Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/22/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, September 22, 1998 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 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Hac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the September 22nd meeting of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. This morning we're pleased to have with us Deacon Mike Salerno from St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Church for invocation. If you'd rise and remain standing then for the Pledge of Allegiance. DEACON SALERNO: Let us bow our heads and place ourself in God's presence. Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation, whose goodness fills our hearts with joy. Blessed are you who brought us together this day to work in harmony and peace. Strengthen us with your grace and wisdom so that we may gladly devote ourselves to assisting those in need and in misfortune. Lord, glory and praise to you forever and ever, Amen. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you Deacon Salerno, we appreciate having you here. Good morning, Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to our agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Madam Chairman. Yes, we have a number of changes. The first is to add item 8(B)(1), which is approval of a $320,000 transfer from the general fund reserves to the emergency medical services fund. This is a staff request. The second item is to add item 10(A). This is a discussion regarding the film commission contract. The request of Commissioner Berry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where does that one go? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 10. MR. FERNANDEZ: 10(A). The next is to move item 12(B)(1) to 17(O). This is a petition number R-98-3. Habitat For Humanity, requesting a change in the zoning classification. I'd like to withdraw item 16(D)(7), which is approval of a resolution updating the Collier County ambulance service user fees. Also, I'd like to request that we move item 17(A) to 13(A)(4). That's moving from summary agenda to regular public hearing agenda. It's a conditional use for earth mining. We had some additional information to present. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which number is that? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have a couple of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 17(A). HR. FERNANDEZ: That's 17(A) to 13(A)(4). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's a conditional use. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's moving from summary agenda to regular public hearing agenda. I have two notes for the record. Item 16(C)(1), the executive summary, was not included in the original printed agenda. We've included that one for you this morning. And then item 17(H), the effective date of the ordinance is blank, and the -- this is the ordinance adopting the National Electrical Code, 1996 edition. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hac'Kie, do you have any changes? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: No changes today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock, no changes? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion to approve -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hold on. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, I'm jumping ahead here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all right. I just have a couple of questions, and I guess the only way to deal with that is to take them off the agenda, and just -- it will be very quickly. Item 16(D)(2) regarding the NOAA weather transmitter, I would like to move that, and I'm not sure where that goes on the agenda. 16(D) (2), where would we place that? COMHISSIONER MAC ' KIE: 8 (B) (2) ? MR. FERNANDEZ: 16(B) (2). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8 (B) (2) . COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: D. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: D(2)? MR. FERNANDEZ: 8(B)(2), yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And one other one. A question regarding Piper Boulevard, 17(B). Would that be 37 MR. FERNANDEZ: 17(B), you'd like that to move to regular -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- regular public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And again, just a quick request regarding that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay, that would be 13(A)(5), I believe. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Move approval of the agenda, summary agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman? MR. WEIGEL: I have a comment. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a moment. Mr. Weigel? MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. In regard to the summary agenda, item 17(H), where Mr. Fernandez indicated the effective date on the ordinance is in blank, to complete the ordinance, we need an effective date in there. I can bring you an effective date shortly. And I would suggest that as you approve the summary agenda now and the consent agenda, that you reserve the effective date be added to the record of this meeting later this morning, something to that effect, and we will provide an effective date for you. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So moved. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #4 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 REGULAR MEETING AND SEPTEMBER 2, 1998 PELICAN BAY MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of September 1st regular meeting and September 2nd, the Pelican Bay Services meeting. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #5A1 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 1 THROUGH OCTOBER 7, 1998 AS UNITED WAY OF COLLIER COUNTY CAMPAIGN KICK-OFF WEEK - ADOPTED This morning we have a proclamation regarding United Way. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I actually have two things to do under this item. The first is indeed a proclamation proclaiming October 1st through 7th as United Way of Collier County Campaign Kick-Off Week. And the second is to introduce and recognize the internal campaign committee for the county. To get the first one kicked off, and I'm going to do so with a big thank you to Leo Ochs, those of you that have been -- all of us have been here long enough to remember when Collier County government was not a player in the United Way campaign. And I was very pleased to see Mr. Ochs take the bull by the horns a few years ago and bring Collier County government into that process, and we've been pleased to be a part of that. Mr. Fernandez also has a commitment to that, and I thank him also. Here this morning to receive the proclamation are Ms. Shannon Anderson, the campaign development director for the United Way, Mr. Ernie Bretzmann, the executive director of United Way, and the woman of the hour, Ms. Fran Green, who will be the 1998 chairman. If I could ask the three of you to come forward here in front of the dais as I read the proclamation. Come on up and you get to face the camera so we can show everyone in the community who the United Way is this coming here. The proclamation reads as follows: Whereas, since 1957, the United Way of Collier County has sponsored and funded qualified nonprofit community agencies which provide essential, social and health services to our citizens; and Whereas, throughout the 42-year history of United Way of Collier County, the organization has demonstrated continued growth and is currently funding 20 community agencies, providing services to all areas of our county; and Whereas, the 1998-99 community campaign officially begins on October 1, 1998; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners greatly acknowledges and supports the fine work of the United Way of Collier County and its member agencies. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October 1 through October 7, 1998 be designated as United Way of Collier County Campaign Kick-off Week. Done and ordered this 22nd day of September, 1998. Signed Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. I would like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. (Applause.) MS. GREEN: Good morning. On behalf of the board for United Way, I want to thank the commissioners for the proclamation. I think it makes a big statement for the rest of Collier County as we move toward our campaign and our goal of 1.25 million dollars. I think it's going to be one we can achieve. We could not achieve it without your support. And I also appreciate the fact of you bringing the awareness of the campaign to the forefront. Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Ms. Green. Probably those individuals on the front lines that make it work are our internal campaign committee. And what I'd like to do now is recognize with a certificate and a pin the internal campaign committee for Collier County. And if I could ask them if they're here in the audience today, come forward as I call their name. First, Mr. John Clemons, facility management. Following Mr. Clemons is Ms. Diane Janson, public works division. Eleanore McDonald, veteran services department. If you ever need a copier, a DD-214, that's the person to talk to. Joy Merschdorf, wastewater department. Joy, yours was the only name I thought I was going to have a tough time with, and I think I got it right. Denise Metcalf, building review department. Denise is reviewing buildings as we speak, apparently. Barbara Pedone, county administrator's office. She's the one that put the squeeze on Bob for his check last year. MR. FERNANDEZ: Boy, did she. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Timothy Ramsey, pollution control department. Mr. Ramsey doesn't appear to be here this morning. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He's controlling pollution. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Controlling pollution. Bernard Sullivan, pollution control department. There must be a lot of pollution out there today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, there's not, it's under control. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mary Jo Thurston, revenue services. Eric Watson, emergency services. Somehow I didn't think Eric would be able to make it. And that's it. That's our internal campaign committee. Many thanks to each of you, and good luck. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So when these people call you, just say yes and sign the check. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just say yes, that's a new slogan. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just say yes. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AS PARTNERS IN EDUCATION RECOGNITION DAY - ADOPTED This morning it's my pleasure to present to the members of the partners in education the proclamation declaring partners in education recognition day. If I could ask Danielle Poff, who is the partners in education coordinator, along with Mr. Paul Hanley, who is part of the partners in education advisory council, and Mr. Leo Ochs, I believe you're also involved with the partners in education advisory council. Come on up here and stand with these two distinguished individuals. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What do you do with your free time, Leo? MR. OCHS: That's it. I get them all done in one day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would like at this time to read the following proclamation: Whereas, the Collier County Education Foundation has developed a program in conjunction with the Collier County public schools to promote business, partnerships that will enrich the curriculum, and ensure quality education; and Whereas, this organization is called Partners in Education, and over 1,000 businesses and community groups actively participate annually; and Whereas, the Partners in Education's third annual recognition luncheon will be held on September 30th, 1998, at the Ritz Carlton, Naples, to honor seven outstanding partnerships; and Whereas, it is fitting and proper to bring special recognition to this outstanding group of local businesses and community organizations. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that September 30th, 1998 be designated as Partners in Education recognition day. Done and ordered this 22nd day of September, 1998, Board of County Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, chairman. Commissioners, I'd like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second -- third. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. (Applause.) COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Leo, will you be up here for everything this morning, or just those two? MS. POFF: Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much for having us here this morning. My name is Danielle Poff, and I'm the Partners in Education coordinator at the Collier County Education Foundation. On behalf of the board of directors of the Education Foundation, as well as our executive director, Susan HcHannis, we thank you for this proclamation. We're very excited about our third annual recognition luncheon to be held next week at the Ritz Carlton, Naples. We hope that you are able to attend. We will be honoring seven outstanding partners who work with the Collier County public schools. They are, the Artisans Guild of Naples, Big Cypress Basin, South Florida Water Management District, Borror and Craig Barber, Engle Construction Company, Coastal Engineering Consultants, Florida Gulf Coast University, Junior Achievement of Southwest Florida, and the Retired and Senior Volunteer Program known as RSVP of Collier County. So we hope that you're able to attend, as well as members of the community, the business community and organizations. We thank you very much and we look forward to a wonderful event. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much, Danielle. I think it's worthy to note that Mr. Hanley, I believe, was Ms. Poff's principal when she was in high school. MR. HANLEY: Time goes on. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So obviously, Mr. Hanley, you were extremely young at the time that you were her principal. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And you did something really well. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. It's nice to have one of our own come back -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It sure is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and be so involved in our community, so I think we need to recognize that as well. Thank you both very much. (Applause.) Item #4B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: At this time, we have two service awards. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's my honor to get to recognize employees who have served Collier County for 10 years. The first one today is Mr. Raymond Bellows, who's served for 10 years in planning services. Is he here? No, he's planning. Well, we'll be sure he gets this. And the second one is to Cheryl Wilson-Watson for 10 years in EMS. (Applause.) Item #SA1 REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE WESTVIEW PLAZA PUD RELATIVE TO ACCESS TO AND FROM DONNA STREET - ACCESS TO PROPERTY THROUGH DONNA STREET WITH RESTRICTIONS CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I notice we have several community people in our audience this morning. I want to remind you, if there is any particular item that you wish to speak to, it's appropriate that you sign up ahead of that particular item. So if you have not signed up and you wish to speak, you need to make sure you sign the appropriate slip. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, you just want to let them know where those slips are? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. They're out in the hallway on the table out there. So as soon as you fill one out, then you bring it in and give it to Mr. Fernandez, and he'll make sure that you're in line to speak. One other comment I would like to make in general. When this board sits up here at the table, it is the only time that all five of us have an opportunity to discuss an issue. At that time, issues are thrown out and sometimes we all throw out our ideas just to see if there's any merit to them, or just as a matter of discussion. And this is the only time -- because of the Sunshine Law, we do not have the luxury of sitting in the back room discussing the issues before they come before us. And sometimes I believe that this is misunderstood in the general public, when parts of our conversations come out as supporting a particular position, when that may not be the case at all. It's just ideas, and we're trying to hash out thoughts and try to get to the bottom of a problem and try to solve the problem. So many people don't understand that. That was brought to my attention this weekend in a discussion, that people did not understand, that they thought it was a very inefficient way to do business. But that's the way it is, and those are the rules we have to operate under. So when you see things written about conversations that we have up here at the table, please understand that it is the only opportunity that the five of us have to sit and discuss the items out here at this board table. Okay, having said that, let's go on to item 8(A), request for interpretation of the provisions of the Westview Plaza PUD relative to access to and from Donna Street. Mr. Hulhere? MR. HULHERE: Thank you. For the record, Bob Hulhere, planning services director. The Westview Plaza PUD, when approved, contains a stipulation that the developer will remove the pavement between Westview Drive and Donna Street. The right-of-way actually remained in place, but the pavement was removed so as to prohibit through traffic from Westview to Donna Street. We've had some inquiries from the Boys and Girls Club of Collier County relative to a lot which has double frontage, both on Westview Drive, as well as on Donna Street, and contained in the stipulation verbatim within your executive summary, the stipulation is not clear as to whether or not access to those lots that have double frontage was intended to be primarily from Westview Drive, though the staff felt that was the intent of the board at the time. Obviously, we don't object to a secondary means of access to one of those two parcels that have frontage on both Donna Street and Westview Drive. But as a means of primary access, we feel the board's intent in -- number one, in prohibiting through traffic was to protect the residential nature of Donna and, therefore, any access directly to Donna should be a secondary means of access versus primary. That's pretty much it in a nutshell what the issue is. And rather than cause this to go through the full interpretation process and appeal, we felt as though we should bring it before the board for some preliminary direction, and that would allow the Boys and Girls Club and the property owner to proceed with some direction. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: In these two lots, you've got lot 2 and lot 11, I believe, are the ones that front onto Donna Street; is that correct? MR. HULHERE: That's correct. That is a proposed plat that you're looking at there -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. HULHERE: -- which will require an insubstantial change to the PUD, because that plat right there does not show the continuation of the right-of-way from Westview Drive to Donna Street. Remember, the board's stipulation was that there would be no intersection connection. They'd remove the pavement, but the right-of-way would remain in place, because in some future date, there may be a need for an interconnection. This plat would require a PDI, an insubstantial change to the PUD, to remove that right-of-way and to create those two lots as you see them. On the other -- on the other side, page three of your executive summary packet, is the actual master plan, and you'll see that the cul-de-sac is depicted in there, but the right-of-way does proceed through. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the zoning on Westview Drive? MR. HULHERE: Westview, it's a PUD. Westview. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, what are the permitted uses? What character are we -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You mean on Donna, or -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, on Westview. MR. HULHERE: No, on Westview it's predominantly a light industrial type PUD. But it allows a mixture of office type and -- as well as some quasi commercial light industrial uses. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: My only concern here is that whatever action we take, that it be extremely clear in the future that to connect a multitude of industrial or light industrial uses to a residential street is unacceptable. So if one of -- one or both of those lots are allowed access on Donna, I would be very concerned that the character of the development on that particular lot not be industrial. MR. HULHERE: Correct. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Now, the Boys and Girls Club, I don't have any problem with. I think that would be compatible with most neighborhoods looking at the activity, since they tend to serve the kids, you know, in that area. Or even if they're offices, I think the Boys and Girls Club are acceptable. My concern is the other lot. We don't know what that use may or may not be. And I don't think we should take action today allowing for connection to Donna, when it may turn out to be a light industrial use with trucks pulling in in the morning or afternoon. MR. HULHERE: Commissioner Hancock, I think that was our concern as well. And, in fact, what we were proposing was allowing only a secondary means of access that would be -- that would be, by its design, for passenger type vehicles, not for trucks and deliveries or school buses or those types of vehicles, so -- And we work with transportation to make sure that the design of that access point was clearly secondary and only would allow, by turning radius and other types of constrictions, passenger type vehicles, maybe employees or people dropping off their children in the case of the Boys and Girls Club. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like I said, knowing the end use, I'm comfortable with the Boys and Girls Club. I'm not comfortable with the other lot, leaving that open. I understand what you're saying, Bob, and I know that we can do that. But we've seen, you know, delivery trucks ride over curbs on a regular basis when they want to go that way. So it's just I think a question of integrity, so if -- do we know which lot Boys and Girls Club, you know, is using? MR. HULHERE: There are representatives here of the property owner, I think, as well as the Boys and Girls Club. But I believe it's lot 2. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm okay making that kind of restriction on the lot intended for them. But to leave lot 11 with access on Westview Drive, unless an intended user is before us, I'd just -- I'd hate to leave it open. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, my concern would be if we're going to put a secondary access in there, that there is no physical connection, even through a parking lot to Westview. Because if there is, then that's where you'll see trucks going through. I mean, they'll go through the parking lot and right on out. So rather than have any sort of interconnection at all, I think that would need to be stipulated, that there's clearly no -- MR. HULHERE: No internal connection. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- way to get through there. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, I've got a real concern having -- you've worded it very well there. Bottom line is whether it's intended to or not, if there is the connection through, it will get used for that; it will get used for a cut-through, it will get used for any number of things. And I know the whole area back there already has concerns with cut-through traffic coming between the two east-west roads toward this end of the mix, and you are only adding higher volume to a very, very rural, residential area. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that -- would that solve the problem for the Boys and Girls Club? MR. ARNOLD: Well -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify -- MR. ARNOLD: -- my name is Don Arnold, Madam Chairwoman, commissioners. Basically both lots are going to be going to the Boys and Girls Club. So your question, Commissioner Hancock, to answer it, because we would be selling both. What we'd hope to do is eliminate the problem of the interconnection by coming back to you and asking that the road right-of-way be vacated from Donna back to the end of their property where that cul-de-sac is. And the Boys and Girls Club will be built all the way down across the front of that road. So Westview Drive will actually dead end into the cul-de-sac and go back. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's great news. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That makes sense. MR. ARNOLD: So you won't have any of these problems coming up at all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Would you be able to drive from the back of the building to the front of the building, though? MR. ARNOLD: We haven't designed that. We don't -- if that was an issue -- we certainly don't want through traffic. I'm not the -- I'm the owner of the property, and I know the Boys and Girls Club certainly don't want through traffic, just because of the danger situation. As far as someone being able to wind through and get a vehicle through there occasionally, I would imagine they would want that for their circulation, but I don't think they want through traffic at all. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Even being able to wind through for circulation is of concern to me, because you will have the person who wants to get somewhere back on Radio Road or back on any of the individual streets back there that will choose to do that, and I -- MR. ARNOLD: I'm sure the Girls and Boys Club would go along with the fact that parking lots would be separated. And they're here to speak on that behalf. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd love to just give direction that if 2 and 11 are both going to go to the club, then staff can allow the connection onto Donna, as long as there's a prohibition against through traffic, that they design it that way. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Can you just -- at the end where the cul-de-sac -- this is -- I'm looking on page -- well, it's the back of page three, actually. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The proposed plat. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. Could you just, where lot 10 and 3 are, just instead of drawing the little cul-de-sac, could you come straight on across there? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, you still have to have a cul-de-sac, but it would be -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You have to have a cul-de-sac? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, for -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, to turn around. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- for fire engines and emergency services turnaround. But it would -- you can actually just -- what Mr. Arnold is talking about is just shifting that cul-de-sac to where the back of the cul-de-sac would touch the property lines of -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- lot 3 and 10. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do I understand you correctly, Mr. Arnold? MR. ARNOLD: Well, we could shift a little bit. Basically, what we're saying is we don't want to allow traffic to go through. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't care how you do it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, if you just had a cul-de-sac there and no way to get beyond the cul-de-sac. MR. HULHERE: Yeah, I don't think we have any problem. We can -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's easy to '- MR. MULHERE: -- through the site development plan process, through their PDI and their plat, we can be sure that there's no interconnection between the access on Donna and Westview Drive. That's CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And Westview Drive. HR. HULHERE: -- not a problem. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So are we talking -- MR. ARNOLD: Maybe the buyer's representative can answer that. MS. BROWN: Good morning. Andtea Clark-Brown, Andtea Clark-Brown, Architects. We are working on preliminary designs for the Boys and Girls Club. Obviously, we'd like to look at this site. But again, the primary concern for this type of facility is in fact complete safety and protection of the children, and vehicle access is of grave concern to the group. Not only that, but the appearance and countenance and perimeter of the property is extremely important to this group. I do think that there is no one on the board that would want to see traffic coming through from Westview of the nature that you're discussing. And in fact, the primary concern about gaining access from Donna is so that a residential character and more friendly nurturing environment for bringing children to a place that actually serves that community is of utmost importance to the group. So to the extent that through traffic on the property, through parking lots or whatnot, really is not part of the plan at this point, because we would discourage it as a group. Obviously, things like a maintenance vehicle may need to come on the property, and we want to minimize any of that for a residential neighborhood. But we do not see a thoroughfare and we do not see it as necessary in the planning of the site to actually create a through parking lot around the perimeter of the lot that would be a tempting path of travel. We would discourage that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Explain to me very clearly that -- perhaps I misunderstood -- what the intent of the access from Donna is. Because what you've just described is you want it to appear residential. Will that be the primary pickup and dropoff for parents and their children? MS. BROWN: I think it would be desirable. However, one of the concerns that we have with the interpretation is we can negotiate either side as the primary entrance for delivering children and parents picking them up. But in the appearance of the building, the appearance of the site, its connection to the community more than an industrial area, is something of great concern, and so we have to address both sides of the character of the property in a way that is becoming to both characters. I would say there may be a preference to arrive on Donna, but it is not a requirement for the Boys and Girls Club that that be the case. And so your interpretation for allowing access from either as a primary or a secondary is really the issue we can work with either -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you explain to me how a paved driveway and parking lot enhances the neighborhood aspect? It seems to me architecturally you'd be able to create that maybe even better if you did not have the access from that side. You could create a beautiful area with green space, no pavement, and really be much more neighborhood friendly than what you're suggesting. MS. BROWN: Again, I think it is a design issue. There are ways of bringing a simple drive in, and before it widens to any form of parking lot or dropoff in front of a building, much like a residential home of any size, there -- landscaping can assist in appreciating the buffering that's required for that neighborhood. However, it is -- it is a design issue, and the Boys and Girls Club has discussed coming in from Westview. They don't have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, explain to me -- I've completely lost you then. What is the intent of -- that was my first question, what's the intent of the access from Donna Street? MS. BROWN: It would be to allow parents to come through a residential neighborhood to pick up their children. It would also allow access for the local neighborhood children and parents to bring their children directly from their residential neighborhood to the property, rather than going back out on Radio Road and back around to Airport and back on into Westview. So it becomes a possibility of a secondary entrance. Now, understand that the formation of this building is such that a rear door is available in entering into a public space of the building so that children can move and be monitored on the front and back side of the building, whether Donna or Westview is the primary front. So it is part of the planning of the building to be able to have visual access to both sides of the property, front or back. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: See, I guess I just disagree with you. To allow parents to come to the location through a neighborhood sounds wonderful for the Boys and Girls Club; sounds lousy if you live in that neighborhood and you're adding a few hundred cars a day, maybe more than that, to your neighborhood to what right now is estate zoned lots, people that have two and a half acre lots. And they're not regular neighborhood lots, Don. And they're large lots, they're relatively set aside, and to add several hundred cars to that a day would concern me if I lived there. And I think while the Boys and Girls Club is a wonderful idea and can be a great enhancement to the community, I don't know that driving several hundred, maybe more than 1,000, cars a day through a neighborhood is a good idea. I am completely baffled by your suggestion that you're going to make it more attractive to a neighborhood by having a driveway there. That -- you can create a very, very attractive visual appearance, probably more attractive, without the pavement. MS. BROWN: I don't disagree with how to make things attractive or the options available to making it attractive. I think the primary issue -- and I don't want to give the wrong impression -- is not necessary for this property to be accessed as a primary entrance from Donna Street. It is merely a back door convenience from a purely local circumstance. The Boys and Girls Club is again really looking for your direction as far as allowing some kind of entry from Donna Street so that a local neighborhood entrance can be made. However, primary entrance from Westview is not a negative issue at this point. The facility hasn't been designed. We just want to make sure that it is not a dead-end facility in the sense that it has closure and, therefore, it has a sense of back. We really want the facility itself to have great side observation and extend the character, development and improvements to the limits of the property in a way that is becoming to the neighborhoods around it, so -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, maybe the way to do that then is create a walkway of some sort back there, but not a drive area. Because if you live in that neighborhood, you live across the street and you want to bring your child over, you'll probably walk across the street. You're not going to get in your car and drive 100 yards across the street. So -- MR. ARNOLD: We could just leave all the homeless there, too, and COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can, Don -- HR. ARNOLD: -- that would eliminate the problem. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'm not -- MR. ARNOLD: I'm trying to eliminate the problem by stopping the road access. I can request you to build the road through. What I'm suggesting is a secondary entrance for the Boys and Girls Club. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You can request anything you want, Don, and I'm trying to make a decision that benefits that neighborhood. And whether you like that or not isn't nearly as important as whether the people that live there every single day like that. MR. ARNOLD: I'm not going to argue with you, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MS. BROWN: I would also, just for clarification, like to describe how children arrive and depart from the facility. They're generally brought in by small van from individual schools, so they do not arrive by individual parent. At the very least, they arrive by a car pool situation, because their parents are at work or unavailable to take them to the school. The parents do arrive to pick up the children. All of this activity occurs between 2:00 in the afternoon and 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. when the Boys and Girls Club actually closes for the early evening at the end of the day when parents are arriving home from work. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And Andtea, you want them to be able to arrive -- I'm so confused at this point. I thought I understood this. You're not -- Tim, maybe -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Will you describe it for me then? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: What I understand Ms. Brown is saying is that if you design a building facing Donna Street and you have some type of an entry there -- and it doesn't have to be a primary entry, but some type of an entry -- you then design an entry statement on that side of the building that relates to the neighborhood it's placed in. So if you have just a green lawn there or even a sidewalk, you're not going to have a prominent entry statement. You're not going to go to the expense of a prominent entry statement there which does relate to the neighborhood; you're just going to kind of get a wall with windows and have your entry somewhere else. I think what we're sitting here talking about doing is actually trying to do the site development plan process at the County Commission meeting. And I don't think -- I think we can give staff guidance here of not creating a primary dropoff spot on Donna, but allowing for a connection, and I think we keep the main dropoff from occurring there. It could occur on Gail. I mean, the building hasn't been designed yet. MS. BROWN: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I think what -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Andtea, but by talking about connecting to the neighborhood, you're talking about simply having some type of a driveway access on Donna that allows you to design the building in such a way that it faces the community on that side and relates to the community. That's what I understood you to say. MS. BROWN: Yes. One of the things that's again extremely of great concern is a sense of safety through environmental design. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MS. BROWN: And one of the situations we don't want to have evolve is similar to a mall where essentially it's a fortress on the outside, there's a primary entrance -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. MS. BROWN: -- and it's unmonitored around the perimeter of the building. So we do very carefully want to set up a situation where there is observation, there's a sense of supervision, but it's done in a way which appreciates and is sensitive to scale, to the character of the area, and to the needs of caring for children. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And if I can finish my question, you're saying then you are prohibited from doing that, you're prohibited from making an attractive statement or from doing any of the things you just outlined, unless you have vehicular access? MS. BROWN: No, that's not what I'm saying. And I appreciate your comment. What I'm really saying is that due to the logistics of having entrances that face in various cardinal points of the building, it's also favorable to have a way for that entrance to be meaningful so that children don't end up on one side of a building, only to find that it's really not a pathway -- pedestrian pathway would work. The hope of the Boys and Girls Club is in fact to have some kind of small drive, again, secondary, does not connect through asphalt around the building, may lead to a back door which functions as part of the main check-in space of the building with primary entrance considered on Westview or other alternatives. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, explain to me then. I mean, we can designate the front primary, but you've just said the back would be a secondary entrance and would lead to the main reception area in the building. Well, if it's the main reception area, that is going to become the primary access point for mom and dad to drop off Junior. And they're not going to go to what there -- what a legal document that the county has says is a primary access if the main -- MS. BROWN: Well, I think -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- area to drop off is on the other side. MS. BROWN: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Why are we encouraging hundreds of cars a day to drive through a neighborhood? MS. BROWN: We are not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's the basis of my question. MS. BROWN: We are not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And we are, if that's where the main MS. BROWN: No, it's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- main draw area is. MS. BROWN: The neighborhood is not conducive to bringing in these -- as a primary entrance hundreds of cars. For one thing, the facility doesn't actually encourage that, doesn't have need for that type of traffic. But finding your way through the residential neighborhood is not likely to be understood or known as a primary entrance to this facility. It's harder to describe, it's off of a side street, off of a main route. It's merely an interest in having a secondary drive, a single drive in and out so that that neighborhood can have access to the building from their neighborhood. Primary entrance, the primary address of the building would be considered on the Westview side. I think that's the intention that we've been engaging in conversation. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did I misunderstand you, or did you just say the main area where the children will be received will be on what you're calling the secondary entrance side of the building? MS. BROWN: No. The building has a core in concept, and that core allows the supervisory employees to actually see all quadrants of the potential building. This is an ideal diagram for observing children as they move to classroom areas, they congregate within the building for various activities. It allows the staff to actually have one-on contact with children in all sectors of the building because of the form of the building. So either entrance, although there's a primary reception table, can lead to this center core. The reception would actually be -- it's like coming through a back door, coming around a reception desk and coming to the point of contact on the main side of the building. It's truly a back door, but it would lead obviously to an area where one can observe what's going on at the back door. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So the only intent of the vehicular access from the rear of the building is to serve the neighborhood? MS. BROWN: Technically, yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then again, I would say couldn't you serve it just as well via walkway rather than a complete drive and gate entryway? If I live across the street, I'm not going to get in my car and drive 100 yards or less. MS. BROWN: I'm looking at a universal situation on behalf of the Boys and Girls Club. There is American Disabilities Act that we have to observe; people do need to be able to get to a door. It is not always a perfect situation to have to go out on the highway, come back around, especially from a back door neighborhood. I mean, this is a common problem on communities where there are walled conditions that separate one neighborhood from another. We're trying to very gently appreciate the fact that there is a neighborhood circumstance that would really want a minimum impact from this building. But on the other hand, in providing or considering an institution which is actually a community based project that serves that local area, as well as other areas, we would just like to have the convenience of an access in the event that a vehicle needs to come in and out from that secondary entrance. It is not a big condition for operating the building, but it is something that would assist in allowing neighborhood access to that property in a way that's becoming to arrival and departure. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I would just ask the board to visualize how much traffic comes and goes from our local YHCA, and is that appropriate in a residential neighborhood. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: This isn't the same thing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not the same, Tim. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't either -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wait, it is not exactly the same, but you do have a higher volume than what you would have in the existing neighborhood. And the story keeps changing. Every time I ask the question it becomes an aesthetic, and I ask details on that, it becomes no, an access thing, and then I ask details on that, well, there's handicap issues. MS. BROWN: Right. The difficulty -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The story keeps changing, which makes me more and more concerned. MS. BROWN: It hasn't been designed. What we're really talking about is the concept of access secondary to that property from Donna Street as a potential -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And you have yet to convince me what the necessity of that is. MS. BROWN: Well, perhaps the board members could assist me. I think they -- they bring in children every day from all over, and I think it would probably be helpful for you to hear a little bit more about the program and why this would -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, no, I'm sure it's a wonderful program. I just don't understand why the access has to be in the back of the building instead of the front of the building. It's not about whether it's a great program or not. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Hey, Tim, I wonder if it'd be -- and, you know, I've been in this position so many times, and it may be that there is a majority of the board agrees with you. What I'd feel like is that we've given sufficient -- I mean, very sufficient direction to staff about what our concerns are, because I endorse and support your concerns about protecting the neighborhood. And what I'd like to do is to charge the staff with, if they can, in the SDP process, provide adequate protection to the community through some kind of prohibition for vehicular traffic through there __ COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- that with that condition we allow the access. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let me just ask a question. Mr. Hulhere, off of Radio Road, which Donna is off of Radio Road -- MR. HULHERE: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- is there an entran -- is there a median cut on the westbound traffic? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is there a median cut there? MR. HULHERE: I believe that there is, yes. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And if '- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I appreciate your comments, Commissioner Mac'Kie. I just -- no one has yet explained to me why it's necessary. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I heard Commissioner Hancock describe why it's necessary; from an aesthetic design point of view, I understood that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I can't imagine that you can't make an attractive building without putting a driveway in. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Hold on just a second. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we were dealing with a Fort Lauderdale architect today, I would have a different feeling about this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. Me, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're dealing with someone whose community, architecture and work in the community has always been respectful of everything it has been placed in and around. It has been very connective in nature. So when Ms. Brown has made the statement she has, I think it's a difference than someone who's standing up here from outside this community, or even without this community that doesn't have the history she does, making those same statements. So, you know, if we were talking about adding hundreds of trips on Donna Street, then I think that would be a valid concern. But I don't believe that that's what we're talking about at all. So I just have a different feel about how this building could be an asset to the community and not a liability. I see Ms. Brown's statement on that, and I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How many trips are we talking about then? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can we leave that to the SDP process, to have staff tell us whether or not it's feasible? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, somebody just said -- Commissioner Hancock just said I don't think it is hundreds of trips. How many do we think it is? MR. HULHERE: I really can't answer that question until I see the size of the building and the design. But I just wanted to add that what really our intent was, we felt as though the condition -- the intent of the condition was clear, and that was to protect the residential local street. And we feel that a secondary access with no through traffic will do that. And that's why we came for some direction, because the property owner and the applicant, representatives of the Boys and Girls Club, felt as though the condition really wasn't clear and that they could potentially have a primary access off of that. So we're really kind of focusing on that condition in the PUD, and we felt as though we needed some direction specific to that from you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? MR. HULHERE: We're not asking you to design the site, because we can deal with that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I answer the question about traffic? Because I think I can. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, do that and then -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And I don't know specific numbers -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- of boys and girls that are served, but when answered by way of analogy. We allow day care in residential communities. If you sit outside day care and watch the number of cars that pull up and drop off one child, they make two trips a day for that one child. This is the out -- perimeter use equivalent of a day care. However, the Boys and Girls Club picks up by van or bus from schools and other facilities, and the number of trips for the Boys and Girls Club per child is far less than a day care facility because of the nature of transportation that they use. So when we talk of hundreds of trips, we're not talking about a huge lot here. We can go through and they have to do the TIS later, but I just don't see, when you require all employees and deliveries to access the property by Westview Drive, and you have a secondary access on Donna Street that allows no parking or delivery of goods, how you're going to put hundreds of trips on Donna Street. And we can walk through the process numerically with the number of boys and girls you have, and ITE numbers, but I'm comfortable that's going to fall well short of hundreds of trips on Donna Street. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mulhere, does this PUD currently allow access from Gail to those lots? MR. MULHERE: No, sir. Access is intended for those lots on Westview Drive. So, you know, primary access would be Westview Drive, secondary access to Gail. Again, that's another issue that could be decided, secondary access. But the PUD doesn't deal with that. It doesn't prohibit it, it only deals with the relationship between Donna and Westview. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Hancock was just referencing an access point that has no parking. Is that what we're talking about, no parking? MR. MULHERE: It's, I assume, a dropoff, pick-up type relationship. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you also have to consider where the people that use the facility are coming from, the Airport Road side or the other side. Because the folks from -- like up in Poinciana Village, or whatnot, where trans -- trips are coming down from there are going to use Westview because it's more convenient. There's not going to go out -- down Donna and to the back of the building. So I think that's another consideration is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a split of where the children are, where they're coming from. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there -- do we need a motion or is there consensus on the board to give to staff if we -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have any public speakers? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- need a motion? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any -- we have public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you have two more. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mary Johnson is a registered speaker. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: She's right there and I think she's going to tell us, too, about how many students they might serve. MS. JOHNSON: Well, I -- thank you for the opportunity to allow me to speak to you. I can appreciate all of your concerns. I would just like to reiterate what Andtea said. We really will have our primary access off of Westview. We do want to be able to serve that particular neighborhood and that community and, therefore, those individuals who might be in that particular area, who might want to access us from Donna, we'd like to be able to offer them that. As far as the amount of vehicular traffic, we're not very much like The Y at all in that we won't have cars coming all day long, staying, parking, participating in the program, then getting back in their car and leaving. We're just serving children. And we primarily are transporting 99 percent of those children to our center ourselves, and many of those children we are transporting back home. Some of those children will be picked up by parents. As far as having 100 cars a day through there, that's not going to happen. We won't have 100 vehicles, nor will there be multitudes of vehicles parked during the day. The only vehicles that would be there during the day would be our own staffing vehicles or any visitors that we might have in terms of board members or a particular committee meeting. But we just don't generate that kind of traffic. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your name is? MS. JOHNSON: Mary Johnson. Thank you, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Kent Gregoire. MR. GREGOIRE: Can I pass? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, you can waive, if you'd like. MR. GREGOIRE: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: He waives. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Any others? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion. And Mr. Weigel, the one element of this motion that I have a question about is whether it can run with a potential user of the Boys and Girls Club and be extinguished for any other user without board approval. We're dealing with a known quantity here that I'm comfortable with, but if the Boys and Girls Club decide not to build on the site, I don't want Ajax Plumbing being allowed to take advantage of the same details. Is that possible, if I include it in my motion? MR. MULHERE: May I -- I think I can answer that question. I'm sorry, because -- they'll have to come back for a PDI, an insubstantial change to the PUD. And at that point, I believe you can place that condition on that approval. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Weigel, is Mr. Mulhere's law experience valid? MR. WEIGEL: It's considerable, I can assure you. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I know. MR. WEIGEL: But I would also state that to the extent that you can get any declarations on the record from the developer or property interests that are here today, that's always helpful. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: And prior to making my motion, Mr. Arnold, let me ask you, if by allowing access to Donna Street without connection to Westview and allowing it to run strictly with the Boys and Girls Club, are you amenable to that, sir? MR. ARNOLD: This -- this motion is strictly to the Boys and Girls Club only. We would not come back to you with a -- COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. That being on the record, I'm going to make a motion that we allow access to the property by way of Donna Street with the following restrictions: That there be no internal connection from Westview Drive to Donna Street whatsoever; that access from Donna Street shall be secondary and not allow for parking or delivery of goods, not to include children; and that all parking and deliveries be accessed via Westview Drive; access on Gail Boulevard also should remain an option without internal connection to Donna Street. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? If not, I'll call the question. All in favor? COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Hold it, hold it. What is the point of allowing access off of Gail? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, it's across from industrial lots and doesn't really have -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you saying in lieu of Donna? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: No, I'm just saying because of the way the PUD reads, Gail was not referenced. We -- I don't think they want access from Gail. I can strike that if it causes difficulty. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: I'd prefer that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll strike it from the motion then. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second amends. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Aye. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Aye. Opposed? COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-one. Thank you. Item #8A2 RECOHMENDATION TO APPROVE AND EXECUTE THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND GOOD WHEELS, INC. - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED Next item is a recommendation to approve and execute the transportation disadvantaged funding agreement between Collier County and Good Wheels, Inc. (At which time, Commissioner Norris exits the boardroom.) MR. HEATHERINGTON: Good morning, Ken Heatherington, MPO coordinator, Naples/Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization. Before you is the annual funding agreement. The appropriation that's made by the Board of County Commissioners to add additional revenue to the community transportation coordinator, in this case, Good Wheels -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'Kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We certainly want to support the item, but don't want to come against the funding problems we had mid year near the end of last fiscal year. What I understood happened there, and I may be wrong, is that the budget was not sufficient for nonessential or non-emergency kinds of trips. Have we -- is there reason to believe that the budget before us, or that the funding before us is sufficient to avoid the lapse in service that we had last year? MR. HEATHERINGTON: Again, there is a prioritization policy, so it depends on what you would deem non-essential. Basically -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Grocery stores. MR. HEATHERINGTON: -- some of the trips that we were providing that were costing additional expense -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Food, that's not essential. MR. HEATHERINGTON: -- were -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Grocery stores. MR. HEATHERINGTON: -- were employment trips, basically in this case. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, I can answer that, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're not only looking at was that indeed the reason for this past year, but also the priorities haven't been pre-prioritized in five or six years, they haven't even looked at it, so we are in the process of doing that right now so that we can lay those in order and deem what is essential and what is not essential. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And then after your committee's done that, then we'll know -- we'll be able to judge better whether or not this is an adequate funding. Because I don't want us to fall behind the eight ball like we did last time. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. HEATHERINGTON: I might point out that Good Wheels is very cognizant of that. Additional funding was made available and it was for a specific purpose, to get through that two to three-week period, particularly for the employment trips. They did expend approximately $10,000 at appropriation, but we did carry forward at the end of the year $28,000 less the transfer back to general fund for the local match, the FTA grant last year, which was part of our agreement. So we were conscious of that expenditure and only used those dollars that were necessary to get through that short-term gap. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Let me be clear. What I'm saying is, I want to be sure that you have enough money to provide enough trips for people who are disadvantaged, in the transportation department. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And no surprises next June. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. I'm not saying don't spend the money, I'm saying be sure you've got enough money to fulfill the need of the community. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Mr. Heatherington's point was just all that money that we set aside in June to carry through the emergency was not -- did not have to be used. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Pam, I don't want to be misunderstood. You said disadvantaged in the transportation area. That could include someone who got a DUI. We're not talking somebody like that, I hope. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Oh, Lord, no. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. It hadn't occurred to me. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: By disadvantaged in the transportation area would mean first, a primary physical impairment. But, you know, someone who has a DUI and can't drive may call themselves -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, our -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- transportation disadvantaged. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- association's aligned -- there's a whole -- categories there -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just wanted to make sure that we weren't broadening that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Heavens, no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it's understood. Do we have any public speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have none on this subject. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve staff recommendation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: recommendation. All those in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: MR. HEATHERINGTON: We have a motion and a second to approve the Hotion carries four-zero. Thank you for your consideration. Item #SB1 CORRIDOR STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD. SOUTH BETWEEN DAVIS BLVD. AND RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD (PROJECT NO. 60091) CIE NO. 32 - STAFF TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE AND BRING BACK CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the next item is the infamous Santa Barbara Boulevard South between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Let me warn you right up front, when we hit 10:30, we're going to take a break, because we have two court reporters that we must be concerned about their fingers falling off their hands. So at that point in time we will take a break. But we'll start this item and then we'll continue on and do whatever we have to do. But we'll take a break at around 10:30, to give them a little time. And we'll give you a little break too. You can stand up then. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Hay it also be appropriate to remind everyone that I will not be accepting sign-up sheets from speakers after the presentation -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- has begun. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll remind them once more, if anyone is desirous of speaking to this issue, make sure you have your slip of paper filed with Mr. Fernandez now. And again -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Or forever -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- they're located out in the hallway. And this is the time to get the paper up here, because once we start the item, we'll not be accepting any more speakers on the issue. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Anybody filing out to get their form? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Forever hold their peace. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Everybody is -- this is a well organized group. They know just exactly how to handle this. All right. Mr. Wiley, good morning. MR. WILEY: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Robert Wiley. I'm a project manager with your office of capital projects management. This morning we bring before you a continuation of the discussion from the June 9th, 1998 board meeting concerning the project status with the corridor analysis for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock. I'm starting the presentation off on this side while we're getting the electronics all set up. As they go into the presentation momentarily then, I will switch over to the other side so this side will be available for the public. I have with me today Mr. John DeWinkier and Mr. Clay Carithers. Both these are employed by the local consulting firm of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. I also have with me this morning Mr. Gavin Jones, he's with our Metropolitan Planning Organization, and they will be assisting me in today's presentation, whereby we hope to provide the information requested by the board at the June 9th meeting. As we noted in the executive summary for this item, the history of the project dates back at least to 1992, as far as development of an alignment analysis for the roadway. The board's been presented with information on September 22nd, 1992, November 17th, 1992, August 16th, 1994, October 1st, 1996, June 2nd, 1998, June 9th, 1998, and now today. The current contract with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek calls for the evaluation of three alignments of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and three alignments of an east-west connector between County Barn Road and County Route 951. Upon the evaluation of these alignments, the consultant is to be advised on up to two alignments that will be considered for a more detailed evaluation. At the June 9th presentation, the board directed that a fourth alignment be evaluated that would extend Santa Barbara southward for a distance, and then curve to the east to connect up with County Route 951. The consultant has performed this evaluation, along with providing other information requested by the board, and they will be making this presentation momentarily. As a result of this evaluation that's been done, the staff at the end of this will be recommending that the board approve alternative C for the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension and alternative C for the east-west connector between County Barn Road and 951, and direct staff to perform the following tasks: First of all, proceed to preliminary design of a roadway, based on alternative C to identify right-of-way requirements and initiate preliminary permitting activities; and then secondly, to develop an advanced right-of-way purchase plan and bring it to the board for approval. With that, I think we're ready to go into our presentation, so I'd like to present to you Mr. John DeWinkier with Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. DeWINKLER: Thank you very much, Robert. Good morning. I will say, it's a pleasure to be here this morning and we're certainly hopeful that we can present and answer your questions as it relates to this particular project. I always like to start by trying to talk a little bit about the purpose of our study. You've heard this in the past, but I want to reiterate it in case there are people in the audience that perhaps this is the first time they've had an opportunity to hear this presentation. Our primary purpose is to develop and analyze alternate alternatives, at least in sufficient detail, so that it's legally defensible and also will satisfy the various environmental requirements who will eventually have to issue permits; in particular, the water management districts and the Corps of Engineers. The study progress, to this point we've investigated and documented the existing conditions and have tried to identify what we consider to be some of the key issues associated with this particular project. That effort is pretty much behind us. We have been analyzing and evaluating the various physical, environmental, social, cultural, economic and human impact aspects of our various alternatives. We've also compared the merits, what I'll call the positives and the negatives, associated with the various alternatives. And obviously we've tried to have as much public involvement with the community, as well as various meetings with the environmental agencies, to try to identify what some of their concerns are. Where are we now in this study? Well, we have basically completed our evaluation. We've reached a point where we believe we can recommend to yourselves, number one -- actually, three alternatives. Number one, to move directly with alternate C on both Santa Barbara and our east-west connector to move directly in the design. The second option is really to continue an evaluation process of alternates A and C, in both the Santa Barbara corridors, as well as in the east-west connector corridors. And the third option is obviously to do nothing. This particular project, as you're well aware, is really a future project. It is not needed until sometime after 2010. However, we would not suggest this to the board because the area is developing, and we believe it's very important that if these are viable transportation corridors, that preservation of these corridors needs to take place. At the conclusion, as Robert said, you will get a recommendation from the county to proceed with option one. Let's talk a little about how we got to this point. Our study area, as you can see from the graphic, is in the western part of Collier County. It's bounded on the west by County Barn Road, on the east by County Road 951, on the south by Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and on the north by Davis Boulevard. Our Santa Barbara -- whoops. Our Santa Barbara alternatives that we evaluated were three. All of the alternatives connected to the existing Santa Barbara/Davis Boulevard intersection on the north -- alternate A, as we've identified it -- follows directly due south and connects to Rattlesnake Hammock in the vicinity of St. Andrews -- or right at St. Andrews Boulevard. Alternate B is what we term our -- kind of our middle alternative. It scoots -- or skirts to the east, taking advantage of some easements that are on the back side of the properties, and eventually comes to Rattlesnake Hammock at Parkers Hammock Road. Alternate C moves a little bit further to the east, tries to avoid any community splitting, and follows existing development property lines, both at Naples Heritage and at Shadowwood, Wing South. Our east-west connector alternatives were three. We've labeled them A, B and C. Alignment A follows Country Road, comes back to the section line and follows that section line over to County Road 951. Alternate B follows the section line throughout. Alternate C follows Whitaker Road, swings to the north to avoid any potential impacts to the Shadowwood Airport runway, and then pulls to the south somewhat to take advantage of some upland type properties to help the permitting situation. The hybrid alternatives that you're looking at at the present time, we've labeled alternate one and two. These were done at the request of the board. Alternate one is a Santa Barbara alternate A, and ties to an east-west connector alternate A. Alternate two is a Santa Barbara alternate C, and ties to the east-west connector, alternate A. These, you will see later in our presentation, were analyzed at the same level of detail as both Santa Barbara and the east-west connector. At this time, I'd like to bring Gavin Jones up with the Naples metropolitan planning -- Naples Collier County MPO. He's going to try to give you a little bit of background on the MPO long-range plans and to share with you some of the traffic detail that we've used in our analysis. Gavin? MR. JONES: My name is Gavin Jones. I'm with the transportation planner with the Metropolitan Planning Organization. Madam Chairman, commissioners, good morning. Before you, you see a picture of the existing road network and some of the 1997 average daily traffic volumes. And these are the existing lane configurations. The only -- the only facility on that map that does not exist yet is the northern extension of Grand Lely Boulevard. In answer to the question why was alignment A ever considered, since 1989 that alignment has appeared -- that connection of Santa Barbara between Davis and Rattlesnake Hammock has appeared in our long-range plan, most recently and in addition, the long-range plan published in January, '93. Those are the lane calls in that long-range plan. You can see that St. Andrews Boulevard would require a four-lane configuration, and County Road 951 would require a six-lane expressway configuration with grade separated interchanges at U.S. 41, Rattlesnake Hammock and the eventual extension of Davis Boulevard. Since 1995, the current update of the long-range plan has included this version for the year 2010. Notice for the year 2010 that that extension requirement has disappeared. But by the year 2020 and first published in December, 1995, land use forecast updates have shown this alignment as the best to serve the traffic demand that's going to be in that area. Notice now that St. Andrews Boulevard has gone down to a two-lane configuration, and County Road 951 has gone down to a six-lane arterial configuration. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With no overpasses. MR. JONES: With no grade separated interchanges, correct. These are some of the 2020 traffic assignment volumes currently in our long-range plan. You can see -- if those volumes were consistently heavy from the north end to the south end of the study area, that would suggest that that corridor is being used by through trips. But the gradual increase in demand, as you move from the south to the north, is an indication that that road is serving that general area and traffic is being added to it from the surrounding land uses as the corridor heads to the north out of the study area. One question that we were able to answer was how many of the trips in the corridor are destined for Marco Island. There's a way in the assimilation model to answer that. You have to -- you have to choose one of the link volumes. The one I chose was that 29,000 figure on the southern portion of the extension. And of that 29,000, about 3,000 are bound for Marco Island. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But this does confirm our discussion about, you know, Rattlesnake Hammock is not the terminus point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are a fairly significant number of people south of Rattlesnake Hammock. MR. JONES: Correct. And I'd -- you know, I'd remind you all that these are 2020 volumes for a 2020 population forecast, and the county has room for more people than that. So that's not the -- those volumes are not the end of the story. Contrast some of those volumes with the no-build alternative. Again, these are 2020 model assignment volumes. County Road 951 assignment volumes have now gone up into the hundred thousand range, and that would require configuration as a six-lane expressway and grade separated interchanges at 41/Rattlesnake Hammock in the Davis extension. This is the configuration that's -- that's appeared in our long-range plan since 1995. And bringing back some of the volumes you saw before and some others, you can see that the assignment of volumes on 951 have dropped by about 30,000. So it's a question of where those 30,000 trip makers are going to make their trip. With the removal of the Santa Barbara extension, they wind up on 951. So the assignment volumes have gone down on 951 and also on St. Andrews Boulevard. And the lane calls have gone down. 951 can function as a six-lane arterial, St. Andrews can function as a two-lane facility. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Jones, the one thing you did mention, I recall from our presentation, is one, the no-build alternative provides us basically with failure -- or failed segments of our road system; is that correct? MR. JONES: Well, we can always make them function if we, you know, construct six-lane expressways and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Eight lane them and throw an elevated -- MR. JONES: Eight-lane them -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- train in there, we -- MR. JONES: -- yes. Yes, there was actually -- there was an eight-lane segment on U.S. 41 on the no-build alternative. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. But understanding that's 2020 and that is not necessarily build-out for this community, those numbers would actually grow beyond the year 2020. MR. JONES: Correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we would see basically physical engineering failure. We could not engineer our way out of some of these situations in 2040, potentially? MR. JONES: That was -- essentially the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know no good engineer likes to admit engineering failure, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They can build anything, but nothing we want to drive on or look at. MR. JONES: I would say that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. The reason I wanted to bring that up is there were some pieces of correspondence that said don't build anything. If you don't build it, people won't come. And -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not a choice. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that's about the silliest thing you could actually say. And if anyone here is advocating that position, you and I are going to have an argument today. MR. DeWINKLER: Commissioner, I think the answer to that question is it depends how much money you want to put into that solution. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or more appropriately, how much we want to tax people to -- MR. DeWINKLER: There you go. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- find that solution. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Rich asphalt. MR. DeWINKLER: In our alternative analysis, we had to define some consistent criteria so that we could evaluate each of the alternatives in a relatively equal fashion. We did this by identifying or narrowing down our study area into nattower corridors; we developed design criteria consistent with our profession; and we also tried to identify environmental, or include environmental and community considerations, as well as cost. You can see from the graphic that our study area, we've natrowed it down into relatively tight corridors for both Santa Barbara and our east-west connectors. It's important to note that our terminal ends, as directed by the county staff, included tying on the southern end at the St. Andrews area, as well as at the Parker Hammock Road area. The east-west connector or the corridor was relatively narrow. On the west side, bounded by County Barn -- or Country Road and Whitaker Road, and then it spread out as you move to the east to try to take advantage of some of the upland properties that are available there. A typical section that you're looking at is a six-lane arterial typical section. We recognize that the long-range plan only calls to have four lanes constructed by the year 2020. However, since we know that that was not the build-out population, and we knew right-of-way acquisition was going to take place, we wanted to build in to the right-of-way an opportunity to expand ultimately to a six-lane section. This particular typical section shows a 28-foot wide median, which would allow dual lefts, plus a median separator, three travel lanes in each direction, a paved bicycle facility, as well as a pedestrian pathway behind the curb. The east-west connector is anticipated to be a collector type facility. This collector facility, we looked at 120-foot wide right-of-way, which would equate to a four-lane facility, although again, at 2020 we recognize only a two-lane facility is required. This -- again the typical section provides two travel lanes in each direction, provides for bicycle facilities, as well as pedestrian facilities. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Both sides of the road pedestrian? MR. DeWINKLER: I'm sorry? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Both sides of the road pedestrian? MR. DeWINKLER: Yes, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three's in the median. MR. DeWINKLER: Some of the criteria we developed to address the environmental and community considerations, obviously to avoid any type of residential displacements -- and I want to put in parenthesis, if possible -- minimize community separation, minimize wetland and wildlife habitat impacts, avoid archeological, cultural and contamination sites. Cost considerations that we used are shown on this graphic six-lane arterial. We used three million dollars a mile, a four-lane collector, 2.4 million a mile. For our six-lane expressway, I stress that this is adding -- or upgrading a six-lane arterial to an expressway status, which is 1.8 million per mile. We also costed what it would take to provide grade separations for interchanges, if that was desired, and we used an average cost of about $51,000 per acre for mitigation purposes, and then we estimated our right-of-way taken from the tax rolls for both land and structures. What you have in this graphic is a very brief process of what our group went through. We tried to identify our project issues by meeting with the community, meeting with the various governmental units, both business and neighborhood groups. From this, we developed our criteria or measures that we were going to use in our evaluation process. We developed weighting factors to help say what was more important, what elements were more important than others. We actually measured the quantifiable information, displayed these in a matrix, applied the weighting factors and ranked the various alternatives. From this, we went through numerous times what we term reasonability checks. These reasonability checks were to make sure that we, for instance, didn't say that white was green. And that can happen sometimes in a matrix evaluation. And from that we can pump out a preferred alternative recommendation. Santa Barbara. We mentioned earlier that we did the three alternatives, and the kinds of information that we collected to evaluate included taking a look at existing land uses; taking a look for each of the alternatives, the number of residential or other structures impacted by each of the alignments; wetlands and surface waters; the potential listed species habitat; number of acres impacted. And from this, we recommended to the county that we do additional or further investigation of alternates A and C. Alternate A, so that it's on the record, would include eliminating any type of through traffic to St. Andrews. All that was considered in our evaluation. Alternate C would require that Grand Lely Boulevard be realigned to match up to the southern terminus of alternate C. We went through the same evaluation for the east-west connectors, and I'm not going to spend a whole lot of time on them, but I will show the graphics. We looked at land use, the type of residential and other structures impacted, and in this particular corridor we did have some potential contamination sites and archeological sites that we had to consider. Again, we looked at wetlands and surface waters, and also the potential species habitats impacted. From this we recommended to county staff again, alternates A and C be taken forward for further study. The hybrids that the board requested that we look at, we went through a similar kind of evaluation for residential lands uses, wetland impacts, potential species impacts, and we ended up with a final picture that you have in front of you that says if the hybrids are considered, either one or two, it would require, to handle the traffic, upgrading 951 to a six-lane expressway to handle the traffic. It also would include having to provide grade separations at where this hybrid would connect to 951 at that location, as well as Rattlesnake Hammock Road. This kind of is what I would call was the fatal flaw associated with the hybrid alternatives. And if you'll recall earlier in Gavin Jones' presentation, and you recall the corridor traffic map that he showed you, that this pretty much substantiates that the major demand is really within the land uses in this regional area. And that's the purpose of the Santa Barbara facility is to satisfy that demand. So at this point I think we are in a position to make the recommendations and I don't -- where's Robert? Robert's going to come up here to do that. MR. WILEY: I think I've got 15 seconds before 10:30. The consultant has made some recommendations as a result of the study and presented them to the staff. The first recommendation that they made in accordance with the terms of the contract, Wilson-Miller recommended that the alignments evaluated with the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard that alignment alternatives A and C be considered for further study. Wilson-Miller also recommended that the alignments evaluated for the development of an east-west connector corridor between County Barn Road and County Route 951, that alternatives A and C be considered for further study. So staff looked at the recommendations of the consultant, and staff's coming to you this morning recommending that the board today approve alternative C for the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension, and alternative C for the east-west connector between County Barn Road and County Route 951 and direct staff to perform the following tasks, which include: Proceed to preliminary design over roadways based on alternative C to identify right-of-way requirements and initiate preliminary permitting activities; and secondly, to follow up with it is to develop an advanced right-of-way purchase plan and bring it to the board for approval. Now, these are recommendations staff is bringing to you as a result of this evaluation. This concludes our presentation, and we are now ready to take your questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, at this point in time I think we're going to take a break and we'll be right back in about 10 minutes. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Could you all find your seats, please? All right, we have finished with the staff presentation on the Santa Barbara Boulevard extension. At this time, we'll go to public speakers. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, I'd like to call the speakers two at a time so that we can expedite them -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- coming to the podium. First two speakers are Robert Jenkins and Tony Pires. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Please identify yourself before you begin to speak. Your time is running. MR. JENKINS: My name is Robert Jenkins. I live in Falling Waters. I'm a full-time resident in the State of Florida. I'd like to tell you a little bit about myself, because I think I'm typical of the residents of Falling Waters. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you pull the microphone up, sir, just a little bit? It's hard to hear you. Thank you. MR. JENKINS: I live with my wife in our home in Falling Waters. I'm 70 years old. Been retired for five years. In the first three years after I retired, we looked at all parts of the country to find a place that we wanted to spend the rest of our lives. We visited Florida. We saw the smog in California, we saw the smog in Arizona, we never saw the smog in Florida. We thought Florida was the right place for us to live, and we intend to live here the rest of our life. After searching, we settled on Falling Waters' community because of the community of people like ourselves, it's gated, secure. At the time we purchased our place, we knew of the Santa Barbara right-of-way, the easement that had been granted, but we also knew of a 1994 commissioner meeting whereby a five to nothing vote the commissioners rejected what is now referred to as route A. This -- in this meeting, it was because of concern about residential areas and environmental costs. Based on this, we bought our home in Falling Waters. We were shocked when in April of this year a meeting was held at Shepherd of the Glades Church and route A was again considered. As you know, route A would extend Santa Barbara due south to the church and St. Andrews Boulevard. There would be, in my terms, some magic interception that -- intersection that would keep Santa Barbara traffic from St. Andrews, and vice versa. But traffic could simply go to St. Augusta and then through to Route 41. Santa Barbara traffic would have to go to Rattlesnake, which is two lanes east of the church. In my write-up, I explained that the meeting was noisy, in a very small room, and I didnwt understand the engineering study as well as itws been presented today. Some of the things that I didnwt understand was the concerns for -- you know, the homes -- our homes. We feel that if the -- Santa Barbara runs adjacent to our homes, we will be seriously adversely impacted. If Santa Barbara goes along route A, it will be adjacent to our homes. It would be adjacent to homes in Royal Wood and Lely. Again, as I said earlier, Florida is a clean air state. We are blessed with winds and weather that keeps our air pure and clean. But because of the high quality of the air, no emission control is required on vehicles. I live here, I drive these roads, I see the trucks spewing black diesel fumes, I see the old beat-up cars spewing clouds of fumes from their exhaust pipes. I, and most other residents of Falling Waters, are older and have fragile respiratory systems. A four or six-lane highway adjacent to my home is a very great negative impact. Because of what Iwve learned at this meeting today, I want to omit some of my other comments. I do want to point out that after the April meeting, over 125 of our summer residents submitted a petition objecting to the extension of Santa Barbara, adjacent to our homes. This petition is a matter of public record. If this petition were submitted during season, Iwm sure it would have over 500 signatures. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Anthony Pires, and then Reverend Peter Lyberg. MR. PIRES: For the record, Anthony Pires, law firm of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, representing some -- a group called the Citizens for Route A institute in preserving the alignment of Route A has been planned for for a number of years in Collier County. Collier County has -- in spite of all the growing pains, has been in the forefront in many respects in planning for its transportation of roadway systems. Some people may criticize, but I think theywve done a darn good job. Iwve been here since w75. But therews nothing more poignant and elegant than the words from those whose lands, whose homes, whose soil, whose hard work stands directly in the path of a government determined to take clear -- take, claim and pave their homestead. The county has taken great pains in the past to try to avoid that kind of situation in its planning, and theywve attempted to minimize such anguish in the form of required dedications and required reservations whenever a developer came in with a PUD document for a large assemblage of acreage. This was attempted to be achieved before the first dirt was turned, before the first shovel was inserted into the ground, before the first home was sold, much less built. And this was all done at the time the developer/owner desired to maximize its profit potential, its investment via rezoning. In the form of rezonings, the developer achieved its goal to get more units on a piece of land, maybe previously agricultural, and the county achieved its goal of painlessly acquiring right-of-way, and in so doing was able to land bank substantial right-of-way. Concerning Santa Barbara Boulevard extension specifically, I've placed up here a blowup of the zoning maps for the area. On the right-hand side in yellow are rights-of-way that have been dedicated to Collier County by two previous developers. Mr. Jenkins, from Falling Waters, he lives in a PUD that was initially approved in 1989, by ordinance number 89-44. And I have copies of these PUDs to hand out to the board members. It was subsequently amended in 1993 -- as recently as 1993. In 1989, the developer committed to platting, dedicating to the county 100 foot road right-of-way for the future extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard. Subsequently, in 1993, the developer amended the PUD, added acreage, and added density. In the 1993 zoning ordinance, 93-42, the original density was 5.5 units to the acre in the original '89 Falling Waters PUD. In the 1993 amendment, they added the additional acreage and they increased density to six units per acre. At page Roman numeral III of the PUD of '93 it says, quote, the total number of dwelling units will not exceed 799 -- 134.04 acres. This density of six units per acre is in compliance with the Growth Management Plan as follows. It goes through an analysis about activity center, base density. Then it says, direct access to two arterial roads; that is, Davis Boulevard and Santa Barbara. That's why they got six units per acre. I'm sure they're either all built or planning on being built along this alignment, and the Santa Barbara road waterway was provided. Additionally, the PUD was amended to not only state the previous -- recognize the previous platting, but to say at page 5-3 that 100 feet of right-of-way shall be provided between Davis Boulevard and the planted segment of Santa Barbara Boulevard onto the PUD. In exchange for right-of-way dedication, the county shall provide an access easement between tract S and tract R, subject to permitting. So what has occurred by virtue of the Falling Waters PUD is as recently as 1993, the county has, from Davis Boulevard through that orange down to that first part of yellow, a commitment or dedicated platted road right-of-way for 100 feet. Going further south to Royal Wood PUD. In 1987, the Royal Wood PUD was first approved by the board. It was reestablished in 1993 without change in the language. In that PUD in 1987, the -- there was also a commitment for road right-of-way provided by the developer of that particular PUD. 10.14 acres has been platted as tract P; 100 right-of-way going all the way down to Rattlesnake Hammock Drive. So this board has acquired and has dedicated and people have acquired -- before the first shovel of dirt was turned, this property was in the hands of the county. They were depicted on the county's zoning maps. This is consistent with the existing 2010 financially feasible plan. I know in the presentation there was a discussion about the 2020 financially feasible plan, and in the powerpoint projection, the slide where the graphic indicated says as adopted February, 1998. That's not been adopted by this board yet. My understanding is the 2020 financially feasible has been adopted by the MPO. This board is going to consider it for transmittal on October 13th, unless this board feels it has to rubber stamp the MPO recommendation. They have two hearings coming out -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We are the MPO. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tony, this board is the MPO -- MR. PIRES: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you know that. MR. PIRES: But there is two opportunities -- there are two more opportunities. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not rubber stamping when these five people vote on something and then as a bureaucratic formality have to vote on the same thing again. MR. PIRES: But there are other entities that are part of that HPO also. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Correct. MR. PIRES: We would urge you to -- in conclusion, since the five minutes is up -- keep alignment A. That's what this board has banked on and that's what has been acquired, that's what people have bought and relied on. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 1995 amendment -- MR. PIRES: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: And the other thing, you're aware of the -- that eliminated the straight alignment? Yes, '94, I think it was. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it was direction in '94 and ratified in a five-oh vote in early '95. MR. PIRES: We're at the December, '95 action with regards to the Growth Management Plan. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So whatever reliance we have had since '94 would be unrealistic reliance, it seems to me. MR. PIRES: What's in -- I think what's in the ground and what's in the public record, that's what platted. That's what -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's also the public record, though, '94 and '95 plan. But I just want to put that on the record. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have water management easements out there we'll never use, too. MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Reverend Peter Lyberg and then Michael Conway. REVEREND LYBERG: Reverend Peter Lyberg, Shepherd of the Glades Lutheran Church, founding pastor of that congregation on the corner of Polly and Santa -- and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Commissioners, to begin with, just a few historical issues that keep cropping up. Your executive summary seems to suggest that 1992 marked the beginning of any thought of Santa Barbara Boulevard connecting to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, but I have a copy of the official land use guide that shows the Route A as the only route, and that was dated July 5th, 1974, signed by Nino Spagna, who was the official at that time. So Route A has a 24-year history to that road. People have planned on it. October 14th, 1993, the Naples Daily News displayed an ad -- or a map, rather, showing the future Santa Barbara, again, a straight alignment connecting to Rattlesnake Hammock Road along Route A, going up to the north end along Logan Boulevard, connecting to Immokalee Road. August 16th, 1994 is the county commission meeting where Route A was rejected, even though it was 1.5 million dollars less than the second best route, which was also rejected. The two least expensive were set aside. Right-of-way, as already been mentioned, is owned by the county along Route A. Part of that has been given by our church in two different occasions, amounting to over an acre. Back in '75 was the first part. Nothing has been built along Route A. That's been preserved. George Archibald several times kept reminding me they're not going to build on it because that's the route, that's the way it was planned. A 1988 schedule of roads gave 1993 as the target date for the completion of Santa Barbara Boulevard. I wish it had been true. An official map entitled Collier County Transportation Services Department, five-year roadway program for East Naples dated April, 1997. 1997 still showed only the Route A alignment for the Santa Barbara extension. St. Andrews Boulevard, as it has been mentioned, has been afraid of being connected to Santa Barbara Boulevard, and neither I -- and I live in Lely over there -- nor anyone in support of A wants more traffic on St. Andrews. It's not designed for that. This fear could have been solved in 1994. But it finally was solved in April, 1998. We had a meeting held at our church by staff and engineers for the community where they announced an intersection allowing no southbound, no northbound connection with St. Andrews. I believe that helped St. Andrews better than Routes B or C, both of which would likely put more traffic on St. Andrews. The scores from April and the present revised scores show in every way that Route A is still the best, including least cost -- that's why we're wearing a dollar bill, because we're talking about money on it -- least cost to taxpayers and certainly least disruptive to residents. A is still the best. Route B, in my opinion, is destructive, disruptive and terrible for many people in its path, not just nearby. Route C is destructive, disruptive and terrible, with the added kicker that it seems to serve developers and developments rather than the ordinary people who bought their land and built after 1974, believing the county when it projected a straight alignment for Santa Barbara Boulevard. Those residents away from A face not inconvenience or noise, but the loss of their homes of 15, 20, 25 years that they've had them. They bought their land to be away from the road, we bought the church land to be on the road. Route A costs less, millions less, disturbs less environment, takes no one's home, does not depend on some -- what I believe to be a fantasy of connecting to Grand Lely Boulevard. Route A is most efficient, I believe, for traffic flow. I live in that area, I drive it all the time. And it's also most fair for traffic that wants to go to 41, as well as 951. A, scores best, still scores best, and it keeps a planning promise. Efforts to defeat by delay have been made for far too many years already. Having lived here 24 years, I firmly believe that Route A is the people's road, with the best score by objective evaluation. Route A is the people's road, not just a road for developers like C would be. Protect St. Andrews Boulevard with a new intersection, postpone County Barn expansion, and build Route A for the people. Build it now, finally, for the people. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Michael Conway, and then Kelly Russell. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, I have to say, Reverend Lyberg, I don't appreciate the insinuation that this board is trying to serve the development community. I think that's offensive and I think it's quite out of character for a man of your stature, sir. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I would refer you to this corridor demand map that shows who this route is designed to serve. REVEREND LYBERG: The residents of that area. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The residents of the area. And they are best served transportationally (sic), if that were a word. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is now. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is now. By Route C. That's why the change has been proposed by our staff. We certainly don't -- REVEREND LYBERG: I'm sorry, I disagree with you. I drive it, I live with the people there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But the facts are the facts. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is not the time at this point to have this argument. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's troubling to hear somebody say -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- we're kowtowing to developers, when I'm -- I know we're not. I'm not. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Proceed, please. MR. CONWAY: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Mike Conway. Most of you know me through my efforts for Intelligent Construction for the Pathways of Collier County. I did that for five years. It was a very gratifying -- as Mr. Constantine knows, we're getting somewhere. Now I have a problem with the efforts that are going on with the discrepancies of the PIAs (phonetic) that we've been provided. We got access to the first PIA, and we were promised that we would have access to the second PIA on the 10th. I received my copy of the PIA on the 12th, and that was incomplete, so I never had a chance to study the -- see what the differences were in scoring. So some of that has been deleted from the first PIA, and it's actually influenced the final scores. Again, this might be misinformation on my part, but I didn't have access to that second PIA, so -- the information has changed, and the commission has those updates. Unfortunately, most of the affected parties have not received the updated PIA. And it is my understanding that the current PIA is now presently still incomplete. Now, again, this is information that I got today. I would respectfully ask for copies of the completed current PIA for the present study to be made available for the study to the people that are involved in this particular situation, and to the public. To even suggest C with the past score and the present score, as we had copies of the present score in our PIA for September, reflect that a lack of prudent design practices, it -- as far as we can tell, Grand Lely of course does not exist now. There was adamant, adamant conversation and rhetoric from the people of Lely saying that they didn't want St. Andrews to be bisected by Santa Barbara. We don't really think that Grand Lely is going to align with Santa Barbara. I mean, the residents of Lely are going to just jump up and down. It does not -- it does not connect now, it's not built now. Lely might not build it. So what we're looking at right now is we're looking at alignment C that does nothing but dead end against Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Now, there was some rhetoric about the fact that if we do alignment A, we're going to have to six-lane Rattlesnake Hammock. Of course. And we're going to have to six-lane Rattlesnake Hammock when we do C. Where is it going to go? Are we just going to dump everything on 9517 The traffic figures show that it's not going to -- that's not a viable solution. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you're mistaken, Mr. Conrad. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You're wrong. MR. CONWAY: Okay. Again, I don't have the PIA, so I can't really objectively look at it that way. Now, as a past unpaid employee for county growth, now I must make a personal plea. My property is definitely impacted. You have, I believe, in front of you some pictures. July of '97, I had the county come out and clean this right-of-way. It was overgrown. This was the water situation in '97. They cleaned the right-of-way. Thank God I had a little pull. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Golly. MR. CONWAY: They dug a ditch to abate the water situation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You don't have to have pull to get county services. MR. CONWAY: I can rephrase that. At least they knew me at transportation. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm glad I'm getting out of this business, the reputation is not good. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Good grief. MR. CONWAY: So the county graciously came out and dug a drainage ditch. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks to your pull. MR. CONWAY: Okay? It didn't alleviate the water problem. The county then graciously came out and built a three-foot berm in front of my property to stop the water problem. The water goes around. September, '98 -- MR. FERNANDEZ: His pull has expired, Madam Chairman. MR. CONWAY: September, '98, the water problem is still there. What you're going to have is you're going to have an extreme water problem. If you take a three-foot high roadway, you're going to force water onto other people's property. We're talking a great expense here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Conway. MR. CONWAY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Kelly Russell and then Gregg Russell. MS. RUSSELL: Hello. I don't know if you recognize the name Kelly Russell. I've had some vigorous letter-writing with all of you. I hope that that was received well. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. MS. RUSSELL: I'm asked by supporters of Route A to submit to you some petitions which were signed all over the county -- I don't know if that's a possibility to do at this point -- representing other opposition to the alternate routes. My husband and I purchased 10 acres of land off Sandy Lane, which is an extension of Polly Avenue, in 1986. Doing our research on that, we knew of the proposed route of alignment A and thus decided to invest in our piece of property, hoping at one point in time to possibly sell it and use that sale as our retirement, per se, maybe when the kids went off to college, whatnot. We never, in our wildest dreams, imagined that one of your routes would actually cross our front porch, another would be out the front of our gate. Chair -- Madam Chairwoman, you made an interesting comment during the previous meeting about efficiency in business, and one of the points I'd like to make, and that I thought I tried to make in my correspondence, was that there seems to be a great communication problem. We, as residents of this special area that we have, have been trying to acquire as much information as we possibly can. We were not aware of the meeting in 1994 when Route A was eliminated. I'm not blaming anyone, I take that as my own responsibility; however, had we known of that, we probably would have all been here at that time. And the other point that I wanted to make in regards to information is that in preliminary studies, our home was misidentified as a structure. I came to learn that in this preliminary study homes were identified by an aerial photograph, as well as drive-bys. And I find that interesting in an area where you have anywhere from two to 10-acre plots of land where they may be concealed by frontage, vegetation and whatnot. Efficiency in business. Seems to me that someone has that information and didn't do their homework. I feel as if we're being a little bit penalized for doing our homework when we did purchase our property, and for lack of a better word, it doesn't seem to be very fair. We haven't received any comprehensive explanation as to why A is unfavorable. I sympathize with the residents of Falling Waters, Royal Woods and the surrounding developments that have come into play after the fact of these comp. plans and people purchasing property; however, I believe that the developers of those particular properties are bound by law to inform -- I may be wrong, and granted, this is a learning experience for me -- but they are by law bound to offer that information to whoever purchases in their community. We -- I'm afraid to say too much, because of Commissioner Hancock's -- you know, I don't have a collar on and I don't want to be attacked. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When you become a reverend, you and I will have that discussion -- MS. RUSSELL: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but until then '- MS. RUSSELL: I -- You have to understand that we're fighting for principle here, and yes, votes were made and we understand that; however, I'd like you to keep in mind that -- the fairness issue, the logical issue, and also, there's another word I'm looking for and I can't seem to find it, sensibility, I suppose, in making this decision. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Hay I ask you just a quick question? In looking at these petitions very quickly, I didn't -- I'm just scanning them. These were not just taken. The names that are on here are not just taken from residents that were in your area; am I correct? MS. RUSSELL: No, as a matter of fact, as far -- I know that I had circulated a petition myself and it was -- I would say that most of the people that signed the petitions that I offered were actually not in our district at all. They were from districts of North Naples and downtown area. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Basically you're looking at this perhaps then as a taxpayer issue -- MS. RUSSELL: Absolutely. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- in general? MS. RUSSELL: They're very concerned, if I can offer that. There are residents of Collier County that are not immediately affected by this that are extremely concerned. And one of the repetitive comments made to me was oh, they're changing the rules, per se. I didn't put that in their mouths, that was offered to me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a comment. And one of my pet peeves, one of the things you mentioned is realtors or developers who don't always share all the information they're supposed to. And you mentioned in Falling Waters and Royal Woods, when those units were sold, those people should have been informed, and I think you're right. And sometimes we'll get information back, and we talked about Lely and St. Andrews, and some of the stories that were told to people who lived on -- who built homes on St. Andrews, about what the sewer plant was -- MS. RUSSELL: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- were just misleading. In fairness to the Falling Waters' people and Royal Wood, I would say almost all the Falling Waters units, and certainly a healthy percentage, anyway, of Royal Wood were sold after the direction came from this board in 1994 not to pursue A. So I know there's some record in 1978, or whatever it was, that we'd look at this route long-term. MS. RUSSELL: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But there's also ample record that that would not be pursued. So those particular groups -- I know when you say, boy, they should have known -- MS. RUSSELL: Which brings me back -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- that's a five-year window. MS. RUSSELL: -- to the communication issue of a group of people knowing certain things, another group maybe not being -- my point of the communication issue is that maybe in future instances, future situations that you find yourselves in, you can find a different way to communicate with people. I know the Naples Daily News prints things; however -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Interesting you should bring it up. MS. RUSSELL: -- there might be a more efficient avenue. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We are working on an informational television program right now that's under consideration, and we'll probably have something back before the board here fairly shortly. But we're trying to do exactly that. MS. RUSSELL: And if you would tell me that's because of my letters, I would be thrilled. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's because of your letters. It's because of it. MS. RUSSELL: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Gregg Russell and then Neil Pritchard. MR. RUSSELL: Yeah, she always says more than I need to say. I think basically, to bring a couple -- I found it very interesting in today's presentation that all the numbers were omitted. I've been privy to two or three of the presentations, with the grades, the numbers of -- if we could have those put up, by any chance? Do we have a possibility to ask for that, from previous presentations? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so you know, our packet does have that information in it, so we've -- MR. RUSSELL: Well -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- been able to review that. MR. RUSSELL: -- it wasn't presented today. And I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. MR. RUSSELL: -- found that -- I found that a little upsetting that it had been presented in such detail before in all the presentations and today, Bingo, we don't have the numbers. And -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's very -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you identify yourself? We're on the record. MR. RUSSELL: I'm sorry. My name is Gregg Russell, the husband of Kelly Russell. So I find that interesting that none of those numbers were brought up today. I think, in my opinion, that they weren't brought up because you've been advised to choose C. And if you look at the numbers, everything goes for A. There is just no question about -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And actually, if I can -- and I'm not taking any of your time, you'll get the additional time -- but Mike had also mentioned the concern, not seeing the updated study. We had found a couple of weeks ago some factual errors, some factual information that was just factually incorrect in that first one, that's why there have been some updated numbers. If you -- MR. RUSSELL: And if we don't have it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, if you all haven't seen that, then we probably, as part of our process today, maybe before we conclude, we can put some of those up. I know there are three or four different screens here like that one, but -- MR. RUSSELL: Well, that's pretty obvious. That says the story right there, A gets the best grading. So that's maybe why we didn't show those numbers today, because they're against what is being advised. C gets a 5.1, A gets a 7. That's pretty obvious right there. I also find that C is totally contingent upon the fact that you do have Grand Lely Drive in your pocket. If you don't have that in your pocket, if you are not absolutely assured in every which way, then C is doing exactly what A is doing. With that in mind, A impacts no one. It doesn't take a home away, it doesn't take any wetlands away, it doesn't -- and you own most of that property already. So with those three considerations in mind -- I did want to mention something else. I think that a lot of people are forgetting the issue, that this little spot, this little area that's cornered by County Barn Road, 951 and Davis is a microclimate. It's a small piece of Collier history. It's where swamp buggy races started, it's where they're maintained, kind of, basically. If you live in that area during the swamp buggy races, you'll hear it every night at 11:00. It's where people that have been slowly pushed out of their places -- the fishermen in the area, the people that are still -- that area is still zoned agricultural. If we wanted to go anywhere else, we'd have to go to Goodland or Immokalee to get a piece of property like what we've got right now. And that's why we moved in there. And now you're going to put a road right through it when you don't really have any justification for it. And I bring that all back down -- and I also was not privy to the 1993 or '94 meetings. But why was that vote done? What made that -- why did you go against A all of a sudden? And what justification at that time? I mean, why? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I can answer that. Primary justification was it showed flowing directly into St. Andrews Boulevard which has, and I don't remember the number now, it's 130 driveways or something of people living literally 30 feet off the street. MR. RUSSELL: And I understand that concern, and that's a very justifiable concern. But when all of this, and when most of the people that are here supporting A bought their properties, that wasn't a concern. I remember St. Andrews Boulevard still being a palm-lined road, not a house on it. And we had already built our home. So I don't understand why -- I understand these people, I understand their problems, they have problems coming out of their driveways, they're afraid of the added traffic and everything else. Most of our people have problems getting out of their driveways to go to work, to get their boats. This is where we can keep our boats, this is where we can keep our agriculturally zoned -- you've got cows, goats, bird farms, butterfly farms, you name it, we've got it back in our area. And I think that's an important consideration, besides the historical fact. You've got people here that are in this room that built their homes and the only way they could get there was by air boat 25 years ago. They took horses, that's how they got to there. And they're going to lose their home. I don't think that's very fair. Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go to the next speaker, Mr. Ilschner, when we had met on Friday and gone through this information, we had discussed some things that had been lacking in the cost fact. And, actually, I think Clay Carithers from Wilson-Miller was going to adjust this slide. You and I had talked about some very specific costs that had not been included in here that could adjust that scale. And we had talked about whether or not this chart would change according to some of those cost factors. And I just wondered, if not now, if at -- when we complete the public speaker part, you'll be prepared to respond to that. Because this is different than what we had talked about on Friday. This is different than the information you and I had talked about at the end of the week. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, Ed Ilschner, public works administrator, Collier county. I will try to pull that information for you by the end of the meeting. We did not have time to put that on the new slide. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this some additional cost for Route A? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's some differential. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Thanks. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Neil Pritchard and then Dale Hohrbacher. MR. PRITCHARD: Good morning. I come to you hat in hand, as I've been a homeowner since 1971 -- no, 1991, sorry. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just feels like longer. MR. PRITCHARD: Yeah. I'm chair of -- also chair of a neighborhood watch group in the Rattlesnake and 41 area. I've got about a 30-second statement. The rush to me -- the rush to build four lanes on County Barn Road, which connects Rattlesnake and Davis Boulevard between Glen Eagles and a bunch of condos on the south seems to be part of a plot to defy common sense. If that same pavement were laid to extend Santa Barbara to an existing right-of-way, an existing right-of-way from Davis to Rattlesnake, taxpayers would save 10 to 20 million dollars. That's all I have to say. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Dale Mohrbacher and then Aubrey Rogers. MR. MOHRBACHER: Hi. My name is Dale Mohrbacher, I'm a resident of Wing South Air Park. My home will be directly impacted by the Route C or B, but it looks like you're angling for C. Literally it will end up a few feet out my back door, which upsets me because there will be litter, there will be noise, and it will also affect the security of my neighborhood. Wing South Air Park doesn't have a fence around it. It's got a great security buffer and that's the woods that surround it. They're almost impenetrable by human beings. You got -- you have to try really hard to make it through those woods. There's going to be about 70 Wing South homesites that would be affected by this, 98 Shadowwood dwellings would be affected by Route C, and approximately 30 Parks Hammock homes would be in some way affected. Including the possible demolition of Mrs. Parker's home, which was built circa 1961, which is, in my opinion, on its way to becoming a landmark, the pristine woods behind my house doesn't even have a four-wheel drive track through it, it doesn't have a beer can on it, it doesn't have a cigarette wrapper on it. It's an amazing piece of land. It will be devastated by Route C. It's purportedly the home to a rare species of woodpecker called the pileated woodpecker. I'm sure it won't be hanging around long if Route C comes through there. I have a question about the cost of Route C. It's purported in that study that it's 1.8 million dollars more over Route A. My very limited knowledge of building roads, I believe, is somewhere on a rule of thumb of paving -- making a paved road at about two million dollars a mile for a four-lane road, give or take. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: 2.4. MR. MOHRBACHER: My case all the better then. In that case you're adding almost a mile of road to bring this road east towards Wing South Air Park. It seems like there is no other cost involved in that like the acquisition of the land or other infrastructures like bridges that would have to go over delicate slues and things like that. So I've heard, in back hand information, it would be more like five million dollars more, which seems a little more accurate of what that would -- true cost would be. The next subject's delicate. I want to be careful not to get sued or anybody think I'm pointing a finger at them, but you probably read my letter to the editor. People of this county are going to get a little suspicious as to why all four alternate routes seem to benefit a virtually landlocked parcel of land just north of my neighborhood. It could be coincidence, but unfortunately, you know, once you get the suspicions of the public going, it's pretty hard to knock them back down. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is that you're talking about, Naples Heritage? MR. MOHRBACHER: No, there -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Naples National? MR. MOHRBACHER: When Wing South Air Park was originally developed, there -- it got slit up after the developer died, and there's still an 80-acre parcel north of the actual community of Wing South, which was originally part of it. That 80-acre land seems to have had a lot of frustrations, but primarily, there's no road going to it. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So this is all to serve an 80-acre piece of land? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just so we clearly understand the conspiracy theory, the entire road network is being altered to benefit this one 80-acre piece, in your opinion? Okay. MR. HOHRBACHER: Well, no -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just don't have any idea what you're talking about. MR. HOHRBACHER: -- that's not my opinion. That's -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You don't agree with it, you're just perpetuating it today. MR. HOHRBACHER: That is true. I'm perpetuating the questioning of this, merely. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you're just laying it out there for people to consider -- MR. HOHRBACHER: Why not? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but you personally don't believe it at all. MR. HOHRBACHER: No, I personally believe that there's a good possibility that there is some undue influence. I have no proof of it. But the proof is simply in that all four roads -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's a job for you on Central Avenue. MR. HOHRBACHER: There -- that's a fact, that all four roads connect there. That's just a fact. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Honestly, we don't even know what piece of land you're even talking about. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No way I'm going to respond to that. MR. HOHRBACHER: No one's implying that the board has anything to do with this. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You are implying that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's exactly what you're implying there. MR. HOHRBACHER: Wait, let's back down a second here. Every time I've heard the board act like they were insinuated and insulted. There are a lot of people involved in this process and they have influence on the board. The most influential people are the people with those beautiful computer graphics. Now, we question some of the things those people do, and we bring it to you folks, but we're not indicting you folks, okay? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I appreciate knowing that. It's just Wilson-Miller, it's not us. MR. HOHRBACHER: It could be. It could be a lot of people. But thank you for the time anyway. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Aubrey Rogers, and then Jeff Cox. MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Madam Chairman and board members. I have lost a lot of my things I was going to say. I will do my best not to say anything to make you mad or aggravate you, because I'd like to have your help. My name, for the record, is Aubrey Rogers, and I live at 6228 Parkers Hammock, in Naples. I've spent my entire adult life in law enforcement; nine years with the Ft. Myers Police Department, 32 years with the Collier County Sheriff's Department. I've had a great deal of experience dealing with traffic flow and its effect on neighborhoods in fast-growing areas. I don't know what that's got to do with it, but at least I know a little bit about what I'm talking about. My interest in this Santa Barbara extension is two-fold. Number one, with Route C, I lose my home of 28 years that I have continued to improve and work on in all that time. The number two, as a taxpayer, I am concerned of what is reported to be the additional cost of taxpayers' money if we use Route C. Santa Barbara's been included -- you heard this for a long time from planning -- but it was certainly available. I built mine before we even knew what Santa Barbara was. Route A is a direct boulevard or direct route for Davis Boulevard/Rattlesnake Hammock Road without forcing homeowners to give up their homes to the county for right-of-way. Also, the properties that's been donated in the past, based on whatever plan was there or removed has been taken off the tax roll so the taxpayers have lost the benefit of considerable money over the years. The preliminary engineering and environmental assessment by Wilson-Miller and staff is pretty well established that Route A is the cheapest way to go. The Route A is of concern and was a concern of mine for St. Andrews Boulevard many years ago when they developed that. I spent a lot of time with Mr. Chris Dovaco (phonetic), telling him exactly what this day was going to happen, and tried to get them to keep that as a lot community, based on the values of the land. He agreed, but the people with the money wouldn't agree with it, so now we're at that point. The alternate Route C will not solve the problems of St. Andrews Boulevard as far as traffic going through there, because Route C will come out on Rattlesnake Hammock Road a little less than a half a mile east of St. Andrews Boulevard. Traffic that wants to go that way will just make a right turn and a left turn anyway. I do that. Of course, I don't drive a dump truck and I don't speed, but I go through there all the time. I go to the little shopping centers, my wife goes to the beauty shops. People continue to do that, if you're going to use it as a road. The -- St. Andrews shouldn't have that traffic dumped into their neighborhood because those roads are just too narrow -- it was a divided highway, but it's been changed. But it was built when people had to back their cars out there in the road. If only Route C is chosen, it will cost more, take citizens' homes and property, and is planned to link with the future plan of Grand Lely Boulevard through Lely Resort, and then that goes to State Road 951 there at the U.S. 41 by those beautiful horses out there. I think we all know that there will be a bigger holler about that than going through St. Andrews. I'm not sure, because there's already good information whether those roads have been given to the county or not. The planned road of Grand Lely Boulevard, I guarantee you, it won't ever be built down there to connect that if they still own the land, unless it's to their benefit if others develop their land. If -- you see improved middle laned roads all over Naples areas, along home developments such as Berkshire on Santa Barbara, along Davis, Pine Ridge Road, Rattlesnake Hammock, Airport Road, just to name a few. All of these developments use these roads daily to make their -- to their benefit. There's a big difference in going through a neighborhood and running beside of it. If we do that, that will hold the problem out. In closing, I just urge the board to reject Route C and remember that the expense of these alternate roads will be borne by not just the taxpayers in Mr. Norris' District 1, but all of your districts, because it'll be spread throughout the county. Thank you for your time. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Jeff Cox, and then Robin Buckley. MR. COX: Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, for the record, my name is Jeff Cox. I'm also a resident of the Parkers Hammock, and I couldn't possibly say in any other words more eloquently than Aubrey Rogers that I'm sure that in your wisdom and in all sense of morality and fairness, the board will elect option A to keep the costs down and to keep from -- as Commissioner Constantine so eloquently talked about, to keep from impacting so many different neighborhoods that Route C will destroy. Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Robin Buckley and then Dudley Chism. MR. BUCKLEY: Good morning. My name is Robin Buckley. I live at 6378 Atkins Avenue. The engineering for where the road's going to go doesn't really help me get anywhere, because it would be going through my living room, so naturally, I'm not for option C. Most of the people here have already brought up the fact the way it will disrupt the neighborhood. And we're not just talking houses here, we're talking homes where people have raised their families, met neighbors, got on with their lives. Most of the other things I was going to bring up have been said. Mainly where C, if it doesn't connect into Grand Lely Boulevard, which at this point it doesn't, it doesn't align. It's not built. They stopped. St. Andrews Boulevard doesn't want the traffic, and I don't want to see them get the traffic. Engineers have said, though, that they'll stop that from happening. In fact, people like myself who cut through now to go to 41 won't be able to. So actually it will possibly be less. Most people want to -- seem to want to go out to 951. We have -- let me go here to my notes. I'm not a very good speaker, so you'll have to bear with me here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You're doing fine. MR. BUCKLEY: But we have three -- we have Davis, Radio and Rattlesnake Hammock taking people east and east. So what if Rattlesnake Hammock is six-laned on out? There's nobody out there. In fact, right now we have the bus depot being built out there. So it's almost like, you know, some commercial stuff is going out there. 951, what if it is six lanes? There's no homes going to be taken by 951. People want to go east and west to get out to 951 to go south. They also want to go to 41, which we've now widened. We've got the beautiful botanical gardens going up out there, Sugden Park, Bay View, for boaters. So a lot of these people don't necessarily want to run south. They're going to go to Rattlesnake Hammock and go west, because they want to get over to 41. They want to go back up town and they want to run south. And that pretty much wraps it up, other than what I'd like to see is St. Andrews -- or Santa Barbara be built on Route A, but make it a nice winding two-lane road like all the other communities in this fine county get, and that will help the local traffic. And then any larger traffic than that, let them go east and west, go out to 951, which is already a four-lane road with a huge footprint where you can add to it, or to 41, which we've now made what, six or eight lanes going up into the new bridge. Thank you very much for your time. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Dudley Chism, and then Richard Annunziata. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How many more do we have? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pardon me? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: How many more? MR. FERNANDEZ: Two more. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Two more? MR. CHISH: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Dudley Chism and I'm president of the Lely Country Club Property Owners Association. We represent approximately 1,200 individual homes, villas, condos, extending from Rattlesnake Hammock to Forest Hills Boulevard, encompassing St. Andrews and Augusta Boulevard. You may recall, our association fought the good fight when the county proposed expanding the south county wastewater sewer plant back in the early Nineties. Our attorneys said then that putting a 15 million gallon noxious facility in a residential neighborhood was not the smart thing to do and was in fact criminal. After much debate, our attorneys, the association and the county came to an agreeable solution. With the help of John Norris, Butt Saunders and later Tim Constantine, we eliminated the lethal chlorine at the plant, re-did the landscaping by berming the area, and built a new state-of-the-art facility, eliminating the terrible odors that blew over our neighborhood. It cost the county somewhere around 13 to 15 million dollars to correct this mistake. Lely Country Club thanks you. We are now asked to jump into another blunder, that of extending Santa Barbara through Polly Avenue. The paid advertisements that have been appearing in the paper fail to show what happens to 15,000 vehicles a day when they exit at Rattlesnake Hammock. Are we supposed to believe that they all disappear at this point? No. What will happen in reality is that they'll connect with St. Andrews Boulevard, a one lane east and a one lane west, with wide lanes and next month traffic or speed bumps. Commissioners, this is a residential neighborhood, a neighborhood containing Manor Care and Lely Palms Nursing Home, entrances to private homes and villas on St. Andrews, and a neighborhood fighting speeding problems and safety already from adjacent neighborhoods and high schools that have necessitated the one-lane east-west, the one-lane east-south, and the bike lanes and speed bumps. We don't need to add more vehicles to this mix. The Naples Daily News article of Wednesday, August the 12th, deriding Commissioner Norris for not listening to East Naples citizens is ludicrous and defaming. Lely Country Club and Lely Civic Association have worked with Mr. Norris and the previous director of county transportation since the early 1990's, trying to find a suitable route, a road, if it was really needed to be built -- and that's a real question at this time -- without destroying our neighborhood. If, as the newspaper articles proclaim, taxpayer alert, let's save eight or nine million dollars and not build the road at all, taxpayers would really perk up with that proposal. Now that's a real taxpayer alert. Our association, along with the Lely Civic Association, comprised of over 2,500 homes, condos and villas that would be adversely affected if this travesty would prevail. Lely Country Club fought to rectify the injustice of the wastewater treatment plant. We will fight, if necessary, to keep 15,000 unwanted vehicles a day out of our neighborhood. Thank you very much for listening. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. (Applause.) MR. FERNANDEZ: Richard Annunziata and Christopher Lombardo, last speaker. MR. ANNUNZIATA: Commissioners, my name is Richard Annunziata. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Siesky, Pilon and Wood. We represent the developers of Falling Waters. And I'm here simply to inform you that the developers of Falling Waters are in agreement with the unit owners of Falling Waters and support the adoption of route C for the expansion of Santa Barbara. That's it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker, Madam Chairman is Christopher Lombardo. MR. LOHBARDO: Good morning. Chris Lombardo of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo. I'm here on behalf of Citizens for Route A, and I want to direct your attention to some issues that I think need to be considered in your choices today. First, there's been considerable discussion about the cost and the relative cost between choice A, Route A and Route C, and the indication is that the choice of Route C costs roughly two million, maybe two and a half million dollars more than Route A. I would indicate to you that as pointed out before, when you just consider the cost of construction of roads in recognizing that Route C is obviously a longer route -- the shortest path between two points is the straight one, that's Route A -- you're looking at roughly an increase of 2.2 million -- 2.2 million dollars just for the additional pavement. I would suggest to you that in analyzing this, though, numbers have been left out and that is the question of eminent domain; that is the question of the cost of taking the various properties involved in these choices. This commission has done an amazing job, in my eyes, of defending and preserving the integrity of its neighborhoods in this county. And I would suggest to you that that's part of the problem and part of your charge when it comes to making this decision today. Route A, following the path down Falling Waters, along the edge of Falling Waters on dedicated right-of-ways, is a much less expensive path because of the fact that you already have roughly 12 acres of available land designated and designed for this purpose. In between Falling Waters and Royal Woods, and not including the church property, which obviously you can acquire relatively inexpensively as well, are roughly 11 properties that will be affected from Route A. Route C, on the contrary, I believe the comment was made, does not divide neighborhoods. I would suggest to you that not only does it divide a neighborhood thatws been there for almost 30 years, but it actually divides homes. When you look at the choice, Route C impacts approximately 30 properties, substantially impacts those properties. Of those 30 properties, I believe youill find, before itls all said and done, 12 of those will be total takings; 12 of those will be total takings because youlre rolling it right over the tops of the homes, youlre bisecting the properties, and the countyls going to ultimately purchase those properties, which is going to be a substantially more expensive choice than Route A. I believe youill also find that out of those 30 properties, six of those properties will be bisected by the road, literally cutting those properties in half, which may also ultimately result in a total taking far more expensive, not just from the cost but from the payment of the litigation. As we all know, Florida is a great state to be a property owner in an eminent domain circumstance, and that will be an added cost that will be borne by this project. And I believe when you calculate those, what youlre going to determine is that the difference between Route A and Route C is not two million dollars but substantially more. Substantially more because of the cost of the roads. With regard to Lely, I am sensitive to those issues of Lely and St. Andrews, and I think thatls a valid concern that Mr. Chism has raised with you. There are traffic systems that can be employed at St. Andrews that can protect and preserve the integrity of Lely. But I would suggest to you that therels one other issue. And I -- as looking through all this -- and Iim not an engineer, as we all well know, Iim just an advocate. But I have to apply common sense periodically and ask whether the other choice has been considered. Therels one other alternative, and that alternative, what Iill call Route D, is to come down along St. -- come down Santa Barbara and Falling Waters and roughly curve at Country and Woodmere and head out to 951. But instead of coming straight down or angling across, come down along the eastern side of Wing South in what is now an undeveloped piece of property, which is a PUD under planning -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: He needs to use the microphone. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Chris, pick-up the microphone thatls -- MR. LOMBARDO: Excuse me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- right behind you there, please. MR. LOMBARDO: All right. Okay. Come down, curve around this way, come along Shadowwood Lane out to 951, and then right here, drop straight down to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, coming along the eastern side of Wing South. This is an air strip. Not a real popular place to place a home for some people, some people love it. But, you know, from a development standpoint over here, thatls obviously going to be something that theylre going to have to deal with from a development perspective. You place the road here, now youill note that Grand Lely Boulevard, which is planned for the future, actually is making a contorted left turn to get towards your Route C. But this way itls actually much closer if it just came straight up to what I suggest is the obvious choice. It accomplishes your flow goals, it accomplishes getting the east and west traffic and the north and south traffic, and, most importantly, it accomplishes the lesser impact on all these homeowners. You don't take houses that way. Maybe one, maybe two, but not -- certainly not 30. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Would you describe the northern half of that again? MR. LOHBARDO: I would come down Santa Barbara, curve right here and then come right through there. Come down along Falling Waters, you're taking advantage of the right-of-way you have, the existing right-of-way, come through here, come across and then straight down and straight over. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: At Whitaker you're turning? MR. LOHBARDO: Correct -- well, no, no, at Country -- you have a little angled proposal in -- I think this is Route A. I would probably follow that curve. The other choice -- the other obvious circumstance in that choice, by the way -- and again, I'm not a traffic engineer, but my understanding is we try to avoid peculiar and unusual intersections. Route C is going to produce some really odd intersections; there's the most obvious one. You're going to have this curving road come down and Whitaker curving up, and you're going to have a really interesting traffic situation right here, much like what you had at Davis and 41, which is going to have to be cured at a later date. You know, this way you have more -- you have straighter lines. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Since Mr. Lombardo's time is over, maybe we could ask our staff the viability of what he's proposed. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I'd also like to hear the answers about whether or not the eminent domain costs are factored in, the dollars that you've showed us, as we compare the routes. MR. DeWINKLER: John DeWinkier, with Wilson-Miller. Let's try to answer the eminent domain question first. They're obviously not factored in. You know, all we had available to us really is the value of the land and the structures that are affected. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, when you say the eminent domain costs are not factored in, are you talking -- MR. DeWINKLER: For the costs over and above -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The cost of the '- MR. DeWINKLER: -- what a taking would be. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay, let me be clear in my question then. Eminent -- my question is, have you included the taking cost, the value of the land -- MR. DeWINKLER: The land -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- in comparison? MR. DeWINKLER: -- and a structure. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: What you haven't included is only the fighting cost, the lawyers. MR. DeWINKLER: Condemnation cost. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm sorry? MR. DeWINKLER: Condemnation cost. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Condemnation. And that's lawyers, that's not property values. Costs associated with the process? MR. DeWINKLER: Well, the only thing that's in our numbers is the value of land and the value of the dwelling. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So what else is there? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bureaucratic costs. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The bureaucratic costs, the lawyer costs. MR. DeWINKLER: It's not included. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, we're in the business of doing that every dang day, Mr. Weigel. Give us some idea of those numbers. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. Well, factored into a taking, where you have an unwilling seller and a government entity wishing to obtain property, will be a statutory formula which provides -- and there are some breakouts, depending on how far litigation goes -- which provides for a percentage fee to go to the attorney based upon the inability to reach a determination short of jury trial. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: The normal sort of 30 and 45 or something? MR. WEIGEL: It's something like that. It's changed a little bit recently and statutorily, and the fact is, that if a good faith offer is made by the government early on and it is upheld by the jury, then that reduces the percentages that go to the attorney and the landowner afterwards. There are some penalties for being contentious in the process when the facts don't belie that contentiousness. But there is, in addition, if you want to have a very rough figure, call it 30 percent on top of the values of structure and land. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So could you add that 30 percent, sir -- Mr. Ilschner, whoever would do that -- add that 30 percent that Mr. Weigel estimates as what we're going to now call the eminent domain cost that Mr. Lombardo brought up, and tell us what the spread is on the dollars at that point? MR. ILSCHNER: Commissioner Hac'Kie, I think we've also mentioned to you that our right-of-way plan which we have not briefed you on would involve an early purchase of right-of-way -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. ILSCHNER: -- and then would allow the people that own those homes to remain in those homes for 15 to 20 years until the road is actually built. And that should have some mitigating effect, I think, on the cost of acquisition -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, just for -- MR. ILSCHNER: -- with respect to condemnation. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And I appreciate that, and I do hope that we would pursue it that way. But just for my -- MR. ILSCHNER: They would live in those homes free, by the way. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- information -- just for my information, 30 percent on top of -- just do the math for me. What's 30 percent on top of the cost you've otherwise estimated for land acquisition? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So we don't have right-of-way broken out? MR. ILSCHNER: He doesn't have right-of-way broken out. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, okay. MR. ILSCHNER: We have not done any detailed design. This is basically a rude analysis -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I understand. MR. ILSCHNER: -- and does not include those kind of detail costs. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If we're talking -- okay, if the spread's two million dollars, then we can reasonably assume that -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 600,000. MR. ILSCHNER: 600,000. MR. LOHBARDO: Hay I comment? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not right now. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I wish you could, because he has experience in this field. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: But can I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think we're quite at that point yet, because I think what today is, you give more direction for the staff to do and go on -- COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: I agree. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- at which time, Pam, they will be getting COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'd like to apples and apples, though. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I understand, and I understand where you're coming from. But I think at this point in time we have to make the decision to give staff to go on or do whatever it is that we think we want them to do. MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, John Winklet (sic) would like to answer the circuitous route point that the gentleman brought up. MR. DeWINKLER: One of the dilemmas -- we obviously did not study your suggestion, because with Route A, the -- probably the biggest negative associated with Route A is the circuity or the number of turns or the lack of efficiency of an arterial roadway. That's probably the strongest selling point for alternate C is because it's direct, it makes the transportation system more efficient -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't understand that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wait a minute. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Straight line is circuitous -- MR. DeWINKLER: No, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- curved is direct? MR. DeWINKLER: No, ma'am. No, ma'am. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They can't make a T-intersection -- MR. DeWINKLER: Alternate C ties to Grand Lely. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER IN AUDIENCE: No, it doesn't. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But we have to assume that it would, because it's not even an option if it doesn't. So -- I mean, so that would have to be a contingency for my vote, anyway. But what you're talking about is the T-intersection at Rattlesnake Hammock? MR. DeWINKLER: Right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Where are you talking -- what's circuitous? Maybe you should go point -- MR. DeWINKLER: Makes you go out of your way. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Where are they going? They're not going to Rattlesnake Hammock, they're going south of Rattlesnake Hammock. So when they come down Santa Barbara and hit Rattlesnake Hammock, they have to go -- the majority of trips would turn left there along Rattlesnake Hammock to whether it be 951 or at some point when Grand Lely is done, then move south. It's not a direct -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: This shows they go north. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner, please? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: People go to and from, it's -- MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, Mr. Winklet (sic) is indicating that the circuitous route he's speaking of is Route A that we see here coming to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Then the preponderance of volume, 20,000 vehicles a day, are destined for the Lely development area. And so we're talking a circuitous route of having to make a left turn here, going over and making a right turn onto Grand Lely, versus alternate C, which would come down and join with Grand Lely. And by the way, we have visited with the developers of Grand Lely -- development of Lely, and they've indicated a willingness to bring this roadway, when it is constructed, to join and become one single intersection at that point. So what we're talking about then is a direct route then to the location where the preponderance of volume being served by an extension of Santa Barbara would be destined; in other words, an origin and destination point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Ilschner, may I ask you a question? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's take this one step further. We're assuming you're going to get these people all up to Davis Boulevard. And at that point, is this where we're -- is this a destination? MR. ILSCHNER: This volume is, of course, coming from a number of different origins throughout the county, collecting onto Santa Barbara Boulevard at various points throughout its entire length of Immokalee Road. We estimate some 35 to 37,000 vehicles a day would be reaching this point. And then some 37,000 vehicles going south of that, reaching some 29,000 as we reach this point. And then when we reach Rattlesnake Hammock, that volume splits out and we have 20,000 then destined for the Lely development area. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, my question is that once we get them onto this roadway and -- MR. ILSCHNER: Either one of these two roadways. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Whatever. And once you take them on further north, if you're going to have more access onto this -- in other words, from the southern part of the county -- and you take them on north on Santa Barbara, which eventually links up with Logan -- MR. ILSCHNER: Correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- and takes them up and dumps them off currently at Vanderbilt Beach Road. You have a T-bone up there, the same thing that you're going to have at Rattlesnake Hammock Road, until such time that that road at Vanderbilt Beach winds its way on up to Immokalee Road. MR. ILSCHNER: Keep in mind, Madam Chairman, that this roadway we're speaking of is not really projected to be built until some time beyond the year 2015. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And besides -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- the problem is -- MR. ILSCHNER: So we don't know how that will evolve over time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: See that -- but that's part of my problem is that I see us where we're building a section, but we're not completing the whole picture. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The loop. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay? And that's the problem that I have, that I'm not sure that we're solving it. We're not solving the problem. If you want to look at this roadway as another north/south artery -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which I do. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- which is the kind of thing that I'm interested in, we're not solving it by just taking it up to Vanderbilt Beach Road, and we're not solving it at the Rattlesnake Hammock Road. And the thing that troubles me is what Pam has mentioned, and we've all talked, or it's been said, that right now we don't have the link-up to Grand Lely Boulevard. And I'm not sure -- I would certainly want -- that's no better now than what we've got on Pine Ridge Road at Forest Lakes Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: How many traffic lights do you have on Pine Ridge where you've got, I think, two or three within a very short period of time? Because some time ago, long before Mr. Ilschner was here, and many of us were, those roads were built and they didn't tie into one another north/south. Okay, we're going to end up with the same thing, unless -- if we make a commitment now, we don't have a guarantee of Grand Lely Boulevard. And I think we're going to end up with the same kind of a problem that we've got now on other roadways. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barb, we do have a guarantee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do have a guarantee? MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, I can simply state that I have visited with the developer representatives of the Lely development, and they've indicated that they're quite willing -- that they are quite willing to work with this Board of County Commissioners to achieve this. This road has not been built yet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I know. MR. ILSCHNER: It's planned for construction. And they're certainly willing to work with this board -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's our -- MR. ILSCHNER: -- to tie down this particular line of -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The guarantee I'm talking about is in their PUD document. There's a standard statement in any PUD document, and if you look at Lely's, you will probably find it. We need to make sure it's in there. But it states that the transportation services director of Collier County has a responsibility basically for the safety and alignment of roadways. That what is proposed, if they wanted to fight and keep their access where it is, would fail to meet Collier County's access management guidelines, which they are required to comply with. So they have two choices: They can work with us on the front end to change their plans at time of development to line up, or they can put it off down the road and put themselves behind the eight ball, because we have access management guidelines in place that disallow that kind of intersection. So now, there -- I don't know, you know, the best way to get there, but I do know that today you cannot do, under the county regulations, what was done on Pine Ridge Road. You cannot cause two roads to line up a couple hundred feet apart on an arterial because of the county's access management guidelines. And the bottom line is, he who builds first holds, you know, that position. So if that roadway goes in there first, Grand Lely is going to have to comply with our access management guidelines when they build that roadway. You know, there are some other elements to consider there, but as I understand it -- Mr. Weigel, correct me if I'm wrong -- but I believe that is the process by which they will have to go through in order to build any connection from their community to Rattlesnake Hammock. Is that correct, sir? MR. WEIGEL: I believe that it is. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As for the north end of this north/south thoroughfare, road easement has been set aside on the west side of the new DiVosta development -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right, I understand that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to ultimately connect road traffic all the way up to Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And that's a discussion that's going to come before us in the future. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. Sugden -- THE REPORTER: Excuse me, one at a time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in that area begin to be inundated the way segments in this area are starting to, which is why we're here DOW. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've been trying to get in for a little while, Ms. Chairman. Can I get in? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You can speak. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. We've talked a lot about the rankings of these three roads and the cost to build them, and we've been ignoring some of the most important parts. If you take that little section of land that's up there on that map, this one right here, and if that was all we were ever going to talk about, then yes, A would make more sense. It ranked better and it would be some -- slightly cheaper to build. But we're not talking about just that little section, we're talking about the whole south end of the county's road network. And the ultimate cost of building alignment A, we've been told, and your maps here will show that, that we'll have to make a six-lane freeway out on 951 with three overpasses, there will be a section of 41 that will have to be eight-laned, Rattlesnake Hammock will have to be six-laned. I mean, those are the incremental additional costs of going to alignment A. Now, if you go alignment C, Rattlesnake Hammock stays four-lane, 951 is a six-lane arterial, not an expressway. And you don't see an eight-lane section of 41 out into the year 2020, and there are no overpasses, no grade separation networks. Now, this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we get that up? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- we're talking tens of millions of dollars of difference in cost if you go with alignment A. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, every grade separation -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Plus -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- itself is six million. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's right, plus the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put it on the screen. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- fact then that as Commissioner Hancock pointed out, that you have an engineering failure in the whole road network if you go with alignment A out in the future. I mean, it's just not responsible to do alignment A, period. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's why I want to go back and see then what is the effect on 951 with regard to six-lane expressway and overpasses? That's what I'm asking him. I know that for a no-build alternative we end up with six-lane expressway, three overpasses, a stretch of eight-lane on U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We basically violate every standard we have for roads. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which we -- which that's no-build, and it's not an option, as far as I'm concerned. But could you show us what happens? Do we end up with that -- with six-lane and three overpasses and some eight-lane if we go with alignment A? I need to see that picture again. That's a slam dunk, if that's the fact of the matter. MR. ILSCHNER: I'm going to have Mr. Winklet (sic) come up. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The other thing, I don't know that we ever got a response to the question as to the feasibility of the Lombardo route. I know that is not one we studied. Mr. Lombardo was the final speaker who suggested the alternative route. I know that wasn't one we studied, but I'm wondering, do we immediately see a fatal flaw in that, or is that something that -- the dilemma I find myself in is I don't think A is -- if our goal is to get traffic from the south end of the county to the north end of the county, A doesn't serve that purpose. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But I also have a problem, we have never done a taking of a home for a road in Collier County, and I'd hate to start that now. The Lombardo alternative -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Minimizes that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Plan D. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it does absolutely, possibly completely, eliminate that. And while it may take some yards, I don't believe it goes through any structure at all. And if we could achieve that and have the alignment with Grand Lely, it would appear at first glance that we still meet the north-south requirements of a road network, but do not drive a highway through somebody's living room. MR. ILSCHNER: Commissioner Constantine, let me let John Winklet address that, because he attempted to do that a moment ago, and let's let him finish that -- MR. DeWINKLER: Yeah, the obvious problem that I see with that is, you know, in the east-west direction across the common area between Naples Heritage and the runway -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. DeWINKLER: -- you'd have an extremely wide roadway section there, because it would be accommodating both the north-south movement and the east-west movement through there, so you're probably looking at a fairly high number of lanes. I'd be guessing, but it's certainly going to be more than six. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: More than six? UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER IN AUDIENCE: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do -- are -- is your professional -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me just make sure I understand the word. You said certainly -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Certainly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- more than six. You have absolutely no -- MR. DeWINKLER: In my opinion, it would be more than six. Very short distance -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How short of a distance? MR. DeWINKLER: -- you'd have weaving. You know, we obviously have not studied it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Ballpark. How short of a distance? I mean, are we talking a mile, are we talking a tenth of a mile? MR. ILSCHNER: Maybe half a mile, wouldn't you think? MR. DeWINKLER: It's probably half a mile. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: A half mile of more than six-lane? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct me if I'm wrong -- MR. DeWINKLER: Well, you're still confined in that you've got conservation area on the north at Naples Heritage -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we couldn't -- MR. DeWINKLER: -- and you've got runway potential impacts on the south. So you're probably going to move north. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because for a section you'd be combining your north-south volume with your east-west volume -- MR. DeWINKLER: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- in that half mile. And the second issue I see that would be potentially problematic is the turn radius coming down south of Wing Park, you're limited to just the north edge of it. As you try and do a minimum turn radius on a 45-mile an hour roadway, that's going to throw you out quite a ways. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why are you limited? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because the speed of the roadway, there's a minimum safe turning radius. If you make it too tight, it -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Squealing tires. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- causes more accidents. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Squealing tires. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Squealing tires? MR. DeWINKLER: And then you have to again talk about the efficiency of that system, and, you know, trying to handle the amount of traffic that the north-south arterial is trying to handle. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think unfortunately, it's kind of a hybrid like we asked for that sounded good at the outset -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It didn't work. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but when you look at the traffic volumes, it didn't flush out. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a further question on alternative C, the top half of alternative C, before you get to the black marked section right there. Does that actually -- does that half take any homes? MR. ILSCHNER: Yes. One home. MR. DeWINKLER: I think there's one involved. Right at the north curve, if I'm not mistaken. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate the crowd participation, but if I could just get the answer from these guys, it makes it easier for me to hear. MR. ILSCHNER: Right here. UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER IN AUDIENCE: Do they know? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let's wait and find out if they know. There is one. MR. DeWINKLER: There's one at this location, Commissioner. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What we had looked at on Friday, and I looked at the map, I think there was just north of that one, there was some wetland. And I -- MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, there was. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I had wondered aloud -- thank you. I had wondered aloud on Friday, while I'm sure there's some expense and mitigation of running a road through that one-tenth of a mile of wetland, is that necessarily going to be more expense than buying a home? And what I'm wondering kind of aloud here is, is there a way to avoid that one home, use the top half of C, it leaves you only about two-tenths of a mile, maybe four-tenths of a mile of -- not even four-tenths of a mile, it leaves you two-tenths or less of a mile, if you were to use the Lombardo route on the second half. So you came down C on the top half and then came around Wing Park, setting aside for a minute Commissioner Hancock's point about turning. MR. ILSCHNER: Could we miss that home? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Could we miss that home? And does that -- MR. ILSCHNER: It looks like -- it looks like there's enough distance between this structure and that single-family home here that you could place the roadway in between the two. The exact distances between those, I do not know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or -- and my suggestion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Put this up, it shows it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- had been or up and around on the wetlands, so you go to the north. MR. ILSCHNER: Or you could actually -- now, it depends again on the comment made by Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand. MR. ILSCHNER: -- Hancock, that you also have the minimum turn radius required as required for these designs at 45. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This one shows a couple more houses. MR. ILSCHNER: It certainly in fact could be accomplished here and sweep to the outside, you could miss that structure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just wondering aloud, and I'm looking for help from you and from our engineer, if there's a way to avoid that home and use the top half of C. And if we could address the turning radius issue by the Air Park, and then I see only the turning issue as the potential flaw. And I'm wondering, what am I missing in that scenario? MR. ILSCHNER: I think your analysis is correct. If you consider the Lombardi (sic) route, it basically is the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lombardo. MR. ILSCHNER: -- it's the same as -- the same problems exist that exist with, of course, serving the traffic needs of the community as A has. It has the same right turn requirement at this location, it has -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm suggesting the top half of C, though, not the top half of A. MR. ILSCHNER: Oh, over here? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And the bottom half of the Lombardo route. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the bottom half of the -- correct. MR. ILSCHNER: You're talking about here up to here? MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's it exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Exactly. MR. ILSCHNER: You have this problem of the right turn here that has to be addressed. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it the only one? MR. ILSCHNER: And that's basically the only one that you have. Because this would be a smooth curve here. Your intersection would probably be moved to this location, you'd have a right turn at that point for this particular -- but from serving the traffic needs of the community, it has the same issues and problems that A has. It has these turning movements, these movements that reduce -- MR. DeWINKLER: What's going to happen is that as the -- if this road was built, as he just described, the Lombardo route, is that what we're calling it? MR. LOMBARDO: I suppose. MR. DeWINKLER: What's happens is, you know, the driving public is going to try to take the path of -- that's most direct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. MR. DeWINKLER: And so you develop a route that has a lot of turns in it, it's not going to try to relieve the 951 situation as the traffic model has indicated. So, you know, you develop a road that has a lot of turns on it. In fact, that's a traffic calming type thing -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sure. MR. DeWINKLER: -- that we do. So what have you done on an arterial road? You've made it less than an arterial roadway by putting extra turns in it. MR. LOHBARDO: Inasmuch as my name's been debated -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You can defend -- MR. LOHBARDO: -- rather aggressively, can I have one comment? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You may defend it, Chris. MR. LOHBARDO: Thank you. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we will change the name now to the Chris route, so it -- MR. LOHBARDO: The Chris route? Well, the Lombardo route will do. I want to point out a couple of things to you. And let me say this at the outset: As a plaintiffs' attorney in eminent domain work -- actually, a landowners' attorney in eminent domain work, my selection is probably the least beneficial to me, okay? You know, certainly reducing the number of takings is not something that I would be out there proposing -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: That's personal -- MR. LOHBARDO: -- because I recognize that it's not just the attorneys' fees, but also, under the statute, you're going to look at the landowner's appraisal fees, engineering fees and expert costs, which are going to be substantial in a circumstance like this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Grab the microphone. MR. LOHBARDO: When we're talking about intersections and turns, what you have to recall in this proposal with C, the east-west express -- the east-west approach curves back up, you have a really interesting mess right here. If you take the Constantine/Lombardo approach -- and I would suggest to you that that's an appropriate approach -- the curves are no much -- no more different than what you have right now with C. You come around this way, you drop down here, you're dealing with two landowners, you're dealing with a PUD under consideration right now, you're dealing with an issue about how to preserve and berm this airstrip anyway, you've taken out a substantial number of takings -- Aubrey Rogers house, a whole bunch of homes -- in a neighborhood that has been preserved for a long, long time and has a rural integrity, it remains with rural integrity. Now, there's pressure still applied in here, but at least you've reduced a significant amount of the impact. And I don't know that I agree with the conclusion that you have big problems with curves, because I look at this and I think well, it's all circuitous. I don't know how you tell me anything but Route A is circuitous. And the question from the standpoint, as Commissioner Hancock pointed out, when you come down out here, Grand Lely will have to be oriented this way, and that's actually a shorter path and a more direct path. So I think that's something that ought to be considered, at least. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: In fairness -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and in compliance with the Sunshine Law, I just turned to our resident land planner commissioner and said is there a way to make that turn work, and he said yeah, it may require more of a purchase from that PUD, but it seems to me, if there's a way to make that work and my choice is purchasing a PUD that -- a piece of a PUD that has not yet constructed, or purchasing homes that have been there for 28 years, the choice is very, very clear. I don't support Route A because I don't think it does what our transportation network needs to happen. I -- if I was forced to, I would support Route C because if these are my only choices, and we have to put a road in 20 years from now, that's the one that makes more sense. However, if we can do the Constantine/Lombardo route -- now we're going to have about six names by the time it's done today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, it's called the Conlo Road with the Hancock curve. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go. (Applause.) COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we can make that feasible, I think that achieves all things. It brings -- the largest volume, we're told, comes from south of Rattlesnake Hammock, and the most logical connection is with Grand Lely and it allows us to do that, it allows us to keep the neighborhood intact. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you know, 20,000 of the 37,000 are coming off of Grand Lely. So they're going to go there, even though you put in the S curve in the Conlo alignment. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I say, too -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It may work. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a second. Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: crafting a motion here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to see it. Did you need to finish your talk? Well, I thought maybe we could start Well, I think people can start to see what we go through up here. And your comments at the beginning of this meeting were particularly appropriate. Obviously, the five of us have not sat down and talked about this before now, and this is the only manner -- the only forum in which we can do it. My concern -- and please don't misunderstand this -- is that we don't continue trying new routes that we spent so much money and engineering and proposal that we don't ever get anything done. I mean, we do have to get to an eventual build-out. We do want to consider every concern. The one thing that's going to happen is no matter which route we pick, some of you in this room, and many more people out there in the community, are going to be unhappy, no matter what we do. So we're almost -- our hands are almost free now, because we know we're going to tick some group off somewhere, the question is which one. That's not a good position to be in, but there's one more way I think I can become possibly the most hated man in the room with this idea, but let me -- MR. LOMBARDO: You're going to change names. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, no, the Conlo road stays. No more Goodlette-Franks, no more hyphens or -- it's one word. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Conlo Road, I like that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: One thing we have made a mistake in in Collier County for the last 20 years is building arterial six-lane roads everywhere instead of a higher number of smaller two and four-lane roads. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I agree. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What it means now is every road in Collier County, when we're at build-out, is going to be six lanes with stop lights and the whole ball game. I've always said that where we have an opportunity to build a fewer number of -- or a greater number of smaller roads, instead of impacting one part of the community a great deal with a six-lane road, why not spread that impact out with smaller roads that are closer together? I don't know that this lends itself that well to that concept, but I'm sitting here looking at construction costs, and instead of -- when we talk about a six-lane arterial roadway that eventually becomes an expressway -- we're talking about 4.8 million dollars a mile when that's all said and done -- for construction to an expressway condition, which this roadway, if you went Route C, would be. However, two four-lane collectors, each four-lane collector is 2.4 million a mile. Two four-lane roads or one six-lane road. I guess what I'm trying to get to is there may be a way here, with the route that's being proposed, to do the Conlo route -- as we'll call it for now, because I really don't think that name should stick -- as a four-lane configuration, which would reduce the turn radius required, make the road apply a little bit better, and then look at Santa Barbara in a straight southern extension in what I call a three-lane configuration, where you have a turn lane road with turn lanes in the middle. In essence, what you end up with is a road that will serve in a four-lane capacity the north and south movement, and a road that will serve the local needs along that corridor without adversely impacting St. Andrews. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I love that. I love that. (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He, too. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So unfortunately, what that idea requires you to do is take those dollar bills off your jacket, because it is going to cost more money. But in the end, if we spend a little more on our roads but have a better roadway network, isn't that the intended goal here? I mean, it's not just to make one group happy and another unhappy, but to end up with a road network that works, and maybe not everybody's happy, but if we have no more than two lanes coming south, we can protect the people in St. Andrews. And if we have the north-south traffic in a diverted route, the only thing left to solve from that is how to combine the east-west with that route. And if we limit it to a four-lane north-south and we combine the east-west, we may be able to do it in six lanes, I don't know, maybe not. But the east-west now remains the only outstanding problem there that I don't even have a feel for or an answer for. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, I hate to throw a towel on the party, because everybody is smiling at that idea, but it's not going to be just a little more money, it's a lot more money to do that. I do think it is a very valid concern that it is -- two lane or not, it is still going to bring a slew of traffic to St. Andrews Boulevard, and there's no two ways about that. And frankly, once two lanes are in, there's nothing to prohibit that from becoming four lanes or six lanes down the road. And so while I think the concept is a good one, I don't know long term if that's the way it would realistically turn out. I think you are going to see the impact on Lely; perhaps not as great as if you put four or six lanes straight through and that was the only route, but you are still going to see a dramatic impact on that neighborhood. I appreciate where you're trying to go, I just -- I'm worried where -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I guess my concern is the other end, if we do six lanes on Route C, regardless of the route, in 2020 all of a sudden someone says hey, we need more roads, that corridor remains available. And a board 20 years from now may very well do the same thing in reverse and impact St. Andrews at that point. And I guess if we were to look far enough out and try and provide for the traffic beyond 2020 in those corridors, we have a greater ability to protect long-term St. Andrews. It's kind of a government trust me thing, and I know that's not a good statement to make. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That must be my reflex action. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I think. We can't -- we can't determine what a board's going to do in 15 or 20 years. If my crystal ball was that good, I'd be making a lot of money in the consulting field. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You've got to wait two years to do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, two years. I'm working on it. I just -- again, I wanted to pose it as an idea for consideration. I think it's got some merit. It doesn't give the folks on St. Andrews the degree of comfort they would have if we went just with Route C. I just can't find a way to -- there's no way we're going to make everybody happy here. I'm just trying to produce a long-term better roadway system, a network in this area, as opposed to picking a single corridor. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to hear from staff about -- if there's some obvious fatal flaw in that scenario, because it sort of sounds too good to be true to me. I mean, it just sounds great. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, first of all, Commissioner Hancock, it doesn't show out at 2020 that that road is going to be a six-lane. That's only going to have 38,000 -- 37,000 cars on it. There's not any six-lane under any scenario that we have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But we're purchasing six lanes' worth of right-of-way because we know 15 or 20 years after 2020 it's probably going to have to be expanded. We can only reasonably project with any accuracy to 2020, and I understand that. My concern is that -- and I've said this for a long time -- 2020 is not some strange number out there. It's 22 years away. I mean, that's within the site of what we have today. And my concern is that we get to that year and we look at, now we've got to six-lane that road, and that still may not do it for the year 2030 or 2040; whereas, if we put an additional roadway in there, that may never have to be more than four lanes. That's the balance I'm looking for. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we just hear if we're getting heartburn on our staff or if they -- you know, are they just dying that we're having this conversation, or do they think there's some possible merit in it? Could we hear from that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question, too. How -- by a show of hands, how many of you are willing to commit not to use that road in 2040? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So Gavin, heartburn, or is there -- is it worth looking at? MR. JONES: Yes, heartburn. Gavin Jones, transportation planner with the MPO. Again, the story's not over in 2020, and we've seen a picture of a road network to serve the county's build-out population, and it requires that alignment C to be a six-lane facility. It requires Lely, south of Rattlesnake Hammock, to be a six-lane facility down to U.S. 41 east. If the intention was to keep what's being called alignment A as a local road, you could build it and ensure that it only function as a local road. There's traffic calming techniques, if that is your intent. If that was the only function it would serve, then we've already modeled that. Essentially, the -- you know, the local roads are not modeled in our traffic model, but they're -- but they're represented by something called centroid connectors, so there will be a need for that, for that alignment C to be a six-lane facility. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Even if we extended A as a -- this three-lane? Even if -- MR. JONES: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That doesn't help much. What -- okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me see if we can get a motion going here and go ahead and start out, maybe we can make some modifications to it. Why not -- let's make a motion that we give our staff direction to terminate the investigation of A and B and focus on alignment C to additionally look at the newly proposed Conlo alignment, and to ensure that if we go forward, that -- and there are takings which involve someone's home, not necessarily vacant property. But if we end up having to go into a taking that involves someone's residence, let's make the commitment today that we will do our utmost to purchase that as soon as possible and to allow the residents to live there rent free until such time as the road is necessary to have it built. And we anticipate, at least from our staff, that that is 20157 Am I correct on that, or approximately? It could vary, but let's just say tentatively 15 years from now. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that, if we can make one small modification, and that is that when staff bring back any plan to us, they show us the technical feasibility and cost of re-engineering the road to avoid that home or homes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I -- okay. And I'm sorry, that was part of the Conlo -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that was the Con part of the Conlo. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But this is the part that it's going to take where that little black mark is in there, where it will swing and then come over to that pink or rose-colored -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The idea -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The runway area. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The idea -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The runway? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The idea is to miss that house right up there where Mr. Fernandez -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- showed us. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And then come down on -- what side of that pink area, on our right? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: East side. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: East side of it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right there. And that needs to be investigated until it's found that either we can go ahead and do that, or there's a fatal flaw and we can't do it. We need to know that, and so we'd like to have some investigation on that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to put a time frame on that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think we're getting some staff input right here that we might want to take. I mean, if there's a fatal flaw, let's -- MR. WILEY: My name is Robert Wiley, again, for the record. One thing to keep in mind, one of the criteria we used in evaluating these roadway corridors is we also have a large regional stormwater program we're planning for this area. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Exactly. MR. WILEY: And if we start putting roads through everywhere that right now we're planning on putting water, it's not going to fit. And where you're proposing right now going along the north end of the airport runway, putting an intersection to turn the traffic and go south, you just took out our flow-way that we're in the process of getting a permit for -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, we'll have to -- MR. WILEY: -- for two and a half sections of land to go through. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, let's see if we can't work that out through engineering culverts -- MR. WILEY: What I'm saying -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- and things like that. MR. WILEY: -- I'm advising that you're going to have some substantial stormwater costs that we'll have to include in here. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I understand that, Mr. Wiley, but we can overcome that with a little engineering and some extra money, and that's part of the motion is to investigate and tell us what we can and can't do out in that area, how -- MR. WILEY: I just want to advise you that we may come back with some new costs you haven't seen to this point is all I'm -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We understand that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to ask the question, if that scares our staff so much, why does that blue line even exist out there? I wonder why we spent money with an engineer even looking at that if that's something that scares the heck out of you. MR. WILEY: No, what I'm talking about is the fact -- you're talking about at the east-west route going across? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry, I thought you said the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- blue line by the runway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's the turning south part that bothers him. MR. WILEY: It's all the activities that would be taking place if you're going to be coming and swinging the six-lane and making the turn and coming down the east side of the runway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right, I'm with you. MR. WILEY: At that point, you have a much wider footprint than we have for a single box-over crossing under consideration right now. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Yeah, we understand that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So that's a huge amount of money that we're talking about. I mean, so -- I want to be realistic about what I -- I don't want to vote yes on the motion because I'm crossing my fingers that the Conlo road is going to work. If, in reality, there's just no way because the water management -- COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The motion was to continue investigation on C and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know, I know. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think the point is, we don't know. That may be a concern and that may be some money, but we don't know that yet. We ought to have that information. And if it's an alternative of spending "X" amount of money to correct that water issue or roughly the same amount of money to plow through 12 homes, my preference would be to do -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Correct the water. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- correct the water. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Correct the water, exactly. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I just -- I'm not excited about taking the homes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Although, free rent for 20 years, that's not bad. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, that's doesn't -- yeah, that's nice, but I -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Sorry, just kidding. Bad idea. I apologized. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I apologized. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I -- there's one reason I'm not comfortable supporting this, and it's because the east-west difficulty. By putting this roadway in, which ultimately would be a six-lane that assumes a portion of the east-west segment, we now no longer can have an east-west roadway in that same corridor without going to eight lanes or, God forbid, more for a half mile. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, two-tenths of a mile on the Conlo plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Maybe. But I have a -- based on what the consultants have indicated, I'm not comfortable that that does in fact provide a solution, and I would like to investigate the alignment of A in a limited fashion with C being the -- a continuous. That's my personal preference. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Could we leave that in the motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not the motion maker. The reason -- the reason I'm going to not support the motion are those two reasons. I think we may have a solution here, but I'm not entirely comfortable with it, and so that's why I'm not going to argue against it. I'm not that strong about it. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I would love to see the -- while we're investigating Conlo, look at the Hancock proposal on having the two roads. I mean, they've said, you know, balipark ideas today, they just don't think it would work. But while we're looking, could we look at that, too? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have a feeling the motion makers are not going to support that. And I know the folks in Lely are not happy about that idea. And I just -- I feel like I don't have a high enough degree of comfort to move ahead in this direction. That's all I'm going to say about it. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So let's have them look at it. Let's -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you the reason why I don't want to is that I've voiced my concerns specific to the road already, and connecting to Lely, and it will increase the traffic and it will cost -- clearly cost ridiculously more to have two routes rather than One. But it also costs us money to pay Wilson-Miller to look at these things, and we paid them I think $220,000 to do this last study, and so the more we keep loading in -- it's very easy for us to sit here and go, well, let's just look at it. But that may be another 50 or 60 or $70,000, just to look at that thing thrown out there. So I think we need to be careful -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But -- COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- throw that into the mix. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: But, you know -- but it is -- it's such an essential element, it's such a fundamental issue of what we've discussed so much on this board ever since Lyle Sumak (phonetic) first came to town and we talked about how we hate that we are paving over Collier County with these six-lane roads and we wish there were some alternative. I think this is worth looking at on that point, whether or not there's some alternative. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Your MPO staff said that the alignment C or Conlo, either one, would have to be six-laned, even if you did extend Polly. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: So what would it cost you to add that to the study? COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think Commissioner Norris' point is that we're paving over more if we add A. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No, but -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not saving any -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- but narrower -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because the worry -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- narrower widths of pavement. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No, no, no -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: -- six lanes in any case on the other one. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that absolutely positively not even worth studying? You are already -- if it is, then you're not going to charge us anything to -- you know, I just hate to give that up. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you don't give it up. You can come back to that at any time in the future. This is a roadway we're looking at; it won't be six-laned for 10 years, maybe 25 years. We can come back any time in the future. You'll still be here, won't you? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COHHISSIONER NORRIS: CHAIRPERSON BERRY: car on the road. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: time. You don't -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I'll be about 80 at that point. You can look at -- I won't be driving, so that will be one less -- somewhere into the road network at any I think we've -- -- have to give up -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we've kind of beat that dead horse. I just wanted to state that it's not that I think the route you're picking is necessarily a bad idea. I just think there's a lot more questions that arise out of it that I'm not comfortable with. Again, I don't want to belabor the point. I just wanted to explain why if I say no instead of yea down here, you knew why, that's all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm thinking of saying no down here, too, for the same, because I'd like that issue investigated. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I have another question, but that -- this throws something else into the whole mix, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I -- and maybe there was some consideration given back when you all were on and dealt with this before, but what was the reasoning for not four-laning County Barn Road? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Six-laning, you mean? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Six-laning it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: County Barn? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It didn't fulfill the transportation needs. THE REPORTER: Excuse me -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One at a time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It did not fulfill the transportation needs. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It only goes from Davis -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's the same -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to Rattlesnake Hammock. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's the same problem again. It's just a -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ride to nowhere. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a segment road. It's not part of an overall system. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know, I just -- I'm still not real pleased with this whole -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's because there is no real good, clear solution here. That's the unfortunate side. We're going to have to make an uncomfortable decision no matter what we decide here today. So if you're looking for comfort, you're not going to find it in any of these alternatives, and that's the sad part. But as this county continues to grow, this board is going to be faced with more and more of these kinds of decisions of transportation versus neighborhood or transportation versus displacement. You can't avoid it. It's going to happen more and more. I would just like to be more proactive about it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, the one that troubles me the most is the factor -- or the one that I'm left with here is that we've made the statement that Route C doesn't divide neighborhoods. And what it really doesn't do is it doesn't divide any PUDs. But what it does do is divide, you know, what we might call real neighborhoods that developed on their own historically. That is the biggest negative to C. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a compromise -- (Applause. ) COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- suggestion. What if we ask our MPO staff to look at the Hancock suggestion and not spend any dollars with COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- consultant to do it. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll add that to my motion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That will get me -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll amend the second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So now we're going to look at Route A. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The MPO -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, MPO is going to look at Route A. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the MPO's going to look at Route A, and at the same time then we will continue to look at the Conlo with the Hancock curve. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My understanding, though, is with the look at Route A is as a two-lane road, not as Route A, not as a primary use, not as -- the purpose of connecting Santa Barbara north-south exclusively. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: As a restricted two-lane facility with turn lanes, period. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, all right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's what he said. And I added that to my motion and you amended your -- MR. ILSCHNER: Madam Chairman, let me mention that I don't believe our MPO will have the capacity and the ability to do that kind of analysis that you're asking them to do with respect to that alternative. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well -- MR. ILSCHNER: They would need to have assistance -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you at least -- MR. ILSCHNER: -- from a consultant. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can you at least give us a traffic modeling study, assuming that network -- MR. ILSCHNER: Let me ask Gavin -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- or that improvement? MR. ILSCHNER: -- to step up so he can answer that question for you, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't think we're looking for design. We're looking -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, we're not looking for design. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- what does it do to road failure, what's it do to road numbers, what's it do to functionality. MR. JONES: For the record, Gavin Jones with the MPO. Yeah, we can model anything. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what we want. MR. JONES: We can add a two-lane segment in. I'd just go back and remind you all of the big picture and beyond 2020, that what you're looking at and can only see a very small part of on your screen now is just one portion of a corridor that begins at U.S. 41 east and actually extends north of Immokalee Road, and in our furthest look out at our road network ties into a new -- the east-west Livingston corridor that will go from U.S. 41 north all the way over to the northern terminus of Logan. So, you know, it will be functioning as a corridor. We can add a two-lane segment into the model to represent alignment A. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And there's what we're looking for. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That will help us either throw it out as something that has no material impact definitively, or to establish what its cost is and whether that cost is an effective impact on the roadway system. And that's really I think all we're looking for, Gavin. MR. JONES: Right, okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You may already know the answers to that, but we'd like to see it on paper. MR. JONES: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The motion maker and the second have all agreed on this? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, no further questions? I'll call the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. We will now take a break for lunch. We'll be back here in about an hour. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll continue the meeting. And before continuing with the agenda items, Commissioner Hancock has some information regarding our current weather condition. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Since none of you have bothered to go on line in the county, you may not have got this E-mail -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I just did. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Did you? I just wanted to let everybody know two things. One is that the current projected landfall on this is some day -- sometime during the day on Friday. It has three potential tracks, none of which are very solid, but one of them is Ft. Lauderdale/Hiami, one of them is coming up to into the Gulf of Mexico, and one of them is missing us all together. But the bottom line is, none of those things are very solid right now but we're looking at a Friday landfall, potentially. The reason I wanted to bring this up is twofold. One is, people need to begin reviewing their hurricane plans. If they don't have them, to contact the local American Red Cross and get that information quickly. The second thing is, you may remember we had a teentry sticker program that was introduced about a year ago that, if you leave the area, when you come back, you have to have a teentry sticker. This was a joint process with the EDC. Okay? You have to have a teentry sticker or button. If you have not gotten that and you plan on leaving the area, you need to do so, and they're available at all Sheriff's substations. So, again, in part of your preparing, take care of yourself, your families and whatnot, but make sure you get the teentry stickers. It makes getting back in the area a lot easier. Don't panic just yet, but be concerned. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And just to be -- I think this is what you said, but just to be perfectly clear, you can get back in without the stickers. It's just for ease of -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- movement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. What happens is, you've got one of the those stickers, then the deputy will have no problem -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: You'll blow on through. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- recognizing you and getting you through. If you don't, you basically penalize yourselves. So make sure you go to a Sheriff's substation. Take some proof of identification of where you live in the county and they'll issue the proper sticker to you so you can get back in should you decide to leave. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. I would also like for the record to note that each commissioner has received a Milky Way candy bar up here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I'm eating mine now. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we have to declare those? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do not -- we don't know who blessed us with this so we don't know who to grant favors to. So we'll just assume that all of you love us and we'll enjoy it. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: On the subject of the storm, I just wanted to take this opportunity to announce the fact that we would like to plan a very brief briefing for the board right before your budget public hearing Wednesday evening. We're planning it for 4:45, which is right before the 5:05 hearing, and at that time we'll have a full briefing for the commissioners. We'll have the scenarios, the storm alignments and the timetable that we'll he working with. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: We'll have that on Channel 54 so people can be informed? MR. FERNANDEZ: It'll be televised along with our meeting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So that's at 4:45 tomorrow afternoon, Wednesday afternoon. MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 98-395 RE PETITION NO. CU-98-12, JEFF DAVIDSON REPRESENTING JOSEPH D. BONNESS, III. TRUSTEE OF SOUTHERN SAND AND STONE, INC., REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN EARTH MINING ACTIVITY ON A PARCEL OF LAND ZONED "A" AGRICULTURAL LOCATED ON OIL WELL ROAD EAST OF IHMOKALEE ROAD - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. One other item. I'd like to ask the indulgence of the board, due to the fact that one of the people has to be in Fort Hyers, if we could move Item 13(A) 4, just move this up very quickly. Basically, this is just for some clarification. This is not going to be a lengthy item, I do not believe. This was taken off the Consent Agenda and placed in this slot. MR. FERNANDEZ: Off the Summary Agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry. Summary Agenda. I believe it's a conditional use. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from Planning Services staff. This item was in the Summary Agenda, however, we had to remove it from there because the agreement sheet which is attached to the executive summary has slightly changed. The agreement sheet that is attached to your staff -- to the executive summary says, "This petition shall be renewed in five years." And the correct word was "shall be reviewed in five years." And we have also added some review criteria which in the future we may be able to use the same criteria for other conditional uses and how we are going to review this conditional use in five years. Otherwise, it was reviewed by the Planning Commission, approved through unanimous vote and nobody spoke against this petition. The staff haven't received any correspondences for or against this petition, and the staff recommendation was for approval. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm satisfied that, you know, they've just improved the enforceability and gotten the details ironed out. Unless we have to talk about it, I'll be happy to move approval. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. There does not need to be any lengthy discussion. I think one of the things that's critical in this particular -- with this particular petition is that, you do have a new school that's going to be coming on line out there in this area and so they'll be looking at all kind of things in the future and if this has any impact on that particular roadway and so on, is my understanding. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That these are part of the stipulations and that I think this is a very fair proposal and certainly a way to take a look at it. Commissioner Hancock, did you have any questions? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I just noticed that Mr. Ilschner was reminding us that this item is something that anyone who is about to give testimony or giving testimony -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oops. Swearing in. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- should be sworn. However, since Mr. Badamtchian has presented us with that information in writing as a part of the record and we're not really hearing testimony -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- unless there's something additional, I don't -- I don't know that that's necessary. Mr. Weigel, would that be correct, or could we just swear him in at this point, and I should just shut up. MR. WEIGEL: Actually, you haven't opened the public hearing, so you may wish to formally open the public hearing and just ask if there's anyone to be sworn in at this point. There may be no testimony at all. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We can do that. We'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak to this item? If not, we'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve this item, which is CU -- what's the number on it? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 8912. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 8912. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: 98-12. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: 98-12. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Just a transposition error. 98-12. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's in the ears. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you. Item #8C1 CONSIDERATION OF THREE ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DISTRIBUTING BEACH PARKING PERMITS - STAFF TO CONTINUE WITH CURRENT METHODS All right. Then continuing with the regular agenda, Item 8(C)1, the three alternative methods of distributing beach parking permits. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe we had an item from the Consent Agenda, Item 16(B)2, that was asked to be pulled, if I'm not mistaken. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: That came to 8(D)2 though, didn't it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. MR. FERNANDEZ: Oh. Was it 8(D)27 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I thought so. MR. FERNANDEZ: I thought we said (B)2. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think it went to (D)2, I believe. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. That's the weather. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. And that will be very short as well. Ms. Ramsey. MS. RAMSEY: Good afternoon. For the record my name is Marla Ramsey, Director of Parks and Recreation. The executive summary that you have in front of you has a slight change to it. In preparation for that I've got a power point presentation that I'd like to kind of go through the options with you briefly, if I could. In the area of the recommendation of this executive summary, we had made a statement that, in order to get this executive summary on the agenda before the last budget hearing, which is tomorrow, that we needed to present it early enough to submit it but not -- but not to have an opportunity to let PRAB look at the executive summary. And so what I have for you this afternoon really is four different options instead of the three that you have currently in your executive summary. Just going through the power point presentation, somewhat quickly. Currently what we're doing with our beach parking permits is we're issuing them at all county community centers during normal business hours. And then also, if you're a city resident you can receive your beach parking stickers during a three-hour window at City Hall. And that is being issued by volunteers at that location. The permits are free to all permanent residents and property owners in Collier County, and visitors without permits pay $3.00 to park at the County beaches or face a $30.00 fine, with the exception of North Naples Gulf Shore access, which has got a twenty-five cent per twenty minute time limit there on the meters. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, the last thing I like to do is short-circuit a well-prepared presentation, however, the alternative, just allowing people with a standard Collier plate to park, seems so rational and so reasonable, I don't know that we need to spend a lot of time. The only thing I'd want to make sure is, in the event someone two years ago lived in Dade County and had their Dade plate issued and then moved here, we will have a much smaller program, I assume, to be able to give them a sticker of some sort. MS. RAMSEY: There is a little bit of information that we've received since we made that option, one of which is -- without going through the whole presentation -- one of which is that, according to the Tax Collector's Office, there are thousands of Lee County residents who have Collier County plates. And a lot of them are Bonita Springs residents, but that's not necessarily true. Wherever you buy your vehicle is the license plate that you receive. If you buy it in Lee County, you get a Lee County plate, if you buy it in Collier, you get a Collier County Plate. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Like I had to specifically request a Collier County plate when I bought a car -- MS. RAMSEY: So did I. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- in Lee County. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's what you get for shopping north of the border. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought it would look bad. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You bought a car in Lee County? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. I leased a car, but we'll talk later. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And it ain't American made either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it ain't. MS. RAMSEY: I don't have a firm number on the numbers but there are thousands of those -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's what I was worried about. MS. RAMSEY: -- license plates out there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We certainly can't have any Lee County interlopers parking free on our beaches. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Heaven forbid. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and there's also the case of people who own property and pay property taxes in Collier County but don't own a car that they keep in Collier County, you know. They bring their car down from Ohio and still have the Ohio plates on it, and I was worried about that one too. MS. RAMSEY: We would still have to issue -- in that Option 2 we would still have to issue beach parking stickers to not only those that have specialty plates, like "Sunshine" or "Protect the Manatees", or whatever. We would then -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like a University of South Florida Alumni plate. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: A vanity plate. MS. RAMSEY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I knew you were going to name that. MS. RAMSEY: We would still have to have beach parking available -- stickers available at the community centers. The one option that was different than what you have in front of you, as you know, that, in our proposal for budget, we suggested that we have a $5.00 handling fee to bring in some additional staff. It kind of has a, I guess, a little bit of a negative connotation. So PRAB looked at this on -- which is Parks and Recreation Advisory Board -- looked at it last Wednesday, and their recommendation is to add a dollar to our current $3.00 beach parking fee, retain the positions that we have currently in the budget and that would generate as much income as the $5.00 handling fee, as close as we can figure. So the recommendation of PRAB is Option 4, which you don't have in front of you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Tell me that option again. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, please. MS. RAMSEY: What if I click through here real fast. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Make it four bucks, but then what happens; we keep issuing permits anyway? MS. RAMSEY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It seems to be there's got to be a logical way to, that, if I have a Collier plate, I ought to be able to drive to the beach and park there without having to go get a special permit to do so. And for those -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But what if you live in Lee County? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For those people who -- well, I mean, how many are those? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Lots. MS. RAMSEY: Thousands. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I suggest -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thousands. So they're all going to drive down here -- MS. RAMSEY: Anywhere -- like 15,000 people. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can I suggest that those people who live just across the county line and have complained about not using -- not being able to use Barefoot Beach, are now going to go to a Collier County Tax Collector's Office to renew their plates to get a Collier tag? It's going to start happening. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Not hard. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we're going to see the revenues at that beach go down dramatically because of those -- it would then become a bi-county beach. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we sell burgets or anything out there? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not anymore. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. MS. RAMSEY: Sodas. I do have Option 4 up on the screen if you wanted to take a look at that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. Never mind. I'm terribly sorry I short-circuited the time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. You were right. But the $4.00 would be the fee -- I don't -- what would the $4.00 be now? MS. RAMSEY: Well, currently we charge $3.00 to park at the beach and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is suggesting that we add a dollar to that, which would -- we average about $480,000 a year at our beach parking. If you add a dollar to that it's about $120,000, which is what we were looking at as our revenue source with the $5.00 handling fee per beach sticker. So we come up with the same end but it's a little more positive when you look at it from that way. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If there's no public speakers, I'll make a motion that we just continue the way that we always have done. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What does that do to the budget tomorrow night? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've already budgeted -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've budgeted it as revenue, though, haven't we? MS. RAMSEY: No. What we've budgeted for this next year is to add two FTEs, one of which is for beach parking assistance because we gave out 33,000 beach parking stickers last year, 16,000 of them were at Veterans Community Park alone, which, at Veterans Community Park, was 1,067 staff hours at four minutes per sticker. So we've added two, two spaces there, and then we, in order to offset that, we are looking at charging a $5.00 handling fee. So there is $125,000 in the budget for that. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which goes back to the earlier comment of, heavens, if we let any of the Lee County people park, look at all the revenue we're going to lose. We're not going to lose $125,000 worth of revenue because some people may come across the line. And it just seems to me this is like creating government bureaucracy. Okay, we've got to issue permits. Now we've got to spend $125,000 in order to process those permits. We couldn't make it any more difficult on ourselves. So a few people come across to the park, they park. But we're not going to lose $125,000 doing that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's not -- to me it's not an issue of a few people or so much an issue of revenue as it is, we want to ensure that Collier County residents have first dibs on those spaces when it comes time for the 4th of July or whatnot. That's the reason we make it free for them to park. I don't want to see, you know, Lee County people that don't pay tax dollar one in this county taking a majority of those spaces, which would happen in at least one park in Collier County before the Collier residents can get there. So -- COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can they come there right now, I mean, and pay their four bucks? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If they -- yes. But -- MS. RAMSEY: Three. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Three. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Three bucks. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's three bucks, yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So really there's no reserved spot, it's just if you get there, you get there for free. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: No. There are places where they can't park, even if they pay their three bucks, right? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: All right. That was my question. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is that right, Harla; am I right about that? MS. RAMSEY: Well, actually, at most of our county parks it is first come, first served, and if you paid to come in, you have as much right to that spot as a Collier County resident would have. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: But the truth is, people who can get in free, you're going to increase the number of people from there that are going to do that. My -- the whole thing about this is, I don't understand -- and I appreciate what you're trying to do and make it revenue neutral. But the truth is, there's a cost to providing beach parking for our residents. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Suck it up. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They are already paying the taxes, so let's just provide it. And if it takes an extra FTE or two to issue beach parking stickers, then let's issue the stickers. I mean, I just -- I don't have a problem with using tax dollars to fund personnel positions to keep our beach parking for Collier County residents as a priority. I don't have a problem with that. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We need free beach parking for our children. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you, friend. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I thought that was A1 Perkins. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. For the children. It's for the children. COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, I think -- COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We need free beach parking for the children. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it's the cost of doing, doing business. And if we go to the tag side, we are going to see a lot of people who live in very south Lee County getting their tags in Collier so that they don't have to pay their three bucks, instead of using the Lee County beaches, which their tax dollars go to, they can use the Collier beaches, which their tax dollars don't go to. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They have to go to their beaches in Lee County, even if they live in Lee County. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They're going to come to ours for free. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Remember, there's only a couple hundred spaces there at Barefoot Beach. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's see if the motion goes anywhere. Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did we have -- did we have a second? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What was the motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just leave it as is. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I seconded the motion. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Just like it always has been. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Leave it as it always has been, is that how you worded it? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that correct? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: God bless you for that. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And what that means is you-all are going to have to -- tomorrow night we'll have to deal with the $120,000 issue. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It looks like, if we leave it the way it always has been, we won't have that 125,000. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But they can't staff it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's talk about that tomorrow night. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Let's call this question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I don't know about you-all but I feel like the Keystone Cops a lot lately. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Item #SD1 $320,000 TRANSFER FROH GENERAL FUND RESERVES TO THE EHERGENCY HEDICAL SERVICES FUND - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. The next item is 8(D)l. This is a transfer for EHS. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. They already told us about it last week. Do we need a presentation on it? Anybody want to second my motion; Tim and Tim? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry. What was the motion? COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: 30/20 transfer that they told us about last week going into EHS. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll let him second it. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, all right, I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll call the question. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And let the record reflect just how highly we think of those EHS employees. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We think highly of them but we sure would like to see them stick within their budget. Item #8D2 AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE NOAA WEATHER RADIO TRANSHITTER SYSTEH - STAFF RECOHMENDATION APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Having said that, let's move on to Item 8(D)2. This is a quick question -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Already did it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- regarding the item that was in the Consent Agenda, I believe, 16(D)2. Mr. Ochs, if you could elaborate a little bit on the NOAA transmitter, please? MR. OCHS: Yes, Madam Chairman. For the record, Leo Ochs, Support Services Administrator. As you had just mentioned, this has been a project that's been in the works for several months. The county, through this executive summary, is requesting board authorization to move forward with grant dollars to purchase the NOAA Radio Weather Transmitting System. That will be on line, we're anticipating, by November, with ongoing perpetual maintenance provided by the National Weather Service. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just one, for clarification. Is this the same one that recently there was an article written about that we had been ignoring this particular item, that there had been no work being done on it? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. That's the one. MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. I believe there was an article recently in the Editorial section. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So there has been ongoing negotiations regarding this particular item? MR. OCHS: Yes. In fact, what happened was that, the single source contractor that was first in the negotiations with us wasn't able to come to terms with the county in terms of some of our indemnification and insurance provisions. We waited and worked with a second vendor and, as a result, I think the board saved about $8,000 in the actual purchase price. We got all of the terms and conditions that the board typically wants in their contracts, and we also got the vendor to commit to have the system on line within forty-five days of the execution of the contract, where the first vendor wanted 180 days to get it on line. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just for clarification, when this is up and running this will enhance safety for families, or enhance safety for the children? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: For the children. MR. OCHS: Yes, it will. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: For the children. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're going to have to start having music to accompany this meeting or something, cartoon sounds. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Since that was pulled off, we need a motion to -- COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the approval of this item regarding the -- Item 16(D)2, which was the NOAA transmitter. All in favor? Motion carries 4-0. MR. OCHS: Thank you. Item #9A RECOMMENDATION TO UPHOLD COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' AUGUST 4, 1998 DECISION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT OF TWIN EAGLES, PHASE ONE - DEICSION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS UPHELD CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Moving on then to Item 9(A). This is a recommendation to uphold the Collier County Board of Commissioners' August 4, 1998, decision to approve the final plat of Twin Eagles Phase 1. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, Assistant County Attorney. And, Madam Chairman and members of the board, this is very similar to what happened last summer only -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If I might, Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we uphold the Collier County Board of Commissioners' August 4th, 1998, decision to approve the final plat of Twin Eagles Phase 1. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: You have two public speakers, Mary Dunavan and Bruce Anderson. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: COMMISSIONER NORRIS: there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Mr. Anderson is waiving. Bruce Anderson is waving furiously back Okay. But, Mary, we would like to hear from That's why they call it "wave". MS. DUNAVAN: My name is Mary Dunavan. Good afternoon -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good afternoon. MS. DUNAVAN: -- Commissioners and Madam Chair. I am speaking, of course, in favor of the Twin Eagles because -- and I'm speaking for myself as a landowner and a taxpayer and a full-time resident in Collier County. And I have been here over ten years. The thing that I would like to touch on, if I may, is the lawsuit. The environmental groups continually sock these people, us taxpayers, with lawsuits. You have to defend these lawsuits with our tax monies, so therefore, that ups our tax rates, possibly. And so I have been attending county board meetings maybe five years, and I have seen the environmental groups bring lawsuits time after time. And so I'm asking you to look at these and see if maybe they're considered frivolous by whomever, a judge or whatever, and that we countersuit or bring this under a frivolous charge back to the environmental groups to pay the cost and fees involved in these lawsuits. And so I would like to have you consider giving direction to the state's -- or county attorney's office to look and seek these kind of damages back to the taxpayer. And these lawsuits also makes land more costly because a developer has to absorb these costs also. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, in what instances can we do that? MR. WEIGEL: Well, I'll state that the County Attorney's Office, on behalf of the county government and its citizens, we review any complaint and look to the whole panoply of defenses, responses, counterclaims that may be available and apply them without any particular direction from the board. But there -- if it's appropriately there, we will endeavor to utilize all of those mechanisms. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So there -- if we have -- this is an opportunity that we could -- MR. WEIGEL: That's exactly right. Now, for instance, the determination of a lawsuit as frivolous or not, ultimately it's in the eye of the judge. But the fact is is that the courts look at the claims themselves very carefully so we don't just fire off a claim that something is frivolous unless we ourselves believe that there is an element of it truly being reviewed and approved by a judge. But we look at all those things. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I would like to ask for clarification on that. Would testimony given by representatives of those organizations in this chamber that basically said, "We don't want anyone to build out here, therefore we're going to sue on the basis of septic systems versus something else"; if the intended purpose is clearly stated, is that opposite or different from what the actual suit is about; does that go toward being frivolous in nature? MR. WEIGEL: It may. I'm sorry I can't be more specific than that. It may. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I may -- I'm in an area I'm unfamiliar with. MR. WEIGEL: And beyond that, the testimony, the record that's created from all the developers of a record, upon ultimately which is the object of the lawsuit, lends itself for all of the players in the lawsuit, obviously, to make their various points and suggestions to the court. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we recognize that this was kind of a blatant use of a separate process to try and deter, if not stop all together, development in an area. And I think that's kind of part of our frustration on this. I mean, we have enough on the record to show that that has been the case, I believe. So we'll go from there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? Do we have any public speakers other than that? MR. FERNANDEZ: No. That's all we have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We'll go on. Do you have a motion? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There was a motion by Commissioner Norris and I believe a second from me; is that correct? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did you make a motion? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes, I did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You did. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Early on. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Early on. Okay. Well, we're just -- we're having too much fun. I just missed your motion. Okay. We have a motion. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. Item #10A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE FILM COHMISSION CONTRACT - NO ACTION CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to Item 10(1), I guess. This is regarding -- there's a -- as you well -- you-all know this better than I do, regarding the contract with Lee County. There was a Lee County -- Lee/Collier Film Commission. That office in Bonita has now been dissolved and it has been closed. And there has been some concern over what's going to happen from here on. And so I was approached and asked to put this on our agenda for today. We have Mr. Hihalic here who can elaborate on what the situation is. MR. HIHALIC: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Yes. I'm -- for the record, I'm Greg Hihalic from Housing and Urban Improvement. About two and a half years ago Lee and Collier County entered into a ten-year interlocal agreement to do joint film commission activities. Our contribution was about $80,000 a year from Tourist Development Council monies, B-1 advertising monies. And that agreement has gone on for about two and a half years. And in April of 1998 Lee County decided they did not want to continue having a separate office in Bonita Springs but wanted to pull the operation back into their Economic Development area without having a separate office. The funding continued through the end of this fiscal year, through the end of September and now the question is, how do we wish to continue this function into next fiscal year, if that's what we choose to do? As we -- I looked at the results of this over the last couple years it is certainly difficult to quantify the economic development benefits of this activity. It is easier to quantify some of the Room Night activities to justify the Tourist Development Council monies being spent. There is approximately 900 Room Nights per year from the contract, and that's both for Lee and Collier County. There was never a split between what kind of activity went on in Lee County and what kind of activity went on in Collier County. We also have a situation where our money, theoretically, would go for a Collier County person who would be familiar with this market. But over the period, less than half the time do we have a person in that position because of staff turnovers and other things. So, we really were contributing half toward the film county office in general, rather than our own Collier County representative in this dual cooperative arrangement. The Economic Development Council has said that it doesn't quite fit with their high wage job creation activities because of the lack of quantification of the economic development benefits. The Tourist Development Council for Tourism, the Tourism Alliance has said they would look at taking on the promotional activities for this type of -- for this type of office, if you would like to do that. From my point of view, in looking at the staff side, we do have X value permitting in -- through Development Services for film permits, and I think we would continue that. I would ask Ms. Casteltine, the Economic Development Manager, to try to coordinate the film permit activity through the City of Naples, the City of Marco and the City of Everglades City, do we have a unified permitting system, which is one of the benefits that Lee County has, to allow quick, easy access for film producers to utilize your area. I think that would be a positive benefit. And that, of course, would be at no cost. So I throw it back to the board for your comments on that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While we have had some success with this, the EDC has said it didn't fit into their economic development picture. It seems to me if it's going to be touted as a tourism development thing, right now we're reviewing how that whole puzzle is going to fit together, and so I'd prefer we not fund it for now, and if it happens to be one of the pieces that we decide to take out of that big picture, the tourist development thing we're talking about, great, but, if not, that's fine too. But I don't think -- because there isn't a set program in place right now, I don't think it's a good expenditure of the money at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But, basically, we could handle -- if we had such a demand, we could handle it internally without having to have an outside office? MR. MIHALIC: We will do the expedited permitting. We will try to coordinate the activities. It's the outreach and the promotion and the assistance that we will not be doing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Well, I happen to agree with Mr. -- Commissioner Constantine. Until we get this other -- the other areas worked out, that may well be a part of it, but right now we don't know. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you making a motion? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. I'll let you do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do you need a motion? It's not budgeted anywhere right now, is it, or, if it is, we can correct that tomorrow night. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tomorrow night. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If it's budgeted as part of the tourist tax money but -- MR. MIHALIC: It's not budgeted. There's no line item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's just informational. MR. MIHALIC: The attorney's office has told me that we would have to go back with a recommendation to the Tourist Development Council before we brought it back to you anyway. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. That's fine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So at this time we'll just kind of hold off until we have anything further from the TDC on that, I think. MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay? Thank you very much. Moving on then, that completes, I believe, our regular agenda. I know. Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Not until we get to Public Hearings. Item #13A1 RESOLTUION 98-396 RE PETITION V-98-13, BRIAN JONES OF TAMIAMI BUILDERS REPRESENTING ROBERT PHELPS REQUESTING A 5 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE RQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 15 FEET TO 10 FEET FOR THE WEST SIDE OF A PROPOSED STORAGE BUILDING FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2255 LINWOOD AVENUE BETWEEN DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRIAL EAST - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Then we'll move on into the Public Hearing section, which is Item 12(B)l has been moved, so we'll move on then to 13(A) l, Petition No. V-98-13, having to do with requesting a five-foot variance from the required side yard setback of fifteen feet to ten feet. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Can I just tell you while Chahram is coming up that this is -- this is another property owner trying to get out ahead of the game, but quite appropriately and quite positively to lead this re-development effort. Aesthetically, if you'll look in your packet, you'll see it's tremendously beneficial. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you suggesting we close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'd like to make a motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, first -- well, do we have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. You have one speaker, Brian Jones. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you waive, Brian, if -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think he -- let the record reflect that he's waiving. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Got to swear in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We do need to swear in, I believe. Anyone wishing to speak to this -- I will go ahead and do this. Anyone wishing to speak to this item, will you just rise and be sworn in, please? Even if you're waiving, you might want to just -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just in case. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- for the record, just in case. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if you're waiving, it's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we absolutely know you're honest about your waiving. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. For one, I have had no contact on this item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I've met quite a bit with the property owners and worked with them, frankly, on trying to develop something that would be an improvement to the area. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Any other commissioner on this? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My disclosure depends on how you define the word "is" COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I have -- I do have one question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What the meaning of "is", is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that makes two. My question is, is this anticipated to be one of our famous conditional variances? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: No. It's not a conditional variance, no. They have a building on the zero lot line. They are moving it ten feet, but they are asking for a five-foot variance. We don't have any condition on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They're making it better than it presently is, and what they have right now is vested. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: True, but that doesn't -- doesn't really alter the fact that we could ask them for a conditional variance in case something twenty years from now happens to this building. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or maybe a hurricane. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or maybe a hurricane. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We can add that stipulation if you desire, so -- we -- it's a steel, metal building. It's going to be around for years to come. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What it basically would mean is that, when this building goes away -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The variance goes away. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- the variance goes away. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: We can do that. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's only five feet of the property line so I don't think it matters. My question is -- I'm sorry, if I am recognized, I don't know if someone else -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When I see "steel building addition," my architectural standards antenna go up dramatically. Is this addition going to be subject to the commercial architectural standards? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, it will be. I have a drawing of the building showing how it will look. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: it. I'm sorry. Okay. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: never mind. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. Was that in our packet? I missed From this to this. In that case I will be pleased to say, Yeah. What they did was take the standards and try to apply those. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Actually, I'm missing the first page on mine. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. Thank you very much. This is wonderful, let's move on. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: What you have is like half of the drawing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: They've got the flip side. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: You should have another page. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: He has it on the flip side, Chahram. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not wild about the big garage doors but, like you said, it's an improvement over what was there and those doors are not prohibited in the standards, so -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: I mean, it is a practical application in the area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. No. It's going to look a lot better, so, thank you very much. Have a nice day. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Will look a lot better than what's there. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. No other public speakers, then I'll close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Motion to approve with the change Commissioner Norris suggested. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Thank you very much. Item #13A2 RESOLUTION 98-397 RE PETITION V-98-10, SHARON H. ZUCCARO, REPRESENTING THE ESTATE OF KENNETH CULLODEN, REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 46.5 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK OF 75 FEET TO 28.5 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2300 GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD - ADOPTED Item 13(A) 2. This is Petition V-98-7. This is requesting an after the fact variance of 46.5 feet from the required rear yard setback of 75 feet to 28.5 feet. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Place was built when? MR. REISCHL: It was built in 1982. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Anyone wishing to speak to this item, would you be sworn in, please, by our court reporter? (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have no contact on this item. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have had some correspondence on it. COHMISSIONER NORRIS: No disclosure. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I have no disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Continue, Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Fred Reischl, Planning Services. This is a request for an after the fact variance for an existing building in Golden Gate Estates. The original lot configuration for the entire tract was a corner lot. The blue lines were the two front yards, Golden Gate Boulevard and 23rd Street, and the two pink lines represent the side lot lines. Then the lot was split with no change to the structures at all. The structures remained the same. However, because of the split along that center, now the northerly lot has become a corner lot with two front and two side lot lines. However, the southerly lot now has a front, two sides and a rear, a traditional lot, therefore making the southerly structure nonconforming, moving from a side yard setback to a more restrictive rear yard setback. No buildings have changed their location from the construction, and I received one phone call from a neighbor who had no problem as long as there was no addition to any of the existing buildings. And the Planning Commission recommended -- unanimously recommended approval. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Hancock? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When did the parcel split occur, what year? MR. REISCHL: It was recently, I believe. There's no requirement that they come into the county for a lot split. It's usually at the sale -- which is what the petitioner is looking forward to -- at the sale of the second parcel that the county would find out about that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So when -- and so the petitioner came forward on their own? MR. REISCHL: Before the sale, yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Before the sale. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So the sale is more or less pending, or it hasn't occurred anyway. The idea is here, they want to split the lot and to do so they need a variance. MR. REISCHL: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: It's not like they've snuck around, done something and are coming in here trying to get it fixed after the fact. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that. But if the neighbor's question was, as long as no more can be built, that's not the case. If these lots are split -- MR. REISCHL: He said as long as no more is going to be added towards his lot. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Towards his lot. MR. REISCHL: Right. And this -- the variance, as Commissioner Norris pointed out on the previous one, is a conditional variance. It's for this building only. If there's destruction of this building, they will have to build to the 75 foot rear yard setback. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And no additions could be within the setback. MR. REISCHL: Without -- not without another variance. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What is this building that's sitting here right now; a house? MR. REISCHL: It was originally a guest house. Now it's going to be a main house. It meets the square footage for a main house. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I bought this south parcel all by itself and there were nothing on it, could I also build a guest house on that piece? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But you couldn't put it in the setback so you couldn't -- MR. REISCHL: You would have to meet current setbacks. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- build a primary house -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Exactly what's going to happen. Someone is going to build a primary structure and leave this as a guest house in all likelihood. They're saving -- MR. REISCHL: That's a possibility. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: They're saving themselves the cost of building a guest house. What we're actually doing is we're taking two lots and creating three residences where once there was one lot and two residences. It's not a big deal but my feeling is, if you're going to build a primary structure on this south piece, and you say you would be allowed to build a guest house or would not, today, on the south piece? MR. REISCHL: It meets the criteria of more than one acre and more than 105 feet of frontage. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So they could do it, regardless, okay. MR. REISCHL: And the north parcel could also. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I wanted to make sure there wasn't an end run occurring here, getting a guest house on a piece of property by doing the split when otherwise it couldn't be accomplished. MR. REISCHL: No. Both parcels could have a guest house on them. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm not thrilled about it but it's fairly innocuous, I think. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am. Sharon -- Sharon Zuccaro, our only speaker. MS. ZUCCARO: I'm Sharon Zuccaro and I represent the estate of Kenneth Culloden. The estate is the owner of both the south half and the north one-half of Tract 16. There is a specific devised request in the will, which there is going to be a conveyance to a third party of the north one-half. That has not occurred yet. Because there has been one property owner of both the north half and the south half, this issue has not come up because we haven't had a setback problem. When the conveyance is effectuated, the south one-half does fall into different setback requirements. So that's why we're here before you today. Basically we have had no objection to the, to the variance petition and it has been an existing structure for over fifteen years and we're just trying to make that south one-half marketable after the north one-half is conveyed. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Commissioner Hancock? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess my -- a lot of times when you build a guest house with a primary residence the two are kind of connected in style or whatever. If the neighbors don't object I guess I shouldn't have an objection to it. I'm just afraid they're going to come in -- someone's going to come in and build a nice, single family home here with this, you know, sixteen-year-old guest house back there, and it kind of falls into disrepair and whatnot. I just -- I'm a little concerned. I would like to see the guest house go away for a primary residence to be built. But I don't think we can accomplish that today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If there's no other public speakers, I'll close the public hearing. COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Move approval. COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for approval of Petition V-98-10. All in favor? Opposed? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Aye. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries 4-1. Item #13A3 RESOLUTION 98-398 RE PETITION CU-98-15, TERRENCE KEPPLE REPRESENTING BRANMAR COMPANY, INC., REQUESTING THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A TRUCK RENTAL BUSINESS ON A C-4 ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED APPROXIMATELY TWO MILES EAST OF RATTLESNAKE AHHMOCK ROAD ON US-41 AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOTS 3 THROUGH 6, BLOCK ONE, NAPLES MANOR ALKES, - ADOPTED WITH CONDITIONS Moving on then to Item 13(A) 3, conditional use 98-15. This is a conditional use for a truck rental business on a C-4 zoned property located two miles east of Rattlesnake Hammock Road on U.S. 41. All right. Anyone wishing to speak to this item please be -- stand and be sworn in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I've had no -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me. I have had no contact that I recall on this. Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Badamtchian. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This is a conditional use for constructional business and other equipment rental business. Equipment rental business is a permitted use in a C-4 district, however truck rental business is not. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What is it permitted? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The permitted use is equipment rental business. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Equipment. Thank you. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: This petition was reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission recommended denial of this petition because the applicant was showing two accesses to Floridan Avenue, which is a residential road, two accesses, and one of the accesses was for employee use only. Other one, the Planning Commission had some problem thinking that the truck, the rental trucks may use that residential road to gain access to the site or to gain access to U.S. 41. This morning the applicant handed me a drawing showing that they are willing to eliminate one of the accesses the Planning Commission had problems with. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Why not both? I mean, why do they need them at all, into a residential neighborhood? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's a question for the petitioner. It's a good one. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Maybe the petitioner can explain that. And they also gave me a letter this morning from U-Haul saying they expect six to eight truck rentals per week in this location. As I said, the staff original recommendation was for approval and the Planning Commission recommended denial. That's what -- COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hac'kie. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The primary use -- surely six truck rentals is not going to support this building. What else is going to go on? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The primary use of the building is like tent rentals, equipment rentals, chairs and lawn mowers. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a Naples Rent-All kind of place. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: All those things are permitted uses in the district. The only thing that's not is the truck. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Well, why is that; I mean, why is that? From a planning perspective, why are trucks worse? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Renting a tent, probably you don't need to use a large truck, you can use a pickup truck. But when you have a U-Haul truck, and most people who rent those trucks don't know how to use them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Like me. Okay. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, my feeling, more to the point, is that truck rental also usually includes putting hitches on vehicles, repair of the trucks that come on and off the site. You end up having garage functions associated with it that you don't with other rental uses. And how many times have you driven by a truck rental place that you saw something other than trailers and whatnot lining the roadway. Very different physical appearance, very different impact than Golden Gate Rent All or whatnot, so CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was a Ryder truck place that used to be right next door here. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And so those are some of the questions I'm going to have when it's appropriate, Madam Chairman. If it's okay now? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Chahram, this is zoned C-4, the building, obviously, would be subject to our architectural standards. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, sir, it would. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: There is also an outdoor storage component of those standards. How does that apply here? Because what I'm seeing is, they have proposed truck parking on here, but U-Haul doesn't rent just trucks, they rent little flatbed cargo carriers, the car carriers and whatnot, and they use them as signs by lining them along the major roadway so everyone sees them. Is that prohibited in our architectural standards, to store those types of vehicles next to the roadway? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Within the front setback, yes, sir, they are. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: So forward of the building? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Or the setback in this area, I believe, is -- the front setback is twenty-five feet. So once they pass that twenty-five feet line, they can have outdoor storage. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That's where I'm going to have a problem with this. When I was looking at this site -- I personally think the U-Haul rental places, they have a sign out front to tell people where they are. They don't need to place everything that they rent next to the roadway, and what's going to happen here is the trucks will be parked back here, but everything will be used, those front spaces -- I mean, they don't -- they really don't need more than six or eight spaces for the public. COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I see what you're -- because this says proposed truck parking. But what you're talking about is all the trailers and stuff that they'll put along the front. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The stuff you rent for one room or to move a car or whatnot. I mean -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. This neighborhood doesn't need that. COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Look at the one on the East Trail. The one on the East Trail, when you drive by -- COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Awful. COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's a big advertisement for U-Haul by having everything that they rent right out front. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Awful. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And when I think of outdoor storage in the commercial zoning districts, that's outdoor storage and it's in front of the business. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Are you talking about this area, this area here? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. The area with no lined spaces I'm talking about and the area with lined spaces, of them putting rental equipment in those parking spaces. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: The site plan they gave me this morning shows those as customer parking area. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. How do we enforce that those remain customer parking areas? I mean, if they -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's going to be Code Enforcement. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if I drive by one day and they have one of their little U-Hall trailers sitting in one of those parking spaces, have they committed a code enforcement violation? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yes. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That would be a code enforcement violation if it's -- I mean, truck rental is only limited to here, truck storage. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: But what about trailers? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Trailers, I -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Here's my problem, Chahram. They don't show us where they're going to put them. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: And we know they're going to have them, but they don't show us where they're going to put them. MR. HULHERE: We can certainly put a condition on the conditional use that limits those parking along U.S. 41 to employee and customer parking only. It would -- no question it would be an enforcement issue for code enforcement, from that point on, if they violated that restriction. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know I'm getting kind of nitpicky on this stuff, but the whole idea of those standards is not to, you know, destroy the visual applications of the buildings and whatnot. If you hide them behind those kind of trailers, that's not what we're looking for. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't like to see them out front. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: If this -- if this goes anywhere, from my standpoint, it will go with the condition that absolutely no material -- no rental apparatus be stored forward of the front of the building. I mean, that -- to me, that's minimal. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Why don't we hear from the petitioner? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear from the petitioner why we would want to make the change anyway. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Period. I agree. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Period. MR. KEPPLE: Good afternoon. I do have small ones of those also, if you would like copies to look at of the revised site plan. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Is this what Chahram's got on the -- MR. KEPPLE: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We can see. COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who are you? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself, please. MR. KEPPLE: I'm sorry. Terrance Kepple representing the petitioner. Let me give one of these to the court reporter, I guess. As Chahram said, the main purpose of this site is for an equipment rental business. The current business is located on Marco Island. Due to the growth of their business, they have decided to relocate. They have searched for over a year for a site, up and down 951, on Marco, and they've ended up at this location. They have purchased the property at this point. They are going through an STP for the equipment rental business. As permitted in the C-4 zoning district and in accordance with the STP regulations. Again, the petition -- the reason for this petition is for the U-Haul portion of their business. Although it's a small portion of their business, they are currently providing that service on Marco Island and they wish to continue offering that service to people of the community. In general, yes, they rent -- will probably rent somewhere between six and eight trucks or trailers per week, minimal number in general. And one of the reasons that the Planning Commission did recommend denial -- I believe the vote was 4 to 3 for denial -- was because of our extra access onto the rear Floridan Avenue. We had two accesses there. One was restricted to the business itself through gated and locked, locked gates, the other one was an open access. They did not want the trucks, trailers, whatever, exiting onto that street. We really had no problem with that at the time. The owner was not that day ready to make that commitment to say he would not accept that, removal of that access. Since then we have revised the site plan. We've taken that access off so that trucks will only be accessing 41, entering or exiting. We have -- staff originally recommended a couple stipulations to the approval to the Planning Commission. One was for a seven hundred foot high opaque fence along Floridan Avenue to buffer the residential area from the U-Haul truck rental. And that rental trucks would only use the 41 access. And that, although not really required as part of the U-Haul business, but outdoor storage may be permitted as an accessory use to the principal use but must be located within a fence or enclosed area and behind the front yard, front setback of the building. We have no problems with those requirements and I believe those are correct, Chahram? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. MR. KEPPLE: As far as location of the trucks on the site for the trailers, and I think we're only here talking about the trucks, but the trailers, I understand that's a question also. The owner has no problem in locating those all in that back -- where we're showing proposed truck parking. We can amend that to say proposed truck and/or trailer parking. It is located approximately seventy feet from the property line of 41. I don't know if that answers all your questions, but that basically completes my presentation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any questions for the petitioner? Commissioner Hancock. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: First for staff. What is the parking requirement for this use; is it one space per 500 square feet? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's one space per 250 square feet. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then how come I'm coming up with them only providing eighteen spaces on this site, which is one space per 467 square feet? This site plan in front of us says eighteen parking spaces. MR. KEPPLE: I believe that's for the office, for a sales area. The warehouse area where they would store the equipment itself I believe is rated at one per thousand. So we have a mixed use, mixed COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: You have two different uses on the site, and we have different calculations. I guess I'm just asking, are eighteen spaces intended -- do -- are eighteen spaces required for this building of the uses that are proposed? MR. KEPPLE: If I can answer that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: He just -- you asked -- it's a smaller building. I don't know how large it was -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I'm asking the question is, if you need fifteen and you're providing eighteen, I know what the other three are for and I don't like it. MR. KEPPLE: I believe we're required like 17.3 and we're providing eighteen. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So use of any of these spaces here for anything other than parking of vehicles for employees' cars, for people or the customers or employees would in fact be a code enforcement violation. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Because -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I needed that on the record. MR. KEPPLE: And that is per the amended plan. The original plan, we had about twenty-six spaces. We just had some space and we provided extra parking, not for trailers, but -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. I don't mind extra parking, but in this case I have an idea what the parking will be used for. MR. KEPPLE: I understand. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you saying that you as the agent for the property owner would agree that any, whether it be trailer or truck storage, would be limited solely to the area indicated as proposed truck parking on this plan? MR. KEPPLE: I believe so. If I may also add the enclosed fenced area in that. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As long as you aren't stacking trailers back there where -- MR. KEPPLE: Right. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- it's a seven foot high fence, but you see enough -- you know, the ones they use to tow the cars, stack those about six or eight high. MR. KEPPLE: That's not the intent. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. This seven foot opaque fence to the rear, is that going to be chain link with inserts or is that going to be something that looks a little nicer than chain link? MR. KEPPLE: Currently I believe it's intended to be chain link with inserts, or wood. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Wood, I wouldn't mind so bad. As a matter of fact, I'd probably request that it -- for the neighborhood that it be wood instead of the chain link with the inserts because over time those things fade and get pulled out and look really fatty. I would rather see a wood fence back there. I know it's a little more expensive, but in the long run it's not that bad. MR. KEPPLE: It's also a maintenance problem over time whereas the chain link is a little more maintenance free. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. And uglier, so -- yeah. For the folks back there, I think wood would be a better -- MR. KEPPLE: We are providing the hedge between the fence and the roadway also. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: They are required to provide a fifteen foot wide landscape buffer between the fence and the right of way. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How many foot wide? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Fifteen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One five. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. Now, Is that double row staggered hedge or is that single row? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: It's a Type B buffer, it's double row -- Type B buffer. I'm sorry. It's the double row staggered with one tree every thirty feet. They have to have eighty percent opacity within one year. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. We don't have a limit on the height of that. They could have eighty percent opacity at what height? Bob, I'm not -- because they -- typically you can trim them to three feet and get eighty percent opacity. MR. KEPPLE: Right. If you're putting in an opaque fence, it's the combination of the two. So if you're putting in the opaque fence, you've achieved your opacity and the landscaping then is not required to achieve the opacity so it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's just required to be there as a minimum plant installation. MR. KEPPLE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I still would like to see something other than chain link back there, wood or whatnot. If there's something better than that, great, but I just don't want to see chain link with inserts back there. It has a very industrial appearance and I don't think that's what we want to present to that neighborhood. Okay. That's all the stuff I had for now. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Terry, what happens to the business if we don't approve this conditional use; why do we want to see it? MR. KEPPLE: The rental business, they are building on the site. We expect the STP to be issued within a month or thereabouts. Although U-Haul is secondary in nature to it, it is, you know, ten or fifteen percent of their business and is an important part of their business. I can't answer that, what's going to happen. They will not have as successful a business. They may decide not to build the building after all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what if -- may I -- what if they didn't have that access point at all on the back by the residences? MR. KEPPLE: Well, there's actually two reasons for that. One is for employees as a secondary access. We also -- the water line is in the rear, and we are providing a proposed fire hydrant in the rear that will also be probably the, the main access for the fire department to get to the site from the fire hydrant. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: for fire engines? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: that's the main focus. So we have -- we have an entry point just That could be done with -- Breakaways. Breakaways, landscaping, whatnot, if MR. KEPPLE: That's not the main focus, but it is -- you know, that's one of the reasons. COMMISSIONER HAC'KIE: So what's the main focus? MR. KEPPLE: Have a secondary access, you know. You may have two U-Haul trucks coming in and block the front driveway, somebody needs to get out, one of the employees needs to get out or something, or in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I really hate -- I mean, personally, I guess I'll tell you. What I would need to vote for this is for that access point to be closed, for that wooden fence to be there and for that parking restriction that Commissioner Hancock described, because I can't see putting that kind of commercial traffic in that residential area. So I would want to close off both of those access points. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I just, you know -- we've all rented those things before. And if you're not very good at it you're probably going to take the secondary access in the back and get used to driving that U-Haul as you drive down the street. MS. MAC'KIE: Right. MR. KEPPLE: The trucks won't be able to come out through the back, honestly. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How; why? MR. KEPPLE: Well, it will be gated. They will have some stored equipment outside in that gated area. That will be more of a hazard to go through there than to go out the front access. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we just don't need it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm kind of in agreement with you. I think we're taking a -- because of the truck side, because of the storage side, I think we're taking something that is not compatible with residential and putting it onto streets in a residential area. You know, when you're just renting chandeliers or candelabras for weddings and that kind of stuff, it's a little different ball game, but you go to a kind of a more of an industrial application when you start adding what U-Haul does. I know the idea is to start with six or eight trucks but next thing you know, you know, hitches and then, you know -- and U-Haul has a tendency to grow. They do a lot of different things. MR. KEPPLE: I don't disagree. If I can answer one question you brought up before regarding repairs. They do not do any repairs. The building is set up strictly for equipment, tent rentals, things of that nature, and tent rental is a large part of their the business. There is no place in that building for truck repairs or anything of that nature. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, just the what-ifs, you know. What if some trucks break down and you have to have them fixed? I mean, where are you going to do it? And that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. If there is some big crisis reason for having to -- you know, if there's a business crisis that they have to have that access, I was listening for that. But if it's just for convenience, then I'm more interested in protecting the convenience of the residences than this new business coming in with a conditional use. MR. KEPPLE: I don't know that there's ever a big crisis for any driveway other than as a secondary access. All of the businesses up and down that section of the commercial between Floridan and 41 do have a secondary access onto Floridan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And since they're not going to integrate the building into the community in the back, they should have -- they should have hired Andtea Clark Brown. She could have -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Make that pitch. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. I -- Commissioner Mac'kie, I agree with you. The things I see that I would like to change is, no access to the residential community to the rear. You had mentioned the seven foot high fence being wood instead of chain link, I agree with that. And to -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Parking. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think the third point was to restrict not just trucks but trailers and U-Haul rental vehicles and equipment to be stored outside, to the area designated as proposed truck parking or just behind that inside the fenced off area. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: If that's a motion, I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think I should close the public hearing. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any other public speakers? Okay. I'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll make a motion to include the elements I just finished stating. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? If not, I'll call the question. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. Item #13A5 ORDINANCE 98-82 RE PETITION PUD-95-4(1) AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE REPRESENTING PIPERS BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER SEEKING TO REPEAL THE CURRENT PIPERS BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER PUD AND ADOPTING A NEW PUD, IN ORDER TO ADD 0.19 ACRES OF LAND TO SPACES AND ADDING RELATED LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS AND TO AMEND THE PUD MASTER PLAN TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINTS TO THE SITE - ADOPTED Moving on then. Mr. Fernandez, do you have anything to talk to us about today? I'm sorry. The one item I placed on the agenda. Just a quick question. This was taken off the Summary Agenda. In regard to the medical building on Piper Boulevard, is that in any way going to interfere with the new bridge that's coming over? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Actually, the old PUD shows the drive -- the access, future access on the east side, which was going to interfere with the bridge. That's why they are moving it to the west side of the building. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. MS. MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I feel much better. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have to open and close the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Weigel? COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Open and close the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I did. It's opened and closed. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Barbara, thank you for that. It took me two and a half years to get Piper Boulevard completed through there, and I would hate to see something happen to kind of muck that up. Thank you for catching that. Item #14A COUNTY ATTORNEY WEIGEL ADVISED THAT ITEH #17H WILL HAVE AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 2, 1998 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Hr. Weigel, would you like to talk to us? MR. WEIGEL: Just briefly, and that's in regard to Item 17(H) on your Summary Agenda. We noted earlier that it was lacking an effective date and I would come back to you with an effective date for you to approve by motion and vote. And I suggest the effective date to be November 2, 1998. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have to open a public hearing and close a public hearing? I just did if we need to. MR. WEIGEL: Yes. Thank you. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So moved. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 5-0. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, just to mention the fact that I'm very pleased to see so many items on the Summary Agenda. I think we saved a lot of time today by utilizing that tool. I want to express my appreciation to staff for that. Item #14B BRIEFING RE HURRICANE GEORGES TO BE HELD AT 4:45 P.M. ON 9/23/98 CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. Commissioner Hac'kie? COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just that I saw Mr. Pineau in the room before. Was there an update? Anything new on the hurricane? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, one of the things that Gary Arnold puts out on this is, and I want to read it, "Finally, do not listen to or pass along rumors." So, just the discussion I had with Mr. Pineau is such that, you know, the situation isn't any worse or better, but the current projections, take the worst case scenario and make it a little lesser percentage for us. I don't want to diminish people's need to get out and make sure they have their hurricane supplies and whatnot ready, because we are talking about Friday landfall, which means if you haven't left by Thursday, you're stuck here. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And that's -- that's if it comes here, but -- and we still have a 50/50 shot and -- COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chair? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: As I said, we did have our briefing at noon today. And I think it's a little early for us to talk about plans and what they should be at this point. The presentation we are planning for tomorrow evening, or late afternoon, will be more timely, I think, and at that time we'll have more information and we'll have a better idea of what our situation is and what actions are appropriate. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Commissioner Mac'kie? COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will be at the Red Cross chapter tomorrow morning working on those things. COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I just want to let everyone know that we will deal very harshly with rumormongers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect. Commissioner Constantine? COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, that's funny because I heard -- Just one item. Early in the meeting we talked about the transportation disadvantage. That prioritization meeting on those issues is going to be October 7th, so we've got that coming right up in a week and a half. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very Good. Commissioner Hancock? COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to pass on, and I'll get you copies of it, the Florida Bar, as Mr. Weigel passed on to me, is supporting the Florida Association of Counties push for Amendment 7 to get the tax money back in the pockets of local taxpayers and make the state pay for its court system, so that question will be coming in the next eight weeks as we get close to that election. Don't forget, yes on Amendment 7. It's money in your pocket. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. And tomorrow, by the way, I believe the Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a luncheon where we can learn about all of the constitution amendment revisions. So if you're interested in that, you might want to contact the Chamber and see if there are any seats left for that event. If there's nothing further, Miss Cris, do you have anything for Notice she just slipped in there quickly and quietly. If not, the meeting is adjourned. ***** Commissioner Mac'Kie moved, seconded by Commisisoner Constantine and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent and Summary agendas be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES WALK" - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A2 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO COVER LEGAL SETTLEMENT CHARGES AND FIRE PLAN REVIEW Item #16A3 EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.654 "JOLLY/EVERS COHMERCIAL EXCAVATION", BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY 41 ST AVENUE NE, AND ON THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST BY LAND ZONED ESTATES - SUBJECT TO STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A4 - Deleted Item #16A5 DERELICT VESSEL REMOVAL GRANT AGREEMENT (DV98-06) OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FDEP) Item #16A6 SPECIAL WATERWAY PROJECTS GRANT AGREEMENT (SWPP98-04) OFFERED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (FEDP) Item #16A7 FINAL PLAT OF "BAY LAUREL ESTATES AT PELICAN HARSH UNIT TWENTY-ONE" - SUJBECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16A8 RESOLUTIONS 98-383, 98-384, 98-385, 98-386 AND 98-387 RE CODE ENFORCHENT CASE NOS. 70115-030, 71110-034, 71119-014, 71217-046, AND 71217-048 FOR GUY J AND RUTH B. IARUSSI Item #16A9 GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR FUNDING EXOTICS REMOVAL IN THE LELY BAREFOOT CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA Item #16A10 FINAL PLAT OF TWIN EAGLES PHASE ONE - SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND PERFORMANCE BOND AND STIPULATIONS AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16B1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO WORK ORDER ABB-FT98-3 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH AGNOLI, BARBER & BRUNDAGE, INC. FOR IMPERIAL WEST/LANDMARK ESTATES DRAINAGE PROJECT - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $7,006.24 Item #1682 BID #98-2823, FOR THE PURCHASE OF LIHEROCK AND FILL MATERIALS - AWARDED TO APAC-FLORIDA, SOUTHERN SAND AND STONE, HARMON BROTHERS ROCK AND HARPER BROTHERS Item #1683 PURCHASE OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE EQUIPHENT FROH BARRY'S GRAVELY TRACTORS, INC. - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $120,000.00 Item #1684 BUDGET A_MENDHENT IN THE A_MOUNT OF $36,000.00 FOR THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS, SERIES 1982 Item #16Cl PROPOSED BILL TO BE PRESENTED TO THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION FOR SUBMISSION TO THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO A_MEND CHAPTER 89-449, LAWS OF FLORIDA, A SPECIAL ACT RELATED TO COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND SPECIFIED AREAS IHMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO SUCH COUNTY PARKS Item #16C2 - Deleted Item #16C3 LIBRARY LONG RANGE PLAN IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR FY-1999 LIBRARY OPERATING GRANT (STATE AID TO LIBRARIES), ADMINISTERED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES AND APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION Item #16C4 ANNUAL CONTRACT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR OPERATION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT Item #16C5 RESOLUTION 98-388, APPROVING THE CONVEYANCE BY COLLIER COUNTY OF THE MARCO RACQUET CENTER; JANE HITLER PARK; FRANK HACKLE PARK; LEIGH PLUHMER PARK; WINTERBERRY PARK; TRACT "C" PARK; TRACT "D" PART TO THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND, FLORIDA AND APPROVAL OF BILL OF SALE DOCUMENTS Item #16C6 RESOLUTION 98-389, AMENDING THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT FACILITIES AND OUTDOOR AREAS LICENSE AND FEE POLICY Item #16D1 RENEWAL OF THE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE PROGRAM - AS DETAILED IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Item #16D2 - Moved to Item #8D2 FORMAL COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WAIVED; CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF NOAA WEATHER RADIO TRANSMITTER SYSTEM - AWARDED TO CROWN BROADAST IN THE AMOUNT OF $70, 935.00 Item #16D3 BID #98-2833, ANNUAL AGREEMENTS FOR TITLE COHMITHENTS - AWARDED TO FIFTH AVENUE TITLE; ASSOCIATED LAND TITLE GROUP; DAVID SZEHPRUCH, P.A.; AND FIRST TITLE AND ABSTRACT Item #16D4 RESOLUTION 98-390, COUNTY GRANT APPLICATION AND GRANT DISTRIBUTION FORM FOR EHS MEDICAL EQUIPMENT Item #16D5 BID #98-2824 FOR THE PURCHASE OF UNIFORMS FOR THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT - AWARDED TO HARTINS, AUREUS AND SKAGGS Item #16D6 BUDGET AMENDMENT TO APPROPRIATE THE MAINTENANCE SERVICE REVENUES FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF OPERATING EXPENSES Item #16D7 - Withdrawn UPDATE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AMBULANCE SERVICE USER FEES Item #16El BUDGET AMENDMENTS 98-427, 98-431, 98-437 AND 98-445 Item #16G1 MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various departments as indicated: Item #16H1 BUDGET A_MENDHENT TRANSFERRING FUNDS FROH RESERVES TO REDEHPTION OF LONG-TERM DEBT PINE RIDGE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND NAPLES PRODUCTION PARK SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BOND 1993 - IN THE A_MOUNT OF $730,000.00 Item #17A - Hoved to Item #13A4 PETITION CU-98-12, JEFF DAVIDSON REPRESENTING JOSEPH D. BONNESS, III, TRUSTEE OF SOUTHERN SAND AND STONE, INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE FOR EARTH MINING ACTIVITY ON A PARCEL OF LAND ZONED "A" AGRICULTURAL LOCATED ON OIL WELL ROAD APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILES EAST OF IHMOKALEE ROAD Item #17B - Hoved to Item #13A5 PETITION PUD-95-4(1), AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE REPRESENTING PIPERS BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER, SEEKING TO REPEAL THE CURRENT PIPERS BOULEVARD MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER PUD AND TO ADOPT A NEW PUD, IN ORDER TO ADD 0.19 ACRES OF LAND TO EXPAND THE EXISTING PARKING LOT BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES AND ADDING RELATED LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERS Item #17C RESOLUTION 98-391, RE PETITION AV-98-017, TO VACATE PORTIONS OF SPECIAL PRESERVE EASEMENTS IN LOTS 7, 8, 14, 15, 22, 44, 45, 46 AND 47, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE, REPLAT", AND TO VACATE PORTIONS OF SPECIAL PRESERVE EASEMENTS IN LOTS 27, 28 AND 29, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE, REPLAT BLOCK C", AND TO VACATE PORTIONS OF SPECIAL PRESERVE EASEMENTS IN LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK H, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "QUAIL WEST UNIT ONE, REPLAT BLOCKS G AND H" Item #17D RESOLUTION 98-392, RE PETITION AV-98-006, VACATING A PORTION OF THE PLATTED 10' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 17 AND TO VACATE A PORTION OF THE PLATTED 10' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 18, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF "HAWKSRIDGE UNIT TWO" Item #17E ORDINANCE 98-74, REPEALING ORDINANCE 92-72, AND ADOPTING THE NEW COLLIER COUNTY FIRE PREVENTION CODE Item #17F ORDINANCE 98-75, AMENDING ORDINANCE 93-66, THE COLLIER COUNTY SWIMHING POOL CODE Item #17G ORDINANCE 98-76, AMENDING ORDINANCE 96-83, THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Item #17H ORDINANCE 98-77, ADOPTING THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE, 1996 EDITITION, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-18, THE COLLIER COUNTY ELECTRICAL CODE Item #17I ORDINANCE 98-78, AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-17, COLLIER COUNTY MECHANICAL CODE ORDINANCE Item #17J ORDINANCE 98-79, AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-21, THE COLLIER COUNTY GAS CODE ORDINANCE Item #17K ORDINANCE 98-80, AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-21, THE COLLIER COUNTY STRUCTURAL/BUILDING AND HURRICANE ORDINANCE, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 96-26 Item #17L - Withdrawn Item #17M RESOLUTION 98-393, SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 97-377, AND ESTABLISHING THE FEES TO BE CHARGED FOR USE OF COLLIER COUNTY SOLID WASTE FACILITIES PURSUANT TO COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 84-31 Item #17N RESOLUTION 98-394, AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 ADOPTED BUDGET Item #170 ORDINANCE 98-81 RE PETITION NO. R-98-3, LAURA RYAN OF WILKINSON AND ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING HABITATE FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC. REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A PROPERTY FROM "A-HHO" AGRICULTURAL WITH MOBILE HOME OVERLAY TO "VR" VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CARSON ROAD, ONE MILE NORTH OF LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD, CONSISTING OF 39.9 ACRES There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:10 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE BY: CHERIE LEONE, ELIZABETH H. BROOKS