and-dry on where we are with it. We have reviewed the ordinance and we have a few specific, you know, minor changes that we'd like to make. There was a memo that was received by -- to the board from David Weigel's office that would like to address a few of the issues with regard to the process. They're requesting that we, you know, stay with the current MSTU until we can come up with the elected officials. And since that money is funded specifically for this coming year, that money would have to stay funded for the entire year towards those projects. CHAIRMAN CARTER: As I understand, I had a meeting with legal counsel this morning and with county manager, it's really mechanical issues, but they're there in their status so that we could have a smooth transaction -- transition between the two and that it could continue to function until the new board was elected. MR. DUNNUCK: Correct. MR. OLLIFF: And Mr. Chairman, I would just suggest at the end if the board wants to proceed with that ordinance, that the county attorney probably just has some things he can read into the record and then it will clarify those issues for us. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Sure. Go to public speakers. MR. OLLIFF.' First speak is Jim Carroll, followed by A.G. Follett. And just for the record, there are about a dozen speakers, so if the next speaker could be ready, it would be helpful. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Keep everybody on the on deck circle. MR. CARROLL: My name is Jim Carroll. I'm a member of the MSTBU advisory committee. I've been for three years. I've sat in on the deliberations on this for quite a few meetings. I think it's a very good idea. The idea of having elected officials seems like the right thing to do. I believe we'll be better able to manage our affairs in Pelican Bay if we go ahead with this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you, Jim. How long did you sit Page 203 November 28, 2000 on the MSTU? MR. CARROLL: About three years. It would be three years in February, out of a four-year term. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Following Mr. Follett will be Donald Spanier. MR. SPANIER: Good afternoon, commissioners. I'm Donald Spanier. I'm a resident of Pelican Bay at the Oakmont section. I'm the former president of the Breakwater Condominium Association, a member of the planning committee of the foundation board, and active in a number of community organizations. I come here to ask you to deliberate carefully before enacting this ordinance, which has really become available to the attention of the parties at interest in Pelican Bay only in the last day or. There has been a long period of public relations activity in Pelican Bay in which the reports of management consultants, attorneys and brief summaries of the purported objectives and contents of this proposed ordinance have been placed before a number of the organizations and clubs in the community. The timing of course has been very bad, since many of the Pelican Bay residents, including those who are the registered voters in Pelican Bay, have not yet returned from the north, nor will they until after the holiday season, so that such meetings as have been held have not really disseminated the intent and substance of this material to those of us who are going to be directly affected and pay the bill and whose lives really are going to be substantially affected by this document. I have found that the draft ordinance that was circulated in Pelican Bay to people like myself who are interested in these things differs in substance from the document now before you. The draft, which is prepared by a consulting attorney, provided a framework, a proposed ordinance, that has the same general shape and direction as this one, but differs very substantially in substance. By that I mean its impact financially; its impact in terms of decisions that be might be made by this board are quite different from what the members of the community have been led to believe. Let me iljustrate. In the general material that's been discussed in Pelican Bay, emphasis has been placed on the fact Page 204 November 28, 2000 that the governance of the Pelican Bay community would move substantially in the direction of self control and self governance with respect to the way in which choices are made about what the community wants and what it's willing to pay for. The ordinance, as presented, goes to great pains, the one before you, to say literally that there is a single and special purpose to this proposed district. And that purpose is to finance, construct and to provide infrastructure. It has no reference whatsoever to the various government services and policies which those of us who live in Pelican Bay and pay the taxes there and elect our representatives are most concerned with. They aren't such matters as water management and the building of an additional plant, bridge or culvert. They refer, rather, to what input we might have on matters that relate to the appearance of the community, the planning, zoning, architecture, changes in the appearance of our community, and those things that have an impact on the taxes we pay. There is not one word in this 58-page document that provides even for consultation between your board and this new district on matters of importance. In fact, the document -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You need to summarize, please. MR. SPANIER: I will summarize and end. The document preempts to the county board all matters of importance, it makes no transfers of authority, and it places upon us an unestimated cost burden that I would estimate as an additional 3 or $400,000 a year in expenses, as well as the unlimited authority to incur debt on the part of Pelican Bay residents. I would urge you not to act precipitously, to have a month or so of real public discussion and hearing, probably led by our representative, based on the actual document under consideration, so that the population of this community can know what it is that is being hoisted on them by ordinance of this board. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker. MR. OLLIFF: I had called A.G. Follett, but -- following Mr. Follett will be Glen Harrell. MR. FOLLETT: Commissioners, good afternoon. My only credit here that I can say is that I'm a resident of Pelican Bay. My purpose before you is to present a resolution for your Page 205 November 28, 2000 vote and consideration. If I might -- if I may, Mr. Chairman, may I provide copies of this to you and to the commissioners? And Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd like to read this resolution? CHAIRMAN CARTER: You may do so, sir. You have five minutes. You can use your time any way you choose. MR. FOLLETT: WHEREAS -- this is a resolution. WHEREAS, the November 21st final draft of the ordinance was completed only seven days ago; and, WHEREAS, the ordinance has not been published; and, WHEREAS, the ordinance has not been distributed to the Pelican Bay residents; and, WHEREAS, only -- that is, only conceptual information about previous drafts has been available; and, WHEREAS, details in the November 21st final draft ordinance have not been available; and, WHEREAS, the Pelican Bay residents who are proponents have not had the opportunity to be good neighbors and organize public meetings for discussion, education and understanding of the details in the ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the Pelican Bay winter residents are just beginning to arrive and learn of this ordinance; and, WHEREAS, all Pelican Bay residents have not had an opportunity to express their view about the ordinance. THEREFORE, be it resolved that time be available -- be made available for public hearings -- for public meetings, rather, to be held in Pelican Bay to discuss, educate and inform the residents about the details of the ordinance; and that Pelican Bay residents be afforded the opportunity to express their view of the ordinance before it is offered to the commissioners for their action. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker? MR. OLLIFF: Next speaker was Glen Harrell, but I believe that Mr. Harrell's left, so the next two speakers will be David Roellig. Following Mr. Roellig will be Raymond O'Connor. MR. ROELLIG: Thank you, commissioners. I have a hand-out, if Mr. Weigel would be kind enough to distribute. I prepared a memorandum outlying some of the points I feel should be made. As indicated by the previous speakers, probably only 25, maybe there's a few more now, or 30 people have Page 206 November 28, 2000 actually seen this ordinance. The population of Pelican Bay, as you may know -- I don't know what the exact number is, but 6 or 7,000 or more, perhaps. So virtually no one has seen the notice. I'd like to -- the ordinance, sorry. I'd like to point out that our existing ordinance is about a page and a half. It tells us what we can do, how we get organized. Almost anybody can read it in, you know, a half hour and I should think pretty much completely understand it. I find this ordinance to be unacceptable because it's about 50 some pages. I realize that somebody will say this has been prepared by one of the prominent law firms in this state. That may be true. But it's replete with boilerplate redundancies, obscure things, goes into items that many people in Pelican Bay are not going to be interested in, and it is so complex that when you read it I don't think you can explain to it anybody. I've been asked by my president of my condo association to write up a memo for our newsletter, and I don't think I can do it, because it's 58 pages -- or 50 some pages of all kinds of stuff. A lot of it is -- some of it's contradictory. There's errors in this. I think it's premature to even begin to bring this before the board. I've heard some of the presentations that people have given. They're talking -- and one time they'll say well, we can hire and fire our employees, but they won't be subject to any of the county rules and regulations. Well, I don't know if that's true or not. Apparently a few of the employees that I've talked to have never been spoken to. They don't know what their situation is going to be. Also it's been reported in meetings that people have indicated that we'll be able to do our own procurement. We'll be able to write contracts, we'll be able to go out and decide buy a Ford truck or do anything we want. Well, I think that's -- there's a good reason why public people and why the government has to go through what some people would call hoops, because we're spending the public's money. And when you spend the public's money, you have to do it in a prescribed and reasonable and you're accountable for it. The other indica -- another problem I have with this, the ordinance specifically states that the County Commissioners cannot remove the supervisors. And there's nothing in this ordinance that would allow the removal of supervisors who have Page 207 November 28, 2000 been -- committed misdeeds or don't come to the meetings or fail to -- in their responsibilities. There's no way to remove them. Presumably, you know, the old song that you could get them in the next election I think would be unacceptable. The way it is now -- and I may have indicated that I'm a member of the Pelican Bay Advisory Committee, and I -- as I understand, I serve at the pleasure of the County Commission. And at any time the County Commission can replace me. And I think that's a very good safeguard. And I think this making the new supervisors invulnerable to removal I think is a big mistake. It was touched on before about the bonds and borrowing. The copy I have indicates that these supervisors could sell bonds for a period up to 40 years. There's no indication in the ordinance what their monetary limit might be. I don't think the people at Pelican Bay are interested in that. I think we've -- for many years we've gone on a pay-as-you-go basis and have five, six, seven pages in this ordinance on how we're going to sell bonds and how they are not going to -- you know, they could go for a term of 40 years. And I think that's just unacceptable. Another problem I have is the excessive taxing and assessment authority. As I read the ordinance, the ad valorem taxes -- if I can just have a minute -- the ad valorem taxes can be increased up to two mills. And they apparently would have to be approved by this body. Two mills is 10 times what we pay now. The other is we have a maintenance assessment that goes to all property owners, and that, as I read it, there is no limit and there is no review. So -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, MR. ROELLIG: Thank you. Well, my wrap-up is in my last paragraph here. My comments in my memo are not to be construed as comments on this -- to improve this ordinance. I think the ordinance should be scrapped. I think it's far too voluminous. It goes off and -- it's got too much boilerplate. I don't think you're ever going to be able to explain it to people. I think it should be -- it should not be passed, and I certainly would appreciate it if we're going to have public meetings, fine. But as it stands, I think it's unacceptable. Thank you. MR. OLLIFF-' Next speaker is Raymond O'Connor, followed Page 208 November 28, 2000 by George Warner. MR. O'CONNOR: My name is Raymond O'Connor. I'm the president of the Pelican Bay property owners. And we sponsored this ordinance, the creation of this ordinance, after a lot of deliberations. We had a governance committee that took a look at what we liked in Pelican Bay and what we thought could be improved in Pelican Bay. This was done after several efforts to get an incorporation measure passed up in Tallahassee, which we were not successful in doing. We were precluded by the two-mile rule because we are within two miles of the City of Naples, and we couldn't be grandfathered into the existing law which allows, after you reach a certain population, that the county must allow you to vote on incorporation, we were precluded from that because that measure was passed after Pelican Bay was established. There is also ordinances now creating dependent districts that allow for elected supervisors, or whatever other title they may call them, because the property is owned by the developer. One owner can do that. In Pelican Bay we have thousands of owners and you need 100 percent in order to create that type of a dependent district. This district that is before