Loading...
BCC Minutes 10/22/1996 R REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 22, 1996 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 9:10 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John C. Norris VICE-CHAIRMAN: Timothy L. Hancock Timothy J. Constantine Pamela S. Hac'Kie Bettye J. Matthews ALSO PRESENT: W. Neil Dorrill, County Manager David C. Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll call the county commission meeting to order on this 22nd day of October 1996. Mr. Dotrill, if you could give us an invocation and the pledge to the flag, please. MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, we thank you this morning. We thank you and we praise your name for the -- the love and support that you have for this community and its people. Father, as it is every week, it is our prayer this morning that you would touch the hearts of the county commission this morning as they make very important business decisions that affect our community. We thank you and we praise you for their desire to lead this community and the conviction that they have to bring to their jobs every week. Father, we thank you for the support and hard work of the staff, that is Collier County government. We thank you for the people of Collier County, the citizens who choose to participate in their local government process to make this the type of -- of corruption-free community that you would have it to be and one that represents the people. We'd ask that you bless our time here together today and that everything that will be done and said here today would be beneficial in your sight. And we pray these things in your son's holy name. Amen. (The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dorrill, I see we have a couple of changes to our agenda this morning. MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I have several changes this morning. I have just one add-on item this morning. This would be Item 8(E)(2) under the county manager, the executive office report. It is a request and recommendation for the board to consider a hold harmless agreement between the Board of County Commissioners and the Ford Florida Evaluation Center, and we have copies of that agreement, and I'll pass those out just as soon as I -- as I finish with the changes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I think we have them already. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah. Go ahead. MR. DORRILL: I have some extra copies. Item 8(A)(1) is the first of several items that is being requested to be continued. That item, 8(A)(1), is being requested to be continued for three weeks to your meeting of November the 19th. That's a staff review and recommendations for an ordinance amending a project known as Breezewood PUD. The next item to be continued is also under community development. It is 8(A)(2), which is requested to be continued for two weeks, actually three weeks. We won't be meeting next week, next week being the fifth Tuesday; but this item, 8(A)(2), will be continued until the 12th of November. That was a resolution correcting a scrivener's error. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If it's a scrivener's error, why do we need to continue it? MR. DORRILL: Well, I presume it's because we're -- we're rewriting the -- the change, but I'll ask Mr. Cautero. He's nodding in the affirmative. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: I have one item that is under public hearings today that is being requested by the petitioner -- or the staff rather, to be continued. It's Item 12(B)(1), which is Petition PUD-82-11 amending certain provisions of the Audubon Country Club PUD. That's continued until November the 12th. I have two items that are being requested to be withdrawn and will be rescheduled if necessary. The first one is Item 16(B)(7) under support services, which was a recommendation to award Bid 96-2580, annual contract for underground utility supplies. And the next item is Item 16(C)(5) under public services, which was a recommendation to terminate an existing concession franchise agreement for the Cocohatchee River Park. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you anticipate that one coming back to us again at some point? MR. DORRILL: I do. It's my understanding that our concessionaire there is in some trouble and is having difficulty meeting the provisions of the concession, and we're in the process of negotiating a termination to that, and it's our intent to terminate that -- that concession. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If and when that comes back, could we put that on the regular agenda, please? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. I have two agenda notes that are pertinent today. The one I'll just address now, and I will also at the end of the meeting. The Wednesday evening meeting originally advertised for this Wednesday, October the 23rd, has been continued one week till October the 30th; but it is and will continue to be a~ evening meeting. It will start at 5:05 p.m., and I have one other item that I'll bring up under communications. And, Mr. Chairman, that's all that I have. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, anything further? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No changes, thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir, just one thing. I -- I need to abstain from Item 16(A)(1) on the consent agenda, because I represent the Fountain Head Development. Other than that, no changes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I have no changes, and if you have no changes, I'll make a motion -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I do. I don't have a change, but I will be discussing under communications an item concerning the Cleveland Clinic. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With that I'd like to make a motion we approve the agenda and the consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #4 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23, 1996, VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; SEPTEMBER 24, 1996, REGULAR MEETING; SEPTEMBER 25, 1996 VALUE ADJUSTMENT BOARD; AND OCTOBER 1, 1996, REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve the minutes of the September 23rd and 24th 1996 Value Adjustment Board and regular board meetings; September 25th Value Adjustment Board meeting; and the October 1st regular board meeting. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval of the minutes. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 22-26, 1996 AS LATIN AMERICAN HERITAGE WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Under proclamations, Commissioner Mac'Kie, I believe you have one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I do. It's my pleasure to get to read the proclamation for Latin American Heritage Week, and I know that Frank Rodriquez is here to accept it. And if there are others, also, I'd ask you to come up and stand here in front of the dais, face the camera, and wave to Mom. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Come on, Frank. We have to get you up here on television so that you -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- get your -- get your public embarrassment in for the day. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: All right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Face the camera. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The proclamation reads: Whereas, Southwest Florida is becoming an area that shows a high potential for economic development and business growth; and Whereas, Collier County leads the region becoming one of the areas where cultural diversity gives a special character to the makeup of the community at large; and Whereas, the Latin population of Collier County continues to increase numerically and productively, contributing to a better quality of life for everyone; and Whereas, for the last five years the Latin American Business and Professional Association has consistently enhanced educational opportunities for our youth and at the same time promoted the preservation of the Latin cultural heritage; and Whereas, the Latin American Business and Professional Association celebrates its fifth anniversary by sponsoring a Latin cultural event to generate support for its scholarship program now expanded to adult Latin students; Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October 20th through 26th be designated as Latin American heritage week in Collier County. Done and ordered this 22nd day of October 1996, Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, John C. Norris, Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, I'd be proud to move that we accept this proclamation. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second it. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for acceptance. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Frank. (Applause) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If you'd like to say a few words, just use that microphone. MR. RODRIQUEZ: Thank you, Commissioners. And I just want to mention that we mentioned the -- this event that will be held Saturday the 26th at the Ritz-Carlton is committed to raise funds for scholarships for Latin American students. In the last five years, we have been able to help approximately 15 students. That translates into a commitment of about $30,000 in scholarships altogether thanks to the support of sponsors and the community at large, and definitely we are looking at students that very soon will be coming back from college or university as professionals and will be contributing to our community. So we thank you, all of you, and we welcome you at the celebration if -- if you like to -- to share with us this time. We have a Columbian folklore group that will make a cultural presentation, very beautiful; and we have also a Latin menu. So we welcome all of you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: (Spoke in Spanish) MR. RODRIQUEZ: Gracias. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 21-31, 1996, AS RED RIBBON WEEK - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock, I believe you have one. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do this morning. Is Cal Winget and Harilyn Petska here to accept the proclamation on red ribbon week? I'd ask you to similarly step up front and face all your fans in the crowd. Whereas, prevention resources have been dramatically cut, programs and community-based efforts are asked to do more with less, and community services compete for remaining limited support; and Whereas, substance abuse is the most common risk factor impacting our behavioral health, particularly for our young people, furthering delinquency, teen pregnancy, HIV and AIDS, child abuse, violence, and so forth; and Whereas, families face unprecedented pressures and stress imposed upon them by the overwhelming nature of today's society; and Whereas, prevention and intervention efforts continue to influence non-use of alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse, it still remains prevalent in every Florida community; and Whereas, Floridians must recommit to strengthening families, neighborhoods, and communities and educating our citizens about prevention-focused initiatives to counter the problems of substance abuse; and Whereas, research and data reflect unquestionably that prevention works and that our commitment to education, prevention, and positive lifestyles is imperative; and Whereas, the red ribbon represents the nation's united effort to support prevention and build healthy and safe communities and to remember the brutal murder of Federal Agent Enrique Camerana; and Whereas, the 1996 Federal Red Ribbon Celebration focused on the importance of supporting our young people and creating an environment in which our youth may flourish; and Whereas, the Florida Prevention Association, Inc., coordinates year-round prevention programs throughout the state; Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October 21st through 31st 1996 be designated as Red Ribbon Week and encourage all Collier County citizens to wear a red ribbon to symbolize our commitment to healthy and safe environments for each citizen and to participate in the events throughout the week and throughout the year that support positive lifestyles. Done and ordered this 22nd day of October, Board of County Commissioners, John C. Norris, chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for acceptance. All those in favor please signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) (Applause) MR. WINGER: On behalf of the Red Ribbon Coalition, we thank the commissioners in Collier County for their support in this cause in helping raise the awareness of this problem and promoting a drug- and alcohol-free lifestyle in Collier County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED Okay. Our next item is service awards. Commissioner Constantine. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. We have three employees this morning we're honoring for their time and service with the county or time tolerating the county, whichever way you want to look at. We have two who have been with us for 10 years. We have Erin Percival and Jerry Ballard. Perhaps they're out working. (Applause) And with code enforcement for 15 years, we have Dennis Mazzone. (Applause) Item #8A3 STAFF TO PURSUE ENACTMENT OF A SPECIAL ACT OF THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE WHICH ACT WILL, AFTER PASSAGE OF A SPECIFIED NUMBER OF YEARS, ELIMINATE ALL UNUSED BISECTlONG EASEMENTS AND ALL UNUSED PERIMETER EASEMENTS IN THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. On to business now, and the first item is 8(A)(3), request for authorization to pursue enactment of a special act of the Florida Legislature, which will eliminate all unused bisecting easements and all unused perimeter easements -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- in the Golden Gate area. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to assume that most of the board's familiar with this, because this has been a headache for homeowners, home builders, realtors, virtually anyone involved with real estate in the Golden Gate Estates area. They've all had some undue hardships. This is an opportunity for us to take the first step in correcting that, and unless there are questions for our staff, I'd like to make a motion we approve the item. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any questions from the commission? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Arnold, just briefly, do you have any reservations whatsoever about the board adopting this? MR. ARNOLD: Not at this time, no. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: We would expect -- for the record, Wayne Arnold. We would expect to bring a draft of this to the November 25th meeting. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Off to a good start. Item #8A4 DOUGLAS W. NELSON AND JOHN P. ASHER, P.E., REPRESENTING JAMES B. WILTBERGER, REQUESTING FINAL PALT APPROVAL OF HILLTOP ESTATES, A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST - APPROVED WITH CONDITION CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Off to a good start, yes. Next item, 8(A)(4), the final plat approval of Hilltop Estates. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Other than the split vote on the agenda, we've been okay. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, Wayne Arnold, planning services staff. This item is coming back before you that originally appeared a few weeks ago as a consent agenda item. It was pulled from the consent agenda and discussed, and it's been brought back for hearing on the issue by a subdivision called Hilltop Estates. It's a replat, if you will, of two existing single-family lots, which would create four single-family lots within the two larger lots. I don't know what depth of re-review of this that you would like me to go into. I know the petitioner is here to discuss issues with you. I do recall that the discussion of the Board of County Commissioners at the time focused primarily on the -- the density question and an issue from the adjoining properties owners about whether or not this would be compatible with the neighborhood and some traffic concerns on the adjoining roadway. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a quick review to make sure I remember this correctly. It's zoned RSF-4 -- MR. ARNOLD: That's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- anyway, so we're not changing the zoning. MR. ARNOLD: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You -- you're changing a plat. And the -- as it's designed -- I assume the design hasn't changed since we last saw this, but as it's designed the lots are actually larger than the existing lots in the area? MR. ARNOLD: They are larger than the existing lots. They are also larger than the minimum lot size for that zoning district. I spoke with the applicants, and I believe they're prepared to show you that they could fit a typical cul-de-sac radius in this configuration and still have four lots, if that was one of the issues for discussion. I think one of the things we did discuss earlier was the fact that the right-of-way was a lesser width than our code normally requires. That exception had been supported by the Planning Commission for the fact that there were -- utilities were not required to be constructed into the right-of-way, that we could handle those as easements alongside the tract, and essentially it would act as a driveway and not a road tract, if you will. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They have made -- excuse me, but the -- I've met with Mr. Nelson, and they've advised me of some changes with regard to the access of the garbage trucks and -- and also educated me about some -- some water management improvements to the area, because one of my concerns -- I had two. One was access that narrow roadway, that 30 foot, and -- and whether or not -- how the garbage trucks, etc., would get in and out of there, and they - _ they should tell you what they've come up with about that. And, frankly, my -- my biggest concern was the contribution to an already existing -- stormwater management would call it euphemistically -- flooding problem down there at the end of that street; and I'd like to get confirmation from county staff that this proposal will, in fact, reduce the existing flooding problem there. So I -- I want to talk about those. Those are my issues, but I'd -- I'd like to have the petitioner say on the record some of the things that they've said to me about the access. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest we get a presentation from the petitioner and then any members of the public, because it sounds like at least one person who's in the majority may be reconsidering this item. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Great suggestion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Great suggestion. Does the petitioner want to make a -- a short presentation? MR. WILTBERGER: Yes. My name is Jim Wiltberger. I live at 2401 Gulfshore Boulevard North. I think it only proper that a little history, brief history, be brought into this. In nineteen seventy-five or six -- because this is the reason we're here is because of me -- I bought those lots. I was forced to buy them because in building the original restaurant on that site, the zoning requirements for parking of restaurants changed, and so I needed the extra land. The county -- those two lots of mine plus the one to the south, which has a four-family on it, were all zoned at that time four-families. So I had 2 four-family lots. We got a consent from the commission to use 60 feet, the west 60 feet, of those two lots for parking, because I lost that much parking by putting the water treatment plant up behind the restaurant. I also had to put a fence up there, and I had to landscape it. I also had to agree with the county commissioners at that time to not use the balance of those lots for anything until I got rid of the restaurant and it wasn't mine anymore. That has since happened, and I have kept my word with the county. I didn't use those lots for anything, and now when I sold the restaurant, the back two lots became mine in -- in total again. When I went to plan something and -- and build the four-families, I find out I don't have four-family lots anymore; they're single-family. I -- I didn't understand that. But in order to make something work on this, I went to Doug Nelson, and we came up with this plan that you see on the board over here (indicating). That is one possibility of -- of the options I have. A second one would be to go back to the original 2 four-families, or you could go to 2 two-families, or you could leave it 2 single-families, or I thought of another one. If these people really don't want anything done on those lots, they could get together and collect money and buy them for a park. I'm just trying to do what is right for the county and for the city and for the people here, particularly, and myself. I'd like to get rid of the lots, and this is the best solution that I can think of that would solve that problem. I certainly hope you go along with it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. Let's go to the public speakers. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Nelson is registered. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hac'Kie said that there was some things that the petitioner needed to make aware to the board. Why don't we hear those? MR. NELSON: Doug Nelson for the record. I'm the petitioner, and I put my thing in because I'm not familiar with the procedures here, even though I come back here every week. I just want to make sure that if you have any technical questions, that you do reference John Asher with Coastal Engineering, because the last time we went through this, there were technical things that could have been answered, and he didn't get to speak. I, as -- as we've talked about, have -- have spent a lot of time discussing with various neighbors. We sent a -- a fact sheet out -- if you will, out this week. I've met with some of you, and the specific things that we've changed are as follows: I met with Waste Management. Waste Management by policy, according to Greg Branam, who's the residential manager there, said they will back off Hilltop Drive up Hilltop Court, as we call it in the plat, and -- and never drive forward into traffic. That really wasn't satisfactory to us. What I suggested was twofold. Can Waste Management get a decree, if you will, from the county that prevents them from driving on that street, which I believe they can do, but I don't know exactly how to do that. That has to do with the contract between the county and Waste Management for trash and recycle -- recycling collection. Secondly, which I have agreed to do is, we are writing into the docs for this, which is the -- the required homeowners' association plan for these four lots, that the people will be required to take their trash to the end of the street on -- on Hilltop Drive. This will, for all practical purposes, prevent Waste Management from coming up that street and having the backing up and the access and all of that. That cures a lot of the discussion that we had several weeks ago. What I'm asking you may want to put into your motion if -- if you so choose to require Waste Management to also have in the contract with the county, so we have two hooks that prevent the trash trucks from backing into the property. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Nelson, I -- I have a question. Does that include, also, the recyclables and the yard waste? MR. NELSON: It -- it does from our perspective. We will write into the -- the homeowners' association documents -- or, you know, there -- there's the docs and the rules and all that. We will write in for recyclables and trash. Actually -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And yard waste. MR. NELSON: -- to tell you the truth, I can -- I can put that down for any reoccurring-collection process, and then that would pick up -- you know, we'll get with the attorney and -- and write the appropriate language. From my perspective -- from Jim Wiltberger's perspective, we want to make this as amicable for the neighborhood as possible. Any time you have a regular process backing up and down that street, we're trying to eliminate that. We're trying to make it -- and, you know, going back to my original intent, we want to make this blend with the community. A couple quick notes. I got three phone calls -- actually, four phone calls as a result of a letter that we sent out this week. All of them were positive. One of them was we don't want a gated community. They're not getting a gated community. We're doing everything within our power to make this Hilltop Court blend with the existing layout of Hilltop Estates and Hilltop Drive. They don't want overpriced homes. The only option if we do not do the replat is to have very expensive homes on oversized lots, which we've said over and over the economics won't support. So, in essence, to not get -- the neighborhood doesn't want -- from what I understand from talking to the neighbors, they don't want something way below them; they don't want something way above them. They want it to blend in with the neighborhood. I -- I can't think of a better plan to do that. We talked about the drainage. That's just part of when you do the -- to meet the UL -- you know, the Universal Land Development Code, la-di-da-di-da. So I'll leave it up to your questions and concerns back to us. We've gone over most of the issues in the past. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other speakers? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Asher, do you have anything else? MR. ASHER: John Asher from Coastal Engineering. I think for drainage -- that's really the only thing that wasn't specifically addressed -- is that if we develop the lots as a 2 single-family now, they -- all their stormwater runoff would go directly into the road and swale; and now we are retaining, I believe it is, the first inch for water-quality purposes and -- within the property boundaries before it can overflow to the -- the roadside swale. So -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the critical -- excuse me for interrupting, but this is the critical point for me is that if we don't allow the replat, then what they have the right to do is two houses. That was what's originally planned, but -- but our regulations don't require two houses to keep their runoff on site. If, however, they subdivide so that they have four houses, then the runoff from this property has to stay on site, which should reduce the flooding there in the -- in the curve. That -- well, it should. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That sounded awfully close to a motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I -- I've struggled with this, and I want to hear from the neighborhood, but I think that that's a potentially big improvement to the area. MR. ASHER: It's not going to eliminate the flooding, but it -- it will be a benefit. It will hold that water on site DOW. We -- the configuration is such that we've tried to make wide, you know, shallow swales, but it still holds the volume that's required for water-quality treatment. And if we get a 8-inch rain, we're going to have water all over the place as we do now; but it's the -- you know, the 1-inch afternoon rains that hopefully we'll hold on site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm not suggesting you're going to solve the problem, but if you don't -- if you don't get the replat, you don't have to do anything to improve the problem. MR. ASHER: Correct. All the drainage, everything off the roof and the driveway, all just runs straight out to the road. That's the way normal single-family lots are designed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any other public speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, I have three. Mr. Walsh, Tom Walsh, as he's coming forward, Mr. Coady, C-o-a-d-y, you'll follow this gentleman. MR. WALSH: Good morning. My name is Tom Walsh, and I live at 1096 Morningside Drive. I'm one of the trustees for the Morningside Hilltop Association. We don't have a whole lot new to offer, because there has been no appreciable change in Mr. Nelson's approach. He didn't take into consideration, apparently, your suggestion of three houses as opposed to four, nor concern -- getting -- taking a concern with the street that they're putting in. We find it a little difficult to reconcile ourselves with the fact that the street does not meet the code, apparently. They've given -- they've been given a -- they've been given an exception for that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I '- MR. WALSH: -- street. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I just interrupt to tell you MR. WALSH: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that -- that the street will be -- the driveway will be as wide as -- wider than? MR. NELSON: The same. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the same width as Hilltop. MR. WALSH: We understand that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I just wanted to be sure you know that. MR. WALSH: Yes. I live on it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I didn't know if you knew the width was the same. MR. WALSH: The -- the point in this case being that just because the existing street does not conform to code, does that mean the new street shouldn't conform? But in any event, we still have the density problem here. Mr. Nelson states that the lots of his -- on his plat, his subdivision, are larger than the lots in the area. That is partially the truth. The lots on Morningside are 12,500 square feet. I think all of his lots are less than 10 or maybe there was one that is 10. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think there's one that's 11 something. MR. WALSH: Eleven. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've studied this so dadgummed carefully. MR. WALSH: But I think that it's important to know that -- that there is -- there are a number of homes that have larger lots than what are being proposed. The density in that situation, his subdivision, is really unconscionable. It's too -- there are too many houses in there for the -- for the space available, primarily because of the irregular size of the lots; and we would really appreciate it if you would consider turning down this petition. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Coady, C-o-a-d-y, and then following this gentleman, Ms. Hogan, Barbara Hogan, if I could have you stand by, please, ma ' am. Okay. That's fine. Ms. Hogan, you'll be next. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did Mr. Coady pass? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. He's on another item, just the way he filled out his slip. Ms. Hogan, good morning. MS. HOGS: Good morning, everyone. My name is Barbara Hogan. I live at 1038 Hilltop Drive. I'm a diagonal abutter to this development. I received a letter from 3H Group and Mr. Wiltberger. In reading through the letter, some thoughts occurred to me. With all due respect to Mr. Wiltberger, it would seem that in 1976 he came here and asked to alter the use of the land for his economic purposes. It would now seem that he's back asking for the same thing again. The land certainly has appreciated in value since then, but that should have been a consideration, perhaps, at the beginning, as well as -- it should really not be a consideration now simply because it was a given that the land was going to appreciate. So the bottom line as to the greatest return on the land by building four homes I don't believe is really a factor here. The other is that I've lived there for almost nine years now, and honestly, we do get water in those ditches, whatever they are; but I've never seen flooding other than, I guess it was last year, when we had those torrential rains; and I believe that there might have been some valves that were closed here and there that weren't meant to be. So I've never really experienced any unusual flooding that didn't dissipate as quickly as it does everywhere else in the area. The other thing is that he states that we have tolerated the land as it is now. That's not so. I bought there nine years ago. I was forced to accept the land as he has allowed it to become in disrepair. So I don't see what I'm gaining other than a great deal more density in an extremely high traffic area with children waiting for buses on the corner. I've witnessed four accidents there since I've lived there. We had an accident over the weekend where somebody came down the Hilltop entrance and drove right through the neighbor's yard. It is a difficult area at best. And I wish Mr. Wiltberger the best success with his land. I would want the same thing, but it seems that he keeps coming back to alter what he wants to do with the land at this particular time. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Arnold, if this plat change is denied, then we're left with two large, overly large single-family lots; is that -- that's the situation? MR. ARNOLD: That is the situation, yes. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll leave it to someone who is in the majority. I -- I did not vote to deny this plat, and the reason I didn't do it the first time, understanding what two of the residents have said, I correlate this very much to someone who buys a 5-acre lot in the estates. You have the ability to build two homes on that 5 acres. You can build them on 2-1/4-acre minimum, and you come in, and it's pretty much an administrative approval to do that. These two lots sit in a zoning district that allow you to build four homes on them based on their size and the zoning district. For us to begin pulling these off the consent agenda and saying that, well, we afford that to everyone else in other parts of the county; but in this particular neighborhood when the lot sizes are similar to what's around them, we're going to say you can't do it, I have a procedural problem with. And I -- I just would like to urge my colleagues to look at it from that standpoint. Are we going to start taking 5-acre lots in the estates and when someone has a lot-line adjustment to make it two single-family home sites, or are we going to pull all those off the consent agenda if the neighbors, you know, are -- are unhappy with the fact that that's not going to be a 5-acre lot in perpetuity? So I'm -- I'm concerned that we take that approach to it. I think that many of the concerns the residents have raised regarding drainage and access have actually been answered to the betterment. You're going to have one driveway instead of two in the middle of that curve, so I'm just not sure there are -- there's really a -- a strong valid reason for this board to oppose this particular request. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I really voted against accepting the replat the last time, and primarily my reason for voting against it was access to service vehicles and so forth. And, quite frankly, that issue's been addressed, so if there's somebody who wants to move ahead with this, I'd be happy to. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to -- I'm going to move approval of Item 8(A)(4) with the condition that solid waste, recyclable, and horticultural debris, in addition to all other future collections, be done at curbside. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Curbside on Hilltop. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Curbside on Hilltop, therefore not requiring the backing of a truck into traffic in that curve. That's it. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. Any further comment? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #SB1 COLLIER COUNTY WATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE AND RECOHMENDED OPERATIONAL STANDARDS - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That petition is granted. Next item, 8(B)(1), adopt the Collier County water master plan update. MR. BOYER: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Karl Boyer, and I work for your office of capital projects management. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Boyer, you've -- you've made quite a document here. It took me almost all week to read it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's stunned. He doesn't know what to say. MR. BOYER: Fortunately, what we've done for you is we've attached to your agenda packet the executive summary to this report. It is exactly the same as reads in the report. And that was made part of your packet so you could look at that and get a good overview of what this water master plan update is all about. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is looking so -- so thorough and so fancy. I have to ask, what was the cost of the consultants? What -- what was the fee? MR. BOYER: The fee for the water master plan was $258,000. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pretty pictures. MR. BOYER: We're here this morning to ask you to consider adopting the water master plan update. It's a 10-year plan. The last one was done 10 years ago. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The timing is just perfect, then. MR. BOYER: It's perfect. But the good news is that the board has implemented the water management plan that was done 10 years ago, and it has put us in very good position to meet the future demands of our water-sewer district area in the county. We have with us our team of consultants and staff members who have worked on this job. Our consultants are Camp Dresser & HcKee, Johnson Engineering, and Hissimer International. We also have representatives of our water department and our long-range planning department who can answer some questions for us at the end as well. We've prepared a 10-minute presentation for you this morning. You're going to hear about population projections, water demands, level of service standards as it relates to the Growth Management Plan. You'll hear about brackish water sources and reverse osmosis technology used for treating that raw water supply, and you'll hear about some operational standards for using -- for effective planning. Now, you're going to hear a lot of numbers this morning. I'd like to give you just a few basic numbers that you can key in on. I told you it's good news, and the reason why it's good news is that a hundred and thirty-three million dollars, a hundred and thirty-three million dollars is the total value of your water system today. That consists of water plants and transmission mains that were built by the county, as well as facilities that were built by developers and then turned over to the county. Within the next 10 years, through the year 2005, we are projecting a 40 percent increase in population in our water-service area. As part of this master plan, we've identified the capital improvements required to keep up with that growth. A 40 percent increase in population will be reflected by a 30 percent increase in the value of our capital improvements in the water system. So by doing the work ahead of time, we're able to keep pace with growth at an economical rate. At this time I'd like to introduce our consultant team to go ahead and begin their presentations. Jim Hagerty is our project manager with Camp Dresser HcKee. Jim. MR. HAGERTY: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioners, for providing us the time to -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. We're going to need you on the microphone. If you're going to stand here, there's a hand-held mike right over there, if you could use that for us, please. MR. HAGERTY: Hello. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There you go. MR. HAGERTY: Thank you. My name is Jim Hagerty. I'm with Camp Dresser & HcKee. We thank you for this opportunity to present some of our findings and recommendations from the water master plan. This was a team approach. With us we have members of our team; with Johnson Engineering, Chris Hagan; and also with Hissimer International, Mr. Kirk Martin. Our master -- our master plan was also teamed with the county's office of capital project management, as well as Mike Newman with the water department. We held monthly meetings to update them on our work progress, to -- to receive their review comments, and also to get directions on our future work. So this was a team effort that we hope provided you all with a functional master plan. To reiterate a little bit of the good news of the system, we've found the existing transmission system was in a very good shape and poise for future expansion. There's adequate capacity in a lot of your existing system, and it also has future capacity for expansion of the system, as well as your raw water needs. We found that there's sufficient raw water needs (sic) to meet your next 20 years of water development through this, and we'll be presenting Some of the specifics related to those findings. What I'm showing here in this figure is your existing system. Your existing system covers an area which is bounded to the -- to the north by the Collier and Lee County boundaries; to the east (sic) by the Gulf of Mexico and the incorporated areas of the City of Naples; to the south by the Collier Seminole State Park; and the east boundary is approximately 1 miles -- 1 mile east of County Road 951. Excluded from this area are a few franchise areas. Golden Gate and also the Marco Island area are provided -- water supply is provided by private utilities with that. Some of the major systems that make up the backbone of your system include the south water treatment -- regional water treatment plant. This is a 12 MGD water softening facility. Your north facility, which was constructed and came on line in 1993, it's a 12 MGD facility; and currently they're developing the plans and specs to expand this to 20 MGD, which should be on line in 1998. We also have three major pump stations that supply water to the system. You have the north -- the -- the high-service pump stations at your treatment plant; as well as the Carica booster pump station; the Isle of Capri, which is down in the south of the system; and your Manatee Road booster pumping station. These provide the pressure in your system to provide service to your customers, the flow. Also at the Manatee Road booster pumping station you have your ASR well, which is being currently developed into an actual aquifer storage and recovery system, which should provide you additional capacity in the future to manage your raw water sources. One of the initial tasks of the water master plan was to look at population for your service area. What we're showing here is, the -- the green line shows the projected population for the 10- year planning period, which will utilize the developed capital improvement project. Also what we're showing here are other population projections developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Researchers to show how we work inside of those -- those projections. We developed the population projections looking at your 12 planning communities as well as traffic analysis zone so we could develop specific water demands in each -- basically a mile-square area of your system, so we could look at projected future transmission systems for this. We worked very closely with your -- with your planning department. They worked with us in the projections as well as review of our population projections. These population projections are used as a basis for projecting your future needs. Another task of the water master plan was to look at the recommended level of services for the system and to update this. The recommended level of services were based -- were based on existing system operations and also looking at trends for future projections. The finished water demand for residential was projected at 154 gallons per capita a day with an additional 31 gallons per capita a day for nonresidential uses, which gave us a total recommended finished water demand projection of 185 gallons per capita a day for the water system. This number was used to develop both the water treatment, your raw water, as well as your transmission system needs. Fire flow demands were based on current county standards of 500 gallons per minute for residential and 750 gallons per minute for nonresidential. Fire flow peaking -- flow peaking factors were utilized, again, to look at your system. The peak hour demand, which was at 2.6, was used for sizing your transmission system to make sure we had adequate capacity in that system to deliver the water at the most critical times. And then the maximum day factor, 1.5, was utilized to project the size of your water treatment plants. We always recommend that your water treatment plants be sized to meet the capacity at your maximum day needs. We also looked at your system pressures and established operating pressures for your system so we can maintain adequate pressure and flow to your distribution system. Again, these numbers were used in your transmission model to establish any future needs of your system. The -- the pressure requirements for minimum operating at peak hour flow conditions was 50 PSI, and the minimum with fire flow at the maximum day is 40 PSI within your system. The population projections in conjunction with our recommended level of service allowed us to look at water demands and treatment capacities necessary for the future. What you're seeing here on this graphic is two lines. The blue line is your maximum day demand, and the red line is your maximum month demand, and then the __ the stepladder line is the treatment capacity that you have existing and projected through the future. What you'll notice here in the period to 1998 until you get the -- the next expansion of your north treatment plant to -- of 8 HGD up to a capacity of 20, that you're going to have a deficit in meeting your maximum day needs of your system. We worked and we brought this to the attention of Mike Newman. He has dealt with this issue before back in the 1990s, and with the adequate storage you have, he can manage the system by watching storage during those maximum day conditions, and this should not propose a problem for your system. But we still do not recommend that you operate at this level. We always recommend that you have a capacity, treatment capacity, to meet your maximum day demands. Our master plan in the future was developed at meeting that requirement, and as you'll see our master plan -- and we'll discuss this a little later -- has a recommendation for an additional treatment plant expansion in the year 2003 of an additional 7 HGD. That expansion is shown here on this line (indicating) and will provide you sufficient capacity to get into about the year 2012 for that. With that I'm going to turn over to Mr. Kirk Martin. He'll discuss a little bit of our raw water needs and where the supply will come from. MR. HARTIN: Good morning. Our task in the master plan was to identify and evaluate available raw water sources and then, additionally, to look at issues of bulk water storage. In doing that we found something we, I guess, felt for quite a while, though, that raw water sources are available to meet the county's demand for at least 20 years, if not much further than that. The criteria we looked at in evaluating the -- the various water resources was a sustainable year-round yield; a water quality that was treatable to at least the standards that the county has now, which is typically a little better than -- than that required by the federal government; and that it met all the permitting requirements, typically, the environmental impact criteria. The various resources we looked at were fresh-water canal systems; various quarries that exist around the county; the saline surface waters that exist; and groundwater sources, including the water table aquifer, which lies basically to a depth of about a hundred feet or so; the Tamiami aquifer, which lies at a depth of about a hundred and fifty; the Hawthorne Zone 1 and the Lower Hawthorne aquifer. Of all these sources, three met all our criteria; the sustainable year-round yield, the economic retrievable water quality, and meeting all permit criteria. Those are the Tamiami aquifer, which the county is currently using as its primary source of water; the Hawthorne Zone 1 aquifer; and the Lower Hawthorne aquifer, which is currently planning for the next expansion, the north county water treatment facility. The Tamiami aquifer has a lot of competition for its source. It's a fresh-water source. Agricultural interests, domestic self-supply, all tap into this aquifer, also the City of Naples, and of course, Collier County. For that reason, both in previous work done for the county and the South Florida Water Management District, as -- has identified that the safe yield of the Tamiami aquifer will probably be reached at some point in the near future. For that reason the county currently has a capacity of about 30 to 32 million gallons from that system, and we feel that's probably about all we're -- the district will grant us in terms of an allocation. The next resource we've gone to with the north county expansion is the Lower Hawthorne aquifer. It's a brackish source. With the technology changing RO membrane, it's become a very economic source of water to treat. In addition, there are no -- there is no competition for that resource. The county basically has it to itself. In meeting the next capital improvement, we looked at the -- the existing infrastructure, the logistics of both the plant expansion needed in the year 2003 and the existing mains and so forth, and saw -- and saw that the -- probably the best place for that would be the south county water treatment facility. For that reason we recommend that the Hawthorne Zone 1 aquifer be used. It has a very similar water quality to the Lower Hawthorne; however, the yield's a little bit better in the south part of the county, and again, there is no competition for that resource. Bottom line on the raw water resources, the county's in great shape, despite what others may say. There's lots of water out there, very economic to treat. In addition to looking at raw water sources, we were also asked to look at bulk water storage. This is only partially related to potable water supply in that bulk water storage, we're looking at vast volumes of water. In most cases, if the county would want to get into an irrigation water supply system, this is -- this is where this would come into play. In looking at bulk storage, we looked at quarry storage, we looked at ASR, and we looked at conventional above-ground storage. Obviously, the cost for conventional above-ground storage, that being the tax and so forth, was too high for -- for large volumes of water. However, that's the -- the normal way of providing storage for potable water, what the county's doing now, and it's -- it's very appropriate and very adequate. The two sources for bulk water storage, that being quarries and ASR -- in quarries we looked at probably 30 different modeling scenarios, looking at both large and small quarries. We looked at lined and unlined quarries. Essentially, the modelings show that with a large quarry that's unlined, the losses that would Occur due to evaporation and ground water losses were too great. Essentially, in many cases, you know, over 80 percent of the water would be lost during the time you'd be trying to store it. When we looked at smaller quarries, however, with lining involved, that was very -- a very technically feasible thing to do. As a matter of fact, I think similar conclusions were obtained by Wilson Miller on their quarries' evaluation, which showed that by lining the quarries there wasn't a -- a reasonable, technical viability for storing water. However, when compared to the ASR, the cost per gallon to store was a little bit higher for quarry storage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excuse me, Mr. Martin. MR. MARTIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure we didn't pay twice for the same information -- MR. MARTIN: No. As a matter of fact -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- because we paid $5,000 for a joint study that Wilson Miller conducted, and I hear you saying much of the same thing. I want to make sure we didn't pay you to do what we got in the Wilson Miller report. MR. MARTIN: This was, in fact, I guess a -- a -- to some extent an add-on to the original scope. You know, there -- there was some concern that we -- that we make sure and look at -- again, we weren't looking at quarry storage so much. We were looking at ASR and so forth as a way to, in the future, reduce irrigation usage on the potable system. That's what -- that's what I said in the very beginning. This is really only slightly related to the potable master plan and -- and for that reason we don't have specific recommendations regarding bulk storage in this master plan. However, as the county seeks to possibly provide irrigation -- an irrigation utility system in the future, you need all the information you can get; and so we were asked to look at all the available bulk storage issues. MR. BOYER: Commissioner, if I may, the recommendations from the Wilson Miller study were basically incorporated into our study. MR. MARTIN: Correct. MR. BOYER: We did not revisit what had already been done. MR. HARTIN: Correct. Given that, again, it's -- it's a little outside the potable master plan scope, but our recommendation would be to consider aquifer storage and recovery as a bulk storage alternative. And overall, good news all around, plenty of water. At that point I'd like to turn it over to Marie Hahan with CDH. MS. HAHAN: We developed a hydraulic computer model of your water transmission system to determine some improvements that might be necessary to meet your future demands as well as to meet the level of service standard. The first thing that we evaluated was your existing conditions. We found that your system is very strong and very capable of meeting the demands that are on it right now. We looked at two other planning scenarios: The year 2000 and the year 2005. We looked at implementing these in two phases; but we also looked at your roadway capital improvement plans for the future, because we wanted to recommend any of the pipeline improvements in conjunction with the roadway improvements so that you wouldn't do a road project one year and then come and tear it up two years later. The Phase 1 recommendations are the improvements necessary to get you through the year 2000. They include only three pipeline projects. The estimated construction cost is approximately 2 1/2 million dollars. The three pipeline projects are a 12-inch pipeline on Tamiami Trail. It's from Hanatee Road south to the end of your system. The second is a 16-inch pipeline on Radio Road beginning at County Road 951 over to Santa Barbara. And the third pipeline improvement is in conjunction with the Livingston Road improvements, and that would be from Radio Road north to Wyndemere, a 12-inch pipe. The Phase 2 recommendations are the ones from the year 2000 to 2005. The estimated construction cost for those improvements is 23 1/2 million dollars. There's one pipeline improvement, and that is an estimated construction cost of $1 million. It's a 12-inch pipeline to go along your northward expansion of Livingston Road, and the major cost involved in there is -- the 22 1/2 million dollars is expansion of your water treatment plant. So 7 HGD reverse osmosis expansion that can be done at the south plant, because there's adequate water resources as well as land availability there. And I'll turn it over to Jim to go over some of the final recommendations. MR. HAGERTY: A couple other recommendations that weren't included in the capital improvement project was related to the -- excuse me -- the continued implementation of a maintenance management program. As part of our scope of work, we reviewed several maintenance management programs that kind of encompassed the full range of maintenance management systems available from outside sources. We recommended utilizing a maintenance management system called MP2 by Datastream or -- or an equivalent equal is a Microsoft based -- Microsoft, Microsoft Excel-based, spreadsheet-type maintenance management system, which should help improve the efficiencies of the water department in tracking of inventory and production controls as well as work staffing and work order requirements and productivity analysis. We fully recommend that you go forward with that in a phased implementation plan. Also as part of the hydraulic modeling, we provided the county with a -- a model which is usable to continue evaluation of the water resource needs or the water transmission system needs. We provided also training on this to the county staff so that they could utilize and continue to update the model as new developments come into the system and as new -- as the system changes in the -- in the future. This will help provide a living master plan that will be able to be updated by the county staff. Within that water quality modeling we also provided -- I mean, in the hydraulic modeling is a water quality model -- with the future potential changes and regulatory requirements related to your distribution system, we recommend that you begin a water quality modeling. You have some long detention times in your system, especially during the summer months when the seasonal residents do not exert a demand on your system. That long detention time can provide some water quality degradation in chlorine and other aspects of the system. And as the new EPA and the Safe Drinking Water Act begins to focus on distribution system water quality, we feel that you need to begin your investigation in knowledge of your distribution system, and we provided those tools to you to provide that analysis. With that, that summarizes our -- our presentation. I'd like to turn it back over to Mr. Boyer for his final remarks. MR. BOYER: Thanks, Jim. So what you've heard is that our plants have adequate capacity to treat water to meet our current demands, but it won't take long with our population growth for those plants to be -- have that capacity exceeded. So as long as we don't have our capacity line dip below our demand line, we'll be in good shape. To do that we have to expand the plants. We have a plant expansion underway right now currently being designed. We hope to get that project under construction this fiscal year. That will -- that's a 13-million-dollar project. It's going to add 8 million gallons of additional water capacity. Given that, the water master plan is now projecting that by the year 2003, that project will have reached its capacity and it's time to expand the water plant again. So we will be back to you in a few years to negotiate the design of that next expansion. Although it seems like we -- as soon as we build one, we're ready to design the next expansion -- well, really that's -- that's really happening, and we're doing that to most economically keep pace and pay as you go. The transmission systems, as I mentioned, are adequately sized for these future demands. That's why you don't see a long list of capital improvement projects on the list. The bulk of the work will be in the treatment plants. We mentioned siting. The next expansion for the water plant has been targeted to the south water plant. Keep in mind that your water-sewer district has three sites: The north water plant, the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension; the regional water plant that's at 951 near the interstate; and then on the south side near Manatee Road, there is a parcel of land that has been -- that's owned by the county, and it could potentially be a future site. We've looked at those, and we've decided that the best place to do it from an infrastructure standpoint, meaning piping and transmission, that it's best to expand on the site of the existing south water plant. One of the recommendations -- or actually under the growth impact portion of your executive summary, it makes a mention of a level of service standard. If you take a look at the level of service standard in your Growth Management Plan, the only level of service standard we have is how many gallons are used per person per day, gallons per capita per day. Based on historic review of the numbers, it looks like that number's off. We based the water master plan on a number that we've developed based on actual operating data, and we'll be coming back to you and asking you to revisit that level of service standard at a future date. On a parallel track, we're updating the wastewater master plan. That wastewater master plan will be completed in early spring, and we'll be coming back to you with a similar presentation. Upon completion of that, then we'll look at revisiting the level of service standard for both water and sewer at that time. You've also heard that the system's pressure criteria, operating standards -- and I just want to point out one thing about that. It's a little detailed, but it is important because it affects the community. When a developer comes and he wants to tap into our water system, he asks the question, "What's the pressure at that point where I want to tie in?" Well, it depends on the time of day and what the -- and all kinds of variables like that. So by establishing a design standard for system pressure -- which is a recommendation in this particular report, we establish what that number is going to be, our Planning Department has something they can hang their hat on, and the rest of the development community no longer has to ask questions such as that, so it blocks out a variable that has, to this point, been a little shaky. So that's the value of those operation standards. At this time that concludes our presentation. I'd like to offer our -- our -- or answer any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions for Mr. Boyer? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was it a part of the RFP to look at what the cost of these improvements -- what impact it would have on the ratepayer at 20157 Was that a part of the RFP or the study at all? MR. BOYER: No. The impact to the ratepayers was not part of the study. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BOYER: We have a separate study ongoing right now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: In house? MR. BOYER: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, knowing that we have -- saying that we can create enough water is fine, and putting a dollar amount to it is fine. But until we know what it does to the ratepayer and what type of increase that is, I don't think we really have a benchmark. MR. FINN: Mr. Chairman, Edward Finn, public works operations director. There is a rate study currently underway. All of the capital projects that you see are part of that. Additionally, there's an impact fee study that's underway, and all of these projects that -- that are being identified today are being considered as part of that analysis of what the impact fees should be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. FINN: Ideally, if -- if these projects are driven by growth, they should ideally be paid for through impact fees, which are the designated source of funding for growth projects. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it's noted that you are -- you used the word "ideally" twice in that sentence, so -- but, no, I appreciate that. But the second part is very much related to that, and that is, was it a part of the RFP to look at the life-cycle costing of the existing system, replacement of the existing models that are going to wear out, unfortunately, systemwide in a very short period of time as far as looking at it collectively? Was that a part of the RFP? MR. BOYER: No. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Those are two things that are going to have a significant impact on the ratepayer when they Come due, because the replacement of existing lines that have been in the ground, what, 12 years, I mean, systemwide. We had a lot of construction within a short period of time, which means we're going to have a lot of replacement within a short period of time. And I'm concerned when that comes home what the ratepayer is going to be hit by. Those are two very important items to me. I want to make sure if the RFP did not address them, that they are being addressed by, at least, our staff. MR. FINN: Yes, sir. That's a very good question. Again, in the rate analysis, there is clearly going to be funding made available as there is today for ongoing renewal, replacement, and enhancement of the system. The level to which that will be funded is, of course, a -- a decision that will drive what the ultimate rates are. That, largely, will be a decision that the board will make based on staff's recommendations as to the proper level of funding. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The sooner we get that information, the longer period of time we have to amortize those replacement costs, so I would like to put a green light, a fast track on that, because -- 12 years, we really haven't done much in the way of doing that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think your point's well-taken, because we can hear big numbers and sound very impressive or sound very scary, but unless we break that down into, is that pennies per customer or tens of dollars per month per customer, they don't really mean anything. The only thing that means anything in the long run is, what's the impact on the end user? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Excuse me. I didn't mean to butt in. Can -- can you tell me what the average life of a -- of a system underground is? I mean, we -- we're, what, 12 to -- 12 to 15 years old now at varying points? Are we talking 30 years? 35 years? Or more? MR. BOYER: We have some general rules of thumb that we work with for different facilities. Buildings are 50 years. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I'm talking about water and sewer pipes in the ground. MR. BOYER: Pumping stations and pipelines, we should get -- each piece of equipment deteriorates faster than the others. Pumps are 10 years. Underground utilities, we should get 20 or 30 years; however, they could last longer than that. The City of New York, for example, has wood pipes underground that have been there for two centuries. So the conditions here -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're going through rock too. MR. BOYER: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: They're going through rock too. MR. BOYER: The conditions here in Collier County are -- are variable as far as underground conditions. Some are very corrosive and attack our piping materials much faster than others, so it really varies. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But to answer the question, on the conservative end you plan for, say, 20 years to make sure the dollars are available? MR. BOYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So we're -- we're -- and we're 12 years in, maybe 15 years in. So we need a sinking fund that's fairly aggressive, then. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have public speakers, Mr. Dotrill? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir, I have two. Mr. Perkins, and Mrs. Leinwebber, if I could have you stand by, please. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Perkins, the subject today is the water master plan. MR. PERKINS: Absolutely. (Laughter). MR. PERKINS: Come on, gang. Good morning, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, and the people at home. Pay attention. A1 Perkins, Belle Meade Groups, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights. I'm glad that everybody heard twice that we have more than enough water. I'll repeat that. It has been said here this morning that we have more than enough water. I hope the South Florida Water Management and the Big Cypress Basin Board are listening, because they tell us the opposite. The game is for money. The ASR well fields, they were addressed a little bit this morning. Now, if you people don't know what an ASR is, that is a pipe shoved way down in the ground where they take and blow raw water to make a balloon or a bubble. Stop me if I'm wrong. Then they take and go back and recapture it when it's needed. Nothing was addressed about whether or not it's going to collapse, the strata, both top and bottom, and affect the rest of the water, very important. Two or three things involved in here are our canal systems, especially in the Belle Heade area and throughout the county. Evacu -- evaporation was not addressed completely, nor was percolation addressed completely. The tense of effluent, yeah, that's a dirty word. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: A1, are you talking to that easel, or are you -- MR. PERKINS: No. I would like to get it out of here if I could. You know what I mean? But that's beside the point. The fact is we have a problem. We have a dual problem here, which he addressed at the very tail end of this thing, which was the fact that we are taking water -- and we are taking water; and every one of these people in this community use that water, and they make it dirty. Now we take and say, okay, I don't want it anymore, throw it away, get rid of it, do anything with it, get it out of my front yard or out of my yard. But, again, the farmers and the groves and the cattlemen can use this effluent. It has to be treated to health standards. We can also recycle this and to -- into our drinking water, if you will, through evaporation. They've done that for years. These items need to be addressed. You referred to quarries lined and unlined -- well, a quarry. That's called a ditch in some places. It's called a canal down here, or it could be called a burrow pit. Capture and storage of the water is very important, and we have the ability to do it. Now, whether or not they're going to address it right now or not, I have no idea. Southern States Utilities has gotten over a quarter of a million dollars from the Big Cypress Basin Board for an ASR well down towards their Marco Island well field. At the present time, I understand the corps of engineers are going to try and take and shove through a new weir at -- on the Herritt Canal at the end of Brisson (phonetic) Road. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Berson. MR. PERKINS: Berson? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Berson Road. MR. PERKINS: Okay. Thank you. They're going to change the water elevation from .01 to .08 affecting 20 miles of subsurface water. You people are asleep. You better wake up and find out where your money's going and who's spending it and how many times they're being spent. With that, I'll quit. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. PERKINS: Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mrs. Leinwebber. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Leinwebber, the subject is the fresh water, potable water master plan. MS. LEINWEBBER: I got it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MS. LEINWEBBER: Judy Leinwebber, Bay West Nursery. I thank our county commissioners for finally asking the right questions. I thank this group of people for their presentation they've given today. I think daylight has finally been shown. This study I have known about 18 years ago when we started Bay West Nursery, and the reason I've known about it is because South Florida Water Management had a group from Cape Coral put in two test wells at Bay West Nursery -- the wells are still there -- to find out where the water aquifers are and find out how much water we have. I've known about this study for 18 years, that we had enough water to last us into the next century. South Florida Water Management and the Big Cypress Basin Board, I think, have been using scare tactics on the citizens of Collier County. We don't -- we do not have a scarcity of water. It's how we're going to use it and where we're going to get it from. It's in Collier County. The questions are finally being answered. You just don't have a view from the South Florida Water Management or the Big Cypress Basin Board anymore. You have the hard-core facts that have been available for almost 20 years. Now our county commissioners are finally getting to know the scoop on the picture. I know you are paying attention, and I just appreciate that this finally has been done, has taken place, and stopped the South Florida Water Management and the Big Cypress Basin Board from using the scare tactics they have and their slanted views and finally get the whole picture of our water problem, what's going on, and do the right thing. And I think our county commissioners can finally do something about it. They're finally getting a handle on the big picture. Thank you for the time, and I'm just really glad this happened today. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to make a motion, but I also want to give credit where credit is due. I think our staff and the -- and the specialists we've brought on have done a -- an excellent job here. I know our water and wastewater plans are the envy of many of the communities around the state, and and the big reason is because we have planned carefully, and now we continue in that direction. So I compliment you all on the -- on the well -- on the good job you've done. And with that I'll make a motion we approve this item, particularly placing emphasis, though, on Commissioner Hancock's suggestion that we fast track on the other points. I realize they weren't part of this RFP. Nonetheless, I think they're important points to us and -- and to the board. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, gentlemen. (One audience member applauding) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We made somebody happy. (Laughter) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that because it's over? Item #882 RESOLUTION 96-479/CWS-96-12 APPROVING THE FINAL APPLICATION FOR A STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN FOR PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item, 8(B)(2), resolution to approve the final application for a state revolving fund loan for Phase I improvements to the South County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. MR. FINN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Edward Finn -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. We have Mr. Agostine here conducting a meeting of his own. When he's through with his, we'll go ahead with ours. Are you through now, Mr. Agostine? Are you through? Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Finn. MR. FINN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Edward Finn, public works operations director. I'm here to present an item today, 8(B)(2). This item is designed to get the board's approval on a resolution to approve the application for a state revolving fund loan for Phase I improvements to the South County Wastewater Treatment Facility. You may recall that in Hay of this year the board approved a 201 Plan update. Part of that update was designed -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Finn, this is just a continuation of our process, is it not? MR. FINN: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Speakers, Mr. Dorrill? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #BE1 CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH ACTION AUDITS, INC., FOR THE PROVISION OF CONSULTATION SERVICES - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item -- we'll take the next item and then take a short break, probably, here -- 8(E)(1), recommendation to the board of commissioners to authorize the chairman to execute an agreement with Action Audits for the provision of consultation services. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Our most important question here is, the source for the money that will be expended if we pass this item is -- MR. DORRILL: Nongeneral revenues, and it will be specifically the fees associated with the regulation of this industry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In that case I'll make a motion we approve the item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there any direction Ms. Merritt needs from the board beyond that? MS. MERRITT: No. That suits me fine. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ms. Merritt -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Ms. Herritt, will you identify yourself, please? Ms. Herritt, will you identify yourself on the record, please? MS. HERRITT: Yes, I'm sorry. For the record, Jean Herritt, franchising authority. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question. Ms. Herritt, the -- this auditing company is for the purpose of the franchise renewals coming up in 1997-1998; is that true? MS. HERRITT: That is correct. However, I would like to add that we have two major renewals up, and we also have one new application for Marco Island Cable, and we also have two more companies that are planning to present petitions for agreements. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: It sounds like we're going to be busy. MS. HERRITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Sounds like we have competition, doesn't it? MS. HERRITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second to approve this recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: With that we'll take a very short break and be right back. (A short break was held.) Item #8E2 INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BCC AND THE FORD FLORIDA EVALUATION CENTER - APPROVED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're back. Our next item is Item 8(E)(2), an agreement with Ford concerning the test track. Hr. Dotrill. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, I -- I'd like to provide the board members a -- an overview of this item, and then I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. I'd reported to the board previously when we went to Dearborn to meet with Ford officials there, there is a -- there are two different issues here. One of them is, obviously, whether they are going to purchase and expand the existing facility for $15 million and make it a permanent -- one of the five remaining worldwide research and -- and development centers for Ford. They had indicated they won't make that decision until near the end of the year, after the holidays. The other issue -- and they've said repeatedly -- is an issue that's called ISO 9000 and in -- in generic terms ISO 9000 is sort of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for automobiles and enables Ford to sell cars in North America, Europe, and Japan. And in order to make this facility ISO 9000 eligible, they need to construct what is called a sound pad; and in layman's terms a sound pad measures various noises of an automobile as it rolls down the road at approximately 40 miles an hour. That test will then enable the Florida evaluation center to be only the second evaluation center in North America that is ISO 9000 certified, and it is a -- a huge issue to the Ford people. They have submitted plans and they have all of the approvals necessary to construct that facility. We have previously reviewed site development plans, building permit applications, and they have a letter of intent to modify their existing permit from the South Florida Water Management District. Dr. Gore, who has appealed and is contesting the expansion and the purchase of that facility, not surprisingly to us, has also used the process to try and block and delay the construction of the sound pad facility. The sound pad is approximately six- tenths of an acre in total area, and for all practical purposes, is a driveway off of their existing 2-1/2-mile straightaway that -- that runs due north and south at the facility; and a car will veer off of that and literally run over a 150-by-150 special pad area, and there are very sophisticated microphones that are set up in the pad to measure and record the various noises that automobiles make. Because of the appeal, they could essentially have to wait, and they cannot wait. They need to have this facility eligible this fall in order to stay on their production schedule. Using the authorization that you had previously given me and expressly the opportunity to mitigate impacts at that site, even if it required the use of county land, we have developed a hold harmless agreement. Ford has agreed, even prior to today, that they would proceed at their risk to construct the facility; and it's my understanding that the facility is under construction. They are doing that at -- at their risk in the unlikely event -- and I would underscore "unlikely event .... that a hearing officer would overturn the Water Management District's intent to issue the letter of modification nine months to a year from now. So with that, in good faith, we have proposed to Ford as an inducement to get them to commence construction -- and frankly, to give us a leg up on the other nine test facilities worldwide -- that in the event that a hearing officer ruled against the facility, that the county would step in and pay to remove the lime rock and the asphalt to its prepermit condition. There are no wetland issues here. There are no vegetation issues. This feature has been built totally inside of an existing dry retention area that is bermed and sodded with Bahia sod, so we don't have any other mitigation other than that. We have determined our worst-case-scenario costs to be approximately $20,000 if we step in to remove the facility. The benefit of that, though, is that we're dealing with lime rock that can be used throughout Golden Gate Estates on our lime rock road system, and the asphalt will be in a condition that it can be returned to an asphalt plant and recycled also as part of our annual recycling contract. So our risk and exposure here is minimus. I can't express that to you enough. It does show the resolve and the conviction of the Board of County Commissioners to -- to get a leg up on the other nine test facilities worldwide in the hope that -- that this may be the issue that puts us over the top, and it shows our good faith to stand with Ford as they proceed through the permitting process. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Dorrill, you're looking for the board to do what today? MR. DORRILL: I'm asking you to approve the hold harmless agreement that we developed; and I should thank, personally, David Weigel and his staff, and I should also thank Robin Couch, who is the attorney from the general counsel's office at Ford that -- that helped us to develop this agreement and submit it to you. The costs to construct the facility and to permit the facility, I'm told, are in excess of a quarter of a million dollars, and those are the sole responsibility of the Ford Motor Company. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any questions? COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a commendation. I think this falls exactly in line with what we asked you to do, to go do what was reasonable to preserve this -- this facility. And I think that this is exactly in line with what the board asked you to do, and I just want to indicate support. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have one question on the asphalt, taking it up, putting it down, and so forth. From what you said, I understand the county's only exposure is actually the labor cost of whatever goes into that. MR. DORRILL: And the equipment costs, I would presume, from road and bridge, unless we otherwise think that we can privatize the -- the removal of that material. But it would involve front- end loaders and -- and dump trucks, and there's approximately 50 loads of lime rock, and I don't -- I don't know what -- COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: We can use that. MR. DORRILL: Well, that's my point. And while we would incur the equipment and the labor costs -- I don't think it's ever going to come to that, but for our effort we do get materials that we can use in the Golden Gate Estates. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Really, to question the wisdom of a ten or twenty thousand dollar potential expenditure versus the several hundred thousand dollars a year the taxpayer benefits due to Ford's contribution to this community, both direct and the several million dollars indirect, puts me in a position to move approval of the hold harmless agreement presented to us today. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. COMHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Item #9A RESOLUTION 96-480 APPROVING THE CITY OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, HOSPITAL REVENUE BONDS (NAPLES COMHUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. PROJECT) SERIES 1996, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A LOAN TO NAPLES COHMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC. TO BE USED TO REFUND ALL OR A PORTION OF THE OUTSTANDING PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF CITY OF NAPLES HOSPITAL REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1992, TO PAY ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COSTS OF A CAPITAL PROJECT FOR HEALTH CARE FACILITIES AND TO PAY ALL OR A PORTION OF THE COST OF CREDIT ENHANCEMENT AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next is 9(A), a resolution approving the City of Naples hospital revenue bonds. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Perhaps the most important line here is the final line that says, "The resolution does not obligate the county in any manner for the payment of the bonds or the debt service thereon." COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If there aren't speakers, I'd be happy to move approval. I think it's rather perfunctory. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- MR. DORRILL: I -- I have none. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: None? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The -- the county has no -- we're not putting our credit up on this either; right? Did you move approval? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'll second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second for approval of these bonds. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) PUBLIC COHMENT - AL PERKINS REGARDING ACTIVITIES SOUTH OF ALLIGATOR ALLEY BETWEEN C.R. 951 AND S.R. 29 (PICAYUNE STRAND) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That concludes our morning agenda. Do we have public comment? MR. DORRILL: I have one. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Of course. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A1 Perkins. MR. PERKINS: Good morning· Commissioners. A very important issue took place on the 12th of October. The dedication of the Picayune State Forest took place· which is actually Southern Golden Gate Estates. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry· A1. Is that land all owned by the state now? MR. PERKINS: That land is not all owned by the state. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. PERKINS: Okay? Not even half of it's owned by the state; but the Department of Forestry is encouraging camping· hiking· bird watching· horseback riding· bicycling, jogging· fishing· boating· and all the rest of the facilities· okay? Yet they have done nothing to stop the hunting out there or the discharge of firearms. Needless to say, we have invited kids· people· and animals to get put straight into harm's way. Now, I've mentioned this to the board before· and I'm going to take and mention it again· and I hope you people at home are listening. Pay attention. Instead of getting some kids and some animals and some people hurt· let's stop the hunting and the discharging of firearms south of the Alley to 41 on the southern part from 951 to State Road 29 on the east. The people who are out there hunting do not live nor do they pay taxes nor do they participate in this county. They are from the east coast. If you don't believe me · ask Don Hunter· ask the sheriff· and they will not go out there· because they're being outgunned. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Literally. MR. PERKINS: Outgunned. AR-15's, M-16's, Uzis and the whole 5 yards· okay? This needs to be done before somebody gets hurt and somebody gets killed. The people that hunt out there -- what they call hunting -- they call it block hunting. They surround the block -- because it's a development· they surround it maybe 50 feet apart with the hunters with these weapons -- and they are weapons -- and they send in 35 dogs at one end, and everything that comes out gets shot, including some of their dogs. This is nonsense; this is ridiculous. I have petitioned and been after the sheriff for a long period of time -- not only this sheriff, but the sheriff before -- and they have said to me, "You're going to have to take care of it yourself, because we're being outgunned out there." The sheriff is afraid to enforce the law. Please, Commissioners, save somebody's lives. Fix the problem. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 96-63 RE PETITION R-96-11, MR. AND MRS. EUGENE COX REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL TO "RSF-i" RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORANGE BLOSSOM ROAD WEST OF YARBERRY LANE IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONTAINING 1.79 ACRES - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. We'll go directly into our afternoon agenda then, and the first item is 12(B)(2), Petition R-96-11. MR. NINO: For the record my name is Ron Nino, planning services section. The petition before you is a petition requesting rezoning of property that's currently zoned agricultural to the RSF-1 zoning classification. Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Cox currently own 10 acres of land on the south side of Orange Blossom Road, and there's a house on a portion. It's their personal residence that's on a portion of that property, and they -- they are in the process of selling the majority of the property; however, in order to retain the residence on the parcel of land less than 5 acres -- 5 acres, which is the zoning district, it's necessary for them to seek rezoning to a single- family classification that's consistent with their wishes. The RSF-1 zoning district provides for a minimum lot size of 1 acre. They're retaining 1.76 acres of land. There certainly are no issues of consistency. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It wouldn't bother you if I interrupted you -- MR. NINO: Not at all. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in the hopes of maybe speeding this up? This is -- this is pretty consistent with what is on Yarberry Lane. It's a rather low density area. One per -- per acre is pretty consistent, so if there are no public speakers, I'd like to move approval. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me close the public hearing. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll move approval of the item. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. MR. DORRILL: Wait. We do -- we do have one. Mr. Cox is registered. I presume that you -- you're okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would you like to talk us out of this or -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll reopen the public hearing if Mr. Cox is going to talk us out of this. MR. COX: Actually, all I was going to say is that my wife and I own the property, and we live on it -- the property in question and that staff has covered the situation thoroughly, and I'm available for any questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Identify yourself for the record, please. MR. COX: I'm sorry. My name is Eugene Cox. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #1283 ORDINANCE 96-64 RE PETITION PUD-83-26(1), GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNG, VANASSENDERP & VARNADOE, P.A., REPRESENTING THE IHMOKALEE ROAD PARTNERSHIP AND THE RIBECK CO., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE "THE WOODLANDS" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A "PUD TO PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REZONING ACTION HAVING THE EFFECT OF REPLACING THE MASTER PLAN WITH A NEW MASTER PLAN; REDUCING THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF AUTHORIZED LAND USES; INCREASING OPEN SPACE AND PRESERVES AND MAKING OTHER CHANGES TO REFLECT THE CURRENT TIMEFRAME WHICH IS LOCATED NORTH OF IHMOKALEE ROAD (COMPANION TO ITEMS 12C1 AND 12C2) - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATION CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is Petition PUD -- MR. NINO: For the record my name is Ron -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- eighty-three dash -- MR. NINO: -- Nino, planning services -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- twenty-six paten one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This has a couple of companion items with it? MR. DORRILL: Yes, it does. MR. NINO: Yes. If I may, Mr. Chairman, deal with DOA-96-3, and the determinations have been substantial or a substantial change. The petition that's before you deals with the Woodlands' development and regional impact first approved in November 6th of 1986. The petitioner is seeking to amend the development order and the PUD, because in the intervening period of time since its adoption, they are able to more definitively identify the environmental conditions that need to be preserved and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I just interrupt you to ask you this? This looks to me like we're reducing density, we're reducing commercial acreage, we're increasing -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Green space? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- preservation and green space. MR. NINO: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So it seems like this might could move along more quickly than it is -- MR. NINO: All right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- because it looks like a really good idea. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question for the petitioner. It does -- it does look like an increase of green space. Are there any tax dollars involved with this? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This paid political announcement COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think it's a legitimate question. MR. VARNADOE: I'm not going to use any of Mr. Saunders' tax on this property. Thank you. My name is George Varnadoe for the record. I have an hour presentation, so I hope you're not going to (Laughter) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have -- I do have one question for the petitioner. The north-south collector road -- I -- I'm sorry. I -- I didn't form this ahead of time -- what does that line up with on Immokalee Road? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: You don't want to know. MR. VARNADOE: The -- the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The north-south collector that's now on the west side of the property. MR. VARNADOE: It's -- it's really a local road, Mr. Hancock, that -- that is to provide access to the -- the Section 16, which is to the north, which is landlocked without that. I think it's pretty close to Logan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Is there anything on the south side of Immokalee that lines up with this road? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not currently. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that correct? There's nothing on the south side of Immokalee that lines up with this proposed -- MR. VARNADOE: It's -- no. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Currently, no, there is not. However, from the next section down or two sections down, there's Logan Boulevard. It does line up with a section -- a section line that -- therefore, if -- if we approve this, I would -- would like a definite stipulation -- and -- and I see that roadway is only 60 feet wide -- that it remain 60 feet wide and no additional right-of-way. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. It lines up with what? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: A potential Logan Boulevard extension. MR. VARNADOE: Let me give you a little background just so everybody understands. When this project first came in in 1984, there was a thought about putting State Road 951 -- swinging it 1 mile to the west and coming up the east side of the Woodlands through this -- what is now preserve area. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All -- all that green is preserve area forever? MR. VARNADOE: Forever, unfortunately. The -- and so the Growth Management Plan was changed to show that alignment of 951. When we ran into these environmental problems and the county started exploring the section north of this and north of that about how we were going to get through there, they decided that really wasn't going to work. So they realigned 951 back over to -- going straight north between the Florida Rock property and the Nicewander (phonetic), I guess, property. When that happened we needed to have a -- some access to the section to the north of us, and that's why this local road is -- is being proposed. But we have no objections to Commissioner Matthews' stipulation. That's all that's shown on the master plan -- all reflected in the PUD at the present time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Varnadoe, is this -- this one -- is that an exact section there that's shown on that map? MR. VARNADOE: That map shows one section, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. It looks like, then, if you count the preservation area and the open space, golf course, and lakes, that you're -- you have -- well over 50 percent of that is - _ MR. VARNADOE: It's -- 67 percent, sir, is -- is in open space, lakes, or golf course; and over 35 percent of the site are going to be in conservation easements or green space, I guess, is the current buzz word for this. And that's the area shown in the -- in the hatched green/black up there. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Now, reading this -- and if I understand right, we're going down in dwelling units from 1460 to - _ MR. VARNADOE: We're going from -- we're going from 1460 to 1100, from 2.9 units an acre to 2.2, a reduction of about 25 percent, 24.7 per our accountant. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And the commercial acreage is going down as well from 15 to 12 and the -- MR. VARNADOE: Twenty percent reduction, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And 35,000 square feet is coming off of that. The preservation area is going to be larger as is the open space, lakes, and golf course area. MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. So -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So tell us what's wrong with this. MR. VARNADOE: Well, from a developer point of view, we have less land to develop and less chance to make money; but that's the -- the environmental price we're paying on this piece of property. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate the brutal honesty. Mr. Nino, my -- my concern -- and before I agree with what Commissioner Matthews has set forth, if Logan were to finally connect to this road, it runs northward to the Lee County line, is there any plan of this connecting to a road in Lee County anywhere in our '- our MR. NINO: There's no provision for that road -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Not at this point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- let me ask -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me. One at a time, please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to make sure we don't make a transportation mistake here like we made 20 years ago. MR. NINO: The road -- the road reservation is still on the west side -- east side of the Parklands, which will provide for the extension of 951 all the way to Bonita Beach Road. MR. VARNADOE: We went through this with Mr. Perry before he left the county as to what right-of-way we needed on the west side. He said all you need -- we need to accommodate there is a local road. He said it may or may not ever connect to Lee County, but it's not -- it doesn't go anywhere once it gets there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Public speakers on this item? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, I don't have any. MR. NINO: If I may confirm for the record, we've heard from both the Regional Planning Council and DCA and they have determined this to be an insubstantial change. MR. VARNADOE: Could I -- I hate to talk myself out of something, but a point of clarification, Commissioner Matthews. We do show wider than 60 feet in this area (indicating) just as an entry feature, but the main right-of-way through the project is -- is just 60 feet. And I think if we just refer to our PUD master plan, that's what we -- we are -- are iljustrating thereon. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's fine. I -- I just would like to see that the -- that the right-of-way in the, at least, northern half of the project remain 60 feet. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's no more questions, then I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, considering that 67 percent of this property will in perpetuity never be available for development, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion that we approve the change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. NINO: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, you need a motion on the PUD. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I understand. MR. NINO: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We got -- we got two companion items. We -- we'll get to them. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: We have three altogether. Could I ask the motion maker -- and I -- I'm not -- I'm not sure whether __ you know, how we would put this in, but I would like to see some sort of stipulation in the PUD, at least, that -- that this roadway remain 60 feet and that in order to widen the roadway at all, even at the developer's discretion, that that would be a change to the PUD; and they would have to -- have to bring it back for a public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Mr. Varnadoe agreed to that on the record, so I'll -- I'll go ahead and make that a part of the motion. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we -- does the second amend? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we have a motion and a second amended, and all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (no response) Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 96-481 DETERMINING THAT REVISIONS TO THE WOODLANDS DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW (COMPANION TO ITEMS #1283 AND #12C2) - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll take the Companion Item 12(C)(1) first. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'll -- if -- do you need to close the public hearing on that or are we -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing on that One. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a motion we approve 12(C)(1). COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 96-482/DO-96-2 RE PETITION DOA-96-3f GEORGE L. VARNADOE OF YOUNGf V~NASSENDERP & VARNADOES~ P.A.~ REPRESENTING THE IMMOK~LEE ROAD PARTNERSHIP AND THE RIBECK CO. FORAN ~MENDMENT TO "THE WOODLANDS" DRI DEVELOPMENT ORDER 86-1~ AS ~MENDED~ HAVING THE EFFECT OF REPLACING THE M_~STER PL~N WITH A NEW M_~STER PL~Nf REDUCING THE DENSITY ~ND INTENSITY OF AUTHORIZED L~ND USES~ INCREASING OPEN SPACE ~ND PRESERVES ~ND M_~KING OTHER CHANGES TO REFLECT THE CURRENT TIMEFP~kME~ SAID PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF IMMOK~LEE ROAD (COMPANION TO ITEM #12B3 ~ND #12C1) - ADOPTED Our next -- our other companion item is 12(C)(2)~ Petition DCA-96-~. Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman '- COMMISSIONER M_~TTHEWS: Mr. Chairman~ I'd like to make a motion that we approve Petition DOA-96-~ (sic). COMMISSIONER H~NCOCK: Second. CHAIRM_~N NORRIS: We have a motion and second. All those in £avor signi£y by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRM_~N NORRIS: That covers the Woodlands. Item #12B4 PETITION PUD-82-3(3), MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, INC., REPRESENTING HARIG MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WIGGINS BAY PUD TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL USES AS AN OPTION TO COHMERCIAL USES FOR A DESIGNATED COHMERCIAL TRACT, SPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW 56 DWELLING UNITS IN A 15 STORY BUILDING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VANDERBILT DRIVE AND WIGGINS PASS ROAD - DENIED Next item is PUD-82-33(3). MR. NINO: For the record my name is Ron Nino, planning services. PUD-82-33(3) is a petition to amend the Wiggins Bay PUD, specifically with respect to the 3-1/2-acre commercial tract which is located on the southeast corner of Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive. This is the Wiggins Bay PUD (indicating). It embraces an area that seems rather large, but in fact, more than -- almost two-thirds of the property is a -- is a preserve area or a water mass. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that last part? MR. NINO: Sure. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Most of -- two-thirds of that area is in -- in perpetuity is in preserve? MR. NINO: Yes, correct. At no charge to the public. The 3 1/2 acres is this tract in the northeastern corner (indicating), as I said, at Wiggins Pass Road and -- and Vanderbilt Drive. The property immediately across the street from the Wiggins Pass PUD and the commercial tract is the site of the county's recreation area, boat launch facility, Pelican Yacht Club. Pelican Yacht Club has been zoned RT and has three 10-story buildings on it. Island Marina, another RT zoning district, has an 8-story structure on it, and the Wiggins Pass Marina is northwest of the Wiggins Pass PUD. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Nino, the -- the red box that you were just pointing to covers roughly a total of how much acreage? MR. NINO: I believe it's a hundred and forty-five acres. About a hundred and forty-five acres, I believe, yes. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. NINO: The petitioner is asking that the currently-approved zoning district, C-2 zoning district, within the PUD be converted to residential uses at 16 units per acre, which is authorized by the Future Land Use Element and the Growth Management Plan. And to construct those resulted in 56 units in a 15-story structure. Staff -- various members of staff have reviewed the conversion for its impact on policies and objectives of the Growth Management Plan, and we find that there would be no inconsistency with any of the policies and objectives of the Growth Management Plan if this conversion were approved. There isn't anything in the Growth Management Plan, I might add, that speaks to the issue of height. The only issue speaks to the issue of density. The Planning Commission heard this petition -- I might -- I might, for the record, indicate that in your packet I provided a sketch -- a plan of the Wiggins Pass PUD master plan, which in patens shows the number of units on the -- and the height of the buildings that are currently in the Wiggins Pass Planned Unit Development. The lots -- you'll note that the lots nearest the commercial site are 5 stories in height, and that's a project known as Princeton Place. You'll also note that the Wiggins Pass PUD does provide for 15- story and 13-story structures; however, in a straight line they're a distance -- by at least twelve to fifteen hundred feet from the commercial site. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. How far was that? MR. NINO: Twelve hundred to fifteen hundred feet -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. Thank you. MR. NINO: -- lineal distance from the commercial site. There are also 1-story buildings in the Wiggins Pass PUD -- Wiggins Bay. The Planning Commission heard this petition on September the 19th, and by a vote of 4 to 3, recommended that the amendment to allow a 15-story building be approved. As you know, your packet contains an extensive number of people who have registered opposition. We have -- we have summarized that opposition into undetermined, no reason, traffic, compatibility, or both, or a group that actually preferred commercial and one that actually recommended approval. I might -- I should point out to you that the action of the Planning Commission is not consistent with the recommendation of staff, and the staff report does identify the reasons why it felt that a 15-story structure would be inappropriate for that site. I understand the petitioner wishes -- will be making a presentation. I'd be pleased to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before going to the petitioner -- I don't have a question for Mr. Nino -- Mr. Weigel, if you could answer for me, a property that goes through the zoning teevaluation ordinance, or the ZRO, several years ago to maintain a commercial designation, when that property decides to alter its zoning outside of the use that it obtained from the ZRO process, does it have to then conform with the existing Growth Management Plan, or is it allowed to use the conversion of commercial possibility? Has this even been looked at, because when it comes to ZRO, it does fall under an additional level of constraint; and I want to know if that level of constraint precludes this application. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. I think it has been looked at. Ms. Student can specifically address your question. MS. STUDENT: When a property has gone through ZRO, any new development or any change to the development must be consistent with the comp plan. Staff didn't specifically ask us to review this petition with them, but it's my understanding that in a staff review they looked at the conversion of commercial that's in the Comprehensive Plan so they would be able to utilize that provision and be consistent with the plan, because it is in the plan. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's hear from the petitioner, then. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, as he's coming forward, just for your planning purposes, I've got 16 registered speakers. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sixteen registered speakers. Okay. MR. PICKWORTH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Don Pickworth. I represent DCI and David HcArdle, who has an agreement with the owner to develop this property if we are able to obtain the ability to develop a -- a high-rise residential building on this site. Mr. Fernandez, who is going to go through the various site plan drawings with you, represents the owner of the property, and will - will make some comments from his standpoint. I just thought it'd be -- I wanted to set that forth right at the beginning, because we -- we became involved in this based on the fact that we -- we believe, for factors that, I think, are going to be pointed out here, that a -- a residential building here with some heighth to it is, in fact, the -- the proper and, in fact, the best use for this property and, in fact, will have the least impact on surrounding properties and -- and will actually be more beneficial than other uses to which the property could be put. We understand there's been some level of -- of controversy over this and disagreement. We feel that a 15-story building is appropriate. The staff has -- has stated that 10 stories is where it should be. We're pretty sure that anything lower than 10 is just not something that the DCI and HcArdle Group is interested in, because we don't believe that -- that at that level what can be constructed there is -- is beneficial. We think it's detrimental at that point. That's obviously our view of -- of what -- what makes sense in this neighborhood. As you know from the -- the drawings that are part of your packet, there are existing high-rise buildings in the -- in the development, which range -- some are 15, some, I believe, are 13; and we certainly are, you know, open to -- to looking at some rational number in there that -- that makes some sense. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Mr. Pickworth, are those existing buildings or existing permitted -- MR. PICKWORTH: Excuse me. I -- it's existing on the plan. I don't think any of those buildings are built. I guess -- I know there was an article in the paper about -- about, I think, WCI taking over some of those, and I -- I saw that article in the paper about it, but -- but, no. It's -- it's on the plan; they're not built. I'm sorry. We -- again, as I say, we've looked at various building configurations on this site from the standpoint of -- of what would be most compatible and what would make sense in the neighborhood, and __ and we believe after looking at that that -- that this is a case of where a higher building is, in reality, we believe, less impactive on both the neighborhood and other members of the public traveling and __ and viewing in the vicinity. And on the theory that a picture is worth a thousand words, I -- I'm going to turn this over to Mr. Fernandez and let him go through this with you so you can see how we -- how we arrived at these conclusions. Let me just say one thing in closing. I know there are -- there's a number of the letters written by the people who are residents of the condominium development. This is an issue that -- that is obviously of some importance to them. I also know that this is an issue of some importance to DCI, which would very much like to do a project of this type; and a number of -- a number of -- of our people and people who also work with us and whose livelihood are -- are dependent on -- on development companies are here today. Some of them I know will speak. Some of them aren't. If they want to raise their hands so that you'll know that -- that this is a matter of -- of some importance to a number of people. And -- and I just want to, you know, to ask you to balance out -- I mean, I know these are -- these are tough issues, but we think when you -- when you look at the various development scenarios here, we think what we're proposing is -- is actually the best development scenario. And with that I'll turn it over to Mr. Fernandez. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, now might be an appropriate time for me to mention that I have had conversations with parties on both sides of the issue; but as required by the law, I will base my decision solely on the information provided during this public hearing. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I, too, have had conversations and a presentation by the petitioner, conversations and correspondence with members of the public, but I will base my decision solely on what is presented here at this public hearing today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise for me. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Likewise. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Likewise. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a correct legal term, isn't it, Mr. Weigel? MR. FERNANDEZ: Either that or ditto; right? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ditto is my usual. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez for the petitioner. For a couple items of clarity, the petitioner is actually requesting that he have the option to utilize the property for a residential use consistent with the regulations that are in the PUD document that exists today. He wants that option because if -- under a certain threshold it really doesn't become a viable use, a residential use does not become viable; and we'd like to retain the commercial ability to develop the property. During the Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commissioners approved a 15-story height, and for that height the petitioner, the landowner, was willing to give up the -- the commercial use of the property. The other aspect of the request is that we are requesting a direct access to the property from Wiggins Pass Road, which the transportation department has reviewed and feels is appropriate; and that's also included as part of our presentation. Relative to the issue of compatibility, we looked at the project and also what could actually be built there, including convenience stores, restaurants, gas stations. The only use that people have been -- have looked at the property in the past, in recent times, is -- is for restaurant use. Looking at that in relationship to the adjacent residential development that exists there today, we feel that it is a compatibility issue, and certainly, I think, staff also recognize that compatibility-wise, a residential development would be more desirable than a commercial one. The uses that are allowed in the development are C-2, per your zoning ordinance. We looked at the project from a couple of standpoints, and initially we were just looking at the development standards that are allowed in the PUD. We came up and looked at the setbacks. It was mentioned that -- in staff's report that this building, these residential buildings or building that would be built here would have a larger impact on the community in its current configuration. We then looked and had the opportunity to look at it using some new technology, computers, and it did -- and that was the case. Using the setbacks that are allowed in the PUD for a 15- story building, this building would have a more significant impact on the neighbors and the community. We then looked at it -- had the computer do some additional analysis to come up with an answer of an equivalent impact of a higher building relative to staff's recommendation of 10 stories. And I might -- an interesting anecdote is that the Planning Commission states -- the commissioners originally -- an original motion was made to approve it at 10 stories. That motion failed. Then a motion for 15 was made, and that one was approved, and I think you'll see why. We did a computer modeling of the building at 10 stories with the setbacks that are provided for in the PUD. We then came back and asked the computer to give us an equivalent building, and this is what it came up with (indicating). This has a setback of a hundred and twenty feet. The PUD as written only requires 75, so this would be a significantly increased setback. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Fernandez. This is from the corner of Vanderbilt Drive and -- MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Wiggins Pass Road? MR. FERNANDEZ: This (indicating) is a view from the public right-of-way near the corner of Vanderbilt and Wiggins Pass. We then did a composite, and you can see in the composite that the 15-story structure is totally within the envelope of the 10 visually. In fact, the 15 story is smaller in width. It's 50 percent taller, 50 percent smaller in width. One of our commissioners suggested, well, let's look at it from the residents' point of view, because obviously they're -- they're significantly - _ they have a significant interest in this project as well. Using the same footprint, we looked at it from the resident standpoint. This (indicating) was a 10-story from the center building of Princeton Place. We then came back and looked at it for the 15-story, and then, again, we did the composite. Now, this time we didn't tell the computer to modify the site plan to equate -- create an equivalent building. This time we just said, you know, give us what -- what we've put in there. This is its massing for the 10-story; this is for the 15-story from the center building. And I'll show you why that's important. With this particular -- from this particular viewpoint, the 10-story has a height equivalent of about a 14-story building, so something less than the 15; however, it does have less of a width. But, again, what's important here, perhaps, is to show you why -- why the viewpoint's important. Those views were taken from the center building. From this building (indicating) the 15-story would actually appear to be smaller than the 10-story; however, from this building (indicating), indeed, the 15 would be 50 percent -- would appear significantly larger than 10-story, because they would have an equivalent proximity; however, the building being 50 percent less in width would have less of an impact from that standpoint. So what we have, generally speaking, is from the public standpoint, a 15 would have a -- less of an impact with our proposed setbacks. From this building (indicating) it would have less of an impact. From this one (indicating) roughly an equivalent of a 14-story. For this one (indicating) it's a trade-off. It has a greater impact heighthwise, but it has less of an impact widthwise. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: May I ask you a question? MR. FERNANDEZ: Certainly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Current designation allows for what? MR. FERNANDEZ: Current designation allows for C-2 uses, which would include restaurants, convenience stores, retail, office. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess the obvious question that jumps out at me -- and you may have anticipated this anyway -- but when we look at a 10-story building or 15-story building, they are very similar in -- in impact according to setback. How does that compare with -- I'm going to assume a restaurant would not be multistory. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. My assumption -- although you are allowed 35 feet of height, you would have a restaurant that might be -- you know, maybe it's 20 feet. It's probably not going to even hit the 35. What the -- what the restaurant does have are the nuisances, you know, restaurants or a convenience store or a gas station that a residential development does not. It has the lighting; it has the signage; it has the noise; it has the smells. And the fact that we have local buildings that are around the perimeter, the chances are that when they get out of their units, the first thing they're going to see would probably be some of the rooftop equipment that would probably be on top of a restaurant or another commercial vehicle. So instead of looking at a residential structure, you're probably going -- you're going to be looking at a commercial structure, if you will. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. HR. FERNANDEZ: We also did some -- on the site plan issue looking at the 10-story, the views of the project are out towards -- out Wiggins Bay and Wiggins Pass. This is the desirable desig -- location for that building. We looked at it from the public's perspective. This is the -- what I'd call a clear zone, the amount of -- of area that would be free of building. We also looked at it from a 15-story, and you can see that that area has been significantly increased because of the greater setback. Also the building itself then would have more desirable views, and consequently you could expect that the investment would be higher in such a structure. And finally, in regard to the views themselves, the existing structures that are located -- these are the three that are located -- their primary views are out toward -- over preservation areas and green areas; and as Mr. Nino noted, there's substantial amounts of them. To the rear of their building, they do have some secondary windows from their kitchen areas and also second bedrooms, but these are parking lots. This is what they have in the back areas is their parking lots areas. Our views are, again, toward the pass area, and you can see that our building has been located -- fortunately, because our views are located that way, ends up being perpendicular generally to their structures, and therefore the impact of width is a slice of, let's say, 60 feet at least from these two structures (indicating), a little more on this one (indicating). The 10-story would have less of a setback, and it also have -- would be wider, and its views would also be toward the pass. And finally, it was suggested that we look at, you know, even if the allowable was a 7-story building -- well, with a 7- story building, we really don't have any views anymore toward the pass. It would not make sense to orient in that manner. We would have our parking that would complement their parking. Our views would be toward the corner. Unfortunately, what you have here is the roads, Vanderbilt Drive and Wiggins Pass Road. You would have a retention area. Essentially, what you have is a residential -- would have is a residential project that doesn't have the amenities that all the other people that live in this development have, which are views over these large areas. That makes this project -- and it would have also the impacts of the roadways and the -- most of the impacts, if you've gone out to the site, are from cars slowing down, stopping, and it's unique in that respect. Also you'll note that this building (indicating) -- north is down on this particular graphic -- is north of these buildings. So we don't have one of these issues of shadows going on to the adjacent buildings and that this structure is north of the -- north of the existing residential. And if -- those of you who may be familiar with the site, over here diagonally across from the site, you have a marina development, which has a large metal building, which probably isn't the most attractive building anyway; so they're not necessarily the most desirable views. With that if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions? Mr. Weigel, I have a question for you. In an application such as this for a PUD amendment, it's my understanding that the entire PUD is up for discussion once it's open. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Generally, yes. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I -- I notice that there's a number of -- of units planned here that have 15- and 13-story buildings. Is __ would it be permissible for the commission to establish a new height limitation within this PUD at this hearing? MR. WEIGEL: I think you can. I think you can work toward that. (Telephone is ringing) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That would be the developer of the other 15-story buildings calling in. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to state for the record this is a quasi-judicial hearing, and so anything like that that the commission may be inclined to do, you might want to have a discussion or get some competent substantial evidence from staff on the points that you would like to address. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. WEIGEL: Wrong number. (Laughter) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do you have a question? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I guess along the same lines of -- of your question. Mr. Weigel, my understanding is though it is a single PUD, there are any number of different builders or developers or whatever within that. Is there some potential consequence, appeal, or otherwise we're likely to incur if we follow through? I'm not suggesting we don't do it on that. I'm suggesting are we okay doing that as part of today's -- I'm assuming we are, because the whole PUD's there. If that's been advertised, everyone should know. I just want to make that clear, I guess. MR. WEIGEL: Well, again, Hiss Student may want to chime in a bit here, but the PUD comes forward under a developer, under an owner. Although there may be a potential for different construction to occur on there, we're really addressing land that is before you under a -- a single ownership, so we're not -- we're not affecting the other owners that aren't advised of the meeting or -- or publicly advertised of this particular -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But I -- I thought based on just what I've read in the real estate section of the newspaper that those -- that the other 15-story buildings are -- had been sold, that those building pads were sold to WCI, and they're planned to be developed by that group, but that that closing had already occurred, that those are separately owned parcels, or are they just advertising? Anybody know the answer to that? MS. STUDENT: I think maybe I can address some of this. What you have before you today is a PDA instead of a PUD to PUD, so you have a particular section before you. Generally speaking, we've always taken the position that when a PUD, you know, comes in for an amendment, that it opens up the whole thing. But I think, you know, facts alter cases, and it may be not a wise course -- especially considering that these other parcels have been sold off and what you have before you today is just a PDA, which addresses a particular section of this PUD, it may not be a wise course to open up the entire PUD. What we also have before us, as I've mentioned to the commission before that we have not had in the past, is the Bert Harris Private Property Rights Act. And whenever there's a reasonable investment-backed expectation in a certain plan of development or zoning category -- and again, these cases have not yet been flushed out by the district courts of appeal or even the supreme court in this state, so we're still kind of shooting in the dark, if you would; you know, there is an argument that they -- there may be a cause of action under that act. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're certainly not suggesting, however, that because there have been real estate transactions within this PUD that somehow the board of commissioners is then precluded from or prohibited from dealing with the specifics within that PUD? MS. STUDENT: I would proceed with more caution, because we are dealing with a -- a PDA which is different from a fezone from a PUD to PUD. We're dealing with a specific part of it, and we do not have -- while they undoubtedly know about the amendments to the other section of the PUD, we don't have those people here to address it, so I -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I understand. MS. STUDENT: -- would be a bit more cautious. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand, but in my cynical mind couldn't, theoretically, someone get a PUD passed, create some shell corporations, sell a parcel to them, sell a parcel to them, and under what you are telling us have three or four different corporations, but because they have divied it up amongst the different owners, then the board is somehow prohibited from dealing with the specifics of the entire PUD? MS. STUDENT: I think that -- you know, that theoretically that could happen. It just -- it just causes a -- from our part and our role in trying to defend this board and give you advice proactively, because they're not before you and so forth, it would -- it causes me some concern. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the scenario I drew up could very well happen? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MS. STUDENT: Yes, it could. I don't know that -- that -- you know, of any specific instances where it has, but that scenario could occur. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: But, Hiss Student, this PUD amendment has gone through a long process. It seems to me that anybody involved in the PUD that had any interest in being here, ought to be here. I mean, it's not our fault they're not here, because this certainly has been duly advertised. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hay I ask a question -- MS. STUDENT: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of you -- for you to clarify one of your comments. You're not suggesting that we can't do that. You're suggesting if we choose to that we proceed with caution and make sure we have substantial competent evidence to make the decision. MS. STUDENT: Yes. And I can't stand here and tell you that if you do do it that there won't -- you know, there won't be Some further, you know, problem down the road under the Private Property Rights Act or otherwise. I just need you to know that before you proceed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Miss Student? MS. STUDENT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me try and draw a distinction here that may -- may determine whether or not we proceed down that path. This property has received physical improvements within the PUD, which is a little bit different than exactly what you cited, which is when we come -- when the sunsets come up, we're going to be dealing with the issue you cited time and time again, and I think that's a different scenario. MS. STUDENT: Also when you deal with physical improvements -- and again, it's hard to draw a bright line, but when you deal with that type of thing, you get into a question of vesting and those are case by case. But I can give you an -- a general example from -- excuse me. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may interrupt you, Ms. Student -- MS. STUDENT: Certainly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to get to my question. You -- the reason I mentioned the improvements are to ask -- were to ask you, because of those improvements, am I correct in that this PUD will not return to us under a sunset provision because there has been construction inside the PUD? MS. STUDENT: I would have to defer to staff. I believe that's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're not going to get another look at this, so double-edged sword. This is the only look we have at it unless they bring it back in total, but we're being told to proceed cautiously if -- if that's something we want to do outside the PDA. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: All right. Well, I think we've -- we've sort of answered our question on that of whether -- you know, we have a decision to make of whether we want to go and -- and look at the heighth limitation in the PUD, but I would like to make a distinction on -- on this application versus the one we heard prior to it. The one we heard prior to it lowered densities, increased green space, did all sorts of things that this board is trying to accomplish in its normal course of business. This particular application does just the opposite. It -- it's new development, a new application for new units, an increase in density that -- that was not previously there before; and I think that's -- that is certainly a major distinction between this application and the one we heard just prior. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Really, the only similarities between the two is that both of them have 67 percent of their land set aside in perpetuity for nondevelopment. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It also gives me a little concern -- and I really want to get to the public speakers since there's 90-minutes' worth of it if they all take their five minutes -- but we're -- this application is the parceling-out of the PUD. What we've had in the past is when PUD amendments come in, they look at the PUD in total, and if there's a shift of units interior to the PUD, that's much more palatable. This is a parceling-out. This is saying forget the rest of it; treat this as an individual. And that causes me Some concern, because what it nets is an increase in units per gross acre and total number of units, which is -- is PUD-wide. So that -- that parceling-out is a little bit of a concern, but I'd rather wait until we hear from the public speakers before proceeding. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Any further questions for the staff or petitioner? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I've got one question, if we can address traffic impacts, Mr. Fernandez or staff, somebody. What's the difference in traffic impacts on the commercial property versus the residential? MR. FERNANDEZ: We -- we didn't come up with any direct numbers to address that. I think staff, in their analysis, made the statement that it is less intensive from a residential standpoint than it would be for a commercial; and on basic principles, we would agree with that. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can someone on staff confirm that? MR. NINO: If you took 56 multiple-family units, the average daily traffic would be about 6 1/2 times 56; however, if it were a commercial center, 3 1/2 acres -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thirty-five thousand square feet. MR. NINO: Twenty -- twenty percent of 3 1/2 acres is, what, about a 40,000-square-foot shopping center potentially? Potentially -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. But I've -- I've always operated on 10,000 square feet per acre. What's the -- MR. NINO: Twenty units per thousand? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the -- what's the trip rate? MR. NINO: I believe -- I believe the trips is 50 per 1,000. Is that -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. I did the analysis of the comparison and the multifamily would be less. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: And your name is -- MR. BELLOWS: Oh, for the record, Ray Bellows. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ray, multifamily at 15 floors would be less than the permitted commercial square footage? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: About 1/5 as much. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: One-fifth? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: About 1/5 as much? COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: Only 20 percent of the traffic? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait a minute. I'm -- that's not the math I came up with. I'm sorry. I thought you said 56 times 6.5. MR. NINO: Six point five. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or -- MR. NINO: Forty thousand square foot at fifty trips per one thousand -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's 2,000 trips a day. MR. NINO: That's 2,000 trips a day versus -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Versus -- what's the other number? MR. NINO: Five hundred -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I got -- I used 35,000. I think 40,000 is a little aggressive. But say 35,000, I got 1750 trips per day versus 364 trips per day multifamily. MR. NINO: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's -- that's no surprise -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ouch. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to me that -- you know, multifamily versus commercial over 10,000 square feet. I mean, you're going to get a disparity. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's a huge change. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Further questions for staff or petitioners? I'll tell you what we're going to do. We're going to take a lunch break until 1:00 and be back and finish this item up. (A lunch break was held from 11:44 a.m. to 1:06 p.m.) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reconvene our county commission meeting. We were at the point of calling public speakers. We'd like to ask the public speakers to please be brief, and we'll allow you five minutes each. If you could not be repetitive, we'd appreciate it. And Mr. HcNees is going to call two people at a time. Would the second person please come up and be ready to go. MR. HCNEES: I have John Passidomo followed by George Andelfinger. MR. PASSIDOHO: Good mot -- Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board of county commission. My name is John Passidomo. I'm a member of the firm of Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson. We represent the Wiggins Bay Foundation. Our client is com -- a homeowners' association comprised of 300 homeowners immediately adjacent to the proposed project. They live in 1-, 2-, 4-, and 5-story buildings at Wiggins Bay. It is their PUD which is proposed to be amended. They vigorously oppose this petition. Several took the time out of their schedules to attend the meeting two weeks ago that was continued. Several were here this morning. Others are prepared to address you later this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, I'll ask those members of the public who oppose this project to stand as a signal of their opposition. Thank you. They represent a small portion of the overwhelming opposition to the project in the neighborhood and throughout the Second District Association. Fifty letters of opposition and a resolution of opposition from the Second District Association are in the packet that were circulated to you. We welcome the opportunity, as we know you do, to respond to the petitioner's challenge to you earlier today to balance the interests of the public with the interests of the developer's consultants. The 300 homeowners in the Wiggins Bay Foundation strongly oppose the project for three principal reasons. Number one, it fails to meet the requirements of the Collier County comprehensive plan which require that in order to qualify for -- for a conversion from commercial to residential uses, there needs to be a finding that the project must be compatible with surrounding land uses. We respectfully submit that the 5 stories immediately adjacent -- the 4.67 acres -- 4.67 density per acres immediately adjacent is incompatible with 15 stories and 16 units per acre. The density proposed is the most intense in any residential district in Collier County. The heights are more than twi -- are twice as high -- would permit heights twice as high as any residential district in Collier County. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could I -- could I -- Could you go back there? The -- the -- I'm -- I was listening, but I was surprised to hear that the density here would be -- this would be the most dense project in Collier County? MR. PASSIDOMO: In any district that is authorized under Collier County Land Development Code at 16 units an acre. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. PASSIDOMO: As are the heights twice as high, the -- and three times as high as the adjacent properties. The -- Second, the 15-story height establishes a dangerous precedent for North Naples and, indeed, for all of Collier County. And if I could, let me draw your attention to the third page of your staff report, Mr. Nino's remarks to the following effect: In North Naples all high-rise residential structures are removed from the county's road system and are seen by the travelling public as horizon features. There is, in fact, an 8-story building in the neighborhood. There are a couple of 10-story buildings in the neighborhood. Each of them are a quarter of a mile from the roadway. Each of them are compatible with each other. We think that's a significant departure from what is being proposed here. The 15 stories proposed here on the east side of Vanderbilt Road away from waterfront, away from the beach, and directly on the roadway where they will not be compatible throughout or present a very dangerous precedent that is not currently existing in North Naples or anywhere else in Collier County and will establish a dangerous one here. Finally, this is a bad deal. The fact is the conversion provision in the comprehensive code is intended as an inducement to get rid of offensive commercial uses. Your staff told you that the uses permitted here are through the CT zoning district, neighborhood commercial; the residents -- C-2 zoning district, neighborhood commercial; the residents were well aware when they purchased these properties that there could be commercial here, well aware there could be high-rises a quarter of a mile away on the waterfront. They weren't aware, and we think it's a bad deal for you to consider trading benign commercial uses for the most intense residential uses you possibly could, especially if they entail high-rise condominiums of this sort. The 300 homeowners at Wiggins Bay respectfully urge you to deny this request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Coady, C-o-a-d-y, the gentleman I called earlier. Yes, sir. And then, Mr. Bodycombe, if I could have you stand by. MR. COADY: Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, my name is William F. Coady, Junior. I live at 380 Horsecreek Drive in the Princeton Place development of Wiggins Bay. Much of what Mr. Passidomo just told you is the -- what I'm about to say and reiterate in -- in effect, but I want to bring it to your attention only to emphasize the fact that representing most of the homeowners in this particular area, I have been a past president of the Master Association, the Wiggins Bay Foundation, and I am a present -- a director and member of the Princeton Place Condominium Five Association, and we feel very strongly that we have spent a lot of time, effort, and money in trying to keep this development the condition it's in which is a very prime condition. And to find that now we're going to have a 15-story building proposed to go in that area is rather an affront because it will destroy the symmetry of the -- of the area itself in our own development. In addition, it will also, as Mr. Passidomo said, start something perhaps in the whole area of Vanderbilt Drive and our surrounding areas. On this basis, I respectfully ask that you turn down the petition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bodycombe and then Mr. Louth. MR. BODYCOMBE: This is a letter I'm going to read. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Go ahead, sir. MR. BODYCOHBE: My name is Alan Bodycombe, and I live at Beachwalk off of Vanderbilt Beach Drive. Art Jacobs is chairman of the Second District Association, and he had a conflict today; and, therefore, I'm a lackey that is here to read a letter that Art wrote, and it's being passed out to you now. "Dear Commissioners: The board of the Second District Association has voted to oppose the Petition PUD-82-33(3) requesting an amendment to the Wiggins Pass PUD to allow a 15-story building to accommodate 56 dwelling units on this small parcel. "While we do not object strenuously to the change of zoning from commercial to residential, we do feel that the height limit which has been specified in the codes should be honored. This change would affect the density in an area which is already too dense, and to allow this would set a precedence for greater heights, more stories and, therefore, greater density. "We respectfully urge you to deny this petition and all future similar petitions. "Cordially, Art Jacobs, Chairman." In closing -- I'm speaking now, me -- you all -- you all know the FoCuS project has been going on for a year or two, and there were -- hundreds of people participated, and dozens of ideas, civic opinions have been brought forth. A large part of the FoCuS results have to do with three items: One, open space or green space as they call it today; reasonable density, so we don't end up like the east coast; and, three, reasonable constraints on unchecked population growth. This petition is diametrically opposed to the spirit and intent of the entire FoCuS project. So I urge this petition be denied, and the second district urges the petition be denied. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. BODYCOHBE: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Louth. Mr. Williams, if I could have you stand up here, please, and be ready to go. Go right ahead. MR. LOUTH: Yeah. I'm Roy Louth. I live at 340 Horsecreek Drive, and I -- I believe I live in the unit that is the closest to this development. I'll show you where it's at. I live in the end unit, fourth floor. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Excuse me, sir. When you speak, you need to be on the microphone, please. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Up here. MR. LOUTH: Okay. I live on the end unit of Building 3, fourth floor, and Mr. Fernandez and I sort of calculated that the distance from the back of the proposed building would be about 300 feet. It's a particular dilemma for us because most people have primary views in front. As you see, this building is partly in front of us. So our view, so we thought, would be out this way. I know that different people have different points of view and they have to look out for their own best interests. I am opposed to the petition in principle. However, if it -- if for Some reason the board feels that they must grant this, if you take a look at the units that are very close to it, lower developments like 5 or 7 stories are just going to be amassed behind them. They did not expect this. We bought this with -- This was zoned commercial. We did not expect it to be anything else but commercial. Chances are that it was commercial, it would have been a restaurant or -- or something that would have been of the height of 20 feet, 25 feet. It would not have been 5, 6, 7, 10, 15 stories. So I'm opposed to the petition; however, if -- if for some reason it is granted anyway, then 5 to 7 stories is -- it still messes everything up, and -- and as far as I'm concerned, the least obtrusive to the buildings right in here would be something higher. Nothing at all is my preference. Higher if -- if it has to be is - _ is the only -- only alternative that I can -- that I can support. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Taylor. MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. I'm Steve Williams, 360 Horsecreek Drive. I'm representing the board of directors of Building 4, Princeton Place. I'm also the former president of the Wiggins Bay Foundation for two years. Our board's position is that we do not object to this being changed from commercial to residential. We see it's the least of two evils. However, we do object to the 15 floors. We think that's too high. While it has to be economically viable, we would certainly like to see something less or keeping with the -- the neighborhood and the surrounding community which -- where we have Pelican Isle on o~e side of 10 floors and Bonita Bay Club. So I think 15 floors would be even inconsistent with those -- those buildings. We'd also like the commissioners to consider, though, at this time whatever you grant in the PUD for the maximum height of this building, that you consider also making that the maximum height of all buildings -- future buildings in the PUD. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Taylor and then Ms. Ballard. MR. TAYLOR: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the commission. My name is Victor Taylor. I live in North Naples. And with all the high-rises going up in our county anyhow which I think creates more open space and better use of the land, I -- I'm for the amendment. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Ballard and then Mr. Hungioli. MS. BALLARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Sandra Ballard. I live in the Breakwater there at Pelican Bay, and as you know, in Pelican Bay there are already high-rises which I'm sure exceed more than 15 floors. They're very, very pleasant to look at. I'd rather look at them than a dense of lots of buildings all together. I think this project would be very, very good for this community rather than especially commercial, and I think most people are agreed to that already here because we lived in Wiggins Bay for a couple of months, and my husband and I both like to walk the area. There's a walking path along Vanderbilt Beach Road there -- Vanderbilt Road -- right -- and many, many people walk there now, and if you put commercial there, you're going to have too many cars there, more accidents, more -- possibly even fatalities. So I do recommend definitely that this project go ahead. Thank you very much. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Hungioli and then Mr. Leferink. MR. YOUNG: For the record my name is Doug Young. Mr. Hungioli had to return to work, but I know his feelings on the subject. He lives in North Naples, and he's in favor of this project because he thinks it's the highest and best use and that he believes that it will be in the best interest in that area and have no negative impact upon the area. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where does Mr. Hungioli live? MR. YOUNG: In North Naples. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where in North Naples? MR. YOUNG: I'm not sure of the exact address. I'm sorry. I don't have that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just curious because it -- it peaks my interest when we have a young lady from Pelican Bay and then someone else from North Naples. I'm just curious where -- what part of North Naples, but that's fine. MR. YOUNG: I'm sorry. I don't know that address. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That peaks my interest what the -- or curiosity what the interest is, I guess, in that when someone is opposed to something because it directly impacts their neighborhood, I understand when they sit here all day. It strikes me rather unusual that someone who lives in Pelican Bay sits here all day to come comment on something that doesn't immediately impact your - _ your neighborhood. I'm just curious as to why you're here for that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's kind of unfair to ask the question -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah but I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- without the ability to respond but -- and that -- that's why I asked that question so not -- I didn't mean to raise -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, she -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- an issue there. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: She said she had lived there for a couple of months and her husband took walks and stuff and noted that that particular parcel, commercial, would -- would be worse than residential. That's -- That's all she said. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next, please. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Mungioli lives at Lake Shore Drive, for what it's worth, Commissioner. And then Mr. Leferink, if you would, please. And then, Ms. Owen, if I could have you stand by. MR. LEFERINK: Good afternoon. My name is Randy Leferink. I live in Collier County. Actually, I'm out in the Golden Gate area. So I'm -- I'm not in that immediate vicinity. I can tell you I'm in favor of the rezoning to make it a residential land use. The reason I'm here is, when I graduated from college in south Louisiana, I came from a depressed oil industry, and I moved to a vibrant economy where there was a -- I think the home building end of it was a -- a -- a strong backbone to the reason a lot of people are here. This is a beautiful place to live. I had vacationed here a couple of times. I'd like to see this opportunity to live here expanded to more people and -- and in -- in a -- in a manner that's fair to others that live in -- in that area, offer that same opportunity to others that want to live there. And I do work as part of the construction industry now. I haven't always. I've had other jobs that -- that were related to retail, but I can tell you that the reason I'm here is because people want to live here. They want a home in this area. They want a home in that area. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Can I ask you a question? Do you have -- what -- what -- what -- Where are you working now? MR. LEFERINK: I'm working in -- for DCI, DCI Communities, McCoy Development. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- company that is the contract purchaser of this piece? MR. LEFERINK: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I see. So your interest is because your employer is bringing forth the application? MR. LEFERINK: It's -- It's really more than that. It -- It has to do with the fact that this is how I earn my living. And I haven't always worked for DCI, McCoy Development. This is my livelihood. It pays my bills. I like my career. I like working in -- in the home building industry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did you become aware of this petition? MR. LEFERINK: Well, I became aware of it because the scuttlebutt was going around the office that this was coming up, that we had an opportunity to possibly build some more homes for some people. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Did your employer request that you come up and make a presentation today? MR. LEFERINK: It was -- It was brought to me as an opportunity if I wanted to contribute, and I chose to do so. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. LEFERINK: Anything else? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. MR. LEFERINK: All right. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Owen, if you would, please, and then Ms. Rohde. MS. OWEN: My name is Donna Owen. I live at 5800 Glencove Drive, and I'm in support of this petition. I work for DCI Communities, and I know that they will build a wonderful development. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Rohde and then Mr. Unden -- Anden -- Andelfinger. MS. ROHDE: Nanette Rohde. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I live at Wiggins Preserve. I'm fully aware of the area. I would hate to think of having a commercial piece of property on that corner. I think we already have other high-rises up there that are looking out at the Gulf. I think that particular piece of property would be suited for a high-rise. We would have less traffic flow. I don't think we have people that are 100 percent year-round people, so I think the flow would be fine. I think a high-rise gives more airspace in between. I think it fits in right with this area. But if others are already coming up on this for future use, then I would ask the commission for what is fair for one be fair for all. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Thank you. Mr. Andelfinger and then Mr. Bell. MR. ANDELFINGER: Yes. My name is George Andelfinger. I live at 320 Horsecreek Drive in the Princeton Place condominium units. I don't work for DCI. I came to the first meeting, and then there was a continuance, and so we're here again today to present our side of the picture as to how we'd like the board to act on this. When we first came to -- down into Florida, we looked around and did a little research before we purchased our condominium, and one of the things we found that was -- that the adjacent piece of property there was commercially zoned, and we would anticipate that any development to that property would have been kind of a low- impact commercial development, maybe a small strip mall. I don't think -- and coming out of marketing myself, there's no investor who's going to come in there and build a service station or anything of a high level of impact because of the low level of traffic on Vanderbilt and Wiggins Pass Road, and I think for that reason that if the property was to remain developed as commercial, it wouldn't give the impact that this 15-story, 56-unit would. Naturally when you look at raw numbers as to how much traffic you can expect based upon a certain amount of square footage, you need to take into consideration the other demographic which is the traffic count, and the traffic count is not what the traffic count is down on 41. I've talked to many owners that are in the community, and by the way, I'll just mention the fact that I'm the vice- president of the property owners' association and the treasurer of Princeton Place too, one of the -- one of the building units, and those people couldn't be here for a number of reasons. Some of them are still up North. And they've all indicated their great concern about the development of this project. I think, for the most part, the county can be very proud of the development down here and knowing we have our family and friends visit with us, and we're very proud to show them around the area and show the fine manner in which this county has been developed. And having said that, I know that each of us can think of a sore spot here and there that if we could do it over again, we probably wouldn't do it, and I think that this particular case is one that would probably present itself in the future if we went ahead with a 15- story development. The 15-story development will change the nature of the community. It doesn't match the existing of what is there now. Host of the units in the area are maybe 5 stories, 3 stories, that type of thing. There are units across Vanderbilt that are much higher, and I agree with that. But for the most part, this would be something out of the ordinary in that community. The other thing it would do would be to eliminate the -- the commercial units that may be available to us had it been developed as -- as commercial. So we're urging the board not to approve the project and also not to set a -- set a precedent for this type of building in that particular area. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Bell and then Mr. Gibbons. MR. BELL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Ronald Bell. I am a Realtor, and I work in the North Naples area. I live at 939 Rosea Court in Naples, and I am in favor of this rezoning for a 15-story building. The land to the east, approximately a block, is going to be used for a 15-story building by either Mr. Higgs or by WCI Development Corporation. If you start at the north end of the county and come south from the Naples Cove area, you'll see that there are multi-story, high-rise structures at Naples Cove. There's one going up, a plan called The Tower at Arbor Trace. Pelican Isle Yacht Club and Marina Bay Club are directly west of this property; and as you go south, the Daugherty property at lllth Avenue North and -- and Vanderbilt Drive is -- is under contract and being planned for high-rise structures. The character and nature of -- of what is happening during that entire corridor from Pelican Bay running north to the county line and then subsequently into the Bonita Bay area, Pelican Landing area has changed from low-rise, mid-rise to high-rise structures. It provides us more open space. It provides us greater opportunity for water retention. And in this particular case of this petitioner's, it reduces the traffic impact that we are anticipating on Vanderbilt Drive and Wiggins Pass Road. I think that the petitioner's petition ought to be granted. I would also say that earlier there was a reference made to -- to a previous petition which compared this with the density reductions that was in that particular petition and the open space. I think this is even a better tradeoff when you get rid of the commercial aspects which has already been spoken to because of the noise, the glare, the traffic, those items that -- that continually, I'm sure, come before you where the petitioners are asking to change properties in a commercial nature adjacent to residential, and the argument is always reversed, and you're saying don't put commercial property in my neighborhood. This is an opportunity to remove commercial property from a congested area and go with a low- density, multi-story structure. As one other gentleman said, nothing at all or higher. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Bell -- MR. BELL: Yes, Mr. Norris? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- do you have any professional or financial interest, either directly or indirectly, in this particular project? MR. BELL: Absolutely, as everybody in this room does. I have a personal interest, I have a professional interest, and I have a financial interest. I am not an investor, but I'm employed selling real estate. I'm employed by DCI Communities currently. I've sold real estate throughout this area for the last 35 years, and I think everybody in this room has a personal, professional, or financial interest. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, sir. MR. BELL: Yes, sir. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Griffin, you'll follow Mr. Gibbons. MR. GIBBONS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Michael Gibbons, and I live in North Naples on 94th Avenue. I too work for DCI. I've been in the construction industry ten years down here. I've raised a family. Granting this 15-story will grant my family continued success down here. I ask you to approve it. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Griffin. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- I feel the need to ask those folks that are here with DCI -- This isn't about DCI. This isn't about jobs. It is about a land use change and the specific relationships concerning that. So those of you that are here with DCI, this isn't about your company. This is about a land use change, and I would like to see the focus remain on that. That's what we're here to discuss today. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Griffin. And then, Ms. Barker, if you would stand by. MR. GRIFFIN: My name is Patrick Griffin. Good afternoon, Commissioners. I have a financial interest. I represent Harig Manufacturing. I also, with my brothers, am the one that acquired and developed this property starting back in 1978, I think. So I've had quite a bit of involvement in it. A couple of points that I'd like to make is -- number one is the Eckert which is a private -- Harig Manufacturing is owned by a private company, also owns a substantial amount of other real estate in this project, a third of the marina. They also own a piece of property in Princeton Place. My family still owns some of the property in there. So we have a financial interest as to what happens at this property with other property that is in the project. The history of this project is such that we had anticipated a mixed use of high-rise and mid-rise buildings. And if you look at the -- the plan, the people who bought in Princeton Place should have been well aware to the east of them there was slated a 15-story, 75-unit building which now was not being built but is being built as a lower building, but that was a decision that the developer made. This project with its increased density would increase the density in the overall project by approximately 16 units from my calculation, and that's 16 units in -- in -- versus 35,000 units potentially of commercial. The other point that I would like to point out is that by converting this to a high-rise, we would end up with five high-rises in the project which was the original anticipated number of high-rises. So there would be no increase in the number of high- rises that were slated. The people in Princeton Place would have a high-rise next to them which they when they bought their property would have potentially had anyways. So I don't see any change in - in that. I would also like to point out that what Mr. Passidomo said about the density of Princeton Place is a little incorrect. They have 187 units on 18 acre -- on 10 acres of property. So they have a density of 18.7 units to the acre. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Net. MR. GRIFFIN: Net. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Not gross. MR. GRIFFIN: They have 187 units on 10 acres. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to make sure we're talking net. MR. GRIFFIN: Net. Okay. And they have the advantage of looking over the estuaries which this particular project would also look over. I do think that the commercial there would obviously from a traffic point -- standpoint increase the -- the impact of more traffic than residential. Obviously most of the people who would buy in this project are going to be seasonal so they would -- I think that the calculation of what -- normal residential would be less. One thing that has been overlooked -- and one of the reasons that we originally -- when we were going to build on what is now Pelican Isle, we were going to have 20-story buildings which was the RT zoning. The boaters were extremely happy with that because it would create a beacon for them to be able to find the pass. And I'll tell you, when there are not buildings out there in the Gulf -- when you're in the Gulf of Mexico, it's many times very difficult to find the pass which I know from trying to find Gordon Pass in bad weather. I, therefore, feel that we have not really increased the density. We have kept within the -- the planned unit development. We have not increased the number of high-rises. I did talk to the -- to Harig Manufacturing, to the owners, and they have instructed me that they are willing to make a compromise and to lower the heights to the 13 stories which is the other high-rise designation within the project, and with that they're willing to give up their commercial designation, but anything lower than that, they feel they must retain the commercial designation. That's all I have to say. Thank you very much for your time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me make sure. I think you may have misspoken of something. You said you're not increasing the density? MR. GRIFFIN: I said by 16 units overall. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But you -- MR. GRIFFIN: The project was slated for 693 units -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. GRIFFIN: -- and I think there will be six hundred -- 709 units built with this. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 749. MR. GRIFFIN: There is density that was never built. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You're -- you're -- You're proposing higher numbers than what you had previously. To me that's increasing density. MR. GRIFFIN: Well, what I'm trying to say is that -- Yes, but it -- but because there were -- one project was slated for 15 stories and 75 units and I think they built -- they're building 36 or something like that. Another project had 90 units, and they cut their density down to, I think, 45. The -- the -- What I'm trying to say is the overall project is not going from 693 units plus 56 because there was density that was not built on other pieces of property. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you may want to check your numbers because you're asking for an increase of 56 units in your amendment. MR. GRIFFIN: I -- I appreciate that. What I'm trying to say is that the density was originally 693. If the project is finished, there will not be 693 units regardless of whether you give us the 56 units. There will be less than that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's allowed. He's saying they may choose not to do that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would choose -- MR. GRIFFIN: No. I don't -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to ask for it. MR. GRIFFIN: You're -- You're miss -- missing the point. What I'm trying to say is that other people who had density did not build it, so they did not use up all 693 units that were originally slated. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Griffin. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Barker. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In essence, it's almost like a transfer of -- of rights because somebody in another parcel of PUD didn't use it, so he wants to take advantage of it here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Bump the number up for kicks. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, no. Actually, it isn't like that because they are -- they're asking to -- to increase the total number of approved dwelling units. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: They may build them somewhere else. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitz-Gerald, you'll follow Ms. Barker. MS. BARKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record my name is Sally Barker, and for the record I don't work for DCI. I feel like I'm in the minority here today. In fact, at the rate DCI is going, they re -- really ought to change their name to Developments Are Us. But the reason I'm here today is as chairman of the North Naples Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee which, except for Commissioner Hancock and Commissioner Matthews, you probably haven't heard about because the master planning effort for North Naples is a very recent development, one we have only just begun. And because of this process, we feel that the PUD amendment before you today constitutes a major deviation from the land use plan currently in effect for North Naples and could conceivably set a precedent for future development that in the long run may be somewhat undesirable from the standpoint of excessive density and excessive height. Therefore, as chairman of the North Naples Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee, I respectfully ask that you not approve the PUD amendment proposed today. And I would like to take that one step further. I respectfully ask that any future proposed amendments constituting -- constituting major alterations in land use designations now in effect in North Naples be put on hold until such a time as a formal North Naples master plan committee is appointed by you, our county commission, and this formal committee can then study these important land use issues and density issues in greater detail and report back to you. Until then please let's not rush into something we might all regret. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Fitz-Gerald and then Mr. Haloney. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I'm Vera Fitz-Gerald, and I don't work for DCI either, although I -- they probably don't even have anybody answering the telephone today. I've been listening to the mathematics that they're bandying around here, and I'm highly amused. If they're going to go from a density of 4.6 to a density of 16 per acre, I -- there -- really they should go into teaching mathematics because it's pure wizardry. It doesn't only increase it slightly. The shopping area would be a local neighborhood shopping area. It isn't going to be a generator of traffic. It's going to be a local shopping. People who live there are going to use this shopping area. People aren't going to drive miles to get there. And so it isn't really going to increase traffic density, but a 56-unit building will certainly impact the neighboring communities, the traffic in the neighboring communities such as mine which people love to cut through. I don't know where -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's only because you -- It's only because you live there, Vera. MS. FITZ-GERALD: I don't know where this fellow gets the idea it's going to give more space, more open space, he said, if they put a 15-story building up there. Maybe for the people who live in the 15-story building but not for anybody on the ground. There's no open space given. I -- It's not a congested area yet. It certainly will be if they start slamming in a 15-story unit. And I was amused by the fellow who said that it would be a beacon for people in the Gulf because I was thinking, the only redeeming feature this whole thing would be that people could say, "You see that 15-story building over there? When they're about 5 miles out in the Gulf, they could use it." That's all I could think of. But I think that this sets a bad precedent, and I would really respectfully request that you decline it. Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Haloney is your final registered speaker. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. HALONEY: Commissioners, my name is Thomas Haloney, and I represent Mr. William T. Higgs who owns the property along the water there that is zoned presently for 13 acres -- 13 stories and I -- I'm here really just kind of on an emergency basis because I was told that there was some discussion this morning that maybe the whole PUD would be reexamined and that height may be affected by such reexamination, and I just wanted to indicate to you that -- you know, that Mr. Higgs is the successor developer in this project. He did not join in this petition. He has all the time that he has owned this property deferred to the homeowners' association as to matters such as this, and so they are the ones who have opposed this. But I just come before you, and I -- I suggest to you that it would be grossly unfair and improper to consider at this time without anybody having the opportunity to research the matter as to whether or not our property could be in any way affected by what happens today. So I would just ask you in that respect not to pursue anything that would be, I think, that unfair. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Tom; right? MR. MALONEY: Yes. Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Are there final development plans for those buildings at this point? MR. MALONEY: For the buildings along the water? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. The ones that -- that are -- I -- I thought -- I thought it was 15, but you're saying it's 13 stories. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: One is 13. MR. MALONEY: One, 13. And I guess they go away from the property. Yes. They are being developed. Yes. Uh-huh. Those __ Those plans are. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: By WCI? Aren't they -- Aren't they to be developed by WCI? MR. MALONEY: Yes. In other words, the property is, frankly, under contract, and WCI is the one that's developing it. The site plan and -- and those plans are subject to approval by -- by the present owner but -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Do you know if they're going to use all 13 or 15 stories or if they're proposing something to a lesser height? MR. MALONEY: I don't know that right now. I -- I probably know that in my office because there's some communication, but I don't really know that right now. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Did anybody but me see the newspaper stories where they showed high-rises? I didn't count the floors, but they weren't 5-story buildings. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I was just -- I was just curious if we knew what was specifically being planned there, but since we don't, that's -- that answers the question. MR. HALONEY: I -- I think that -- My recollection is that it is close to what is permitted. I don't think that there's any, you know, really intention to lower the -- the -- the stories there or lower the density. I think the whole project was developed on that basis. The original PUD was -- as all PUDs are -- kind of a tradeoff of various things, and that property was retained for the highest development. It was purchased by Mr. Higgs on that basis. It was sold on that basis, or at least it's under contract on that basis. So I would just ask that you not consider any change, especially, you know, at this particular time when we haven't had a chance to consider the implications of that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. That's the end of the public speakers? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. MR. PICKWORTH: Mr. Chairman, may I make one statement about the -- about the presence of DCI employees here today? I'm not going to redebate the issues here but I -- I just want to say -- I said at the outset, there are a number of people from DCI here today because the individuals who work at DCI, many of whom -- many, many of whom, are residents of Collier County, many of them residents of the very area within this project is located but not in Princeton Place I understand that -- are very concerned about this. So I -- I just want to clear up any misconceptions about that. It is a matter of concern to them. It is about DCI from their standpoint, Mr. Hancock. It is about jobs from their standpoint. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But you know from ours it is not. MR. PICKWORTH: I understand you have a broader view but I just -- I mean, these people are here of their own volition today to express their interest and concern. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I find that -- I find that last statement of yours, Mr. Pickworth, frankly, a little difficult to believe. Certainly to -- and -- And I find the practice, by the way, of -- of a company directing its employees to come down and -- and speak as ostensibly public speakers on an item that the company is bringing forward -- I find that to be a very repugnant tactic. Nevertheless, I'm going to ignore that for today and base my decision solely on the factual information that I've heard here in this hearing. Any further questions from the board? COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have -- I have one or two questions dealing with the other high-rises. And, Mr. Nino, I -- I think you can help me with this. In relationship to the parcel we're considering today, the -- the other parcels that would have high-rises on them or that are prescribed to have them eventually, can you tell me where they are in relationship to the one we're -- we're considering today and how many stories those parcels are expected to have? MR. NINO: This is -- This map is also, I believe, included in your package. But at this point here in Tract 4, this lot is authorized for 13 stories. The next three tracts are authorized for 15 stories. The total number of dwelling units allow -- authorize for the four lots in the aggregate 325 units. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Are those three lots 325 units? MR. NINO: Four lots. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Four lots. And how many acres are -- are those four lots? MR. NINO: I -- I couldn't -- I couldn't tell you what -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Rough guess. MR. NINO: I -- I really have no way of -- I didn't look at the platted plot map to aggregate those acreages. I'd be -- I'd be guessing. If -- If the commercial site is 3 1/2 acres, it would appear that each of those lots is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 acres. So there's anywhere from a range of 12 to 15 acres, I would say. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Total between the four lots, you think? MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Fifteen acres? MR. NINO: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: So that's over 20 units per acre? MR. NINO: That's correct; however, that -- that's what the current PUD allows, authorizes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: And of those four lots -- of those four parcels, one of the building -- one of the parcels is going to have a 13-story building? MR. NINO: One will be -- One can be 13 stories, and three can be 15 stories. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Nino, this PUD number is 82-33. Was those building heights granted in '82 then? MR. NINO: Yes, they were. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So what is the current building height in that -- according to the Growth Management Plan, in that zoning district, in that area? MR. NINO: There is no current building height according to the Growth Management Plan. It's the -- the PUD -- the -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have to assume a building district; is that correct? MR. NINO: We would have to draw -- Well, the PUD is an individual zoning district -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Outside of a PUD. MR. NINO: Outside of a PUD? The -- The maximum height authored by -- allowed by any conventional zoning district in the zoning ordinance is the RT zoning district, and that allows a building height of 10 feet. As a matter of fact -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Ten stories. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ten -- MR. NINO: Ten stories. The -- I think the staff report alludes to -- that -- the issue that there is an implicit policy in the Land Development Code because the maximum height that is allowed in the Land Development Code for a standard zoning district is 10 stories. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's my question. MR. NINO: And, again, we -- we -- we also alluded to the fact that -- that PUDs were never meant to stray substantially from what you would normally be entitled to under a conventional zoning district. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. NINO: So we do suggest there is an implicit policy. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Constantine next. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, first, I share your concern for some of the tactics used; however, I also share your respect for the system and the fact that we have to base our decision on the -- on the pertinent information provided today. Using that information, though, I'm not going to support the changes requested, and I'm going to tell you a few reasons why. One, as Commissioner Hancock pointed out, they are requesting an increase, and -- and that's not desirable. It's also not consistent with the direction this board has set consistently since the five of us have sat here for two years and the three of us have sat here for the last four years. It is clearly not consistent with what we have tried to accomplish. It's -- I don't think it's consistent with the neighboring properties, the 5-story buildings. Seven-story buildings were zoned. Five and 4 were built. You just made the point. There is no zoning classification which allows residential structures in excess of 100 feet, and -- and I don't think, as Mr. Nino said, that we want to stray from that. And there's one little section in here that says in -- in -- on page 11 of our packet, "In North Naples all high-rise residential structures are removed from the county's major road system and, therefore, are seen by the travelling public as horizon-type features. Vanderbilt Drive is emerging as an important collector road and would be visually impacted with a 15-story structure immediately contiguous to the road." You take those four or five things I've just listed and I think we're hard pressed to support this as it's been brought forward. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Commissioner Hac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: My -- My analysis is -- is this. It has a fundamental question that I think I know the answer to, is __ is residential or commercial -- I hate the word "impactful." There must be less impactful. Does it have less impacts on the neighborhood, residential or commercial? Residential has got to be less based on the significant traffic numbers. Generally speaking, residential -- converting from commercial to residential is a positive. Therefore, the issue here seems to me to be -- because it's a given that if we change this from commercial to residential, we're improving the neighborhood. The question then becomes, how many stories and nothing other than that. Those -- Those computer printouts, whatever they were, that showed impacts of -- of 15- versus a 10-story structure showed us that 10 hurts more than 15 from a residential-impacts perspective. So if the first question -- first assumption is correct, residential is better for the neighborhood than commercial, and then if the computer model is correct that 15 floors has less of an impact than 10, then I'm having trouble understanding why this isn't a positive for the community. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I may, Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think the -- the flaw's in your first step, saying that residential is less impactive than commercial. It depends on whose moccasins you're standing in. Are you on the third floor of one of the 5-story buildings who bought that with the knowledge that the adjacent property would be built at a height not to exceed 35 feet, knowing full well that you would have a view to the west at least across the roadway? Now that view will be altered, diminished, changed, eliminated. Is it less impactive to you? And the answer is no. I think what we have to come back to -- and I've said this before, and I keep using it as a term -- is a reasonable right of expectation. The people who purchased within this PUD knew what they were buying into. When we look at significant changes to that development, the people who have already invested what may be a life savings there, I think, have the -- if you will, the -- the louder voice in what direction we take. Look in your packet, 50 responses, 1 for, 49 against. There's not a lot of argument as to what the community wants. And I read those addresses. I weeded out some that did not live there and some that did. Most did. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I please comment on that? Because if -- if I were going to decide based on that, I could not possibly have voted for that Hilltop plat because that community is convinced -- they're just heartbroken that we've done this bad thing to them. But having looked at the -- the facts, the facts show that that would have a less impact on them, just like I think the facts show that here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because it was similar in nature to the existing neighborhood, lot size and home size. Fifteen stories versus 5. We're talking about the immediate adjacent. Now, they're not asking for a 5-story building. I haven't heard them say, "Never mind. We'll take 5 stories." We're not having that discussion. In addition, in the ordinance we see an increase in -- in number of units, yet we're being told they won't be built anyway. Why are you requesting them? Things aren't matching up here. I don't think we're dealing apples and apples from Hilltop Estates to this because this is -- far exceeds what is immediately adjacent to it. So I'm -- I -- I think Commissioner Constantine has laid out some very valid points, and I'm inclined to agree with him. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me ask if -- if the board has any more questions for either the petitioner or for -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No. I'm fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- or staff. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, we -- we're getting ready to close the public hearing. MR. FERNANDEZ: Just one comment, Mr. Commissioner. There were two components of this. One was the request for the changeover. The other one was to provide a direct external access to the site. Right now if it's developed as commercial, that means that the people would have to go through the gatehouse to access this public piece of property. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yes. And the reason for that, of course, Mr. Fernandez, is to isolate the commercial property from the residential property so that you don't have a conflict. It's the whole point. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm sorry. What -- what -- I'm sorry. I didn't understand your comment, but what all we're asking for is a~ external access so we have direct access and we don't end up with something like the Lely Barefoot Beach where you have people trying to access a public facility through an internal roadway, and that was just something that we were looking to correct that had been apparently an oversight in the original one. I just wanted -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For the reasons stated by Commissioner Constantine and what has been presented in the hearing today, since I don't see the petitioner coming down to a 5-story or more compatible height to the adjacent buildings, I'm going to move denial of PUD 82-33(3). And with that I want the folks that are here for this petition to understand, we don't make these decisions about a company or an employment. We make them about land use, compatibility, and fairness, and that's solely what we're trying to address, and I think Commissioner Constantine did a good job of that in his comments. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second your motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm going to support the motion. One of the reasons why, I think Commissioner Constantine succinctly categorized and listed the legal questions. But another question about impacts has been discussed here today, whether commercial or residential has the most impact, but let's look at the impact on the broad community. I mean, we were -- we were being requested to increase density here -- increase units, if not density, as the petitioner says. That has an impact on all of us, and that's one of the things that -- that helps me determine my vote on this project as not being necessary, that -- that we have been shown no legal, valid reason why it's necessary to move from commercial to residential. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, I -- I still have concern about -- about traffic impacts, and -- and I -- I'm sorry, but I've really got to be concerned about it because Vanderbilt Drive is a - _ is a two-lane road with a bicycle path, sidewalk running down the side of it, and I don't know for sure, but I don't think there's a lot of ability for us to four-lane that road in the future and -- and -- I mean, we're -- we're talking about a single 4-acre parcel here that has 1,500 cars a day difference in the use on it if it's developed commercial. So, you know, I -- I like the project. I understand the density issues and so forth, but I'm -- I'm looking at traffic impacts that are going to be along the corridor there and -- and as well Wiggins Pass Road which is also a two-lane road, which in order to access this corner traffic-wise commercial, it too is going to have to take a lot of traffic in order to do it. I -- I -- I -- I'm not sure what we should do, but I think commercial is wrong, residential is right, but I need help with the 10 to 15 stories as well. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they did say 13. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, let's -- let's call the question and see if anyone agrees with that analysis. Let's see. It's -- We have a motion and a second to deny. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That -- That motion to deny is -- is approved 3 to 2. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Successful. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Successful, 3 to 2. Item #12B5 ORDINANCE 96-65 RE PETITION PUD-96-11, WILLIAM R. VINES AND ASSOCIATES, INC., REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "A" RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LCOATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 1-75 AND IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) IN SECTION 18 AND 19, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 574.56 ACRES MORE OR LESS (COMPANION TO ITEMS #12C3 AND #12C4) - ADOPTED Next item, Petition PUD 96-11, William Vines requesting a fezone from agricultural rural to PUD, planned unit development. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Thank you, sir. PUD-96-11 and DOA-96-2 are companion items and as well as an insubstantial determination much like the Woodland PUD. What we have here is an existing development of regional impact and the PUD that currently embraces about 200 acres of land and currently allows 680 dwelling units and 30 acres of commercial development. The amendment is for the singular purpose of adding another 375 acres of land to the development order and to the -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let me -- Let me just ask you a question real quick, I think, that will simplify it for us. We're not asking to increase density units. We're just adding land. Is that correct? MR. NINO: Correct. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So, in effect, we will be taking -- MR. NINO: -- density down substantially. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Density will be going down. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Yeah, but we will be taking an additional 375 acres out of development and setting it aside as essential green space because there will be no additional units involved here? MR. NINO: Well, that -- Currently that's true, but the PUD master plan will identify those as future development tracts, and you will be revisiting this as a major deviation probably in the near future because there's no indication that the developers intend to __ to forgo any additional density or intensity. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. But -- But for now we're just adding land? MR. NINO: For -- for now -- For now we're not dealing with any new intensity or density. We're adding three seventy-five __ 375 acres, and they're going to use about 50 acres of those -- those 375 to -- to expand their golf course into a longer golf course, and they're currently con -- they're currently constrained on the 200 acres. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm a little confused as to why we're not getting the whole picture right now. We're stepping into an insubstantial deviation process just to throw land in, yet we're going to be asked later, as I understand this conversation, to increase the density and intensity of the overall development. Is -- is -- Let me ask Mr. Vines that. Is that the scenario that's being presented today? It's insubstantial now, and expect a substantial deviation down the road for increased units? MR. VINES: Yes, Commissioner. Bill Vines, for the record. I represent the applicant. This is the second of a three-stage set of applications. The first came to you which involved relatively minor modifications of the original 200-acre PUD DRI. This one adds the land and provides for extension of the golf course into the land. We go from a small executive golf course into a full-size -- About four times as much real estate is being used for golf course as was originally approved. The third stage will be the additional residential development which will go around the expanded golf course, and that represents a substantial deviation to the development of regional impact and requires a lengthy process which includes approval by this board. The reason for this step is to permit construction to begin on the enlarged golf course and to be continuing while we do the remainder of the work to modify the DRI and the PUD. The applications to -- to do development in this -- in this additional 375 acres which require permits from the Corps and from the water management district have been filed and are in process, and when they're complete, we will then know precisely the areas that must be left as natural area preserved and the areas which may be utilized for urban development and is that future urban development going to be the subject of a new application to modify and expand the PUD and modify the DRI. The density, when everything is finished, will be less for the overall project than is -- than was originally approved for the -- the project, but it's going to be, you know, two and a half times as big as it was, and the number of units will be less than two and a half times as large as it was. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I -- I appreciate that. I just wanted to make sure we got that on the record because I don't want the board's action today, if it's to approve this, to be in any way construed as a -- a -- a step in the direction of approving a later density discussion. I -- I want the two to be known as completely separate, and what we do today is no way related to a future decision the board may or may not make regarding that. MR. VINES: Understand. All the other agencies have the same position, and we understand that. It's one at a time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Good enough. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I bet they do. Any further questions for the petitioner and staff? MR. DORRILL: Mr. Chairman, you have no speakers on this item. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No speakers on this one? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll -- If everyone's comfortable, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval of PUD-96-11. And was there a companion item on this? MR. DORRILL: There is. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: There's two companion items. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: There's two companions. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll -- We'll do them one -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One motion? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll do them one at a time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I -- I need to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I move approval of 96 -- MR. NINO: I'm advised by counsel that I need to enter into the record that as a result of the recent approval, notification of RPC, a stipulation was added to the development order -- that they asked us to add an additional stipulation to the development order which Mr. Vines complied with which would require them to provide a fox squirrel management plan before any actual development begins. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My motion incorporates the almighty fox squirrel management plan. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Is that leaving peanuts at the bottom of the trees or something? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My -- My motion includes the agreed-upon stipulation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If this change is made now, they won't be affected by the potential upcoming change to the carrotwood legislation. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, we're going to plant those for the fox squirrel. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. Thank you. I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C3 RESOLUTION 96-483 DETERMINING THAT REVISIONS TO THE REGENCY VILLAGE OF NAPLES DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUIRING FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT REVIEW (COMPANION TO ITEM #1285 AND #12C4) - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Companion item is 12(C)(3). Close the public hearing on 12(C)(3). COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of Item 12(C)(3). COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm willing to second that motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C4 RESOLUTION 96-484/DO-96-3 RE PETITION DOA-96-2, WILLIAM R. VINES OF VINES AND ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING PELICAN STRAND, LTD., REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE REGENCY VILLAGE OF NAPLES DEVELOPMENT ORDER 90-1, AS AMENDED, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING 375.3 ACRES OF LAND TO THE AREA COVERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER; CHANGE THE NAME TO PELICAN STRAND, AND ADOPTING A NEW MASTER PLAN - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's unanimous. The other companion is Petition DCA-96-2. [sic] COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'll move approval of DOA-96-2. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #12C5 RESOLUTION 96-485 RE PETITION AV 96-023 FOR THE VACATION OF TWO, FIVE-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENTS ON SITES 92 AND 93, PELICAN BAY UNIT 7, ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is Petition AV-96-023, vacation of two 5-foot utility easements. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This was the one we heard a couple of weeks ago that we directed staff to work on -- MR. MULLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there anything outstanding, Mr. Mullet? MR. MULLER: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This is a public hearing? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is a public hearing. Do we have public speakers for our public hearing? MR. DORRILL: No, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Now I'll close the public hearing then. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to move approval of Petition AV-96-023. Anyone would like to second that one? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'm sorry. I'll second it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) MR. MULLER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is public work -- Oops! No. That -- We're going to hear that one later. Sorry. Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 96-486 RE PETITION NUA-96-2, HAROLD E. VANN REQUESTING A NON-CONFORMING USE ALTERATION IN ORDER TO REPLACE AN EXISTING MOBILE HOME WITH A NEW MANUFACTURED DWELLING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BALD EAGLE DRIVE MARCO BAY - ADOPTED Next item is 13(A)(1), Petition NUA-96-2. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mayor of Marco here? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I might be able to short-circuit this. This is merely replacing an old mobile home with a new, up-to-date -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- modular unit? MR. BELLOWS: -- Commissioner. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, we do not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Unless there's questions, I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Petition NUA-96-2. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 96-487 RE PETITION CU-96-15, DR. NENO J. SPAGNA REPRESENTING THE CHURCH ON THE ROCK REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "10" OF THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT FOR A CHURCH AND CHURCH RELATED FACILITIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON PINE RIDGE ROAD - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: 13(A)(2) is Petition CU-96-15. Dr. Spagna is here. MR. HULHERE: Mr. Badamtchian is on his way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Ironing out those last-minute details? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. This is -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the defending balloon toss champion I'm told by some. I don't know about that. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This request is for a church to be located on Pine Ridge Road. This is the old NABOR's building, Naples area where the theater is building. They built a new building. They moved to the building, and the front building is vacant, and this church has a lease to operate the church facilities. Staff reviewed this request, and they fully complied with all the requirements of the Land Development Code. Staff recommends approval of this variance. We haven't received any letters opposing this request; however, we received letters in favor of it. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No letters in -- in objection? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have a couple of questions for the petitioner. You were looking too comfortable back there, Neno. It says, "for a church and church-related facilities." You don't anticipate, and would you be willing to rule out, homeless shelter, soup kitchen, future activity of the church? DR. SPAGNA: Yes, sir. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- DR. SPAGNA: For the record, by the way, I am Neno Spagna, representing the petitioner. Yes, we would. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm going to support this for the simple reason that the additional uses happened to occur in this section where there's already a school access and a light and a church across the street and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It couldn't be better. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it doesn't get much easier than this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: If there's no public speakers -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Didn't they also used to have their church at this location? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Somebody did. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I believe so. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Move approval of CU-96-15. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. DR. SPAGNA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Another brilliant job, Mr. Spagna. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 96-488 RE PETITION CU-96-12, DON APPERSON REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW FOR A HOUSE OF WORSHIP FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD - ADOPTED WITH STIPULATIONS CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- 13(A)(3), Petition CU-96-12. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows of your -- of community -- current planning staff. The petitioner is proposing Conditional Use 1 of the estates zoning district to allow for a 178-seat church and related facilities. The subject 4.994-acre site is located on the west side of the Max Hasse Community Park. The proposed church qualifies for what's called a transitional conditional use in the Golden Gate Master Plan because it's between 2 acre -- in between 2 acres and -- and less than 5 acres in size; not located within 2 1/2 miles of -- or 1/2 road mile from a neighborhood center; and the property abuts a non-residential use, in this case the Golden Gate Master Plan -- Golden Gate Park. As you see, the county previously approved a conditional use for a church earlier this year. It's located just west of the Big Cypress School and wraps around the Golden Gate -- Max Hasse Park, and this is the subject site we're dealing with now. (indicating) CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Questions for Mr. Bellows? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Questions for the petitioner. The wording, as always, says, "for a church and related facilities." Do you have any plans for a homeless shelter or soup kitchen which, from time to time, we're told is a related church facility? MR. HARTIN: The answer is no. I'm -- and I'm Sanford Martin, representing the petitioner in this matter. In -- in -- In fact, at -- at the previous hearing, there was some -- there was Some discussion or complaint regarding potential related activities, youth recreational activities, day care, nursery, youth programs, and those kind of things. This congregation -- The church has no such planned services of that nature. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No day-care center planned? MR. HARTIN: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you -- Are you comfortable making that a part of the record, saying no homeless shelter, no soup kitchen, no day care? MR. HARTIN: I believe so. Is Mr. -- Also for the record, we do have supporters here. I might indicate -- if they would raise their hands and -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's what you guys have been here for all day! CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That's what you have been here for all day! COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Now we know! MR. HARTIN: Sev -- Several of them had to leave for work, but many have -- have stayed, and -- and I believe what I have said is -- is correct; is that correct? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Why do you need a church? You can just have service here. MR. HARTIN: Is that a commitment? (Telephone rings) COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Again. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Wrong number. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Wrong number again. Any further questions? If not -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I have questions -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- for Mr. Bellows, please. The -- The church that we approved a few months ago was -- was a creation of the county's action in the park in creating in-fill? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is -- Is this lot also considered in-fill? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The -- The park as denoted here is in between the two black squares here off of Golden Gate Boulevard. It's a non-residential use. Once that non-residential use was placed in Golden Gate Estates, the two black lots then qualified for transitional conditional use under the Golden Gate Master Plan. These are the only two lots in this area that can get this tradit -- transitional conditional use. So there won't be any others in this area. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, how -- how do we avoid doing this in the future? Because I don't -- I don't think this board realized they were creating transitional uses. MR. BELLOWS: Well, the long-range planning staff is amending or updating the Golden Gate Master Plan now. I believe they are looking at this situation, but I'm not sure if there's any proposed changes at this time. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. If there's no further questions, we'll close the public -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I -- I have one more question. The people who raised their -- who raised their hands who are in support of this, how many of you also live in Golden Gate Estates? Okay. Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not the anticipated response. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Very important -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: No, but that's fine. I'm happy to see it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, if you'll close the public hearing -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll make a motion we approve Petition CU-96 -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Wait. It sounds like there's somebody that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 12. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- wanted to speak. MR. DORRILL: We've -- We've got some speakers, and I don't have -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. DORRILL: -- any way of knowing how many of them may be members of the church. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Oh, okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Kind of tossed them aside. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'm sorry. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Apperson, did you wish to speak? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We'll reopen the public hearing then. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Don, you going to talk us out of this or -- MR. APPERSON: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Point out that you can waive your right to speak if you're satisfied with the direction things are going in. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Peteira -- MR. APPERSON: Maybe I need to waive that then. It was successfully presented by him, and I am the petitioner in the case, but I will step aside. Thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Name, please. MR. APPERSON: No. I mean -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: State your name for the record, please. MR. APPERSON: Don Apperson. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: Lionel Peteira. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's waiving. MR. PEREIRA: I'll waive. MR. DORRILL: He's waiving. I may have butchered his name too. I heard giggling in the back. I'm from Alabama. Y'all bear with me. Mr. Endres. MR. ENDRES: Yeah. I'll waive. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Perkins. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not a chance A1 will waive. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Come on, A1. Wave at us. MR. PERKINS: Today I am here -- Okay. A1 Perkins, and I'm wearing a different hat today on beha -- behalf of George Kuller -- Keller who will never be with us again so -- I've argued with him for 17 years. I'm going to miss him. Okay. I'm speaking for Velma Cirincione who can't -- couldn't make it today on behalf of Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. "To all Commissioners: I have appeared before you and other boards many times on zoning variances. Being unable to attend, I urge you to consider the wishes of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association residents. "We do not want any changes in our master plan. You have never seen estate residents in favor of changes. It is always outside interests that are in favor of changes and find a loophole; therefore, please consider our wishes and put a stop right now to the varianoe's request. Thank you. Velma Cirincione." CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. PERKINS: Thank you for myself. MR. DORRILL: Ms. Howard, Donna Howard. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: As she's coming up, I -- I'd like to comment on -- in response to the letter just read, that when I asked the question how many people here lived in Golden Gate Estates who were in favor of the petition, I'd say there were 25 to 30 hands raised. Go ahead. MS. HOWARD: My name is Donna Howard. I live at 3475 Golden Gate Boulevard. I have appeared before you once before, and Pandora's box is open, guys, and this is right across the street from me. I've pleaded and begged with you before not to let this happen. Now it's happened again, and as you were told, there's another spot for it to happen, and there's another church right behind this one. They're meeting now at the school. I've received pamphlets from the church that is now in there, and you guys almost got snookered by Mr. Smith the first time because there was no church until our commissioner from District 4 made it that there had to be a church before a day-care center, and I want to thank you for that because there would have only been the day-care center. I -- I have children. I have grandchildren. Had I known what was going to happen with putting in this park, I would have said, "I don't want that." Even though I have children, grandchildren, one great grandchild, I would have said no because now is -- all I have is churches. And they say that they don't have all these meetings and that, but they do lend out their church to five or six other organizations or churches or whatever they're called. Last Monday night I went to a civic association at the community center, and there was a service going on, cars parked out in the road. Came home; they were still there. Wednesday night I went to another meeting at the community center. There were cars parked out in the road. There was another service of some type going on. Came home at quarter after 9:00; they were still there. I'm told this goes on all the time. I went Friday to K-Mart from work, and on my way home at six o'clock in the evening, under where they pull in and let people out to go into the hall, they had all kinds of tables set up under there. I don't know whether they were having a bizarre or what the heck it was they were doing, cars parked all over the street again. Is this going to happen on our boulevard which we really need? Also I gave Mr. -- our -- I can't think of his name. MR. DORRILL: Dorrill. MS. HOWARD: I'm sorry. Mr. Dorrill. I gave him some petitions, the ones that I had. Some of them are missing. I also gave him a couple of letters that were there. I please urge you, don't do this to me again. You've done it once to me. Don't do it to me again, please. Also I got a letter last Friday -- a week ago Friday from the county telling me now they want to take 25 feet of my land to build a four-lane highway with 42-foot medium [sic], 8-foot sidewalks and all this other baloney. What more do you people want from me? You're taking away my residential privacy with all the parks and the schools and -- and I -- I'd rather have the kids play in the park than on the street. Don't get me wrong. And I know they have to be educated. But what -- what about me? What about me? What about the other residents in the estates? We bought out there because we wanted to be out there, to have our acreage, to have our quietness. You're taking this away. And I am the closest one to both of these churches and the entrance to this park. How many more conditional transitional uses are you going to throw at me? And that's what you're doing. You're throwing everything at me because I'm there, and I've been there for 17 years. I've been in this county for 26 years. I've never missed an election. I've never not paid my taxes. I've always done what I was asked to do. I'm asking you to please do something for me. Get rid of this transitional conditional use. Why keep hurting people? And you really are. You have really hurt somebody who has trusted you all the time that I've lived here. I've trusted this county and loved it. I have lots of questions now. Are you in favor of me or anything else? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, ma'am. Your time is up. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- I've got a couple of questions for her. I wasn't here January 23, so I don't know what all went on at that hearing. The objections to programs over and above regular church programs I thought had been answered. I have very specifically asked that question and were told there won't be a plethora '- MS. HOWARD: Right. COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of youth pro -- MS. HOWARD: There -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish the '- MS. HOWARD: There was -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- question, ma'am. You've had -- MS. HOWARD: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- your five minutes. MS. HOWARD: I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask you a question, and then you can answer it. MS. HOWARD: Okay. I'm sorry. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We -- We've been told there aren't going to be youth programs. There isn't going to be a day- care center. They don't anticipate a homeless shelter. They don't anticipate a soup kitchen. I'm -- I'm curious as to what it is you're objecting to. If -- If there is a service on Sunday morning or on Wednesday night and -- and -- I -- I didn't understand your point when you said you left and there were cars there, and you came back and there were cars there. I -- I don't understand the objection completely. MS. HOWARD: Okay. It is not only them that use this church. They themselves in front of the planning board said that they lend the uses out or rent it out -- I do not know the particulars in that -- to five or six other organizations. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the church that was approved in January? MS. HOWARD: No, no, no. This one. This one right now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This one doesn't exist yet, does it? MS. HOWARD: But it's on Green. There is -- This church is als -- on Green Boulevard, and they want to move out to the estates. They said that they didn't have proper parking and -- but they're not doing all of the land. They're not clearing it all. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So is your objection that cars are parked in the road? MS. HOWARD: My objection is that I want some peace. There's going to be services or whatever you call it all the time, not just one church, two churches -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Your objection '- MS. HOWARD: -- than the one. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- then is that there are going to -- I -- I don't understand the objection. MS. HOWARD: I -- I -- My objection is I want to have some peace and quiet, that too much of this is going on with your school, your entrance to the park, your one church that's going in that will have a day care, and now this church is going in. It's constant. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you would prefer that the estates not have a park and not have a school? MS. HOWARD: No, no. I didn't -- I had said I would have objected to it been -- being built right there where, as you had pointed out, you made this possible for everything to go in around where it wasn't before. It was all residential area, and that's what I moved into. I want the residential area, and they're going into residential area rather than into the commercial areas because the land is cheaper. Yes, it is. And that's the sole reason. They can go in. They can use this conditional transitional use, and basically who am I? I'm one person. But it is across the street from my house. So I'm constantly the one that's going to have the people going in and out of all of these different places; okay? You've got the school. You've got the playground. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The petition today isn't for a school or for a park. MS. HOWARD: No. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've just said you don't object to the school or park. So if you have traffic coming and going every day from the school -- and I'm sure you do -- you've just told me you don't object to the school. MS. HOWARD: How could you object to education? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Great. MS. HOWARD: Okay. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you've just told me you don't object to the park, and yet I suspect during the day you have traffic coming and going from the park. MS. HOWARD: All right. But -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to just take a wild guess because most churches I've attended do not have traffic coming and going all day every day. They have services probably on Sunday, perhaps on Wednesday night, maybe even another night. I don't know. But what I hear you complaining about is all this traffic constantly coming and going. MS. HOWARD: Well -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That traffic is generated by a park and by a school which you've told me you don't object to. MS. HOWARD: And then when you put this in, you're doing additional. But wouldn't it be much better if there was a residence there that had maybe two or three cars rather than a parish that has -- what? -- a hundred and -- 100 cars? 50 cars? How many cars would go in and out? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you. MR. DORRILL: That's all, Mr. Chairman. MS. HOWARD: All right. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the petitioner. How many congregations are going to use this hall? MR. MARTIN: The -- The summary indicates 178 seats, around 80 or so cars. The services are -- are basically limited to Sunday and -- and weeknight evenings if -- if -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The question I asked, how many congregations are going to use this church? MR. MARTIN: Oh, I -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: This hall. I mean, because that -- I'm familiar with -- with the Kingdom Hall situation and -- and -- and often -- MR. MARTIN: I believe that there are -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- several -- MR. MARTIN: Yeah. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Just a second -- several congregations use the same facility which means it's not just one or two services on a Sunday. It's multiple services because there's multiple congregations using -- MR. MARTIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- the same building. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that a land use question? MR. MARTIN: May I answer now or -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. How about an answer? MR. MARTIN: One reason that many of the churches do now have a number of congregations is that they are building and looking for new sites. I believe that there will be a plan for this site no more than two congregations; is -- is that correct? And I believe one is a -- a Spanish-speaking congregation, and -- and the other, of course, is -- is English-speaking. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. I -- I just wanted to make sure that we knew that it's two congregations. So there will be several services on Sunday. So the traffic impact is much more, is __ is what I'm saying, than simply a single-church congregation using the -- the building, that we really have two churches here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I'm not sure you can -- you can make that direct analogy. I -- I happen to belong to a Catholic church which has five services each -- each weekend in the summertime and seven each weekend in the wintertime, and that's one congregation. I don't think that has anything to do with how many congregations are using a particular facility. It's not a land use question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The -- the real -- the -- The issue we've dealt with here -- and -- and this is the second time this lady's appeared before us on -- on a similar matter -- and it's the creation, kind of, of a node. You know, when we put the school and the park there and then the churches are allowed adjacent to it, you start getting a lot of traffic in one area. I remember the discussion on this was that the school and the park have differing hours than a church, and so typically you're not impacting all at the same time, and we are taking her concerns into consideration in actually amending our Growth Management Plan so that more of these nodes can't be created. What that doesn't do is it doesn't undo a situation that allows for this type of development. And to try and focus on the land use portion of this, I have a question for the petitioner. The church -- Although the building sits 100 feet from the edge of the property, I see only -- what is it? -- Type D buffer which is -- what? -- 20 feet, Mr. Bellows? MR. BELLOWS: Type -- Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a -- it's a B -- Well, I -- I see a couple of different letters. Here's my -- Here's my point. MR. BELLOWS: D along the roadway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my point. That area has got a lot of pines in it, and the more we can move the parking back from there, at least visual shielding will occur where the church can still sit there. But if we can bring that parking area back another 20 feet and leave existing vegetation in there, at least the people who live across the street don't get the front clear-cut so that they're seeing a building right in front of them. I don't think that's unreasonable to request at a minimum, and it doesn't affect the church operation. I assume you hope to expand some day to the rear of the property. What I'd like to ask is if you'd be willing to increase the buffer by an additional 20 feet and leave existing vegetation on the north side of the property line. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Apperson. MR. APPERSON: I just mentioned -- Don Apperson again. I've already signed an agreement that -- Mr. Bellows has a copy -- to set it back an additional 25 feet, and it's already on record. I went to the office after the planning commission meeting, and it's already been signed. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Mr. Bellows, walk me from the edge of the property line because I'm not talking so much just about -- just about the building but the parking area because that's the area you clear up to. MR. BELLOWS: Let me put up the larger map. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just want to at least visually reduce the impact of -- of development across the street from residential homes. I don't think that's too much to ask. It's certainly not going to make the folks across the street completely happy but it -- I think it makes sense. Of course, if I'm alone on that, y'all can just tell me to go away. I will. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's a good idea. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it makes sense, especially -- if I understand what you're saying, is not to add more landscaping, thus more expense. You're saying take exactly what you have and move it back 20 feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Just shift it back another 20 feet or so to allow more -- because that area is just chock-full of pines. I mean, you live there. I think it's just -- As you drive down Golden Gate -- is it boulevard in that area or parkway? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. Boulevard. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Boulevard. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Boulevard, it just -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're going to get you out in that neighborhood more often. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a lot of pines out there, and I just think the more we can leave and visually buffer it, the better everybody is. So if you'll just walk me from the property line, Mr. Bellows, and tell me what we have. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. This is the Golden Gate Boulevard, the entrance off of -- We have the shoulder which is also water management area. You come in. There's the driveway that comes in and around and the 178-seat church which is about 5,512 square feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Let -- Let's go to the north property line, the 5 -- this 5-acre piece. Now, walk me in a southerly direction. How many feet do we have between the property line and the paved asphalt drive? MR. BELLOWS: That's 50 feet from center -- property line or center line of roadway to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: -- the asphalt sidewalk. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I only see a 5-foot buffer right now. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm -- I'm not -- MR. BELLOWS: That's a 15-foot buffer. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Forget everything -- MR. BELLOWS: The one that's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Forget everything in the road right-of-way because it's already been clear-cut, gone. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. I'm talking about where the -- the property line begins that we measure our setbacks from, the edge of right-of-way. MR. BELLOWS: From the edge of right-of-way and the asphalt sidewalk going back to the church is 100 feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is, go to the concrete drive. Give me that distance between the edge of right-of-way and the concrete drive, the access drive. MR. BELLOWS: It's about 25 feet. There's no measurement, so I -- I'd have to -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: -- estimate 25 feet. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's -- I thought it was at 20. What I'm asking is an additional 20 feet there. Bring everything back. Shift it to the south an additional 20 feet. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're looking at, at least 40 feet -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of buffer? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Give me 40, 45 feet of buffer between the edge of right-of-way and the concrete -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- drive because otherwise you're going to have to eliminate everything in that area. MR. BELLOWS: I'd like to point out that the county transportation department has requested an additional 25 feet for right-of-way. So we can add this behind that 25 feet. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, wait. When they take that 25, they're going to -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: We're back to 20. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now we're back to 20. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. So we'll have to move that another 20 feet -- MR. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, I'm -- I'm -- If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'm -- I'm informed by the petitioner that -- that that 40 feet, I believe -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Forty-five. MR. MARTIN: Forty-five feet? How far are we going? -- 45 feet to make it is acceptable to the petitioner. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: All right. Yeah. Let's -- let -- I'll leave it at that, at 45 feet. I just -- I want to make sure that area doesn't get clear-cut so that you just have an open window -- MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- right to it, and it will make prettier surroundings for the church too so -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- everybody wins. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Any further questions or -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Yeah. So -- so when -- when -- when the transportation department wants its right-of-way at 25 feet, now we're -- now we're down to a buffer again of only 15 feet? MR. BELLOWS: We're going to add another -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- 20. MR. BELLOWS: -- 20. So we'll have at least 20. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- Let me try one thing here. They had a particular site development plan. I think the 25 feet that they signed for was to accommodate transportation. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, Commissioner Hancock is suggesting over and above that -- MR. BELLOWS: -- 20 feet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- 20 feet. So they end up actually, I think, 60 or 65 feet total. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. That -- that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Some of that is going to get eaten up by transportation at some point. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: That's what I want to -- want to be clear on, in that after transportation gets its 25 feet, we're still talking 40 feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, because the buffer was measured from that 25-foot line, that -- So the buffer was measured from what is going to be taken by transportation so -- okay. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's good. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Everybody square? We'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend my motion to reflect Commissioner Hancock's extra 25 feet. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Twenty. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Twenty feet. Sorry. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: The second amends? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Aye. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That petition is approved 4 to 1. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. (Applause) Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 96-489 RE PETITION V-96-19, MARK LAMOUREUX, P.E., OF MARK LAMOUREUX ENGINEERING REPRESENTING EXECUTIVE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION REQUESTING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 10 FEET FOR CARPORTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1550 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Next item is Petition V-96-19. MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request by the owners of the Newgate Center which is up -- which is at the corner of U.S. 41 and Castello Drive. There are existing buildings on the site, and the request is for a 5-foot variance for proposed carports along the east property line. The carports are proposed over an existing paved parking area, not to encroach into the existing landscape buffer. The reason the variance is requested is because with the two front yards on 41 and Castello, the remaining two yards are side yards. The side-yard setback in the C-4 zoning district is 15 feet. The landscape buffer required from commercial to adjoining commercial is 10 feet; therefore, the paved parking was allowed to go 10 feet close to the property line, whereas the carports would not be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So this really doesn't have a back setback anyway? MR. REISCHL: Correct. And that's the statement that the planning commission made, that this is a perceived rear yard, and the planning commission voted unanimously to support the variance. And, in fact, we did receive two letters from property owners on the east side in support of the petition. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this the building that was the Naples Daily News readers' poll favorite building? MR. REISCHL: It was one of them that I saw, yes. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: It was one of them, yes. And we're talking about making it better. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We can close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Looks like a Racetrac gas station. MR. REISCHL: And the only stipulation -- The only stipulation to the resolution is that the carports be architecturally similar to the existing buildings. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Mr. Dotrill, do we have public speakers on this one? MR. DORRILL: No, sir, we don't. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: If you'll close the public hearing, I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: I'll close the public hearing. COHHISSIONER MATTHEWS: I'd like to make a motion that we approve Petition V-96-19. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to compliment Mr. Lamoureux on his presentation this morning -- this afternoon. It was outstanding. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Despite the jersey. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We could have let you talk. You know, if you'd have worn a Braves jersey, you would gave gotten to make that presentation. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Is that because you're going to the World Series or because you're really playing ball tonight? Mr. Lamoureux: I'm on the plane as soon as I'm done. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: On the plane! COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, they need your help. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let's bring -- Let's bring this item back for just a second. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. I think we might have to reconsider this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Would the board entertain continuing the rest of the agenda for today, or shall we just -- shall we go ahead? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd have no objection to that. Item #13B1 RESOLUTION 96-490 RE PETITION CU-94-4, BLAIR A. FOLEY REPRESENTING JAMES BILLIE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE "23" OF THE AGRICULTURE ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR MUSEUM AND INDIAN CULTURAL FACILITY THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 AND APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES EAST OF THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS - ADOPTED CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's go -- Let's go forward. Our last petition is Petition CU-94-4. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, current planning staff. This is a conditional use extension for a cultural facility for property located on the south side of U.S. 41 approximately 3 miles east of Port of the Islands. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Excuse me, Mr. Bellows. Is this the old Weaver Station -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- that we made a historical -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. This is the second of three allowable one-year extensions. It's -- Petitioner states that they're nearing the time where they can start construction and they're asking for -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm -- I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, but this is merely extending an existing conditional use? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing has changed -- MR. BELLOWS: Nothing has changed. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we grant the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- extension to Petition CU-94-4. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response) COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Now, I wish -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Thank you, Mr. Foley. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I wish -- MR. FOLEY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- Mr. Billie would build it now. Item #12C6 WORKSHOP TO RECEIVE INPUT AS TO WHETHER THE COUNTY SHALL EXERCISE ITS EARLY TERMINATION OPTION FOR OPERATION OF THE COUNTY LANDFILL NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF CR-951 AND 1-75 - CONTINUED UNTIL MORE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Let's see if we can get through our last little item which is a -- a workshop on the landfill. Let's -- let's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Chairman, just -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- start that workshop now. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In the for-what-it's-worth category, the purpose of this workshop when we said it was to determine in this time frame whether or not we were going to opt out toward the end of the agreement with waste management, we really realistically don't have that option right now. We're in the midst of a site planning that may or may not pan out, and Mr. Weigel has told us -- I mean, we'll -- we'll still have an opportunity to exercise that option. This was done -- I think we've set this date primarily so that the public was comfortable that we were still on top of the issue and working on it. So we can go through the exercise, but I __ I don't think realistically we even have an option of opting out at this point. COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: Well, it also seems to me that under the agreement we -- we have the ability -- there -- there's a second window here that something like -- there is -- When there's __ help me -- a million cubic yards or something left, we -- we have that option again. So, I mean, this particular workshop seems to be meeting the one-year criteria but we -- even by not exercising the option, this option, we still have more options available. I'm not -- I'm not sure that we need to go a whole lot further because, like Commissioner Constantine has said, there's not a lot of information available that we -- MR. DORRILL: I can -- I can at least -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: -- can go forward on. MR. DORRILL: I can at least tell you what the contractual intent is here. At one point during the negotiation, Mrs. Matthews as chair -- when the landfill privatization contract was developed, our staff had anticipated that this might have been an important date by which we needed to exercise some contractual rights, determining whether or not we were going to extend on this site, and I've had no fewer than probably three county commissioners inquire of me whether the staff was up to something here, was there something more than what met the eye. The honest answer to that is no. I think we're reserving some contractual rights that were built into the privatization agreement. We have no proposal to make to you today. I think for purposes of preserving the contractual rights on the advice of Mr. Weigel, we should perhaps continue this workshop until a time and place that your Citizens' Advisory Committee has concluded their final recommendations to you and we're in a better position to make a recommendation concerning the long-term future of landfilling in this county. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. MR. DORRILL: We don't -- COHMISSIONER MATTHEWS: The sounds good to me. MR. DORRILL: We don't have a presentation other than that. If there's something from a technicality standpoint, I'll let either Mr. Conrecode or Mr. Weigel elaborate, but that's my honest understanding of what we're doing here today. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think the staff just gets a -- gets a gold star for diligence being this was in the contract, it's being carefully monitored, we're opening this workshop and we'll -- you know, I support continuing it until we get data to be able to base a decision on. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. I missed the first 60 seconds of the discussion but the -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You didn't miss anything. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: More of the same. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Lord knows what can happen in that. But how close are we to that time frame in which we need to make a final decision to begin construction of potentially the final cells on the currently vacant land at the landfill? I mean, that - that was the critical time frame? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me try to recount it backwards for you if I can, and Mr. Russell or Mr. Conrecode will correct me if I make an error here. We're required by federal law to have ten years' worth of landfillable land. So even if we have 20 years' life in the existing facility that cuts us back within ten years, we need to know where our site is going to be, have it available, get into probably two years to actually acquire that. Once -- We'll use up a little more time trying to decide where that's going to be. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. You're going outside of the existing landfill. I was talking about the -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Regardless of where it is and the existing -- Let me just work my way back, and I'll tell you what we've got in there and then how much time that -- that works us. But within the 20 years, you've got that back to 10 just by your federal requirement. If we have 20 years' life left, 10 of that we have to know where we're going to be. We may spend another at least probably six months, maybe longer, deciding where we would ultimately like to be. So you're down to nine and a half years. It will be probably a couple of years acquiring whatever property it is we decide on. It will be three years being -- I mean, three to four years to permit that. So you're down to about three and a half years there. And to actually do any physical work to the property to make it ready to accept landfilling, it will probably take another year. So we've got realistically about a two-and-a-half-year window in which to start making decisions there. So when we talk -- You've always been a champion of long-term planning and -- and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- we're really -- as we look at where the next site will be, we're not only long-term planning, but we're trying to keep the county on schedule for its own requirements down the road. We've got, I think, on the existing cell that is open right now probably six years before they start prepping the next. MR. CONRECODE: We have until 2004 worth of line cell capacity. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the time to construct or prepare the new cells so they can be used immediately upon the -- the completion of the existing cell, how long does it take to do that? MR. CONRECODE: With -- Within the existing site? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. CONRECODE: It will probably be done within 18 months. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So you back that 18 months off of that 2004, and that gives us a considerable amount of time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: 2002 before we have to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is sooner than we think, 2002. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: So the consensus of the board, then, is to continue this hearing to a more appropriate time when we have more information; is that correct? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Hang on. Let me just -- COMMISSIONER MATTHEWS: I would say at least until the CAC is finished. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And just so -- so you're aware, that should probably be done the end of February. MR. CONRECODE: Probably to the board in March. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's just taking care of some of the legal work. The CAC will meet one more time, that they -- they're awaiting some of that legal stuff that's going on. Once the soil borings are actually done, that's the final thing they have to do. They are -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: They -- They're an ad hoc committee. They expire at the end of the summer. So we'll probably need to do, like, a six-week extension or something for them once they get the soil boring info, but the CAC realistically will probably meet one more time. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I -- can I -- Just on that point, I would very much like not to have to wait until after soil __ soil borings to get the report to get at least a preliminary report because I'm not going to be surprised if we have a long court fight before we get access to the property to -- to dig holes in their land. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So I'd like not to wait until -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're -- We're getting off the -- today's workshop topic a little bit, but realistically there is a time frame in which that will happen. You can do a quick take for temporary taking, and there is a definite time frame in which that happen. We're not going to get into a two- or three-year extended court battle on that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. But -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's going to be 60 days, 90 days, 120 days -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- whatever that time frame is and -- Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I really -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- and perhaps take the time to sit down with Mr. Weigel and go through it because he has a realistic time frame in which that can be expected to happen. We can get preliminary information. I mean, that's available through our staff and through the CAC now, but I think the whole purpose of doing the on-site is so that you have something real on which to base your decision. Those geological maps and all are usually right but not always. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think you have consensus to continue the workshop. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you need a motion to continue? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: No. I don't think we need a motion. Just direct this -- Do we need a motion? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't know that you need a motion to continue, and technically you really don't have to continue the workshop if you don't want to. The -- The contract itself on page 25 talks about early termination. It does have, of course, a contractual term to conduct a workshop prior to October 31 and then for the board after the workshop to make a determination as to whether to exercise early termination of the two scenarios that it provides which is either the eighth anniversary or within one million cubic tons of the filling of Cell 6. So you actually don't have to continue this workshop to some uncertain date in the future, but you will at some point want to come back and officially -- and not in a workshop manner -- in a board capacity make a determination for early termination or not. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Then we'll just simply conclude the workshop for today. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we will -- Well, as soon as the CAC recommendations are final, we will schedule -- CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a workshop. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in that -- This is exactly what I want to do, and I'm ready to leave here too, but I just see a lot of frowns in the audience of people -- If somebody was here to speak at the workshop, do we want to afford them that opportunity? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We don't take public speakers at workshops. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, good. It says for the purpose of public input, actually, in the advertising for this. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: That -- That may be a misprint. We don't normally take public input at workshops. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You're the chairman. Item #14(1) DISCUSSION REGARDING CLEVELAND CLINIC - BCC TO SUPPORT REQUEST FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CLEVELAND CLINIC CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Moving right along, that concludes our daily business. Let's see. Was I the only one that had a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, you were. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: -- communication item? COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: You're the only one holding us up. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. I received a letter from a citizen who is requesting as his right a public hearing from the agency for health care administration, office of community health services and facilities right here in Collier County. The agency is not, but the public hearing is to be held right here in Collier County concerning the application for -- to build a hospital by the Cleveland Clinic, Florida. My reason for bringing this before the board is to ask the board if the board has interest in supporting the request for a public hearing. My -- My information indicates that the public hearing requested by a citizen will in all likelihood be granted and that there will be a public hearing here within a matter of weeks. My question is, would the board like to lend its support to the request for public hearing, not necessarily the -- the information contained within the letter, but simply to support the idea of having a public hearing in order to let our local citizens give their input on -- on what -- how they feel about having an alternate health care system available in our county and specifically the Cleveland Clinic being that alternate health care provider? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think as long as the board isn't taking a position one way or another, all we're ask -- we're saying is that a public hearing is a good idea, that I'd be hard pressed to argue against that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is there a way -- I have a very different opinion whether we're talking about the Cleveland Clinic or whether we're talking about Columbia, whether we're talking about a quality organization or a predatory one and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: How do you feel about all that? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Without saying which one is which. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, without saying, you know, which one I'm addressing individually, you know, and to this community that's important. I mean, that's what I'm hearing. So is this specifically about the Cleveland Clinic or just about the need for a second hospital? CHAIRMAN NORRIS: This is specifically -- the -- The public hearing will specifically be in regor -- regard to the Cleveland Clinic, Florida's, application. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Easy for you to say. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Easy for me to say. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then I'm -- I'm -- I'm fine with it. I think we -- you know, you want a public hearing on that, that's fine by me. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. This has to be in, by the way, by the 25th which is Friday; and, therefore, I'll ask the county manager to draft a letter for my signature, and we'll forward it to them by Express Hail or overnight or something. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's fine. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. That's all I have. Item #15 NO BCC MEETING TO BE HELD ON DECEMBER 24, 1996, AND DECEMBER 31, 1996 Mr. Dorrill, do you have anything? MR. DORRILL: Two things. Unless you tell me otherwise, Tuesday, December the 24th, is a paid county holiday. The following Tuesday which would be New Year's Eve is a fifth Tuesday when we would not otherwise meet unless you specifically tell me to, and because we get in this -- into the year panic for advertising certain land use items, I will presume that you do not intend to meet during the holidays. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My suggestion is we just don't meet during the month of December. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Well, that might be a little much. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Maybe. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. No. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: All we're asking is not to meet on the 24th and 31st? Is that what you are assuming is our direction? MR. DORRILL: Yes, sir. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I would -- I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Sold. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. So no meetings on the 24th or the 31st, and we may have a commissioner absent for the first year in December for all we know. No. I'm -- I'm -- I think that's -- that's reasonable. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is we -- we have been pursuing on -- on your behalf to try and correct some misimpressions about the charitable beneficiaries of last year's golf tournament. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. Let's talk. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. MR. DORRILL: And I have been quoted in the newspaper saying that I'm -- I am angered over that and what has happened. I think we have a solution to that, and I'll -- I'll make that in twofold public either later this afternoon or first thing in the morning, and I will advise each one of you in writing of that. We have resolved the financial end of the missing payments for the moment, and I'm now proceeding through the PGA. The former management company that was here and responsible and -- and held the rights to the tournament as -- as we have known it in the past, when they -- their agreement was not renewed, it was the only Senior PGA tournament that they managed or held the rights to. They are under contract to Buick Motor Division to manage four other tournaments on the regular tour, and we're now pursuing through the senior vice-president of the PGA our great disdain and concern that concern sports management companies from New York City are not completely fulfilling their obligations so that we can get the tournament reimbursed hopefully with money that we feel that they're owed, and as -- as we bring some closure on that, I'll report it to you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: More good work. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Good for you. Mr. Weigel. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And again -- MR. WEIGEL: Thanks. Just a postscript as -- what Neil noted at the beginning of the meeting, is that there is no board meeting on October 23 at 5:05 p.m. for the Land Development Code proposals. That meeting is continued, as we know, to October 30 at 5:05 p.m. I know from Mr. Hulhere that this has been advertised in the paper correctly recently, and so hopefully no one will be showing up Wednesday evening. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: Okay. Miss Filson? MS. FILSON: Nothing, thank you. CHAIRMAN NORRIS: We're adjourned. ***** Commissioner Constantine moved, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and carried unanimously with the exception of Item #16A1 (Commissioner Hac'Kie abstained), that the following items under the consent agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 RESOLUTION 96-477, RE PETITION AV-96-021, FINAL PLATS OF "AUGUSTA FALLS" AND "FOUNTAINHEAD SUBDIVISION REPLAT" AND AUTHORIZATION FOR VACATION OF PORTIONS OF THE RECORDED PLAT OF "FOUNTAINHEAD SUBDIVISION - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A2 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN HARSH UNIT THIRTEEN - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS, CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND LETTER OF CREDIT Item #16A3 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "PELICAN HARSH UNIT FOURTEEN" Item #16A4 AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "CALUMET RESERVE" - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Item #16A5 RESOLUTION 96-478, AUTHORIZING THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR TO APPLY FOR AND ADMINISTER THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SPECIAL WATERWAY PROJECTS GRANT Item #16B1 AMENDMENT TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CAMP, DRESSER & HCKEE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN UPDATE (RFP #95-2451) - IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,300 Item #1682 CONTRACT TO CONSTRUCT RECLAIMED WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN FROM QUAIL CREEK TO THE NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT PHASE I, BID NO. 96-2581 - AWAREDED TO MITCHELL & STARKE IN THE AMOUNT OF $783,400.62 Item #1683 BID #96-2562R FOR WELLFILED HAINTEANCE AND REHABILITATION - AWARDED TO AMPS, INC. IN THE ESTIMATED A_MOUNT OF $316,920 Item #1684 STIPULATED ORDER FOR PAYMENT OF ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS FOR ACQUISITION OF PARCEL NOS. 39 AND 41 FOR THE BONITA BEACH ROAD FOUR LANING PROJECT - IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,348.00 Item #1685 - Deleted Item #1686 BUDGET AMENDMENTS TO CORRECT SHORTFALL IN ROAD AND BRIDGE EQUIPMENT REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET Item #1687 - Withdrawn Item #16C1 ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AWARD AGREEMENT FOR $360,902 FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES FOR RESTORATION OF THE MUSEUM OF THE EVERGLADES AND REQUESTS FOR ADVANCED GRANT PAYMENT Item #16C2 BUDGET A_MENDHENT RECOGNIZING A PRIVATE CONTRIBUTION FOR USE IN THE COLLIER COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL DEPARTMENT - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $25,000.00 Item #16C3 LIHITED USE AGREEHENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND NAPLES NORTH ROTARY CLUB, INC., FOR PARKING FOR THE FANTASY IN FIRE EXHIBITION Item #16C4 ANNUAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES (HRS) AND COLLIER COUNTY FOR THE OPERATION OF THE COLLIER HEALTH PUBLIC UNIT Item #16C5 - Withdrawn Item #16D1 BID #96-2565 FOR PAINT AND RELATED ITEMS - AWARDED TO SCOTT PAINTS AND SHERWIN WILLIAMS Item #16D2 BID 96-2585, ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR PAINTING - AWARDED TO PAINT DOCTOR PAINTING CONTRACTORS, INC. Item #16D3 LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND ORANGE PINE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FOR THE CONTINUED USE OF OFFICE SPACE AT ORANGETREE CENTER FOR THE EHS DEPARTMENT Item #16El EXECUTION OF AN AVIGATION EASEMENT OVER FIDDLER'S CREEK FOR THE APPROACH PATH TO MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENT BA 97-007 Item #16G1 SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER Item #1662 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners was filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION GRANT AWARD #J7-97-13-08-01 IN THE A_MOUNT OF $227,000 Item #1611 APPRAISAL CONTRACTS WITH COASTAL APPRAISAL SERVICES, SEWELL, VALENTICH, TILLIS & ASSOCIATES AND KLUSZA & ASSOCIATES FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN ACQUIRING THE TEMPORARY TAKING ON THE PROPOSED LANDFILL SITES AND THE FEE TAKE OF THE SELECTED SITE There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by of the Chair at 2:59 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL JOHN C. NORRIS, CHAIRMAN ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING BY: Barbara Drescher and Christine E. Whitfield, RPR