Loading...
BCC Minutes 06/16/1999 S (LDC Amendments) June 16, 1999 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 5:05 MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, June 16, 1999 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:15 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRWOMAN: Pamela S. Mac'Kie Barbara B. Berry John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine James D. Carter ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA June 16, 1999 5:05 p.m. NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS PERMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL TIME IS GRANTED BY THE CHAIRWOMAN. ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: ARTICLE 2, ZONING DIVISION 2.2 ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.3 OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING; DIVISION 2.4 LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING; DIVISION 2.5. SIGN DIVISION 2.6. SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; DIVISION 2.7. ZONING ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES; DIVISION 2.8. ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS; ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 3.2, SUBDIVISIONS; DIVISION 3.3 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS; DIVISION 3.4 EXPLOSIVES; DIVISION 3.5. EXCAVATIONS; DIVISION 3.9. VEGETATION REMOVAL PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION; 1 June 16, 1999 ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 6.3. DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF NON-CONFORMING LOTS; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE. 3. ADJOURN 2 June 16, 1999 June 16, 1999 ORDINANCE 99-46, AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll call to order the meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for June 16th, 1999. We'll start with the pledge of allegiance. Mr. Weigel? Is Mr. Weigel here? Well, let's have the pledge of allegiance. The question that I have can wait just a minute. If you'd stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance, please. (Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: My legal question, if somebody can find Mr. Weigel, is just whether or not this meeting is advertised in a way that we can take action on matters other than LDC. Should I ask if there are -- do we set the agenda or is the agenda set? I want -- I have a discussion item that I doubt the board will want to take action on, but I didn't know if I needed to add it to the agenda or just bring it up for discussion at the end. I'll go ahead and tell you what it is and then the board can tell us at the end if we can make decisions or if we're just talking. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I bet none of us can guess. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. It's about the Comprehensive Plan. I just want to report sort of what my conversations have been with Secretary Seibert. So I'll do that at the end of the regular agenda. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I would like to hear that, if it's appropriate, Commissioner Mac'Kie. And I also would like to hear from Commissioner Constantine, who has had conversations with Secretary Seibert. I would just like that information. That would help me -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CARTER: -- understand where we are in the situation. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll do that at the end of the LDC meeting. And Mr. Nino, are you going to walk us through the code tonight? COMMISSIONER CARTER: We get to recognize Bob Mulhere's new haircut? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Bob less hair. MR. MULHERE: No hair. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No hair. COMMISSIONER BERRY: He's been in Tallahassee, that's why. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They skinned him in Tally. COMMISSIONER CARTER: They were tough on him up there. MR. NINO: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Ron Nino, your planning services department. The hearing -- the matter that's before you tonight is your final hearing on amendments to the Land Development Code. At your first public hearing, we were of the opinion that there were only two items that required your attention tonight in terms of a final decision. I don't know that you want to deal with those two items first and then CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Ron, my expectation was that we would talk about the landscape architect issue and we'd talk about the village residential issue. Are there any others that you're aware MR. NINO: Only if they arise tonight as a result of public discussion. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Any board member have others that Page 2 June 16, 1999 have come up that they particularly know we're going to need to talk about? Well, then why don't we go to landscape architecture questions. MR. NINO: The issue with -- well, I think you understand what the issue is on the landscape architecture amendment. There's nothing that I could add to it. There was a lot of discussion at your first meeting. And I don't know that you're prepared to take action or hear public debate again. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you don't have anything new to offer, then we'll just go to registered speakers, if we can. Mr. Fernandez, could you call speakers on the landscape architecture issue, please? MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Wayne Arnold. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are there any questions for staff? I just assume that our positions are pretty much where they were before. If anybody has questions, they'll pipe up. MR. ARNOLD: Good evening. Wayne Arnold. I'm here again just to express my support for keeping the code as is, requiring landscape architects to sign and seal. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you for your brevity. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairwoman, a number of these are not clear on the subject, so I may call them and they can let me know if it's on the subject. The next is Gail Boorman. I know she's on that subject. And then JoAnn Smallwood, I believe she's on that subject. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. If you'll come stand by, JoAnn, so we'll be ready. And while we're talking about new and smashing hairdos, we get to acknowledge Ms. Boorman's -- MS. BOORMAN: I wouldn't say no hair, but less hair. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's great. MS. BOORMAN: My name is Gail Boorman. I'm a landscape architect. I've been practicing in the community for over 20 years. Would like to support the county's current posture on requiring a sign and seal on landscape plans. Feel that for many reasons it's a quality issue for the county, and that we should maintain the standards that we currently have and have had in place for some time. I'll be happy to answer any questions later that you might have. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Any questions? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No questions. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Ms. Smallwood. And then after her? MS. SMALLWOOD: Thank you. My name is JoAnn Smallwood. I've been practicing here in Collier County for 26 years, Smallwood Design Group, Smallwood Landscape, here in Collier County. And I'd like to register my vote in favor of the keeping the code as is. Signing and sealing of landscape architects to provide the plans. I feel that we've set a very special standard here in Collier County. Other counties have adopted our standards because of the good work that's been in Collier County. And I hope and encourage you to make a vote to continue our standard. And I'm also here to answer any questions. I brought some things, but rather than take your time, I can do that if you have any questions. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If issues come up, we'll call on you for that. Thanks. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next two on the subject are Wayne Hook, and I Page 3 June 16, 1999 believe Scott Whipple is also on this one. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, is this a super majority issue, the adoption of a code? MR. WEIGEL: Yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Come on up, Mr. Hook. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just to be clear, it takes a super majority to change it. If you don't have four, it really doesn't matter how many you have for anything else, or to keep it the same? MR. WEIGEL: No, it remains the same unless it is changed with a super majority vote. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. HOOK: For the record, my name is Wayne Hook. And again I'd just like to appreciate -- thank you for your vote of confidence at the last meeting for supporting of the code that we currently have. And I think the results are out in front of you. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Scott Whipple, and then one that I'm unclear on, Katherine Kirk. I don't know if this is the subject or not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Katherine Kirk's here to speak on landscape or -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No? Okay. MR. WHIPPLE: I'm Scott Whipple with Bonita Bay Properties. And we're doing our first project in Collier County. We're here to express our support for the requirement for landscape architects and hope that you vote on behalf of it. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: What company are you with? MR. WHIPPLE: Bonita Bay Properties. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You're doing your first Collier County project. I know it sounded familiar. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that they have already got two projects. They built two golf courses a couple of years ago. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's right, you did build some golf courses in Collier County. Maybe the only -- the first houses. Do we have any other speakers on this subject? MR. FERNANDEZ: Not on this subject, Madam Chairman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Was there anybody else who intended to speak on the landscape architecture question? Mr. Nino, should we take these individually, or Mr. Weigel, or just move on? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I think you should just move on. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I'll go ahead and just state on the record my support for leaving the code the way it is. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That makes two. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That makes three. COMMISSIONER CARTER: That makes four. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's make it unanimous, shall we? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. So that one will be taken care of. We'll do the formal vote at the end on the ordinance. So everybody else who's here is here to talk about Goodland and village residential standards. And basically the question, as I understand it at this point is, three over parking or two over parking. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Either one of them's an improvement, Page 4 June 16, 1999 but -- CMAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Does anybody have any specific questions they have for staff, or should we just go to speakers at this point? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Let's go to speakers. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. Would you call the speakers now, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Katherine Kirk and then Edward Fullmer. MS. KIRK: For the record, my name is Katherine Kirk and I'm known as Kappy by nickname. I don't like to do this. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Join the crowd. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I hate to bother you then. Would you mind just pulling that microphone down a little bit? You don't have to talk so loud. MS. KIRK: I appeared before you last -- at the last discussion about the Village of Goodland. This is something I really don't like to do, but I feel honor bound to do it again tonight, to share my thoughts with you. In the Forties, our village at Caxambas, where I was born, was picked up and moved to Goodland. Contrary to what Mr. Fullmer said last night at the Civic Association meeting, we were not run out of town. The Collier boys were honoring their father's word. My aunt and uncle, in the early Twenties, he told my aunt and uncle that he would furnish a place for us at a later date if they would sell their holdings at Caxambas. Miles Collier was only living up to his father's commitment. In the Forties, we brought our village of 16-plus houses, our post office, and our grocery store to Goodland. We were welcomed by the three or four people who lived there. In the Sixties, Ted Kersey and his son Joey developed about 110 small lots for trailers and about 70 lots for single family. We welcomed every one of these new neighbors. Now, a couple of remarks that I feel I should share with you. Connie Fullmer said that the Naples Daily News has not given us any items that they -- for the Civic Association, because they refused to print them. Tim Constantine was asked to address the Civic Association, because Commissioner Norris was invited two or three times, and the Civic Association asked for help but he never did anything. It seems as if a militant few take an attitude that if you don't agree with me, you're wrong. Ed Fullmer says, "I always win, over and over." As for the Dolphin Cove, it seems to be a personal injustice done to him. We are no longer represented by the Civic Association. The village is divided. Rumors, truths and half truths are flying. There were less than 20 people at the meeting last night. I think it's time for us to take a long look at what is being done in our village. We have always been friends with our neighbors, helping each other when they need -- in time of need. Now for Dolphin Cove. No matter how many stories they build, what their green space is, what their footprint is or the size of their shoe, there (sic) are investing a lot of money. And I don't think there are -- they are stupid people. It stands to reason that they are going to get the highest and best use out of their investment. I would like to go on record as saying that I am ready and willing to meet and greet them as new citizens of our village. Thank you. Page 5 June 16, 1999 MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Edward Fullmer and then Connie Stegall Fullmer. MR. FULLMER: I'm Edward Fullmer, vice president of the Goodland Civic Association. Commissioner Mac'Kie, Constantine, Berry, Carter and Norris, I appear before you today as the elected vice president of the Goodland Civic Association, a State of Florida chartered organization to represent the will of the majority of the membership, the citizens and property owners of the Village of Goodland. As you are to represent as elected officer of Collier County the will of the majority of the county. I do not speak for the developers -- and of course the Kirk family; it seems they have a personal vendetta all of a sudden here today -- or the business entrants that would like to double our population in Goodland for financial gain. It was good to have read your commentary on June 8th, Commissioner Norris, that the Collier County Commission is currently trying to control growth and protect our environment. And we are here today to gain the approval of our County Commissioners to enact a growth control measure for our Village of Goodland. I read the article in the newspaper by Art Cohen on June 2nd in Marco Eagle, where some of the true facts about the zoning changes