you is a hybrid. What we thought we would bring to you and what we have brought to the community, despite what you've heard from some of the people who spoke prior to me, we've had meetings back in the spring. We had Richard Woodruff, who was the former city manager of Naples, explain to us our PUD, analyze it, tell us where we are and where we should be looking for the future as it relates to our covenants and how we protect our property values in Pelican Bay. Then we hired Neil Dorrill, who came before our public meeting again, again last spring, to explain what an ordinance would contain in order to accomplish what we wanted to do in Pelican Bay for our future at the time of build-out when the developers leave. Since that time, we've had meetings at the MSTBU. I personally have had meetings with the condo association presidents. The foundation of Pelican Bay has approved this ordinance by a unanimous vote. The board of the Pelican Bay property owners has approved it by a unanimous vote. The MSTBU, which is voting itself out of existence, voted 8-1 to Page 209 November 28, 2000 consider it and then 6-3 to approve it and send it on to you for your approval. The major organizations within Pelican Bay have all considered this and all approved of it. We've had several public meetings. If you approve this measure today, I have committed the Pelican Bay property owners to call a general meeting of the entire population of Pelican Bay to explain to them what we're doing here, if they want to attend. And we also would have a meeting to have a candidate's night for any supervisors who desire to run for office. I might point out to you too that we have the approval of Phil McKay and Bob Nagley, who represent Bay Colony, which is a considerable portion of Pelican Bay. Their membership has approved this as well. We've gone to every reasonable effort to have this ordinance made known to the people of Pelican Bay, including the issues of the newspaper that's put out by the foundation to all the residents in Pelican Bay where this ordinance is explained in detail as to the major points that it's going to contain. We certainly didn't publish 58 pages. Some of the language that is objected to is boilerplate language that is put into all ordinances for dependent districts. There's worry about us bonding. We're not building a football stadium and we're not building a bridge in Pelican Bay. That boilerplate language is put in there because it's in there for every dependent district that's created. So we put it in there and I don't see any problem with it because, ladies and gentlemen, this board will have the final approval of any budget that we submit, and excessive expenses will be submitted to you for your perusal, and if you think they're excessive, you don't have to approve our budget. You have the final control of the expenses of Pelican Bay. We will continue to operate just as the present MSTU operates. Whatever budget they create, they submit to you for your approval. The only difference is that we feel that we want elected people representing us. As this recent election has proven, everybody's vote is important. And I think their level of consciousness about that has been raised by this election. We want to vote for the people that represent us. And I think everybody, even people who were opposed to this, are not opposed to the idea of us having our own elected representative. Page 210 November 28, 2000 So I ask you to consider this. This is not something that was drawn up overnight. This is from years, and I'm talking literally -- I've been president for four years, and I started on this proposal four years ago with the entire community, and it's not something that was just dreamed up. We present it to you after all of that preparation, and we ask you for your due consideration today. And thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Excuse me, I have a question, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HENNING: It sounds like you're very familiar with this document. Who pays for the election costs? MR. O'CONNOR: We will pay for the election costs. COMMISSIONER HENNING: And where is it spelled out here? MR. O'CONNOR: The election costs, from what we understand, is that this would be a special election, and if necessary, the Pelican Bay property owners will pay for it, if we have to. Otherwise, it would be coming out of funding from the MSTU, if they decide to fund it. The current MSTU. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Otherwise, Commissioner, the residents of Pelican Bay will pay for their own election. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And it's spelled out in the document? MR. O'CONNOR: It may not be spelled out in the document. I'm not sure because -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Per the county attorney -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because we're going to have other elections. MR. O'CONNOR: We thought we would be able to get it before the commission that was in place prior to your taking office. We had talked about this with the prior commissioners. I think we had a very positive response from the former commission that was here. I personally met with several of them. And we thought we might have it in time for this election period, which would have cost nothing. It would have been piggybacked on the election. If there is a special election to be held in March of next year, which we anticipate, and the MSTBU does not provide funding for it, I would ask the Pelican Bay property owners to Page 211 November 28, 2000 provide the funding for it, since we have provided the funding for all the preparation and the legal fees up to date. And I'm sure we have the desire to follow through with this entire process. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, let me direct it to our attorney, David. Does it say in there, or is this part of the public record, that Mr. O'Connor is saying this is how it will be handled? MR. WEIGEL: Well, it's always fine to have clarity on the public record. And I can also state that on Page 22 of the ordinance, as it appears in the agenda packet, it specifically states that within 180 days following the effective date of the ordinance creating the district, an election shall be noticed and held in con]unction with a primary or general election, it says, unless the district bears the cost of special election. And it goes on to be coordinated with the supervisor of election. And as I pointed out in my memo to the commissioners -- and these are really merely housekeeping items on a very comprehensive ordinance -- was that it would appear merely advisory to the new district board, should it become created by adoption of this ordinance. Advisory from -- as a parting comment from the county attorney would be that they must look closely at the funding that they have and the reasons for the funding that they receive. Typically both our office and the clerk opines that you can't spend money for purposes for which the money was not collected. Which in this case of an election may lead them to the place that the speaker had indicated that they may have to pay for it independently of the funds that they would currently have on hand at the time that they would have the special election. If I may -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Does that answer your question? MR. WEIGEL: If I may, I'll just continue my wrap-up of a couple of housekeeping items. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go ahead and then we'll have the next speaker. MR. WEIGEL.' Oh, pardon me, I'll wait. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's let me get the final speaker. MR. O'CONNOR: Okay. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Warner, I believe, is no longer here. The next speaker is Dick Certsits. Not here either. Alice Kay Potter? Following Ms. Potter will be Lois and I Page 212 November 28, 2000 believe it's Sabatino. MS. POTTER: Good evening. Due to the lateness of the hour, I have very little to add to this. I should say that I'm Alice Kay Potter. I live in Pelican Bay; have done so since 1987. During all this time, we've constantly talked about could we possibly be responsible for our own destiny? We've always said we wanted more autonomy. We are a community that prides itself on being very distinctive, and it is my opinion and of many of my friends that this would give us that opportunity. The gentlemen who have objected are friends of mine, people that I admire greatly, and I know they are sincere. And I'm confident that we can work something out. And if we can't do it tonight, and I pray that we can, because time is of the essence, that we can do it very soon. I think a joint endeavor is to have a government of Pelican Bay that is the best for all of our citizens. We are so worried about our mangroves, we have safety issues, we are becoming quite crowded. We worry about our building codes, because when WCI leaves, we're going to have to address that. There are many, many problems that we're going to have to take upon ourselves, and the best way to do that is with elected representatives. So I appeal to you gentlemen, I know you're tired and weary, to give this your best consideration. And I thank you. And to my friends over here, I feel that we still can get together on this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MR. OLLIFF: Following your next speaker will be Neil Dorrill. MS. SABATINO: I'm Lois Sabatino and I'm a resident of Pelican Bay. And I second what Kay has just said. We were sitting in the back of the room talking about what we could say that would have any impact on this meeting this afternoon. And basically we both decided that no matter what side of the governance fence the people of Pelican Bay are on, they are adults and we're not going to get into any kind of a you know what contest. What we'd like to do is to come up with what is the best policy and the best thing for Pelican Bay, because we have a beautiful, beautiful community, and we want that community to Page 213 November 28, 2000 continue to be as beautiful as it always has been. And we have some fantastic brains on this side of the room, and there's no reason why we can't work together to make something work that will be for the best of all of Pelican Bay and not something that's going to be any good for one person's ego. We're not into an ego trip here. We're all going to work together and make sure that this program works for Pelican Bay. And what we're going to do is to prove that a community of very intelligent people is going to make something wonderful happen. And we're not going to have anything negative happen in the future with this program. And that's all have I to say. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker? MR. OLLIFF: Following Neil Dorrill will be your last registered speaker, will be Lou Vlasho. MR. DORRILL: Good afternoon -- or evening, Commissioners. As I sat there this afternoon, I realize that I have worked and had the privilege to work for 19 Collier County commissioners over the course of 18 years, so I wish you and as importantly your spouses the very best, as this commission goes forward. Let me tell you very quickly, Richard Woodruff and I had the very high privilege to work together to look out on the horizon near the end of development for WCI to do two things: To evaluate the current general and neighborhood restrictive covenants that govern those land use and architectural and community issues in Pelican Bay, and then to look at the governance options for the future of Pelican Bay as it nears the completion of its development. And we were engaged to do that last January, as a matter of fact. And this process has taken almost an entire year for which there were nine public meetings. Four of those meetings were held at your current Pelican Bay Services Advisory Board. The most recent of which occurred on October the 4th, about 60 days ago, at which time the final draft was presented and made available to the community at a public meeting and was, I believe, adopted by a vote of 6 to 3, with a recommendation for you today. That draft has not changed at all over the course of the last 60 days or so. I can tell you that there were some minor revisions that were suggested and proposed and may yet come Page 214 November 28, 2000 about as a result of your public hearing today. But frankly, that's the reason for public hearings is to hear and receive public testimony, and then you reserve the right to make changes as you see fit. This is a Chapter 189 under the Florida Statutes, dependent district under the Board of County Commissioners. If you adopt this ordinance, it will be a Chapter 189 dependent district under the Board of County Commissioners. And you and you alone will reserve the right to approve the final annual budget at a public hearing to adopt the budget and to establish the appropriation categories for the coming fiscal year, as you do now. And you and you alone will incur the right and obligation to incur debt, if you choose to do so, within the framework, if the board of supervisors ever desire to construct or undertake a capital improvement that requires a debt instrument of some type. As I took a number of notes, I actually prepared the ordinance and I think I should probably give you the key elements of the ordinance within the five minutes that I have, as opposed to trying to answer questions, aside from telling you I'll be happy to answer any of those that you're concerned about. A great deal of what was expressed to you earlier, though, is misinformation or is not in fact factually contained within the ordinance that was submitted on October the 4th. The ordinance does provide for a seven-member elected board of supervisors, all of whom must file a Form One financial disclosure form and adhere to all of the ethics and Florida statute requirements for any special district supervisors in the case. And I know Commissioner Henning in particular has served as an independent district commissioner. And some of the reasons for this length of this ordinance is to establish a basis of law for the powers and the responsibilities and the legal description and the list of assets that will ultimately need to be compiled in accordance with Florida statutes. Those commissioners will be elected to serve no more than two four-year terms. The commissioners, the three commissioners who received the highest number