Loading...
BCC Minutes 01/24/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 1995, OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:09 a.m. In REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members ALSO PRESENT: present: CHAIRPERSON: VICE-CHAIRMAN: Bettye J. Hatthews John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Timothy L. Hancock W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager Ken Cuyler, County Attorney CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to call to order the January 24 meeting of the board of county commission for Collier County. Mr. Dotrill, would you lead us in an invocation and pledge? MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we give thanks as we always do this morning for Collier County. We give thanks for the wonderful weather that we have enjoyed over the last week. Father, we just praise your name for the many blessings that you have bestowed on the people of this community. As always, we pray that you watch over and guide, guard, and direct our commission as they make these important business decisions and deliberations today that affect Collier County. We'd ask that you bless our families, our supporters, our support staff, and the many citizens who choose to participate in this government. We give thanks for all this in the name of Your Son. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2A AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. Dorrill, we have a few changes to the agenda? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Commissioners. There are only two changes this morning to the agenda. I have one add-on item that will be under constitutional officers. It will be item ll-A which is a request to authorize the purchase of additional voting machines for Ms. Morgan. She has asked to be here when we get to that item, and I'll make a note that we try and call her and give her a little advanced notice. You have received an executive summary that was distributed on Friday. It may already be in your -- your books. And she also provided our office with some supplemental information. I have reason to believe you have that as well. That will be ll-A. I have one item that's on the consent agenda that we would like to continue to your next regular meeting. And for purposes of those folks watching at home, the commission will be in a workshop meeting next week. We will not have our next regular meeting until the 7th of February. And we're requesting that item 16-E-1 as it pertains to pay titles for the department of revenue be continued until that time. And that's all that I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you -- thank you, Mr. Dorrill. Amongst the commission, are there changes? Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No further changes. Commissioner Hancock? No changes. Commissioner Mac'Kie? None. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question. There's an item on the agenda, and -- and I have not gone back to -- to search it. I just -- just remembered it. And it's 16-A-6, a recommendation to defer 100 percent of the impact fees on 34 dwelling fees for Timber -- Timber Ridge. Didn't we already do that? MR. CUYLER: It was necessary for the actual agreements to be put into the agenda because they were not in front of you last time. I think Mr. Mihalic asked for the funding source. You approved a funding source, and then he's bringing the actual agreements back to you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I thought the 34 units were the rental units that we approved three weeks ago and 24 units are the owner occupied. MR. MIHALIC: For the record, I'm Greg Mihalic. Yes, last week you did approve the 34 rental units and the deferral of the impact fees for the 15 years. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. MIHALIC: We're just bringing the resolution as well as the agreement to you for approval and signature today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I understand. MR. MIHALIC: Because it was not included in your packet last week. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's fine. Okay. If there are no further changes, could I have a motion on the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- agenda and consent agenda? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a second on the -- the agenda and consent agenda. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #3 MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 20, 1994 REGULAR MEETING, DECEMBER 21, 1994 SPECIAL MEETING AND JANUARY 5, 1995 WORKSHOP - APPROVED AS PRESENTED I'd like a motion on approval of the minutes for December 20 regular meeting, December -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All three? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: All three. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Norris, a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie to approve the regular meeting minutes of December the 20th, the special meeting minutes of December 21, and the workshop minutes of January 5. There being no further discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #4A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 1995 AS "NATIONAL RADIO MONTH" - ADOPTED Proclamations and service awards. The first one -- I don't have -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think I'm the first one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. Commissioner Constantine, you have a proclamation for us. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is Joe Landon with us this morning? Apparently not. Is anyone here for National Radio Month? Well, we have the following proclamation anyway. Whereas, radio broadcasting is an essential service in creating public awareness to constantly changing situations in the community, state, nation, and world; and whereas, radio advertising stimulates commerce which helps to maintain a stable economy; and whereas, our radio stations consistently offer facilities for furthering civic projects that benefit all; and whereas, radio broadcasters stand in constant readiness to give selfless aid in times of crisis; and whereas, the radio broadcasting industry has endeavored to provide all listeners with programs designed to inform, educate, and entertain. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of January 22 through 28, 1995, be designated as National Radio Month. Done and ordered this 24th day of January, 1995, BCC, Bettye J. Matthews, chairman. I'd like to make a motion that we make that week National Radio Month. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to second that motion, but it's difficult. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about we make that month national -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps we'll correct that and make that National Radio Week. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That I'll second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to approve the proclamation. All those -- there being no discussion, all those in favor please say aye. Opposed? None, motion passes five-zero. And we have no one here to accept the proclamation; is that correct? Item #4A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 4 - 12, 1995, AS "FLORIDA ARCHAEOLOGY WEEK" - ADOPTED Next on the agenda is a proclamation for Florida Archaeology Week. Is there a Jack Thompson? Do you want to come forward, sir? And I'm going to read the proclamation and propose a motion to approve it, and then you can tell us -- MR. THOMPSON: I apologize. I'm working in the lab this morning in the museum. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, archaeologists don't always wear suits, do they? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don't ever apologize for working. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Never. Never apologize for working and helping us. A proclamation. Whereas peeper -- people of all races have made Florida their home for more than 12,000 years; and whereas, the archeological sites representing Florida's Native American and early European people constitute a unique and irreplaceable resource; and whereas, such archeological remains represent the only records of human history in Florida before the European contact; and whereas, it is the policy of Florida to protect and preserve archeological sites in our rapidly growing state; and whereas, archeological sites contribute to our quality of life, our recreation, and our understanding of human history; and whereas, public appreciation and understanding is the foundation of archeological conservation; and whereas, the Florida Anthropological Society, the Florida Archeological Council, the Florida Division of Historical Resources, and the National Park Service have organized over 100 events in Florida to increase public awareness and understanding of archaeology. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of February the 4th through the 12th, 1995, be designated as Florida Archaeology Week and encourage our citizens and visitors to learn more about the archaeology of our state and to protect and preserve this important part of Florida's rich cultural heritage. Done and ordered this 24th day of January, 1995, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews, chairman. My colleagues, I motion that we approve the proclamation creating this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, the proclamation is issued. And, Mr. Thompson, I want to thank you very much. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you want a few words on what's happening during this week, we'd be glad to -- MR. THOMPSON: Well, locally here in Collier County -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Thompson, we need to -- we need to put it on the record on the microphone. MR. THOMPSON: I'm sorry. The Southwest Florida Archeological Society which was founded here is responsible for things going on in both Lee and Collier County. Collier County on the -- we have some schedules available at the museum and the libraries and will be in the newspaper we trust; a little difficulty there. But we will have -- at the museum we will have a very noted speaker, Dr. William Markwad (phonetic), on the -- Sunday the 5th in the afternoon. He'll be speaking about archaeology, particularly about some of the very important things here in Collier County. We will have a film series during the week. We will have an archeological fair on the 12th at the museum grounds with demonstrators making things the way the Indians did. We invite the public to all of these affairs. There is a field trip to Mound Key which, again, is in the -- in the literature and will be in the paper which is perhaps up in Estero the place that the Spanish contact was made with the Caloosas. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MR. THOMPSON: Thank you very much. Item #5 SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next on the agenda are service awards. Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Miss Chairman. We have today two service awards for five years. We have Albert Pesillo from road and bridge and Jane Lang from pollution control. Would you come forward, please? I have your certificates here, certificate and a pin. Congratulations. pin. MR. PESILLO: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Jane, here's yours. Richard Winans from road and bridge. Congratulations. certificate and a nice pin. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Richard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Richard. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Here's your MS. LANG: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thanks, Jane. MS. LANG: Thank you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Congratulations. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: We also have a ten-year pin for Here's your Item #SA1 PRESENTATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMHITTEE'S ANNUAL REPORT TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - REPORT ACCEPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Moving along on the agenda, there are no budget amendments today, so we'll -- we will move forward to our first agenda item under the manager's report which is item 8-A-l, presentation of the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee's annual report to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. DANE: Good morning. My name is Kris Dane. I'll have some brief comments. I know that you've got a report in your package about the work of the Development Services Advisory Committee this year. It was a pretty exciting year to chair that committee. We saw a lot of change in development services, a lot less bureaucracy and inflexibility and a lot more cooperation. And the attitude that has been embraced by the staff over there I think is due in large part to the changes in management that you people have made and the manager. We especially would like to recognize Dick Clark and Wayne Arnold and Bob Mulhere and Tom Cook and Bill Smith for their good work. We appreciate all your support of the activities of our committee this year. And I know that Tom Peek will be here next year to report on a good year for this year. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Are there any questions regarding the information in the report? Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One question. It may be -- Mr. Clark may be more appropriate to answer it, but your report brought it out to me. Is the -- where are we concerning the consultant's recommendations on the -- the computerization, the automation of development services? Just where do we stand right now, and -- and where is that proceeding to? MR. CLARK: We -- we are kind of -- I won't say on hold, but we're awaiting several alternatives. And -- and we are also I suppose concerned with -- with the ultimate administrator. We want to make sure where the ultimate -- where the administrator is going -- permanent administrator is going to be, that -- that that person is on board. Obviously the philosophy of where we're at now we think is very appropriate and as well as the steering committee. But we've looked at the vendors. In fact, we're in the process of looking at demonstrations, operational demonstrations, in different counties where -- where they are currently in operation. But that's one of our -- that's one of the concerns. We're not waiting for that, but that's one of the concerns that we're looking at. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Because I -- this to me is one of the most important tools that development services is so long overdue in getting that I want to thank the committee for bringing it out and also encourage moving ahead on it. MR. CLARK: Miss Chairman, if I might make another comment, we also -- staff would like to express our appreciation for the steering committee. As -- as the board is very well aware, this last year was somewhat challenging. And the challenge in -- in large part, the answers to many of the questions and -- and the direction both from the BCC and from the steering committee and from the community as a whole is what was the impetus in changing it to what we currently have which is very acceptable, and it's very productive. It's very productive. With less people we're doing a much higher volume at a faster pace. And those efficiencies were brought about in part due to Kris Dane and many of the steering committee members as well as yourself, Commissioner Hancock, from the productivity committee and all the commissioners speaking in addressing the concerns that you heard from your constituents. And so I would like to express our appreciation as well to the steering committee for -- for the fine efforts that they imparted to us. MR. DANE: Thank you. One final comment, as you do deliberate and select the -- the person who will become the permanent director for that division, I hope that you'll look for somebody that displays the leadership that Dick Clark has and that will -- will keep that positive attitude going over there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dane. Thank you, Mr. Clark. The report is appropriately received, and I believe we will move on. Really I personally for the steering committee want to thank them for all of the work that they've done in the -- in the last year. And I'm sure as the next year proceeds that they've got a tough act to follow, but they'll manage I think. Thank you. Item #8A2 RESOLUTION 95-65 ESTABLISHING A WORKPLAN AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS RE SEVEN YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORTS RELATING TO COLLIER COUNTY'S GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN; - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES AND RESOLUTION 95-66 RE TIME FRAME OF THE SCHEDULE OF SIGNIFICANT EVENTS FOR PREPARATION OF THE SEVEN YEAR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT - ADOPTED Next item on the agenda is item 8-A-2, a resolution establishing a work plan and schedule of events for the upcoming EAR. Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: Good morning, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Stan Litsinger of the community development services division with management section. This morning we're asking the board to review and approve a reso -- resolution kicking off the statutory required seven-year evaluation and appraisal report preparation process under your growth management or comprehensive plan. What we've tried to do here is within the guidelines and criteria that we have available to us today and the -- in the essence of time, we've tried to outline a process which we feel, most of your technical and legal staff, meets the minimal reasonable requirements of legislative intent and rule 9J50053. I'd like to point out a couple of some high points or low points, if you prefer, in the executive summary and then open it up for discussion. Key elements in this proposal, of course, are an effort to comply with the minimum requirements of the rule which I must tell you is open to debate throughout the state of Florida at all levels. We still have not received final guidance in the form of what we've come to know as incipient DCA policy on how they will interpret the rule. What we have seen, there has been a lot of discontent as far as the resource effort it would require in order to satisfy the Department of Community Affairs. Nonetheless, we would propose to go forward with the process that meets this community's needs, that is, what we need for our comprehensive planning process, our future land use planning process, a look of what we've done, where we've been successful, where we were not successful, and what we want to change in the future. We feel very strongly that comprehensive planning is a local government prerogative under Florida home rule. We do believe and I must tell you, quite frankly, it's been our experience in the past six years that we are usually in an adversarial relationship with the Department of Community Affairs. And I'm not sure that I can guarantee that we won't be as a result of this process. However, I do believe that we can conduct this process and it can be fruitful and that we can make those changes and look at our progress and meet the requirements of the statutes. I'd like to point out some items to you. As I mentioned, this is required by the growth management act and rule 9J50053. As the board is aware, the state has provided $20,000 in grant funds to assist the considerable cost in producing this report. In October of '94, the DCA promulgated a handbook of instruction on how to produce these reports which I'll say was very controversial. I can tell you that to date three major jurisdictions have submitted early EARs. They are Lee County, Hillsborough County, and city of Tampa, all of which were I would say blasted by the Department of Community Affairs as being not sufficient according to the department's requirements. That's putting aside the community's requirements. What we have proposed here is a work plan, and now I'm going to go out on a limb here. We proposed a work plan that we believe we can accomplish with existing staffing which you've approved in your appropriations and your budget and probable appropriations in the coming fiscal year. We have proposed what we believe and the county attorney has endorsed as a legally sufficient public participation process and program in the preparation of this report using existing advisory boards with assignments as noted in the resolution which I will address in a moment. Very briefly, the reason staff is recommending the -- the use of existing advisory boards is time constraints. You have twenty some -- twenty-six advisory boards currently standing. Even with this proposal, we're asking you to or we will be asking you to approve a resolution to form an ad hoc citizens advisory committee for review of the future land use element, Golden Gate master plan, Immokalee master plan, and potentially the forthcoming Marco master plan. So that would be a new ad hoc advisory committee. I've included information that is -- is a copy of rule 9J50053. It's an informational item, but I'd like to point out to you one or two items in 9J50053 which I believe is relevant to your decision making on this matter. As I noted in the executive summary and in the resolution, as usual, Collier County is one of the earliest counties required to submit their report. That's because we were one of the earliest counties to adopt our growth management plan. Technically we're required to submit the report -- you are required to adopt the EAR by January 1 of 1996. This is a tight time frame. We are starting well into the current calendar year as you're aware. Guidance is still spotty. We have to go on our own initiative. I believe that there is a potential that we may not meet that deadline. And if we are to produce an effective process, the consequences are primarily administrative in that in the event that we do not meet the January 1 deadline in the interim period before we have a sufficient EAR submitted, we would not be able to adopt additional plan amendments. That is the primary consequence. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I'm -- and I am concerned about why do we -- why -- why starting a year in advance are we concerned that we're not going to meet the deadline? MR. LITSINGER: I believe I can point out some of the steps in the process. If we look at the requirements of rule 9J5, even a rational minimum -- minimalist interpretation of 9J50053 requires a lot of initial groundwork on the part of staff prior to the initiation of the public participation process. You have a lot of input and potential concerns, agendas, if you will, that will come out in the public participation process. When you have that many participants trying to control the schedule -- and this was a problem in the initial process going back -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MR. LITSINGER: -- trying to stick to a schedule is very difficult which we want to try to do. But as we point out, we feel that the -- the highest priority here is the process and not the time frame. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree with that. I guess I don't mean any disrespect, but I'm curious if -- if you know that a year is not enough time why we didn't start a year ago or six months ago. MR. LITSINGER: Six months ago we -- two reasons. We do not have the luxury as far as resources go in community development services for a number of reasons, as you're aware, to initiate any process before its time. The other reason is -- is that we still do not have clear guidance from the Department of Community Affairs as to what they will find acceptable. We are concerned that we undertake a process that will result in a unwise utilization of resources at both staff level and community participation level to find out that it was inadequate. Those are the two reasons that I can give you. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, you have questions? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: My question is -- and -- and on top of looking at my stuff, this was also brought to my attention by some members of the EDC. I commend you for your -- your approach to using existing advisory boards to reduce the time frame, the timeline in which we have to -- to get things going. I think it's a good idea. There are some areas in which the match may not be just right, and I'll get to those in a second. A secondary concern is that people that -- that put their name in for an advisory board -- and let's say the Council of Economic Advisors -- may -- some of them may take some offense at being put in the position where they are being utilized for the purpose of doing an evaluation and appraisal report for our growth management plan. So I don't think we can reasonably request that those committees step into this program by virtue of being a member of that committee. I think we may ask that committee and its individual members if they would like to sit on a community advise -- an advisory committee, an ad hoc committee, and that may be the start of the request. But I have a problem with taking people who have volunteered their time for a specific committee with set goals and laying this level of work on them over the next 12 months. I think it's -- it's something we need to be concerned with. And -- and hopefully the rest of the board will share that concern. My second comment is a little bit of a mismatch. The Council of Economic Advisors reviewing the capital improvements element, I fail to see a connection there, a clear connection. Again, maybe it's the hub. Maybe it's the initial group, but it needs to be open up to more of the public and people who may have a greater level of expertise in dealing with that such as transportation engineers. And Lord knows we have a ton of retired engineers in this community that have got time over the next year to help us on that. So I guess I could sum it up just by saying I -- I encourage your approach, but I don't think it's -- in its absolute form is -- is in the best interest. And I would encourage that we -- we request these people as -- as part of an ad hoc for each area but not to comprise the entire ad hoc committee of that particular advisory board. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I share that sentiment, and -- and I -- I'm a little bit concerned that we have several visioning processes going on right now in Collier County. The -- the EDC completed a visioning process last year? Greater Naples Civic Association has just undertaken a visit -- a visioning process that encompasses many, many civic groups. Marco Island is undergoing a master planning which includes visioning. Commissioner Hancock and I were at a North Naples meeting last night. North Naples is considering a mast -- also master planning and -- and a visioning process. And I guess my -- my question in a summary is what happens if we don't make January 1, 19967 MR. LITSINGER: In my personal opinion, consequences are not particularly severe. Let's take a scenario. Say that we were 90 days late. Say we did not -- the board did not adopt an EAR until March the 1st. The consequences are -- is during -- and the county attorney can correct me if I make a misstatement here. The consequences of during that interim period between January 1 and the adoption of an EAR is that we are not, quote, allowed to adopt any additional plan amendments during that period. As a matter of fact, we generally in the period January to April do not adopt plan amendments anyway because our cycle does not run in that -- so that we adopt plan amendments during that period. Additionally we're asking the board as part of their resolution to direct us not to initiate or entertain any amendments during this process which are not either totally necessary or discretionary or not necessary for health, safety, and welfare. So we don't expect a large amendment package during that period. The consequences are primarily administrative. In the event that ultimately we submitted no EAR at all, of course, the department can take administrative remedies. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: But certainly if -- if we were to issue interim reports to the DCA as to the progress we're making and the anticipated time frame that I for one don't understand why they wouldn't accept the fact that we're not just doing an EAR but we're doing a major teevaluation. MR. LITSINGER: I don't see that as a problem. I think that we're going to have enough interaction with the department and possibly yet to be determined with the Regional Planning Council, Mr. Daultry's organization, that the activities in process will obviously be underway. And I don't believe that the department has any particular interest in any action relative to a submittal. In fact, the rules and the statutes don't provide them with a remedy unless they determine that we're simply not making progress. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd just '- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- briefly like to add my endorsement to -- to the comments about the advisory boards and -- and be sure that we don't assign work to people who have volunteered to do specific jobs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Might I suggest that -- that the approach there may be -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Madam Chairman -- that the approach there may be that informing the element and subelement committees that an open invitation to the appropriate advisory committees be issued to form the hub of a -- of a CAC, an ad hoc CAC? Again, I'm attempting to get this resolution -- MR. LITSINGER: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to a workable level that incorporates your concerns and your ideas but also doesn't lay the burden of the work on a single advisory committee. MR. LITSINGER: I think I'm hearing -- the consensus of the board here is that you're not particularly endorsing our proposal which is fine. I have no problem with that. It seems to be that you agree with their proposal, that the process is more important than the January 1 date which I think we should still try to come as close to as We Can. I -- I might suggest hearing your comments since that -- if we're talking about ad hoc citizens advisory committee that they would have to be established by ordinance I believe. MR. CUYLER: Not if -- if they're -- if they're ad hoc and they're going to be approximately a year or less, they can be done by resolution. MR. LITSINGER: By resolution? I think we might -- under these circumstances might want to consider -- and I had been reluctant to propose it due to the time frames or because I thought that the process of establishing the citizens advisory committee in and of itself would be time consuming. We might want to consider the approach we took initially in the development of the plan. We had a -- a -- first a 21-member citizens advisory committee which was later expanded to 25 members due to quorum issues. That was further broken into subcommittees. It would involve a much more complicated process of -- of soliciting interested applicants from various fields of interest in the community based -- and we can use as a guideline the original ordinance. I think that it would make our schedule slip, but it sounds to me as if the board is -- is more leaning in that direction. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I would agree with that. And I -- again, I don't want it to be lost. I commend you for trying to adhere to the schedule, and you've brought us an option. Just from the input we've had from citizens or I've had individually from citizens, I think that would be the road to go that -- that would benefit the community the greatest. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I think I agree with that especially in lieu of the -- of the recent court decisions with the -- the Schneider Act and the -- and the recent decision of this board in which there's ongoing litigation that we -- we need to take a harder look at what -- at -- at what the foundation is that our staff and the planning commission are working under and then it gets to this level and we say, hold it, wait a minute, I'm not sure we want to do that. And -- and we've said that now on a couple of occasions. And I'm not convinced at this point that the petitioner rightfully moves forward, goes into court to get his petition approved from a judicial point of view and -- and yet we -- we still have the same rules where this board has said we don't want to do something and yet we haven't -- haven't changed the rules yet to keep it from happening in the future. So that's where I think we need to be looking at is -- is does our current land development code, future land use, and master plans and so forth for the various components of Collier County -- is it really what the citizens want? These plans are five or six years old now. Things change quickly. So I'm -- I'm endorsing what you're saying. I -- I think it's a good idea. And I -- I'm not too terribly concerned based on what Mr. Litsinger has said that January the 1st, 1996, is a fast and firm date. I would just as soon issue interim reports of what we're doing so that we get to the right conclusion and not just a time limit. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: So let me make sure that I'm clear on what we're going to do with the advisory committees. MR. LITSINGER: Okay. If we could turn to the resolution that we prepared for your consideration, it starts out on your agenda on page 25 -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. I have the list of those committees in front of me. Some of them look appropriate. Some of them are -- MR. LITSINGER: I'll have to tell you that there's force fits in some circumstances, and we felt that we had to at least propose that to you in essence of -- time being of the essence. I think the consensus of the board -- and I know that some of the board members were involved in the original plan preparation process. To brief you on what took place for the public participation element of the original plan preparation was the appointment of a citizens advisory committee or preparation of the growth management plan consisting of 21 members from the community representing varied interests, community -- excuse me, development, citizens at large, environmental groups. We have a -- the original ordinance which is what I would propose to bring back to you at another advertised public hearings. The structure would be pri -- pretty much identical in that I believe we would probably recommend 25 members to be further broken down into subcommittees based on particular interest of the applicants to review each element, make final consolidated EAR review by the total CAC. It would involve any number of public workshops at the discretion of the citizens advisory committees and their subcommittees. I'm going to tell you up front it's -- it's going to be a very comprehensive process. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So you're -- what you're saying is that -- that instead of having these separate elements done by separate committees here as outlined in the resolution that you're going to take a more global approach and have a larger committee with perhaps subcommittees on that. MR. LITSINGER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's acceptable to me then. MR. LITSINGER: And I would ask -- when we reach that consensus I'd ask for some further direction as to the way you would like us to draft this -- it might save time -- draft this ordinance before we bring it to you at a public hearing. I have a couple clarifications I would request. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you talking an ordinance or a resolution? MR. LITSINGER: The last time the CAC was established by ordinance. I believe the -- this could go over a year. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we need to do an ordinance, Mr. Cuyler, to establish -- MR. CUYLER: It depends on how long they're going to be. If they're going to be a year or less, you can do it by resolution. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Excuse me -- Commissioner Matthews? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It seems to me that -- that in the good faith effort to meet the deadline we ought to at least start this anticipating that we're going to -- we're going to establish a committee with a life of less than a year or we're setting out to ignore the deadline. MR. CUYLER: Yeah, I would -- I was going to say at some point that is a deadline. I mean, you were asking what happens if we go over the deadline. But obviously as with anything else, that's what you want to be shooting for. If you happen to go over, then we'll have to deal with that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And if we get to 11 months and 29 days, we can do an ordinance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or a new resolution. MR. CUYLER: You'll -- you'll extend your resolution if that's what it is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: All right. My preference would be to go ahead right away with a resolution rather than to go through the ordinance process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we want to -- do we want to have a motion on this today, or do we want to direct staff to rewrite the resolution and bring it back at the next meeting? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I think it would be appropriate to -- MR. DORRILL: We have one speaker too. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have one speaker? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. MR. LITSINGER: As information with regard to the original ordinance, the original ordinance had a sunset of adoption of the growth management plan, a specific sunset of the ad hoc committee. Here again the question is whether or not the ad hoc committee would sunset on adoption of the report or adoption of the subsequent amendments. There again, we're looking at a much larger time frame. I would suggest upon adoption of the EAR which would leave the -- if we shoot for January 1, we can spell that date out in the resolution. And if we need to make various changes, we can do that at a later date. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it more complicated than this, Mr. Litsinger, that we could adopt your resolution but -- but substituting that an ad hoc CAC be appointed, a 25-member ad hoc CAC be appointed, in substitution for this list of advisory boards to review the elements and subelements? MR. LITSINGER: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we just do that today? MR. LITSINGER: Yes. And then we will come back to you probably at your next regular meeting -- we'll have to do it -- it's going to be a resolution. So we'll come back to your next -- at your next meeting with a proposed resolution based -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess what I'm asking is couldn't I -- couldn't I today move approval of the resolution with a substitution of instead of these advisory boards for reviews of elements and subelements that a 25-member ad hoc committee be established and then we could start today instead of later? MR. LITSINGER: We can go further. And again, I'll ask the county attorney to correct me if I make a mistake. You could I think in your resolution direct us to come back to you with a resolution that is drafted along the lines of ordinance 87-7 which was your original CAC ordinance. The difference between the resolution and the ordinance is the time frame. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Before we get to the motion, let's hear from the public. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Neron. MR. NERON: Madam Chair, members of the board, for the record I'm Bill Neron, director of government affairs for the Economic Development Council. Last fall the Government Affairs Committee of the EDC appointed a subcommittee to sort of monitor the progress of the county and become involved in this important evaluation and appraisal report process. We did have some concerns about the public participation process that was originally proposed. It appears that the board is going in a direction to broaden that process. We applaud that effort and look forward to working with you on this most important endeavor. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Neron. So do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a question for the county attorney. Is -- would it -- would it be appropriate -- would a -- would a motion be thorough enough if I -- if I moved that we approved this resolution with a substitution for these re -- review by advisory boards to say that a 25-member CAC would be adopted in -- along the lines of the former CAC for adoption? I mean, does it have to be more specific than that? I just hate a resolution -- MR. CUYLER: I'll tell you what -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- and another resolution. MR. CUYLER: Yeah, I know. I'll tell you what we can do, though. We're going to have to eventually adopt another resolution to appoint the members. So what you can do is go ahead and make the motion the way you want to put the general -- not -- not the specific structure but generally what you want for item number 7 in the resolution. Then when we bring back the resolution appointing the membership, we'll put their powers and duties and such into that resolution as well so that we'll accomplish both and won't hold anything up. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Then I -- then I move approval of this resolution with a substitution for paragraph 7 that a 25-member ad hoc committee be appointed by resolution of the board for the purposes described in paragraph 7. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Couple of seconds. Motion by Commissioner Hac'Kie, second by Commissioner Norris. The motion as described is to substitute -- MR. CUYLER: And if you'll give us -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- a citizen advisory committee. MR. CUYLER: And if you give us a little discretion, we'll write that up for you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Commissioner Hac'Kie, there's a second resolution in the package that's a work plan and schedule. Did you want to handle that also? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. I'd move approval of that work plan and schedule. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Would the second accept that? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a second for two resolutions, one for the committee and the second one for the work plan. Is there any further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. MR. LITSINGER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Litsinger. Item #SD1 TEMPORARY DISPOAL METHOD OF LIQUID WASTE FROM THE ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM AT NORTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT - STAFF RECOMHENDATION APPROVED AND STAFF DIRECTED TO EXPLORE PERMANENT SOLUTION AMD DISPUTE WITH ENGINEER Next item is 8-D-l, approval of a temporary disposal method for liquid waste. MR. MCNEES: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. Mike McNees representing your utilities division. I'm here this morning ultimately to get your approval of a budget amendment but probably more importantly to inform you and update you on the reason that we need that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: You always bring the most pleasant things to us, Mr. McNees. MR. MCNEES: Yes, ma'am. My job's a lot of fun. We have a situation at your new north regional water treatment plant where as you -- as you well know we have an injection well through which we dispose of the concentrate that is a reject product of the membrane softening process. We put anywhere from a half a million gallons to 1.2 to 1.3 million gallons per day of this concentrate down this deep well without a problem. There is a second waste stream source that comes off the degasifier or the odor control units at that plant that's of a magnitude which is considerably smaller, anywhere from 5,000 to 10,000 to 15,000 gallons per day, that the -- the employees at that plant discovered a couple of months ago that at the point where those two waste streams mix to go down the deep well, the chemical properties of that -- of those two streams were such that a precipitant was formed that eventually turned into a very hard substance, almost like a plaster of Paris or -- or some sort of a hard solid substance. And staff immediately became concerned that if we continued to pump that solution down the injection well that there would be a potential at some point that the injection well be fouled. They immediately called on our contract hauler that we have an existing bid for emergency waste hauling and began to haul that liquid waste stream which is, again, a relatively small volume from the odor control towers to the sewage lift station which I believe the nearest one is -- is somewhere near the Vineyards and that that material is then -- is now being sent to our waste water treatment plant. Long-term solution to this problem is probably going to be the construction of a force main to take this piece of the waste stream and take it to the north regional waste water treatment plant. Now, you may ask, shouldn't the design engineer have known enough about the chemical properties of these two waste streams to have avoided this? And I'm going to say absolutely I think yes. We have had discussions with -- with the design engineer. They feel like the potential for problems with the injection well is relatively slight. They feel like that probably the first step is to study a little bit more in detail the chemical properties of this precipitate which we don't necessarily disagree with. I can tell you that we've poked and prodded and dissolved and -- and, you know, every chemical solution that we can think of, our chemists have approached and tried to find some process means to deal with this and have been unsuccessful I guess to this point. I guess to describe where it stands with the engineer, we have somewhat of a disagreement on whether they have any responsibility for the interim costs we have had here. If there was an omission on their part, they did not design a force main, we would have had to pay for that anyway, and we will probably pay for that. But the question is who pays for all these interim costs that we should not have incurred. And -- and I'm telling you I can't answer that right now, but we will pursue that. And obviously there's a lot of other issues with the close-out of this plant, so this is going to be very complicated. But for immediate purposes, staff feels very strongly that the risk of potential and the cost of filing of that injection well is not worth continuing to pump this solution down. And for the cost that we're incurring, it's much more worthwhile to continue to haul it away while we develop a long-term solution. We would propose to be back with you within two to three weeks with an analysis of a force main versus the hauling cost versus potential chemical solutions and then let you tell us how to solve this problem in the long haul. Hopefully by then we'll have some better answers about -- about the engineer's position on this, and -- and we'll tell you those then. What we're asking for today, you recently approved a contract for leachate hauling at the landfill at a piece rate that's considerably lower than our emergency hauling contract. That vendor has agreed to do this hauling for us at that price. We have to put a storage tank there that we'll also rent from him which is relatively inexpensive. So we're asking essentially for your permission to -- to use that solid waste leachate hauling bid to do this hauling and secondly, to approve a budget amendment in the amount of -- I believe it's $116,000 -- yes, $116,500 to fund this hauling through the end of fiscal '95 if that should be necessary. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. I have Randy Geraghty, a chief operator from the plant, if you want to get any more into the technical issues of all this. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. McNees, is the concern from a standpoint of particulate in this waste stream clogging the -- the disposal well, is that -- MR. MCNEES: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is that correct? MR. MCNEES: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Do we have two disposal wells? Do we have a back-up? MR. MCNEES: We do not. As you know -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're using a single tube on this? MR. MCNEES: We've come -- that's one of the reasons why we're anxious to get the back-up well. One of the reasons this is more critical, we do not have the back-up well yet, and -- and so we don't feel like it's a good idea to take any chances. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Have we -- have we investigated the practicality and the economic feasibility of an acid treatment or some such treatment to the injection well if -- if it did become clogged? MR. MCNEES: We have studied various chemical alternatives to either try to present -- prevent the precipitate in the first place and through that, yes, what will dissolve it and that sort of thing. We don't feel like there is a feasible solution for if there were a clog. We think it's much wiser to avoid it entirely. We don't have any definitive -- we can't say -- first, I can't honestly say the well would ever clog. And I think the engineers are saying we may be reacting a little too strongly. I personally don't think that. I think we're being very prudent. If it were to clog, I can't stand here and tell you yes, there's a way we can unclog it. So I'm -- chemically. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And -- but we have investigated -- MR. HCNEES: Yes, we have, a number. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- with people like Slumbojay (phonetic) or Halaburton (phonetic) or someone who do these things on a routine basis. MR. HCNEES: One of the things that the engineer is recommending is that we -- we get another water quality consultant of some sort to -- to review this. I can tell you that our chemists that work for us have -- have been working on this from every conceivable angle from the day this problem was discovered. And so far they haven't come up with a feasible chemical solution. But we'll sure continue to pursue that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? I have one, Mr. HcNees, and that -- that is that the executive summary refers to this as a design omission. And our -- and I understand that -- that Boyle Engineering may not feel that it's quite the problem that our staff feels that it is. But we have engineers that re -- review design plans. And I -- I guess that my question is when those plans were reviewed, it must have been obvious that they were going to intermix these two waste streams. MR. HCNEES: And it's not the fact that the streams are being intermixed. It's not a mechanical problem where if someone would look at a set of plans -- it's a chemical problem where the plans don't address the chemical constituents or the properties of the two waste streams. And I don't know, short of the chief chemist at the -- at the water plant perhaps having had that thought at some point had he been able to review the plans, which he probably didn't, anywhere in the county's process that that might have arisen. I think that's what we pay an expert in membrane softening technology to design a facility like this for because they're supposed to know this sort of thing. We don't have a membrane plant. This is obviously a lesson learned for us. But I can't honestly say where in the county's review process we could have or should have seen this. It's -- even the experts didn't anticipate it, and they didn't see it. And I believe they should have, and that's something we'll certainly discuss further with them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I -- I just -- I guess I'm just a little bit disheartened that this north plant continues to have problems. And they're not contract problems; they're design problems. MR. MCNEES: Absolutely. And while he's in the room, I'll point out Randy Geraghty who's the chief operator of that plant. The staff up there has done an exceptional job of bringing that plant to a full operating status. They've been working with the neighbors up there to resolve some of the noise problems and issues that they've had up there. And they have got that plant calibrated and operating. And they have taken that load on themselves throughout the close-out of this construction process. And they've done a great job. They have really, really worked hard. And I recognize Randy while he's sitting there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree. The operating staff I think has done a marvelous job in trying to remedy the problems, and the -- the problems stem from prior to the project being handed over to the operating staff. And I guess that's -- that's a continuing concern that I have. Any other questions? MR. MCNEES: And I agree the shake-out of that is -- remains to take place. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions? Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think there's a hesitation on a motion because I'm sitting here with the feeling that are we going after Boyle for what we feel was an incomplete job? And I -- I don't know the status of that. I don't know whether we're going to be reimbursed for these costs. I understand that -- that it obviously makes sense to put it elsewhere rather than clogging the only deep injection well we have. This is one of those decisions I don't think we like to make but have to. But I -- I would feel a better or greater level of comfort knowing that we are going to pursue Boyle with all haste. MR. DORRILL: We -- we -- we have two different issues here. The -- there is a claim and a dispute of that claim between the owner, the county, and the general contractor over a wide variety of -- of issues that pertained in the delay of the original plan. County has retained the law firm of Carlton, Fields in Tampa to develop our strategy for what may ultimately be a trial. As part of that, Boyle is -- is integral because they were the on-site construction superintendent to monitor construction and to review pay requests for adherence to the schedule of values, make sure we weren't overpaying them. We're still holding several hundred thousand dollars, and failure to pay the final retainage is part of that. Boyle is important as part of our team to attack the general contractor. The issue in this particular case has and will continue to be discussed with Carlton, Fields, that being the error or omission on the part of Boyle to anticipate and/or design for the separate source of -- of waste water that comes from the plant. I will tell you it's been my experience that to try and hold a -- either an architect or an engineer responsible for a design error is difficult with the exception of getting them to provide as part of their original fee the design necessary for whatever alternative is selected. I don't think we're to the point yet where we know whether we really have a bona fide problem there. And I'm not willing to recommend a force main until such time that we've exhausted other alternatives. And the one that I suggested was given the chemical properties of this water -- it's a very alkaline source of water -- can we not just have some type of septic tank and drain field on site to be able to just dispose of this minor amount of water. That's one example. It would be far less expensive than trying to construct a force main to dispose of that. And until we get a final report and recommendation, we're not suggesting what, if any, fix is necessary during the interim. We found a cheaper way to truck the water, and that's what your staff is asking you to do, and I'm supporting that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me make -- try to make a motion then, Miss Chairman. I make a motion that we approve the interim measure here and further that we direct staff to continue to explore a permanent solution, and the solution may include any of the number of alternatives that have been discussed here today from chemical retreatment of the well to a drain field to a force main, any of those alternatives plus any other alternative we may not have discussed here at this meeting that would be economically feasible and further that we direct staff to explore the -- the dispute that we may have with the engineer over the appropriateness of their recommendation and see if there's any resolution to be gained there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner Norris, a second by Commissioner Mac'Kie. I'm not going to rephrase the motion. It was quite lengthy. But if there's no further discussion, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being no one opposed, motion passes five-zero. MR. MCNEES: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #10A EXTRA GAIN TIME FOR INMATE NO. 56034 - DENIED Next item on the agenda is under the Board of County Commissioners, and it is 10-A, extra gain time. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion to approve. Is there discussion on the motion or a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only point of discussion is looking at the crime, violation of county probation, breach of peace, resisting arrest without violence, a second crime, violation of county probation also, resisting or obstructing an officer without violence, I'm not inclined to -- to off -- to agree with extra gain time for someone who has a continued approach to resisting arrest and standing in the way or obstructing justice, so I'm not as favorable on that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I concur. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I concur also. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So do I. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have four, so I -- I presume the motion will not be seconded and it will die for that reason. This person will not be granted extra gain time. Also for the staff to know, the sheriff has sent me a letter regarding extra gain time and the policy of the BCC. And on staff communications this afternoon, I had planned to discuss that with the board if we wanted to make changes in the recommendations. So we'll move on. Item #10B RESOLUTION 95-67, APPOINTING CLEMENT MCHAHON AND JAMES THORSEN TO THE HOMELESS ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Next item, 10-B, appointment of members to the Homeless Advisory Committee. Miss Filson? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Miss Filson, we have two appointments. We have three names. One of those has withdrawn, and we had one person turn in late. MS. FILSON: That's correct. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we had two who turned theirs in and are still eligible to fill two positions? MS. FILSON: Yes. And -- and the advisory committee after I had already prepared the executive summary had recommended that Mr. Thorsen be appointed in Miss Fiscina's place. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion that we appoint Clement M. McMahon and James E. Thorsen. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before calling the question on that, I do want to say that I agree with the board's policy that -- that things that are received late are difficult. But I do want to commend the person that submitted late. I would ask that they apply at the next available opportunity because I think they're a well-qualified candidate. And hopefully they'll be within the time frame on the next one because I -- I think they offer a great value to -- potentially to the Homeless Advisory Committee. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor of the appointment of Clement McMahon and James Thorsen please say aye. Those opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Mr. Const -- Commissioner Constantine, do you have any recommendation as to who should serve which term, or do you want them to draw straws? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no recommendation. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I thought it was part of the staff report. There was a recommendation made. Oh, that was for Katherine. Sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That was for Katherine. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Katherine was not appointed. MS. FILSON: Would you like me to work with staff in -- in recommending those, or do you want it brought back? If -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think we need it brought back. I just think we -- I mean, Commissioner Constantine said that they can decide amongst themselves which one is to serve which term. MS. FILSON: Okay. If -- if they decide amongst themselves, they need to bring it back in the form of a resolution. Otherwise we can include it in the appointment resolution. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you bring that back, it can go on a consent agenda. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. MS. FILSON: Okay. Item #10C RESOLUTION 95-68 REAPPOINTING WILLIAM PENNELL AND FRANCES TIFT TO THE OCHOPEE FIRE CONTROL DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item is 10-C, appointment of members to the Ochopee Fire Control District Advisory Board. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, seeing that there are two members opening and two applicants, I'll make a motion that we fill those two positions with those two applicants. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero. Item #10D RESOLUTION 95-69 APPOINTING FREDERICK FLATTO, THOMAS C. BROWN, BERNON W. YOUNG, CORA P. OBLEY AND ANTHONY P. PIRES, JR. TO THE PELICAN BAY HSTBU ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED Next item is 10-D, appointment of members to the Pelican Bay HSTBU Advisory Committee. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I had a -- a -- some difficulty with this. We have two people that are currently on the board that requested reappointment and apparently were not voted for that. And I -- it has been the -- the recent history of this board to respect the appointment of the committees that they bring forth. And I agree with that. However, I do notice that one of the people, a resident new appointment, and one of the existing -- or one of the other people to be reappointed, both Hiss Cora Obley and Hiss Suzanne Doff, are not only in the same industry but work in the same office. They're both not only in real estate, but they both work for I think Hunt Real Estate Group. And I just thought that -- I have absolutely nothing against either person. I think they're both terrific to the board. But in the encouragement of diversity, that -- that raises a question for me, that we would probably want a broad -- as broad a base on these HSTBUs as possible. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just I have to say too I think Fred Flatto's done a magnificent job on that board, and I was disappointed to see him not on the recommended -- recommended list so -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was -- I was disappointed but not surprised because Fred is -- is -- Fred speaks his mind. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, I like that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And he's very, very straightforward, and I agree with you. I -- I hate to be the hatchet person, but simply because Hiss Obley and Hiss Dorr both are not only in the same profession but even work in the same office and then trying to encourage diversity on the boards, I would like to see Mr. Flatto appointed, and possibly I -- I guess Thomas C. Brown is the other person that was -- that was recommended. I guess I'll make a motion that Mr. Thomas C. Brown and Mr. Frederick Flatto be appointed to the HSTBU Advisory Committee for Pelican Bay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's two. We need five. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. The other three I -- I don't have any questions about: Bernie Young, Cora Obley, and Anthony Pires along with Mr. Flatto and Mr. Thomas C. Brown. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So you're substituting -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Flatto for Suzanne Doff. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct, and only because of -- of the -- trying to reach the diversity on the -- on the HSTBU as much as -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, motion passes five-zero for the appointment of Frederick Flatto, Bernon Young, Thomas C. Brown, Cora Obley, and Anthony Pires to the Pelican Bay MSTBU. Item #10E PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE TDC CATEGORY "C" FUNDING CRITERIA - TDC TO EXPLORE BCC SUGGESTIONS Next item on the agenda, 10-E, a proposed change to TDC category C funding criteria. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- I want to run this by the board, and this will ultimately need to go through the TDC and have some legal format put to us and come back to us for a final vote. But I wanted to kind of run this through and get a feeling from you all. This past year we put roughly 2.6 million aside for beach renourishment, beach and pass renourishment. We put what's approaching now a million dollars towards category B which is promotion of the area for off-season tourism. We awarded only about $145,000 for category C which are special event funding. And we have in the neighborhood of $800,000 set aside for category C. It says a lot to me, and it -- particularly the way some of the applications for category C funds came this past year when I was chairman for the TDC. It says a lot that category C, the criteria for that, is cumbersome, bureaucratic. It's not conducive to trying to do what it -- what it was intended. The special events obviously are to encourage more summer tourism here, more off-season tourism. We have some very good events. We had the pro bowlers tour come through. Last year I think they booked 100 room night -- 500 room nights during the course of that; had a big impact. But we've had a pile of either unqualified applicants. Or even if you tallied up all the applications, we still don't come close to -- even the ones we turn down. We still don't come close to that $800,000, and -- and it makes me think and I think it's very apparent that the format we have discourages people, and we need to change that. The TDC has a subcommittee on tourism. And they met 12 days ago today. And they've made some specific suggestions. Among those, right now, current law does not allow -- if a not-for-profit agency or non-profit agency puts on an event, salaries or paying their own employees who are likely paying -- working at that event can't be included. They've either got to go lease people or bring in new people or create a separate entity. There's a way to use your own employees, but you've got to set up some bureaucratic nonsense to do it. The current funding match is you have to match dollar for dollar. If you want $50,000 you have to put in at least 50, and that can be half in kind, but still you have to put a dollar-for-dollar match. The subcommittee suggested changing each of those, first that you would allow the not-profit groups to use their own staff without creating all the extra paperwork to do it. I think that makes sense. They've also suggested that the match -- perhaps it would encourage more people if the match was only 50 percent rather than 100 percent. And -- and they've also suggested that a super majority of the TDC be required to be considered an endorsement of any event that would cost over half a million dollars. We've only had -- I don't know -- I think we had one of those which has since withdrawn. So we've never had any event actually put on that was more than half a million dollars anyway. Again, I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that the funding would be half a million or the event itself would be half a million, the budget for it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The funding I believe as they have it worded, yeah, over 500,000 TDC funds, so not the event but the TDC funds. I'd like to -- just by way of history, at the last two meetings of the TDC in 1994 there were a couple other changes. The hotel industry came to us and suggested the percentage formula change, and that-- that works. But they also had suggested we roll that excess monies over into category B, and I think maybe we're premature doing that. Category C isn't working now, but I think that's probably our fault or whomever put together, Ken -- whomever put together -- just kidding -- whomever put together the wording. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's always a lawyer's fault. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. All joking aside, it's better that we were too cautious than too far the other way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think now we need to let that rope out a little and make it more workable. The -- I don't know that now is the time to roll over those excess funds into category B. I think now is the time to correct the problems we have. And I've just got a couple suggestions on that. I'd like to go a step further than what the subcommittee suggested, and I kind of like this board's preliminary blessing anyway of the concept before we ask the TDC to workshop it. And -- and I have spoken with a number of the TDC members and also the hotel and motel industry about the concept. What I'd like to do is right now if you have a $100,000 event and you put $50,000 of that up and the TDC puts $50,000 of that up, if you make a penny in revenue over that $100,000 total, you are subject to return the overage, and you can also end up being subject to return the entire grant. So you are running the risk of -- even if you get a revenue the same amount that the event cost, of losing money on the event. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think that's the big discouraging factor on -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can I interrupt? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just on that point while -- while we're still on it, it was my understanding that -- that yes, you would have to return the funds if you made a profit. But I thought it was only a return of profit up to the amount of the grant so that if you had a $50,000 grant and you made a $2,000 profit, you had to give the $2,000 back, that the entire grant was not subject. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. The example in my case, you would -- for $100,000 event, any group would have to bring in a hundred and -- in the scenario I outlined would have to bring in 150,000 before they'd see a penny -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- for themselves. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, because the first 50,000 would have to go back. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. And it almost seems as though we're penalizing people if their project is successful in bringing people in. What I'd like to do is create a ratio for percentage of grant money that they would not be subject to return. In other words, if they could fill -- in Collier County there are 5,000 rooms. If they could fill half of those, if they could fill 2,500 rooms, then you've got in the middle of July half your hotel rooms filled. Obviously the restaurants and businesses and so on would get the trickle down if it were -- as it were. And I'd like to see maybe some formula there where if you could fill half the rooms, you're only responsible for returning half that grant. And my logic for that is the TDC funds are intended to encourage off-season tourism. That's what they're intended to be spent on. And if we can succeed, if a group can do that and succeed and fill up half the rooms, they can fill up all the rooms in the county, we shouldn't penalize them for doing that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I agree. And the flip side of that is I would probably stop short today of endorsing specific ideas -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I don't want -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but obviously endorsing you going to the TDC with these because there's -- there's a neat dual role here. The more room nights that they create, not only does it benefit them personally, the hotelier members of the TDC, but it throws more money into the funding for beach renourishment and so forth. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the more we can encourage them and give them incentives to fill their hotels, the more money we have for beach renourishment. It's a win-win situation. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd suggest a couple of things. Anything under, say, 30 percent of the beds in the county should be ineligible because if somebody has an event that brings 100 people to the county, I think we're going to do more paperwork than it's worth there. But if -- my thought here is if you have a -- a large event that's bringing in and having a definite impact on the summer economy, we shouldn't be penalizing that. We should be encouraging that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two comments. One is -- is I want to be careful. I -- I think that the idea of reevaluating category C monies is absolutely essential, and -- and I commend you for that. I want to be careful, though, that we don't endorse anything specific today so that we -- the door's wide open for recommendations from the TDC. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But my suggestion today is only that -- kind of the broad concept and so we can send this to the TDC for them to workshop. Obviously it has to go through them and eventually come back to us for final vote anyway. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if there is a way that they can internally reevaluate, you know, the application process for the category C monies without having to go back through the bureaucracy, I'd like to encourage them to do that. And my second comment is do I understand there's like $800,000 plus sitting somewhere, and -- and is it invested? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: In category C. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it -- is it earning interest, and is it invested wisely? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I presume it is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's in Commissioner Constantine's personal savings account. Just kidding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is sitting, but it is earning interest. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, it is earning. On -- on the category C funds, another item that we may want to ask the TDC to take a look at because I'm not even sure that it's includible in -- in the current ordinance for what we use these funds for. But I've been -- been sitting with the film commission for Collier County on some meetings, and I think we're -- we're all aware of the hugely successful Just Cause that filmed here last year. Warner Brothers put some eight or nine million dollars into the economy of Collier County in about a two -- two-month period. And at the same time we had Captiva going on. And there's some thought in the community that we could attract and have a lot more filming going on in Collier County. And, of course, the filming credits would give Collier County Tourist Development Council some credits for having -- having funded part of or all of a -- a film commission office. Some -- some of the numbers being tossed around are for the first year maybe a hundred or a hundred and ten thousand dollars including start-up costs. But some ongoing operational expenses -- and I think that's where we run into problems with the TDC is operational expenses. And that would essentially be a salary of one or one and a half people and, you know, the standard electric, phones, and so forth. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just my -- my only comment is with a careful eye toward being sure that -- that we are generating hotel room revenues. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, Just Cause was 3,000 rooms. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then that would be a good thing to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Three thousand room nights. So that's -- that's a good thing. Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think -- and we'll get into, I'm sure, another time a full discussion on the film thing. I think what I -- might be a nice start to that, there are any number of industry type shows around the country. And this spring -- I don't know what the release date is, but it's sometime for early summer. MAy or June is the proposed release date for Just Cause. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's been moved to February. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it February? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. In fact, I hope I'm not -- I hope I'm not too soon in saying this, but I think we're going to get a film preview in -- in Naples in the middle of -- of February. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Gala event. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So that -- that information will be coming forth. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It will shoot down my idea. I was going to say we could go to -- we should have a representative at a show the time that comes out. That's not to say if it's a smash hit that we still can't do that in April or May while it's still a -- a large hit. But I would think we'd want to take advantage of the good will and the attention of a -- a successful film while it's out there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Most certainly. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rent your limo now. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a final thought on the category C item is the toughest part of what I've suggested is going to be quantifying the number of room nights. And I've talked with some of the hoteliers about that, and one of the things they are very successful -- we're very lucky to have some of the most successful and sophisticated resort hotels in the world right here in Collier County. And they can track their advertising, what's working, what's not working. And they know from where they're generating the most interest. So they do have the ability to track that. And some of them have expressed some interest in trying to pin down how they can quantify that. But again, I just wanted to kind of get a preliminary blessing with the idea that it has to go through all the appropriate thing. But I think it's important that we go through and try to adjust that category C so that the groups out there who are interested in participating aren't being penalized for it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I concur with that. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We've got a chunk of change sitting there waiting to be used and not being used. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I also concur. It's -- it's fairly obvious since we have all that money laying around in that account that nobody's found a way to utilize that we need to do something with category C. If -- if the TDC can come up with a reasonable solution, something that makes if more workable, that's fine. If -- if they can't, I'm certainly not opposed to eliminating category C and doing something different with the money. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So, Mr. Con -- Commissioner Constantine, do you want this brought up under new business at the next TDC meeting? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I'll put together an executive summary for you if you'd like. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If you would, I'd appreciate that. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you for bringing it up. Appreciate that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the right thing to do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll -- we'll find a way to spend that money yet. Item #11A VOTING MACHINE ACQUISITION - APPROVED MR. DORRILL: Madam Chairman, I just want to advise you that you have one public comment today which will be the next item on the agenda. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have one item -- MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- coming up yet for the voting machine. MR. DORRILL: I'm sorry. Ms. Morgan is here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're going to now handle item ll-A. It's an add-on item from the elections office regarding voting -- voting machines. Miss Morgan, do you want to -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MS. MORGAN: Okay. That's my kind of motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. MS. MORGAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Opposed? There are none opposed. Motion passes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Miss Morgan always has these very persuasive arguments for her needs. MS. MORGAN: Could I digress for one moment? Have you all reached any more definite opinion about this mail ballot election in September? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, we've not yet. PUBLIC COMMENTS We'll move onto the public comment. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Tuff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have one. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Tuff, if you would, please, sir. MR. TUFF: I'm Roy Tuff. I represent Tuff Publications. We have the shopper here in town, a Golden Gate Gazette, the Senior Times, and the Everglades Echo. I'm here today. I talked with Sandy Tropasso (phonetic), the publisher of the Marco Island Eagle. And I would understand the bids for publishing the legal notices have to be submitted in January. And we would be interested in pursuing a joint bid, and I don't know that it's come up, and I'd like to bring it up and see if that's possible. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, have those requests for bids gone out yet? MR. DORRILL: I don't know. I'll take Mr. Tuff at his word, though. And if he says that they're scheduled to go out in January, I believe that your purchasing department is responsible for coordinating the legal notices that you are responsible for. There's always a separate issue annually as it involves delinquent taxes, and I think that the tax collector is responsible for coordinating the bidding for that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think this -- I think last year we had to by law -- help me with this -- but by law we had to make that decision by the end of the month of January or -- I'm trying to remember. There was a deadline last year. And I think the Naples Daily News was the only respondent last year. MR. DORRILL: The Naples Daily News has historically been the primary or only respondent and then the successful bidder, if you will, on legal or public notices. My understanding is that the statutes require a -- I think the definition is a newspaper of general circulation. And the board will need to make a finding that anyone who does bid meets that criteria and then award full or partial bids as they see fit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is -- is it possible that we could -- well, number one, Mr. Tuff has talked about a joint pro -- proposal from both themselves and the MArco Island Eagle which would then cover MArco Island, all of Golden Gate Estates, all of Everglades City. And a significant population receives this paper free of charge, don't they, through the mail, Mr. Tuff? MR. TUFF: The Golden Gate, yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. Is -- is it possible -- and I guess it's a question for Mr. Cuyler -- that we could distribute the issues according to the relevance and the part of the county that they're in? For instance, if all of ZIP Code 333 -- what is it? -- 33999 -- that's my ZIP Code -- and 33964 which is Golden Gate Gazette's coverage, if everyone in that mailing area gets that paper through the mail, is that considered general circulation for an issue that affects that -- that group of people? MR. CUYLER: We'll be happy to check. I'm going to need to do some research on that. I assume that you're in a position to submit your bid? MR. TUFF: Oh, absolutely. MR. CUYLER: So I think they can go forward either way. And I'll get an answer as quick as I can on that. MR. DORRILL: If -- if there's an impending deadline, my suggestion would be for them to evaluate, and I'll have the purchasing department contact them. If they want to submit what is a joint venture type bid or proposal in conjunction with another paper -- and specifically the one on MArco -- I think that's an intriguing concept. Offhand I don't know why we would have a problem with it. But I'll have Mr. Camell discuss that with the gentleman hopefully while he's here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I get this. Mr. Tuff, you said the Gazette, which goes East Naples, Golden Gate, Golden Gate Estates. MR. TUFF: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: MArco Island Eagle? MR. TUFF: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Everglades Echo? MR. TUFF: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And any -- do you have -- MR. TUFF: Well, we could put them in the shopper too. There wouldn't be -- it's not a legal newspaper. You have to have a second class mailing permit in order to be. But I mean, there's nothing stopping you as long as -- actually all you would have to do is publish in one paper to fulfill your legal obligation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you do -- do you guys publish Senior -- MR. TUFF: Senior Times. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Senior Times? And what's -- where is that distributed? MR. TUFF: That's a monthly throughout the county. That would probably be not very workable. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Max Haas likes that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So I presume then, Mr. Tuff, you're going to go ahead and submit a proposal? MR. TUFF: I don't know how that is done I guess. We've never done it before. We've been here five years. And to my knowledge we've never been invited to -- we've never pursued it to my knowledge either. MR. DORRILL: I'll step out of the room for just a second and see if Mr. Camell is -- is available. If there is an impending deadline, this gentleman needs to know that today. If they want to pursue a joint venture bid for proposal, he's going to have to make a decision that that's in his own corporate best interests. I don't think we ought to give him any advice in that regard. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I just -- I just -- I guess when this comes back we're going to need an answer to my question, Mr. Cuyler -- Mr. Cuyler, as to whether we can consider these newspapers general circulation newspapers for at least the location that they're in. MR. CUYLER: Yeah, we'll do that long before it gets back to you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, there's -- and I'll ask you to look at this. But I assume there's nothing that prohibits a joint venture such as that, more than one newspaper combined. MR. CUYLER: Offhand I would say no. I guess the question is whether, quote, a newspaper of general circulation, whether something inherent about the term newspaper that precludes it from being more than one newspaper, but that's what we'll check. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. TUFF: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Tuff. And it's 10:35, and we have finished the morning agenda, and I think I'd like to take a ten-minute break, and we'll start with the afternoon agenda. Recess for ten minutes. (A short break was held.) Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 95-2 RE PETITION R-94-6, HICHAEL SAADEH REPRESENTING ELITE COHMUNITIES, INC. REQUESTING A REZONING FROM "E" ESTATES DISTRICT TO RSF-5 SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BAILEY LANE APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET WEST OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD - ADOPTED (COMPANION TO ITEM 13A1) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the board of county commission meeting for January 24. We are going to now move to the advertised public hearings. The first item on the agenda seems to have a companion item, 13-A-1. I would ask this board if we should take them together. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And we can do that. Do we need two separate motions on them, Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: When you get to that point, yes, you'll take two separate motions. And, Madam Chairman, since again we're dealing with quasi-judicial proceedings, we are going to swear in those members of the audience that are going to -- to speak on this item. And since our court reporter is a notary, from now on since we're having verbatim transcripts made, we'll ask the court reporter to swear those -- those persons in if you'd just ask them to stand up. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have a question before we do this? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. I had a couple of letters in regards to this which as soon as I realized it was in regards to this I set aside and asked Chris Brighton to make part of today's record. But I didn't want -- under our quasi-judicial hearings, that didn't influence me in any way pro or con. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah. I -- I did the same thing. I got down to reference, and I saw conditional use 94-20 and -- and stopped reading because -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: For that very reason. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Same story for me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same story. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I also received the correspondence. I'll make my decision based on what I hear here this morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think we will all do that. Would all those people who are here to give testimony on item 12-B-1 and 13-A-1 please stand. THEREUPON, ALL PROSPECTIVE WITNESSES, having been first duly sworn, upon their oaths, testified as follows: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. With that we'll proceed. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Good morning, members of the commission. My name is Ron Nino for the record presenting petition R-94-6 and its companion petition, CU-94-20. The property which is the subject of this petition is located on Bailey Lane. Excuse me. I'm going to go to the board. Bailey Lane is a street lying to the east of -- west of Airport-Pulling Road by some 1,200 plus or minus feet. It includes a two and a half acre portion directly on Bailey Lane and an additional two and a half acre portion that's kitty corner not on Bailey Lane. And we will talk about the issue of access. The property -- the subject properties are currently zoned E estates, and this petition would have those properties if approved zoned to the RSF-5 zoning district with the caveat of a conditional use to address issues of increased flexibility and relation of development standards. The property immediately to the north and east of the subject property is zoned E estates and has one residence located thereon. The property immediately to the west of the property, the subject property, and south of the subject property is also zoned E estates and has a residence located thereon. Immediately opposite the subject property is a project called the Cottages, and there are 20 dwelling units within the Cottages for a density of four dwelling units per acre. The Cottages is a project that includes both single-family and two-family residences. Immediately east of the subject property the land is zoned agricultural up to the lots that front on Airport-Pulling Road which are zoned commercial and are developed commercially. At the intersection -- at this corner you have a -- a medical office. And immediately north of that, of course, you have the 7-Eleven development. To the west of the subject property you have RSF-4 zoning. And at the very end of Bailey Lane, you have an agricultural parcel that runs north-south throughout the -- the Bailey Lane configuration. Proceeding back east again we have an RSF-3 zoning district, the Cottages. We have an "A" district with the Church of the Nazarene, and we have a PUD commercial zoning district at the southwest corner of Airport-Pulling and Bailey Lane, and that is the home of the Wilson Professional Center, a large office complex. Further south you have the Poinciana Residential Golf Course. To the north of the subject property touching the subject property in this location here you have the Hawk's Ridge development with single-family out in front. In the back portion of the Hawk's Ridge PUD is -- is -- is approved for multiple-family housing. The Hawk's Ridge PUD specifically would authorize 143 multi-family units on 12.6 acres of land per density of about eleven and a half units per acre. And that property is contiguous to the subject property in some -- some aspects. We should advise you that we are currently -- we currently have held a preapplication meeting with a developer who has assembled the RSF-3, RSF-4, and the "A" district and will shortly be submitting a PUD rezoning application for all of that property. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Nino. The property adjacent to I guess the northern piece that you've got outlined in red, is that part of the property assembled by this PUD coming forward? MR. NINO: The property assembled is the RSF-4. It's immediately west of a two and a half acre estates zone with an existing residence on it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So it's that first five-acre tract to the north? MR. NINO: The first 5 acres and then the 10 acres and this 10 acres, a 25-acre parcel. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. MR. NINO: I think it's safe to say that Bailey Lane ought to be zoned in some manner of residential development. To suggest that the E estates is going to remain for any period of time is certainly contrary to what the comprehensive plan directs for that development. That area is set aside as designated urban residential. And with an urban residential classification, one has an expectation that some level of residential zoning will be approved for that property. So the question really becomes what density response ought that residential rezoning action be. In that regard, we are driven by the density rating system to the future land use element in the growth management plan. That is the mechanism that says what density is appropriate for various geographic locations of the county. In the Bailey Lane area, we're dealing with a base density of four dwelling units per acre. Since we're in a traffic congestion zone, it's -- one dwelling is needed for a base density of what amounts to three dwelling units per acre. However, the density rating system provides that for properties of less than ten acres in size that enjoy full utilities, sewer and water, that are surrounded basically with urban development, that an additional three dwelling units per acre is allowed as a bonus. Therefore, the density rating system tells us that six dwelling units per acre is an appropriate level of development that ought -- that could be reflected by some zoning action on your part. This petition being a petition for 4.68 units per acre is, therefore, consistent with the density rating system of the future land use element and the growth management plan. The petition has been reviewed by jurisdictional staff responsible for those elements of the growth management plan that lie within their jurisdiction. And we have been assured that on the basis of traffic, utilities, levels of service, natural resource enhancement or protection that this petition is consistent in all regards with the provisions of the growth management plan. One of the issues that staff raised in terms of enhancing -- enhancing the suitability of a rezoning action here would be one that would offer a greater floor area, minimum floor area that is otherwise allowed in the RSF-5 zoning district if you deem the RSF-5 zoning district to be an appropriate zoning response. And the petitioner has consented to an RSF-5 zoning district which would otherwise authorize a smaller floor area and has agreed to the 12,000 -- 1,200 square feet which is the minimum floor area that is required by the RSF-4 zoning district and is 200 square feet greater than the minimum floor area that is otherwise allowed by the E estates district. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, Mr. Nino. Would you repeat that one more time? I needed to get that. MR. NINO: The RSF-4 -- the minimum house size of 1,200 square feet is what is required by the RSF-4 district. The RSF-5 district would authorize a floor area of a minimum of 800 square feet. The E estates district requires a minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the petitioner has agreed to 1,2007 MR. NINO: To 1,200 square feet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. NINO: The petitioner's asked for a conditional use for cjuster development. And the purpose of that, quite frankly, is to allow for a reduction in the standards that are available in the conventional zoning district, RSF-5. The RSF-5 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 6,000 square feet, minimum frontages of 60 feet, minimum side yards of seven and a half feet, front setbacks of 25 feet, and rear setbacks of 20 feet. The conditional development -- conditional -- cjuster development provisions offer a developer an opportunity to reduce those standards for trading off improvements that traditionally are -- we've concluded that -- that these standards tend to eliminate the -- the reduction in the standards that are -- that go with the conventional zoning district. And the requirement of -- a requirement of the cjuster development section is that if you ask for reduced standards, then you need -- you need to respond with a common architectural theme that masks the diminished standards. And there are examples of that abound throughout the county. There are many projects in Pelican Bay, for example, that have standards that are quite similar -- that are exactly the same as the standards that are proposed in the conditional use master plan that becomes a part of this rezoning action should you approve it, i.e., 10 feet between buildings instead of 50 -- 50 -- 15 feet, 45- and 50-foot frontages instead of what would normally be a 60-foot frontage, slightly reduced setbacks and rear yards. Those standards are not precedent setting. We have -- as I say, we have some upper end PUDs that currently employ those same standards. Vineyards is one. Pelican Bay is another. And it goes on ad infinitum. The planning commission dealt with this petition -- I can't remember the date now -- January the 5th, I believe, January the 5th and unanimously by a vote of eight to zero recommended approval of the petition of the R -- of the rezoning petition and the conditional use petition subject to the conditions that are noted and iljustrated in the resolution and ordinance of adoption. A number of people were at the public hearing and objected to this petition. I recently received the exhibits that were filed with the clerk's office. I apologize. They're not in your executive package, but I received them after that executive package was submitted to you. I'm going to give you the -- these are the photographs. Who should get those? MR. CUYLER: Give them to the board and then the clerk. MR. NINO: Here are some photographs and -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll hand those out. MR. NINO: Pardon? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll hand those down. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're going to tell us more about what these are, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Yes, I am. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. NINO: I was advised that your executive package did not contain page 3 of the findings, and I've given you the missing page 3 from your agenda package. I also circulated for you a petition of persons registering as objectors. And I've given you a letter, one letter, that I have from a Robert A -- A -- Alaim -- Alaim -- Alaimo or close to that -- I apologize -- and Diana Tomlinson, both of -- both of which have signed the petition. That ends my presentation, and I'll answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for staff? Then I presume you want to hear from the petitioner? MR. SAADEH: Good morning, Commissioners and Madam Chairman. For the record, my name is Michael Saadeh. I'm representing Elite Communities. First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Nino for a very well-written report and for explaining most of the report. And I try not to be redundant because I understand there is few registered speakers. And, Madam Chairman, respectfully I'd like to have some time after the public people speak to come back and rediscuss some of the issues they bring up. One thing I'd like to emphasize is very, very important is I want to go back to the map for one second. As Mr. Nino indicated that properties along Bailey Lane have been rezoned for the most part. This is Wilson, Miller PUD on the corner. There's commercial property on this corner. This area Mr. Nino referred to as being zoned as agricultural which is true. However, there has been a conditioned use for it approved by the county for a nursing home with 240 beds for this here property. This five acres is the only one -- this five acres is one of the pieces on Bailey Lane that have not been rezoned, is still ag. or estates. These two properties are the two parcels that are in question today. Those are pending. This is RSF-4 zoning district with a cjuster housing development approved. This is RSF-3 zoning district with cjuster housing development approved. This is the Cottages RSF-4 zoning district with a couple of detached units and also has been approved and built out. And the letter that you received right now with opposition with about 13 property owners represent the people who live here, and they're opposing for what I'm proposing to do is what exactly they've done a few years ago. And this here property is also -- these pieces were put together by one developer. This was already rezoned. This was rezoned. And this one is being petitioned to be rezoned, and they've already contacted staff. So the point I'm making for compatibility which will come up today over and over is please note that most of the compatibility on this street is fezones and urban development except for this parcel and these two parcels here. I don't see anything of estate zoning remaining on this street. So that becomes the exception in my opinion, not the rule. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Saadeh. Mr. Dotrill, let's move forward with -- with the public comment. MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. There are about a half a dozen. The first will be Mr. Locker if he'd come forward please. And then, Mr. Hoover, if I could have you stand by. Mr. Locker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They haven't been seen down -- down at this end yet. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought they had already gone that way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Nope. Okay. MR. LOCKER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Joseph Locker. I'm the owner and have an estate home on this piece of property right here, about a six -- six thousand square foot home. I appeared at the planning commission and along with Bruce Coates who -- MR. CUYLER: Mr. Locker, there's a hand mike up there if you would. HR. LOCKER: HR. CUYLER: HR. LOCKER: piece of property. Oh, I'm sorry. Right behind you. All right. Bruce Coates owns -- owns that CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hr. -- Hr. Locker, if you're going to be away from this mike -- MR. LOCKER: I'm not going to go there. I'm just going to -- I just needed to show you those two things. I apologize. Basically we appeared at the planning commission. We argued compatibility. We argued reduction of our property values in regard to the conditional use; argued traffic congestion and drainage. The motion to approve the petition at the planning commission began in the absence of competent evidence to the contrary. We recommend approval. So recognizing that our testimony as property owners was not competent evidence to the contrary, we have retained a planner and an appraiser to speak before you today to -- and basically I would like them to make their presentations. And then as an attorney, I'd like to sum up and address issues that they have not addressed. The planner will address compatibility, will address especially compatibility in regard to the density bonus with the in-fill, and will also address what we consider to be serious flaws with the conditional use which is basically conditional use provides for no common area spaces. To help you follow along, I have prepared a memorandum in opposition to the petition which I would like to submit at this time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I need to put a question to this board. Normally we only permit five minutes of time per speaker. And based on what Mr. Locker has just said, I guess we're going to hear input from a -- a couple of professional people that they've hired. I need consensus of this board that we're going to -- to allow -- MR. LOCKER: This is a serious question. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We realize that. MR. LOCKER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That we're going to allow more than the five minutes normally allotted per -- per speaker. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm not sure what the basis for -- for deviating from procedures would be in this particular case. I think each public petitioner is welcome to their five minutes, but we do -- we do have our -- our regulations. I don't see that -- that we need to deviate. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess the question is -- is are we going to confine the hired professionals to the five minutes of Mr. Locker and Mr. Coates? MR. CUYLER: Each of those individuals is separately registered. And since this is a quasi-judicial proceeding, I'm not saying you should stray too far from your normal procedures. But you may want to give just a little bit of leeway. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would support five minutes for each of the speakers who have registered. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. We'll -- we'll move in that direction. MR. LOCKER: Okay. In that case I would like to hand out the memorandums and turn the floor over to Mr. Hoover, but I would like my five minutes to begin after these professionals are done. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, normally -- another thing is normally we take our speakers in the order that -- that they're registered. MR. LOCKER: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, is Mr. Hoover next? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hoover is -- is -- I had Mr. Locker first with a note that -- that he would make a presentation, introduce Mr. Hoover and -- MR. LOCKER: All I wanted to do was pass out the memorandum. MR. DORRILL: -- then following Mr. Hoover is Mr. Coates. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. Do you want to hand that out and we'll proceed, and do you want to call Mr. Hoover? MR. DORRILL: We have Mr. Hoover and then I believe Mr. Coates. Mr. Hoover, go ahead, please, sir. Mr. Coates, if I could have you please stand by, sir. Mr. Hoover. MR. HOOVER: For the record, I'm Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning. I'm representing the two property owners of the estates home. And compatibility is the most important issue that I'm going to talk about. And the future land use element states that before residential in-fill bonus of three units per acre can be granted, quote, the project must be compatible with surrounding land uses, unquote. Additionally, the land development code states one of the requirements for a conditional use petition is, quote, compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district, unquote. If you look at Exhibit A which shows the site plan overlaid on an aerial photograph, you can see that the subject property abuts the two estates homes not on one side but two sides. This makes compatibility even more of a critical issue against the estate homes. The -- I looked in the land development code. There's no definition for compatibility. However, the American Planning Association in their -- a book entitled The Language of Zoning defines compatibility as the characteristics of different uses or activities that permit them to be located near each other in harmony and without conflict. The definition goes on to advise us that density and traffic generated are also elements to measure compatibility. In this case the density is 12 times higher and the vehicular traffic generated is 12 times higher. The homes are proposed at 1,200 square feet. I am told -- I thought it was 1,000 for the one-story and 1,200 for the two-story. However, the -- the two estates homes average 5,000 square feet each in air conditioned area. One other item that's going to affect the compatibility is there's 24 units proposed on there, and these -- based on the size of the lots and the intensity of the use, they're -- basically the whole project is going to have to be cleared of trees almost 100 percent. If you look at the aerial, you can see that most of the trees still remain on the estates homes. What I found out was that the application for cjuster development further increases the non-compatibility. Exhibit B, if you take a look at that, you'll see the approximate lot layout. And it shows lot widths and lot sizes. One thing you'll notice on there, they're proposing that the homes be located only ten feet away from both of the existing estates homes. The average lot widths -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry. From the -- from -- ten feet from the lots where the estate -- MR. HOOVER: From the -- from their boundary of the PUD. I've never seen a project yet less than 20 feet away from the perimeter of their project. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I see. From -- from the lot, though, not from the home is what I wanted to be sure -- MR. HOOVER: Well, they're saying that they can put their homes within ten feet of Mr. Locker's home -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Mr. -- MR. HOOVER: -- or property boundaries. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My question is from his property boundary but not from his home. MR. HOOVER: Correct, you're right. It's from the property boundary, not Mr. Locker's home. It's from the property boundary. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I didn't want them to be holding hands out the windows is what I was trying to be sure. MR. HOOVER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock, did you have a comment? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. MR. HOOVER: One thing we have here is we have lots that are only 44 feet in average width. And so what we're going to get -- the only way you can really build on that is to have narrow homes, so these lots are actually six feet nattower than the ones in Naples Park. And I think one of the things that we find in Pelican Bay, we have some projects on narrow lots. However, Pelican Bay has some very stringent architectural standards that are in place. In this case, there's nothing -- once it goes past here, we have subdivision regs., and that's about it. If you look on Exhibit C, we can find that the -- it shows -- there's RSF standards that show there's -- for RSF-5 there's 17 homes. Thus, the cjuster development is allowing an extra seven units to be built. And if you take a look at Exhibit D, you see two site plans from the American Planning Association. One shows a standard lot layout, and another one shows a cjuster development layout. They both have the same exact number of units, so we have something a little bit different from what is a standard practice in planning. What happened in this case is the petitioner has picked up an extra seven units because they are not meeting part of the land development code in the cjuster development section. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can you wrap up soon? MR. HOOVER: I -- I sure can, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. HOOVER: That's in section 2.6.27.4.5, and that just says that the area that you reduce in lot size, lot width, and yard requirements has to be added back in the form of common open space. And I've computed this and roughed it off to that. It's probably about one acre that is missing in this case. What I could say as a professional land use planner, that the two abutting proposed projects are not compatible with the abutting two estates homes. And what it seems like somebody's asking for here is RSF-5 zoning which is higher than any zoning on Bailey Lane. And then to get an additional seven units, they're asking for a residential in-fill bonus of three units per acre, a conditional use for cjuster development, and then instead of providing the required common area, they're asking for further reductions in development standards due to a common architectural theme. I think this sets a real bad precedent for not only the residential in-fill bonus as well as the conditional use for cjuster development standards in the county. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino, I have a -- a question. The in-fill, does -- does this qualify as a residential in-fill? MR. NINO: Yes, it does. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Is there the next speaker I guess? Hoover as we go? Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: about compatibility -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: back? Thank you. Mr. Dotrill? Are there questions for -- for -- for Mr. I do have one. Bill, in talking Mr. Hoover, do you want to come COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- there's no question in my mind that one house on two and a half acres next to five homes per acre brings a compatibility question. There's a multi-family 12 unit an acre on the north side, okay, of this parcel. On one of the estates lots to the north and east, there was a 240-bed nursing home facility approved. To the south is a four-unit per acre residential facility. When we talk about compatibility in any area of development, you know full well that patterns begin to develop due to existing zoning and development for a general area. And if you isolate your compatibility argument to the two estate lots, you're correct. There appears to be an incompatibility question. But I would suggest in that analysis that you bring in a multi-family 12 unit per acre, existing 4 unit per acre, proposed 240-bed nursing home facility and the picture becomes very different than isolating those two lots. MR. HOOVER: The -- the nursing home and the conditional uses that Mr. Saadeh was mentioning, I believe the staff report said that those have expired, so I don't think we can look at expired zoning. What we have to the east is agricultural. And I agree with you. The -- the project is compatible as proposed with the other property that is adjacent to it. And if you look at the -- what my point was, if you read very closely the requirements in the future land use element, it says the project must be compatible with surrounding land uses. The other one says compatible with adjacent properties for the conditional use and other property in the district. Yes, it is compatible with other properties in the district. But compatible with adjacent properties, if you go to the LDC, adjacent -- it says see abutting, and abutting means touching. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Uh-huh. MR. HOOVER: So one half of the subject property of their abutting boundaries are these two estate homes. It is compatible with the -- the non-estates homes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: With the other half. MR. HOOVER: But it is not compatible with the estates homes when you have a density difference of 12 times greater. Normally we're -- we're in here looking at density differences of maybe 3 units per acre on your single typical family against maybe a multi-family of 12 or 15 units. So that's a difference of four or five times. And in that case we've got to put some pretty stringent buffers in there to -- to make that happen. And in this case we've got a buffer A between the two, and you get one tree per 30 feet, and that's it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We haven't gotten to that question yet. I just wanted to bring out that your compatibility argument did point out the estates lots but ignored the 12 unit per acre and the 4 in the surrounding development. I think that all gets thrown into the mix when we're looking at compatibility. MR. HOOVER: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. HOOVER: And I agree that it is compatible with stuff like RSF-3, RSF-4, and the -- the multi-family. However, it's -- most of your stuff is right next to each other and on Bailey Lane and the multi-family I don't think has a real big impact because all their traffic and traffic -- or pedestrian circulation will be to the north off of their private street. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next speaker. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Coates, and then following Mr. Coates I believe the gentleman's name is Armalavage, A-r-m-a-l-a-v-a-g-e. Mr. Coates. MR. COATES: I'd like to give the floor to Mr. Armalavage first and then let Mr. Locker sum up before I speak. MR. LOCKER: That was the order they were submitted. MR. COATES: That was the order. MR. DORRILL: I'm not going to debate it. But my momma taught me how to write to three, and you've got your own numbers, one, two, and three, on these, but at the discretion of the chairman, you can do whatever you want to. MR. LOCKER: I did not put the numbers on. MR. CUYLER: I put the numbers. What's the question? He's not with you, Mr. Locker? Is that -- MR. LOCKER: Pardon? MR. CUYLER: I said he's not with your group? Is that what the question is? MR. LOCKER: Who is? Bruce? Yeah, Bruce is. MR. CUYLER: What is the -- MR. LOCKER: He's an adjoining property owner, but I wanted to finish the -- with the professionals first. MR. CUYLER: Okay. Madam Chairman, why don't you switch them. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Mr. -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Armalavage, I believe. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- Armalavage. Let's see if we can't move, though, a little -- a little faster. MR. ARHALAVAGE: I'll be very brief. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. ARHALAVAGE: We'll get through this quickly. My name is Richard Armalavage. I'm an HA1 certified with the Appraisal Institute. I'm a state certified general real estate appraiser in the state of Florida. I'm a licensed real estate broker in the state of Florida. I'm president of Armalavage and Lacroix. I've been appraising real estate and analyzing real estate in Naples area, Collier County, Lee County, Charlotte County for 17 years. I was asked to study this situation and analyze the effect of the proposed fezone from estates to cjustered housing on the adjoining properties owned by Coates and Locker. The question is can the Coates, Locker properties -- or the second question is can the Coates, Locker properties be rezoned to RSF-5 to allow use of cjustered housing and offset any diminution of value that might be created by the adjoining two properties that will be or could be rezoned to cjustered housing. The scope of my study included an analysis of the subject property, surrounding neighborhoods, similar type properties. And in the past we've appraised the Coates and Locker properties over the past year. My conclusion is that the proposed use of the adjoining properties as a cjustered housing project having no common element, no open space, no common recreational amenities or no amenities in particular would reflect a community with lesser marketability resulting in lower price ranges. This in turn would restrict the marketability of Coates and Locker at their existing values. In my opinion the rezoning and use of the adjoining properties to the cjustered housing density as proposed would result in a diminution of value to Coates and Locker. The rezoning of Coates and Locker to RSF-5 cjustered housing would be impractical due to the placement of the existing housing and would not offset any diminution in value. Thank you. Any questions? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there questions? Being none -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have one? Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The final sentence in the next to last paragraph on page 2 says use of the two proposed tracts with lower density single-family housing is consistent and would have minimal, if any, effect on value. How much lower? MR. ARMALAVAGE: If you had a consistent type of use, maybe three units per acre or a single-family configuration, that would likely result in no diminution in value. The problem with the existing plan is the tight cjustering, the limited or no open space, and the lot widths which are not compatible or not consistent with the existing type single-family. If you look on the map or the aerial there, if you were to look at Hawk's Ridge to the north, you have large single-family lots in that area also. So to spread out density, that entire subdivision is probably three units per acre. And I think you need to be consistent in zoning to maintain value. Unfortunately, these tracts are smaller. So to try to create a large open space and a tight cjustered density will not work. And it's going to result in lower prices to those products in order to sell them which will result in lower values to the adjoining properties. So you really need to try to reduce the density there to something more realistic in terms of a single-family configuration which is likely three units per acre. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have throughout the county hundreds, maybe thousands of homes built on estates zoned property. Do you have any idea what the average value of those homes would be? MR. ARMALAVAGE: Well, I don't have an average because they're located in a variety of locations. But they might range anywhere from $125,000 upwards of $500,000. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you fathom that they might range considerably lower than $125,0007 MR. ARMALAVAGE: Oh, sure. But not in close proximity to the city of Naples they don't. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are there any restrictions or requirements on estates zoning? MR. ARMALAVAGE: Yes, 2.5 acres. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what is the smallest home that can be built on estates zoning? MR. ARMALAVAGE: Outside? Well, you could probably have 1,200 square feet with no problem. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, did you tell me you could have 800 square feet? MR. NINO: One thousand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One thousand on estates? MR. NINO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The -- so theoretically you could have a one single -- 1,000 square foot home. MR. ARMALAVAGE: On 2.5 acres. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. ARMALAVAGE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And by having -- I'm just -- I'm picturing as I drive through different areas whether you're in some of the more upscale estates areas, Oaks Boulevard, some of those areas, but intermittently you may see a tiny home. MR. ARMALAVAGE: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Dilapidated home, so there's really no guarantee that if it's left as estates zoning that it will necessarily have a positive impact on value either, is there? MR. ARMALAVAGE: I didn't say that it would remain estates zoning. What I said is that if it would remain single-family and consistent with single-family, it would likely result in the -- no diminution in value. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. ARMALAVAGE: And I think that's a fair answer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I'm asking a question of you as a professional. Is there any guarantee of -- MR. ARMALAVAGE: Well, there's no guarantee of anything in real estate values because you're dealing in a market that is a free and open market that is open to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Apparently you're not going to get to the answer. You're not going to answer my question, so I won't ask it a third time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. MR. ARMALAVAGE: Well, answer -- if you ask me a question in a yes or no, I could possibly answer that, but I can't answer it that way. It's open to too many variables. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think the first question I asked was yes or no. If you built a 1,000 square foot home, is it -- is the potential that that could have a negative impact on the value of the existing homes if that's left as estates property? MR. ARMALAVAGE: It could, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Armalavage, this -- this whole project brings to mind on Coach House Lane the -- there's a project on Carriage Circle in there. Are you familiar with that? MR. ARMALAVAGE: You're talking about the project to the south, about a mile south? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, about a mile south. It's -- it's a single straight road through and as this shows estates zoning. And there is this same type development, very similar to what's actually across the street from what's being proposed. Was there any look at how that project affected the property values immediately adjacent to it as a part of your report? MR. ARMALAVAGE: Yes, I looked at several areas. But what I found was actually those homes on Coach House had limited marketability themselves. And in order to be marketable, they had to be at a lower price range. And as a result, that's -- that's what results in the lower value to the adjoining properties or in-fill development. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In other words, the estates lot next to it, is it valued significantly less than the one on the other side and on down the road? I mean, I'm just looking for some numbers that show me that that type of development -- MR. ARMALAVAGE: In terms of numbers, I can't give you numbers because I didn't go out and appraise those particular properties. But it has resulted in diminished marketability, and I think that's a real question. In order to sell the properties, you have to reduce the price, and that's just the test of is there a loss in value. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand the marketability. I was just -- I actually was looking for some numbers. I was looking for an assessment of those homes to find out what real impact they had. MR. ARMALAVAGE: Well, many of those homes have not sold. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. ARMALAVAGE: And so we don't have that number. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Armalavage, as I understood I believe part of -- a portion of your argument here, I'm trying to understand. You said that -- that we should not go into an area basically -- and I'm paraphrasing you -- but we should not go into an area and increase density because that would not -- that would make an incompatibility or lessen the compatibility between the different sections. Is that somewhat correct? I think you said -- MR. ARMALAVAGE: Well, it depends on each particular case. But in this particular case when you have small tracts that don't allow for additional open spaces -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So you're telling us that to go into an area that's -- that has a set density on it and come in and change that density is -- is not the appropriate action to take. MR. ARMALAVAGE: No, that's not what I've said. If you had a 20-acre tract here and you could leave open space or leave buffering, then it would be an entirely different situation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I wasn't -- I wasn't speaking to the buffering and the open space because on small tracts that's very difficult to accomplish no matter what you do. But my -- the point I'm trying to understand is you said that if -- if you have one set zoning, then you go in and change it on nearby properties that that's not appropriate. You said something to that effect. And so I'm trying to think of the logical extension of that argument. A few short years ago this was all zoned agricultural. So just by the very nature of having any density at all on there in these homes that are already existing on there, isn't that doing the same thing you're -- you're admonishing us against here today? MR. ARMALAVAGE: No, not necessarily, no, because the difference is you have an existing single-family structure, two of them, that were developed under one premise. And what you're now calling for is to change the consistency of that surrounding property to a tight cjustered form of housing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Which is exactly what happened when they built their house. MR. ARMALAVAGE: Well, no, the difference is it was just vacant land before. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Agriculture, so they doubled -- they doubled the density because you can build one house per five acres in agriculture. When they went to estates, then you can build one house for two and a half. That's a doubling of the density. MR. ARMALAVAGE: Actually they did 100 percent increase because there was vacant land before that. So any use of it would have been -- I mean, you have to use the property. It's not a question of use. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: And that's my point exactly. MR. ARMALAVAGE: Right. It's a question more of consistency. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Right. Okay. Thank you. MR. ARMALAVAGE: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: If there are no other questions, I believe we'll be back to Mr. Coates. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Coates, would -- MR. LOCKER: I haven't said anything. All I did was hand something out. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Locker. You had said that you wanted to sum up. You want to sum up -- MR. LOCKER: I don't want to sum up. No, I'll just address -- with only five minutes, I'm not going to sum up. I want to address the specific issues if you don't mind. The first issue that I think is -- is important is we look at -- is we look at the conditional use petition. It's -- it makes no provision for common open space. I reviewed the shiny book for the last three years. There's not been one conditional use for cjuster development that's ever been approved by county commissioners that didn't provide for common area open space. We've made a big deal out of conditional uses that were opposed here. This is 9.7 acres. That conditional use for cjuster housing provided 2.51 acres for common open space. Here's another 4.86 acres that provided 3.14 acres for common open space. Here we have -- on these two projects we have no common open space. So as a consequence, by going to cjuster zoning, we don't take RS-5 zoning and rearrange it. By not having common areas we add seven units, so we've maximized this with minimum standards. Point of clarification, this nursing home conditional use was approved in 1979. It's been long dead. The property's zoned estates. Other clarification, the reason you see this line here is because this is single-family phase 2 of Hawk's Ridge that abuts my property. I'm a realist. I recognize that we're going to end up with three units an acre here, and I don't feel it's a bad use. I'm sure that this property's going to be rezoned. Actually this whole 15 acres is owned by the -- by the same owner except this is corporate ownership and this is individual. It's the same party. I feel that's going to end up eventually at three units an acre. What I object to is going in here using in-fill petition -- in-fill provisions and giving a density award bonus which in my mind has a stronger presumption of proving compatibility than just asking for a fezone and then going in and using cjuster housing to create seven additional unit -- units which cjuster housing either has a greater presumption of -- of -- of proving compatibility. And it's the in-fill bonus and the cjuster housing bonus that -- that I object to and that is not compatible with the use here. If you can -- if he was in here like everybody else and ending up with three units per acre I -- I'd have a hell of a time opposing that. I wouldn't like it, but I don't know how I would oppose it. So that's the basis of my objections on the merit. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? Next speaker is Mr. Coates? MR. DORRILL: I believe so. MR. COATES: Good morning. I'd like to ask Mr. Nino as far as the access to the rear property, it is a 30-foot right-of-way, and I want to find out if there are any other projects that are cjuster developments that have a 30-foot right-of-way. MR. NINO: I believe the Cottages does right across the street. MR. COATES: Okay. Their entire 330 feet abut a county road. MR. NINO: Nevertheless, they have a 30-foot road serving 20 dwelling units. MR. COATES: Right. Once you enter the property, but they have -- MR. NINO: MR. COATES: MR. NINO: a 30-foot road. They still have a 30-foot road. Okay. Whichever way you cut the mustard, they have And yes, there are many, many other developments in the county that -- that have -- as a matter of fact, some of them have easements. They don't even have private roads that serve a cjustered development. MR. COATES: Okay. Moving right along so I don't waste my five minutes, I'd just like to point out that 30 feet crosses my property. And that's my biggest problem with it because when I bought the property, they were four estate lots. And that easement was given for a driveway to a single-family home in the back, not 12 units, not 11 units. It's just ridiculous to think that you can cross that property and come to a point of 30 feet and have that service the 12 units behind me. As far as the type of units, we've heard or I've heard in the past in other meetings that they're upscale, luxury, and in the two to three hundred thousand dollar range. This insults my intelligence, and it should insult yours because with something that's 1,200 square feet -- and the documents used to read 1,000 square feet -- with 10-foot setbacks, it's just beyond my comprehension that you could get that much money for it with no amenities, no common space. As far as compatibility, 50 percent of it borders on estate lots that are built. You've talked about other zoning around it, but the only thing that is built at this point is our 50 percent estate. And after that you see the Cottages which is across the street. Everything else could happen, may happen, but has not happened. We have our investment in those estates. They do exist. Also on compatibility, legally permitted on our estates we can have livestock, horses, poultry, field crops, et cetera. Put yourself in the place of someone buying one of these units who is ten feet like I am from -- from here to you right now and within ten feet you've got livestock and horses and what not. It's not compatible for them. It's not fair to them to sell something to them like that and allow it. It's just not compatible. I'm not saying I'm going to run out and build a chicken coop. But when I die, my kids love animals. Anything could happen. My land could be used for those purposes, and that's really not compatible. On the other hand, on the property to the west which is RSF-4, if this passes they can go in and get the same zoning and cjuster development I would assume. At that point if they get ten-foot setbacks, then you've got a ten-foot setback looking at a ten-foot setback, twenty feet between the houses, and yet this is supposedly luxury housing. When the -- if you look at Coach House Lane, if this happens here, it can also happen on Coach House. These are tiny little two and a half acre properties. It's ridiculous to think that we're talking about something so small today with such great density. If this happens, all of Coach House Lane is subject to the same thing. And there you're looking at some older properties that could just be knocked down. And then next to a nice estate you have this -- this 12 units. I'd just ask you to put yourself in my place owning an estate worth over $400,000 based on integrity in government, existing zoning. Mr. -- Mr. Saadeh said when I met with him that he rolled the dice -- and those are his words -- on the zoning. I think this is an example of greed. I think it's needless zoning, and I -- I'd like to show you some -- some pictures of the existing residences so you get a better feel for the area and know what we're talking about and take into consideration once again these are properties that are built. Everything else is subjective. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We need a set for the record too, Mr. Coates. Can you wrap up fairly quickly now? MR. COATES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. COATES: I just -- excuse me. I just ask that you put yourself in my place. How would you feel if this were being done to you? Your life savings tied up in a house that will go down in value overnight, your right to privacy and quiet enjoyment denied by traffic across your own property, your driveway and yard under water all because someone special asked for some special concessions and needless zoning. I urge you to uphold the existing zoning. We purchased the land and built our house on good faith in the integrity of local authorities. Now please have the moral fortitude to vote your conscience. I beg you, I beg you to do what you know is right but maybe not politically correct. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Coates, I must say I take personal offense at suggestion that we make decisions on what's politically correct. And I'm not sure what someone special means, but I make my decisions based on the facts of each one of these cases. And to suggest otherwise I take great offense at. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to ask what someone special meant, Mr. Coates. MR. COATES: Well, there are some irregularities here as far as different involvements from -- from different areas of the county. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That pertain to this rezoning. MR. COATES: Yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: That pertain to the use of that land. MR. COATES: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: To the use of it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you saying there's a conflict of interest on this board? MR. COATES: Well, I'm not an attorney. I don't know if there's a conflict of interest. I'd be happy to explain the facts as I know them, though. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't -- I don't think that I see any -- anything that creates any sort of conflict. MR. COATES: Oh, nothing's been brought up that would indicate that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, could you help us with that? Are you aware of any conflicts on this issue? MR. CUYLER: The answer is no, there are no legal conflicts. Mr. Locker discussed with me several items that he had some concerns about. I talked to him about them. Apparently they -- he's reached a conclusion that they're not legally relevant to the proceeding, and he hasn't brought them up. But, I mean, the answer is no, there are no legal conflicts. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If there's no legal conflicts, we are required in -- by the Florida Statutes that unless there is a conflict created with a monetary reward that we are required to vote, so there -- there is no conflict unless there is a monetary reward to be gained by -- by voting in favor or against something. So the attorney has told us there is no conflict in the legal sense of the word. Thank you. Mr. Dotrill, is that the last speaker? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am, there are a couple more. The next one is Mr. Costello. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Costello? MR. DORRILL: Michael Costello. MR. COSTELLO: Sir, I'd just like to submit my written form rather than speak. MR. DORRILL: Very good. He has a letter and asked that the original be made a matter of record, and I've got some additional copies I'll pass out to you in just a second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Tomlinson-George. And then following this lady is Mr. Dawson if I could have you stand by, please, sir. And Mr. Dawson will be your final registered speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Miss Tomlinson-George. MS. TOHLINSON-GEORGE: Okay. Good morning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good morning. MS. TOHLINSON-GEORGE: I'm Diana Tomlinson-George. I live in the Cottages. My backyard faces where the driveway would pull into this new subdivision. I come as the treasurer of the Cottages Association, and I submitted a petition. And a lot of -- most of the people in the Cottages are opposed to this. When we're talking about compatibility, I'm talking about compatibility of ambience. We all bought in the Cottages as well as myself for the ambience of where we chose to live. And the ambience is all woods. And we live in stilt homes. Their homes are country homes. We're talking about zero lot lines with no trees. And I just bought there a year ago and -- and did some remodeling and put tile down and made quite a financial investment. So the ambience is something that we all enjoy living out there. We're not opposed to the three per acre that's going behind us, but we are opposed to what he wants to put, five, perhaps six per acre right across the street. I do not like the implication of the traffic that will occur from all the people coming out. I will hear it in my backyard. I'm already concerned as a taxpayer and as just a layman -- I don't know all the legal terms for everything -- but we do have problems down this street, and the problems are it takes me five minutes to take a left-hand turn out of Bailey Lane as it is today. We only have 40 cars, and we have Wilson Professional Center, and we have the dental. They did not plan on that new road which they spent millions and millions of dollars to let us take a left-hand turn to go to Publix or Winn Dixie. So we're talking about another fifty cars with this new subdivision and another hundred and fifty. That's 200 more cars. I'm very concerned about the traffic implications that this -- what would happen. I'm also concerned because we're living on an aquifer, and the aquifer fills up with water when it rains. I've already reported to the county that we have a major flooding problem out there right now. We are stilt homes. We have property around our homes that's not concrete and asphalt. I'm afraid of the zero lot lines causing this problem to become worse. Those are issues that I'm very concerned about. Also I'm concerned, the jump in dens -- in density is much more than we anticipated when we bought out there. When we saw estate homes, we believed it. I'm just a layperson. I don't go into all -- when I saw it there, I thought this is perfect. I can look out my back window, and it's going to be estate homes. We're talking about a ten-acre tract of land, and already half of it is zoned estate homes. So I believed it. And everyone else believed it. And for some reason now all of a sudden, you know, we can't believe this? I mean, so I'm just asking you, can you see where we're coming from living out there? We just want to know something's real, you know. Things don't change as -- the rules don't change as we go along. We're talking about approximately 45 people that are opposed to this rezoning. There's one person whose influence is coming in here, and he won't even live there. We're the ones paying the taxes on this property. We're the ones that have to live there. And I'm sure, you know, I'm -- I'm all for people making a living and -- and enjoying a certain kind of lifestyle. But I also understand, you know, Michael, that sometimes fulfillment in life doesn't come from dollars and cents, but it's compatibility with your neighbors as well. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I ask a question? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You sure can, Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How long have the Cottages been there? You said you've been there about a year. MS. TOMLINSON-GEORGE: I've been there a year, and I believe they've been there six. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And what were they -- have they always been zoned for that, or what were they zoned prior to that? MS. TOMLINSON-GEORGE: I'm not sure. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, can you help me with that? MR. NINO: They were zoned agricultural. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They were zoned agricultural prior to that? MR. NINO: (Mr. Nino nodded head.) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So I guess when -- I -- I understand your concern. But when I hear, gosh, we shouldn't let the rules change as we go along, the rules changed to allow you to have your home there and -- and everyone else in the Cottages to have their home there. MS. TOHLINSON-GEORGE: Okay. But we also have an ambience that we set with the rules that are sort of already there like a lot of trees. I mean, if you saw those photographs, I'm very concerned about the architecture, the -- the mature landscaping. I mean, if you were to live there, would you want everything that you dreamed to live there for be taken away in the surrounding areas? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There's only one way that you can guarantee that to have happened and that's to buy the land around you. I don't see any other way that you can deal with what you're asking. MS. TOHLINSON-GEORGE: Is there a way that perhaps he could sell the land to the two people that are very opposed? I mean, that would be an equitable arrangement, and I know that they would be in favor of buying it back. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would -- I would like to make one little statement. Commissioner Constantine, I think you said that the rules changed to allow her to build her house. I don't think the rules changed. The rules, as we've heard from our staff, that -- the growth management plan, the rules are set forth in there to allow this to happen. I don't think the rules changed at all. Times change. MS. TOHLINSON-GEORGE: Uh-huh. Yeah, but then the -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me tell you a story. Let me tell you a little story. When I moved here, there was nothing between this building and Lely, where I live, but about three buildings. Going out Rattlesnake Hammock where all those apartments are, they weren't there. That was all agriculture as was all of this going down through here. The rules didn't change to allow that development to -- to come in, but times do, and people came here. And people like you need a place to -- to live when you come here. And there's really not a lot we can do about stopping people from using their land. We -- we have a set of regulations this thick to control that and to be able to make it look like what we want our community to look like. But there's no practical way of stopping people from using their own property. MS. TOHLINSON-GEORGE: Then can we make sure that we have the architecture and the landscaping compatibility issue brought up and really dealt with today because, I mean, that's what we're all talking about? You know, we want to live there. We don't want to move. But I know that that's a major issue for us. And that's why we -- if you've ever been down Bailey Lane, you'd see how quaint it is so okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Dawson. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dawson. MR. DAWSON: My name is Thomas Dawson. I reside in the Cottages at 3612 Cottage Club Lane. And I'd just like to echo what Diana just said. I think definitely that I've seen -- I've been an original owner in there since 1989, and I have seen the traffic increase with our development and other development in there. I know what it will be down the line. I can only echo what she said about Airport Road. Generally we -- we bought in there. We didn't know it was rezoned from agricultural or anything like that. But I just see further congestion, and I cannot see rezoning to make even more congestion. I just feel we have a future growth management plan that this man spoke about. I spent a lot of time in Dade County, and I've been in Naples for quite a few years, for 15 years. And I see Collier County becoming a Dade County. I hate to see it. We have a classic example of the congestion up at the corner of Airport and Pine Ridge Roads with that Ridgeport Center is now an empty monstrosity, and I see nothing that's going to change -- I can see only problems from it down the line. The developer will be gone, and we will still be there. We've seen -- our real estate values have dipped recently or dipped initially. They have started to come back, and I see that this development will do nothing but in my opinion reduce them. I feel sorry for the people that have the -- the estate homes. They have far more at stake than I do, but I sympathize with them, and I trust that the board will do likewise. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Dawson. Is that the last public speaker, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a moment, Mr. Saadeh. MR. SAADEH: Madam Chairman, just a couple of notes to respond to what's been said because the issue's been clouded a little bit. I want to clarify it. The Cottages sits on 4.9 acres, and that's with 20 units. The proposed project I have is 5.12 acres with 24 units. The 7 units extra and this and that and everything you've heard today, the bottom line is this: 5.12 acres with 24 units right across the street, 20 units for 4.9 acres, the whole difference in this site disregarding the acreage is 4 units. The property at the Cottages, according to the tax record, the highest unit sold there in the neighborhood of a hundred and forty thousand. The property that I'm proposing to do, the entry level unit will be in the -- in the range of the 130 to 140, the entry level. I have three floor plans. And the higher unit, if there's a demand for it in the market, will be compatible roughly with the price of the units that Mr. Coates and Mr. Locker's been talking about. According to their tax record -- I haven't seen their appraisal by Mr. Armalavage. But by their tax record, their properties are valued in the 240 to 230 range as of 1994 tax records. I'm not talking about half a million or a million dollar homes. I'm talking about 240 based on the property appraiser's records. One last comment. Compatibility around you, he kept saying about the two adjacent properties. To the north is the section of the Hawk's Ridge that contains 12 units to the acre uncontested. That's already proved and approved. To the west of my property there's RSF-4 already approved. To the south of my property there is RSF-4 that's already approved. And that should conclude what I have to say. The one last item is there are many, many, many neighborhoods in this community -- I will not name them, but I can give you a list of them, as many as you want -- 40-foot lots and 45-foot lots that product sells from two hundred thousand to a million dollars in this community in Naples. I think Mr. Nino can testify to that, and I'll give you a written report on that. And basically I just want to thank you for listening to me today. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank -- thank you. Are there questions for Mr. Saadeh? Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a comment -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Norris. I've recognized Mr. Hancock first. I'm sorry. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to ask -- Mr. Saadeh, based on the estates -- the two pockets of estate homes, did you take into account any increase in buffering or setbacks when adjoining those properties as opposed to when you're adjoining on RSF-4 and -- MR. SAADEH: Absolutely. And for the record, actually I met Mr. Locker and Mr. Coates knowing that they will have concerns and offered to work with them throughout the process. I went as far as hiring the architecturals and hiring an architect to draw plans and spend a lot of money on those plans to get them before this hearing so I could give them some -- some level of comfort that what I'm trying to do is not something crazy. I propose Mediterranean villas, three-bedroom, two-bath with three-car -- with two-car garage and three-bedroom, three-bath with two-car garage across the board. Every unit will have tile roof. Those are things that I'm proposing. They're not by regulation, by anything. These are things that I showed them that I would work with them on if we can reach an agreement that these folks will be content to won't oppose it. I made a lot of -- I offered to make a lot of concessions for them to give them a level of comfort. I offered a lot of landscape buffering to give a level of comfort. But I don't think under the circumstances I'm going to do -- at this point since they opposed me, I don't feel like I'm obligated to be a good neighbor. I tried to be a good neighbor. I went in up front and met with them several times trying to show them what I plan on doing and how I can work things out with them. And they both adamantly refused to work with me, and so here I am. I did take the effort to meet with them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I do have to express concern that -- whenever we go in and do the planning on a particular project, whatever the adjacent land use is we try and either increase or decrease our setbacks or buffering appropriately to try and be more compatible there. And in looking at your plan I see a consistency on the perimeter of -- of each, consistency whether you're next to RMF-12 or whether you're next to estate zoning. And my question there is, you know, I -- I -- I feel like a type A buffer is not necessarily appropriate next to estate zoning. MR. SAADEH: Well, I'm not going by the buffer, Commissioner Hancock. That's specified by code. I mean, I didn't get this far. What I committed up front is that everything within -- when the property is cleared, everything within the first 15 feet of the property or 10 feet of the property would remain natural. And anything that is not filled up by natural, I propose hedges, not just for the interest of Mr. Locker but also for the interest of the customer who's buying that unit. So I propose heavy buffers so that you can't see from one end of the project to the -- on their property, nor -- nor should they see from their property to -- to this project. And that's the intent. That's the marketing intent. You can't sell those units if you don't have proper buffering for them. So I'm not going by minimum code requirements. I'm going to go by what the market tells you, you know, that that unit will have which will exceed the code by far. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can we make some of those assurances a part of the record in this application so that the estates residence, those two particular properties, are given some -- MR. SAADEH: Are adequately buffered? I have no problem with that at all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't know how we '- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What's -- what's the -- class A buffering is what? Eighty percent opaque? MR. SAADEH: I don't really know what class A buffering is. MR. HOOVER: Zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The type A is -- is one tree every 30 feet basically. You get to a type B, you get to a low level hedge with one tree every 30 feet. But what Mr. Saadeh just said where he's going to leave natural vegetation within that buffer area -- MR. SAADEH: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that you're not going to remove any vegetation from that buffer area that exists other than what you have to remove by -- you know, Brazilian pepper or whatever it may be there. MR. SAADEH: There's tons of pine trees on the property, and there's cabbage palms on the property. And we have every intention of around the perimeter on all sides to retain that natural buffer and then enhance it with additional vegetation that blends in for that specific environment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would -- do you feel it'd be fair to -- to assume that you can reach 80 percent opacity within the first year after completion of the project on those property lines that abut the estates? MR. SAADEH: Eighty percent -- I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eighty percent opacity. It's a standard landscape architecture -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can't see through it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- level. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can't see through it. MR. SAADEH: I don't have a problem with that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not solid wall, but in other words, there's -- there's '- MR. SAADEH: I don't propose any walls. I just propose natural landscaping like planting trees, palms, oaks, you know, things of that nature. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I -- again, I feel like the concerns that have been brought up, water management -- well, this particular project is going to have to conform to current water management requirements and, in fact, presents the possibility of helping any sheet flow that's going from his property now onto the Cottages. It's actually going to intercede that more than a single estates home would. When you built your home, you plopped it down. There was no full water management plan for the balance of your acreage. In other words, whatever rained and flowed, it flowed. And you didn't have to stop it. You on the other hand are going to have to do a full water management plan for the entire property. MR. SAADEH: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So I see the water management to the adjoining properties actually being improved, not degra -- not degraded. But again, I would like to ask that as a part of the motion that we achieve within one year of final construction an 80 percent opacity on those property lines adjoining the estate zoning and that -- that the developer make all attempts to maintain every element of non-exotic vegetation within that 10 or 15 feet, in other words, that you not be allowed to clear up to the property line and then come back and put an 8-foot oak tree every 30 feet. I don't want to see that happen, and I -- I hear that's what you're doing, but I just want it for the record. And I'd like to see it as a part of the motion. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. Are you willing to accept -- accept that, Mr. Saadeh? MR. SAADEH: I will in the spirit of cooperation. I'll do that, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Norris was next. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I was just going to make a comment that -- that presenters on both sides of this issue have -- have based a portion of their arguments in retail market value of the homes and really has -- I just wanted to make a comment that it really doesn't have any effect on our decision process. We don't take market value into consideration. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, we don't. That's quite true. Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- and I know -- I know Commissioner Hancock is a -- is a planner, but I just wondered if -- if Mr. Nino had any opinion about this 80 percent opacity, if that's the right word. MR. NINO: Correct. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that -- since that isn't a recommendation that came out of staff or CCPC, I was just -- I'd like to hear what the staff has to say. MR. NINO: Well, the type -- the type A buffer which is the requirement by code for this kind of relationship doesn't require an 80 percent opacity rating, but the type B buffer does. That's not to say you couldn't take the position which I believe Mr. -- Commissioner Hancock has taken that within a type A buffer you will achieve a type B opacity rating of 80 percent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not asking -- MR. SAADEH: Within one year from final construction if I understood you correctly. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, because you have to allow maturity time. MR. SAADEH: That's right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we don't want to allow five years, but I think a year is reasonable. I am not concerned about where you're abutting other single-family 4 units an acre or multi-family 12 units an acre. I think a type A buffer is appropriate. But where you are abutting existing developed estate zoning which is approximately 50 percent of your side yard, I am concerned that we don't have just a type A buffer there, that if this project does get approved that that be a part of the approval to -- to achieve that within the first year and again, an important part of that, to maintain the existing vegetation in that buffer, that we don't go in and remove it and replant it. That's -- that's just a concern that I would -- that I wanted to -- to put on the table. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- my only suggestion in that regard is -- is to the extent that that's not what code presently requires that we shouldn't require property owners to come in and -- and spend the money that these people have spent to -- to bring that issue before us. If it's an inappropriate buffer in this case, then we should look at our codes so that that's uniformly applied. So I'd just ask staff to look at that and give us some -- some report. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Some values on future codes. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Commissioner Hac'Kie nodded head.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one question that came up. The petitioner and the neighbors brought up the question of traffic, and I've looked through and read the transportation circulation. And while the petitioner himself was not required to do a traffic impact statement, our staff did one? MR. NINO: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And those results were that it really won't generate that much traffic. MR. NINO: Exactly. Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. You finished with whatever you -- MR. SAADEH: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any further questions for Mr. Saadeh? I'd like to close the public hearing. Mr. Cuyler? MR. CUYLER: Madam Chairman, as part of your findings, obviously you're going to need to take two -- two votes on the -- on the two petitions. You may want Mr. Nino to summarize what the staff findings were. You can reject those findings. You can adopt those findings. You can change those findings as you wish and then either vote approval or vote denial. MR. NINO: Commissioners, I need to remind you that as a function of the -- of the rezoning petition, there were certain rezoning findings that the planning commission is charged to make. In summary, I would advise you that the preponderance of the findings is one that supports the rezoning. As we've indicated in the past, we -- we do give you both pros and cons on all the findings; however, in this case the preponderance of the evidence in evaluating the findings that supports the rezoning action. Similarly, in regard to the findings that are unique to conditional uses, again, the planning commission in their -- in that findings takes the position that this -- this conditional use rezoning action should be approved. Then relative to the issue of compatibility, it is the opinion of the planning commission that this petition is indeed compatible with its -- with its -- with its adjoining property. MR. CUYLER: And, Madam Chairman, those findings in your agenda book under 12-B-1 are listed on pages 13 through 17 or 18, and that's one of the ones -- the missing page that was handed out for you. Those are the various criteria and the listed findings of staff. On the conditional use they're listed under 13-A-1 on page 8 of your agenda package. And as you recall, that'll -- that's consistency with the growth management plan, ingress, egress, and further as listed, and then the other items, the conditional use listed under C and D. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Do we have a motion? Is there further discussion before motion comes? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to move approval of the -- of the application. Do I need to do it in two separate motions? MR. CUYLER: The first would be the fezone. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Move approval of the fezone subject to the condition imposed by -- described by Commissioner Hancock. Or would that be more appropriate in the cjuster housing conditional use? MR. CUYLER: It would probably be more appropriate under the conditional use. MR. NINO: Under the conditional use. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: On the conditional use portion. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: All right. I move in accordance with staff recommendations and findings. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie and a second by Commissioner Norris. Is there any discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. All those opposed? There being none, motion passes. Is there a second motion? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have a question before proceeding on the cjuster housing. We heard about the architectural controls and the standards. MR. NINO: Yes. The -- the common architectural theme, as indicated in the staff report, is dealt with administratively through the site development plan review process. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So the public really isn't notified of it or doesn't have much input or any input really when we get to that level? MR. NINO: Correct. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 95-70 RE PETITION CU-94-20, MICHAEL SAADEH REPRESENTING ELITH COMHUNITIES, REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "5" OF THE RSF-5 ZONING DISTRICT FOR CjustER DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BAILEY LANE APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET WEST OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD - ADOPTED (COMPANION TO ITEM 12B1) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there further discussion on conditional use application? If there isn't, I'd like a motion. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I move approval of the conditional use application subject to the additional requirement of landscape buffering on the estates boundaries as described by Commissioner Hancock earlier in the record. MR. CUYLER: And that again is pursuant to staff findings and staff evaluations. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Staff conditions and staff findings, yes. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With that -- with that one change as to the opacity of the buffers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that also included not removing existing vegetation within the buffer area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Other than exotics. Other than exotics. Yes. We have a motion. Is there a Second. We have a motion by Commissioner Mac'Kie, second by Commissioner Hancock. Is there discussion on the motion? There being none, I'll call the question. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? There being none, conditional use application passes. With that I think we'll take a break for lunch. It's quarter after 12. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Suggestion. Someone may want to contact the fire chiefs and let them know we're running a little behind so that they don't have to come and sit for a half hour, forty-five minutes. MR. DORRILL: Just as a clarification, that we were scheduled to do the 800 megahertz as close to one, or do you want to do that next and then continue with the public hearings? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: What do you want to do? Do we want to try and move through and maybe come to the 800 megahertz discussion about 1:30, quarter to two? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's complete the agenda before we start with the megahertz. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. That's what we'll do. Will you notify them -- MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- that we'll probably be closer to two? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. (A lunch break was held from 12:15 to 1:00 p.m.) Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 95-3 RE PETITION R-94-7, MR. ROBERT DUANE REPRESENTING DR. LUC CHRISTIAN HAZZINI, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM RSF-3 TO C-3 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAN MARCO DRIVE AND COVEWOOD COURT ON MARCO ISLAND - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Reconvene the January 24th meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Our next item on the agenda is Petition R-94-7; Mr. Duane representing Dr. Luc Christian Hazzini in a fezone. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Good afternoon. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian, County Planning. Mr. Duane is not here yet, and Dr. Hazzini is requesting that you hear his argument. And he will try to represent himself. He is requesting a fezone from RSF-3 to C-3 for property located at the corner of San Marco Drive and Covewood Court on Marco Island. The property is located within mixed use activity center. It is adjacent on one side to a commercially zoned and developed property. This property consist of .23 acres, which is roughly 10,000 square feet. The petitioner is requesting a fezone in order to build a dental office. The Planning Commission heard this item, and by unanimous vote recommended approval subject to the CCPC's recommendation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there any questions for staff? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Badamtchian, did you receive any letters of objection? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I received two letters of objection, yes. And they showed up at the Planning Commission meeting, and the problem was resolved. We added two stipulations, and they were happy with that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And those stipulations were included? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who were these objectors? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Where were they? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Who were they? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One was the owner of the house somewhere in here; the other one was the owner of the house right here (indicating). CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You'll have to pick up that microphone and put it on the record. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One was the owner of the house on Lot 3, on Covewood Court; the other was on Lot 9, Sheffield Avenue. They weren't adjacent neighbors. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They were not adjacent? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They were not adjacent. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Hazzini? MR. MAZZINI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Luc Hazzini; I am the petitioner. My representative has been delayed. I'm here to ask that you grant my petition to fezone my lot so I can build my dental office there. The lot is located -- the lot is located -- the lot is located on San Marco next to a large garden center, and it's abutting C-3 and across from C-3. The office will act as a transition between the commercial properties and the residential neighborhood behind it. Also, I want to point out, in blue here, I also own this lot which I will build my residence on shortly. So this basically will be my neighborhood. I do not want to do anything in any way to jeopardize the property value of this property -- of this area, since I will have my house there also. I have also agreed to limit the parking to the side and the front of the office. The office, as you can tell from the front elevation here, will be residential both in its size and in its architecture. I think it will also act as a noise buffer for the neighbor here from the County road. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions for the petitioner? Commissioner Hancock. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Dr. Mazzini, unfortunately this may be a question better suited to your representative who is not here. I believe a dental office is also allowed in the C-1 transitional zoning district. Do you know the reason you are -- MR. MAZZINI: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- requesting C-3 instead of a lesser degree? MR. MAZZINI: Yes. The reason we did that is because of the requirement of the buffer -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You have to keep it on the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Unfortunately, it's one or the other. MR. MAZZINI: It's because of the requirement for the buffer. If we were to go with the -- I don't believe it's C-i; I believe it's C-2 -- and we would have to have a fifty-foot buffer. I mean, I wouldn't have any land left, and I couldn't build a dental office there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So apparently with a C-3, what type of buffer will you have? MR. MAZZINI: I believe it's fifteen feet. Now, currently the neighbor here (indicating) has built a large Eureka Palm fence, basically. So we've got probably a buffer like you were talking about with 80 percent opacity. Actually, it's probably 100 percent opacity. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Dr. Mazzini, are you aware that Marco Island is currently undergoing a master planning process? MR. MAZZINI: No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're not? MR. MAZZINI: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The Vision 2000 Committee, you are not aware of that? MR. MAZZINI: No, sir, I am not. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Well, what they're doing down there is making a master plan for the island. And zoning, of course, is one of the important elements of that master plan, as is transportation and parks and schools and so forth. Were you unable to find a suitable office space somewhere for your dental practice without having to build your own? MR. MAZZINI: Well, I really didn't look. I mean, I own this lot, and I think it's a great location. I think there's a need for another dental office in Marco Island. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- MR. HAZZINI: I'm in an area actually -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I find it hard to disagree with you on that. My point is that the people down there are busily, and have been working for the last year or so, developing a master plan for Marco Island. And changing zoning is one of the things that they're trying to avoid until they have their planning process through. I think it would be helpful at least to integrate what you are trying to do with what they're trying to do. MR. HAZZINI: Well, if you look in -- in its current location -- I mean, it would be impossible -- I mean, I cannot imagine of anyone who would actually like to have a residence there. It's -- it's abutting here next to a large garden center. And during the day they are unloading mulch and soil and things like that. I mean, that would be someone's back yard. I think it would be, you know, very hard for anyone to want to, you know, put their residence there. And obviously that's why it's still a vacant lot. Now, all this -- other than one house here and here, all this area is still just vacant. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions for the petitioner? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do we have any public speakers? MR. CUYLER: No, ma'am, no public speaker. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing, then. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, although I agree with Commissioner Norris, I would like to see the Marco Island group that's called Vision 2000 have a voice in this. It does appear to be a residential character-type development in an area where a house might not be suitable. It appears to me to be a good idea. I will make a motion that we approve petition R-94-7 with C-3 zoning. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: staff report. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: second? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that with the stipulations? With stipulations included in the There's a motion. Is there a Without having -- I will second the motion. I guess with that hesitancy, I guess I want to -- I may want to ask if there's some element of this petition that I am not understanding. Is there some deference to it for any particular reason? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, we have a second now. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You have a second? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, we have a second now. We have a motion by Commissioner Hancock and a second by Commissioner MAC'KIE. Is there further discussion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe there is. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: This morning we heard a petition where we rezoned property. We went from residential to residential. That's quite a different step from going from residential to commercial. The other thing is that as far along as the Marco Island Vision 2000 people are in their process, I really don't think it's appropriate for the Board of County Commissioners to go in and start making zoning changes while they were in the middle of that process. Perhaps at some point when you can hear input from the civic associations that they have finished their process and have no objection, this petition would be appropriate. But at this particular point in time I just don't feel that it is. MR. CUYLER: I need to indicate to you that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan. I think you will find that in your staff report. Although, it is a change from residential to commercial, it is something that is allowed by county's planning department. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would -- I'm sorry. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Madam Chairman? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just where are they in the process, and how long are we considering delaying this? Because my obvious concern is this man's ability to use a piece of land that he owns, and how long are we going to restrict that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think they are probably a year away from having the master plan complete. But that's only part of my concern, the other part of my concern is going from residential to commercial. That's a larger leap. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have to remember that Marco Island is a fairly well built-out community. The major exception is residential property, only about half of the residential -- single family, excuse me, residential lots have been built out. The commercial and the multifamily are essentially all built out or spoken for. And to go in and change the zoning at this late date is something that we should be very careful about in my opinion. It was quite an issue three years ago when a lot of this type of rezoning was going on on Marco. It was quite a bit of discussion during the political campaign that took place back in 1992. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would have a serious concern about our taking a position on this petition that we won't consider a fezone potentially for a year until the plan is completed. I understand it's the County Attorney's job and not mine to give you legal advice, but I would be concerned about a suspension of that kind without some sort of a formal public hearing and some sort of a more careful review. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Then my suggestion would be for you to ignore that issue. And my other area of concern is that we are rezoning residential property to commercial, which I find inappropriate in this particular case. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I've got to agree with Commissioner Hac'Kie. I think the suggestion that we put any land issue changes on hold while Marco is in the process of redesign is inappropriate. You're right, we need to give them a closer look, but hopefully we do that with everything. I don't think we can put everything down there that private land owners have on hold for a year. It appears to be compatible, and Mr. Cuyler said it does conform with our current requirements. MR. CUYLER: It is consistent. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So with those in mind, I think it's hard to say no. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: leave my motion as is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: comment from staff. Commissioner Hancock? I echo that exactly, and I will I believe we had a further HR. HULHERE: I just wanted to offer that I'm not sure whether the Marco Island Civic Association or the other civic associations on Marco Island have specifically looked at this fezone, but I think Commissioner Norris is accurate in about one year being a time frame for them to have some final -- to have a final look at that or a final ideology on that commercial zoning issue. Certainly it would be up to the applicant, but if we so desired, we could contact them and see if they had any comments on this petition. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What are the advertising requirements for a petition such as this? And is there a possibility that the civic associations and affected residents on Marco don't know about this? MR. HULHERE: No. All of the residents within 300 feet were notified. And a couple did appear at the Planning Commission, and I believe they were appeased by the conditions that we put on the fezone. Other than that it was placed in the paper, and the property is posted. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So my presumption would be -- and I absolutely mean no disrespect to Commissioner Norris -- that if they had objections, I think they would be here or at least we would have a record of some kind; we would have a letter or a phone call. So absent that, I will support the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Now, I know the motion has come forward, but I haven't yet closed the public hearing. And I need to do that. But I think the petitioner has one more thing to say. MR. MAZZINI: I just want to basically -- basically, can I give you guys a copy of the rendering? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I believe we have it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We have it. MR. MAZZINI: Other than that -- other than having, you know, small signs and noting this is a dental office, the structure will look just like a house. I mean, probably most people will not know this is not a residence any more than anyone else on the street. It's not going to look like, you know, an office; it's basically going to look like a residence. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right, fine. I believe Mr. Cuyler said there was no public comment? MR. CUYLER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I will close the public hearing. We have a motion. Can I carry it forward, or do we need it stated again? MR. CUYLER: If the motion is for approval and there's been a second, you can go ahead and call for a vote. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. They've already been stated. I will call the question. All those in favor please "Aye." (All commissioners responded simultaneously.) COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, I said, "Aye." CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. All those opposed? Now, it's your turn. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes four to one. Thank you. MR. MAZZINI: Thank you. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 95-71/DEVELOPHENT ORDER 95-1 RE PETITION DRI-93-1, SUSAN HEBEL WATTS REPRENSETING WCN, INC. REQUESTING DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OF THE PELICAN MARSH DRI/PUD, A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT CONTAINING COHMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL GOLF COURSE AND RELATED FACILITIES, CULTURAL/COHMUNITY FACILITY, AND OPEN SPACE/CONSERVATION LAND USES LOCATED GENERALLY IN AN AREA LYING NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - ADOPTED WITH ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next item is item 12-B-3, which is a companion item with 12-C-1. Mr. Cuyler, do we need two separate motions, or can we do them both together? MR. CUYLER: Both. You can hear them together, and then when it's time to take a motion you can take a motion on each one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. CUYLER: One public hearing. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. So one public hearing; two motions? MR. CUYLER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino, current planning and service to staff. The petitions that are before you -- MR. DORRILL: Mr. Nino, if I could, would you -- thank you very much. MR. NINO: The two petitions are going to be referred to hereafter as PHC, the Pelican Marsh Community, Petitions. By virtue of its size, it's subjected to a higher level of scrutiny because its development has impacts which extend beyond its boundary and affects public infrastructure, community facilities and services, an area of natural resources that are of regional significance. Consequently when we deal with development applications having regional impact and significance, we are required to accomplish this by a specific type of development order which we commonly refer to as a DRI Development Order as distinct from the normal development order that is associated with rezoning or PUD rezoning action or a conditional lien. While this approval is executed by the County Board, nevertheless its content is largely shaped by the regional planning committee and the review input it receives from a host of review agencies with a regional or statewide jurisdictional mandate. The DRI Development Order, which is before you for approval, while it addresses regional concerns, nevertheless for most of the categorical issues and impacts it addresses these can also be said to be equally of importance for their local content, such as the provisions that deal with housing, transportation, water manager, hurricane evacuation, and so forth. While we allege that they have primary content for regional application, nevertheless I think we would all agree that they are equally of local concern. The DRI Development Order you are asked to approve is one which basically incorporates the recommendations included in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's Official Recommendations Report, which you all have in your Executive Summary Packet. It should be appreciated that these are recommendations and are therefore not absolute prerequisites to an approval which will not be challenged through an appeal process which rests with the Department of Community Affairs. The development commitments provisions to be invoked at stages of development and the general development framework set by the provisions within that development order, which you have in your packet, are not in all cases exactly the same as the RPC. There were two areas where there is some departure; one deals with housing. And your packet does not reflect the housing language that has been negotiated in the last couple of days. Basically -- basically, the current provision in the packet, in the development orders as you have it, is a statement that says,"PHC at some subsequent stage in their development will analyze whether or not they in fact have responsibilities to provide affordable housing." And that is kind of a wait-and-see proposition. PHC and our housing director, about a week ago, got together and concluded with a revision of that wait-and-see kind of proposal. And PHC offered, in the alternative, a $50,000 cash contribution which would be used for first-time home buyers or for employees who are -- for employees that are spun off from the PHC Development. I'm advised by regional staff that that modification is acceptable and would not meet with their -- would not meet with their-- would not be objected to. Our housing director is much more enthusiastic about that approach, and therefore we recommend that that be the strategy employed. Relative to the departures in the transportation provisions, staff would ask that your approval take into account the need to make some modification to the transportation section. The applicants and the regional staff have gotten together and have resolved that difference. And if your approval will reflect an ability for us to make some minor massaging of the transportation section, that would appropriately address the issue. There is closure there. RPC staff and PHC have agreed to the slight modification that is necessary to bring the provisions relative to transportation in line with the original official recommendations. Relative -- relative to the rezoning -- I want to go on to the rezoning aspect of this at this point in time. The development I would remind you -- I think we all know where Pelican Harsh is. It's been under development for a considerable length of time. It's an area of 2,075 acres; it extends all the way from U.S. 41 all the way east to what would be the Livingston Road right-of-way, and in the process crosses Goodlette Frank and Airport. That development will consist, if approved, of 5,600 residential dwelling units, 1,200 of which are intended to be single family, 4,400 units intended to be multi-family; 575,000 square feet of gross floor area for commercial development; 350,000 gross floor area for office developments, with 100,000 square feet of that total allocated for medical offices; 280 hotel rooms; 80,000 square feet of gross floor area for cultural activities -- libraries, auditoriums, perhaps another philharmonic, who knows; 36 holes of golf with 55,000 square feet of clubhouses and various related land uses, including that preserve, lakes, open space, the school site, and et cetera. The development agenda put forward by the PHC, let me say, is consistent with the FLUE, because the density -- the residential density is less than is otherwise authorized by the density component -- by the density rating system to the FLUE to the GMP. This development is 2.86 dwelling units per acre, and the density rating system allows three over most of this area. It also allows a-- provides for a density bonus attributable to the fact that it fronts on more than -- two or more arterial roads and indeed has a portion within the density bank up at the Immokalee -- generally the Immokalee/Livingston Road area. So there is obviously more than three dwelling units authorized for this. And this is definitely consistent with the FLUE. Relative to the commercial component, there is an activity center at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Airport Road. Therefore, the commercial -- the commercial area is consistent with the GMP to the extent that the activity -- the activity centers cannot be developed until VBR, Vanderbilt Beach Road, is physically in place. That condition is spelled out in the PUD document, and it is a condition of invoking development there within the future land use itself and the GMP. Therefore we have found that with respect to the land use strategy, in its entirety for PMC, it is consistent with the FLUE. Relative to the other relationships to the growth management plan -- the transportation, natural resource preservation, the utilities, hurricane evacuation -- housing reviews by jurisdictional staff have found that PMC is consistent with the goals and objectives in the master GMP in all of its aspects. The PUD document that is before you reflects -- reflects indeed a high level of cooperation between the PMC personnel and your staff. The PUD document includes all of the considerations and issues that were raised by our staff to insure that this development, as it progresses, is consistent with not only the GMP but the Land Development Code and, also, the requirements of the Land Development Code. Some of issues that were -- that came to our attention in terms of traditional application of capability issues, for example the PMC document, in that regard, assures that all contiguous property of a residential nature will get a response on the PMC side of the line with housing of similar density and similar design in terms of height. That provision is contained in here, so we really don't have a problem with capability with respect to contiguous residential properties. That includes Victoria Park; it includes the Four Seasons; it includes Crescent Lake; it includes the Quail Woods Development. If you read the PUD document, you will find that in that portion of Quail Woods where the housing is single family the response on the Pelican -- PMC side will be single family. Where it's multiple family, the response will be multiple family housing structures of equal height on the contiguous side. Of course PMC is providing the right-of-way for the Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I'm advised that that may be under construction this fall. If that being the case, then obviously PMC will have the ability to come forward with some commercial development on an activity center if that is to occur. This issue was heard by the Planning Commission on January the 5th. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended the -- both the development order and the PUD master plan -- the PUD document. We have some minor issues that -- that we need to bring to your attention with respect to the PUD document; they are not of any substance at all. But in the legal review we find some references to sections of the LDC to be incomplete where they may have -- where the PUD documents suggest, for example, 3.57; our legal staff feels more comfortable with 3.5.7.1. It's really not of any substance, but I do want to bring this to your attention. In one instance we have a deletion, on Page 77 of the PUD document, under Environment Stipulation A. There is a -- the last three sentences would be deleted and a period would be added -- would be placed after the word "assigned." That is consistent with Mr. Reynold's understanding of what that section provides. Other than that, we have a document that is complete in all respects in terms of addressing our concerns and the concerns of the LDC. The Collier County Planning Commissioner recommends it to you, and there were no objections either in writing or verbally expressed. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions for staff? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino -- and you'll have to forgive me, I know the Board has heard this before or portions of this before, and I may be asking a repetitive question. When Pelican Bay developed, there were some park areas set aside; they got moved or shifted and a lot of park areas were removed from Pelican Bay, and the community park that was build on the north end began to kind of serve that purpose. I look at the Pelican Harsh Community, and obviously at this point nothing is set aside for local parks for residents and so forth. I began, after playing basketball up at North Naples a couple of times, to wonder about how many people that park can hold. 5,600 units in the Pelican Harsh Community is going to have an impact on the Veterans' Park and on the Pelican Bay side. And I guess what I just want to ask is have we addressed -- I know the development will pay impact fees to the park system as required, but what about whether or not the impact of those parks is going to take them to a point of saturation, or what local areas are we looking at potentially setting aside for the additional population added here. Has that really been an element that has been looked at? MR. NINO: Well, I hope it has, because we -- this document here was submitted to all of our jurisdictional agencies. And the County Parks and Recreation Department would have been asked to review the Pelican Harsh submission. And as the staff report indicates, we've had no request from any county agencies to set aside-- to require land be physically set aside by the PHC Community for public recreational purposes. And that may largely be because the Pelican Harsh Community is a gated community; so really in the sense of a recreation space for the public need, i.e., the entire county, you are not going to get in there. However, we certainly would hope that the county's recreation goal would include using those impact fees to offset -- to acquire land within the immediate environs of the PHC Community, and similarly with other county agencies. Now, that's with the exception of the School Board. We are aware of the fact that the School Board did enter into an arrangement with PHC on the twenty-acre site -- I'm sorry, I have the wrong map up. But there is a twenty-acre school site that is in this area here (indicating). COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, there's a planner; he draws in circles. MR. NINO: So that the only public facility that is acknowledged within the PHC is the school site. And that issue of the school site and the provisions under which it has to be or has to be developed are all contained within the PUD document. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess I will have to leave that to the Parks and Recreation Department. I just wanted to ask you if you've addressed that particular issue. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any questions for staff? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does the petitioner have anything to say, or are you simply here to answer questions? MS. WATTS: Madame Chairman and members of the Board, my name is Susan Watts. I'm here today with our extensive team that has been working on this. If you prefer, we would be happy to answer questions as opposed to making a formal presentation. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Hi, Ms. Watts. MS. WATTS: Hi, Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Since the last time we spoke on this development, what have you done to notify the people that were near the waste-water treatment plant? MS. WATTS: Well, we were before a portion of this Board in Hay of 1993 when the Pelican Marsh Community's 1,100 acres and the preliminary development was approved. And at that time you asked us the question regarding the regional sewer facility in North Naples, and our response to you at that time was that it is shown on the master plan in the PUD document, on all the zoning things that are recorded in public documents, and it's also part of our copy of the Pelican Marsh PUD which we hand out to all prospective -- well, I shouldn't say "all." It's available in our sales trailer. We have distributed over 600 of these documents. And it shows the location of the sewage-treatment facility. It is also shown on the new PUD master plan for the full 2,075 acres; so it is very, very available. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Available is fine. If I were a customer to go in and buy a piece of property in there, would I definitely be notified or is the information just available? MS. WATTS: I would say the information is available. It's not something that we make in a presentation or a sales pitch. I would mention, though, that we do have an effluent pond on-site, as we also have in Pelican Bay. Those are located along Goodlette Frank Road. We have notified buyers that are adjacent to that site of that particular arrangement. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I know that Westinghouse has certainly always been in favor of full-and-fair disclosure on all of their properties. So I'm trying to find out if there is a mechanism available for us, and are you willing to do so -- to make sure that all parties who buy properties in that development are notified that they are near a waste-water treatment? MS. WATTS: Well, I think our response would be what happens to the people that are buying in South Hampton -- or I'm not sure what the new name of that is -- and people who are buying property in the entire vicinity. COHHISSIONER NORRIS: When they come before the Board of County Commissioners, we will be happy to discuss that. Today we're just asking about Pelican Harsh Communities. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I may, on that point -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. Commissioner Norris, have you finished? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I haven't gotten an answer yet. MS. WATTS: I guess we've been in the position, from the last public hearing before this body, that showing that land use on these particular maps is a notification. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I certainly support your goal there, Commissioner Norris. And although I have not had the pleasure of sitting here as some of those problems have come up, I have certainly watched you as you have. My concern is about the can of worms that we might be opening if we -- if we start identifying specific items that we want developers to put potential buyers on notice of. My concern is that the list -- I'm not sure we are qualified to define the list -- and I'm really quite sure that I don't want the responsibility of defining the list of what are nuisances or what are potential problems that this county thinks are important enough for potential buyers to be notified of. So recognize the goal, but I also think that coming up with some particular special disclosure could be troublesome for us in the long-term future. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I understand that you see it as a can of worms. What you see as a can of worms, I see as protection for our citizens and also protection to keep this Board from getting into the type of situation we have had near other public facilities that could be construed as nuisances by some people. What I'm trying to do is make sure people are alerted to the fact that they are near some sort of public facility so in the future they won't be able to come back and say, "Well, we don't know anything about it. We were never notified, and therefore we want you to spend 30 billion dollars working it out." COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If I can just respond to that. Certainly, I don't think that notifying the public of potential problems is a can of worms. That's not what I meant, and I'm sure you don't think that's what I meant. What I meant is that we have to be careful as we identify what are problems that we think are important enough to require specific disclosure. This may be one. But if it is, there may also be others. And we should be careful as we make a list. Again, I know you hate this lawyer talk, but as a lawyer I can't help but think that if I had a client who -- to whom you disclosed as a county, "Here's a water-treatment plant." And later I discovered something else that I consider a nuisance, I'm going to bring that to you and say, "You're liable, County, because you choose to determine that the waste-water treatment plant was a problem, but you didn't tell me about the other one." And I just don't want -- that's the can of worms that I am concerned about. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You indicated you don't want to be responsible for putting together that list. And I understand your point there, where does the line draw. However, unfortunately, that's the responsibility that we get saddled with here. I think things like a landfill or like a waste-water plant are clearly things that are potentially a nuisance to neighbors. And we couldn't have any clearer example than the Lely example and having people come back after the fact at us. We have already committed to spending another nine million, at least, and it will likely cost us more; because the community has grown around that. I have got to agree -- I understand your concern, but I have to agree with Commissioner Norris that we know this particular one is a concern. I agree as a separate issue, maybe in one of those workshops, we decide what is all inclusive in our list. But I think this is clearly one. I don't think there is any question that a waste-water facility is a potential nuisance and has been and could again be something that residents will come back and ask for changes after the fact. So I don't think we are out of line at all in asking -- I don't think Commissioner Norris is out of line. MS. WATTS: If I could, Chairman and members of the Board, if I could suggest -- maybe, one approach is that the county look at these particular uses and see if there is some way that they could come up with some sort of overlay zone and think about how all through the county, not just on a case-by-case piece, that we need to address these. I understand the cost implications of the East Naples sewage treatment situation, and there are others. But I think it's -- maybe that's a more holistic approach to addressing this situation, maybe some type of overlay zone or committee to look at that. I'm not sure what the appropriate mechanism would be. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm a little unsure as to what level this Board should go to in trying to indemnify and protect. I think there is a responsibility. But when we begin saying, "Beware of this"; and "Beware of that," that should we omit one; should we not incorporate one, we could be held liable. More importantly than that, when I bought my house, it was up to me to do whatever research I deemed necessary to protect myself in the long term. It didn't protect me from things happening that I had no control over, but it certainly forced me to take a real hard look at what's around and what affects my environment. If we begin-- if we remove the "Buyer beware" portion of individual purchases; if we begin to take on some of that responsibility ourselves, I fear what position that puts us in down the road. I was not here for -- or, I'm sorry. I was not part of this Board for the Lely sewer situation. I am a part of this Board for the current landfill discussions. The landfill was there; people moved close to it and then don't want it there. That's reasonable; that's understandable. But I think we are going to deal with that whether we put this on there or not; whether we require Pelican Marsh to tell each home owner within a half mile radius that there is a waste-water facility there, it in no way keeps us from hearing that argument down the road and having to address it. I think we still have to address it. I don't think we can say, "Hey, look, you were notified it was there." I don't think that people who moved close to landfills ever claimed that they didn't know it was there. I don't think the people who moved close to Lely's water-treatment plant ever said, "Golly, gee, I didn't know it was there." CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, they did. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. That's what -- I guess I would respond is that Iwm not suggesting that we take away "buyer beware." Obviously, everyone as they purchase their own property needs to be responsible for that. I would be the last person to say government should take responsibilities away from individuals. The reality of the situation with Lely was if everyone had played by the rules, if everyone had done as you and I would do, we probably wouldnwt have had as much of a problem. But there were Realtors who said that was water storage for the golf course or that was X, Y, Z. There were different claims of what that was. Obviously, that homeowner can go after that Realtor after the fact for misrepresenting and so on. But the fact remains that there were many people that did not know that that was there or did not know what it Was. If we can do one more thing in assisting people in being aware, in being diligent in what it is they are purchasing, I think we should do that. I'm not suggesting that we should take responsibility from them. If we could assist them in that effort, then maybe we should. MS. WATTS: I would mention one thing, Commissioners, and that is this sewage-treatment facility is very visible from Goodlette Frank Road. So if you've driven on it lately, with the overpass, you can't help but see that it's there. And that may make somewhat of a difference as opposed to something being at grade and hidden behind some residential development. It's quite visible. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a general comment, and I will hush on the issue. I think it would be appropriate if we are concerned about this on a global county-wide basis that we approach it on a county-wide basis and that we not chose this particular project to kick off a new program; that we investigate these overlay zones. And, perhaps, that's an appropriate way to look at them, but not going case by case. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think that might be an appropriate discussion in a workshop. We seem to want to create overlay zones similar to the overlay we created down in the south county area with the mobile home overlay. And recognizing the fact that we do have public services spotted throughout the county. The problem that I'm having with what Commissioner Norris has asked for -- and I don't disagree with him, because I too would like to find a way to avoid the problems that we have experienced with the Lely plant. But Pelican Harsh is possibly the first PUD/DRI that we have asked -- that we are even discussing the issue with. And as Ms. Watts has said, there's South Hampton that is coming on line -- maybe under a different name -- but certainly they are going to be putting in single family and multifamily as well; and they are within the same general miles, by air, so to speak. So I think the issue is probably more global than simply a particular PUD. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do agree; it's a timing issue. In this case we have action preceding policy. I agree fully that it's something that we need to take a look at, but I would like policy to precede action so that we have some precedent to move ahead on. At this point I'm not even sure if what we asked them to do provides us any leeway down the road -- or in other words, we haven't worked this idea out fully to apply to all these situations. I'm just a little concerned stepping on untested ground. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would there be any interest in asking them, not to be a requirement, subject to -- at least up until the time we adopt a policy, if we then adopt a policy county-wide, they would no longer be subject to the stipulation? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me ask Mr. Cuyler. If we were to have this discussion six months down the road, in a workshop, and in that workshop we decide that we want to advertise and bring forth an ordinance county-wide that would require notification on all future home sales, how would we do that as opposed to resale and new sales? I mean, is it possible to do something like that, and are we -- are we as a Board then taking on a responsibility that we may not want to? MR. CUYLER: With regard to resales, that's -- at this point you're talking about new fezones of undeveloped property or the property that is going to be developed. I would, under those circumstances, if you put a written policy into affect that as part of the fezone document and PUD's there was going to be a certain type of notice, yes, prospectively you can do that. With regard to this PUD, that would be past the time unless they'll agree that they will abide by whatever policy you put into affect. And, obviously, they don't know what that is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If we were to adopt an overlay situation as has been suggested, how would we -- how would we differentiate between new sales and resales, or would we? I mean, there's just too many questions here that -- that we have not addressed yet. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with you; there are too many questions here to get into a global discussion about an overlay. But I'm sure Westinghouse Communities certainly wouldn't object to it if they were asked to comply with an overlay. And, I guess, we need to move forward with the discussion here at hand today and just ask Westinghouse if they have any objection to some sort of further notification to original buyers. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: On all marketing literature and otherwise? MS. WATTS: Yeah, I think we -- we would be willing to work on a committee if you put it together. We would like to help review that. I think we are open to that because, obviously, it's not something that's going to go away. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just heard Mr. Hoegsted, from the crowd, say contracts only not parking literature, which gets me back to my original concern. I know when I bought my home I signed almost as many things as I signed when I was Chairman of the Board. You flip through page after page; I had a stack this thick (indicating). And the likelihood of me seeing that disclaimer were pretty slim. Now, if I go in to look at a product, a new product, when I open up that sales brochure, I'm not looking at 80 or 90 pages; I'm looking at maybe three pages. So there is a difference to me. I would like to see it so that people are aware. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAc'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: More government regulation out of this republican Board? I think this is absurd. You know, people are intelligent; people can buy homes; people can do their own inquiry. If we do an overlay zone, what are we going to do? Require it be disclosed in the deed? There is -- this is too much government interference. I think it's inappropriate and that we should stop and look at it in an overall global prospective with some serious advice from our county attorney before we start trying to make them back off. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. I'm asking them to voluntarily disclose it in their literature. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And my thought is that we -- I think that people know that there are public utilities in a county where there is water management. I just -- it's silly to me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. Could we have an answer to Commissioner Norris' question?- MR. VARNADOE: Can I address that as an attorney for the -- I have some other -- I need to understand the scope of what he is asking. MR. CUYLER: State your name. MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe, attorney. This is almost a 2,100-acre project. Mr. Norris, you are not suggesting that people that are adjacent to Airport Road need to be notified of a sewage-treatment plant that may be over two miles away, are you, sir? I'm just trying to understand the scope of what you are asking -- what you're asking us to do. And more specifically -- because this has some legal ramifications to the developer there that are very, very serious. I mean, if you guys go out there globally, then everybody's in the same boat. When you ask us to voluntarily do something, now you're putting some liability on us that I'm not sure that we really need to have. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Varnadoe, I've asked Westinghouse Communities to voluntarily notify the respective buyers of the property within that development; to notify them of this sewer-treatment plant. Either they will or they won't. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. But what part of the development are you asking us to do that in? The whole development? If you'll look -- will you help us up there and show us where we are, where you see those words up there? In other words, the majority of this project is not approximate to this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if we can define what area we would like that disclosed in, then you don't have a problem? MR. VARNADOE: Well, and then I want to know what kind of disclosure you really want. You understand that Westinghouse is a horizontal developer; we sell to subdevelopers that actually build the product and sell to you, the consumer. We can certainly take it so far, but we have very little contact with most of the actual buyers of our residences in the project. Now we have some; we have some direct home sales, but a lot of this is done through signature communities or other people who actually have -- who actually do the development in the community. I'm just -- I'm sorry, but I have some real legal problems. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you have certain restrictions in the Pelican Harsh Community as a whole? MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And when you pass that property on to the builders, signature communities or whatever, I assume you alert them to what those restrictions are and hold them responsible to build within those restrictions? MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I assume, in turn, they alert the owner in some way shape or form? MR. VARNADOE: There I don't know, sir. You may have lost the privity of contract. When we have privity of contract, that means we have a contractual relationship. I can control that. Once it goes beyond that, I have lost control. If you are asking us to put that in our community documents, where the location of this is, I submit to you that if there's one thing that most people aren't going to read when they're handed to them is -- that Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions is this thick (indicating). I'm trying to be very practical here with you. It is a problem that I'm not sure you have really considered all the ramifications. How far away, Mr. Norris, were you considering having this notification? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I haven't considered that at all. I know you have an extensive development there, and to try and put a feet limit on it or mile limit on it or something to that affect would be sort of difficult. Perhaps everything west of Airport Road -- that's Airport Road there in the middle? MR. VARNADOE: That's one mile. MS. WATTS: If I could just, Commissioners, mention one thing that may or may not have any relevance on this discussion. 1,100 acres of Pelican Marsh is already zoned, and sales have been ongoing and single family residents actually live there already, and the majority of that property is west of the sewage-treatment facility as well as southwest and south. And that's where development is going, and that is already in the approximate area of the sewage-treatment facility. I would -- on behalf of Westinghouse, I would say that we would prefer to work with you on something in the future that would apply to the whole county. And I think at this point in time, unless Lou would like to jump up and say something, we would not agree to voluntarily notify. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you be willing to voluntarily join whatever we establish for a county-wide policy when that comes about? MS. WATTS: I don't think that, Commissioner, we could say unequivocally, "yes." But I would say that we would be more than happy to work on that committee. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because there's -- as much as the argument goes, it's not black and white. You're making it black and white, either you're in or out. If we don't do anything here, at no point are you required to, and I think we've lost the opportunity for thousands of people to be made aware. MS. WATTS: I think, Commissioner, at this point in time with the -- the situation is really not defined; we don't know what distances we're talking about, how we could influence something like this. I just don't think that we could agree do something at this point in time. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any further questions or comments? MS. WATTS: Could I mention, for the record, a point to Commissioner Hancock's question, just to get on the record, regarding the parks and recreation? For your information, the Pelican Marsh Community will generate 3.2 -- over 3.2 million dollars in parks and recreation impact fee credits, which equates to one regional park and two community parks per the County Park assessment. Also, I would like to hand out -- Mr. Nino indicated earlier that there were some language missing from the DO regarding one of the transportation situations, and I would just like to hand that out to you, which is part of the Regional Planning Council approval. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Ms. Watts, I'm sorry, one of my concerns was having such a large community and not really having -- I understand once we receive the impacts fees we could come back around and then buy property from you to do a park in Pelican Harsh. But such a large population, I just want to have a park very close to them if not in their community. I guess we will handle that at a later time. The only other comment or question I have is was there some question as to the buffer on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach Road and then some resolution presented to the Pine Ridge residents? Because I would just like to hear that, for the record; know what those people can expect to have; and see if it matches what I think they're looking for. MS. WATTS: Commissioners, a long time ago -- two or three years ago -- when we first started discussing the County Transportation Department, the agreement that was entered into between ourselves and the county to do the environmental permitting, one of the issues related to the environment was protecting the Pine Ridge residents, specifically those along Hickory. And we had offered to the residents of Pine Ridge to construct a buffer-berm system on the south side of Vanderbilt Beach Road equal to whatever we were going to place on the north side. And they had asked us to include that in the PUD document; and that is in the PUD document, on Page 8-4. And that is at our cost. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that a minimum of six foot? MS. WATTS: It's a minimum of six feet in height, and it would -- well, except for the area adjacent to Lake Bunting where there is not enough room to actually construct a berm. And in that location it would be canopy trees and shrubbery that's spelled out in the stipulation. That would be completed no later than when Vanderbilt Beach Road is open for public use. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The minimum six-foot height is what I was concerned with. That wasn't the initial height? MS. WATTS: No, that was -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was that the initial height? MS. WATTS: Well, we really didn't talk about the height. Initially we were just looking at concept schedules. But that is the height, and that information has been sent to the Pine Ridge group. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No further questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any further questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Before we take a vote, I have one last question for Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: You earlier mentioned a thick set of community covenants and restrictions, I believe you called them. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you have any objection of putting the disclaimer in there? MR. VARNADOE: I have, I think, a better suggestion. The one document I think we all read is the actual contract for purchase, because that's the one that really -- where the rubber meets the road, if you would. We would agree, Mr. Norris, that until the county comes up with a global approach to this to, in the contract for purchase, put a notification of the proximity to this regional facility for all property located within 500 feet of that facility. And then we would also agree that whatever the county ordinance that globally approaches this, we'll comply with your county ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I try to picture the Lely Community 500 feet, and I know the impact and turnout we had far exceeded 500 feet. I have two questions. One, it would make me more comfortable if you would increase that 500 feet. Also, you said until such a time we come up with a global, I assume you don't mean then you'll stop and you won't be subject to the global either. I assume you will not do one or the other. MR. VARNADOE: What I said was very clearly, Mr. Constantine, that when you adopt a global approach, we will comply with that. So if you draw up something that is 300 feet or 1,000 feet or a quarter of a mile, whatever you adopt, at the point you adopt that globally, we will then comply with that ordinance. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. VARNADOE: But until that time, our suggestion is 500 feet, and it would be in contractual documents. And you need to note for the record that some property that would fall within that scope has already been contracted for and sold, and we are not going -- we are applying this prospectively; we are not going to try and go back and redo contracts where we already have contracts for sale. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any further questions for Mrs. Watts? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Cuyler, are there any public speakers? MR. CUYLER: There are no public speakers on either of these two items. MR. VARNADOE: Could I, for the record, just make one more comment, Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. MR. VARNADOE: There was one stipulation in the -- I'll get use to this, don't worry. There was one stipulation in the transportation that we tried to, from the Regional Planning Council, that when we tried to merge that into being subject to concurrency, we took out -- or thought it was unnecessary. The Regional Planning staff has asked that we put that back in there, and we got copies of that. It's also in your regional planning -- Staff Regional Planning Council Report. It's fairly lengthy, and it requires us to do a reanalysis. And I just want to make sure that you understand that is going back into the development order, if that's approved today; that we had agree with Regional Planning Council staff to at least proffer that for you to put back in the development order. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's the transportation language? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, ma'am, thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there additional comment, discussion or questions? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: If not, then I'll close the public hearing. Thank you. Is there a question? MR. CUYLER: Yes, Madam Chairman. I would, just before you make your motion, I would take the C-1 as your first motion and then the fezone as your second motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is on the DRI? MR. CUYLER: Development order first, the C-1. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which one? MR. CUYLER: Petition DRI-93-1. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which one would carry the proffer to include that in the sales contract? MR. CUYLER: The transportation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, not transportation. MR. CUYLER: That would be in the zoning; transportation would go in the development plan. The fezone would take the language that you are talking about. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So the development order we're taking first is C-i? MR. CUYLER: Correct. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I will make a motion that we approve Petition DRI-93-1 with the stipulation that Westinghouse includes in their sales contracts a disclaimer concerning the waste-water treatment plant. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Excuse me. That belongs in the development order. This is the DRI that we are doing. MR. CUYLER: You could put them in both unless there is an objection. It's probably more applicable to both. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Which one does it belong in? MR. VARNADOE: It belongs in the PUD document. That's the zoning document. The development order really addresses regional issues. And that means if later we change that, then we have to go back to DCA, and I don't think that's something you want. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Close enough. MR. VARNADOE: So let's keep that local. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me restate my motion. As I stated before, I make a motion to approve Petition DRI-90-1 -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 93-1. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me, 93-1. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will second that motion. Does that include the transportation language? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The transportation language. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Norris and a second by Commissioner Constantine to approve Petition DRI-93-1 with the transportation adjustment included. Is there any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Being none I will call the question. All those in favor please say, "Aye." (The Commissioners responded simultaneously.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No one is opposed; motion passes five/zero. Item #1283 ORDINANCE 95-4 RE PETITION PUD-94-9, ALAN D. REYNOLDS, AICP, OF WILSON, MILLER, BARTON AND PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING WCN COHMUNITIES, INC. REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD AND "A/ST", TO PUD FOR A PROJECT TITLED PELICAN HARSH NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS (COMPANION TO ITEM 12C1) Do we have a motion now on the PUD Agreement? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. I will also make a motion that we approve PUD-94-9, and that we will also accept the stipulation as brought forth by Mr. Varnadoe concerning the disclosure on sales contracts -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will second that motion. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- Concerning the waste-water treatment plant. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner Norris and a second by Commissioner Constantine. Is there any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Being none, I will call the question. All those in favor please say, "Aye." (The Commissioners responded simultaneously.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There being none, motion passes five/zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just as a suggestion, maybe we set some kind of time line, maybe the next three months, we try to get started on that overlay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, in the communications -- on this long list of communications items this afternoon, which we may not get to, the priority workshop was on that list. But we probably need to add this overlay concept to that. MR. DORRILL: Is that something that you might like, first, to refer to your Development Services Advisory Committee and let it come back from them, or how do you want to handle it? COMHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I think that makes a lot of sense. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It seems fair to me. Does that sound good to you? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think I would like to see it on the list, so we don't lose it over time. MR. DORRILL: Very well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Does that sound agreeable? MR. VARNADOE: I would like to thank the Board. MS. WATTS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Item #12B4 ORDINANCE 95-5 RE PETITION PUD-94-8, DWIGHT NADEAU OF HCANLY, ASHER & ASSOCIATES, P.A., REPRESENTING JOHN BRUGGER, TRUSTEE, AND DELORES DEEKS, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" AND "PUD" TO "PUD" TO BE KNOWN AS WILSHIRE LAKES PUD LOCATED NORTH OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS The next item is 12-B-4. Petition PUD-94-8. MR. MILK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bryan Milk. I am presenting Petition PUD-94-8. The petitioner wishes to amend the Wilshire Lakes PUD by adding thirty acres to the subject site, which will in affect increase the size of the project, 216 acres to 246 acres. The petitioner also wishes to add 120 dwelling units for the property, which would increase the density for 432 units to 552 units which would be a density increase from 2.0 units per acre to 2.2 units per acre while within the threshold of the gross management plan. Of the 552 units provided in the Wilshire Lakes PUD, 224 units are slated for multifamily development; 104 units are currently presold and are within the Fieldstone Village Subdivision, which is an eight-acre site development plan located near the project entrance. The remaining 120 units would be built as a two-story condominium project in what they propose as Keystone Village. The remainder 328 units would be developed throughout the Wilshire Lakes PUD, which is currently platted. This subdivision is a private-gated subdivision with access provided off Vanderbilt Beach Road. The properties to the west and to the north are primarily undeveloped agricultural properties. Land to the east and abutting the subject property is Interstate 75; and Vanderbilt Beach Road abuts the southern project boundary. The petitioner, through the PUD process, has committed to set aside 60 percent of the area for common open space. Of that percentage, 58 acres will be set aside as natural vegetation. A Planning Commission meeting was held on January 5, 1995; the Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval -- vote, eight to zero. There was no one in the audience speaking for or against the petition. However, the petitioner provided staff with two petitions from the residents of Fieldstone Village and the residents of the single-family subdivision, both approving of the acreage and dwelling unit amendment. This concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions for staff? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Milk, the last time this particular PUD came before us, what was the request at that point? MR. MILK: The request at that time was to add two acres to what we call Fieldstone Village, and, I believe, approximately 80 dwelling units. At that time the Board at that time approved the two-unit additional property, but for some reason cut back on the overall dwelling unit count for that item. I think there was some input about the growth management plan and about the density in that particular Keystone Village -- oh, I'm sorry, the site development plan. In other words, it's approximately eight acres; there's 104 units in that particular area; there are 13 dwelling units per the acre. As proposed, with the 30-acre addition and the 120 dwelling units, that would equal four units per acre. The overall project density is at 2.2 dwelling units per acre. So with all that in mind, the Board had some discussion on density and additional land; that density being too much for the two acres being sought at that time. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. This request that we are seeing today, is this a modification of a request that we have seen before? MR. MILK: No, sir, it is not. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is all new, the 30 acres? MR. MILK: This is a brand new 30 acres. Actually, what this parcel -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Was this 30 acres contained within the PUD before? MR. MILK: No, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: This is being added to the PUD? MR. MILK: This is being added to the PUD. It is currently zoned agricultural; and it is currently a landlocked parcel. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The existing density is 2.0? MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if we do this it becomes 2.2? MR. MILK: 2.2. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's an increase, but 2.2 isn't exactly Dade County now, is it? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any other questions of the staff? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Point well taken. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any other questions of the staff? MR. DORRILL: You have registered speakers. Mr. Nadeau is here. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nadeau are you here to answer questions, or are you here for a presentation? MR. NADEAU: I have a very short presentation, Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. MR. NADEAU: For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau with the firm of HcAnly, Asher & Associates. I am representing the applicants, Delores Deeks and John N. Brugger as trustee. As Mr. Milk stated, we are proposing to add 120 dwelling units to the overall PUD through the addition of a 30-acre parcel. To give you a little bit of history behind the development as it is right now, as Mr. Milk stated, the Fieldstone Village 1 and 2 is a part of the Phase 1 of the Wilshire, which has been -- all infrastructure has been in place; the property has been recorded. Unit 2, being the area to the north, has been approved for construction and is under construction at this point. Our Unit 3 would be the addition of these 30 acres to the Wilshire Lakes, of which we would be proposing the 120 multifamily dwelling units. Now, of that 30 acres, approximately, eight acres of that site is considered to be jurisdictional both to the Army Corp of Engineers, Collier County, and South Florida Water Management District. The entire eight acres are going to be preserved as conservation easement as part of our conscientious effort to do a proper planning. Now, based on the significant and substantive information that was provided in our PUD application and rezoning applications, we've shown that the internal and external traffic circulation has been analyzed, both public facilities demand drainage, emergency service. Archaeologic and historic considerations have all been identified and addressed. That would be found as a result of the rezoning finding of the Collier County Planning Commission's Staff Report as well as the PUD findings. Based on all that information as well as the addition of 62 signatures in support from residents inside the development, I would humbly request your positive approval of this petition. I would be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Nadeau? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nadeau -- MR. NADEAU: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- On the north side of this 30 acres, is there an opportunity, perhaps, for you to gather some more property and expand -- MR. BRUGGER: Can I answer some questions? MR. NADEAU: Mr. Brugger, trustee, would like to approach you. MR. BRUGGER: What I would like to say is that we are attempting to accommodate a landowner here who is landlocked. They have approached us, and they had sat down and discussed with us their right to have access because they have 1-75 on one side and it's all wetlands on the other. And we have mutually agreed on them joining our PUD so that we would have architectural control. They are providing contributions to our association, because it is a gated community. And, basically, we are working together to resolve a land-lock situation. All the property to the north is owned, basically, by one family, the Jaeger (phonetic) family. The section line lies on the north boundary on the 30-acre parcel. The property just to the east of it is zoned, I believe, by the State of Florida. So we do not anticipate -- we did not anticipate bringing land in, but the property owners have no way of getting to their property otherwise. We have mutually agreed on a form of development. I have gone to all the residents in the community; I've brought in a petition with sixty of the people living there, which is just about everybody that is in residence now, in support of it. We would rather all work together to provide the access and have agreed on the development. They are going to provide another community pool. And it really would be, to the best of my knowledge -- unless someone else can come in and show they can't get in any other way. We are trying to resolve a landlock; they can't go north. They can only go south, and it's all wetlands over here. All the land to the west is owned by one farmer, David Touchstone (phonetic). I don't anticipate any future amendment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's a very good answer. I have to commend you for that answer. It seems to me it wasn't the answer to the question, though. MR. BRUGGER: The land to the north is part of a DRI extension; it could be zoned up to seven units an acre, lying directly to the north. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the question was do you have the opportunity to expand any other direction with this PUD. MR. BRUGGER: With this PUD, no. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any other questions for the petitioner? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have just one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It doesn't show up on this map very well, and maybe it's just because I can't see that map very well. But if you look at this map, to my left or your right, is it just coincidence or was it designed to look roughly like the State of Florida? MR. BRUGGER: No, I believe that would be coincidence, Commissioner Constantine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm still not sure that we got a complete answer to Commissioner Norris' question. The concern that I believe he was voicing -- whether or not, it's the concern that runs for me -- is there additional property that you may bring back at a later date to add to this PUD or to this development, or do you have any other development plans in the area? And not that having any is necessarily a bad thing, but since the question was asked, I would like to know the answer. MR. NADEAU: I can respond on behalf of our firm as well as to conversations that Mr. Brugger and I have had. We have not been given any direction to pursue any analysis or rezoning endeavors on the northerly -- Section 30, I believe it is, to the north of the subject property; nor has Mr. Brugger indicated to me any intentions to expand; nor has Mrs. Deeks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And, in fairness, we are only making our decision on what is in front of us today, not on what might or might not appear at some distant future date. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The only element that I would offer as caution, more to the petitioner, Mr. Brugger, than anyone else, is the piece you are bringing in itself is four units per acre. So even though we add the density together and it looks overall very low, you are bringing it in at the upper end of the urban area. So I think the concern of looking at future expansion, bringing other areas in at four units an acre to a development that is originally permitted at two units an acre, that there's a character difference there. And I only offer that for clarification, not requiring an answer. I just want to put that out there. So if this pops up in three years with another addition to it, it might require a harder look by this Board. MR. NADEAU: I can tell you we have no intention of expanding, and we have specifically -- if this gentleman wasn't landlocked, we wouldn't be expanding now. We're trying to accommodate someone there. Our only potential in the future would be if the property owner, the State of Florida, comes in and says, "We need access to our land." What do we do with it?" Otherwise, the people -- I've looked at it, I'm an attorney. I have looked at it from a legal point of view. I have to provide access. This was all one tract of land in the past. I have no choice but to provide this man access. And through negotiations as to what he wants to put there and what he is willing to provide to our community, we have reached the agreement on what he could do. So we don't want to expand north; we will not expand north. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any further questions for the petitioner or the staff? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All right. I will close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madame Chairman, I will make a motion to approve Petition PUD-94-8. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a second? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion by Commissioner Constantine and a second by Commissioner Hancock to approve Petition PUD-94-8. I presume that includes all stipulations? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With that in mind, is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'll call the question. All those in favor please say, "Aye." (All Commissioners responded simultaneously. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There being none, motion passes five to zero. MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 95-72, RE SV-94-5, SANDEE HUHFORD OF THOMAS SIGNS AND AWNING CO., REPRESENTING NAPLES JOINT VENTURE (FREEDOME SQUARE K-MART STORE), REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENT OF ONE WALL SIGN TO ALLOW TWO ADDITIONAL SIGNS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LELY RESORT PUD KNOWN AS FREEDOM SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. The next item is 12 -- I'm sorry, we finished with 12. 13-A-2, Petition SV-94-5. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Chahram Badamtchian, county planning. This is a sign variance for a new K-Mart in Lely. The petitioner is requesting to install three signs instead of one as allowed by Code. They are proposing to have one K-Mart sign; one garden center sign; and one pharmacy sign, three separate signs. A similar variance for Target was denied by this Board a few months ago. There is no hardship, therefore the staff recommends denial. MR. DORRILL: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions for staff? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the -- I recall that Target question. In there -- have they suggested to keep the total below 250 as well, or have they -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No, they were planning to increase it to 300, I believe. And here they are keeping it below 250. They have the option of having all three signs cjustered together, but they wanted three separate signs. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But there is some distinction between the two in that Target had requested an increase in total -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Fifty more feet. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: If I can just get clarification. Our regulation permits these three signs if they were -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Together. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- Congregated together? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But does not permit these three signs if they are separate? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any questions? MR. DORRILL: This came up the last time that we discussed it with Target. The only thing I can relate it to is if you're familiar with the new Winn Dixie store that is across from Target, it says, like, "Winn Dixie Market"; and I think it says "Deli" and"Pharmacy" underneath. And that's a cjuster signed and otherwise has all of those three different entities within the normal signage allowed. So that's a point of information. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The cjuster can be considered one sign. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is something that I think requires -- if you look at Page 5 of 13-A-2, showing the front of the store, the location of the signs, it's just an unobtrusive request; it doesn't -- you know, I'm as concerned about the glaring proliferation of signs in certain areas. But this appears to be pretty basic and straightforward. So I would ask the Board to take a look at that. That's my only comment so far. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So far. Petitioner, do you have something you want to say? MR. DAVIS: Yes. Madam Chairman and Members of the Board, my name is Gregory Davis. I am employed by Thomas Signs and Awning Company. We are fortunate in some cases to be the sign consultant for K-Mart. Just to address some of the issues that I've heard earlier -- the reason why we don't, in most cases, cjuster these signs together, for example the Winn Dixie location that was mentioned -- Winn Dixie uses what we call in the business a Channel Letter, which the letters are actually all compacted into one. If the Board is familiar with the K-Mart logo, the K-Mart logo, like the one that's on the front of this store, is a 10 foot by 11 foot, 122 square foot signage. That's fairly large plastic faces that read K-Mart over the front of it. To incorporate these letters would kind of be rather asinine. These letters are black -- excuse me -- red, plastic, not illuminated, stud mounted letters that would look rather out of place and awkward if we cjustered them next to and put them -- to try and make what the Board wants us to do with one sign. We have a store front here that stretches more than 426 feet. To take the K-Mart, K-Mart Garden Shop, and Pharmacy cjustered in over the entrance of the store, it wouldn't make the store very pretty at all. Again, 426 feet. We are asking for three signs that are still below the maximum allowed under the Code. And it's more pleasing to the eye to the public for us to use the concept that we have used in other municipalities by spreading them out over a 426 foot store front. I will be more than willing to answer any -- again, and I think the key to this is we are looking at a store front that is several hundred feet long. That has got to be anywhere from 50 to 100 or so feet from the -- actually from the right-of-way of the street, we're talking about. Again, we are talking about plastic letters, not illuminating it, stud mounted. I mean, it would -- we're not asking for anything that is going to be a large glare or highlight the store or light up the front of the building at all. But to try and cjuster all three of these signs on a 426 foot store front in the middle of the building is just not going to be very attractive. And I think that's the reason why we're asking to do what we're asking. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes, I have one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think she was first. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You are too kind. I just want to say I think it's important that we not lose site and not get tied up so much in the specific regulations that we lose site of what their mission is. In this case, we are going to make the neighborhood look better if we permit this variance. And that is, after all, what our goal is. So let's -- my wish would be that this Board not get caught up in the technicalities and then look at the practicality and approve the request. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Davis, I think you said you do this work for K-Hart around -- MR. DAVIS: Yes, sir. Unfortunately, I drew the card to do the variances all the time. Yes, we ended up -- we ended up lucky with K-Hart's -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You don't like being here? MR. DAVIS: We do pretty much all the K-Hart stores in the United States and Puerto Rico. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Where is your company located? Where are you from? MR. DAVIS: Our company is based out of Clearwater, Florida. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Clearwater? MR. DAVIS: I have sat here from nine this morning, very patiently, to address the Board. K-Hart is rather stubborn, I guess, for lack of another word, as to try and keep their stores in some level of uniform. Again, for those of us who don't know that K-Hart has a pharmacy, this is the only way that the general public would know they have a pharmacy in the store. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I can understand K-Hart being stubborn about it; however, here in Collier County, we're fairly stubborn about our signs. MR. DAVIS: I understand that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We may be butting heads here in a minute. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any more questions? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, theoretically, anyway, we're suppose to find some sort of hardship in order to grant this? MR. CUYLER: Correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would it be -- surely between the four of us we can come up with some sort of hardship here. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Who is the one left out? MR. CUYLER: If you look at Page 7 and beyond in your agenda package, those are the items that staff reviews and those are the criteria for the variance. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My thought is perhaps having something to do with the pharmacy or perhaps having to do with the -- I'm not sure how much of a hardship aesthetics can be, but if it's certainly more attractive in one format than the other -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: While you're looking for that -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cuyler, what page did you refer us to? MR. CUYLER: Page 7 of your agenda package, there is criteria set out; and then it's responded to, and it goes on to the following page. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It starts with, "Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location"? Is that what you are showing us? MR. CUYLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My interest is, like Commissioner MAC'KIE, it's probably in our best interest to approve this. I just want to make sure that we do so legally. I'm looking for your assistance. MR. CUYLER: If you are going to approve this and you would like a basis, I would suggest to you two things. First of all, the -- even though it should have been contemplated in the ordinance -- and that's going to be the second thing I want to talk about -- perhaps the length of the wall in terms of lineal feet down the front of it gives some basis. And, secondly, you need to send this to your staff. If you are going to approve this, you need to send this to your staff and get some input from them as to these types of situations. Because you have looked at some of these things in the past, at least one of them, that was sort of similar, though not very similar. If you are going to be looking at these things and you want to approve it on a -- if you think the gentleman has presented a legitimate, logical case, you probably need to get your staff to look at the variance procedure in the ordinance and find out if there's not something -- something else we need. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for purposes of the record, I want to reiterate the very similar case you refer to was asking for an increase of what was allowed by Code. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So there is a distinct difference here. MR. CUYLER: That's why I didn't use the word "identical." COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, okay. MR. CUYLER: But, yeah, I would recommend that that go to your staff. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Staff is trying to give us more information. MR. MULHERE: I just want to indicate that we have begun to look at the Sign Code, sort of, comprehensively. There has been some requests from the community and some requests from the Steering Committee to take a look at some of the issues. And with more direction, we'll continue that process with a, you know -- obviously not for this LDC Amendment Cycle but very possibly the next LDC Amendment Cycle -- to come back. And one of the things we'd be looking at is more specific criteria relative to requests for variance from the Sign Code. This criteria really is generic to any request for a variance and may be more appropriate for a, you know, a variance relative to development setbacks and the like. And maybe we could look at more specific criteria relative to the Sign Code -- for example, the length of the wall providing that the size in aggregate doesn't exceed the 250 that we've established and so on and so forth. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The last point you hit on was one I was heading to. Our sign ordinance states a sign or talks about a sign and not necessarily an aggregate total; is that correct? MR. HULHERE: That's correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My feeling is that we have developed a sign ordinance that we intended to apply to a single user and a single building and a single sign. However, that is not a real world application. In many cases we have a single building with four or five potential users in it that may want to aggregate their signs and currently do. They put them all next to each other, and it counts as one sign. It would appear to me that we have restricted the fair advertising element from retailers to the public by doing that, particularly in buildings with such a length as this. MR. HULHERE: It's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not criticizing you; I'm setting up where I am trying to go with this. And that is that under Number 3 in their application it states, "A literal interpretation of the Zoning Code would force a grouping of K-Mart signage and thus decrease consumer identification of services offered within the K-Mart store." If I need a prescription filled and it's an emergency and I need to know the nearest place, I don't want a poor signage ordinance keeping me from finding out or recognizing there's a pharmacy in that building. And if our decision today, to allow a variance, allows the placement of the letters "Pharmacy" so they are clearly identifiable, I think we have provided a service to the community. And that's where I'll be going, and that's one of my concerns, that our sign ordinance is not taken into account if the ability to aggregate your signage to a level as opposed to just placing one sign on the building. I would hate to see somebody drive by and not know it's there when they may need it. MR. HULHERE: And I just wanted to add if it was three separate businesses, if it was not K-Hart's pharmacy but someone else's pharmacy, then they could have a sign and it could be 250 square feet. MR. CUYLER: Madame Chairman, let me clarify one thing. This document in there is the petitioner's. So if you find there is merit to the reasons under each of the criteria, as you just did under one of them, then you would be able to grant the variance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: questions of staff? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: clarification, really. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Are there further Just one quick one, just a Commissioner Norris. If this variance is approved, we are still under the 250 square feet limit? HR. BADA_MTCHIAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: So it's just spread out in three locations? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, it's three signs just spread out. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Fine. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Being no further questions, Mr. Dotrill, are there any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. I take that back, Mr. Davis was the only one. MR. DAVIS: That's me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's you. In this case you don't count. MR. DAVIS: No, ma'am, not in this case. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will make a motion to approve the item subject to or as a result of the merit of the petition, both the paperwork presented and the oral presentation today, and also taking into account Mr. Hancock's comments about the pharmacy. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will second it. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second. Is there any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. I'm not going to support the motion. And I'm not going to support it merely -- and only because there is no hardship that's been brought forward. I agree that, perhaps, we need to change the criteria; but if that's so, I think we need to change it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner, before you call the vote, you don't consider Mr. Hancock's scenario a hardship? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, not a hardship within the criteria for the Code. I will not support it. Does this vote require four? MR. CUYLER: Just three. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just three, okay. With that in mind, I will call the question. All those in favor, please say "Aye." (Commissioners MAC'KIE, Hancock, Norris, and Constantine all responded simultaneously.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those opposed? Aye. Motion passes four to one. MR. DAVIS: Madam Chairman and Members of the Board, I thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you for sitting with us all day. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's been nice to have you. MR. DORRILL: The Chairman of the Board of K-Mart lives here in Naples, someone should tell him you did a good job. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He did do a good job. The only problem I was having is I couldn't identify a hardship on this. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that will be changed in the very near future. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I shall -- I would like to see it changed. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 95-73, PETITION V-94-17, DAVID LONGBINE REPRESENTING JOHN AND DEBORAH WOGAN, REQUESTING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 30 FEET TO 25 FEET TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 2 CAR ATTACHED GARAGE - ATTACHED Next item, 13-A-3, Petition V-94-17. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. And Mrs. Wogan are requesting a partial variance from the required side yard setback of 30 feet to 25 feet in order to build a two-car garage. They have a single-family house in the Pine Ridge Extension Subdivision. The house is 49 feet from the property line, and they are proposing to build a two-car garage which is going to be 25 feet from the property line. I received a -- the staff has received a petition signed by surrounding property owners favoring this variance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Favoring? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. There, again, there is no land related hardship. The staff has recommended denial. The CCPC, by a unanimous vote, recommend denial also. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The staff could find no hardship? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There is no hardship. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He could put the garage somewhere else? MR. WOGAN: There's very little room. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Well, they could build a 19-foot garage for two cars without a variance, or they can build a two-car garage, a detached garage. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would they have to put them in one in front of the other? In a 19-foot garage, is that what you are suggesting? MR. WOGAN: Yes. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The standard garage doors are six feet wide. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A two car garage -- two cars would fit in a garage 19 feet wide? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Two compact cars. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two compact cars. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not a '72 Buick Skylark. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there additional questions for the staff? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is the -- it's kind of at an angle? But have you received a letter of agreement from the property owner nearest to the affected property line? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, I have it in the file. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So, in other words, the person who is -- really the only person that is going to be affected by this, which is the nearest property owner, has said it's okay with him? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Has no objection. Probably nobody is going to be affected, setbacks are so great in here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I ask what the vegetation between the proposed building and the property line is? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There are some trees. I was at the site, like, a month and a half ago. I don't recall the trees; there were some. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see a wood fence and chain-link fence. Am I looking at the right one? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I was just wondering about pine trees and all that kind of stuff, what goes there. And I guess maybe there will be time for the petitioner to make some remarks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Wogan? MR. WOGAN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Do you have something you want to add to this? MR. WOGAN: Pretty much the garage is -- in order to get a two-car garage where I needed it, I really wanted a fifteen foot variance. And Chahram assured me that that just wouldn't fly. So I re-adjusted my scale down to get two cars. The real reason for it is it's attached. I can do a garage elsewhere or one single garage, but I really -- for security reasons and also there is a huge slab there, so for a financial reason I would like for the garage to be attached, so a five-foot variance. My immediate neighbors that it would affect the most are very good friends. And as a matter of fact, it will perhaps help our relationship because I have two teen-age boys that get a little loud. And this garage would be more of a buffer for them. But there are trees. And as Chahram has said, there's -- he has an additional 30-foot setback in mind. We're still way apart. It's really not a big issue. Although from a financial standpoint, it would be much better for me to do a two-car attached garage if I could have the five-foot variance. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Are there questions for the petitioner? MR. DORRILL: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason you are putting it on that side is because you have 50 feet and on the other side of the house you only have 37.3 which would require you either get a 7.3 foot garage or another variance? MR. WOGAN: That's correct. And the driveway, as you can see by the picture there, is already there and the slab is already there. In fact, we are only able to use about half of that slab even with the five-foot variance. The five-foot variance really is the bare minimum that we need to do a two-car, side by side. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you are granted -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. If you built a garage as wide as the slab presently exists -- MR. WOGAN: That's a 15-foot variance. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's would be a 15-foot variance. So all you would have there would be ten feet? MR. WOGAN: That is correct. I also missed the preliminary-- the hearing, Chahram being aware of it. But he assured me they would deny it anyhow, so I thought, "well." You know, that was stupidity on my part. But there was that time where he more or less said that it was his opinion that they would turn it down anyhow because it wasn't really a hardship. I don't mean to be putting you in the middle. Am I? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: He's quite used to it. MR. WOGAN: I'm sorry. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I cannot talk for the Board. MR. WOGAN: Well, I was just -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's okay, new process to you. MR. WOGAN: Yes, it is. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Wogan, I don't suppose two teen-agers qualify as a hardship. Mr. Wogan, what you are suggesting then is you would like to build this so you would have one single two-car garage? MR. WOGAN: Attached. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Attached. The slab exists? MR. WOGAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's already there? MR. WOGAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This will obviously save you some dollars? MR. WOGAN: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The neighbor doesn't object? MR. WOGAN: I went specifically with a survey and a diagram to each neighbor that was even reasonably close, not just the one per side, the one behind me and both sides. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: To the best of your knowledge no one objects? MR. WOGAN: Exactly. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What kind of vehicles do you own? HR. WOGAN: I own a 1934 Ford pick-up. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's all I need to hear. Would it be fair to assume if this is left out in the open -- MR. WOGAN: It's currently sitting under a kind of shed with a carport over it; and it needs to be in a garage. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It would be detrimental to the value? MR. WOGAN: Detrimental to the value, absolutely. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's an awful hardship. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I cannot in good wisdom allow that to happen to a '34 Ford. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there further questions for the petitioner or staff? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, are there any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There being none, I will close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion that we approve Petition V-94-17. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? (No response.) MR. WOGAN: It's been a long day. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those in favor, please say "Aye." (All Commissioners responded simultaneously.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those opposed? (No response.) MR. WOGAN: Sorry, Chahram. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: He doesn't take it personally. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The motion passes -- MR. WOGAN: I hope not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The motion passes five/zero. And I, too, see a '34 truck deteriorating in the weather a hardship. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 95-74, PETITION SV-94-4, EVA WEEKS REPRESENTING ROBERT L. WEEKS REQUESTING A 50 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 150 FOOT LOT FRONTAGE TO 100 FEET TO ALLOW FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A V-TYPE POLE SIGN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41) - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS The next item, 13-A-4. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Cuyler, I at one point was the agent of record for this property when it proceeded for a conditional use for its construction under my employment with Wilson, Miller, Barton, and Peet. My concern at this point, one, I have absolutely no vested interest financial or otherwise in this vested property; nor do I have a vested financial interest in Wilson, Miller. I see they are not involved in this at this point. But I wanted to state that for the record and request a clarification on a conflict of interest. MR. CUYLER: With regard to the Statute, again, as we discussed on a couple of occasions, just for the record, there has to be a financial gain or loss. If you have cut your ties, this is a past project, and there are no ties with Wilson, Miller than you are permitted to vote. And, in fact, under statutory provisions you are required to vote unless there is that type of conflict. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you for that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Petition SV-94-4. Mr. Saadeh. MR. SAADEH: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Sam Saadeh, Project Planning, for Petition SV-94-4. The petitioner is requesting a 50-foot variance from the required 15 -- a 50-foot variance from the required 150-foot lot frontage to 100 feet to allow for placement of a V-type pole sign. A conditional use for airboat tours and associated exhibits was approved by the Board on March 8, 1994. The subject property is the old railway corridor extending from U.S. 41 to Everglades City. It is surrounded by mangroves. It is extremely difficult to see the business from U.S. 41. The petitioner is requesting approval of the sign variance in order to provide the business with more exposure and visibility from U.S. 41. I need to bring to your attention that we had a phone call to Compliance Services that was the subject of a violation. Someone stated there are too many signs on the property. So I took another site visit last Thursday, January 19th, and the sign that is in question before you today is already on-site. Staff is asking that the Board give us some guidance whether or not the petitioner should pay twice the fee, which is the after-the-fact variance fee, and the building permit fee because one was not obtained. I will answer any questions that you have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Questions for staff? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have one on this schedule. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: There is a picture of a Panther's head at the top, and a picture of a snake on the left, and a picture of what on the right? MR. SAADEH: That's an alligator. I have a live picture if you'd like to see. The sign is already there. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That is troubling, that it's already there. And I note that the K-Hart, I think it was, application -- somebody today had to pay an after-the-fact fee. And it's troubling that the sign is already there. MS. WEEKS: Yes, Commissioners, I wish to apologize. It's pure ignorance. The sign was on the plan, and to our ignorance we thought that it was already okayed. So we do agree to pay double the fee or after-the-fact fee or whatever -- double the permit fee, or whatever you require. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The size of that sign is in conformance with sign regulations? MR. SAADEH: There is a restriction in the approval, if you chose to approve it, that they will meet the Code. I didn't actually measure the sign, but it's all spelled out in the staff report that it has to be 15 feet from the right-of-way; no higher than 25 feet; and the sign itself is no bigger than 100-square feet. And the petitioner is aware that it's a condition of approval. To answer your question, I did not measure that; I do not know whether it complies or not. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You didn't climb up there? MR. SAADEH: No. I should state for the record there is a hardship; there is a 1920 boat on site. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are you Mrs. Weeks? Will you identify yourself, please. MS. WEEKS: Eva Weeks. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions for the petitioner or staff? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Ms. Weeks, I'm not sure I was clear on your explanation of why you built the sign without a permit. MS. WEEKS: It was on the site development plans, and it was just pure ignorance. We just thought that once we had a site development plan that everything was okay that way; that that was part of the permitting. It was just pure ignorance on our part. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there other questions? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the sign was shown on the site development plan and the site development plan was approved, it occurs to me that we might bear some responsibility. I want to be fair; I don't want you to be paying double the fee. I'm confused. What's the practice for permitting the sign? MR. SAADEH: There was -- the sign did show on the initial condition-and-use plan; and the sign did show on the site development. However, there is language there that the approval of this plan does not include the sign. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see. MR. SAADEH: And there is a condition in this report itself that the approval of this still would require a sign permit. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And the sign permit has not been gotten yet? MR. SAADEH: That's correct. In talking to the petitioner Bob Weeks, Eva's husband, on-site he was not aware that he had to get a sign permit; and they erected prior to getting a permit. They didn't know. I did inform him that he would need one. She knows, and they are willing to pay double the fee. We are asking for you guidance to make the call. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, on this item we have to find a hardship or there has to be one readily apparent? I appreciate the 1920 boat; however, this particular property -- and I'm going to mention this from experience -- has something that's unique that the adjacent properties don't have. If you are traveling down U.S. 41, just before you get to this property, on the right-hand side, there's another airboat ride facility. It was constructed kind of in the middle of some grass area. And they made their building readily visible by, basically, mashing the grass down. As you drive by, it looks like the area has been flattened. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The other one or this one? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The other one. MS. WEEKS: Not me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the one prior to this particular one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that the one that has the lease with the Collier family? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. And, again, I am not pointing fingers, but the bottom line is that they are able to do something with the vegetation to make their building visible. This particular property, being 100 feet wide has mangroves on both side. I think we all can appreciate the permitting responsibility when it comes to mangroves. In order for anyone to even know they are there, some type of signage is required. And whether it's 100 or 150 feet, best of luck to you, because that's a long way from the road. MS. WEEKS: It is a long way; it's very hard. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the difference between 150 or 100 feet for a sign, as long as it complies with the rest of the sign ordinance, you know, I don't think that's obtrusive on the roadway. But I will say that the vegetation in the immediate area does make it impossible to clear a visual to the building. I mean, you can argue they should have considered that, but at least it is an element to consider in looking at any particular variance for the property. MR. SAADEH: Staff would agree with you, Commissioner Hancock. And I should add to that that this has been a railroad for the longest time, and it became inactive in 1950. It just sort of happens to be 100 feet wide as opposed to 150, which is a requirement for a sign variance. So they can't possibly get any more land. And another thing, there is a structure on-site that sits 360 feet from U.S. 41. The petitioner chose to use the same structure as opposed to building a new one closer to the road and impact the mangroves even more. So I do believe there is a hardship other than the boat. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there any questions? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, ma'am. Who erected the sign for you? MS. WEEKS: My husband, my son, my son-in-law. It wasn't a sign company. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: together. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Everybody sort of pitched Any further questions? Mr. Dotrill, are there any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Being no speakers, I will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll move we have approval. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: At the risk of being variance happy today, I will second that. I'm not real happy about approving all these variances, but in this case with vegetation around it I will second the motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner MAC'KIE, does your motion include merely approval or are you going to address the payment of double the -- after-the-fact variance fees? And what about the building permit? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. I understood that they had already committed to pay double the fee. MS. WEEKS: We're willing to do that. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: They're willing to do that if instructed to. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I thought that we had instructed them to whether we approved it or not. I think it's appropriate that they should pay double the fee for the application, not the approval. So, yes, it does include paying double the fee; and, yes, it is subject to getting a sign permit which will require payment of the fees for that as well. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: asking? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: accordingly. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: second. And the building permit were you Yes. Is there a second? I will amend the second Okay. We have a motion and Hs. Weeks, do you understand the motion? HS. WEEKS: Yes, I do. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With that in mind, I will call the question. All those in favor please say "Aye." (All the Commissioners responded simultaneously. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: There being none, the motion passes five to zero. MS. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You are quite welcome. Item #15 STAFF COMMUNICATIONS That concludes the regular agenda for this meeting. We will move on at this time to staff communication. And, Mr. Dotrill, you had listed first on the communication, the agenda for the January 31st workshop. MR. DORRILL: I just want to advise the Board, in discussing with the Chairman, you're suggesting that for next Tuesday's workshop there are three items. The first would be a discussion of the overall structure and the accounting of advisory boards or task forces under the County Commission, this is suggested Topic Number 1. And we would also like to present the County Manager Staff Work Plan for this calendar year, for the twelve months of this calendar year; and to also show you the proposed implementation plan for the Department of Revenue, which is something you had also asked for recently. If there are other subjects, I'm contemplating that these would take less than three hours, and that we could conclude the workshop prior to noon. But if you had additional items or substitutions, if you'll give me those today then we will prepare the final agenda tomorrow. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Particularly where this is our first workshop day or whatever we are referring to these under the new format and particularly since our track record for finishing things under time as opposed to over time is limited -- I think that that's a pretty full agenda for our first time around. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I agree. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. MR. DORRILL: With that aside, I have one additional item. I wanted to advise you -- and I will send you inter-office correspondence -- the A1 Goalman (phonetic) estate has offered to the County the thirty-five acres, the last property that would be adjacent and contiguous to the government center here. It is intriguing for no other reason than they have offered it to the County at a fairly substantial price under the price of the County's own appraisal the last time that we did one. And I want to say that that occurred about four years ago. Mr. Goalman, I believe, died at the end of the summer. And the estate is now handling the disposition of certain assets. The thirty-five acres would be contiguous with the northern boundary of this property. It continues, and is L-shaped, and it would wrap around and include all of that property that surrounds the Pontiac dealership. So we would have an alternate access off of Airport Road. I mention it to you only because when doing long-term planning for government -- the government center and the campus that's here, trying to acquire land adjacent to the courthouse is a very difficult thing to do. Their current asking price for the thirty-five acres is $2.6 million. I want to provide this to you. It is not something that has been budgeted or contemplated. The last time we inquired about the availability of this property, we were told in no uncertain terms that it was not for sale. And as I recall, I think Mr. Goalman said he would entertain an offer of between ten and twelve million dollars. So it's just something for you to mull over individually. And I will send that to you tomorrow. It's something that we probably need to talk about in a little longer terms. Some County Commission twenty years from now might thank you for that. But it's going to be, I think, a budget item and a call that you might have to make as early as this summer if it's something you are interested in. That's all that I have. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. We have a long list of things here, and we are running about an hour and a half behind at least. If the Board doesn't mind, I would like to shorten this list. There are only a couple of items that we really need to address, and one of them is the landfill meeting. Commissioner Hancock last week suggested that today in communications we would discuss the time and place for the February 7th meeting as proposed at this time for discussion of the waste-management contract again. Do you have any recommendations, Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am -- MR. CUYLER: Commissioner Hancock, our court reporter needs just a minute to switch paper. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I am a little concerned that when this Board decided to hear the privatization contract, not so much that we didn't do what I felt was right; but the perception that we left the estate residents with was that we didn't want to have a public hearing because it wasn't convenient. I'm not saying that's true; I know it's not, but it was the perception that was -- that was out there. What I would like to do is propose that this Board look at taking -- breaking that Tuesday meeting so that we can put a portion of that in the evening time so the residents in the estates that want to attend can. Again, I am trying to -- trying to bridge the gap -- trying to bridge the gap here of doing what is right and getting business done. I think we all can agree that we have an agenda on that day that needs to be followed specifically and that we don't get off into tangents. But by the same token, I want to increase the accessibility or at least the perceived accessibility for the estate residents. So I would like personally to have that meeting either starting late afternoon or early evening and do it -- try to do it time certain. In other words, this is going to be a three-hour meeting or a four-hour meeting and try and stick to that so that we don't allow things to get out of control, and by the same token we provide accessibility. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a great idea. A number of people won't necessarily even chose to speak at that, but will have a hands on; they will want to be here; they want to see it; they want to feel that -- they want to be a part of process. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would think that any meeting that we held prior to 6:00 p.m. Would eliminate -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: -- A lot of people who work. And I guess that what we're talking about doing -- and, Mr. Cuyler, help me. What we're talking about doing is recessing our meeting at whenever we conclude, with the exception of that item, and then reconvene, I presume, in this room at 6:00 or 6:30 whenever we do that. MR. CUYLER: That's an option you have if you want to do it that way. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had the perception from our last marathon meeting on this issue that we had addressed a great many of the concerns of the Golden Gate residents. In that while I, of course, endorse the accessibility issue I don't want us to create problems where they don't exist; and I don't want us to create -- to create solutions to problems that don't exist. I don't think that the problem continues to exist. I think that we had a full and fair hearing, and we have done a whole lot to address the concerns that were raised. And I just don't want to see us start down a road that we are not going to want to stay on and have every time -- if we should change our meetings to night meetings, then we should do that. But, again, I just don't think an ad hoc policy is a good one. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think, unfortunately, by the nature of what we do, certain decisions have to be made on an ad hoc basis. And there are certain things that -- if you have East Naples or Golden Gate or portions of North Naples, Everglades or Immokalee, for that matter, they are more able to participate because they are working every day than perhaps the city residents. And I think when there is something in the city or in other parts of the county, we need to comply with what is most convenient for them regardless. And I think the five of us -- what works for our schedule, is the least important thing. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Of course it is. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What works for the public's schedule is the more important thing. And I think in this case the public's schedule in the evening will work the best. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a couple of things. One is I feel I'm obliged to continue to remind my colleagues that my district includes a great deal more than the City of Naples and a great many blue collar working people who have difficulty -- would have difficulty appearing during a day meeting. And I agree that our schedule's inconvenience is absolutely the least important factor. I am concerned however that if it -- is the choice that we're making that if we are -- if we are discussing an issue that affects people in Immokalee we're going to have our meeting in Immokalee? You know, the trend concerns me. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think that depends on the scope of the issue. And this is one that -- I've learned very recently, if not before that, that when you're wrong you admit it and move on. And I think we created a poor perception in the action that we took, bringing things to fruition quickly. It appeared that we were rushing things. Even though that may not be the case, it appeared that way. So I think we need to reinstill a little bit of confidence in the estate residents, that they are a priority; their concerns are valid to us. And that if -- with some strong leadership in that evening meeting, we can keep things on line, on table, and attempt to bridge that gap and make things all the more pleasant, if you will, on that issue. So that's where I would like to take it, and that's how I would urge the rest of you. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I will echo your thoughts as well. I think from the action and the comments of the Board during last Tuesday's meeting, it's clear everyone is acting in the best interest in doing the best they can. But there may be a perception there, and we need to be clear with that. I don't think anybody here is doing anything but their very best and their very fairest. But there is some question out there. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, a couple of things. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: A couple of things. First of all, most of the issues that come before us are very important to somebody. And we don't make special accommodations for every single issue that we hear, even though it might be life-and-death important to some people. And the other thing is how many evening public hearings are we going to have on this subject? We've had a number of them; we had eight hours this last time on the subject. How much more public input do we need? We've made our decisions, to a large degree; there's just a few details to be finalized. I don't understand what -- what is so drastically important about having another eight-hour evening public hearing go on this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to move along, I will make a motion if I can. And that is to have our whatever the date -- I think it's February 7th is when it's scheduled, whatever the date is to return, to hold the item at a time certain, at 6:00 p.m., for the following reason: Not to have another evening public hearing and not to have another eight hours, but to have it when the most public participation is possible. And, again, I think a lot of them don't necessarily feel a need to get up and speak, but they want to be here and be part of the process. And if we can serve that, then everyone's best served. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: there any discussion? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have a motion. Is there a I will second the motion. We have a motion and a second, is Yes. Commissioner Hac'Kie. Yes, ma'am, two things. One is that I urge this Board not to get into the business of doing what looks good, of what appearance demands. It's inappropriate and not the best use of our time. And I don't suggest that that's the motivation here, but please be careful that that isn't. The other one I probably shouldn't say, but I have to, is that to the extent an appearance was created here, that we had tried to keep the public from being adequately involved, I think that the letter that we got from our Chairman this morning speaks to that issue, that the appearance that -- there's was a possibility of another night meeting on this subject arose out of a great deal of confusion. And I think that -- it troubles me to encourage the kind of tactic that will result in confusion to the public, that then we try to correct the appearance of the confusion. I just think -- I think it's a very bad idea. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, of course, I have got to respond to that, too. There is no tactic involved. And I really don't think what we did two weeks ago is that important. The question before us is how do we want to handle the next hearing. Do we want to do it during the day or during the night? It's as simple as that; it doesn't matter how we got there. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: And that's exactly what we are discussing right now, are we going to have this next meek in the evening or are we going to have it in the afternoon. Is there any other discussion on the motion before us? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I hope not. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, I do have -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, I meant from us, those of us that have been talking for the last twenty minutes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I do have a comment on it. And we have had three public hearings now. And the last -- last Tuesday when we addressed the issue, the meeting began at one owclock. And I think our intent was to go through the contract and probably -- and hopefully finish it up in two or three hours, but it did go for eight hours. It was an evening meeting, at least it extended into that. Certainly anybody who left their job at five olclock, got home and turned on the television set knew that we were still progressing, and they could come here any time they wanted up to nine olclock at night. And many people chose not to the do that. But I do know at the same time, because my cable company services Golden Gate, that it was also not televised after six olclock to Golden Gate. So there is a problem. COMMISSIONER MACIKIE: What? CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So there is a problem there also. So, anyway, I would like to ask the motion maker and the second, if they would, if when we listen to this contract item that we limit our discussion, not to the merits of moving the landfill -- I think we already discussed that; I think we have discussed it many, many times -- but we limit our conversation and our direction and ask the public to limit their input to the merits of the contract. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Agreed, absolutely I would have no interest -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, youlre the second; we have to get the motion maker. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I think we all agreed 5/0 to set the calendar for trying to move. So I think we need to focus on is this the contract we want or not and the parts thereof. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The second accepts that. With that in mind, we are talking about next Tuesday, 6:00 p.m., in the BCC chambers, and our discussion, and we are asking for public input, to be limited strictly to the merits of the contract itself, not to continuing efforts to move the landfill. We have already decided we are going to do that. We just donlt know exactly the precise date yet. With that in mind, I will call the question. All those in favor please say, "Aye." (Commissioners Constantine, Hancock and Matthews all responded simultaneously.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: All those opposed. (Commissioners MACIKIE and Norris responded simultaneously.) CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The motion passes three to two. We will have an evening meeting Tuesday, February 7th. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dotrill, hopefully you will give us a light afternoon agenda next week since weill be back a few hours in the evening. Actually, that will be the 7th; right? MR. DORRILL: If you in turn will promise me that Mr. Perkins won't tell me how to make diesel fuel out of sewage. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fact, I'll go ahead and make that part of my motion. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We are going to make every attempt to limit discussion to the merits of the contract, not to extraneous matters. This other long list of things, I don't think we need to cover it today. I can issue a memo, if the Board doesn't mind, to tell them what brought a lot of this forward. And Mr. Hancock and Ms. MAC'KIE if you want to do the same with the items that you added to the list. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I withdraw them from the list. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: With that in mind, then I am going to adjourn the BCC meeting for January 24th. We will take a five-minute break while we move into the workshop for the 800 Megahertz funding. This meeting is adjourned. Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: Item #16A1 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "GEMMER SUBDIVISION" Item #16A2 ACCEPTANCE OF SECURITY FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.532, "PELICAN MARSH UNIT 9 LAKES #21, #22 AND #23 - LETTER OF CREDIT ACCEPTED See Pages Item #16A3 RESOLUTION 95-59, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT ONE See Pages Item #16A4 RESOLUTION 95-60, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT TWO" See Pages Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 95-61, GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "GREY OAKS UNIT FOUR" See Pages Item #16A6 RESOLUTION 95-62 DEFERRING 100e OF THE IMPACT FEES AND AN AGREEMENT FOR 34 DWELLING UNITS OF THE 34 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT TO BE BUILT BY IHMOKALEE NON-PROFIT HOUSING, INC., FROM LIBRARY SYSTEM, PARKS AND RECREATIONAL, ROAD, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES, AND EDUCATIONAL FACLITIES IMPACT FEES FOR TIMBER RIDGE - ADOPTED See Pages Item #16A7 INCREASE OF PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,000 WITH FLORIDA DATA BANK TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $50,800 TO COVER MICROFILMING SERVICES Item #16C1 - Deleted Item #16C2 FORMAL BID PROCESS WAIVED AND STAFF AUTHORIZED TO CONTRACT WITH FLINT & DOYLE, INC. TO ELEVATE AND REBUILD THE FOUNDATION OF THE HISTORIC EVERGLADES CITY LAUNDRY BUILDING IN EVERGLADES CITY Item #16D1 - Deleted Item #16D2 ACCEPTANCE OF FOUR EASEMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WATER METERS - VANDERBILT BEACH HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION See Pages Item #16D3 SATISFACTIONS OF CLAIM OF LIENS FOR L. BERNICE ELKINS, JOHN PIHENTAL, SR., LEONA P. WONICKER ESTATES, AND PAUL ZAMPELL See Pages Item #16D4 SATISFACTION OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR PINECOAST ENTERPRISES, LTD. See Pages Item #16D5 SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND PAYMENT OF WATERAND/OR SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR BESAW COMPANIES, INC., WILLAM AND VIOLET COBB, AND RICHARD AND SALLY HARDT, EDWARD AND PATRICIA HUGHES, PAL HARTONOSY, C.E. AND THELHA O'CONNOR, BETTY RASMUSSEN, MARY LOU RINER, BARBARA SHIELDS, FREDERICK AND ELSA SWETLAND, DAVID AND JULIE WELKER, AND PAULAAND MICHAEL ZAGER, AND JOSEPH BALDWIN AND SALOHON CARDENAS See Pages Item #16El ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW PAY TITLES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE - CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 7, 1995 Item #16H1 COMPENSATION FOR OWNERS OF 1255 LOGAN BLVD. ON THE SANTA BARBARA/LOGAL PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500 (M/M GROTHAUSE) Item #16H2 AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 89-88 WHEREBY THE CHOKOLOSKEE ISLAND MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT WILL BE DISSOLVED Item #16H3 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT NO. 94-2253, BEACH CLEANING OPERATIONS ON MARCO ISLAND IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,445 AND A NEW 10e CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT AUTHORIZED See Pages Item #16H4 - Deleted Item #16H5 CHANGE ORDER #1 FOR THE IHMOKALEE RECREATION CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $646,575 AND ADDITIONAL 10e CHANGE ORDER LIMIT AUTHORIZED See Pages Item #16H6 WORK ORDER UNDER THE CURRENT ANNUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR HVAC, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE OPERATIONS BUILDING REMODELING PROJECT AT THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT - TO TILDEN, LOBNITZ & COOPER IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,950 See Pages Item #16J HISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16J1 CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION TO THE TAX ROLLS AS PRESENTED BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE 1993 REAL PROPERTY NO's. Dated 409 1/09/95 110-113 Item #16L1 1994 REAL PROPERTY 1/06 - 1/12/95 RESOLUTION 95-64, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN ULL FOR THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS See Pages Item #16L2 See Pages RESOLUTION 95-63, APPROVING SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE COUNTY HAS RECEIVED PAYMENT AND SAID LIENS ARE SATISFIED IN FULL FOR THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS There being no further business for the Good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 3:30 P.M. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: SHARON M. LANDIS, CSR 9010