in Goodland. Some of the people that spoke at the commissioners' meeting were -- on May 26th against the zoning change for Goodland do not own VR property. They own commercial C-4, C-5 residential park property. The person that did have something to say about the VR that owns VR, was Elhanon Combs. And he does have a stake in this because his property is VR. The other peoples are not. The business people do not want the zoning change. The 206 people that signed the petition against Dolphin Cove and the current petition that has been done on May 17th and 18th outside of the post office, of the 91 polled, 82 signed the petition. Old families such as Anne Bianci that's been there 50 years. Ted Naftel, that's a charter fisherman down there. The Wines (phonetic) that used to own Margood, Marco Lake, the old fish house, quite a few businesses down there. Their families signed it. The Weeks. Irene Havermehl, that's been there for 50 years. And I could go on and on with the people that signed our petition. We have -- out of 314 replies back, we have 13 nos. So that's 96 percent of the citizens and not the business people, return the petition for 2 over 1. I think that's telling you something. We mailed out a petition because we didn't receive everything at the first mailing, so we mailed out another one asking for a yes or no vote. The total as of yesterday, it was a total of 314 replies. The developer failed to mention that their development could add 300 more people to the 300 people that live there now. That is 100 percent increase to the one by one square mile village. Taxes for fire protection will go up, insurance rates will go up, water usage will double, traffic will double on our two-lane road into town. Our way of life will change. Condo people will not like the old crab traps lying around, the old cars, boats, golf carts, pets running free and fishing nets around. You drive the -- they'll drive the only road into their gated community inside our community. The people that stay there will use our roads, the businesses of Goodland and Marco Island, or -- but we will not be able to use their pools, their tennis courts, their Page 6 June 16, 1999 parking, their gated community. They'll be behind their gate. The 214 paid-up members of the Goodland Civic Association and the petition signers want the 300 new people cut in half by having a zoning changed to 2 over 1. The fingerprints will be cut in half, if you build half the buildings. If the developer builds half the units, there will be -- it will cut the use of green space to half. We met with the lawyer and architects for Dolphin Cove and their position is that they have a legal permit for 4 over 1, and there is no discussion about that project. Our position is that the permit is illegal, because it does not meet the description, the VR zoning, that states VR, purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of the village residential unit residential is to provide lands of a mixture of residential uses may use. Additionally, uses are located and designed to maintain the village residential character of the VR district. I would like a ruling from the county attorney to see if the permit that was issued is legally within this description of VR. The Dolphin code project does not meet the character of Goodland or any other project in the VR zone area and all of Collier County. Are we going to be the only location in all Collier County that is saddled with this Days Inn? There is no doubt in my mind that they will become low income rental units. The commission is in a legal battle with the DCA about density. Why does Goodland have to have 16 units per acre forced into one square barrier island? We pointed out to the attorney for Dolphin Cove and their new project, the Brown Roof Motel, that they showed last meeting, if they do not get the 3 over 1, they can build upscale houses on Palm Point area in the range of $500,000, because that's what that property would be worth down there. And that can be 2 over 1. Like the Waterside project in Marco or Naples that sell in the range of 200,000 to $300,000 range. And they would have the backing of the majority of the citizens and the Goodland Civic Association. We, the officers and the board of directors, voted 8 to 1 for this zoning change. And the membership of the Goodland Civic Association and the 352 citizens and property owners of Goodland ask you, Commissioners Mac'Kie, Constantine, Berry, Carter, Norris for a yes vote for 2 over 1. We will help keep Goodland the way we love it for now and for the future. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Connie Stegall Fullmet, and Gary Knoebel is the next. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are you waiving your time? MS. FULLMER: Is it possible to do it later? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Sorry, you need to go ahead. MS. FULLMER: Some of it is repetitive. And I wanted to -- thank you. My name is Connie Stegall Fullmer. I'm speaking on behalf of the Goodland Civic Association, and on behalf of the respondents to two mailings sent to Goodland property owners. The mailings were sent on May to 20th and a second mailing on June the 1st. These mailings were to poll the owners regarding whether they were in favor or not in favor of an amendment to the VR zoning for Goodland; an amendment to limit the number of habitable floors to 2 over 1 level of parking. To date, we have received 314 responses, with 301 or an Page 7 June 16, 1999 overwhelming 96 percent, in favor of the amendment, and 13, or 4 percent against the amendment. You were told at the last public LDC hearing on May the 26th that the Goodland Civic Association was speaking only for a few residents, not the majority. You were told that we were speaking for people who are new to the community. You were told by some that they were offended that the Goodland Civic Association would come before you and promote that we were speaking for Goodland. An overwhelming 96 percent response in favor of the amendment is a majority by anyone's calculation. Do we listen to a 96 percent vote about what owners want the future of their community to be, or do we listen to a 4 percent vote? The 96 percent voice is made up of many of the oldest families in our community. A copy of the voting record and copies of each vote, voter card and letter, both pro and con, were presented to each of you yesterday at your commissioner offices. And do we listen also to the overnight Air Express letters that have been delivered to your offices from residents who are out of town but want their voices to be heard? Letters sent by long-time residents who bought in Goodland because of the type of village it is, and that they expected it could remain small, low-rise buildings, low density. The request to revise the definition of VR zoning for Goodland was made for the sole purpose to find a way to address the issue of density, number of units per acre. After Dolphin Cove was issued a permit allowing it to be 76 units, or 15.2 units per acre, it was a wake-up call. It was a wake-up call even to the county. When the category of zoning called VR or village residential, was created, its intent was to provide areas in the community where multi-use construction could be built. One use is that of multi-family, which provides for condos. It was, however, the intent and purpose of the category of zoning that development in that zone would fit within or maintain the residential character of the district. Though Dolphin Cove meets the statistical requirements of the zoning by meeting height, setbacks, et cetera, it falls miles short a meeting, the purpose and intent of the zoning. The county recognized that problem and on their own recommended the change of to definition. The areas of the county that have VR zoning are Immokalee, Copeland, Chokoloskee and Goodland. Goodland is surrounded by water on three sides and Marco City on the fourth. Goodland has no space to expand to. Aside from the two properties that are owned by the same family, the family that wants to put in Dolphin Cove and another condo development, we have only 34 remaining undeveloped lots. We are, for all intents and purposes, built out in Goodland. Our concern is about managing growth, the kind of growth that in these two condo developments alone can double our population. Because we are a one-mile by one-mile land mass with restricted boundaries for growth, we ask for the revision to the zoning to meet the specific needs of Goodland, that of reducing potential density. We wanted to address the issue of density directly, but were told that we were too late to get on the agenda for the Comprehensive Plan review for our county, and that we would have to wait until next year. However, the LDC cycle was still open, and our best bet to try to reduce density. The number of units going in these two developments Page 8 June 16, 1999 would be to reduce the number of floors allowed. The 2 over 1 request is to give us the best chance we have at this time to reduce density. The attorney and architect for Dolphin Cove development said if given three habitable floors, they can provide smaller footprints. Commissioner Norris, you said that a developer will put in as many units as they can. So whether they have 3 over 1 or 2 over 1, you have no more than a 50 percent guarantee that they will give you smaller footprints. However, we have at least a 50 percent guarantee that we will get fewer units if we have 2 over 1, both with these two projects and with future redevelopment of all the properties. We have 212 of the 444 lots in Goodland are VR. Goodland has had a difficult and hard working childhood. It has evolved into its adolescence with a personality all its own, a personality unique due to its unique history of early Caloosa Indian residents, its fishing industry, its 10,000 islands surrounding, an Everglades -- may I continue? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you could just wrap it up real quickly. MS. FULLMER: Okay. The point is that we have had a difficult upbringing but we are evolving. We are at a fork in the road and we have the opportunity to evolve into an adult community, one that is made up of quality development rather than development that is going to lend itself primarily because of its price points to investment buyers. If we lend ourselves primarily to investment buyers, property values, most certainly, will go down in the future rather than improve. We ask you to listen to the voice of the 96 percent of people that have responded in favor of this amendment. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Gary Knoebel, and then John Carter. MR. KNOEBEL: Yes, my name is Gary Knoebel, and I'm a resident of Goodland. My name is K-N-O-E-B-E-L. And I've been coming to Collier County since '79. I've lived all over the county. Ten years ago I bought a house in Goodland, and believe it or not, I've been there all 10 years and only left for five days. So I do know quite a bit about Goodland. Maybe I wasn't born here and I didn't spend 50 years here, but I can tell you where every tree and rock is, and every person in it. So I'm for 2 over 1, because we're all of us young enough here to see the future of Goodland. And I think if you read the letter I wrote to the commissioners, I ended my letter with that, that we'll be able to stand and say, this is what we did to Goodland. Either we saved it or destroyed it. And this is a lot bigger issue than what a lot of people think. Thank you for your time. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is John Carter, and then James Graham. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Graham, if you'd come and be sort of on deck. MR. CARTER: Good evening. My name is John Carter. I'm the president of the Civic Association in Goodland. I have a short thing to say, that I am representing the people of Goodland, and the majority of people in Goodland that live on Goodland are requesting that you people, the commissioners, would serve for the people in Goodland to give them a 2 over 1, which they are requesting. And I am here on their behalf. And I hope that you vote the right Page 9 June 16, 1999 way for Goodland. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have a question for somebody with the association, and since you're an officer, could I ask you real quickly? MR. CARTER: Sure. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: The question that was put, I'm curious about it. Was the question that was out there, do you support 3 over 1 or 2 over 1, or was the question do you support an amendment to change the definition of village residential? MR. CARTER: No, it was to change the -- the referendum was 2 over 1 on habitable floors over one floor of parking. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that thing that you got 96 percent, the question was do you favor -- (Telephone interruption.) CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Please turn that off. -- do you favor two or three floors? And the answer was yes, if you favor two floors, and no, if you favor three floors? MR. CARTER: That's correct. MS. FULLMER: No, no. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's doesn't make sense, really. Well, if you would, just real quickly, because I think that's an important question. I need to understand that. MS. FULLMER: The petition -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For the record again. MS. FULLMER: My name is Connie Stegall Fullmet. The first petition that was mailed was a petition. If you responded and mailed it back with your signature, that meant you were in favor of the petition for 2 over 1. The second mailing that was mailed a week and six days after the first was asking you to please say -- that was mailed to people who had not yet responded, was asking you to please say yes, I'm in favor of an amendment for 2 over 1, or no, I'm not in favor of an amendment for 2 over 1. It spoke specifically about 2 over 1. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: So in other words, nobody was ever given a choice of 3 over 17 MS. FULLMER: We had discussions in our meetings prior and that's why -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But I'm -- MS. FULLMER: I'm answering your question. That was why we came up with that amendment question that way. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. And I appreciate that. I just wanted to know the answer to that question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But the question on the petition did not give them a choice to say 3 over 1, it just said 2 over 17 MS. FULLMER: You have a copy of the petition. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'm just putting it on the record, ma'am. MS. FULLMER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think in fairness, I mean, the question didn't say 27 over 1 or 1 only. It didn't say anything except to if 2 over 1 isn't your choice, the public has some responsibility to figure out, okay, gee, I'm not sure about that, but I prefer some other option. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, and I didn't mean to make too big of a point about it. I just didn't ask that question earlier. Yes, sir. Page 10 June 16, 1999 MR. GRAHAM: My name is Jim Graham. And I don't even know what I'm doing here, because I'm new in Florida. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, welcome. MR. GRAHAM: But I own a VR, okay, down in Goodland. And I got myself -- I'm an activist, and I got myself involved because I like the area. I happen to like it down there. And I'm for 2 over 1, strongly for 2 over 1. I'm for density. I believe the word density is a buzzword. I mean a buzzword. And I believe whatever happens here by you commissioners -- this is my opinion only. I'm just a resident. I voted this year and everything as a new person here. And I believe whatever vote this is, it's like an undercurrent to create a ripple. And after this, my opinion, there will be a name attached to this vote. There will be names we can attach to this vote. And I think '- and I'm all for density, less density for today and for tomorrow, especially in Goodland with one mile by one mile with a windy road coming in there. And something no one seems to be talking about, there's a 25 mile hour speed sign on that. Very dangerous. I followed one of our esteemed people out of there today coming over here. And he went over every single double line on the way out. Okay? I won't mention the name, but it happens to be the opposite side of what we're talking about here. But that's okay. But my point is, and I want to get this across on record, I believe the density is what I'm thinking about, and it's a major issue for Southwest Florida, which we all know. And this is like a little stepping stone, Goodland. And it's up to you people, the commissioners, to make a decision on this. And I hope you do the right thing. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask you a question. MR. GRAHAM: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: You said you own a VR. Did you mean you own one of the vacant VR tracts? MR. GRAHAM: No, I live there. I'm very happy there. I'm going to be there -- I'm going to be here and I'm going to pay attention to this for a long time. I'm not going nowhere. I'm not going away. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And when you say you're in favor of density, what you really mean is density reduction? MR, GRAHAM: No, less density. MR. WEIGEL: Less density. MR. GRAHAM: Less density. You know what I mean? 2 over 1. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's not ~- has -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's not density. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- anything to do with it. MR. GRAHAM: But that will create less density -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not necessarily. MR. GRAHAM: In my opinion. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wrong. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, you're entitled to your opinion. MR. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Commissioners. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. And our next? MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Vivian Holland, and then Kate Kirk DeMartinoo MS. HOLLAND: For the record, my name is Vivian Holland, and I'm in favor of 2 over 1. Page 11 June 16, 1999 I first came to Goodland 15 years ago. I've been a property owner, full-time resident, taxpayer and registered voter for 10 years. My husband and I moved to Goodland for the same reasons that my neighbors did 30 years ago, and for the same reasons my new neighbors did two years ago. We all could have bought in Marco but chose not to. Only if you live in Goodland can you really appreciate why. Although, I know the Naples and Marco visitors that swarm to Goodland on weekends and at other times have an idea. They love Goodland because it is not Naples or Marco. We have for 50 years maintained our small village profile. We are now in danger of losing it all. The reason, developers have seen dollar signs. The dollar that cares nothing for the -- for nature, the nature and communities it destroys. Goodland will reap no benefits from these condos. They will cost us more in services. They will add to our already crowded waterways, they will overburden our roadways, and they will impact our natural habitats. They will also most importantly change the character of Goodland forever. There will be no benefit to Goodland residents, but the developers will make a bundle, then move on to someone else's community to make their next buck at someone else's expense. I read in the Naples Daily News every day, and I read -- I find it hard to believe that we citizens have to fight so hard to preserve our communities and way of life. Shouldn't county representatives represent county citizens? Shouldn't we all be on the same side, working for the good of all? Not special segments that don't represent the majority. In closing, all I can ask is, you know what is right, please do it. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Kare Kirk DeMartino, and then Elbanon Combs. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How many after that? MR. FERNANDEZ: 15 or so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 157 MS. DeMARTINO: Good evening. For the record, my name is Kare Kirk DeMartino. Approximately three weeks ago I was going to the post office in Goodland and two ladies were sitting at a table to the side of the front of the post office. They were officers of the Goodland Civic Association. They were soliciting new members for the association and were also asking for signatures on a petition that wanted to halt proposed construction and to change the zoning regulations for two over parking on a legally permitted condo complex in Goodland. I refused to sign saying, quote, I was for growth and progress in the community, end of quote. One of these ladies said to me, and I do quote, "But Kare, if they build these condos, Haitians and Cubans will move here to Goodland." The other lady did nothing by word or deed to refute this odious remark. In fact, she joined in, trying to sway my opinion. I can only surmise that she aided and abetted the first speaker in this bigoted and racist attitude; all this taking place while both women were acting as spokespersons for the Goodland Civic Association. It seems that there are some very distressing issues being hidden under protestations of so-called height restrictions and density concerns. Rezoning VR properties is not the real issue here. I have a question regarding the Goodland Civic Association. It Page 12 June 16, 1999 seems there has been a campaign by certain members to manipulate other members. There has been a letter-writing tactic to those that are followers of this faction that are so adamantly opposed to the Dolphin Cove construction and to rezone the remainder of VR properties in Goodland. The members of the Goodland Civic Association who are not part of this group are not receiving the same letters. It's a very odd situation. This is very troubling behavior. These actions bring to mind terms such as autocracy, fascism, totalitarianism, raising spectres of individuals with small cadres that decide that they know what is best for everyone else. This has been done to societies throughout the world. If these tactics are not outright illegal, they are at least morally bereft. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we try to stick on to whether or not you think it should be two, three, four, or whatever as opposed to -- I understand that you need to lay the groundwork, but -- MS. DeMARTINO: This is my time at the podium. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It is, but your time at the podium is used to deal with -- MS. DeMARTINO: You're taking my time up, actually. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll give you the extra 30 seconds, ma'am -- MS. DeMARTINO: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- but I am going to say something. MS. DeMARTINO: Yes, certainly. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This isn't your time at the podium to talk about anything you want, it's your time at the podium to address the issue before us. MS. DeMARTINO: That is the issue here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And the issue before us isn't whether you like the letters that have gone out or not. I appreciate you laying that groundwork, but what I would really like to hear from you and from all the members of the public is the reasons you are for or against two stories, three stories, 10 stories. Whatever it is that you want, I'd like to hear the reasons for that. MS. DeMARTINO: I'm allowed to address this in my own way, which I will give you the information if you'll just bear with me -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman? MS. DeMARTINO: -- a couple more minutes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, just try to get the -- and try to avoid character assassination. MS. DeMARTINO: I haven't mentioned no names. I'm just giving you the honest -- exactly what has happened here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. MS. DeMARTINO: If these tactics are not outright illegal, they're at least morally bereft. I ask you all here this evening, is this a roll a Civic Association is supposed to play here in Collier County or anywhere in the United States? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But again, that's not the subject. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the Board of Commissioners doesn't have anything to do with that. MS. DeMARTINO: I'm asking you a question. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not the subject. MS. DeMARTINO: This is a question. My 19-year-old daughter asked me not to speak here tonight. She said, "Mom, it is not up to Page 13 June 16, 1999 you to try and make people do the right thing." Well, it is up to me. First as a citizen, secondly as a good neighbor, hopefully a good neighbor, and as a parent who has to give an example to my child that you see something wrong and you have to stand up, even if it's an unpopular issue, and fight for your beliefs. In light of these hidden agendas that I feel I've brought to bear, I would ask that the County Commissioners here tonight come into this -- look into this, initiate a probe and to see if there is something illegal here, if some of these situations that have come to light have been illegal for a community organization. We're coming into the 2000's. I'd hate to think that in the 21st Century we're going to go back with racism and bigotry and all the things that go forward that have gone on in the past and haven't worked for us. And if that's why we're trying to keep Goodland small, it's a very sad state of affairs. I would ask the commission to please hear what I have to say and give credence to my feelings and my beliefs. And one small thing. It was very strange that you would stop my speech and have something to say about it. I thought in the United States of America we were all entitled to make our point. And I did nothing illegal or immoral or wrong. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't suggest anyone did anything illegal or immoral. The board policy has traditionally been that when people stand at that podium, they actually address the issue that we're discussing. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's not have -- I heartily endorse that's the board's policy, but we don't need to have that debate. We'll move on more quickly if we can just go on to the next speaker. And after Mr. Combs, who's the next? MR. FERNANDEZ: Colleen Nuccio. MR. COMBS: My name is Elhanon Combs. And I guess all of you know how I feel about property, right? So I won't go into that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We've heard from you. MR. COMBS: Okay. And I own nine lots that's zoned village residential. And they -- within that nine lots zoned village residential out on -- I own -- or we own another 11 lots that's zoned single family. And I got a trailer park that shouldn't be where a trailer park should be, according to the zoning. And I've got a hotel or a motel that shouldn't be there, according to the zoning. And that's the reason that you hear me complaining about interpretation of zoning. And as far as one of these lots is one that we had a hassle over. And it's right next to a condo full of RV -- RV's. They got 70 RV's there. And all of them are up north now. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Combs, are you going to try to get us on the question of whether or not you're for 3 or 27 Try to get us there on the 3 or 2 question. MR. COMBS: I agree. I don't want to change, period. But you should give everyone the chance to vote on it. Now, there's at least 70 RV's in Drop Anchor. Well, each one of them has two votes. And then my part, I know that we've got 30 people that's not there, and they should be allowed to vote. And I could go on and on and on. But when they get this zoning interpretation straightened out, I don't think we're going to have any problems with me. And as far as density, I don't see the density changing whatsoever. And if you go back when the zoning was first started here Page 14 June 16, 1999 in Collier County, village residential was your main zoning in Goodland. You could do almost anything you wanted to in Goodland. It was similar to like an industrial. And they even had it when they were trying to get the Comprehensive -- first Comprehensive Plan straightened out. They even went as far as to put out in the zoning book that you could only build on 30 percent of your lot. Then they said that wouldn't work, so they had to use setbacks. Now, you take village residential. The majority of village residential sits on 50-foot lots by 100. Well, you take 20 foot off of the front, 20 foot off of the back, you've lost a 1,000 foot, 2,000 foot. Then you take five foot off each other side, you've got another 250 feet. It don't leave you much to build a house on. And Goodland today is a heck of a lot different from what I see -- seen 13 years ago. Now, I've -- my wife was sitting in the living room down at the park model, and she said, "What is that over there?" I said, "What are you talking about?" She said, "Look over at the firehouse. That's where the Civic Association is." That firehouse is almost 30 feet, but you could still see the house on the other side of it. And from the last two years, or less than that, there's three people that stayed with me in my park, has built new houses, and each one of them go at least 30 feet. So just leave Goodland alone, let it take care of itself. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Combs, one question. How long have you lived in Goodland? MR. COMBS: I've lived in Goodland almost 14 years. Lived in Collier County 50 years. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Colleen Nuccio, and then Irene Habermehl. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm going to ask if the speakers please, because there are so many, so if you would limit your comments to say that I support three or I support two, and here's the reason why. If you could do that for us, it would make it move a lot more efficiently. MS. NUCCIO: My name is Colleen Nuccio. N-U-C-C-I-O. I'm a transplant from Illinois. I've lived on Marco 11 years and I'm now in Goodland. We've been there 10 years. That's our retirement home. I hope you retain the character of the village. I'm for 2 over 1. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Irene Habermehl, and then Sandra Taylor. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And if you'd come on up, too, it would move a lot faster. MS. HABERMEHL: Yes, my name is Irene Habermehl. H-A-B-E-R-M-E-H-L. I first came to Goodland in 1950 because it was a little village. I'm still there because it's a little village. And I hope you people will do the right thing. Keep it a little village and don't let it be raped like Marco. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is Sandra Taylor, and then Tara O'Neill. MS. TAYLOR: Hi. My name is Sandra Jo Taylor. I've lived in Goodland for 29 years, and my dad came there in the early Fifties. And I'm for 2 over 1 because I would like to see not quantity but quality. Thank you very much. Page 15 June 16, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you, ma'am. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Tara O'Neill, and then Ken Moss. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Are you the lady who told us last time you didn't consider yourself quaint? MS. O'NEILL: Yes, I am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That stuck with me. MS. O'NEILL: Well, good, because I have just a little bit more to say about that. My concern regards setting a precedent, wherein newcomers to an established village will try to alter the zoning regulation -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me, ma'am. I interrupted you at the beginning. You didn't identify yourself for the record. MS. O'NEILL: I'm sorry. Tara O'Neill. -- to altering zoning regulation to suit the idea of a theme. This is back to the quaintness. And I use that word, theme, because a line written on one of the recent letters from the Goodland Civic Association brings to mind this image of theme parks so popular in Florida. The letter stated that new and long-term residents move to Goodland because they wanted to live in a place that was characteristic of a fishing village. Well, there are a half a dozen of us that sat around and looked at that word and thought, characteristic? This is a fishing village. You know, it makes you want to go to the fish house to see if those big boats are made out of balsa wood or are those crab traps real? We work there. This isn't rustic land. This is real life. What frightens me, and to be truthful, it really does kind of insult me, is that what this idea takes is it reduces the rest of us into this two-dimensionality. It makes us so many props in somebody else's life theater. Of course we want to keep the village beautiful. But from the beginning there's been a dream of Goodland maturing into a vibrant and prosperous, economically stable community. You know, how do we strive for modern living under the yoke of our own quaintness? I don't know how many of you remember how poor Goodland used to be. The poverty that was there. Now in 1999 people want to pay big bucks to live there, to eat there, to shop there, to keep their boats there. Personally, I want to sell a painting to every one of those new condominium owners. It's not a retirement village. I look forward to the day when the children of Goodland don't have to leave to prosper. I want them to stay. I want them to work there. I think their parents do, too. As far as the proposed amendment goes, since it suggests no changes in height and it suggests no changes in density, I don't really care if they have one 30-foot high story or 35 one-foot story. A 35-foot building is still 35 feet. And I do, however, support the idea of a smaller footprint that will leave more green space. I know a little about building. There's several contractors in my family. And as far as I know, it is less expensive to build on a smaller foundation. I -- you know, I don't think they're going to threaten us with spreading out as far as they can. I support the right of property owners to be able to develop their property within the zoning guidelines that existed when they bought it. I'd like to say something real quick about the polls that you've Page 16 June 16, 1999 been listening to. I remember the first poll that was being signed asked blankly, are you opposed to condominiums in Goodland? Well, I don't see that that had any effect on the zoning, any reference at all to the changes to be made. That was the very first poll taken. The most recent poll being taken is now being sent to a brand-new post office box purchased on Marco out of Goodland. And I find that -- I find that of questionable legality myself, you know. And I find it very hard to take the validity of this poll where they've suddenly move their post office box out of Goodland. It seems queer. Anyway, I thank you again for your considerations. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ken Moss and then Ray Bozicnik. MR. MOSS: Good evening. My name is Ken Moss. I live at 1220 North Collier, Marco Island. I spoke last time a few things which didn't sit very well with me on the Goodland situation. First of all, I am for 3 over 1, which was the original county proposal, because I cannot see where 2 over 1 would help us with any density or even take away from green space. I feel that there's a lot of personal vendetta going on against the company after they more or less won a situation that the Goodland Civic Association -- a small group of the Goodland Civic Association, it's not the whole membership -- didn't like the outcome. So they had to continue on with what I call harassment to a certain point of these people to make themselves feel a little better. The -- one more thing on the validity of the polls. Tara had just mentioned about the first questionnaire, about it was like do you want condominiums? Okay. Well, that's nice. And probably everybody would say I don't want a condominium but that's not in question because the condominiums are already zoned there. So asking that question and using that towards your why-so-many-people-want-this is really a bogus poll because it didn't count. Same thing with basically all the other two they sent out. They directed their questions in such ways that you didn't have a choice. It was like, if you've got them in front of you, and Mrs. Fullmer said that she gave them to you. If you read those, you'll see they're directed questions. Not that you have an option. Questions like are you a Goodland voter? None of her business. Things like that aren't proper on a poll, okay? So if you look at the polls, you'll see that they're very -- it's one way. Now, I remember seeing -- maybe she has furnished you these numbers. But we go from Mr. Fullmer and Ms. Fullmer saying we only have 300 residents in Goodland. Well, that's a bunch of baloney, too. But by the same token, under the same breath, under the same paragraph, we got 350 responses from our Goodland people. Well, I went to Naples High, and I'm not a rocket scientist, but I can remember back when Mrs. Berry was even teaching school, PE back there, and we -- if I shot 300 shots at the free throw line for baskets, I didn't come back and tell her I made 350, because it doesn't go into it. The numbers they produce don't match. They use everything to twist it around to make it look like they have a poll. The poll is bogus. And of course nobody's seen this poll except for the select few. When I say select few, it depends, because they only mail us stuff they want to. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We've got them. MR. MOSS: Right. You have all the people thing? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. Page 17 June 16, 1999 MR. MOSS: Did you look at the questions? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I think so. MR. MOSS: All right. Look at the way they're addressed. And I don't understand how we have more poll responses than we do have residents. I was confused about the 350 and the 300 which they mentioned earlier. Thank you very much. 3 over 1. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Ray Bozicnik, and then Stan Gober. MR. BOZICNIK: Hi. I'm Ray Bozicnik, and that's B-O-Z-I-C-N-I-K. And I think that I hate to see this turn into a personal thing that has divided our community, and it's a real shame. I think if you're not going to address density, and we're just talking about height and how many stories you put in there, I think that's silliness. It bothers me if we're going to have 100 people there or 500 people there, and we're saying what size container we're going to put them in, that doesn't matter. But what upsets me is I have commercial property and if I bought it when -- anticipating developing it. And if you change VR zoning, what's to say that they're -- that people would not want to say well, Ray, you can't do what you want to do down the road because that won't fit into the first overall planning that we had for that area. And then I wonder, well, maybe it will turn in, maybe people won't like me having a clothesline in the backyard. So maybe we should all get together and say well, Ray, you can't have a clothesline back there, so we're going to change that. And then maybe I can't have a dog because we don't like that. And I'm just concerned. We came up with plans with the County Commission, and they came up with zoning ideas. And sometimes we all do a good job and sometimes we miss a trick. But if you don't adjust density, I don't see how that is going to affect it. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Stan Gober, and then David Law. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Stan, can you do a buzzard lope for us? MR. GOBER: I've had enough experience doing that. How you all doing tonight? Listen, I am against changing anything. I -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sorry to interrupt just for a second. You need to identify yourself for the record. MR. GOBER: Stan Gober, 30 years in Goodland. And I'm against this change. And mostly the reason I'm against it is because I'm against any association, be it the Goodland Association or whatever, having to do with the changing the properties that I pay taxes on. I mean, I think the county has done a great job the 30 years I've been there of keeping the zoning like it is, and they've been looking after us. And also to go along with that, if you go to build something, you have to have your permits and you have to go through the county with all that. And we've been doing pretty good along with that as the way it is. Also, it's just a matter of time, we all know this, before Goodland changes, like every other little community in America. America is changes. And when you talk about growth, you're talking about America. And, you know, if you're not satisfied with where you live in a nice little community and some people come in and have the right to build, have the money to do this, that's the America way. You can always move. I mean, if it gets too crowded for me, that's Page 18 June 16, 1999 what I'll do, but I won't get mad at my neighbors because of them trying to stop changes or this, that and the other. Also, like 30 years we've been there in Goodland, I've got three sons, and in between them we got six more grand kids, and we hope to stay there a long time. And who knows what's going to happen in the future, but I hope to have some properties there, which most of my property's C-4, that these kids, after I'm gone, will be able to have some future there. So I know that I may not live to see Goodland change, and that's fine with me, too. I mean, a lot of people didn't like Marco Island to change, if you'll remember that. But look at the people that has been made happy by the fact that Marco Island was developed. And I used to go down to that beach and camp on that beach and fish on that beach. Well, that all gets taken away. But there again, that's the free spirit of America. That's what we're all about, isn't it? So I appreciate your consideration. And I thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is David Law and then J.W0 Douglas. MR. LAW: Good evening. My name is Dave Law. I'm the owner of Goodland Bay Marina. I've been in Goodland for about 11 years now. I am against the 2 over 1. I am for the 3 over 1. Dolphin Cove came in, they wanted 4 over 1. I think that's pushing it. And I have, of anybody in Goodland, probably more reason to want more units there, because that's right across the street from my business. But I think 4 over 1 is going a little bit above the board that they need to go. I like Goodland like it is. Goodland has survived for 50 years under the zonings that's been imposed on it. The new zonings, I'm against them. I think Goodland will still survive long after our Civic Association people and newcomers have come in to the island. I think that we should not -- I do not agree with the 2 over 1. I think that's not really the majority of people agree with 2 over 1. I think the way that the Civic Association has presented this to Goodland, they've misrepresented us, thinking that 2 over 1 was the issue. And it's really not the issue, in my opinion. I think 3 over 1 or perhaps 4 over 1 is really the issue. 2 over 1 is -- I firmly agree, that is getting too small. It's trying to regulate too much on the island of Goodland. 3 over 1 is very sensible, works fine for a lot of communities around Collier County. I think it would fit in fine for Goodland. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: The next speaker is J.W. Douglas, and then Wayne Arnold. MR. DOUGLAS: Good evening. My name is Joe Douglas. I live in Goodland and have done for the last 15 years. I'm in favor of 2 over 1. I do not see the point of going to larger buildings in Goodland. I sail the coast quite a bit. And you look back at Marco and it looks very much like Miami. You pass by Naples and it's a very pleasant low sky line, and then you come to more condominiums. I think it's very important that places like Goodland, Everglades City and even Copeland should exist. This is a tourist area. And soon, unless the destruction of what is unique to this area, we shall lose a lot. The business people will lose a lot, because you need the diversity of places like Goodland. The -- I'm digressing a little and I apologize, but I -- looking as I do at the meetings taking place in Goodland and the animosity Page 19 June 16, 1999 that's been aroused, I think it's because in the past the commercial interests have always run the community center -- the community leadership in Goodland. For the first time, we've got people who represent the ordinary person in Goodland, and the business people are objecting strongly to that. Thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Wayne Arnold, and then Rich Yovanovich. MR. ARNOLD: Good evening. Thank you. My name's Wayne Arnold. I'm with Wilson-Miller and I'm representing Goodland LLC. I'd like to make basically four points. What I have are some exhibits that I showed you last time. And one of the changes that's being proposed here is to change the purpose and intent to make sure that people understand that the intent here is low profile, relatively small building footprints. Well, what I'd like to show you is the exhibit that drew some criticism from some of the Goodland residents last time that showed a footprint plan view of the 2 over 1 versus a 3 over 1 scenario. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Use the mike if you go over there, please. MR. ARNOLD: The exhibit on the left is the diagram I showed you two weeks ago. It shows three-story configuration on the bottom. Two-story over parking above. We had a separation of 204 feet with 1,500 square foot buildings. We were criticized that 1,500 square feet may be too small and in fact something closer to 2,000 square feet would be probably something that you would see developed. So we modified that plan to show 2,000 square foot buildings on the diagram on the right. We still ended up with a separation of about 160 feet between those buildings with 3 over 1 story parking. Again, holding the two-story buildings constant, you still end up with a building coverage that's going to cover every inch that the county code allows you to develop, which is about 40 percent of your site for residential. Down here we ended up with approximately 12 percent more open space on a footprint that's much smaller. And the critics are going to say there's no guarantee you get that kind of configuration, 3 over 1. What I can assure you is you will definitely get the 2 over 1 scenario where you occupy more of the site with your building footprint. People on sites the size of the properties available on Goodland, the Dolphin Cove project that's been discussed was about five acres. That's a large piece of property for Goodland. Most of the lots that you have down there are less than one acre. And in fact the only other lots that you have available that are VR zoned that are currently undeveloped are about two acres, the larger. So we're talking probably 30 maximum units on those sites. So we're not talking large scale development here. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris had a question for you, and then Commissioner Constantine. Do you want to -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah. Mr. Arnold, is this diagram that you have up here, these diagrams, does that represent the footprint of the building that would take maximum advantage of all the density that's allowed? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it does. And -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On the two-acre parcel that's left that you mentioned, 30 units, approximately, is that configured in such a way that a person could build a two over parking or a three over parking and still get the full 30 units? Have you looked at that? Page 20 June 16, 1999 MR. ARNOLD: What I've shown you are two separate one-acre parcels. That's the diagram that we've prepared. Each building sits on a one-acre parcel. To the left and to the right, it's one acre. So yes, you can get the 30 units on two acres. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a minute ago you said you'll definitely get the scenario above with the two-story. I assume that definite is assuming the maximum allowed density? MR. ARNOLD: It does. And that was leading into my second point that I was making, which is that on parcels this size, if you have a 1,000-acre project that comes before you, people can economically afford not to ask for maximum density, and they oftentimes do not. But on parcels that are being developed in this case, much less than 10 acres in size, you typically don't see people as easily giving up those dwelling units. The economic viability of the project really relies on getting that maximum density. We have a lot of five-acre parcels in our urban area of the county where they have to have at least their four units per acre, or sometimes six units per acre to take advantage of the density bonus we give those smaller sites because the property values are so high. And Goodland is no different. Property values are increasing rapidly on Goodland. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is it also fair to say, though, that market forces sometimes impede or impact on how you're going to do that? If you can't put an attractive building together, you may lose a unit or two units to make it more attractive and make the entire package more marketable. MR. ARNOLD: That could certainly be true. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So actually we could end up with a footprint on the bottom with two over one larger units, if the marketplace demanded it. MR. ARNOLD: I think you could. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Even if we had a 3 over 1 potential. MR. ARNOLD: That's why I said, there is no guarantee that you would get that, but it gives you the flexibility to do that. And a 2,000 square foot low-rise condominium unit is pretty generous, given what I know about the development market in this community. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Isn't part of the issue here, no matter what you do, whether you do the two or the three, you still have the 35-foot height limit? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BERRY: In that 35-foot height limit, does it specify one, two, three, 20, 30, 100 floors? MR. ARNOLD: Currently, no. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But we're proposing that it will. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the reasons we're doing this, Commissioner Berry, is Dolphin Cove wanted to put four stories into the parking, and then you start including your plumbing, your fixtures, and all of that, and you end up, you know, with you and me ducking as you walk under the doorways. And so they were trying to address a specific number. Three is certainly an improvement. Two might be preferable. But either one of those scenarios is an improvement over what current code allows. COMMISSIONER BERRY: But again, isn't two -- isn't normally the case in a situation like this that the marketplace will dictate what is the best way to go, whether it is two or three in this 35-foot height limit? Page 21 June 16, 1999 MR. ARNOLD: That's the way it's generally done throughout the county, yes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Except we would think that's true, until you have the example of Dolphin Cove, and then it's a terrible -- I apologize to whomever I'm insulting, but I think it's not what we want to -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not what I want to see. And we'll see if the market dictates that, you know, it will support that or not, but current indications are that they must think the market is going to support it because they're hanging on to those permits like no tomorrow. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The one other difference here, though, is this is not just multi-family zoning. And when you say typically throughout county, we're talking about VR, which is its own unique character here. And we talk about the purpose and intent, as it's defined in our code today. Talks about maintaining the character of the community. And that's why there are very few places that VR exists. It's not throughout the county. It's Immokalee and certain pockets. It's Goodland. Because they do have a unique character. And I think that's really the difference here is we're recognizing it isn't just like county-wide. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I understand. I would have personally, I think, preferred that we had done an overlay on this whole thing before we ever got to this where I believe at that point in time would we not have addressed density? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think actually -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's why I feel this whole thing is being done backwards. We're trying to control density by limiting the floors, and I don't think that that's -- I think we're going about this in a backyard way. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agreed. A couple of the speakers have mentioned density. And you're right, I mean, the density is going to remain what it is until we can do an overlay. And I know there's been some interest in the community expressed in doing that. Unfortunately, we can't do that now. The reason they're doing this first is the overlay will deal with all the zoning down there in all the district and how the whole island is impacted. There is some ongoing interest and ongoing activity. And in the six months that we lose during that cycle, there could very legitimately be more Dolphin Cove type things that pop up. And so this was the only way they could address the change in the short item. I think the overlay, you're right. I mean, that's the ultimate fix island-wide. And I think that's where we'll end up long term. Short term, I think we need to make this change just to protect them in the meantime. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Wayne, do you have more comments? MR. ARNOLD: I had a couple more comments, if I could. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We'll give you a little bit more time. MR. ARNOLD: Part of that is that the VR zoning district is very unique. It allows mobile home, single-family, duplex and multi-family. All those are legitimate housing types. What I heard tonight is a real opposition to condominiums. But the fact is, you can condominimize (sic) a single-family home, a duplex, a coach home, whatever the case is. Page 22 June 16, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yeah, but you know what they mean. I mean, you know, they're not talking -- MR. ARNOLD: But there's no guarantee -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- about the technical, legal definition. MR. ARNOLD: -- that those are owner occupied. They could be rental units. And that's guaranteed through the Fair Housing Act. And that's something that the county has struggled with everywhere. And, you know, there's no guarantee the person next to you in a single-family home is going to be the owner of that single-family home. Someone could legitimately rent that home, or it can become a condominium. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Likewise, get us back on the 3 versus 2. MR. ARNOLD: And I would also just like to say that in context of the multi-family project that's been approved and this, I'm sure, will not go over well with some of the Goodland opposition, but the fact is based on, you know, transportation engineering studies, multi-family units generate fewer trips per unit than do single-family homes. Single-family homes are the highest traffic generator of any residential unit type out there, inside of a hotel. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It doesn't matter. It's still ugly. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, yeah, it's an issue down there. It certainly is. MR. ARNOLD: But I think it's a legitimate issue that was raised by the residents here that traffic is going to be increased on the island with the insertion of condominiums. And I would argue that that in fact is not true. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. Any other points? MR. ARNOLD: That's all I had. Just a reminder that when we came before you, we had recommended that you establish the original county staff's proposal of three living floors over one story parking as the code change, rather than leaving it undetermined. The 3 over 1 we think is a good standard that can make a beneficial use of someone's property, still guaranteeing that you're not changing the 35 feet. And you can make -- we know that we can document that a three-story configuration will work on a small one-acre site. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Final speaker is Rich Yovanovich. MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. I'm with Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson. I've been listening for quite a while how people do not want Dolphin Cove to again exist on Goodland. Dolphin Cove is a project that's vested, it is done with. The question is, what are we going to do on the remaining VR pieces in Goodland? And we are proposing 3 over 1. And you will not get another Dolphin Cove with a 3 over 1. You will have a modern multi-family building, that as Wayne has pointed out to you, if you do a 2,000 square foot unit, will have lesser of a footprint, probably will have a higher price point on Goodland, which is a major concern for the Goodland people, according to our meeting with them. They want more expensive units on Goodland, not less expensive units on Goodland. What we have tried to show you through the exhibits is if you do 2 over 1, in order to get the maximum number of units, you will have to build smaller units, 1,500 square foot units, which odds are will be more of an investment type of project as opposed to the 3 over 1 option that you would have under the planned scenario we were talking about, the larger units on 3 over 1. What we're asking for is flexibility to let the market decide Page 23 June 16, 1999 what's the appropriate development for Goodland. If you go 2 over 1, I think the market flexibility probably goes away from the property owner. They probably have to build the smaller units to maximize their density. I don't know that for a fact, but neither do the people of Goodland know for a fact that you can get big enough units, get a high enough price point in a 2 over 1 building to get your return on your investment. The property values on Goodland have increased. These people will tell you that their homes are more expensive than they were when they bought them years ago. The property owner who bought the VR piece is the -- is related to the property owner who bought the -- or who's doing Dolphin Cove. They have an expectation when they bought that property that they could have built 4 over 1. They are telling you today they can live with 3 over 1. They have an expectation that they're going to get a return on their money. The issues that they're raising are density issues and traffic issues. And their solution of 2 over 1 does not address either one of those concerns. Density is -- there's no guarantee in a reduction of density or a reduction of traffic. I heard the comment that they're already built out. Well, if they're already built out, there's really not that many units left that can be added to Goodland. And so what we're proposing really will not have that great of an impact. They tell you about how many people responded to their survey, but they don't tell you how many people did not respond to their survey. We don't know what the -- whether that's a representative answer or not to the question. It's also a question of do you prefer the 2 over 17 I mean, they really have not been explained any options as to whether 3 over 1. Have they been told really what the issues are before they voted? I don't think they were. I don't know whether the survey is a valid survey. One of the concerns that was raised in our meeting was they really -- they didn't want newcomers to come to the island because they were afraid that the newcomers that came to the island may want to become a part of the City of Marco Island. So I'm not sure what the goal is of this 2 over 1. One of goals may be just to keep people off the island. They don't want anybody else to come to the island. You have a 35-foot building. Their proposal doesn't change the 35-foot building. They're still going to be looking at the same size building. We are proposing a mechanism where you can have a smaller footprint, greater open space, greater views to the water. I think 3 over 1 gives property owners better flexibility on how to develop their property and can do a more attractive project for the people of Goodland. They may ultimately decide to go 2 over 1. I don't know the answer. But 3 over 1 at least gives them the flexibility to look at all of their options available to them and get a reasonable return on their investment. Again, it's important to note Dolphin Cove is a vested project. It is a done deal. We are not asking for another Dolphin Cove project. We recognize that that created some hard feelings for the people of Goodland. We can do better. We want to do better. We want to have the flexibility of building 3 over 1, which are more modern condominiums for Goodland. That seems to address what they want. They want the higher price point, not the lower price point. They Page 24 June 16, 1999 want people that are going to live there, not rent out the unit. I believe our proposal -- give me two seconds. Our proposal basically meets their goals and their objectives. And we believe you should support a 3 over 1 as opposed to a 2 over 1. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers on this subject, Madam Chairwoman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. The board wants to weigh in on this? And then I understand there's one other registered speaker on a signed -- Mike Davis just registered to speak on signs. And then we can go to a vote. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As I said before, I understand there was some confusion on the density issue and how this is going to impact it. And Commissioner Berry is right, I think that ultimately will be dealt with in an overlay. And I think the residents realize that and actually have already inquired as to making sure they can get into that process for the next cycle. Realistically, there's no literal change to the density here, but I think there is a practical bit to the two stories. If you want to market it -- as I asked Wayne, if you want to market this as an attractive property that's going to sell, there is some incentive if you're building a two-story, if you're limited to two-story, to still make that attractive and have your views to the water and have those various things. So to get to that higher priced point and be able to turn that, you may not use up every unit. So I don't know that the suggestion that because it's two will automatically spread the footprint and somehow make it less attractive is necessarily accurate. The character issue, though, is really the one that we need to look at most carefully here. Because what we're dealing with is VR, which is not unique, because it's in three places. But certainly not in great activity throughout the county. And as I said, the very definition in our own code reads that the purpose is to maintain the character, village residential character. And if the definition is going to do its alleged intent, then two-story does a great deal to preserve that. I think the one gentleman who talked about sailing, and when you look back in, the difference, you know, you see different type things and different type projects. We're still looking at a 35-foot height. But I think you look at a different product and a different project when you have some limitations like that. And so I would ask you to go ahead and make that request, or to honor the request. I read the petitions here. And there were all kinds of accusations thrown around. And somebody said something racist. Nobody endorses that. If somebody is accusing other people of being dishonest. I think there may be disagreement, but I think there's been a genuine effort on some people's part to do what they think's in the best interest of the community. I think there's a genuine effort of some other folks who think, boy, leave this alone. I don't think there's ill-intent on anybody's part. But I read the petition, I will read the petition here, because it seems very black and white. I don't think anybody was misinformed here if they signed this. We, the undersigned, Goodland property owners, request the VR zoned districts of Goodland be amended to read that no building may contain more than two habitable floors over one Page 25 June 16, 1999 level of parking. Signed the voter. And it leaves a place if it's a husband and wife, for two of them, and a phone number. And that's it. I mean, that doesn't -- that's not misleading. That's pretty crystal clear over what you're asking. If you didn't understand the issue, you know, and thought, well, is this instead of something else? I don't think logically you would sign something and send it back if you were in complete confusion about what it was. So I do give some credence to the fact that so many of these were returned. There was some question raised a couple of weeks ago, well, do you really represent the whole community or is this just a handful of people? I think they went out in that three-week time period and actually proved that yes, this is representative of a huge portion of the community. So I think we need to go ahead and either change the definition to VR, or we need to honor that definition. And I think the way to do that is by limiting it to two stories over one. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry? COMMISSIONER BERRY: You make some valid points, Tim. But I think one of the concerns is that if the people fully understood, if they said 2 over 1, did they realize that the 35-foot height was still going to stand? You could have said -- you know, if you said 3 over 1, it's 35 feet, but would you prefer 2 over 1, they may have thought, oh, well, if we get that, we're going to get a decrease in height. And if that was not pointed out to them and made very clear, then I think that not intentionally, but I think that perhaps they may have made an assumption that certainly was incorrect. The 35-foot height is going to stand. So if you want to look at it from, say, sailing down the coast and looking back at a building, you're still going to see 35 feet in height. That's not going to change any, whether it's two floors or three floors. So there's no difference there. The only thing, if you're trying to get at a dollar amount, again, I don't think that's a Board of County Commissioners issue. The only thing that we have to do with -- and again, if somebody said they wanted to address the height issue, I could fully go along with supporting the 2 over 1. But as long as you're going to leave the height issue at 35 feet, I don't think you've got anything to talk about. And I fully would have addressed it in terms of a reduction in height. But that's not what we're doing. We're saying 35 feet no matter what, whether it's two or three. So as long as we've got the 35-foot height, I think you owe it to the people to give them that flexibility. And certainly the market is going to dictate it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, if we go with an overlay, what will be our ability to limit density on these zoning districts? MR. WEIGEL: I'll tell you, I can't give you a depth response on that. Perhaps, I don't know, if maybe someone from the development services could respond to you better. I don't want to mislead you there. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Because really, density is the issue here. Not floors, density. And if there's something realistic we can do to go ahead with our county-wide density reduction program, if we can integrate it into an overlay, what really -- what is our limitation on that? What do you think we could do? Page 26 June 16, 1999 MR. NINO: There isn't any limitation on what you can do in an overlay district for a particular geographic area. There isn't any limit. You can do whatever you want to do. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, won't we get into some touchy issues if we '- MR. NINO: Well, you're always into touchy issues if you're diminishing the development capacity of a person's property. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Suppose that -- well, Mr. Weigel, I guess, suppose we went from VR to RMF-6, for example, what would be the likelihood of that not standing the test? MR. WEIGEL: I don't know that I'd want to say that it couldn't stand the test. Because in making such a change, we make darn sure that we try to lay a very strong basis of credibility of a substantive and competent decision being made by the board. Sure, it could be tested. Everyone whose property rights are affected or claimed rights are affected may make the challenge. But I wouldn't say that just to try to do that makes it -- puts us in an indefensible position at the outset. It may be accomplished and it may be accomplished very defensively, but we just have to make sure the process and the record was very complete. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And we can do that through an overlay through the LDC amendment process? MR. WEIGEL: I believe so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm just going to go ahead and say, this is as hard a question as I can have, because I care about this character of these communities as much as -- I don't yet own a piece of land there, but I sure would like to. I mean, where I hope to go to retire is in a fishing village still in Collier County, and so there's still got to be some when I'm able to retire. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not that far away. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let it not be that far away. COMMISSIONER BERRY: With all this big money that we're making up here? COMMISSIONER CARTER: You know, Commissioner, I think this is -- this is to me a psychological issue. 2 over 1 sounds better than 3 over 1. It gives a perception that there is less when there isn't less. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that's my bottom line. COMMISSIONER CARTER: It's an imagine building. And if you're going to go to an overlay eventually, where you can accomplish what they're looking for, this is kind an interim step that's -- maybe it's a feel-good exercise, but the residents -- if I had 301 people out of 314 people tell me that they want to do this, they're telling me that feels good to them, whether it reduces density or not or trips or anything else. They have an impression that it is going to get to this character issue of their village. So I have to support this 2 over 1 from that basis as a first step to get them to where they can do an overlay and get where they want to be. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Here's -- well, let me go ahead and say what I think is that my -- my balancing act here is that I agree with you, that 2 over 1 feels better than 3 over 1. But the balancing act that we have to perform here is the private property rights and the reasonable expectation versus what feels good. And based on that, as much as I know you guys are going to hate it, I'm going to say that I think 3 to 1 is the right -- 3 over 1 is the Page 27 June 16, 1999 right first step, because we then can address density through the zoning overlay. And I just can't take away a property right because of what I know is just to make somebody feel better. I mean, I don't think it will accomplishe -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I don't think we're taking it away. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I don't think it will -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What property rights are we talking away? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Excuse me. I don't think it will accomplish the goal -- I don't think it will accomplish the goal of reducing density. I don't think it will accomplish the goal of addressing the character and the way the island looks. I think we can only do that through the zoning overlay. And I'm committed to doing that. So that's where we are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What property right do you see this is taking away? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It's not a legal property right, it's an expectation of the flexibility to use your property within boundaries. And as we're stepping down here, I think that a small step is the right place to go at this point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me ask a question. Mr. Weigel, when we advertise these various changes to a Land Development Code, we can't add something that we haven't advertised, we can't suddenly decide we want to change the sign ordinance tonight in some way that's never been advertised? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: For example? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just picking something out of the air. But for those things that have been advertised, we can tinker and shape the clay a little as bit; is that correct? It doesn't have to be the exact wording that was advertised if we alter it some? MR. WEIGEL: That is absolutely correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do we have the ability to deal with the height issue, as Commissioner Berry suggested, that rather than it being -- and I don't happen to think it's just feel good. I think it does deal with the character issue. But if she's more comfortable with more substance to it, does -- whatever the height is, 30-foot, two-story, instead of a 35-foot, three, or whatever the number is appropriate -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 25. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: 25. Do we have the ability to add that portion, to add that extra limitation tonight? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Some people say no. MR. WEIGEL: You -- I won't say an outright no. I think I would have preferred that the prior reviewing bodies prior to this on something of substance would have had an opportunity to check in on it to some degree. But I wouldn't say that it's indefensible. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But I'm so troubled by that, because every time we get here, you know, the legal question is what was advertised. There's the description of the ordinance that's advertised, and, God, it's so dad blame vague, it's seems like we ought to be able to do something pretty broad. And if all we can do is -- MR. WEIGEL: I think that's what I told you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- within the limits of what a prior advisory board looked at -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Wait a minute. We should have -- if we had Page 28 June 16, 1999 a question about that, we should have come in with it at in the first meeting and said we need to take a look at the lowering of the height at that particular meeting. Because that's why you've got, what, three weeks, four weeks in between. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Doesn't that have to back through the process? It's got to go back through other groups to get that input? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Legally we had to have two of these hearings. We're not required to do it anymore. We do because we think it's good practice. But we're not required to have two different nighttime meetings. MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. Only -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We just do because that's easier for people to actually get to. And we do two meetings for that reason, so that it gets ample review -- MR. WEIGEL: The process has had a utility to it, so it's been continued. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're in no way limited or -- I agree with you, it would be better if we had had that suggestion. But, I mean, I think it was a good one that you brought up a little while ago, and I just wanted to explore that. If there's, you know, any support for exploring it. If not, we don't have to spend a whole lot of time on it. But that might be a more meaningful way of having the two stories. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I agree. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Can we talk about density tonight? MR. WEIGEL: I don't think so. I suggest you don't. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Are you suggesting, Commissioner, we lower the height to 25 feet for two stories? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If that's the appropriate height. Maybe someone on staff can tell me about that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'll go ahead and jump in and tell you I'm not going to go there. I'm not -- I mean, if you're looking for my vote, I'm not going to go there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I didn't hear your vote on the 35 either, so it doesn't change a whole lot for me. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Just wanted to throw it in. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Understood. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- could you get two stories over parking in 25 feet? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I don't know that you realistically could. A five-foot parking space? MR. NINO: It would be very difficult. You know, each story is nine feet. That's 18 feet. You need seven for parking. That's 25. You'd have to do a flat roof again to achieve that, because the measurement is from the midpoint of a peak roof, or from -- or to the top of a flat roof. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thirty feet? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, 28 or 30 feet might be more realistic. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I was going to say, that's one ugly building. Down here it's not even smart to build a flat roof. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. MR. NINO: It might be interesting to note that 35 feet is the lowest height that's required in the agricultural, the Estates. Page 29 June 16, 1999 COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Single-family. MR. NINO: All the single-family -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: Then how could you get -- MR. NINO: -- and the RMF-6. COMMISSIONER CARTER: But how can you get three units in 35 feet without a flat roof? MR. NINO: Well, in this case, it is a -- it's a flat roof building. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: They got four, Tim, at Dolphin Cove. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Now, you pointed out that that's the minimum height in those others. But did multi-family or ag. or single or any of those others have as part of their definition that it's to maintain the character of village residential? MR. NINO: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, they don't. And that's the point, is this is supposed to be different and distinct. That's why it has its very own category in these tiny little places in the county. COMMISSIONER CARTER: With tiny little units or tiny little people. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's it. You could have 25 floors of, you know, one feet. You don't have to worry about population then, other than bugs crawling in and out of them, you know. CHAIRWOM~_N MAC'KIE: I think we're trying to accomplish something that this process doesn't afford us the opportunity to accomplish. We're trying to address density, and I want to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not. And I've said that about four times. So I've said -- what I'm to deal with is the definition, and that includes trying to retain, trying to maintain that character. And this does directly address that. And I appreciate the suggestion, because it's a good one. If we can reasonably do that at whatever the appropriate height is, 28 feet, 30 feet, that does have a visual difference, that does make an impact from 35 foot, three-story. And I'm just -- we can see if we get a response. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Absolutely. I've weighed in. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, if we're not going to reduce the height, there's absolutely no point in going to two floors. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, Commissioner Constantine, would you like to entertain a motion that we reduce it to 28 feet for two stories over one so that we can either go forward or kill it? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to hear from the other commissioners. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll support that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: That would be okay. But I really think that the best way to do that is through this overlay process. The overlay, I think, it's -- it -- we shouldn't be sitting up here doing this. What you have before you is 35 feet and you've got 2 over 1 -- or 3 over 1. Now, either vote it up or vote it down, you know. And then send it back to stay staff and say, look, we're not happy with the height or whatever. I mean, this is what we need you to look at in the future. Or in the meantime, get with this overlay district and get it straightened out, that this is what the board is saying, we want the overlay district, we want the density reduced, we want to take a look at the height of the building. But I can't imagine that we're sitting up here -- I just think this is inappropriate. This is what was advertised. I don't know. Page 30 June 16, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and I'm just trying to address some -- you're the one who suggested it and said -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I agree. That's what I think, Tim. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's fine. You're the one who suggested it and said gosh, if we could consider that, I'd think about that, I might be amenable to it. And that's why I asked Mr. Weigel, can we consider it, and he said yes, we can. I think -- I understand the frustration, and I wish we could have done the overlay as part of this cycle, but they just came forward too late. There's a process we go through and it takes months to do. I think if they had been able to do that as part of this cycle, they certainly would have. There are some very real concerns. There is some interest in some of the property down there. And what they want to avoid is having something slide through like another Dolphin Cove or something inappropriate if they can prohibit that now, instead of waiting six months and letting one more of those or two more of those or three more of those go through in the meantime. And I have every confidence they're going to follow through on the overlay because I've told them I'll help them with it. But the -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can I ask a question? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, you may not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You know, I think it is appropriate. If we're trying to deal with this and trying to protect that character for the time being, until we can legally get to the overlay, then it is an appropriate question and, you know, one that if the question is before us, we ought to answer yea or nay, that's a good idea or no, it's not a bad idea. And it's too bad we didn't think of it three weeks ago, but we didn't. I appreciate you bringing it up today. I wish I had thought of it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: At this point we're doing straw votes to instruct staff on what to put in the ordinance that we will vote on as a whole in a minute. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Requires four; is that right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And it does require four to make a change. I don't think I hear four for a change. I'm not going to support a change. Is anybody else -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me just throw -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Not at this point. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. Then that's what I was going to say, let me throw the specific out there, and if there's not four, then -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: There's not four. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: There's not four. Commissioner Berry and I are not supportive. So -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Then I'd ask you to go to with the 2 over 1, keeping it at 35. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And I'm not supportive of that. Are there others? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Is this the right way to do it? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Would you support 2 over 1 and 28? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's what we just -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: That's what we just shot down. Page 31 June 16, 1999 COMMISSIONER CARTER: All right. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I support up to three at the -- I support staff's original recommendation. I'm going to stay there. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Then go to work on the -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Then go to work on the overlay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We need to approve something or it stays like it was and you could have another Dolphin Cove. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I would like to support 3 over 1, the staff's original recommendation. Ron, why don't you state it, you'll do a better job at it than me. MR. NINO: Original staff recommendation was 3 over 1. And that COMMISSIONER NORRIS: With 35 feet. MR. NINO: That was based on a more reasonable allocation of the space that one should achieve in that 35 feet. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are you going to support that? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: More reasonable than the four. MR. NINO: Than the four. And provides an opportunity for achieving the density that's allowed in unit sizes that are probably in the best interest of the Goodland area. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So I'm going to support that position. Are there three others who are going to support that? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I am. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's two of us. We need two more. If we don't support that change, then we leave it at as many floors as they can squeeze in at 35 feet. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Or we could do another alternative. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Or we can go for another alternative. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did we -- have we -- before we do this one, have we officially killed 2 over 1 with 35 feet? COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yes. CHAIRWOM/~N MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We've killed that one? COMMISSIONER CARTER: We killed that one. Well, they said there was no support. I think Commissioner Constantine proposed it and it died -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that was 28 feet. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And Commissioner Berry, your discomfort with that is just because it's a late arrival in the process, the 2 over 1 with a limited height? COMMISSIONER BERRY: I don't think so. I just don't think you're changing much. You've still got 35 feet. I just don't see any -- I don't see any reason for that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm saying if we were to limit the height, your discomfort was that it's a late change? COMMISSIONER BERRY: It's a late change. That's my only concern over it. I want to -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 2 over 1 at 28. COMMISSIONER BERRY: -- know some more -- want to know the implications of doing that, Tim. That's all. COMMISSIONER CARTER: 2 over 28 died. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: 2 over 1 at 28 is out. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 2 over 1 at 35. Let's go -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I say no. Page 32 June 16, 1999 COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I say yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I say yes. COMMISSIONER BERRY: 2 over 1 at 35? You still have a 35-foot building. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Might as well have up to three. COMMISSIONER BERRY: You might have as well have the three floors. What's the difference? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you, the difference is, I think realistically you don't end up with a 35-foot building. They can use up to that, but they're not required to. If they have two stories, they probably won't have -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: The market's going to drive it anyway. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So are you going to support -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: I think it will become a design issue. I think you'll get a better design. 2 over 1, you'll get a better design. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner Berry said no, so if I can respectfully try to keep this moving along. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, you haven't asked the fourth. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: But there are two nos, so that's enough. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Where's the two nos? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm a no, Commissioner Berry's a no. So is there support of 3 over 1 at 35? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's all we have left. CHAIRWOMAN MAC,KIE: And I support that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: And I'm supporting that at this point in time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What about 1 over 1 at 157 COMMISSIONER CARTER: I'll support it, because I don't want to see us end up with 4 over 1 again. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, I'll support it out of self-protection, because -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Because it's better than what you -~ COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I want something with two and a lower height, but we're not going to get it, so -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, I think what we need do now, if we do it now, then get on the stick and do this overlay business. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That will take six months. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Gee whiz. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Agree. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Well, okay, six months. But for crying out loud, let's get going. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. I got no objection to that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I think they'd do it sooner if they could. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So that shuts down that issue. Staff understands what's going to be in the ordinance that we're going to vote on in a few minutes is going to be 3 over 1 at 35. And we have one more registered speaker on signs. Mr. Davis. MR. FERNANDEZ: Mike Davis. COMMISSIONER BERRY: The sign man. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How are your fingers holding up? THE COURT REPORTER: They're fine, thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Are they? Okay. Page 33 June 16, 1999 THE COURT REPORTER: It won't be much longer -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: We're getting close. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're almost done. MR. DAVIS: No, I won't talk very long at all. Mike Davis, for the record. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Nice looking shirt. MR. DAVIS: Thank you. Enjoy the emblem? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is it a Harley or something? MR. DAVIS: Or something. Excuse me, Madam Chairman. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm so sorry. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Or something. MR. DAVIS: The reason for my being here tonight, at the last hearing Commissioner Carter brought up some issues about changes to the sign ordinance, and I had spoken briefly. And at least from my standpoint I seem to get some confusion from staff and some of the people at the meeting about what the board wanted to do to deal with future changes to the sign code. I'd reminded you at that meeting that when you appointed the 12-member select committee just recently, as part of the executive summary you wanted a comprehensive review of the sign code. And I certainly think that's appropriate, bearing in mind that landscape code, building setbacks, a lot of different issues are going to be reviewed as part of that. And that seems to me to be the best vehicle CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mike, is there any confusion? Because the way I recall is that we said we're going to send this through the regular process. And we have this select committee in place and it will have subcommittees that will do specific studies. I thought that's what we were doing. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Yeah, we have -- I don't know where the confusion is, because we have the landscape committee who will be making recommendations to this other committee. And we were taking it through due process, and we will fold in the largest number of people that would be affected by this process. Because it was brought to my attention that perhaps we did not follow process correctly this time. In our meeting in our committee we have said we will do everything to bring in from the Chamber of Commerce, to the EDC, to everybody, to get input in the process. So when it goes to the select committee, they will have a good framework so we get into the next go-around. And staff is working in that direction. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Critical point, means it goes through the select committee, and that's -- you know, because they're the umbrella. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Right. We will take it to the select committee, absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm so confused. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Don't be. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Thank God. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's not a part of tonight's. COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- discussion in any case. MR. DAVIS: No, I think -- my only reason for being here is it is a pertinent issue, an important one, and I just -- because I've heard some confusion about what the board's direction was. I wanted to bring it to your attention. Page 34 June 16, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Appreciate that. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I believe it needs to go through the select committee, Madam Chair. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That's what I think has been clearly instructed. Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I believe so, too. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I will make a motion that we adopt ordinance -- the LDC ordinance as discussed over the last couple of weeks -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Mr. Weigel's going to help us. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- with the changes that we have discussed. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: This requires four votes. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That is correct. MR. WEIGEL: Correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So theoretically -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Not even theory. COMMISSIONER BERRY: Oh, here we go again. COMMISSIONER CARTER: We're not going to deal with one of these, are we? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you, Commissioners. One thing for the record that I'd like to note, and for you to note in your motion, if you would, and that is, it was brought to my attention at the start of the meeting from Kevin Hendricks of our county real property department, and Heidi Ashton of the county attorney office, that Item No. 2 shown on Pages 25 through 31 of the agenda book, really is not complete. There continue to be changes proffered and discussed. And the recommendation is that that either be tabled or no action taken on that, that that particular provision be removed. For the record, it specifically addresses and it's shown on Page 25 of Section 2.2.20.3.7, and Section 2.7.2.8.1 of the Land Development Code, which essentially discusses a formula for transfer of lands to the county to become public lands from developers to the property owners. It also included such discussions as impact fee credits for the transfer of value of the properties that the county may take. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're losing me, Dave. MR. WEIGEL: Well, the suggestion is don't amend that. Don't change what's in the packet. Remove that from your consideration this evening so it can come back the next cycle. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I will amend my motion to reflect that that provision shall be removed. Thank you. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER BERRY: Second it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRWOM/~N MAC'KIE: Passes unanimously. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He was thinking about it. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: If you could turn on that visualizer, I have just one little bit of by way of communication. I'm as tired as being here as you guys are, so I'm going to say this just as quickly as I can. You guys know that I went last Tuesday with the staff and met Page 35 June 16, 1999 with Secretary Seibert, DCA. You got a very good E-mail from Bob Mulhere that told you the gist of the meeting, so I'm not going to repeat that. I do, however, want to tell you, I've been in contact with Secretary Seibert's office again. I expect to hear from him tonight and to be able maybe to have something else to report back to you guys. But I want to just tell you myself, because I think it's gotten so confused in the newspaper -- COMMISSIONER BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- about what exactly the issues are. If we did exactly what the state says we have to do, we would have a moratorium at our urban boundary -- at our rural fringe boundary, and we would come in and study it. And when we get answers satisfactory, we would propose new development standards. What we discussed with the Secretary and staff when I was there is that as to these four gray areas -- and, Vince, if you could move it down a little bit so you could see the top one. You see the four gray areas there. Those are the -- let's see if I can make it a little better. Those are the rural fringe areas. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I like that. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: You like that? Sorry, John. Sorry, I'm nuking the picture up here, forgive me. No, it was me, not you. MR. CAUTERO: Is that all right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes, that's just fine. You see the four gray areas. Those are the rural fringe. What I asked the Secretary to do on your behalf was to please consider the rural fringe separate from the Eastern Collier properties. Eastern Collier properties have volunteered to impose certain development restrictions that we are calling a moratorium. We all know that that's not in fact what is proposed by them, but limiting to agricultural uses in the far eastern Collier area. My request was that these four, primarily four gray areas here, be treated separately from the far eastern Collier properties. And that as to these four gray fringe areas, that the state allow us to produce the data that we have and that we can quickly develop over the next three months or so to support an appropriate level of development in those four fringe areas. I saw Secretary Seibert agree with that concept. I saw him write it down. I heard him say that that seems reasonable. There were other people in the room. They can tell you that, and I'm sure they will. An important piece, though, is that -- and this is where the compromise is going to have to come from this board. Is that these four areas, they are described at the state as the CREW -- going from the north down, the CREW, the Immokalee Road piece, the Belle Meade piece, and the Southern Trail piece -- that their characteristics, the data with regard to supporting development decisions in those four areas is going to support a different level of development in each of the four. CREW and Belle Meade are not going to have the same environmental issues as Immokalee Road and the Southern Trail. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And that we're going to have to let the actual data support what development standards are adopted on an interim basis. That's what I asked them -- that's where I think we came to. Page 36 June 16, 1999 Now, the devil is always in the details, and that's where these guys have been up there in Tallahassee doing all their talking, and we've read in the newspaper that everybody's yelling at each other over the telephone. I don't understand that exactly, because I think that that general concept remains the same. There will be more details. But I'm hopeful that that general concept is something that a majority of the board, when asked, can agree to. And I know it's a compromise, but I think it's a reasonable one, and I hope that you guys will be supportive of it when we get asked that question. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: On Tuesday, right? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, it can't be on Tuesday because we'll be there by then. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fortunately we're meeting Thursday, Friday and Monday, so -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: So hopefully tomorrow we'll be able to take some action. If not tomorrow, then Monday, so that when we go -- Vince, you have something to -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: So they're looking at these as four independent areas. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARTER: They're looking for four development criteria. Now, I read in the paper also, Commissioner Constantine, that you had some conversations with Secretary Seibert. Is that your read that that's where we are? Did they weight in any way? Are there some areas that have more concern than others? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, it's pretty much generally consistent with what Commissioner Mac'Kie had said. The two that they have -- I don't want to say they're not concerned with the other two, but maybe a higher environmental concern with is CREW and the Belle Meade area, recognizing that there might have to be some added restrictions on those, more so than, say, on Immokalee Road corridor, just that side of the urban boundary. So yeah, I think we've had very -- very similar conversations. COMMISSIONER CARTER: So they're going to give us like a 90-day period to work through this to come up with criteria -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Commissioner, here's what I think they're going to give us. You know, what I asked them to do was to, let's bifurcate the analysis. COMMISSIONER BERRY: I love that word. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, I went to law school. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I like logorrhea. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Let's divide the two geographic areas. But I don't think we're going to get that out of them. I think what we're going to get is we're going to get told no more development until you provide data to support development. And you can provide that data incrementally. You can provide it with regard to Immokalee and the Southern Trail and say here are some proposed restrictions or development regulations for that -- for those sections. And then you would provide for Belle Meade and then you would provide for CREW. Or in whatever order we provide it, they will accept remedial amendments. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I think that's why they've hesitated to put a time line on the shorter ones. Because they're saying, you know, whatever -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: It takes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- you see as that top priority, if Page 37 June 16, 1999 that's 90 days or 120 days, great. But they don't want to put a time line where we end up doing what we're doing right now. COMMISSIONER CARTER: Well, what they're saying is we want a moratorium until you do this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: That is what they're saying. And that's what we're going essentially have to make a decision about whether or not we can accept. It sounds terrible if you say it that way, a moratorium until you decide, but frankly, you know, what they are saying, another way of saying it is -- COMMISSIONER CARTER: An interim period of non-development. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, no. They're saying the data that's supplied -- the judge has already ruled, guys. The judge has already ruled that the data that we supplied does not support development in these areas. The judge ruled that. So until we can supply some alternative data, there's no other place for them to go. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Can I make an observation? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And they're going to give us the opportunity to provide that additional data and that they will consider it as it is received. Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Since we're going to vote on this in the next couple of days, we're going to have this discussion all over, why don't we just wait until then? CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Well, I just wanted to lay it out -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I appreciate that -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: -- before you. And this may be enough. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- but we seem to be getting into debating the issue and -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Right. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One other thing along the same lines. I have a memo coming to you all that I've actually held on to pending my next conversation with the Secretary. But one of the things we -- I may ask us to look at again is our consultant brought us a report with some definitive action in each of the three areas, including lowering the densities in that agricultural area. It was private industry that asked us not to do that now. But if we made that dramatic change in the ag. area, it may go a long way toward avoiding that moratorium if you can only develop at 1, to 20, then it doesn't create that same threat or that same demand. It doesn't have the same requirement that the development criteria they're looking for would have. So -- CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: No question, that would make DCA staff really happy if we went there. I would say, though, and as much as I would like it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I don't want to debate the whole issue now. It's something that I've actually crafted a draft of and I'm holding on to, pending that conversation. But that may be in your in-box in the next day or so. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: I have to say this, though, as you guys have charged me so carefully with representing the position of the majority of the board. I trust that as you're discussing this with Secretary Seibert, you wouldn't suggest that as a compromise, because that's certainly not anything that the board has agreed to. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just having a conversation with a friend. I'm not doing anything inappropriate. Page 38 June 16, 1999 CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: And the flip side of that is the whole deal falls apart with regard to the funding of the study if we down zone our property. So we can have this debate. COMMISSIONER CARTER: I really have confidence in this board. We're not going to let this fall apart. And we are working at this all the time, even though there are a lot of people in the community who may think that we're caved in or wearing a lot of black hats here. I think we're moving forward and we will find resolution in this. And we're doing it the right way by doing what's taking place here. And as soon as you get your input in the next couple of days in the meetings, we will have to take time to make some decisions on this. But I think we will end up doing what we think is the right thing to keep this from being appealed and to meet the needs of everybody that's concerned in this process. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Vince, did you have anything you wanted to say tonight, or can we hold off? MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero, for the record. Just what Commissioner Norris said, that it's on your agenda. Time's allotted for the next three meetings to discuss this. CHAIRWOMAN MAC'KIE: Anything else from the board? If not, we're adjourned. There bein9 no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:15 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL ELA S. MAC '~ · .I ATTEST: "~ DWIGHT E BROCK, CLERK The e minutes appro e by the Board on, presented / or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. , BY CHERIE ' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 39