of votes will initially receive a four-year terms. The four commissioners who follow will serve a two-year term, so they are staggered, as is the case with this board. Page 215 November 28, 2000 I can tell you that we have carefully constructed this so that the audit requirements, the custodian for and accounting of all public funds will remain the responsibility of the clerk of the circuit court who also acts as the chief fiscal officer of this county. There were some statements made that these future supervisors can spend public money as they see fit, and on any whim and under any circumstance. That's not true. And as you sit there, you know for a fact that the clerk of the circuit court is not going to allow that to occur. The collection and enforcement of all lienable public revenues will remain with the tax collector, who is Guy Carlton. There are absolutely no changes proposed. And in fact the annual preparation and certification of the assessed value and any assessment roll must remain with the property appraiser. There are no changes, and no special district in the State of Florida has the ability to make those changes. I can tell you that all the assets will be distributed based on a negotiated process that will need to be agreed to by this Board of County Commissioners. And there are some assets that are very important, perhaps from a road network perspective. I think a very good case can be made on the part of Mr. Feder, that he may want to continue to have the responsibility of Pelican Bay Boulevard, and with that, the associated perpetual maintenance responsibility. There are other assets, though, that have been purchased with and for the exclusive residents of Pelican Bay that the Pelican Bay people feel that they should -- and frankly should be -- entitled to in that particular regard. A great deal of other issues have been said. Both Dr. Woodruff and I had the pleasure to work on this. And I think rather than just go on, I'd be happy to answer any specific concerns or questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN CARTER: What I might do, Nell, if maybe I can exercise my prerogative as Chair is to allow the last speaker to speak, and then if board members want to ask the consultant of this project any questions that may be on your mind, we can do that. MR. OLLIFF: Last speaker is Mr. Lou Vlasho. MR. VLASHO: I had written down good morning, then I Page 216 November 28, 2000 changed to it good afternoon, now I say good evening, commissioners. My name is -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: You stay here long enough, it might be good morning again. MR. VLASHO: My name is Lou Vlasho. I have been an 11-year full-time resident of Pelican Bay. I currently serve as president of the Pelican Bay Association president's council that represents over 70 associations and my estimate, 95 percent of the residents of Pelican Bay. I'm serving my fourth term as president. In addition, I am a member of the Pelican Bay MSTBU, have been for two years, and I currently serve during this year, the year 2000, as the chairman. First I want to thank Neil Dorrill for getting back to the substance of the ordinance, I appreciate that, and covering what we're really here for today. I am involved, as many Pelican Bay residents, for many years with what are we going to be when we grow up. But over the last two years, I have been involved extensively, not only by myself but with the president of the property owners' association, the chairman of the Pelican Bay foundation, the chairman of the MSTBU, and the president of the president's council. That was a subcommittee that evolved out of a governance committee that the property owners had put together, and about two years ago, we began to meet and deal with what do we want to be when we grow up. The committee was fortunate enough to find two consultants locally that it could use, and thanks to the goodness of the Pelican Bay property owners, fund their fees. And during those discussions, we were commended several times by people that we talked to for being proactive rather than waiting till there's a problem and then trying to deal with it. So that's what we're trying to do here. I'd like to -- Dick Censits, the chairman of the foundation, could not be here, and asked me to read a statement on his behalf. First he wanted to remind you that there are seven elected board members of the foundation. They have a president, who is the CEO, who reports to the board and the chairman. They have between 12 and 13,000 members. And they estimate that they represent 4,400 registered voters. Page 217 November 28, 2000 The board voted unanimously in favor of giving the residents the opportunity to have greater responsibility and to elect their own supervisors. George Warner, who was a registered speaker, but also had to leave, and is a member of the MSTBU board, wanted me to mention that he strongly endorses approval of this ordinance. I personally think that the solution we have come up with is a good one. I like the expression, a comprehensive ordinance. That's what we wanted to do. We had a broad ordinance that would give us enough power and enough authority but still come through -- the way I describe it, to be as independent as we possibly could be and still be a dependent district. I'd like to also think that we were smart enough to figure that out, but we sort of backed into it as we talked about the process over the last two years. We have followed the procedure that's required to get this ordinance in front of you. We -- communications, there's always disagreement. You could talk more about it. But there have been countless meetings. I know that the property owners have had two or three large meetings, the president's council has had a presentation, most of the organizations within Pelican Bay have heard about it, and there have been at least five or six MSTBU meetings, monthly meetings, that have dealt with this. As far as getting into the details, you as commissioners read the executive summary. That's really what the synopsis is. You know, there was never an intention to present 57 pages to the owners of Pelican Bay and have them go through word by word and say yes, we agree with paragraph 62 and paragraph 93. That's not the intention. But there has never been an intention to keep information from any Pelican Bay property owner. The draft of the ordinance has gone through reiteration several times. Two, three, four times suggestions were made by the committee and then by the MSTBU board. The prime objective again is to elect our own board members and to give them as much independence as we could. One of the -- you say independence, why do you want that? One of the things is we are currently in the process of hiring a new manager for Pelican Bay. The manager -- the purchasing department and the staff has set up an organization, and the advisory board can also be a player. That's not really the way we Page 218 November 28, 2000 want to run it. We want to be responsible for what happens in Pelican Bay. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, MR. VLASHO: I'm going to wrap it up here by saying to you the following things: If you approve this ordinance, which I strongly suggest you do, I will immediately appoint at our next meeting a committee to begin to meet with the staff, the county staff, to negotiate what these assets are, so that we can have a transition rather than wait till the election of officers. And in conclusion, I'd like to remind you what the ordinance is all about and read from the ordinance. The creation by ordinance of this dependent Pelican Bay Services District, whose board is composed of and elected by qualified electors, is the best alternative for both the citizens of Collier County and the citizens, residents, landowners and qualified electors of Pelican Bay, because it coincides the benefits of general purpose home rule local government in the form of the Board of County Commissioners with the benefits of pinpoint focus narrow limited responsive and accountable close -- closest to the people special purpose government in the Pelican Bay area, resulting in economies of scale, non-duplication, innovation and full public disclosure and accountability. I strongly request that you adopt this ordinance. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Questions by the board that you might have of Mr. Dorrill? The only reason I was going to call him back is because he was the consultant that went through this project. And if you have any specific questions, you can address it to him, or you have the county attorney or county manager who have both reviewed this ordinance and had it in their possession I would say at least 60 days. Any questions? I'll entertain -- I will make a motion that we accept this ordinance, and I will make that motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think the county attorney -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: County attorney, you need to read in two statements. MR. WEIGEL: A couple of statements. And one is for your Page 219 November 28, 2000 own edification. Within 120 days of the adoption of the ordinance, an agreement would be coming back to you, negotiated with the county manager and the powers that be currently of this MSTBU in regard to the transfer of an assumption of assets. I would expect that that would include also any description and taking care of any liabilities till that's very clear. And of course it will be reviewed for legal sufficiency by the county attorney. I wanted to make very clear in the ordinance that upon its adoption it becomes effective when received by the Department of State, which would be within eight days or less. And so it's not to my review absolutely clear that when we abolish the current MSTBU Ordinance 90-111 as amended, and the new one takes effect, but we don't have elected officials for up to 180 days, we want to be sure that there's no question in regard to the governing authority in the meantime. I note of course that our current arrangement of the Pelican Bay MSTBU, the Board of County Commissioners is the governing body. There is of course this committee that exists. And so I would suggest that we add a sentence to the ordinance in Section 5 talking about termination and dissolution that goes about like this: Upon adoption of this ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners shall govern the district until the initial election and assumption of office of the district board members. Now, they may have their election well before 180 days, but this provides an absolute guarantee then that there's no gap as far as legislative language in that regard. One other thing I would point out is that in fact the board does have line item veto annually in regard to the budget here. There are some provisions in timing provided on Page 27 of our packet which very early on the new board of supervisors, the district board, as it's called, submits draft budget to the county manager and the clerk for review. It's very early in the process. It comes early summer of any year prior to the adoption of the budget. However, in the desire to implement an almost failsafe plan of review and line item veto by the Board of County Commissioners, there is an ability for the board to take up to 30 days to do its line item veto and then the district board has to bring it back to us and they have some time. Conceivably it could Page 220 November 28, 2000 happen October 1st. We don't need any new language in the ordinance, but I just want to point it out that in the operation of this new ordinance, if it should be adopted, it will behoove this new district, this dependent district, to act timely and appropriately. Because if our Board of County Commissioners exercises the full time that it has to exercise its line item veto and get back to the board, it's possible that the adjustments on those line item veto items could come after October 1st, which would be a problem for Mr. Carlton, the tax collector. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So I think administratively we could make sure that happens through your office, through county manager's office, and all the checks and balances are in here, clerk of courts, tax collector, tax assessor. That all stays in place. Final authority rests with this board. That's -- I made the motion, we have a second. Any further discussion? Call the motion? You have to be on the record, Lou. I'm not sure -- you better get up here and get on the record for this. MR. VLASHO: I'm anxious to have your vote, but I want to make sure I understand something. COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're anxious to vote, too. MR. VLASHO: Lou Vlasho, once again. I just wanted to be sure that when you continued the -- that you -- if I understood the legal counsel, that the authority for running Pelican Bay and governance would be with the Board of County Commissioners. But I did not hear anything to the effect that the advisory board would stay in place until it's replaced by the new -- that's what I would like to be sure of. Because we'd like to continue until the new supervisors are elected. MR. WEIGEL: Well, if that's what they want, then that needs to be added. Because if we have the just absolute termination of the current ordinance, that advisory committee will be gone with that ordinance. So if you wish to adopt the language to that -- MR. VLASHO: I would request. MR. INEIGEL: -- including the functioning of this advisory -- the current advisory committee, that's just fine, too. CHAIRMAN CARTER: So as a motion maker, I will add that the current MSTUB (sic) board stay in effect until the new supervisors are elected and take office. And that will be the Page 221 November 28, 2000 linkage between the old and the new. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I reconfirm my second. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 4-0, with Commissioner Mac'Kie recusing herself. All right. Having fun, guys? All right. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Is this how they always work? CHAIRMAN CARTER: No, no, no, this was in the educational session as well as business session. Item #13A1 PETITION A-2000-1, EDWARD J. FULLMER, VICE PRESIDENT AND ACTING PRESIDENT, REPRESENTING THE GOODLAND CIVIC ASSOCIATION, APPEALING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PLANNING SERVICES DIRECTOR THAT THE DOLPHIN COVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (SDP-98-40) WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE AND INTENT SECTION (SECTION 2.2.9.1) OF THE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL (VR) ZONING DISTRICT OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ON THE DATE OF STAFF APPROVAL OF THE SDP, NOVEMBER 12, 1998, WHICH SDP-98-40 AUTHORIZED THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 76-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT ON BLOCK Y, TRACT 1, GOODLAND ISLE SUBDIVISION - PLANNING DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REJECTED Let us move to advertised public hearings. This item was continued from October 24. Petition A-2001. Edward J. Fullmer, VP and acting president of Goodland Civic Association, appealing interpretation of the planning services director about Dolphin Cove. MR. MULHERE-' Thank you, cornmiss-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Mulhere, good evening. MR. MULHERE-' For this item, we do need to swear anyone who intends to speak. CHAIRMAN CARTER: We need to swear in all people who are going to participate in the discussion of this item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Passidomo, do you want to Page 222 November 28, 2000 participate in this item? You need to be sworn. (All speakers were duly sworn.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: By way of disclosure, I have met many, many times with the -- gosh, it's hard to know -- with the representatives of the Goodland Civic Association. And I previously had a great number of conversations with the attorney for the previous owner, who was Rich Yovanovich. I have not met with Mr. Passidomo. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. By way of disclosure, I have attended the Goodland Civic Association meetings for about a year, kind of just in the back of the room listening in, wanting to hear how the residents felt before I was ever elected. I don't know if that makes any difference. But since elected about a week ago, I have met with the Goodland people. Also, Mr. Yovanovich I met for the first time yesterday, and he stopped into my office. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For disclosure also, I had a phone conversation with the attorney for this petition and also with the vice president of the civic association. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I have likewise met with the civic association. I have met with Rich Yovanovich. I've had a casual conversation with Counselor Passidomo. I think that fully covers anybody and everybody. And if I was in Stan's, I don't think I ever talked about it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I apologize for bringing Mr. Yovanovich into this. Obviously he's not still associated with this project. He had been previously. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Previous project, which is separate from. GOMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: GOMMISSIONER HENNING: GOMMISSIONER MAG'KIE: GOMMISSIONER HENNING: yes. Any disclosures -- No. -- Commissioner Henning? Oh, I did speak to the petitioner, CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Mulhere, good evening. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning services director. Good evening. MS. STUDENT: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I'm-- MS. STUDENT: I just need to make an announcement. Page 223 November 28, 2000 MR. MULHERE: I'm moving toward you. MS. STUDENT: Oh, okay, thanks. MR. MULHERE: Since we don't deal with appeals on a regular basis, I think it would be prudent to hear from the county attorney's office, and for that reason, I've asked Marjorie Student to make some comments about the parameters of these types of deals. MS. STUDENT: Thank you, Bob. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. And the parameters are really two in number, that first of all, Mr. Mulhere's decision is based upon competent and substantial evidence, and that it is -- finding it is or is not contrary to the Land Development Code or Growth Management Plan. Growth Management Plan doesn't have any applicability, so it would be the land development. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't follow you, Marjorie, come right back. MS. STUDENT: Oh, sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did we have a presumption that Mr. Mulhere is correct? MS. STUDENT: The code does not set forth whether there is a presumption of correctness of Mr. Mulhere's finding. Rather -- I mean, I think that could be inherent in there. And the way it would be overturned would be if you found that his decision was not based upon competent substantial evidence or conflict with the code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In order for us to overrule Mr. Mulhere, we should find that there is competent substantial evidence that he's wrong. MS. STUDENT: That he didn't -- MR. WEIGEL: I'd restate that and say that you have to make a finding that his opinion is not based upon -- MS. STUDENT: Based on competent -- MR. WEIGEL: -- competent substantial information. MS. STUDENT: -- substantial evidence. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's different. MS. STUDENT: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Page 224 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what was your opinion, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: Well, I think it probably --just very briefly. I know it's very late, I just want to give you a little bit of history. There was a site development plan approved that's called Dolphin Cove -- I know you've heard of that site development plan -- for 76 multi-family dwelling units upon on a piece of property in Goodland. And after the approval, which the staff reviewed administratively the site development plan, the district is VR. The VR district allows multi-family housing. It allowed multi-family housing at that time to a maximum height of 35 feet, and the site development plan was approved for four stories of residential development in I believe four different pods of multi-family development. After it was approved, members of -- residents of Goodland expressed concern, came and looked at the plan, spoke to the staff and expressed their concerns to the Board of County Commissioners. Ultimately those concerns, expressed at a public hearing for a land code amendment last year, resulted in direction from the board to amend the purpose and intent section of the VR district and to further specify the height restrictions in that district from 35 feet to 35 feet but a maximum of three stories over one story of parking. So that would preclude any further -- any new development from coming in with four stories within that 35 feet. Now, this was, as I said, approved on November the 12th of 1998. My interpretation, which is included in your executive summary packet, it starts on your agenda Page 6 -- I'm sorry, excuse me, Page 9. The appeal or the request for interpretation from the Goodland Civic Association asked the question whether or not the county staff, in approving the site development plan, did so illegally, using their words, because that -- that multi-family project was not consistent with the purpose and intent of the village residential district. In reviewing the village residential district over the many years, starting in 1974, its predecessor was called fishing village. There were a number of uses that were permitted. There was always an intent section, and as the evolution of that district occurred through present day, previous boards on a Page 225 November 28, 2000 number of occasions looked at that district and said these uses are not appropriate, these development standards need to be amended in this fashion. And I've included that information in your packet, in your executive summary packet. The district, both the purpose and intent and the development standards, were amended on a number of different occasions. My rationale for including that is to provide you with evidence that when the board made inclusion to exclude uses or add some uses to that district, inherent in that decision was a finding by that previous board that those uses that are expressly permitted are consistent with the purpose and intent of the district. The multi-family use has existed in that since the inception. The staff can only be guided by the development standards that are contained in the district. Let me give you an example. Single-family home is -- one single-family home, if it's permitted in a district, is one single-family home too large or another too small. And should the staff in reviewing a single-family home permit decide that a home too large is out of character with the neighborhood? We are really precluded from making those decisions. Those decisions and how we determine whether something is consistent with the character of the district is defined by the development standards. Now, we understand that the folks in Goodland are really concerned about this project. We understand that the board a year ago at a land code hearing made a finding that said we don't think this is what we want to see in Goodland. We understand that. In fact, that's why we brought back an amendment to further change the purpose and intent section to clarify what is meant by that purpose and intent section by using language such as low profile, village character. But the question is, could the staff have known that without the board policy direction that came after the approval, and should the staff have been expected to look at the purpose and intent and not approve a permitted use that was otherwise fully consistent with all the development standards in the district. I think that would be an illogical conclusion, and therefore, my opinion is that the -- whether we like the outcome or no at this point in time, we can change it from this point forward by Page 226 November 28, 2000 amending the code, the Land Development Code -- and we are in the process of doing that, and developing an overlay -- but that approval, which occurred in 1998, before the board's direction to change the Land Development Code and to develop the overlay, was consistent with the purpose and intent and met all the warrants for approval. I know that there are folks from the Goodland Civic Association here that would like to speak to this issue, but that really concludes my presentation. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Question, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for Mr. Weigel. It's come to my attention that whether or not this is an appropriate interpretation, it may be that the site development plan approval has been lost by virtue of the failure to commence and continue construction that's required within I think it's six months. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It was supplied November 12th, I believe. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if that is the case, is this a moot question? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think it's a moot question. I think that it's a legitimate item, incumbent upon you to make a decision. The question in regard to substantial or none development under the STP within a time frame that it's purportedly valid is a separate issue, not before you in this particular discussion agenda item. And it will have it's own ramifications and come back to the board potentially at a different time, if it is realistically an issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is the mechanism for enforcing the expiration of an STP? MR. MULHERE: May I respond? STP's are actually good for two years. The expiration date, had they not commenced construction, would have been November the 12th, this past November the 12th. I have information, some pictures that were taken by residents down in Goodland that were given to me as recently as this afternoon. I also have an affidavit and information given to me by the developer. I have to evaluate those as my responsibility to look at all the information and evaluate whether in my mind they have met the -- make a factual decision as to whether or not they have Page 227 November 28, 2000 commenced construction in accordance with the definitions that are provided in the Land Development Code. And the Land Development Code definition refers to Florida Statute's definition of development, which really requires some alteration to the land. Doesn't require vertical construction. That decision, I have not had an opportunity to weigh those two things. It really is I think a separate matter. I will be making that decision in the next couple of days. Now, beyond that, one side or the other will be unhappy and will be looking for some sort of recourse. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So we'll have that discussion, probably by virtue of an appeal of a decision that you will make to interpret whether or not it expired. MR. MULHERE: But I have a question with respect to -- and which I'll need some assistance with the County Attorney's Office. Because my opinion is that when I make a determination as to whether development has commenced or not, if one side or the other wishes to challenge that, they would have to ask for an official interpretation as it relates to what my basis for making that decision was. And my basis is definition in the Land Development Code, it seems very black and white to me. Now, on the other hand, there is the opportunity for a civil challenge as a result of any decision that I make, and I would defer to the County Attorney's Office as to the process that they may choose, because I am not of the opinion that an appeal is an appropriate process to that decision. I appeal directly to you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do you agree with that, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: I think he may well be right. And what I just note from history and experience is that people with an issue may come to the board, whether it's public petition or otherwise, looking for the board to try to give some direction to staff. In this particular determination that Mr. Mulhere will make, it may not lend itself to a formal appeal to this board. But I'm not prepared to say that it's not either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: We do need to further -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Working on it? And -- well, okay. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see here on Page 12 that it says this SDP is valid until November 12th. I mean -- Page 228 November 28, 2000 COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means unless they commence construction and -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Did your picture show any construction today? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. OLLIFF: And that is a separate issue. And what appeal rights either side will have to Bob's decision is a separate issue and we'll be happy to provide that to you in writing under a separate memo. But in terms of today's decision, I'm not sure that the -- COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, now, what we're talking about today is is it valid, right? MR. OLLIFF: Not the site development plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Not the site development plan, but MR. MULHERE: We're talking about whether or not the county staff appropriately approved the site development plan, narrowly focusing on the purpose and intent and whether it was consistent with the purpose and intent at the date of its approval in November of 1998. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. Okay, and village -- I think it has a lot to do with village residential character. Interpretation of village residential character. Now, Goodland, as we all know, is a fishing village. Village residential character, to me, when I interpret, I don't see a large condominium building in a village -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This? COMMISSIONER FIALA: I don't see that in a village residential character. And I don't see how that could even be interpreted as such. So I would like to voice that. MR. MULHERE: Sure. May I respond to that? COMMISSIONER FIALA.' Certainly. MR. MULHERE: I think we all know that this board, and previous board now, expressed dissatisfaction with the results of what was approved. However, that really isn't the issue. Because the issue is whether or not the administrative approval process, which allows for multi-family but does not specify that a large multi-family or a small multi-family, or -- same thing as I use the example of a single-family home. Or let's use another example. Let's use a commercial Page 229 November 28, 2000 development, and within a commercial district. What we are -- what we would be then suggesting here is that for every single permitted use, your staff, which normally we would administratively approve these uses if they're consistent with the development standards. Your staff would also need to make an evaluation as to whether or not those uses, as they were proposed, were consistent with the purpose and intent of the district. What I'm suggesting to you is when a use is placed into a district as a permitted use, a finding has been made at the time and, frankly, by the board, that that use is consistent with the purpose and intent by adhering to these development standards. I know that's difficult, but that's really what my position is. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I'm sorry, again, multi-family. I don't think multi-family is the issue. I think the village character is the issue here. I think if the board legally said multi-family is acceptable, as did staff, I think that they weren't considering a fishing village character. And I think that that's what the issue is at this point. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't know if we can define what character is. Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA.' Yeah, question. We issued a -- we issued the permits. They're under construction. If we were to reverse everything at this point in time, what would be our liability. MR. MULHERE: I would have to defer to the County Attorney's Office. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, considering there is this appeal that's been pending the whole time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: County attorney? MR. WEIGEL: Well, the appeal has not been pending since November, 1998. The appeal has been pending for a few months now at this point. And quite frankly, there's a potential for liability. I expect that the developer/developer's agent will claim that they have initiated and undertaken and had significant expenses, depending -- dependent upon the approval that was given, the site development plan approval given, two years ago. One of the things that obviously we look at is when did they start to obtain their expenditures and call it detrimental reliance on this. It appears from what we know anecdotally, what the Page 230 November 28, 2000 County Attorney's Office knows anecdotally, is that they've done more rather recently than over the last year and a half. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they just bought the property. You know, this is a new owner. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So they can't claim their -- the prior owner's detrimental reliance, can they? MR. WEIGEL: Well, here's the thing, the prior owner got the SDP, not the current owner, is my understanding. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. WEIGEL: And in real property law, typically we have, and we may not be able to say does not exist here is the question of tacking, and that is that a purchaser, a bona fide purchaser for value purchases the property based upon the zoning or site development plan approval that's already with it. It doesn't get -- the site development plan that was approved does not get canceled because there's a change in ownership. And so arguably, and I don't intend to make the case for a potential opposing party, but things are fairly obvious here, and arguably the current owner would say look, I bought this property because it had an approval of an SDP which indicated that I could do certain things, so -- MR. MULHERE: I just had one other item to add. On Page 9 of your agenda packet, in the last paragraph on that page of my interpretation, I provided the actual language that currently exists in the purpose and intent section. And I put in bold the language that we were added to direct in 1999 after the SDP was approved, which by the direction of the board further clarifies the purpose and intent of this district. And you'll note that that language -- I'll read the sentence, the purpose and intent of the village residential district is to provide land where a mixture of residential uses may exist. Additional uses are located and designed to maintain a village residential character. And this language was added: Which is generally low profile, relatively small building footprints, as is the current appearance in Goodland and Copeland. Now, that clearly gives the staff more direction than it previously did the year before when we approved this site development plan. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Obviously it was even in question Page 231 November 28, 2000 then. MR. MULHERE: It was a question after the fact, absolutely. After the fact, yes. MR. OLLIFF: Mr. Chairman, if there's no questions. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's go to speakers. MR. OLLIFF: First speaker is Pam Stoppelbein, followed by Connie StegalI-Fullmer. MS. STOPPELBEIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Pam Stoppelbein. I'm here as an officer of the Goodland Civic Association, to speak on behalf of the village as a whole, even though I'm only a blow-in, having lived in Goodland only 18 years. By our standards, that's not very long. Unfortunately we had a bus load of residents who were here this morning. The bus left at lunch, so we only have three speakers. My presentation is about six or seven minutes. Can you bear with me that long? CHAIRMAN CARTER: We'd like to have it by five. MS. STOPPELBEIN: I will -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Let's move it as fast as you can, get your points in. MS. STOPPELBEIN: Okay. In the interest of time, we previously provided you with the history of the numerous public protests, together with a list of hearings and meetings before both the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners over the past two years. We've detailed our stand on this issue in a recent letter to you, proving the fact that we do represent the majority of the residents of Goodland. And the very active participation throughout this entire process of the now previous owner of the land in question. Among the materials we forwarded you is a sample of photos taken recently showing some of our historic structures, old, new waterfront homes, as well as some of our businesses. A photo tour of our tiny island coastline was provided to the board earlier this year to demonstrate the low-rise profile. As you may have noted, there is only one home with two floors of habitable space over parking, and our only condos are small one-story structures over parking, marketed as fishing village condominiums. We appreciate the fact that some of you have taken the time to personally visit Goodland recently to experience the ambience Page 232 November 28, 2000 offhand. We do have approximately 30 structures that can be considered for historic designation. Marco Lodge is the oldest, being built in 1870. The historic Caxambus Mercantile is presently being used as the fellowship hall for the Baptist Mission; that was built in 1901. And the building referred to nine, 10 hours ago this morning as a Quonset hut once served to store the equipment used in the dredging of the Marco Yacht Basin and what we call Buzzards Bay. I've confirmed previously with the Naples Airport Authority that the dredging occurred in the early Forties to use as bedrock, and in this case bed shell, for the Naples landing strips. That building, by the way, was converted into Collier County's first theatre. And besides that, we've also identified 20 to 25 cottages other than those built in -- either built in Goodland or moved from Marco prior to 1949. This morning we spent all that time on one little storage icehouse. We've got certified 30 some buildings of historic significance on one tiny island. Anyway, our main focus on appeal is the county's interpretation as regards to that site development plan being consistent with development, and our village residential character. We do question whether anyone truly stopped to think of where a project of that magnitude was going to be built, as this plan made its way through. For two years we've argued that a 76-unit development would destroy our village character. The frightening thing is that after all this time, our opposition stated just two weeks ago that they don't understand what we mean by that. To make it perfectly clear to all, permit me to read a letter dated yesterday from Mr. Robert Carr, the executive director of the Archeological and Historical Conservancy in Miami, who has spoken to our membership on a couple of occasions. Dear commissioners: I'm taking the time to read this letter because I believe you are in a unique position to set the standards that will protect and promote a heritage tourism opportunity for South Florida's last fishing village. The Village of Goodland is a unique historic resource, encompassing the highest concentration of historic structures per square acre in Collier County. Ironically, many of these Page 233 November 28, 2000 structures were moved here from Marco to save and salvage them from Marco's development in the Fifties and Sixties. Goodland also encompasses one of the most significant prehistoric sites still surviving in Collier County. It's our organization's opinion that Goodland is of local, regional and state-wide significance, and qualifies for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Goodland should be protected by designating it as a thermal resource overlay that recognizes its unique historic significance and its cultural character as a rustic fishing village. That overlay designation should specifically identify these unique qualities as the basis for its designation and a minimum should include the following elements: A building -- minimum building height for all new structures; maintaining existing contributing historic structures 50 years or older; and awarding those property owners who maintain the historic character with a cap on county property tax, which is currently allowed under the State of Florida ordinance. We are willing to work with community residents and county planning to help implement what we believe will be an important step towards preserving Goodland's unique character. We lost the rustic fishing village of Marco in the Fifties and Seventies -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'll need to have you wrap up, ma'am. MS. STOPPELBEIN: -- and are rapidly losing those qualities in Chokoloskee. But Goodland, like the last buffalo, has a chance to survive. Please take the right action. A board -- a member of this Board of County Commissioners stated during one of our presentations earlier this year that if a -- that the county made a mistake in issuing this site development plan. If they made a mistake, that they should fix that mistake. That's the basis of this appeal. We feel that it was a mistake. Based on either oversight or bad judgment. The site plan might possibly be squeezed into that small parcel of land, even if it's pushed to the max of the space available, but it's not compatible with the existing development of Goodland. It's our hope that the board will recognize that the historical significance and our village character were not truly considered during that initial approval process. I find it hard to believe that planning was unaware of what Goodland looked like two years Page 234 November 28, 2000 ago, that -- okay, the character-- last paragraph. The character of this village has been shaped since its colonization 125 years ago. Don't allow this rustic and historic fishing village to be destroyed by one greedy investor practically overnight. We fully understand the importance of individual property rights, but not at the expense of community rights. We ask you to think smart and hope that the rights of the collective property owners of Goodland will prevail in this cause. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. OI. LIFF: Next speaker is Ms. Fullmer, followed by Anne Wright Hess. MS. FULLMER: Good evening, commissioners. I recognize that it's been a very long day. We've been sitting through a lot of presentations by a lot of people; a five-hour presentation on a PUD. I know my presentation will be more than five minutes. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I would -- MS. FULLMER: I respectfully request-- CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- suggest, ma'am, that you move right into your presentation. MS. FULLMER: -- that you approve it. Very fine, I just wanted -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- because I'm going to give you five and a little more, but -- MS. FULLMER: -- to state up-front. We've been waiting on this. CHAIRMAN CARTER: -- give us your presentation. MS. FULLMER: Thank you very much. My name is Connie StegalI-Fullmer. I'm a board member of the Goodland Civic Association and I am here representing the membership of that organization and the Village of Goodland. We have heard from Pain Stoppelbein talk -- we've heard Pam talk about the character of the Village of Goodland and its history. Our appeal here today has to do with an approved site plan for development in the area of the village zoned village residential. I want to tell you about village residential. That's been discussed here. I would like to talk about it a little more, even though Bob Mulhere went over that. Page 235 November 28, 2000 VR is a category of zoning that is found in only four areas of Collier County: Immokalee, Copeland, Chokoloskee and Goodland. Each of these areas is very unique in its location and history. Immokalee is where the original cattle ranchers and farmers settled; Chokoloskee is a standalone shell mound island built by the Calusa Indians and a fishing industry community; Copeland, a little settlement in the Everglades, adjacent to the Big Cypress Preserve, was first settled by the loggers; and Goodland is a one square mile piece of ground, built on the remains of Calusa shell mounds, surrounded on three sides by water and on the fourth side by Marco City. It also is a fishing village environment. VR originated as something called FVR, or fishing village residential district, as Bob said, and did not include Immokalee. The district's purpose at that time in 1979 read that it provided for a mixture of residential uses to exist in combination with fishing equipment and structures. Height at that time was 45 feet. In 1982 the fishing village residential was changed to village residential and the district's purpose then provided for a mixture of uses which included not only fishing but farming equipment and structures and facilities for processing agricultural products. This was when VR districts were established in Immokalee. When Immokalee was added, so too were many accessory and provisional uses, including a long list of commercial uses and even the provision for hotels and motels in VR. The maximum height of structures was changed from 45 feet to 50 feet, or five stories, whichever is greater. Then, ladies and gentlemen, 10 years later, in 1991, dramatic changes were made to the VR district. Most property owners didn't even know the changes had been made. All the commercial uses were deleted. The height was reduced from 50 feet to 35 feet for multi-family dwellings and 30 feet for single-family residential dwellings. And most significant at that time was the revision to the purpose and intent statement. It was changed to read that the purpose and intent of the village residential district is to provide lands where a mixture of residential uses may exist. Additionally, uses are located and designed to maintain the village residential character of the VR district. In t991, that was Page 236 November 28, 2000 when they added that the VR purpose, whatever was put in there was to maintain the village residential character. No longer were facilities for processing fishing catches and agricultural products allowed in VR. It became strictly residential, and whatever was to be built in VR was to meet the village residential character. We have provided you over the last several weeks with packets of materials, including photos of many dwellings in the Village of Goodland. These dwellings included mobile homes, trailers, single-family homes, cottages and businesses. We have been fighting the approval of Dolphin Cove for over two years. In that time you have visited Goodland, you have seen first-hand what Goodland looks like. The attorney for the original developer of Dolphin Cove said when he drives through Goodland, it is hard to tell what the character is, there is such a mixture of uses. What he sees, what you see, what everyone sees when they drive through Goodland is a mixture of uses. But the thread that binds all of those uses together is that the village is low-rise and they're small buildings. Structures are small, the village is small. The character of the village is small structures, small footprints, low-rise. What you do not see is high-rise, large structures. High-rise large building footprints is not the character of the village. When we came before you over a year ago, in June of 1999, asking for a change to the number of floors allowed in VR, it was because of the Dolphin Cove development. As a result of that petition, planning services went on to make further refinements to the purpose and intent statement for the VR district and today that statement reads, as Bob said, that the uses are located and designed to maintain the village residential character. But it went on to further define that character as being generally low profile, relatively small building footprints, as is the current appearance of Goodland and Copeland. Planning services said the character of the village is low-rise, small building footprints. I ask you, if planning services interpreted in June of 1999 that the village character of Goodland is low profile, relatively small building footprints, how could it not have meant that that was the character of Goodland in November, 1998 when the Page 237 November 28, 2000 Dolphin Cove site plan was approved, a site plan that provides for high-rise, large building footprints? The site plan, when approved in 1998, did not fully comply with code and it does not today fully comply with code. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I need to have you summarize. MS. FULLMER: Yes, in about two minutes, if I may. You have said to us many times that you must uphold the code, that you must uphold the law, you must uphold private property rights. You have only to look to the code to find your answer as to whether the site plan complies, as to what is necessary to adhere to the law, and to know what rights you are to be protecting. That site plan is not legal, it does not comply with code. Uses for development were given to the property owner that they are not entitled to. You must look to protect the private property rights of all property owners of Goodland. You must look to protect the rights of the community. One person, ladies and gentlemen, one person, one county employee, approved that site plan in 1998. One person made a judgment that the application for that development met all code requirements. One person decided that it was okay to stuff four habitable floors into 35 feet. That only provides eight feet, seven and a half inches per floor, and provided for 76 units in five acres. That one person made a mistake, a mistake that if not corrected by you today in your vote will change the face of the Village of Goodland forever. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Ma'am, you're giving me opinions. You need to wrap up, please. MS. FULLMER: Well, it's -- I will wrap up. This has been a two-year process, Chairman. We are not arguing -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: This is not the first time you met in front of us, so please wrap up. MS. FULLMER: My apologizes. What I want to say has to do with Bob Mulhere's interpretation. His comment indicated that the interpretation was saying that multi-family has always been provided for in VR. We're not arguing multi-family. We are arguing the type of dwelling that was provided in this Page 238 November 28, 2000 SDP. The impact to the village is enormous in negative ways. They didn't look to see that it would double the population, it would overburden the water supply that is already stretched, the roadway impact, the waterway impact. Mr. Mulhere here is continuing to argue that VR allows multi-family. That's not an argument. We look to you to use judgment in determining what you think the village character of Goodland is. The county employee that approved the site plan used his judgment back in 1998. He determined that it met all the statistical requirements at that time, but it did not meet the character of the village. That is part of the code. Complying with the purpose and intense statement is part of the code. They did not comply with that. He made a judgment call in 1998 that four floors and 35 feet was okay. It's not. This is not Goodland. This is not the village character of Goodland. It doesn't -- just because the code allows it doesn't mean that they have to approve it. Just because code says they can build 15.2 units per acre does not mean that they have to approve that. What is means is that whatever they build needs to meet the character. This doesn't. This changes the character of Goodland. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay, I need to have you -- MS. FULLMER: I'm finished. Thank you. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Last speaker? MR. OLLIFF: The next speaker is Anne Write Hess, followed by your last speaker, is John Passidomo. MS. HESS: Good evening. It's been a long day for all of us. One picture I hope will iljustrate many words. I know you've seen Goodland. I haven't seen it from the air. I buy this postcard to tell my friends about it. In this case I can only hope that this picture will graphically show you the difference between the high-rises in the City of Marco in the background and the tiny old Florida village in the foreground. The southeast corner of Marco Island, known as Goodland. Goodland is not like Marco. It's there, but it's different. The Dolphin Cove condo development is slated to cover the green area in the middle left. This five-acre site plans to hold 76 two and three-bedroom units. Placing a City of Marco's style Page 239 November 28, 2000 condo within the borders of this low-key fishing village will forever change, if not actually destroy the character of this vanishing part of old Florida. Some people don't care. They believe there is nothing really worth saving in Goodland. They prefer that Goodland disappear and become improved, like the rest of Marco Island. But many people do care. They celebrate the differences that make Goodland special. They want to preserve the look and feel that makes Goodland Goodland and not Marco City. It is not development that is the problem, it is problem development. This Dolphin Cove condo development is over-developed. Too tall, few densely populated, and too investor, not resident, friendly. Collier County can still influence the type and size of development in Goodland. It can encourage suitable development and discourage inappropriate uses of these last remaining small tracts of land in Goodland. Goodland borders sensitive environmental areas: Collier Seminole Park, 10,000 Island Wildlife Refuge, and the world's only Everglades. The question is, what will Collier County do to protect Goodland from inappropriate development? Thank you. I'm counting on you. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Next speaker, please. MR. PASSIDOMO: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board of County Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. I represent the owner of the property in question. I appreciate your patience today and wish you well throughout your tenure on the Board of County Commissioners. Our client purchased the property in question in September. At that time they received a deed for the land and an assignment of the existing site development plan approval and building permits then existing for the development of a 35-foot tall project on the property. They have since proceeded in good faith to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and incur obligation to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars more to develop the project in reliance on that SDP approval in those building permits. We respect the good people of Goodland, and we appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing this evening. Mr. Chairman, we thought with your indulgence it might be Page 240 November 28, 2000 helpful to share in a historical perspective and some observations on the nature and scope of the issue you are being asked to consider this evening. Simply, what's happened before and how does that fit into the context of the question you are being asked to decide today. The site development plan in question was issued in November, 1998. As your planning services director has indicated, a site development plan approval is good for two years. A building permit was then issued in August of this year, some 21 months later. During that same month, August of this year, 21 months after the site development plan approval was issued, a request for staff interpretation was made on August 4th of this year. On August 30th, your planning services director made his determination. The question in front of him was simply, did the site development plan approval comply with the underlying zoning district. He determined that yes, in fact it did. Our client then closed on the purchase of the property. It did so in early September. And they have since proceeded to enter into a construction contract and incur obligations for hundreds of thousands of dollars to improve the property pursuant to the site development plan approval -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Passidomo, when did your client close? MR. PASSIDOMO: September. Early September. COMMISSIONER FIALA: September? MR. PASSIDOMO: Uh-hum. COMMISSIONER FIALA: May I ask, did he know that there was this controversy going on? I mean, I was sitting in on the meetings for a whole year, so I was wondering if he knew that there was a controversy. MR. PASSIDOMO: She did. COMMISSIONER FIALA: She. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes. COMMISSIONER FIALA-' Whoever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was she under a rock somewhere? Because this has been a huge controversy. MR. PASSIDOMO: No, she certainly wasn't. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would imagine that your client probably -- I would hope that your client factored in in what they Page 241 November 28, 2000 paid some risk knowing that this was as controversial a project as it is, and probably paid less than they would have if this were not as contested a project as it is. MR. PASSIDOMO: Ms. Mac'Kie, I honestly don't know that. We didn't represent them during contract negotiations. We didn't represent them in closing. We weren't real estate counsel. We were simply brought in when this question arose. And, frankly, what they did rely on was the law, your own code, and fair interpretation of the law. And if you'd let me continue and conclude, I'll give you some insight into why they had such confidence in the law and how you would interpret the law. We respectfully submit the only question in front of you this evening was, was Mr. Mulhere wrong when he found the site development plan approval consistent with the underlying zoning district. He has told you today, he told you during his staff submittal, and it's uncontroverted, there's no testimony in front of you today that the site development plan that was approved complies with all of the performance standards in the underlying zoning district. Those which pertain to height, those which pertain to density, those which pertain to setbacks and every performance standard in the underlying zoning district. He's indicated to you that's the only criteria he has to apply in determining whether a site development plan application is consistent with the underlying zoning district. Nobody claims that there is any failure to comply with the underlying performance standards in your own zoning district. We simply suggest that the test -- it's been submitted in your materials, but I think it's important to elaborate -- the test for your consideration is embodied in Section 1.66 of the Land Development Code. It was alluded to earlier, but let me share with you the precise language. The zone Board of Zoning Appeals -- that's the Board of County Commissioners this evening -- is not authorized to modify or reject the planning services director's interpretation unless it finds that one, the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence. That means there is no good reason to support what the planning services director did. Or two, that the interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, Land Page 242 November 28, 2000 Development Code, the Future Land Use Map or the zoning atlas for building code. The code therefore requires you to take a very narrow view in considering an appeal of an interpretation of the code. The question in front of you today is unlike any other question that's been posed to you previously today. In each of those other questions, you were asked to sit in a legislative capacity to enact law. This evening you're asked to sit in a quasi judicial capacity to apply facts to existing law. No one is here to argue before you today that this is an appropriate land use. No one is here before you today to argue that the zoning code should be amended to accommodate this proposed land use. No one is here before you today to suggest that this proposed site development plan is consistent with existing development on Goodland. But with all due respect, we don't believe that we have that burden. And finally, no one needs to say that -- and I'll quote the submittal that was made to you on November 20th by the Goodland Civic Association. Page 4. The SDP proudly conforms to the true letter of the code, even though it is pushed to the max for the space available, but is not compatible with existing development on Goodland. We don't quibble with that statement. But the fact is, that's not the issue in front of you today. The issue in front of you today is, was Mr. Mulhere wrong when he determined that the site development plan approval was consistent with the standards in the Land Development Code at the time. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I'm going to have you wrap up, John. MR. PASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We encourage you to develop an overlay zoning district, as this prior commission directed its staff to work with the local community in doing in May and June of last year. If that's what the people of Goodland want, work with them in creating a zoning district which reflects what they intend for their community, but don't pull the rug out from under a taxpayer who's relied in good faith on a development order issued by Collier County and expended substantial sums of money in reliance on that development order. Don't change the rules after the -- it's clearly been established that this site development plan clearly complies with all the performance standards. We can't Page 243 November 28, 2000 speculate as to what residential character is. All anyone can do is read performance standards. And the performance standards, as I controverted, have been met. Finally, two years has elapsed before the application for challenge has been made. We respectfully submit that there needs to be certainty in this process. A development order needs to be challenged within 30 days. If it's not challenged within 30 days -- and Ms. Mac'Kie, this is the answer to your question -- it is our legal opinion that there's no right to challenge it thereafter. There is certainly an issuance of the development order under your land development code. And if 30 days elapses and no complaint has been raised, a property owner/taxpayer has the right to reasonably rely on the finality of that development order. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that in our code, Mr. Passidomo? MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, then how did we come to be hearing this matter, Mr. Weigel? MR. PASSIDOMO: I think that's a fair question. MR. WEIGEL: I chatted briefly with John prior to the item coming up, but I would like for him to cite the area in the code where he thinks that applies to this particular appeal. MR. PASSIDOMO: I'd be happy to submit legal memorandum to you, Madam, but I think it's clearly been recognized all along that there has to be finality in the -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: Would you cite that specific area for me? MR. PASSIDOMO: I will, I will. I don't have the code in front of me, but I will. But I think you know based upon the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: And can we get that tonight? MR. PASSIDOMO: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we get that tonight? MR. PASSIDOMO: If someone gets me the code, I'd be happy to look at it in the code. Let me give you some rationale for it, though. The rationale for it, and the reason that it's been applied uniformly in practice is -- I'm going to conclude. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I don't want the rationale, I want the Page 244 November 28, 2000 code and I want the -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're looking for-- MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, the public policy decision behind it is that unless there's finality, property owners/taxpayers are going to expend substantial sums of money in reliance on a due issue development order and presume it to be final in 30 days. Certiorari proceedings have to be brought in 30 days to challenge that proceeding. You know every time a development order is issued by this board, a challenge is issued within 30 days. Without finality, we'll be in the situation we are now. We stand to suffer hundreds of thousands of dollars of damages if the board moves to revoke this permit this evening. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could you tell me how they spent the hundreds of thousands of dollars? Being that last week when I was down there, I hadn't seen any ground moved at all. MR. PASSIDOMO: Yes, Commissioner. We submitted an affidavit to Mr. Mulhere to that effect. It's in the record. And we're required to establish that we commence construction within two years. CHAIRMAN CARTER: I've got to call a halt to this. I've been patient, I've tried to give everybody an equal amount of time. I need to know, because what's coming down for me, frankly, is what does the Land Development Code say. And if I'm going to exercise my right as a judge here, I need to stay within those specific parameters. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do we have the right to hear this this evening? CHAIRMAN CARTER: And we have to know that, too. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: First question. MR. WEIGEL: Okay, I'll tell you, you do have the right to hear this. This wouldn't have come before you if we didn't believe it did. Mr. Passidomo is talking in regard to certiorari appeal rights, which is a different area of the law and doesn't apply to this ability for a person to ask for an interpretation and appeal therefrom. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have another legal question that -- if I may. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- for our attorney, and that is Mr. Page 245 November 28, 2000 Passidomo said something a little different that frankly I was really excited to hear, and that is that Section 1.66 of the LDC says that we cannot reject the interpretation unless either we find that his decision was not supported by substantial competent evidence or it's contrary to one of the these many codes. Well, I'll be perfectly honest with you, I am anxious to be aggressive in finding a way to stop this project. Because I think it's wrong, I think it's bad for Goodland, and I think it's bad for the community. I'm going to be ashamed of myself 30 years from now when I was the one who was on the board when this domino fell. And just like I went to City Council of Naples not too long ago and urged them to be aggressive in finding some way to say -- to find a way to take the Wilkinson House back because it was in the public's interest, I think this board needs to be aggressive tonight. You know, they have -- they have -- they closed in September, the appeal was filed before their closing. I'd be happy to take that case against this property owner that they spent money, but they spent it at their own risk because they knew an appeal was pending. If they had been -- you know, the original property owner maybe -- you know, maybe if they had tried to start building this six months ago or a year ago, that might be something different. But these guys came in after it was controversial. And if in fact we can't overturn Mr. Mulhere's interpretation, if we find that the approval of the STP was contrary to code, I am ready to find that. Because the code said the purpose of village residential is to provide -- wait, additionally, uses are to maintain -- maintain, not create, maintain, that means look at what's currently there -- maintain a village residential character. That's in the unamended code. That's the code as it existed the day that this SDP was approved. It says maintain. That puts an obligation on us to determine what's currently there. And if we can overrule Mr. Mulhere -- with all due respect, and he knows the extent of my respect for him -- because it's contrary to code, then I want to do it, because it's contrary to code. COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to add that was so -- Page 246 November 28, 2000 that COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so that's a motion. COMMISSIONER FIALA: It was so beautifully said. I second motion. I would just hate to destroy that area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I ain't going to be the one. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Discussion? MR. OLLIFF: You have no speakers. You're ready to -- MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chair, can I make a final closing remark? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MR. PASSIDOMO: All right, sir. CHAIRMAN CARTER: It's all done, John. board. It's up to the COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel, can we? Is that a valid -- does the code in fact say in 1.66 that we can reject his interpretation -- we cannot reject his interpretation unless one of two things, and one of them is we find that his interpretation is contrary to code. Does it say that? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Okay, what it says, we'll repeat again -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on, give me yes or no. You read it for a second and then tell me. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Well, I want to hear it. MR. WEIGEL: Well, the paraphrasing -- CHAIRMAN CARTER: I want to know what we've -- MR. WEIGEL: -- can be dangerous here. Okay, the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals, whichever as applicable -- you are a Board of Zoning Appeals -- shall not be authorized to modify or reject the planning services director's or chief building official's interpretation unless such board finds that the determination is not supported by substantial competent evidence, or that the interpretation is contrary to the Growth Management Plan, the Future Land Use Map, the code -- meaning the Land Development Code -- or the official zoning atlas or building code, whichever is applicable. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're there. COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So my motion stands. MR. WEIGEL: Where are you there, for the record? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where I am is I've made a motion that we find that the planning director's interpretation does not Page 247 November 28, 2000 meet the test of Section 1.66 of the Land Development Code in that we reject his interpretation because we find it to be contrary to the code. CHAIRMAN CARTER: In what way? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: In that the purpose and intent section states -- as it existed on the day this was approved, it stated that the uses are to maintain a village residential character. That could not by any stretch reasonably be interpreted to be village residential. You have on the visualizer village residential, you have on the board the SDP approved project. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you for that specificity. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Unless, devil's advocate here, it's 35 foot, correct, stays within code? Does it violate a density? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It violates the village residential character which the code requires be maintained. COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that's all down to interpretation, right? CHAIRMAN CARTER: Are there any other 35-foot tall buildings? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. There is one two-story over parking, and it's a single-family home. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it couldn't possibly be maintaining, and, therefore, it's contrary to the code. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Defensible, Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: We will defend it to the utmost. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Okay. We have a motion, we have a second. Further discussion by the board? All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. Opposed by the same sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: Motion carries 5-0. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN CARTER: All right, we move to our last section, staff communications. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Don't even think about it. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Staff communications? MR. OLLIFF: I wouldn't think about it, sir. CHAIRMAN CARTER: Mr. Weigel? Commissioners? Page 248 November 28, 2000 Commissioner Coletta? I want to tell you one thing for the edification of the commissioners. We have proposed a meeting with the Lee County Board of County Commissioners. That's being put together and under way, so we just wanted you to be up to date on that. And that will also include the City of Bonita I think have been invited in this process. And at that point that's all I have. I therefore say this meeting is adjourned, if it's okay with Mrs. Filson. **** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commissioner Fiala and carried unanimously, that the following items the Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 - Deleted Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 2000-428, ENDORSING THE PACE CENTER FOR GIRLS, INC. IN IMMOKALEE AS A SPONSORING AGENCY UNDER THE FLORIDA ENTERPRISE ZONE COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION TAX CREDIT PROGRAM Item #16A3 RESOLUTIONS 2000-429 THROUGH 2000-431, PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR PROPERTIES OWNED BY SHERYL KENDALL Item #16A4 RESOLUTIONS 2000-432 THROUGH 2000-436, PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR PROPERTIES OWNED BY RICHARD VETTER, STUART O. KAYE TR., MIMON BARON AND CLAUDE E. LARUE Item #16A5 Page 249 November 28, 2000 RESOLUTIONS 2000-437 THROUGH 2000-441, PROVIDING FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LIEN FOR THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR PROPERTIES OWNED BY JOHN ASBELL, EMC HOLDINGS, INC., JOSE LUIS & LUCILA CATETE AND GERARDO & CRISELDA TORRES Item #16A6 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WATER AND UTILITY FACILITIES FOR THE CARLISLE A/K/A THE COLONY AND RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND Item #16A7 FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR TWENTY FIRST CENTURY ONCOLOGY LAB AND RELEASE OF PERFORMANCE BOND Item #16A8 FINAL PLAT OF "FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE A2, UNIT THREE" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A9 FINAL PLAT OF "MAJORCA AT FIDDLER'S CREEK" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A10 FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PARCEL 107" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A11 FINAL PLAT OF "TARPON BAY" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND Page 250 November 28, 2000 STIPULATIONS Item #16A12 FINAL PLAT OF "EDEN AT THE STRAND REPLAT - 1" Item #16A13 FINAL PLAT OF "LOT 2 CAPRI COMMERCIAL CENTER REPLAT" Item #16A14 FINAL PLAT OF "PEBBLEBROOKE PLAZA" Item #16A15 WORK ORDER WMI-FT-01-01 WITHIN CONTRACT 99-2981 WITH WILSONMILLER FOR FIXED TERM LAND SURVEYING AND PHOTOGRAMETRIC SERVICES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,000 Item #16A16 FINAL PLAT OF "MAHOGANY ESTATES" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS Item #16A17 FINAL PLAT OF "BELLAGIO AT FIDDLER'S CREEK" - WITH CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND STIPULATIONS Item #16B1 - Deleted Item #16B2 - Moved to Item #8B4 Item #16B3 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TASK ORDER 2000-9 FOR THE BUILD OUT NETWORK STUDY, TO BE COMPLETED BY Page 25t November 28, 2000 WILSONMILLER IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000 Item #16B4 BID #00-3157, PURCHASE OF ONE (1) WATER TRUCK -AWARDED TO WALLACE INTERNATIONAL - IN THE AMOUNT OF $82,440 Item #16B5 DONATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN A.R.M. DEVEOPMENT CORPORATION OF NAPLES, INC. AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR A PARCEL TO PROVIDE FOR EXPANSION OF THE LELY AREA STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Item #16B6 - Deleted Item #16B7 CONTRACT #98-2821 FOR CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND STREET LIGHTS - EXTENDED FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS Item #16C1 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY FOR 20 INCH RADIO ROAD RECLAIMED WATER MAIN EXTENSION, PROJECT 74036 Item #16C2 BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FINAL PAYMENT FOR "ODOR CONTROL" REPAIRS AND MODIFICATIONS COMPLETED AT THE NAPLES LANDFILL Item #16D1 CHANGE ORDER #5 TO WORK ORDER #WMBP-FT-96-14 WITH WILSONMILLER, INC. FOR SUGDEN PARK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES, HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEY, Page 252 November 28, 2000 STRUCTURAL PIER AND DOCK DESIGN - IN THE AMOUNT OF $3~665 Item #16D2 CHANGE ORDER #1 TO WORK ORDER #PR-GB-9919 WITH A. GAlL BOORMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A., FOR MAX HASSE COMMUNITY PARK, PHASE II LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES - IN THE AMOUNT OF $3~097.50 Item #16D3 APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY & LIBRARY TECHNOLOGY ACCESS PARTNERSHIP GRANT Item #16E1 - Deleted Item #16E2 LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH DECASTER CAPRIOLE JOINT VENTURE AND R.Y.R.R., INC., IN ORDER TO RELOCATE THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS Item #16E3 RE-APPROPRIATE TRAINING FUNDS IN THE HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM CAPITAL PROJECTS BUDGET Item #16E4 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FUND THE AGENDA COORDINATOR POSITION IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFORMATION Item #16E5 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRODUCTION OF THE "COUNTY HIGHLIGHTS" TELEVISION SERIES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY 2001 Page 253 November 28, 2000 Item #16E6 RFP #00-3125, "ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR COUNTYWIDE EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL" - AWARDED TO THE SEVEN FIRMS AS INDICATED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16E7 - Deleted Item #16E8 BID #00-3137, ANNUAL AGREEMENT FOR PREPARATION AND DELIVERY OF TITLE COMMITMENTS - AWARDED TO MIDWEST TITLE GUARANTEE CO. AND ASSOCIATED LAND TITLE GROUP, INC.; STAFF AUTHORIZED TO BRING BEFORE THE BOARD ADDITIONAL PROPOSALS FOR SUBSEQUENT INCLUSION IN THE ANNUAL AGREEMENT IN ORDER TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE EXPEDITED TRANSPORTATION WORK PROGRAM Item #16E9 RESOLUTION 2000-442, REVOCABLE TEMPORARY LICENSE TO FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY THAT WILL BENEFIT THE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITIES AT THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER Item #16E10 FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT WITH BILLY BOY CARRYOUT, INC. FOR THE GOLDEN GATE OFFICE FOR THE WIC PROGRAM Item #16E11 GROUP BENEFIT HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN DOCUMENT WITH ROBEY-BARBER, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2001 Item #16E12 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND HERITAGE SQUARE REAL ESTATE, L.L.C., IN ORDER TO LEASE OFFICE Page 254 November 28, 2000 SPACE FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE - ANNUAL RENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $455,000 AND $50,000 OPTION PAYMENT DEPOSIT Item #16E13 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO COMPLETE THE GOLDEN GATE GOVERNMENT SERVICES BUILDING AND THE SHERIFF'S BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS Item #16E14 - Deleted Item #16E15 RFP #00-3109, "JANITORIAL SERVICES" - AWARDED TO GOLDEN MARK FLORIDA CORP. Item #16E16 BID NO. 00-3166 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLUMBING PARTS AND SUPPLIES USED IN COUNTY REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE - AWARDED TO HUGHES SUPPLY AND JAMESON SUPPLY Item #16E17 BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR REPAIRS AND UNANTICIPATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR COUNTY BUILDINGS Item #16F1 BID NO. 00-3153 FOR THE PURCHASE OF BUDGETED MEDICATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES - AWARDED TO SUNBELT MEDICAL SUPPLY Item #16F2 BID NO. 00-3138 FOR THE PURCHASE OF BUDGETED UNIFORMS FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - AWARDED TO MEDICAL DEPARTMENT STORE AND DOSS AVIATION, INC. D/B/A AUREUS INTERNATIONAL Page 255 November 28, 2000 Item #16F3 COMPETITIVE GRANT APPLICATION FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACTIVITI ES Item #16J1 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: Page 256 FOR BOARD ACTION: Page 1 of 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE November 28, 2000 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Districts: Co 1) Collier Mosquito Control District - submitting the following: a. Resolution Adopting Tax Levy of. 1748 Mills for FY 2000-2001 b. Resolution Adopting Annual Certified Budget for FY 2000-2001 c. Annual Certified Budget for FY 2000-2001 d. Regular Meeting Schedule for FY 2000-2001 e. District Map with Expansion Phase 1 and 2 f. Registered Office - Registered Agent 2) Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Minutes of July 10, 2000 meeting and Resolution Adopting Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 along with Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 including Bond Information 3) Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes of meeting with attachments held by the Board of Supervisors on July 10, 2000 and Resolution Adopting Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 along with Final Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 including Bond Information Minutes: 1) Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda of November 13, 2000 2) Golden Gate Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda October 10, 2000 and Minutes of September 12, 2000 Other: 1) Medical Examiner's Commission Ann.a! Report AOENOA ITEM No. 1 L, :r' .... NOV 28 2000 Pg. I Page 2 of 2 2) Florida Development Finance Corporation - Annual Report for year ending June 30, 2000 AGENDA ITEM No._/6J'- NOV 2 8 2000 Pg. ~ November 28, 2000 Item #16K1 ACCEPTANCE OF ARTICLE V TRUST FUND GRANT-IN-AID FROM THE OFFICE OF THE STATE COURT ADMINISTRATOR - IN THE AMOUNT OF $57~815 Item #16K2 EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE, DISASSEMBLY, MODIFICATION AND INSTALLATION OF HIGH-DENSITY FILING EQUIPMENT FOR CENTRAL RECORDS AND HUMAN RESOURCES, UNDER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF STATE OF FLORIDA CONTRACT 420-590-98-1 Item #16L1 STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE EASEMENT ACQUISITION ON PARCEL 283 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ADALBERTO A. HERRERA, ET AL (GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT) - STAFF TO DEPOSIT $4:34 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT Item #16L2 OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANTS, GARRETT F.X. BEYRENT AND TERYL H. BRZESKI, FOR PARCEL 99/915 IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,400 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. ANTHONY D'ANTUONO, ET AL., CASE NO. 91-3983-CA - $600 TO BE PAID INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT IN THE EVENT THE OFFER OF JUDGMENT IS ACCEPTED Item #17A RESOLUTION 2000-443/DEVELOPMENT ORDER 2000-05, RE PETITION DRI-99-3, ALAN D. REYNOLDS OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK~ INC., REPRESENTING COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REQUESTING DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) APPROVAL FOR EXISTING AND NEW GOVERNMENT OFFICE BUILDINGS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF Page 257 November 28, 2000 TAMIAMI TRAIL (U.S. 41) AND AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD (C.R. 31) Item #17B ORDINANCE 2000-76, RE PETITION PUD-2000-02, WILLIAM HOOVER, OF HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., REPRESENTING MARK L. LINDER, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM ITS CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "PUD" FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 3/4 MILE NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, CONSISTING OF 57.82 ACRES Item #17C RESOLUTION 2000-444, RE PETITION CU-2000-12, JAMES MCCORD, REPRESENTING AMERICAN DREAM BUILDERS, INC., REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A MODEL HOME IN THE "E" ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4050 13TM AVENUE S.W., CONSISTING OF 5.0 ACRES Item #17D - Moved to Item #12B4 Item #17E ORDINANCE 2000-77, RE PETITION PUD-2000-14, WILLIAM L. HOOVER, AICP, OF HOOVER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS BRITTANY BAY APARTMENTS PUD FOR A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OF 128 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS AND 350 STANDARD RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON PROPERTY LYING ON THE WEST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951), APPROXIMATELY 4/5 MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, CONSISTING OF 58.6 ACRES There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:50 p.m. Page 258 November 28, 2000 '~-i ;ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS J-~-~ ~,/CARTER, Ph.D., CHAIRMAN Attest as to Chal~a~t~) ~-.":':, ;k. :.~.,,'-:i'~hese minutes approved by the Board on ~~ ~ 2~o/, as ~-.., '~ ~i '! i'~ ~-.~,~: ':.. - ..' / ',,,,.g~q~entea or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 259