Loading...
BCC Minutes 04/28/1998 R REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Naples, Florida, April 28, 1998 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Barbara B. Berry Pamela S. Mac'Kie John C. Norris Timothy J. Constantine Timothy L. Hancock ALSO PRESENT: Robert Fernandez, County Administrator David Weigel, County Attorney Item #3 AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning. I'd like to call to order the April 28th board meeting of the County Commissioners of Collier County. If you -- we're pleased to have with us this morning the Reverend Harold Brown of the Lely Presbyterian Church. If you'd rise for the invocation, remain standing then for the pledge. MR. BROWN: Let us pray. Our Father, we tend to be rather casual about our life, and sometimes we don't see a plan that might be, a goal that we might set, high and noble ideals that we might put ahead of us. We thank you that sometimes we'd only have sense to look at your Word and follow your Word for guidance and direction and strength and comfort. So take us back to the original sources of our life. Take us back to a place where we might decide about something that can happen tomorrow, because of things that we do today. We thank you for your grace and your love that accepts us just as we are, and we thank you for your opportunities in the scripture to teach us about how we can be tomorrow. Bless us in this process of life. Help us to take it seriously today in this moment of devotional, and help us to make the most of it, not only today, as we consult you and your Word, but also as we give thanks for your leadership and your guidance in the tomorrows that can help others. In your love, we give thanks. Amen. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Amen. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Reverend Brown. Mr. Fernandez, do we have any changes to the agenda? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we do. First is add item 8(B) (2). This is emergency approval of $6,400 to pay for materials to install 400 feet of culvert extending under the access road to Sawgrass subdivision to reconnect the existing ditch. It's a request of Commissioner Hancock. Also, we'd like to ask the board to consider continuation of item 12(B) (3) to the May 12th, 1998 meeting. This is petition number PUD-96-12, a rezone from A rural agricultural to PUD for multi-family development for property located east and adjacent to Santa Barbara Boulevard. Petitioner's request. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any changes? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No changes today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I have no changes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If I CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do I have a motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of the agenda and consent agenda as amended. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #4 MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 1998 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move approval of the April 7th, 1998 regular meeting minutes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second for the approval of the April 7th minutes. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, I apologize, I even made the motion on the agenda and consent agenda -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Really? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had requested -- I received from the Republican Executive Committee the draft ethics ordinance, and I had requested that it be put on the agenda, and I failed to add that at the appropriate time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go back, can I just ask, I mentioned last week, we were -- I know Commissioner Mac'Kie had inquired when this would be coming back, and you had said maybe we could have it this week. Two things: One, I'm working on a specific thing to address the concern. The toughest thing I know for both of you folks and also for the public is that when an accusation is made, the time line is so long. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And -- as to when the state deals with it. And if you haven't done anything wrong, then it drags you guys unnecessarily through the mud for 18 months. And if you have not -- not in your case, I don't think, but if someone has done something wrong, then the public has to tolerate that person for another 18 months, and neither one of those scenarios are very good. And I've been working on an alternative that might help with that. I don't have it prepared today in final form, and I wondered if we might just wait one more week and I think I'll have it all written down there to make as a part of that. And secondly, last week we mentioned it and said during the Tuesday meeting, I think during communication, that we'd probably bring it up today. But it wasn't advertised. And I know this item appears to be something the public's very interested in, unless they happened to be tuned in at the end of last Tuesday's meeting, they wouldn't have known it was going to be on today's item. So I wondered, just for -- particularly for the sake of the public's knowledge of the item and if there is some interest and they wanted to come and participate, if it might not be a good idea to put that on next week, strike notice now, ask Mr. Fernandez to advertise it as part of the regular agenda. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It makes it difficult for me not to agree with that when we start talking about the opportunity to increase ~ublic comment, or at least give the public an opportunity to see it mn the paper and know it's here and come and comment on it, if they wish, but also make it a part of the packet for those people that are not members of the executive committee to review. My goal was that as soon as I got it from the Republican party, I told them I'd put it on the next available agenda. If we want to delay that for one week for other reasons, and also for increased public comment, I don't have a problem with that. I think those are both good reasons. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's a good idea if we could put it -- have the ordinance itself in the packet next week. And also, is there a chance, Commissioner Constantine, we'd have your proposal in the packet as well? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What I'll do at the very least is have an outline of it, if I don't have the full form, but have an outline of it by tomorrow when it goes off to be printed so we can -- everybody can see what that is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And just for point of comparison and interest, I could get the city's draft ordinance and have it also in the packet so we could have something for all of us to -- you know, have everything that's out there, locally anyway, available in the packet for us to look at. So I'll -- I'll provide that to you, Mr. Fernandez. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, that's fine then. Let's go ahead and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You want to wait then? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, why don't we do it next week then. That just sounds like all those things would come together better than having a premature discussion today. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I, however, did add -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ah, it's too late. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- one item on. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm working on that one. Can I bring it back next week? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Efficiency at a minimum here. Just an item that has to do with the free trade zone and our status in Collier County to have a customs official here at no cost to the locals. And I just want -- it will be a 30-second item. It's a letter I want to be able to send off to office of regulations for Customs from us, and it mirrors something Porter has already done, but locally, I think we need to have a letter from the board. I wonder if you'd have any objection if we add that on under item ten. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, if it's appropriate, since I made the motion, I would like to move reconsideration of the agenda and consent agenda. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion to reconsider the agenda and consent agenda items. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: With that, I would like to move approval of the agenda and consent agenda as previously amended, including the item by Commissioner Constantine, regarding the customs issue -- which I believe would be 10(D), Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: 10(D). COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. All right, does that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're fairly sure there's nothing else at this point. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We'll get back to you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We'll let you know at the 10:30 break. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, right. Item #5Al PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING WEEK OF MAY 3-9, 1998 AS DRINKING WATER WEEK - ADOPTED Okay, let's go on then to proclamations. Commissioner Constantine, I believe you have one this morning. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I do indeed. Is the clerk or someone representing the clerk with us this morning? Ed? MR. FINN: No, sir, thank you very much. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Oh, I just saw you getting up. MR. FINN: I appreciate the promotion, but no thank you. CPIAIRPERSON BERRY: He's supposed to accept it anyway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We have the following proclamation: Whereas, water follows the natural cycle from earth to air to earth again; and, Whereas, water is a basic need of every living creature; and, Whereas, our health, comfort and standard of living depend on an abundant supply of safe drinking water; and, Whereas, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners believes that citizens should have a safe and dependable supply of water, both now and in the future; and, Whereas, we're calling upon each citizen to ride the water cycle and give drinking water a hand by protecting our source waters from pollution, by practicing conservation, and by getting involved in local water issues. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May 3 through 9, 1998 be designated as Drinking Water Week. Done and ordered this 28th day of April. Board of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Madam Chairman, I'd like to make a motion we approve this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the proclamation. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I like the toilet tank bank. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I believe that Mr. Finn would like to say a few words. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to avoid the obvious comment of what this looks like and we'll just move on from there. MR. FINN: Madam Chairman, if I may take a moment. There was a raging debate as to whether to include the toilet tank saver in the package or not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MR. FINN: I did suggest it did look a little like a hot water bottle. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And other things. MR. FINN: But my staff overrode me on that one. Drinking water week is really what we're representing as our kickoff of the water conservation effort the board directed us to take up several weeks ago. The first step is going to be the drinking water week and the awareness associated with that. In the near future we'll be doing some print advertising and some government cable TV spots on water conservation and water awareness. Additionally, we have a couple of mass mailings we're planning. One is going to be on awareness and conservation, and the final mass mailing is going to be on a consumer confidence report that will be mandated next year that we're hoping to get done this year in an effort to kind of get over, get ahead of the curve, so to speak, and let our customers know the quality of the water they have. So thank you very much, I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks, Ed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Ed. Ed, I hope we're within our value range here that we can accept. MR. FINN: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No problem? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You checked on that? MR. FINN: No problem. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We don't have to declare these items? MR. FINN: No, ma'am. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're very sensitive about that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Dang right we are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You're darn tooting. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Item #5A2 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING WEEK OF MAY 17-23, 1998 AS NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK - ADOPTED Commissioner Hancock, I believe you also have a proclamation this morning. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do. And Mr. Ilschner is already up here. If I could ask you to come forward, Ed, for the seven or eight people in this community that don't know who you are. Being our public works director, Ed is here to receive the proclamation regarding national public works week. The proclamation reads as follows: Whereas, public works services provide the physical infrastructure that is essential to our county's economic and social growth, as well as its improved livability and quality of life; and, Whereas, the support of an understanding and informed citizenry is vital to the efficient operation of public work systems and programs such as water, stormwater, sewer, streets and highways, public buildings and waste collection; and, Whereas, the dedication and teamwork of public works employees enables the county to satisfy its citizen needs, meet demands for improved services, seek new technological advances and address growth and expansion issues; and, Whereas, the health, welfare, safety and protection of our county citizens is in the public works employees' continued challenge to high quality service performance; and, Whereas, the county's public works department are staffed with dedicated employees whose professional pride and attitudes reflect the trust and importance placed in their job performance. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of May 17 through 23, 1998 be designated as National Public Works Week in Collier County and encourage the public to participate in assisting the public works officials to efficiently and effectively develop, stratify, educate and meet the most pressing needs facing our county today. Done and ordered this 28th day of April, 1998, and signed Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. My colleagues, I move acceptance of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Ed. (Applause.) There's a term involving when something hits the fan, and when it happens, it's always public works that's there to catch it. MR. ILSCHNER: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And you guys do a terrific job. MR. ILSCHNER: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Madam Chairman, Commissioners, on behalf of the hundreds upon hundreds of dedicated men and women in Collier County that spend many long hours every day working and toiling to provide essential services to the citizens of our county, I accept this proclamation. And we dedicate a continued work ethic that's based on a principle that I've held for a long time, and that is service to others above service to self. And we pledge that to you. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Ilschner. Item #5A3 PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING SATURDAY, MAY 2, 1998 AS HISPANIC HERITAGE DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY - ADOPTED And our last proclamation today is recognizing -- actually, it's going to be celebrated May 2nd as Hispanic Heritage Day in Collier County. Is Mr. Medina here from Immokalee? And Joe Lozano, would both of you please come up? If you'd turn around and face the camera, please. Whereas, America has been known as the melting pot, the world where the value of a broad diversity of cultures contributed to the development of or democratic and pluralistic society; and, Whereas, the Hispanic heritage of over 28 million Americans is an essential part of our identity as a nation and of our role as a leader of nations; and, Whereas, the 20,000 and more Hispanic Americans living in Collier County are an integral part of the domestic life of Collier County and are becoming increasingly active and visible leaders in the community. Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Saturday, May 2nd, 1998 be designated as Hispanic Heritage Day in Collier County, commemorating the ninth annual event of Cinco de Mayo. Done and ordered this 28th day of April, 1998, Board of County Commissioners, Barbara B. Berry, Chairman. Commissioners, I would like to move acceptance of this proclamation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. (Applause.) If you'd like to say a few words, you're welcome to do so. MR. MEDINA: Good morning. My name is Juan Medina, this is Mr. Joe Lozano, our president of the Cinco de Mayo. We're very honored to accept this proclamation, Commissioner Berry, and the rest of the commissioners, thank you, for inviting us this morning. It is with great honor that we receive this. We started this, me and Joe and two other gentleman that are no longer part of the original board. But we have raised -- this is our ninth annual Cinco de Mayo festival. We have raised $120,000, okay, in the eight years that we have been having this. And it's an event, and it's very important to promote our culture and our identity, our language, our music, and, most important, the fundamentals that education is very important. So we're out there promoting the importance of education for our kids to come back into Immokalee and to proceed with a professional career in education. And last year we started the first year giving out to Lee, Hendry, Collier scholarships, so now it's not just in Immokalee, so it's going to the other surrounding areas, because a lot of businesses hope to promote the Cinco de Mayo, so we'll receive a lot of funding from other areas. And you're cordially invited to come May the 2nd and enjoy this big festivity. It's the largest festival in Southwest Florida, and I think this is the first proclamation in the State of Florida to be received by -- you know, as a recognition. So on behalf of myself and our board, thank you very much for this morning. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: What time do the activities start out there Saturday? MR. LOZANO: Okay, the activities start at 11:00. It's from 11:00 to 6:00 in the evening. We have all types of ethnic foods and live entertainment and all that. We -- we're going to have a car show, which is considered of hydraulics, low riders and also sound. This year we're expecting some auto clubs to come all the way from Tampa and Tallahassee and all that. So right now we have like 100 vehicles coming in for a show there. So thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you very much. Item #5B EMPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED And Commissioner Mac'Kie, I believe you have some awards this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, I get to do service awards this morning. And I'm going to start with the five-year awards. First of all, for Jacqueline Hart, five years in Parks and Recreation. If you'll come forward and receive your award. (Applause.) And also from Parks and Rec., we have Louise Hardy with five years of service to Collier County. (Applause.) Thank you. For 15 years of service to Collier County, we have Glenn Price, from stormwater management. (Applause.) Talk about the guys who do the important work in this county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll tell you, he shoots a mean three-pointer, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was about to say, the baseline jumper in stormwater. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And then somebody we-all in the community has a great deal of heartfelt attachment to, and that's Barbara Pedone, who's worked in the county administrator's office for 15 years. (Applause.) Item #5C1 REPORT PRESENTED TO THE BCC REGARDING MARCH OF DIMES WALKAMERICA EVENT CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to the next item, the March of Dime WalkAmerica event report. MS. CONLEY: Good morning. I'm Barrie Conley, the community director for the March of Dimes. And on behalf of all the moms and the babies of the Southwest Florida area, and all those yet to be born, I'd like to thank you for supporting the 28th anniversary of WalkAmerica. There were over 1,200 community minded individuals this year raising over $130,000. Our local goal was 124,500, and we exceeded it in a big way with our national sponsorship on top of that. Thanks to people like you and teams like the Collier County government, we were able to make great strides in improving the health of our babies. And each year we plan, we meet and we walk so that more babies have a chance to be healthy. For the past several years, the Collier County government has been a major contributor to the March of Dimes campaign. And this year your team set a goal of $10,000. Led by team captain Laura Sibe (phonetic), the Collier County government exceeded that goal and raised over $12,000, exceeding their goal by over 40 percent. For your outstanding effort, the March of Dimes presents Collier County government with three awards this year. First, competing in the mighty major division of over 300 employees, Collier County government placed second overall in most monies raised. Laura coordinated several wrap-around events as well, which some of you probably enjoyed, the meatballs and the bake sales that she had. And that earned a first place for most wrap-around events. And the T-shirt which was designed by a gentleman, Oliver Fitz and coordinating with Felicia Watts. Laura Sibe won second place. And you'll be able to see that a little bit later today, if you don't already have one. The top team fundraiser for Collier County government is a woman who is employed at Gulfshore Animal Hospital, and she received high accolades as a team member. Jackie Adkins, who raised $3,171 for the Collier County government team. And as your top employee was Arcadia Rivera, who raised over $1,725, and he works with facilities management. I'd like to thank the BOCC, the area residents, business and corporate sponsors for their tremendous support of the March of Dimes programs, and for giving their time to help save babies' lives, because together we are helping fund breakthroughs for babies. At this time, I'd like to ask Jackie, Arcadia and Laura to come forward and accept the awards. And Laura will also be making a small introduction of a little surprise we have in the end. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Katie, since you're here every Tuesday, we can just hang that on the wall right there. MS. ARCADIA: At this time, I'd like to introduce four children that attend Seagate Elementary School. If you could come forward, please. I wrote a song for the WalkAmerica campaign this year to the theme song from Cheers. It was broadcast on Class 103.1. And they're going to -- you need to come to the microphone -- they're going to sing this for you. YOUTH: It's time to celebrate. Join the fight for healthy babies, come on and participate. Walking miles for March of Dimes, helps save our babies' lives. WalkAmerica, here we come. Collier County's number one. WalkAmerica '98, on April 18th at half past 8:00. Wear a T-shirt and don't be late, it's going to be great. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought I saw some moms and dads out there. MS. ARCADIA: Thank you very much. And just to let you know, that was Lindsay Baker, Lindsay Henning, Alden Gatt and Rosie Dillon. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Congratulations. Well done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, guys. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great job. Now go back to school. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Credit where credit's due, Laura did a great job putting that whole thing together, getting our employees -- doing all the fun events that went with that, including roping Bob and I into doing a little skit thing. Allegedly fired some people up at the beginning. I'm not sure how accurate that was. It was great on Laura's end. She did a lot of work and really made that happen for the county. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Thank you. And thanks to all of you for a lot of hard work. Item #7A PAUL HARVEY OF FISH FINDERS, INC., REQUESTING WAIVER OF PARK FEES AT COCOHATCHEE PARK AND BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE FOR A KIDS' FISHING TOURNAMENT AS PART OF THE SILVER SLAM EVENT APPROVED Ail right, moving on then to public petitions. Paul Harvey. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good day. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Not the one you usually hear. MR. HARVEY: Good day, page two and the rest of the story. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Captain Paul Harvey. I'm representing the Silver Slam. It's a big event that we're putting on in North Naples. It's this weekend. It's funded by the TDC, and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Paul, would it bother you if we just went ahead and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yep. MR. HARVEY: Approved it? Yeah, that would be great. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Motion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. My only comment was, when I read this -- and normally we don't take action on public petitions, but you've got a time problem here. MR. HARVEY: Big time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Because this event takes place this weekend. MR. HARVEY: Yeah, looks like we're going to have between three and 500 kids, and we're pretty well jammed right now. And it starts Saturday, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman, we anticipated the urgency of this item and in fact have had it staffed already. We have a recommendation from the division to approve, so -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- we can move forward. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd like to also thank Tom Olliff for getting on it and getting it done, meeting with Paul, and I do appreciate your assistance here, Tom. MR. HARVEY: So would I. Thank you, Tom. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion from Commissioner Hancock and a second -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- from Commissioner Mac'Kie. Any further comments or questions? Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. HARVEY: Thank you very much. And I'd like to welcome you-all and ask you to come out, if you get a chance, stop by on Saturday. It's going to be a pretty fun event. You'll get to see how some of the category three TDC funding is spent. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Very good. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good event. Item #8B1 ALTERNATE ROAD IMPACT FEE CLACULATION FOR THE NAPLES HERITAGE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB (NHGCC) DEVELOPMENT - DENIED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Moving on then to item 8(B) (1). This is to approve an alternate road impact fee calculation for Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, Naples Heritage is the one on Davis Boulevard? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. KANT: Edward Kant, transportation services director. That's correct, Commissioner. That lies between Davis Boulevard and 951. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe that I have a legal requirement to abstain from this vote. My father-in-law has purchased a unit that is under construction in Naples Heritage, and I believe this action could potentially benefit him as a unit owner by reduction of impact fee. And based on that, I believe I have a responsibility -- or I'm required to recuse myself. MR. WEIGEL: Okay. You have the statutory authority to make that determination with the facts that you've stated here. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, let the record note that. Mr. Kant. MR. KANT: Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. This is an item which is -- (Commissioner Hancock exited the boardroom.) MR. KANT: -- ordinarily somewhat routine in that the ordinance governing road impact fees, which is ordinance -- we refer to it as 92-22, as amended. It's had about four or five amendments. But the basic structure of the ordinance hasn't changed significantly, nor has the rate structure. In that ordinance, there is a rate table governing a number of different uses. Among those uses are single family and multi-family and condominium type dwellings. There are two ways in which a developer can request that the road impact fees which are in the table be adjusted. In one case, that of the individual impact fee, where there is a use which was not originally contemplated in the table, or which is significantly different from that which is listed in the rate table, it can be typically computed by staff and handled on a staff basis. The other is the so-called alternate road impact fee, where the developer has a position that the development does not contribute to the degree as shown in the ordinance. In that basis, the developer is free to provide an alternate road impact fee study to make his case. In this case, the developer has chosen to provide an alternate road impact fee study. That alternate road impact fee study dealt with three basic parameters in the ordinance; that is, the trip rate, the trip length and the percentage of new trips on the arterial roadway network. The developer approached us originally back in 1996, in May -- I'm sorry, in April of 1996, and this has taken some time to come to this point. At that time, the developer proposed an alternate fee methodology. We reviewed that at the staff level and agreed that the methodology appeared to be sound, and the developer proceeded on that basis. As a result of the developer's study, the average trip rate was found to be significantly different from that shown in the ordinance by some three to four trip ends per unit. The average and total trip length was found to be significantly different from that to be in the ordinance. And the percentage of new trips, however, was agreed upon to be 100 percent. When we reviewed the developer's alternate fee study, we determined that while we didn't have a problem with the methodology and while we didn't have a problem with the trip rate, we found some what we felt were inconsistencies in the trip length and we are submitting to you for your approval an alt -- a staff alternative to the developer's presentation, which would permit the use of the trip length, which is in the ordinance. And that is given to us under section -- I have it in the appendix here -- section 203(C) (4) of the ordinance, which provides for the use of the ordinance trip lengths. The bottom line on this is that if the developer were required to pay road impact fees in accordance with the ordinance, the -- as an example -- I won't go through it all, but the single family unit trip -- road impact fee would be $1,379 per unit, and the multi-family would be $951 per unit. By using the staff's recommended alternative, the developer's fees would be mitigated to $926 and $643, respectfully. If the board were to accept the developer's study, that mitigation would reduce further to $503 and $346 per unit. And under the fiscal impact, we've indicated that if in fact the staff's recommendation is accepted, there would be a net reduction of $305,445. However, there would be no -- we don't believe a significant effect on the cash flow in the impact fee trust fund, which again is one of the criteria. The developer is not in full agreement with staff's recommendation, has indicated to us that they would like to make a short presentation to the board. I believe that based on correspondence I received, the developer has spoken to the board members individually. I don't know what the results of those were; I haven't yet seen what the developer plans to submit. But if it's the board's pleasure, I have no objection to seeing what information they prefer to submit at this time. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question for staff. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine I think is ahead of you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Kant, the basic maybe 30 second or less nutshell explanation of why the number would be lower than normal is because? MR. KANT: The numbers that are in the table are averages taken from the ITE's trip generation manual. The range of numbers is anywhere from -- if you'll bear with me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me tell you my concern and maybe you can explain it from there. That's probably a better way to do it. MR. KANT: The range is from about four to about 21 trips. The average that's used in the book is nine point something, and that's what we've used in our fee calculations. It's not at all unusual for an individual project to have a significantly different trip generation rate. It's a two-edged sword. They may go out and do a study and find out they actually have a higher trip rate, in which case they usually don't come back to talk to us. COMMIS~:IONER CONSTANTINE: Let me -- COMMIS~:IONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like a one-edged sword to me. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess my question is, when you said they've met with commissioners, they did meet with me, and part of their rationale or part of their explanation for why the trips were lower was the type product they're selling usually goes to a senior market. They are selling to a particular group who is less likely to be on the road as often perhaps as me. My question is, is the community limited in any way? Is it a 55 and over community? MR. KANT: I'm unaware of that, sir. We didn't have a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If I could just finish -- MR. KANT: -- any problem with their trip rate. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where I'm headed with that is, I mean, that may be true today, but if that community changes as the face of Collier County changes, and that becomes over time more of a family community, then you add significantly to the number of uses there. So I have a real concern saying, well, we're selling to a senior market so they're going to use the road less, because five years from now or seven years from now or ten years from now you may have much more of a mixed use of that project, which increases the use on the roads, yet they have not paid the same fees as everyone else. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My question was the same, because we -- I must have had generally the same meeting as you did with the developer. And what -- I heard two things. One that concerns me is we've had alternate water and sewer impact fee proposals made to us before that we declined because there was -- just exactly what Commissioner Constantine said, there was no restriction on the community that could ensure that the market, the initial target market, would forever be the occupants of the community. And we declined those, as I recall. Frankly, I'm going to be real blunt here, Mr. Kant, I'm real scared about doing anything about this particular -- granting this -- and I said this directly to the folks who met with me. I'm very afraid to grant this alternate calculation, because I don't see anything different about this particular golf course community than every other golf course community that gets built in Collier County. And if we're going to accept this alternate calculation, it seems to me that our basic fee must be wrong, because what are they building that's different from what everybody else in town is building down at the Davis corridor? MR. KANT: Commissioner, we're not advocating, nor are we defendin$ one or the other. We're trying to present to you a set of facts, given a number of different parameters. And the trip rate has always been at issue because of the fact that the ordinance relies on averages. The trip length was the basis of a more detailed study, as I discussed with our consultant who had done the study at the -- who had done our impact fee study at the time. And our concern was with the trip length. It's my understanding that the petitioner does want to present information with respect to trip length. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Ed, if you -- MR. KANT: I'm ignorant of what else they're going to present. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you don't have any problem with the trip rate, then there must be something wrong with our general average impact fee trip rate number, because this community looks like every other community that's being built in Collier County. MR. KANT: Commissioner, it is dangerous to -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I know. MR. KANT: -- take any of the numbers out of context. And as was pointed out, when the original ordinance was developed back in 1992 -- well, it was a substitute ordinance for the 1985 ordinance. When that was developed, the methodology that was agreed upon at that time was that in order to minimize the number of extraneous calculations, in order to try to achieve an equity, that the average trip rates as set forth by the ITE trip generation handbook would be used. There is, as I said, a range from four to 21. And given that range, given the standard deviation, and given all the machinations one can do with statistics -- I was once told there are a number of different kinds of lies, including statistics -- one can come up with almost any result one chooses. And what we have tried to do here is we've tried to approach this in a fairly dispassionate way. We've looked at the information that's been presented, we've looked at what the alternatives were that are presented in the ordinance. We must deal within the four corners of the ordinance. And our recommendation, as I say, is somewhat more -- significantly more than what the developer would like to see. However, it is somewhat less -- I might point out that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it's three -- MR. KANT: -- that precedent had been set -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's $300,000 less, isn't it? MR. KANT: That precedent had been set as long ago as September of 1996 for other projects. Again, those other projects exhibited unique characteristics. I'm referring to the Village Walk project, which has its own town center. At this point -- as I say, we're not here to argue certainly in favor of the applicant, nor are we here to particularly defend the ordinance. We -- if the ordinance needs changed, then perhaps the ordinance needs changed. But I don't know that that is an issue this morning. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I had one last question, and it was for Mr. Weigel. And that was, the element of our ordinance that says or -- you know, here's the rate or an alternative as, you know, proven by a direct study. Was that a requirement of the ordinance? I mean, is that a legal requirement that that provision be included in the ordinance? MR. WEIGEL: That's a safety valve in the ordinance to allow for defensibility and provide some flexibility of staff to review again the statistical analysis with the -- the statistics or reports that they have to apply by choice, and that is if you chose an ITE mechanism as a comparative source, they have to have -- the idea was that they have some ability to make it work with the reality of idiosyncrasies of individual projects. It's a safety valve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Kant. MR. KANT: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It seems to me that either our ordinance is defensible and has proven to be so in the past, or it isn't. I don't -- I'd like to know what makes this community any different than any of the others on Davis Boulevard, like Foxfire, Countryside, Falling Waters, which doesn't have a golf course. But what makes it any different that we should reduce the road impact fees on this when we have not reduced it on any of the other projects? MR. KANT: One of the differences, sir, in this case is they've requested the change. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is the -- MR. KANT: None of the other communities that you mentioned as I know have requested the change, sir -- or have requested consideration for change. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I understand that the figures, the study that was developed, was what their consultant was paid for by them; is that correct? MR. KANT: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Uh-huh. So looks like what we have as a position here is that we paid some years ago very substantial sums of money to have our own consultant develop an ordinance for us that was defensible, and if we're to allow anyone to just hire their own consultant and come in with all new figures and we're to just capitulate and use their figures, it seems to me we don't need ordinance (sic) at all, just let anybody determine what they're going -- what they want to pay for impact fees. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: One last question, if you -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yeah, that's fine. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm familiar with this mechanism is other ordinances. It is a standard provision that provides some flexibility. I think the idea is to allow some flexibility if the applicant takes the initiative to demonstrate a different methodology of calculating the impact. It's not an automatic process where they just provide the report and it's accepted by the government. It's reviewed. And that review has taken place. And in fact, the staff has responded with a recommendation based upon the report that has been submitted. So it's not an automatic process that all they have to do is pay a consultant, come up with new figures and they get an automatic fee. They've taken the initiative to calculate specifically for this project a different fee than the ordinance would have done on a more general basis. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- ask this one last one? That is -- my last question was, Mr. Weigel, is there a statute of limitations of sorts that would keep the neighboring developers from coming back in and requesting a refund of their road impact fees? MR. WEIGEL: To answer quickly, the answer is yes, there is. It's both programmatic -- you go through the process, and the petitioner and developer has to exercise certain options in the process; and post-process, there's really limited or no ability to come back later. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I guess when I looked at this, it was -- the developer can certainly ask. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to acquiesce to that request. And I agree that I don't see anything different, unless the petitioner can present something that's different from this particular development than the others. And I haven't met with the developer. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's what I was going to say -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So let's hear from him. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I hope Peter can tell us -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: He can. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- because I've heard two commissioners ask our staff what's unique about it and our staff hasn't answered the question either time. So -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll hear -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- perhaps Peter wearing that great tie will be able to tell us what is unique. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That is a good one. Identify yourself, please. MR. COMEAU: Good morning, my name is Pete Comeau, I'm regional vice president of U.S. Home Corporation. U.S. Home has been building and developing golf course communities in this area for the last 30 years. And in essence, what we have found is that our communities basically age and not go younger. Naples Heritage is 87 percent retired. Most of our older communities were from anywhere between 40 to 60 percent single family. So we have a community at Naples Heritage which is 80 percent sold out. The majority of the folks that have moved in there, almost 90 percent are 55 and older. And based on the characteristics and the type of community that we are building there dictates that it's an older clientele. It is not age restricted to the point where we say it's 55 or older mandate, it's just the way the community turned out. So we have 80 percent sold out. The majority of the folks, 90 plus, are 55 and older. Out of the 20 some thousand homes we've built in Southwest Florida, and the over 5,000 that we've built on Davis Boulevard, if you look back at all the old records, which I do, is that the communities age. They do not attract the younger. Why didn't U.S. Home come in earlier for the Foxfire, Countryside? Foxfire had a through road. And at the time of the ordinance, it was actually built and completed prior to the ordinance even being acted. So that's why we weren't there. And this is the first time we've had a community that's come on line since the ordinance has been enacted. Our U.S. Home is not looking for necessarily a cash reimbursement. What we would be looking for would be credits on future impact fees that we'd pay either at Naples Heritage or at other communities. So instead of writing us a check, one of the things we'd be looking for -- in fact, we're talking with county staff and our consultants -- is to go forward as we have in other -- in Lee County and in Sarasota County, where we've done similar studies, in which we've gotten actually partial cash back and/or credits to our future impact fees. So to address the questions, one, we have aged communities that restrict themselves; two, as our communities go back over the last 30 years have not become younger; and this is the first opportunity we've had underneath the new ordinance to come in. So that's basically, you know, the characteristics of it. With the flexibility, as county staff has pointed out, it is an average. We've done extensive studies of trip generations and types of characteristics of what actually does occur. So we've followed county's guidelines since '86 for exactly what type of methodology they would like to have us analyze and review trip generation, and, more importantly, trip lengths. We've gone forward and spent three years, $150,000, following county staff's direction. And basically that's why we felt that we could be successful in front of the board today. Not only do we have a characteristic of a community that's unique, but more importantly, we're meeting the demands of our clientele, and also within the guidelines that have been established underneath the ordinance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you could tell us, what are the characteristics of your community that cause it to generate a lower traffic rate than the average? MR. COMEAU: We find that most people stay within the community. We have -- with the clubhouse, the golf amenities, pool and other facilities that we provide, there's not the external need to go out. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Where do they shop? MR. COMEAU: They do shop at Publix, you know, down the street, you know, which is mainly -- we do our exit polls and a majority of them do shop there. Yet the same token they're not -- frequent restaurants as much. We do our exit polls, our consultants can go into, you know, the details of exactly where they go, which was part of the study. So it's just not putting the little bells out there as our cars leave our communities. We did an extensive exit poll from similar communities of U.S. Home and also from Naples Heritage to actually -- to ascertain where they are going. And that was required by the county. And so they like our community, we're proud of it, and thank God they like to stay there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You think that -- I'm sorry, go ahead. MR. COMEAU: Generally, that's what we found. And from our older communities until our most recent, from Highland Woods, which is just in Lee County, from Countryside, if you look at Naples Heritage, we don't have, you know, the external trips that would be generated. Plus most of our residents are seasonal. Our multi-family, over 70 percent of them are seasonal. And in our single family, which is only 13 percent of the project, it turns out that only, you know, 60 percent stay. So you have 60 percent of the single family, which is only 13 percent of the overall project and 87 percent of the whole project, 70 percent of them are -- leave and go back up north. And that's historically correct today at Naples Heritage and in our communities we've built in the past. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you -- if you were gonna compare Countryside to this project, the characteristics of it are basically the -- you would conclude that you overpaid on Countryside, because there's not some characteristic that's different at Naples Heritage than there was at Countryside, for example? MR. COMEAU: That's correct. If the mechanism would have been in place, you know, for Countryside, we would have come in in the late Eighties and pursued, you know, impact fee adjustments at that time. So it's -- here it is, you passed it in '82, as I understand, impact fee ordinance. Naples Heritage was the first community to come on line since the enactment of that ordinance, upon which that's why we're in front of the board today. MR. KANT: For the record, just let me clarify something. Two things that Mr. Comeau pointed out. The initial -- the original road impact fee ordinance was enacted in 1985, was subsequently amended in 1990. The revised ordinance came in in 1992, and has been, as I say some minor -- has had some minor revisions since. I also would like -- MR. COMEAU: It's '92. MR. KANT: -- the record to reflect that we did not direct the consultant to do anything. And I would like to quote from a letter of -- dated July 3rd of 1996 where we said that in summary this office acknowledges their proposed statement and subject to the comments above will present the results to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration. So I don't want the record to reflect that they were working under our direction. MR. COMEAU: But Mr. Kant, we have spent a great deal of time in meetings explaining and reviewing our methodology that we're going to be moving forward with, upon which there was no objections. In fact, a lot of our methodology and changes were changed based on direction that we received from you. Although you didn't give direct direction, you did give guidance of what we were trying to accomplish. So with that, we appreciate -- MR. KANT: I don't see this as the forum to debate that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. Mr. Weigel -- MR. COMEAU: But either way -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- does the ordinance say that if they -- if they prove their case that they are entitled to or that it's -- or that the board may or the board shall? MR. WEIGEL: No, the board -- the board has -- always has the option of making a reasonable consideration based on presentation before it. There's nothing that mandates the board to reach a determination, other than it wishes to, you know, through its own consideration, deliberations. The facts on the record may lend itself to a further review in another forum at a later date; that's what it boils down to. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any further speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, we do. They may or may not -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I got a couple other questions. I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, all right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Pete, you said something about crediting; if this went through, you want a credit against future projects. Can you explain to me what you meant there? MR. COMEAU: As we pull down future building permits, one of the things that I am familiar with is Collier County's, you know, issues with cash in reference to the impact -- although the reserve fund has the monies available for direct cash reimbursement, we'd be looking, as we pull down building permits at Naples Heritage or other building permits within Collier County, we'd be able to take those credits and apply it those permits at that time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How would that work with your customer? I'm just thinking of the guy who's already built at Naples Heritage and paid one fee. Does that mean that he's then subsidizing your next project? MR. COMEAU: No. Basically, as it stands now, the impact fees, there is no mechanism internally to rebate this directly to our customer, you know, so this is based on the road impact fees that U.S. Home has paid out and improvements that we've already made. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So if I were to buy a home there, I assume that when somebody sits down and goes through the prices with me, they're going to explain to me that some of that cost is impact fees. MR. COMEAU: That is correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But if impact fees are lowered, then there's no credit back to the customer, that's just extra profit you guys will get. MR. COMEAU: It's not necessarily profit, it's actually layout for costs of developing the community. As you've gone forward and have awarded your -- for your public works, for all the requirements for constructing and completing infrastructure, so too do we as developers need to do the same. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not already built into the cost? MR. COMEAU: It's built in as part of all costs, but also, if you owed impact fees, it would overlap into the road network system within the county. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It just seems to me if I were a consumer and I purchased a home and I was told a particular charge was for a particular thing, and that thing was refunded to my builder and they kept that money and I never saw it, I'd be a little miffed. I'd feel like I was misled and I'd feel like I hadn't been treated appropriately as far as -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: For what it's worth, Tim, when I used to have a practice and represent developers, it was a separate line even on a closing statement -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- that we would collect that impact fee reimbursement. You didn't do it that way? MR. COMEAU: We have that option. We can reimburse them. I mean, there is no, you know, set in stone. I was trying to get past the first obstacle of seeing if we could get this approved. And that's why we felt that based on, you know, the time, money, the three years we've spent in studying this, based on the characteristics of the community, that we needed to move forward and bring it to a head and bring it to closure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I appreciate that. But it seems to me that would be a key component of the whole thing. If I were operating a business, I would have some concern about my consumer -- MR. COMEAU: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- rather than say, well, we'll figure that out afterwards. It seems -- MR. COMEAU: Well, like I say -- I mean -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- like an inappropriate approach. MR. COMEAU: Well, the bottom line is the way it was anticipated is that these impact fees would be applied in the future permits as being applied so they benefit the overall customer base -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So in essence -- MR. COMEAU: -- for U.S. Homes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So in essence the person who bought six months ago will be subsidizing U.S. Home's next development? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Public speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have two speakers. Richard Barr, and Dina Ramadan. MR. BARR: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Richard Bart with Kimley-Horn and Associates, also Dina Ramadan of Kimley-Horn. We appreciate the opportunity to come before you this morning to provide additional information on behalf of our client, U.S. Home and Naples Heritage. We've been in close contact with Mr. Kant and staff throughout our study, and we appreciate Mr. Kant's comments and -- comments and being available during our study. As described by Mr. Kant, and according to the ordinance, an alternative impact fee study can be accomplished to allow changes to what is outlined in the ordinance, to provide travel characteristics different than what is assumed in the analysis in which the ordinance is based. The ordinance is based on generalized national averages; for this instance, on single family and multi-family characteristics. What we have here for Naples Heritage, we have a golf course community with on-site recreation and social amenities. It is different than the national averages. The var -- according to the ordinance, the variables to study -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm terribly sorry to interrupt, but Mr. Kant, do we use -- does Collier County just use national averages, or did we do our own study to form our impact fees? MR. KANT: We're -- for road impact fees, we are governed by ordinance 92-22, which references the rate table in the appendix and which references the ITE trip generation manual. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which is a national average or a local -- locally developed number? MR. KANT: Our ordinance is an amalgam of a number of those. Typically, if something's not addressed in the ordinance, we have to go back to the next best thing, which would be ITE, and then if it's not addressed in that, we would have to go back to a site specific for review. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is ITE a national average, or something other than that? MR. KANT: For the most part, I would say those are national averages, yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And one -- I'm just going to go ahead and tell you that even though I -- here's -- I'm going to tell you my bottom line. My bottom line is I am very persuaded and, you know, have heartburn over saying no if your numbers are your numbers and they're hard good numbers and nobody disputes them, because fair is fair. Nevertheless, here's what I think is the fundamental flaw, and that is that these averages, be they national or whatever, have been developed over a history of years and years and years, and your numbers have been developed over three years. And what we can't see, what we haven't factored into your numbers, is the long-term future. We even know what's happened to Countryside in the last -- what would it be -- 10 years or something, but we don't know 50 years or whatever the life of road networks is. We can't factor that in in your specific numbers, and that's what I think is wrong with our alternative, that it doesn't allow for that long perspective that a national average does. MR. BARR: Also, those national averages of communities factor in those communities that do not have the golf course community on-site recreation, besides the clubhouse, restaurant on site. According to the ordinance, the variables -- trip variables to study as far as -- as part of this impact fee calculation, alternative calculation, are trip generation and trip length. And Dina will give you more details of our study. MS. RAMADAN: Good morning. My name is Dina Ramadan, I'm with Kimley-Horn and Associates. First of all, I want to thank you-all for allowing us to -- the opportunity to explain our study. I wanted to address your question, Ms. Mac'Kie, about the ITE. There are updates continuously to make sure that those rates and ITE are accurate and up to date. So they -- you know, the sixth edition just came out in 1987, and it's based on, you know, studies. And they try to do it a little bit more accurately. They're basically doing on a much larger scale what we've done for Naples Heritage. So to answer your question, although the ITE is industry standard, we feel that Naples Heritage has very specific characteristics, and we are trying to, I guess, quantify based on, you know, trip characteristics that we've measured out at the other similar sites in order to apply them to Naples Heritage. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Now, how long -- for example, how long has data been kept for ITE? How long have they been producing that number? Twenty, 30, 50 years, more than that? MS. RAMADAN: It's an ongoing basis. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that's the point -- that's my point, unless I'm misunderstanding something, that that number therefore has more historical perspective reliability than a three-year study using the same kinds of formula. MS. RAMADAN: Right. But the one difference there is that those studies in ITE are general; they cover many residential communities throughout the United States. We all know that Florida is very different, we know that the demographics are very different. And one thing that we discovered in our study was that the work trips just aren't there. And those are the ones that add to the trip length, and those are the ones that, you know, have a significant impact on the roadway system. And, you know, ITE, although yes, industry standard and accepted everywhere, when we can get more specific and hone in on the characteristics of, you know, some -- a residential community such as Naples Heritage, I think we are producing more accurate results and more specific results for that particular residential community. And that's really just our aim here is to -- is to, you know, accurately identify the average trip length and the trip generation rate for Naples Heritage. And we've done so -- I'm going to get a little technical. But -- is this okay that it's facing this way and not -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. You will need the handheld microphone that's right on this wall here. MS. RAMADAN: Okay. We studied -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it on? MS. RAMADAN: Testing. We studied three similar residential communities in the area. We studied Highland Woods, which Mr. Comeau had mentioned, as well as Cross Creek. And as you can see, these are located in southern Lee County, having very similar characteristics to Naples Heritage. They're located on relatively busy roadways, very close to activity centers, shopping centers, shopping plazas. Our third site that we studied is Countryside, which is located right over here between Radio Road and Davis Road, in Collier County. And as you can see, it's just down the street from Naples Heritage, so we can expect that the traffic -- the trip patterns or the traffic patterns would be very similar to what Naples Heritage can -- or will encounter once it's in full build-out. We've also shown here the activity centers. Those are commercial activity centers where there are shopping centers and such. And in our study, we actually did recognize, you know, looking at our analysis, that a lot of the trips are, you know, from Countryside to this activity center here. And we looked ahead to see where there would be more planned commercial activity centers, and these areas here, Westport Commercial Center, Tollgate Commercial Center and 951 Commercial Center are all planned for -- or zoned for commercial. So what will happen is we'll see the same trend happen for Naples Heritage, that, you know, many of the residents will, you know, be coming to shop here right down the road. And that has a very big bearing on the trip length. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Question for you. MS. RAMADAN: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: At the intersection of Davis and Santa Barbara, which facilities is it they're using? MS. P~AMADAN: Davis and -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Where -- MS. RAMADAN: Right here? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There you go, that activity center you're pointing out there. MS. RAMADAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You said a lot of the activity is -- or a lot of traffic is going to that activity center. MS. RAMADAN: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Which facilities do you find them using the most there? MS. RAMADAN: Publix. Publix and all the other -- I think there's a -- I'm not sure if there's a drug store at that location. But we had a lot of them going to that location there. I know it's a strip mall. MR. BARR: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Because actually Publix and the Winn Dixie plaza and all that are at the intersection to the north of that at Radio and Santa Barbara. So -- MR. BARR: Plus Kings Lake -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. MR. BARR: -- on Davis. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point being the trips aren't generated to the orange block area there, because that's not developed yet. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There's nothing there. MS. RAM3%/D~: Oh, are these then -- MR. BARR: Yeah, it's the -- MS. RAMADAN: Are these the planned developments? MR. BARR: Those are planned future developments, right. And then the Kings Lake that's existing -- the development there, there were quite a few trips to and from there, from the Countryside development. MS. RAMADAN: Right, we had residents visiting, you know, friends at other communities as well. That was -- that was a high trend as well. I apologize, I had my location wrong. I knew it was -- they were going to a Publix at the corner there, and I guess it's this one here. So basically, you know, we foresee that the trip patterns will be the same because of the location and the general trends being the same at all three sites, as well as at Naples Heritage. One other thing -- and I know that Mr. Comeau had touched on -- are the demographics. Because of the fact that the work trips are not there, as we discussed earlier, you know, the trips tend to be much shorter, more recreational, and our surveys indicated that approximately 40 percent for all three sites are shopping based trips; the other like 20 percent are recreational, and a mere 10 percent are work related. So I think that has a great bearing on the result of what will be on the roadway and impact the roadway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Have you done other studies like this? MS. RA/~ADAN: Yes, we have done numerous studies. We have done them in Lee County and Sarasota County. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Do your studies find that when you do have the people who are making the working trips for employment -- like I will come in a similar route to that -- MS. RAMADAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to get to this complex, that all is part of the same trip? I will take advantage of my shopping -- I mean, I don't go home and change and then drive back to Publix again; I go by Publix on my way home so I stop, so it's all in one trip. Regardless of whether I'm coming to work or going shopping, it still only generates one trip. And I'm wondering then what the difference there is if they're going out shopping but they're not going to work -- I've got to put my dad to work, I suess -- they're still only generating one trip. And what are we seeing as a differential there? How is that different? MS. RAP[ADA_N: I'm not sure I understand the question. You're saying that they will make one trip? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, it sounded like your point was they don't work, so they make fewer trips. MS. RAMADAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: My point is, when I come to work, I go to the store on the way home, I don't make an extra trip to go to the store. So whether they go to the store or go to work and happen to stop at the store on the way home -- MS. RAMADAN: Actually -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it's still one trip. MS. RAMADAN: I understand. Actually, my point is that because they don't go to work, or they don't generate those work trips, they will tend to make shorter trips, not fewer trips. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: In your demographic studies of this particular development, explain to us how that's different than any other similar development in Collier County, or Lee County, for that matter. MS. RAMADAN: Well, if they're similar developments that have the golf course and, you know, the high percentage of retirees, there is no difference. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you. MS. RAMADAN: The only difference is that we have opted to do what the ordinance allows us to do, which is study these sites and come up with an alternative impact fee. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MS. RAMADAN: The surveys that we conducted -- I'll show you the results of the surveys here. We conducted at Countryside 1,485 surveys, 1,485 surveys. We stood at both entrances to the development, we stopped people in their cars, and we asked them where are you going, what are you going to do there? I mean, we did an extensive study -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did they get scared when you asked them? MS. RAMADAN: A lot of people almost ran me over. But, you know, in general, they were very interested in knowing why we were doing it. And, you know, it's basically data collection and statistical information. And, you know, the higher number of surveys that you have, the better and more accurate the statistical data is in any field, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What time of -- what month of the year were you conducting these? MS. R3~MADAN: This was in March, the high season. I don't think that we could have gotten that many surveys if we were not in the high season. At Highland Woods we collected 400 and at Cross Creek 500. And that's a total of -- whoops, I'm out. (At which time, the sound system was temporarily disrupted.) COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's on. MS. RAMADAN: Oh, there we go. Okay. Where was I? Thank you. The total number of surveys that we collected was 2,500, and -- you know, with that kind of data. And we mapped out every single data point on a map and measured the distances. And that's how we came up with our trip lengths. And, in fact, you can see how similar they are. You know, we have Countryside and Cross Creek which ended up at exactly to the hundredth of a decimal in miles. Of course, these are averaged, at 2.67 miles. And the average of all three was 2.62 miles. And -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the statistical basis? I mean, how do you -- you know, if you're going to do a poll, there's a statistical basis for the polling. Is there a statistical basis for your study, or is it just whoever happened to be driving that day you were standing out there? How do you know you got -- MR. FERNANDEZ: A random sample. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- a random sample? Thank you, that's the word I was looking for. MS. RAMADAN: Well, we surveyed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on a weekday, and we figured everyone who's included in that -- I mean, that's -- that's a broad range of people, a broad range of trips. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, that comes back to my point, though, about the ITE being more reliable because of not only the historical, but the -- MS. RAMADAN: But they do the same thing to come up with their numbers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me express my concern, is Countryside only has about 700 and something homes in it. So by getting almost 1,500 surveys, statistically you're talking to the same people twice. MS. RAMADAN: Yes. Because everything is based on trip ends. Everything in the industry is based on trip ends. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. But if I'm doing a survey and I like the statistics I'm getting, I ask the same guy the same question, and it pads my survey. I mean, if you're talking statistically, if you're talking to the same person more than once, then it isn't really helping us see whether the broad range is accurate or not. If I ask you what your favorite color is three different times, I'm going to get the same answer every time and I'm going to say well, three out of three times I heard it was blue. MS. RAMADAN: But if you get the person going in and the person going out, if we just divide that by two and take 750 surveys, we'll still end up with the same average trip length. It's just -- it's just the number of trips. I mean -- and they are trip ends that we're required -- you know, as traffic engineers, we're required to look at trip ends, and I guess we could have looked at one way trips only, you know, only exiting or only entering. And the point that you raised that if I like what they're saying, I mean, we're -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm not suggesting that you initially do that -- MS. RAMADAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I'm just saying from a statistical standpoint, we've doubled up everybody there, and I'm not sure that that's helpful to then say well, we talked to 1,500 people, because there's only 700 and something that live in there. Peter probably knows better than I do what the number is. But -- MS. RAMADAN: But if it's 750 surveys, it's still a significant number. And, you know, we're basing -- I mean, we're really basing our numbers on what people were telling us, you know? I mean, there's -- there's no other way to go. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Did you say you got them leaving the area and then coming back in? MS. ~DAN: We -- we stood at all enter and exit points and surveyed them. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So conceivably, if I left Countryside and went to Publix, I would tell you that. MS. RAMADAN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And when I came back, I'd say that I was coming from Publix back to Countryside? MS. RAMADAN: Yes. But you could have gone from Publix to whatever, to visit your friend at the next development, and so your trip purpose has changed and you've gone out of your route. I mean, it -- that's just getting technical, but -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. MS. RAMADAN: -- we wanted to make sure that we just did it correctly, and that's the way to do it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: With all due respect about the trying to avoid being technical with this, I don't get it. I don't see -- I mean, I'm not persuaded that there's strong science or engineering data. I mean, it just sounds like we asked some people -- you know. MR. BARR: Excuse me, one other point. That was for trip length. We did the stopping people on the roadway for the trip length. For the trip generation rate, we did a week's worth of counts. We put the hoses across the road and got a -- at all three developments and got a full week of counts at those locations. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can we forward that? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah, I think we've -- excuse me, but your time is up -- MS. RAMADAN: Okay. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- okay? MS. RAMADAN: I just want to make sure that I answer -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. MS. RAMADAN: -- all the questions and concerns. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think everybody has heard at this point in time perhaps what they need to know, unless they have further questions. Okay, thank you. MS. RAMADAN: Well, we respectfully request that this trip length be used in our analysis. And thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No other speakers? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any other speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers, all right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, I appreciate the efforts of the petitioner and the fine work that the people did on the survey; however, I'm not persuaded by any of that, that this development ms any different than any other development that's fairly similar in nature out along that corridor. And, therefore, I'll make a motion to deny an alternate road impact fee. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to second it for a couple of different reasons. One, each of the speakers -- while there are many unique characteristics or many unique characteristics (sic), but I only heard one or two, and frankly, they didn't seem that unique to me. But I didn't hear any detail, I didn't hear any substance that differentiated it really from -- and we asked that question specifically of our staff, and they couldn't answer it. And maybe now I know why. Because really, to my satisfaction, anyway, the petitioner didn't answer it either. The summary we have in our packet is fairly brief, and so -- Commissioner Mac'Kie's final comment there was gee, I know you said you didn't want to get technical but we need -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Something. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- something more to substantiate it. And the information provided as part of this public hearing, anyway, really didn't do that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That seems rather anecdotal, really, but -- MS. RAMADAN: Can I reply or -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Time's up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, any further comments or COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'm ready to vote. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries four-zero. I think at this time -- MR. KANT: Thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you, Mr. Kant. We're going to take about a five to nine-minute break and we'll be back. (Brief recess.) Item #8B2 EMERGENCY APPROVAL OF $6,400 TO PAY FOR MATERIALS TO INSTALL 400 FEET OF CULVERT EXTENDING UNDER THE ACCESS ROAD TO SAWGRASS SUBDIVISION TO RECONNECT THE EXISTING DITCH - APPROVED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we will reconvene the meeting. Item 8(B) (2), emergency approval of $6,400 to pay for materials to install 400 linear feet of culvert. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Do we have any speakers on this subject? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Any further questions? If not, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, no, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, really, thank you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Let's go. Come on. Item #10A RESOLUTION 98-108 APPOINTING WILLIAM SHAFER TO THE HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Item 10(A), appointment of member to the Health Planning Council. I believe we have a recommendation from the committee on this one. Committee recommendation is William Shafer. This is for a person who is in the consumer category, I believe, for serving on this committee. And they have recommended Mr. Shafer. Though they have other people that have applied, the other people, two of them, are health care providers. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve recommendation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve William Shafer as the appointee to the Health Planning Council of Southwest Florida, Inc. Do you have any speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If not, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item ~10B RESOLUTION 98-109 APPOINTING ROBERT BENNETT TO THE UTILITY AUTHORITY - ADOPTED Next item is appointment of member to the Utility -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Only having one applicant, I'll suggest we appoint Robert C. Bennett. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is that the president's attorney? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, that was his brother, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve Robert C. Bennett for reappointment to the Utility Authority. Any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If not, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Item #lOC RESOLUTION 98-110 APPOINTING SANDRA BUXTON TO THE HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, on item 10(C) we have one applicant, one vacancy. I'll move approval of Sandra Buxton. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the application of Sandra Buxton to the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board. Any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: If not, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) Item #IOD CHAIRMAN TO SEND A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF A CUSTOMS OFFICER WITHIN THE AREA REGARDING A FREE TRADE ZONE CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. That brings us to the public comment -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The customs office. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry, the customs office. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: As you know, a couple of years ago, the Lee County Airport -- the International Airport got a -- Southwest Florida International got a designation for foreign trade zone, and we at the Immokalee Airport got a part of that. One of the things we've been working toward is the port of entry status, which means the federal government pays for a customs agent to actually handle the items that may come in through the foreign trade zone. It's a great economic development tool. If -- when we went through our paces with the customs service, they really made it different. Eventually they did agree to one in Lee County. What we had asked for originally was all five counties in Southwest Florida. They had compromised and agreed to Lee, Charlotte and Collier. Unfortunately, when it came back out of the federal register, it only had Lee. So Representative Goss has sent a letter off, but I'm asking if our board could just send a letter off, too, asking them to correct that and make sure that Collier's a part of that. For an economic development incentive for someone doing business at the Immokalee Airport, this is a big dollar item. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a big deal. I don't know if you need a motion. If you do -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move giving direction to the chairman to authorize and sign a letter to that effect. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to formulate a letter in support of a customs officer. And this will be at the Immokalee Airport? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, they actually wouldn't spend their days there, but they would -- if we have a business there, it will be part of the Southwest Florida network, as opposed to having to pay a special charge to bring someone in from Tampa or Miami. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Wonderful. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Which they wouldn't have to pay in Lee, but would -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- now have to pay in Collier, the way it currently is. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Ail in Motion carries five-zero. Item #liB PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS - JACK POINTER, TY AGOSTON AND MARY DUNAVAN Now we are to the public comment on general topics. Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, we have two speakers from this category. I'm sorry, three. The first is Jack Pointer and then Ty Agoston. MR. POINTER: Good morning, commissioners. My name is Jack Pointer, I live in Willoughby Acres and I'm speaking for Willoughby Acres this morning. In 1992, after many years, Willoughby Acres had in its main roads, Euclid and Lakeland, four great big ditches alongside of them open. And we had worked for many years and finally that year with the county succeeded in closing them and putting in drainage pipes and so forth so they worked fine. That was completed in May of 1992. On or about the 26th of June of 1992, Willoughby Acres experienced about 17 inches of rain in less than 24 hours. At that particular time, the county and a representative of the county and myself went around and we were walking in water anywhere from six inches to a foot deep. The drainage system was not designed for 17 inches of rain in that period of time, and we didn't expect it to be. Most of the roads, if not all of them, were under water. Pictures exist about it. However, within a period of about one hour after the time that the rain subsided, all of the roads were open and passable because the drainage system did work in that particular respect. On the northwest corner of Willoughby Acres, the houses that are in that location did not drain into this drainage system that was put in. It just drained off to the north and to the west, over to Palm River, in general. Between Palm River and Willoughby, there is a drainage ditch. That drainage ditch, under those conditions that I just expressed to you, was plumb full, flowing on down to the Cocohatchee Canal in great quantities of water. Just splashing out over, as was everything coming onto Willoughby Acres. And that happens from time to time in that particular area. Two years later, 1994, a subdivision called Falcon Crest was allowed to be installed or put to the northwest of Willoughby Acres. The houses on Erie Drive, northwest part, are under water all the time whenever we have major rains, as far as the -- their backyards are concerned. In the year 1995, when we had approximately 100 inches of rain in Bonita Springs and in Willoughby Acres, those houses were -- had water in their backyard, right up to the back porch for a period of two months. And they had some real problems. Now a subdivision has been authorized called Sawgrass, which comes from -- it comes from Palm River and comes into Willoughby Acres and butts two cul-de-sacs back-to-back. The particular ditch between Palm River and Willoughby Acres was allowed to be closed and not have any water getting onto that area at all. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jack, I'm sorry to interrupt but are you aware of the action the board took today on that pipe? MR. POINTER: Yes, sir, I just heard it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. POINTER: I'm aware. That particular closing of the ditch is going to cause the water in the several houses on Erie Drive to actually come into the house. And the representative -- or the people that live in those houses are most concerned about that and do not feel that we're really going to accomplish anything by putting in this pipe that we just allowed a few minutes ago. However, it's done that way, and the reason that the thing was closed was because the Planning Commission allowed the builder -- or allowed the developer to close that ditch. Put dirt in the thing. The county now, just a few minutes ago, has rescued the developer at our expenses as taxpayers and going to put a duct in there in order to allow the water to run both directions. It will take place only when there's a lot of rain, but it could take place on a year that we've got rains that continue month after month. The problem that we've got is that the Planning Commission, for one reason or another, was able to close that ditch and allow the developer to do that. The county then had to come and -- come up with a solution. And you just came up with a solution. And it cost the taxpayers some money. The particular road is the westward extension of Kirtland. It is supposed to have sidewalks on two sides. The developer does not want any sidewalks, and so he went before the Planning Commission and said I don't want to have a sidewalk. He does not -- it is not required that he have a sidewalk, it's only if he doesn't want to. He can say I don't want it, and if he can talk the majority of the Planning Commission into saying I don't have to have it, fine and dandy. He said I don't want it and they did not put the sidewalks in, only on one side. The other thing is that the back-to-back road of Kirtland and this Sawgrass have two cul-de-sacs back-to-back. To go 50 feet from one person to another, you have to drive a mile to go around it. This cannot be allowed to be happening. We try to keep our people from flooding out, we try to watch what's going on, and it's my fault that I didn't watch it for Willoughby Acres, and these people got caught in it. Commissioner Hancock had to come and solve the problem and use taxpayers' money in order to do it. We have got to tighten up those ordinances in such a manner that they don't happen this way again. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Jack, you and I need to sit down, because some of the information you just stated is directly opposed to what I've been provided. Those two cul-de-sacs are not back-to-back. They're intervening lots that are under the ownership of private property owners. MR. POINTER: For all practical purposes they're back-to-back. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. And every time we've tried to connect a road -- any two roads in Willoughby, we hear don't connect them, leave us alone. So, you know, I mean, there are some conflicts there. The other thing you said about rescuing the developer, we don't use tax dollars to rescue developers. What this was done was this is a partnership using their equipment, their design, and we simply paid for the pipe to try and relieve a situation for the residents of Palm River and Willoughby Acres that could have been initiated earlier. But the other part of this is the downstream improvements to that ditch, which have not been happening. We're going to get in and clean the downstream improvements to increase the flow and the ability for water to flow in those regular rainfalls. So I'd love to sit down and talk to you about it, rather than using this forum at length. Because Iothink there are some things there that we can achieve and some things we're going to be doing that will help both Willoughby and Palm River. So we've got some things in the works. MR. POINTER: Palm River argued and fought this thing out and I didn't know about it, and that's my fault. I should have been talking with Gene Belt, the president over there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, you're supposed to be everywhere at all times, Jack. MR. POINTER: I know. And it was my fault. However, as a result of the thing, it turns out that most of this particular subdivision is in the district that Willoughby Acres is in, not in the district that Palm River is in. So thank you very much. MR. FERNANDEZ: Ty Agoston. And then Mary Dunavan. MR. AGOSTON: Morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Ty Agoston. I live in Golden Gate Estates, and I'm speaking for myself. I'd like to address two issues today: One in regards to the ADG membership. Last week I spoke about it and occasionally my message gets lost in the translation. The fact I was trying to make is that liberals and active environmentalists control the ADG group. And I could read them off to you, I'm not going to take the time. This is a newspaper article listing who's on it. And this is certainly not representative of the county population in general, or even the population of Florida. The next issue I'd like to cover is the term sustainability. I have heard last week a ~roclamation honoring the Collier County government and mention in passing sustainability. Today I walked in and I'm looking at a little piece of county news, and they also mention that the Collier County Natural Resources Department committed to an efficient and sustainable use of our natural resources. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure me, with most of you, have lost a ton of money yesterday on the stock market. And if any of you are smart enough to be able to say just exactly what is sustainable 10, 20 years down the road, I'd like to invest with you, because I'm sure that your judgment is substantially superior to mine. The entire sustainable community's idea camp originates from the United Nations, but our iljustrious president have (sic) instituted a little group called President's Council on Sustainable Development. It works through your tax dollars, and it promotes Socialism. I get kind of a tolerance smile on part of most people when I mention the term Socialism. And what I might suggest is that you don't smile. Today there is a Communist Premier in France, France is again talking about redistributing. And the only thing that saves them is that they have a conservative president, and the president has somewhat more power than the prime minister. Socialism, per se, is beginning to be an accepted word. And if I may, I'd like to read some of the things that is in the publications that you can get -- by the way, this time I brought you the 800 number. You can obtain all the publications on Sustainable America at 1-800-363-3732, which is not -- part of the Energy Department. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is this going to relate back to county business at some point, Ty? MR. AGOSTON: Yes, Mr. -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Constantine. MR. AGOSTON: -- Constantine. You are using it over here, sir. This -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, let me -- MR. AGOSTON: -- my tax dollars -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- make a suggestion to you, Ty. MR. AGOSTON: -- contributed to it. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me make a suggestion -- MR. AGOSTON: Last week -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine. Finish your five minutes. MR. AGOSTON: Mr. Constantine, with due respect, you get paid to listen to your constituents. (Commissioner Constantine exited the boardroom.) MR. AGOSTON: The membership of Sustainable America, somewhat similar to sustainable communities in Southwest Florida, and somewhat similar to the ADG group, contains a proactive environmentalist. In their "we believe" statement, under number 11, United States should have policies and programs to contribute to stabilize global human population or to legitimize -- thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mary Dunavan. MS. DUNAVAN: I have -- I'm Mary Dunavan. And thank you, Commissioners, for the time. And I will carry on for Ty, because he's telling you what's going on. And we have sustainable books, public linkage, dialogue and education task force. These are President's Council on Sustainable Development. And we can bring this down to our county and we can even take it to the ADG group through sustainable South Florida. The ADG group, with the Army Corps, has swayed and swayed this sustainable South Florida. And they are running the Army Corps' business on their meetings there. And if you'd like to meet with us to find out further what's going on, we'd be glad to meet with you. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers? Item #12B1 ORDINANCE 98-31 RE PETITION NO. PUD-86-22(1), DR. NENO J. SPAGNA REPRESENTING PETER AND MARK LONGO, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" TO COMPLY WITH THE SUNSETTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDC AND TO REFORMAT THE ORIGINAL PINE RIDGE CENTER PUD LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE PINE RIDGE ROAD (CR-896) AND 1-75 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Ail right, we're now to the public hearing section of our agenda. Item 12(B) (1) is a petition requesting a rezone from a PUD to a PUD. This is PUD-86-22(1). MR. MILK: Good morning, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Good morning, Mr. Milk. MR. MILK: For the record, my name is Bryan Milk, and I am going to present two petitions to you. Petition PUD-86-22, Pine Ridge Center PUD, and also petition PUD-88-11, Pine Ridge Center West PUD. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Could I ask the court reporter to swear in all the people who are going to speak to this particular item, please. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, and could I ask any commissioners if you have anything to disclose on this item, please? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I. Please proceed, Mr. Milk. I'm -- MR. MILK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- sorry to have had to interrupt you. MR. MILK: These petitions represent planned unit developments that were rezoned approximately 10 to 12 years ago that are subject to the sunsetting requirements of the Land Development Code and have come forward in the format of a brand new PUD, which now represents the new style and development commitments that we typically look at and review for all new projects in Collier County. What's unique about the Pine Ridge Center and Pine Ridge Center West PUD's are that they are similar in content and similar in design to the projects that we have approved directly across the street in the Gateway, Angileri and Cleason PUD's. These owners have gotten together with staff and have made modifications to the document. They've reduced the overall height from 50 feet to 40 feet. They've acknowledged the architectural and site guidelines of Collier County. They've prohibited pole signs on the projects. The one unique aspect about this is that they requested for the self-storage and mini warehouses on the properties, either independently or as a total group. They provided for a frontage road that bisects each of the property boundaries for common access north/south from Pine Ridge Road. They've acknowledged the development commitments for the right and left turn lanes, any geometry improvements to Pine Ridge Road. They've given the required right-of-way for the six laning of Pine Ridge Road. And we've also taken the list of permitted principal uses and identified those as SIC codes. The Planning Commission -- or the public heard both public petitions on April 2nd. By a vote of 8 to zero they recommended approval. I have received no letters of objection from any contiguous property owners. I'd like to answer any questions if I can at this time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Couple of questions. The Pine Ridge exit of 1-75, would it be fair to consider that as the primary gateway to our community? Carries more traffic than any other entryway? MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you tell me why we would want to add the additional use, which up to now hasn't been allowed, of storage facilities and general warehouse? That just doesn't seem compatible with what we want to have for the welcome for the number one gateway into our community. MR. MILK: Well, the -- there's one restriction that staff had identified, and that is the warehouse itself or the storage facility be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the right-of-way of Pine Ridge Road, in thoughts that if there was a business or some type of professional office that was to establish in the front, that that would in fact hide the structure, if you may, from the public's eye in passerby traffic. So that was a requirement for the setback. Also, there's been conversations with staff in that these new mini warehouses and storage units are typically air conditioned, they're designed today for a new market, and that these architectural guidelines make these units look more accommodating to those features that we're looking for in these corridors. So because of the less intensification that it would provide via a hotel/motel or a retail user, with the guidelines, with the setbacks and with the landscaping, it was staff's opinion that the lesser traffic volumes generated the setbacks, the architectural design guidelines, the height restrictions, that this could be a use that was allowable in this corridor, yet set back somewhat from the -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How far is the setback for any of the other uses? MR. MILK: Twenty-five feet. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay. MR. MILK: And that's typical across the street also. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think I have something to add on that one. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Sure, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I understand what you're trying to do with the 200 foot setback. The problem is, if they put all of their parking in front of it, we're going to end up with a storage facing the roadway. Because when you start putting in -- if you do double rowed parking or double loaded parking, you know, you're already to some -- you know, in excess of 60 feet. So all -- MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So my concern is that if we're going to add it as a use, I want to see it in the rear two-thirds of the property. Because 200 feet could probably still get it located very near the front, particularly if they execute a shared parking agreement for an adjacent use. So what you're trying to do I think is the right thing, but I don't think we went quite far enough, and we probably -- the petitioner may have some solutions on that, too, but I'd just like to pull it back a little more so that something else is the visual identifying mark of this project. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we go ahead and add it, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I'm questioning whether or not it's an appropriate use, whether it's compatible with the other uses that are on that stretch, whether it's compatible with being the gateway to the community. Visible or not, it sets a pattern. If you have that use, whether it's in the front of the property, back of the property or otherwise, it sets a specific tone for how you're using that property. I would much rather have -- while I might change the colors a little bit, I would much rather than have the Comfort Inn and some of the restaurants and other things that are appearing along there as the entryway -- they're an attractive entryway -- than the coming and going of a transient use such as storage facilities. So, I mean, if you're so inclined to put it in, I would hope you do exactly what you laid out. But I would ask you not to include that as part of it. It just doesn't seem like it's compatible with everything else that's there, and certainly not compatible with the primary gateway to our community. MR. MILK: And the -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And my thought is to -- if I may real quick, Bryan. My thought is to -- if we do include it, we include it because there are other uses that may not be in any way, shape or form appropriate at that location that we want to take a look at. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's -- what I wish we would do is -- is -- I understand that you've done exactly what we asked you to do and that was to attach the SIT codes -- SIC codes to these uses and that kind of stuff, but as usual, I'd like to look at what those uses are in particular and -- and determine whether or not they're appropriate at the gateway to our community. Because not only do I think that -- that storage ms not a good idea, I don't want to get into another gasoline alley situation up here. I want to talk about what that's going to look like. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, that was my follow-up question. I know our staff had been looking at some of the alternatives or what we can and can't do there as far as gas. I know these guys had that in there before, but is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, they had it -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- there anything we can do with that issue? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think it's real important to note -- and, I mean, county attorney will tell you this instead of me -- but when we have a sunset provision in the ordinance, they don't have a zoning right that's hard and concrete that they, you know, have to be compensated for if it's taken away. That's the point of the sunset. So just keep that in mind. Sorry. MR. MILK: I can answer Commissioner's questions about the gas stations. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. MR. MILK: There's one thing that's happening currently, and that's with this cycle of the Land Development Code amendment. We are looking at the gasoline service stations, and that provision in the Land Development Code, there is a provision under the section of the code for gasoline service stations, what are all the accessory uses that are allowed, what you can and can't do, and we've attempted to tighten that restriction up. We've looked at canopies, we looked at the colors, we looked at the setbacks, we've looked at landscaping, we've looked at the signage, and we looked at the distance location between service stations. So we've attempted to take your concerns as a board and fine tune that situation in the Land Development Code that calls out for service stations, and that was why under the permitted uses for gasoline service stations it says it shall comply with the Land Development Code with expectations of that -- some provisions of that amendment would be approved by this board, that if a service station were to be approved there, it would have to meet those criteria set forth in this COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's good, but my -- my -- is there interest in the rest of the board in going down pages six and seven and talking about what these SIC code uses are and whether or not they're what we want -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Absolutely. If I can follow up on the gasoline item for a minute -- and I do think that is a good idea -- is my -- my concern is in -- I think it was June of 1996 is when the Angileri PUD first came before us -- MR. MILK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and we had a big debate. By September, we had the conversation that led to staff doing that. And now we're 18 months later and they're saying well, we may make the Land Development Code changes. And when does that come to us, next fall? And so it's been two years and how many PUD's have gone through in the meantime? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's so frustrating. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And I understand you're doing within the confines of what you're allowed to do, and we only do it every six months anyway, but I'm wonderin$ what -- is there a way to address it in the meantime? Because this is -- here are two more items before us that we have to consider before that change ever gets made. And by the time the change gets made, it may be moot on this particular corridor. It may help elsewhere, but it appears it will be moot on what is the number one gateway to our community. MR. MILK: All right. And to answer your question, in May and June is this cycle of the Land Development Code amendment cycle, so you'll see it in the next month and a half for the provisions relating to the gasoline service stations. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That answers part of the question, but really, it doesn't answer the question about why does it take two years. And maybe that's another discussion. But it's frustration. MR. MILK: And I'll help answer that. I think that we first looked at the activity center concept, and then we looked at the overall perspective of service stations and how they are distributed in Collier County, and that's why we went after the gasoline service station section in the Land Development Code so it would in fact incorporate everything and not just specific areas. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. MILK: I think there was some thought pattern back and forth on that. And Commissioner, in regards to your comments about shared access and shared parking agreements, these projects and these owners are very willing to do what they need to do, because they've incorporated the thought process that we did just across the street. They've hired Mr. Spagna to incorporate all those design criterion and unique aspects about that. And you're correct, I foresee shared parking and that sort of thing happening. That's what we were going to propose to do and conveyed, and they're willing to do that. So -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And don't get me wrong, it's -- MR. MILK: No, I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- a good thing. It's just that it would allow for a stored unit -- MR. MILK: It could work possibly against the grain and -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on that use. And that's the reason I pointed it out. Otherwise, you know, I thank Mr. Spagna for doing that. Because, I mean, kind of consolidating the two together and adopting similar standards -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's great. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- gives you a more cohesive plan of development, which is precisely what we want. MR. MILK: Those are goals. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- but I think where we're getting to now is when that plan of development is realized, what are the end physical impacts, what are the visual impacts, what are the use impacts, and are those all appropriate for this signature portion -- this signature gateway to Collier County? I think that's really where we're all heading with this. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And it takes us to, you know, page 35 of our agenda packet with auto supply stores and gasoline service stations and personal services, and videotape rentals and -- you know, I just don't know -- because we have all those dadgum (phonetic) SIC codes that we don't know what all's included under 'em. We'll have to take you and ask you -- MR. MILK: Sure. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- to take us through 'em. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: How about the ones you're not sure about? Because I -- I mean, I did read through it and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, the question is -- I agree, Tim, you're right, we don't have to go through every single one. My question, basic question -- there's some that I definitely want to talk about taking out -- my basic question is: I'd like for us to look at these PUD's as they're coming back in from sunset in such strategic points in the county as this one is, and have some real foresight as to what we would like to encourage being there, instead of just what we'll permit to be there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. MR. MILK: I think that's important because -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't really want to encourage auto supply stores there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, I look at that one and say if it's not the one facing the roadway, then its use is not noxious or offensive. So what -- the one thing this PUD doesn't do that on these corridors may be important is to designate the frontage parcels; those parcels that the motoring public sees, experiences and feels. Because when you drive down Pine Ridge Road, the old Western Auto, whatever it is now, that's just an ugly little building -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- and there's usually a car in a parking lot with a tent up as you drive by and whatnot. We can deal with the building design standards now, but that location we can't change. The same number of people go to that store if it were 200 feet back behind another building, because you go to the nearest auto parts store, period. You know. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So maybe what we need to do is change what we have here as area A and area B, and we ought to have an area C, which is some portion of the frontage. I don't know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying that some of these uses we're talking about when we talk about appropriateness, we're all picturing the visual application of those uses there. Well, that visual application only applies to the front parcels. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, and then, though, there is -- what's the zoning behind here? I mean -- MR. MILK: It's all agricultural. It's completely surrounding the properties. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the future land use call for? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Future land use. MR. MILK: Immediately west is the urban area. Pine Ridge Center West is the westernmost boundary -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm curious more about south. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just south of -- MR. MILK: South is agricultural. That is -- in other words -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Future land use. MR. MILK: -- the two PUD's in question form the southwest quadrant of that activity center. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And the property behind that is on the future land use map identified as? MR. MILK: Urban. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Urban residential. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, if you go way south, you run into Wyndemere. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So it will be between this and Wyndemere. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So while we're deciding where the more noxious ones should go, we don't want to put 'em in people's front yards, either. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I agree with you, though, there -- I mean, there are some things that are just natural as you get off the interstate, and there's a bank there, there's a restaurant there, whatever, that makes perfect sense. There are some of those -- auto supply store probably isn't going to damage the area, doesn't set a bad tone, doesn't have people loitering, doesn't have anything out of the ordinary. You go in, you pick up your spark plugs or your -- whatever you're getting and you go. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's architectural controls. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not different -- yeah. And I agree with you, if you set that in the back half, maybe, as opposed to up front. Great. There are a couple of these uses I have a problem with. General warehousing and storage just does not seem appropriate, regardless. It sets a whole different tone, it has a whole different use. And there's no need for it to be in this area. It's more -- it's better suited for an industrial area. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And gasoline stations -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about personal services? What is that group, 72317 A massage parlor? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, that's just what we need. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A licensed massage -- MR. MILK: 7231 is a beauty -- I'm sorry, it's a beauty shop. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask the petitioner a question? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Neno says he wants people to stop there and get fixed up before they come to town. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Could I ask the petitioner a question? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Petitioner? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Spagna, could I ask you a question? MR. SPAGNA: Thank you very much. For the record, I'm Neno Spagna, and I represent the two petitioners. And I've listened very attentively to everything that's been said up there, and I can't say that I disagree with you on anything. I think this probably is the gateway, and I think that there should be some extra discretion used on what can go in there. I just hope, though, that while we're working all that out that my two people who have held this land for over 10 years don't get penalized for another long span of time while we're -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. MR. SPAGNA: -- figuring all this out. I did hear some nice things that I thought were appropriate. Number one, the warehousing should be back away where it can't be seen. And the reason why it was included in the first place was because we really had a difficult time trying to determine what we would put in the back portion of the property. So I thought that was a good idea to put it back toward the back part of it. As far as the gasoline stations themselves are concerned, I guess I maybe look at it a little bit differently. If you're the motoring public and you come to the interchange, I think one of the most important things that you can have there probably is the ability to be able to pick up some gas. So I don't see that as being all that bad. They could be if they weren't designed properly. And I think the staff has taken the first step to make sure that they don't look bad by looking into the requirements for gasoline service stations. And even though they have not completed their assessment, we have agreed that we will abide by whatever requirements the board decides at the time -- or before we put the gasoline service station in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Actually, I -- Dr. Spagna, I just wanted to ask you a question. MR. SPAGNA: Ail right. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It seems like we're getting some resistance, as you've noticed, on gasoline service stations and the warehousing. I think probably this discussion could be speeded up quite a bit if we -- if we could ask you, do you have any objection to deleting those two uses? MR. SPAGNA: Well, I think -- I can't -- my client is here, but I think I would object to deleting the gasoline service station, as a permitted use per se. I would like to see it put in there subject to whatever the requirements are that you and the staff decide on. As far as the mini storage is concerned, our first choice would be to be able to put it in in the back portion, subject to landscaping or whatever is necessary to keep from defiling the appearance of the area. And if the board doesn't feel that that's proper, well then, I hope I still have a job when I leave. But I would say that if you-all in your good judgment want to take it out, that we would find that acceptable. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I actually find our ability to mitigate the impacts of the storage a little bit better than to mitigate the impacts of the gasoline service station. Because that gasoline service station, we know where it's going to go. It's going to go on the very front of the project. It's going to be the physical identifier at the front of the project. The storage, by relegating it to, say, the two-thirds rear of the property and requiring it no more than one story within 300 feet of the rear property line, we actually are tapering down a use that has very little external impacts to a future residential area. I understand, I'd prefer to see it in industrial. But if we're looking at trying to leave some value for the property owner there in a compatible manner, I'd rather see the gasoline service station go by the wayside and see us relegate the storage to the rear and look at the height near the property line as a way of coming to a solution that works for everyone. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: For me it's not simply a visual interest. And I appreciate particularly some of the work you've done on the architectural code, how we can work with some of those. But for me the warehousing just isn't a compatible use, plain and simple. And it's -- that's really where my problem lies. And not just the visual nature of it, but the use itself is not compatible with that whole corridor. And so I can't accept that. And, in fact, if Neno said they can live without it, I think it's -- MR. SPAGNA: I've always had a very high regard and respect for your judgment, so if you can convince the rest of your fellow commissioners -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you very much. MR. SPAGNA: -- we'll go for it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think one of the concerns, when we had some of this discussion, oh, possibly a year ago on the westbound, some of the PUD's that were coming in at that time, some had sunset or some were new or whatever. Anyway, I don't remember the exact information regarding those, but we did comment a lot about gasoline stations. In fact, I believe we even stated in one that we would not approve of that. And I think we need to take that into consideration. That is probably one of the big concerns that I have. I believe there's already one, is there not, in this eastbound lane? I believe? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Two. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Two? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two. MR. MILK: There's actually two built. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Two built. And I personally cannot see that there needs to be another one in that particular area. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One of the things that -- on one of those that came before us was a new PUD, was the Angileri PUD, Mr. Anderson brought forth a market study which showed what the requirement was and what the need was. And really, there was a limit to that. There's an end to how much -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- a necessity there is from a business standpoint, from a commerce standpoint. And I don't know if they'll -- maybe you-all have done that and that's included in the packet. I didn't see it. But if there's some sort of study that shows there's a need for a seventh or eighth, or whatever we're up to now, gas station, you know, maybe that helps. But I -- unless market conditions have changed since the Angileri study was done, I think we've about reached the limit. And I think that was a very valid point. It was hard to say no -- as much as I want to do it -- to theirs when they had a market study that showed the necessity there. I don't think we could show that again. I don't think we can show that. Because we've got in this whole area surrounding the 1-75 interchange, there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven I believe that are either existing or permitted right now. And correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure it's seven.. And an eighth. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Are you going all the way down to Airport? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No, I'm not. I'm just directly in this area off 1-75. MR. MILK: Where they put the activity center in. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I had hoped -- one thing that I had marked to talk about is that when you -- you know, you're trying to anticipate by saying that architecture and site design shall comply with the Collier County Development Code under gasoline service stations, but the other thing we talked about was this whole market study and what's the saturation point. And so if we left it in, the only way I'd want to leave it in is in anticipation of the fact that you guys are going to be coming back to us with an LDC amendment that's gonna also have a factor in it for market saturation so that we have some criteria that -- you know, first come, first served to get to -- you know, everybody can't have a gas station in the activity center. And there's going to be some criterion developed for that that -- as you go through the process. But frankly, the simpler thing is just to take it out. I also wanted to know what is miscellaneous retail, 5912, as opposed to, for example, drug stores, which is in 5992? And while you're looking at that, I'll just point out to the board that that number 15 I'm surprised to see in there, because that's like a relic of the old days where it says anything else -- any other commercial or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing. In the old PUD's you used to get that in, and then if you could make good enough friends with the staff who were in charge and make them think that yours was compatible, you could, you know, argue and get it put in, and I thought we wanted to take that kind of stuff out. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I want to make sure we still leave our staff some -- I mean, there may be some use that we haven't thought of that falls under this designation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Ail these dang SIC groups? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: While it's great to talk about government in general and not trusting them and so on, and each of us have that concern, I think by and large we have a staff who's honorable and straightforward -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, no question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and if they have a question, they come to us. And so I don't want to tie their hands on that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought we took those out, though. I thought that that was not in the standard PUD anymore. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We would cause a tremendous number of PUD amendments by doing that, for the simple reason that we're -- that in order to avoid being so exhaustive, having to list every single possible potential use, I think what we have is we do have a staff that views these things conservatively, and when in doubt will run it through the chain of command. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do I -- maybe I misunderstood, Bob, I thought that that came out of the standard PUD, that that's how -- what used to be in old PUD's, but wasn't in PUD's anymore, as the new ones came through. MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, plannin$ director. Commissioner Mac'Kie, no, we did not. We -- it's mn every PUD, COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's always there? MR. MULHERE: -- my knowledge. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We did change the language, though. MR. MULHERE: As well as it's found in the straight zoning districts. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. MR. MULHERE: The C-1 through C-5. There's also the same language in there. I just wanted to very briefly comment. The proposed LDC amendment, which will come before you in June -- one of the proposed LDC amendments -- dealing with gas stations, further restrictions and locational restrictions, to my knowledge -- and I looked at a draft of it -- we have not dealt with that from a market study perspective. We've placed locational restrictions in dealing with the attorney's office. And I don't want to get into a long discussion, because you'll be looking at it as part of your LDC amendments, but we can in the interim take a look at that issue. With the rezone, we ask for the market study. If it's a permitted use, we don't ask for the market study. But the locational restrictions that we're proposing, when you look at them, if they meet the approval of the board, they would apply, and that would be the more restricting factor. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe it's just my recollection, but I thought that we had asked for some advice from staff about how many is enough and how many is too many gas stations along a particular corridor or along any of the entryway corridors into the county. Is that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It did, but it changed course shortly thereafter, as I remember correctly. We were going to proceed with one -- I don't know if it was a comp. plan amendment or whatnot, but then something happened and it changed course. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would we want to know that or not is the question. I do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I guess from my perspective, the market study, I hate to say, is irrelevant. We're dealing with a land use here and we're dealing with a gateway to the community. And if we have to sit up here and determine whether a business could be viable there or not, I think that's not our job. I think let the market decide. However, from a land use perspective, we have to look at the impacts to the community of these decisions and base our decision in that arena predominantly. It's not to me to determine if the widget maker is going to survive or not at a certain location. MR. MULHERE: But we are requesting a market study for future rezones that propose new gas stations. This was in the PUD and remained in the PUD. We are proposing -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then our problem in this county, as everybody already knows, is the problem of how many units are already zoned and ready to be built and how many gas stations are already zoned and ready to be built. And I thought we were gonna look at that and see if we were gonna to decide how much was enough. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we do that today? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think that's fine. I'm not sure that that -- today is what we need to deal with, okay? I think at some point in time we can do that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've got some hearings next month on that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I think right now we're looking at a PUD before us, and we need to decide what we think should be in this particular PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Staff just wanted to know, do you want them to do the market work between now and June? That was Bob's question. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, consistent with what we've asked before. And, I mean, we did talk about market study and Bruce Anderson had his on behalf of the Angileri. And I think that's where that all came from. But, yeah, consistent with the direction we gave before. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. But as of right now, we've got COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Back to this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- some issues to deal with here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think what I'm hearing is that -- at least Commissioner Constantine, and I think I heard one other. And I think I understand warehousing simply not being appropriate here. I think it can be mitigated, but I understand that point. I'm not really adverse to it. Gasoline stations, I am opposed to a gasoline station on this project at that location. And the only other comment I had was on hotels and motels. The height of the one next to 1-75 I can understand. It's right next to the Interstate. I don't necessarily like it, but I can understand it. But on this site, I look at anything over three stories as being grossly out of character. So if there's going to be a hotel/motel on site, I wouldn't want to see what was just done at 1-75. I think a maximum height of three stories as a limitation -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yes. And they've asked -- they brought that back 40 feet. MR. MILK: Can I make a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's 40 feet -- MR. MILK: -- comment? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but I -- MR. MILK: The Sutherland PUD was amended a couple years ago to allow four stories above mean flood. The rest -- the remainder of the Sutherland is three stories over parking. You know, how much is parking? You have one story parking, two story parking? So we tried to fix this number at 40 because across the street in Gateway it's 35, Angileri is 30 and then Cleason's 35. So you're correct, at that interchange it's fairly high. It's probably 50 feet. But that's 40 above mean flood. Then we go three stories above parking, and we tried to set some framework where all these buildings were going to be basically the same height. That's where 40 came up. Three stories, I'm not opposed to it, but sometimes three stories is 40 feet by the time you take the architecture to the midpoint of the roof. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm just saying the stricter shall apply. It's very difficult to get in a hotel or motel 40 -- four floors and 40 feet, but it's been done. MR. MILK: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So all I'm saying is that 40 feet stands, but no more than three stories. You know, that both are there. I don't want to see four floors -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You want to say three stories, 40 feet, the stricter shall apply? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The only -- the last comment that I would have is, is there any interest in the board in adding some language here about staff discretion for some particular architectural amenity, considering the fact that this is a gateway? That we start looking for that as we redo these PUD's under sunset. That we -- for example, I mean, this comes up in the city all the time, that because of the proximity of the location of a piece of property, the city asks that there be a clock, or there be some -- you know, some architectural element that designates that this is part of our gateway. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I laugh when you say clock, because the Winn Dixie Plaza in Golden Gate, when the guy was going to build it, I very clearly remember him coming to the Golden Gate Civic Association talking about this great clock tower and how it was going to be the focal point of the parkway, and it's the worst looking thing you've ever seen. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No kidding. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So we need to be a little careful there. I guess my question for Mr. Weigel is, can we raise the bar PUD by PI/D, or do we need to address that in our Land Development Code that gateway areas have a higher standard? But I just am a little uncom -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I understand. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- I agree with the direction you're headed. I don't know from a legal standpoint if we have the ability to go -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Same question, I agree. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- and ask people to go to a higher standard. MR. MILK: If I may, certain size buildings, commercial, we have the requirement in architectural design guidelines, 20,000 and over and 20,000 below, 5,000 and over. And certain architectural embellishments are required as a part of that center, based on the actual square footage of the building, the design of the building and that sort of thing. So those criteria are available, but usually they're for a center of size, and not just the PUD all by itself or the building on the corner. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it can be -- I'm sorry, you guys asked Mr. Weigel a question. Let me go ahead and let him answer. But I think I have a way to accomplish it that the petitioner would probably enjoy anyway. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Good. MR. WEIGEL: Fine. I knew I wouldn't get away from this one. But the answer is yes and yes. You can raise the bar in the PUD. And you also obviously can do it with the uniform standards that you develop. Within the PUD, you always want to look at the particulars of that PUD and stay generally within the parameters that already exist or have already been accomplished by the board at previous discussions. Another thing to look at is -- which we started and gave considerable attention to, was the development of architectural standards. Before the architectural standards were formally adopted, there was already a great energy and direction for those by the board, and a recognition of those by the board. And that gave credence and a legal defensibility to a type of application of standard, even before the formal adoption. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Let me suggest some verbiage that may get where you're trying to go. A common architectural theme shall be submitted in writing and complied with concurrent with the first development plan submittal. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That gives some -- identifies this as a gateway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The first building to be built there will have an architectural theme to it. Everything does, one way or the other. And what this says is that once that first development plan is submitted, an architect theme in writing is submitted with it, and all subsequent development must comply with that architectural theme. In other words, barrel tile roof on the first building means barrel tile roof on the second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't end up with a hodgepodge. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right, you don't get the hodgepodge -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- out-parcel development -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- which I think is what I think we're avoiding -- trying to avoid. MR. MILK: Could I read just a statement here? And this is under page 42 of the planning, 4.9(B) . It says, "A conceptual design master plan shall be submitted, concurrent with the first application for site development plan, approving -- approval, demonstrating compliance with these standards." In other words, if you're going to submit your site development plan, it has to follow that parameter throughout the development. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But that's a conceptual design master plan, which is very different than a common architectural theme submitted in writing. The master plan is the plan view which shows the parcel location, road location, parking and whatnot. The architectural theme deals with the physical aesthetics and the association of those aesthetics from one building to another. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Vertical versus horizontal, basically. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. So I understand that and I think it's a good idea, but I'm -- we're going above ground now -- MR. MILK: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- as opposed to planned view. MR. MILK: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I think that language would help us get there and isn't an undue burden, because it's really simply saying carry a theme throughout the project. MR. SPAGNA: Could I ask a question? I'm not sure that I quite understand who's going to enforce that. Would the staff enforce it or would this have to come back to the board, or -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, it's something the staff would enforce. And basically it's -- the very first SDP would have a written architectural theme. And it could be one, two or three pages. We're not talking about a 20-page document here. But it states the basic architectural elements that will be carried throughout the project building to building. Subsequent SDP's then, when they're submitted, would also submit a copy of that so it can be complied with and compared to the initial development. It's just to ensure a common theme. Doesn't mean everything's going to look the same, but it at least will have a common thread throughout the project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Adds to that unified development we've been trying to work toward. MR. MILK: And we could administer that through the site development process. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Precisely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Does that make sense, Dr. Spagna? MR. SPAGNA: Well, I don't have any problem with that. I mean, my problem would have been if it has to come back to the board, more administration and more so-so. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Only if you want to appeal it, you can appeal it to the board. MR. SPAGNA: Well, true. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you're not happy with what the staff says, you can always come back to the board. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No speakers. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Then I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'll make a motion that we approve petition PUD 86-22(1), with the following changes: Under 3.3 (B) (4), gasoline service stations be removed as a permitted use. Under 3.3 (B)(5), general warehousing and storage be removed as a permitted use. Under 3.3(B) (7), hotels and motels, be limited to three stories or 40 feet in height, whichever is more restrictive. And that the project be required to submit a common architectural theme in writing, concurrent with the first development plan submittal that will then be used by our development services staff for subsequent SDP submittals to ensure compliance. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Was there any -- there was some discussion about auto supply stores being on the back two-thirds of the property. Is that something that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Constantine then, you know, said something I thought a little to the contrary. I don't have a problem saying that they can't front Pine Ridge Road, but truthfully, if we're going to have a common architectural thread throughout all of them and our architectural standards, it -- and no pole signs, that concern's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Probably gone far enough. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that concern's reduced for me. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. SPAGNA: Okay, thank you. And I would like to make a statement, if I may, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. MR. SPAGNA: I can't speak for all of the sunsetting PUD's, but I can speak for these two, and I think as a result of modernizing it and bringing it up-to-date like we've done this morning, that you-all have made a much better project out of it that will certainly be much more beneficial to the community as time goes on. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thanks. MR. SPAGNA: And I thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for your -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Don't go anywhere, we have another one. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We've got one more. Same thing. Item #12B2 ORDINANCE 98-32 RE PETITION PUD-88-11(1) DR. NENO J. SPAGNA REPRESENTING ANTHONY F. JANCIGAR, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM "PUD" TO "PUD" TO COMPLY WITH THE SUNSETTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDC AND TO REFORMAT THE ORIGINAL PINE RIDGE CENTER WEST PUD LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE PINE RIDGE ROAD (CR-986) AND 1-75 INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have the other side. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We have more or less a mirror -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- PUD, do we not, Mr. Milk? MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Do we -- if we -- unless there's a comment, we can probably even go past the swearing and go right to a motion on this, unless anyone has any objection. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It makes sense to me. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: If you close the public hearing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing and we'll just continue from the first PUD. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll move approval of PUD 88-11(1) with the identical stipulations stated in item 12(B) (1) on our agenda today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any comments or discussion? If not, I'll call -- do we have any public speakers on that one? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry, I have one question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there -- I'm just getting greedy here, but is there any way that the two -- that the architectural theme could be tied between the two PUD's, in addition to just on the two separate PUD's? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think we have the ability legally, because they're separate ownership, but I'll defer -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can we go that far? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- to Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: You can make a request, that's all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How about that, Mr. Spagna? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend the motion just -- well, Mr. Spagna, are these going to be joint? MR. SPAGNA: Well, this is kind of an experiment, anyway. We've never done anything like this before. I'm just crossing my fingers that everything works out. So I guess I would say the less restrictions, the better. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I sure would like to see those two in one parcel. MR. SPAGNA: But I will convey your wishes to them, and it's possible that it can be worked out. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Basically we made the request and Mr. Spagna said I don't think so, so that leaves us with the question of -- and I don't believe we even have the ability to cause them to -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Two separate owners is pretty hard to do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. So I appreciate the question. I understand, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just a shot. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll leave the motion stand. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do you have any speakers on this one? MR. FERNANDEZ: No speakers. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And that's the same, no gas station, no warehouse -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- the limitations on the hotels and so on? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's correct. The numbering changes from one document to the next, but the motion remains the same on the changes on the uses being permitted and being altered. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, I read somewhere that separate ownership doesn't matter, that we should gather all these up and make them do a DRI. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's the next petition. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, moving right along. If there's no further questions or comments, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. SPAGNA: Thank you. Same statement. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Neno. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right, item 12(B) (3) has been continued to May 12th. Item ~12B4 ORDINANCE 98-33 RE PETITION NO. PUD-87-40(3), DOUGLAS A. WOOD OF SIESKY, PILON & WOOD REPRESENTING FALLING WATERS BEACH RESORT, LIMITED, REQUESTING AMENDMENTS TO THE WOODFIELD LAKES PUD LOCATED EAST OF C.R. 951 AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF U.S. 41 - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES We'll go to item five -- or item four, Petition PUD-87-40(3), regarding the Falling Waters Beach Resort, Limited, requesting an amendment to amend the Woodfield Lakes PUD for the purposes of changing the name of the PUD. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just feel bad for the UPS guy trying to deliver to Falling Waters. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And also to delete the stipulation requiring an access road from the project to U.S. 41 East, Tamiami Trail. And to rezone 2.5 acres from A rural agricultural to PUD. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Et al. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Et cetera, et cetera. Mr. Nino. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gonna swear in? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, I'm sorry, got to swear in. Everybody that plans to speak to this issue, would you please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. And any disclosure from commissioners? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The only thing, I think I received a letter, it's been some time back, regarding the access road. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, the communication I received, I'll submit for the record today. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I've had some contact from outside, but I'll base my decision on the information presented to us in the hearing here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Written contact only. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: For the record, my name is Ron Nino. The petition that's before you speaks to an attempt to make certain revisions to the existing Woodfield Lakes PUD, and they are as follows: Change the name from Woodfield Lakes PUD to Falling Waters Beach Resort; to add 2.2 acres of land to generally update the PUD to current references; and importantly, to eliminate a condition in the current PUD that would have required an access point be established on the East Tamiami Trail or U.S. 41. The use of the 2.02 acres of land under this PUD is not intended to allow any increase in density, but will serve as a recreational site for the residents of the project. The Planning Commission heard this petition and unanimously recommended its approval on March the 5th of 1998. Your agenda package has both people who are for the -- for all practical purposes the key issue that was addressed at the Planning Commission was this issue of the deletion of the requirement to connect to the Tamiami Trail. We have a number of people that are for and against that amendment. Those lists are included in your agenda package. I would like to emphasize a statement made in the staff report, that -- that that condition, when you stop to think of it at face value, is somewhat unusual inasmuch as the developer, if he had never purchased this 2.02 acres of land, would have been un -- would not have been able to ever have made that connection. And it is only the fact that they have now acquired land that that condition becomes at all possible. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Mr. Nino, what -- was it a requirement, or is it presently a requirement of the PUD? MR. NINO: It is presently a requirement of the PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So in your monitoring of -- staff monitoring of the PUD, at what point would you have reported to us that they have not yet met this requirement? I don't understand -- you know, they were required to do that. They didn't have the option. MR. NINO: However, they don't own any land, so how could we have ever made them require -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If we required it -- if we've required it, how could they get a building permit without having done it? MR. NINO: No, there's no time frame for that establishment of that. And I suggest you'd have to ask your legal counsel if in fact we could have ever required them at any point in the future to go out and buy land that would have physically made that connection. I simply bring that to your attention. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I appreciate that. MR. NINO: It's an unusual situation. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It makes me think, though, that, you know, we have to be careful as a board that we've dotted every I or something, because obviously the board who approved this thought that they had made sure they had required that access off of 41, and now you're saying that there was some technical difficulty with that by not imposing a deadline. So we've got to be careful -- MR. NINO: However -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm done. MR. NINO: Let me emphasize that the Planning Commission did agree with the staff position that we ought to at least maintain an emergency access point now that they do have land that is contiguous; that we at least maintain an emergency access point with connection J- with the Trail or U.S. 41. I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't know if this issue applies, but perhaps the rest of the commissioners know. If they have sold property to individuals in there with the assumption that this road would be an access, where -- where -- do we come into that in any way, shape or form? Assuming that a previous board approved this PUD with that thought, and then it was sold to the residents with that intent? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Legally or morally would be a very different answer to each. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I'm sure that's -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Legally we probably don't have any obligation, because you can't rely on zoning, unless -- you know, there's a whole lot of law that David can tell you about. But ethically, morally was a promise made that should be kept, that's a different story. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. NINO: I could bring to your attention a similar situation. You may recall that Imperial West was required to connect to the Livingston Road extension, and there was a limitation placed on the number of units that could be built. And of course, you know, there was no way that could ever come about, because the owner of Imperial West didn't own any land between Imperial West and the Livingston Road extension, and subsequently asked to have that condition deleted, and this board concurred that that condition should be deleted. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was in anticipation of a county action of the creation of Livingston Road. Tamiami Trail exists. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's right there. And I understand your -- I understand your analogy, though, but there are differences, too, that could be considered. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If we could hear from the petitioner. MR. WOOD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Doug Wood, I'm an attorney with Siesky, Pilon and Wood. I'm here on behalf of the petitioner, Falling Waters Beach Resort, Inc. I'd like to just give you a little bit of a background about both Falling Waters Beach Resort and Falling Waters, actually, because I think the two, at least with regards to this issue, are interrelated. Falling Waters Beach Resort, the original PUD allowed density of 451 units. Based upon our amendment and what my client wants to do with that 2.02 acre parcel, the density is going to be reduced. It will be reduced to I believe about 430 units, because it originally had two buildings planned for that two-acre parcel. Those are going to be removed to put recreational facilities in there. One of the objectives of my clients, though, was to put the recreational facilities in there, he had to look at two things: Obviously he's a businessman, and if he had to put in a second access, and with all the turning lanes and the requirements from the DOT, that expense would make it tough for him to provide the additional recreation facilities for the unit owners, especially considering the fact that he's reducing his density to do that. Looking at the project, looking at where that second access would go into 41, because it's not four-laned there, really didn't look like the second access would be used a lot. So rather than provide the unit owners with a second access that we didn't feel was necessary, he wanted to remove the access so he could provide the recreation facilities. This is something similar that was done for Falling Waters on Davis Boulevard. Some of the commissioners, I think, will remember back in -- I believe it was 1994 my partner, Jim Siesky came before the board on behalf of Falling Waters Development Corporation. That PUD has a density of 799 allowed units. There was in the original PUD for that provided for a second access to future Santa Barbara Boulevard. We'd come before both the Planning Commission and the board requesting that that second access be removed for the same reason, so that we could vacate the -- I guess it would be the tail end of Falling Waters Boulevard that was going to connect to future Santa Barbara Boulevard, and place additional recreation facilities in that location. The board did grant that, the second access was removed, and the recreation facilities have been constructed in that area. Essentially that's the same thing that they want to do with the Beach Resort. One of the other things that came into consideration after both developments -- PUD's had been approved is they installed security within the communities. And so since they installed the security within its communities, it affects it in two ways: One is putting in again, from a cost point, putting in that second guard access, which is an expense. And secondly, it just -- it does still affect the cut-throughs and the security. When we went in front of the Planning Commission recently, there was, as Mr. Nino indicated, a number of residents who submitted a petition that were in favor of removing the second access. We are currently about a quarter of the way through the development. The first -- I call it a phase, but it's actually the first condo association, which is seven buildings, 104 units, has been sold out. They're closed, they're sold, the association's turned over. There's -- the next five buildings are under construction, I believe. Three of those have actually closed. We're about halfway through. So there are a lot of residents already in there. Most of those were in favor of removing the second access. There's obviously residents that -- for units that haven't been built or sold who, you know, aren't here to voice their opinion. But the planning council recommended staff's approval for an emergency access. My client has agreed to do that. In the PUD -- the amended PUD agreement that we've submitted to the county, that I've worked with Marjorie Student on, we have put in there removing the second access, but that they still do have the requirement to put in the emergency access. I think that's a fair compromise, because again, it's not an access, it's probably going to be used a lot by the residents, but it does give them I guess some security as far as if there -- if emergency vehicles need to get in there, they have that second access to get in. And it gives my client some financial flexibility, since he doesn't have to put in the additional turn lanes, things of that nature, to still be able to put some rec. facilities in there for the residents. I'll be happy to answer any questions, if the board has any. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Are you saying then that if you have to keep the second access and obviously put in the turn lanes and so on, that you just simply won't have the recreation facilities? MR. WOOD: Well, certainly that's a decision my client's going to have to make. There's no requirement that he has to put in recreation facilities in that location. And he's -- like I said, he's permitted to -- for a density of 451, so he could put in two buildings in that two-acre parcel. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm asking you -- I mean, it seems odd to me that you and your client wouldn't have had that conversation and have some idea what your various options are, depending on what the board does today. MR. WOOD: My feeling from talking to my client is if he has to put in the second access, he will not put in the recreational facilities. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Nino, do you know the distance between the entrance to this project and the intersection of U.S. 41 and 9517 MR. NINO: It's right in the middle. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Use the mike. MR. NINO: It's about 12 inches above 1,200 feet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A thousand, 1,200 feet? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern is that our access management guidelines for a full median opening are 1,320 feet, and that's a minimum recognized distance for -- you know, for turning movements. This is at best at or more likely inside of that distance. And I think when we go back to why a second access was required, it was the proximity to the intersection of 951 and 41 that created the need for that in there. I'm very -- I'm just not comfortable -- more times than not, we get letters from constituents that say the developer promised "X", and now they're not doing it and please help us, and we don't have an opportunity to do anything such as amenities or even number of buildings or style of buildings or whatnot. But this is something that was a part of this project when your client bought it, and your client bought it with that knowledge. And I have a tough time pulling away from something that people may be counting on or hoping for because of just sheer financial considerations. And that's really what I'm hearing. The justification from your client is that this is going to cost a bunch of money, and it may not allow him to do some amenities he wants to do. But in fairness to the people that have bought in there, they bought in there knowing a second access was required. And some of those -- at least one who's contacted us -- is concerned about that being taken away. So it's kind of -- you know, it's a little bit of a fight for us, because if we do this, we're going to be removing something that is a condition people bought in under. MR. WOOD: Well, Commissioner, maybe I stated myself incorrectly, because I don't think that's quite the case. It's real similar to Falling Waters. The residents had come to my client wanting additional recreation facilities. At the time they had a pool and a clubhouse and some tennis courts, but they requested some other things: A chipping green, some playgrounds, things of that nature. My client was willing to do that. But in order to do that, he told them hey, I'm going to have to get this second access removed. They were in favor of it. And that's in fact what happened. It's really the same thing here. Most of the residents have indicated -- and I've been there at the annual meetings they've had for the master association, the condo association, earlier this year. They've requested to have some additional recreational facilities. There's a lazy river pool out there that's the main pool. There's a clubhouse out there. That's it right now for the recreation facilities. There's no obligation on my client's behalf to provide additional recreation facilities. He can provide those recreation facilities and say I'm done with it. But a -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Follow-up question on my previous one that I asked, if you didn't take these out, would he not. And you said you don't think he can afford to do both or that he will choose to do both. Is there some guarantee if the second entrance doesn't go in that he will put in additional recreational amenities? MR. WOOD: Well, I think there is a guarantee because of the master ~lan which is attached to the amended PUD shows that that parcel is going to be used for future recreation parcels -- for future recreation facilities. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That just means you can, if you've -- MR. WOOD: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That means that's all you could build there, it doesn't mean you're committed to building there. MR. WOOD: Exactly. In other words, if -- it certainly prevents my client now from using that two-acre parcel for the -- to put two buildings and increase the density to 451. It is reducing the density. There is no restrictions -- I guess affirmative covenants -- in there that my client will put recreation facilities in there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Again, my yes/no question was, if we eliminate the second entrance, is your client willing to guarantee that he will put in the additional recreational amenities? MR. WOOD: Yes, I think he is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm still -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's hear from the public. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This has nothing to do with Mr. Wood at all, but to be honest, I'm looking at a checkbook issue. You guys know what the cost of a turn lane on U.S. 41 is, built to F.D.O.T. specifications; you know what the cost of an access is in this area. I honestly think this is basically -- it's kind of a quid pro quo. You know, the developer went to the residents and said I'll give you this bone if you'll help me get out of building this one. You know, again, Mr. Wood, that's my supposition, it's not based on fact -- MR. WOOD: Just -- Commissioner, that's not correct. It wasn't quid pro quo, because it wasn't a situation where a developer said you help me get out of this one, I -- you know, I'll -- because my -- my client was never obligated to provide these future recreation facilities. It was only after having the meetings and the residents saying hey, we'd like to have another pool, we'd like to have tennis courts over here, here's the things we'd like to have, where my client then said okay, I'll try to get you those things. And this is one of the ways he was trying to arrange to get them those things. If he didn't have to provide the second access, then he would give them those recreation facilities. It wasn't a situation where he was trying to get out of by saying hey, I -- you know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You've phrased it differently, but in the end it's -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Same thing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- kind of the same. It's a transfer of dollars, either I can expend them on this access or I can expend them on -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's hear from the public. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: While the public's coming up there, Mr. Wood, isn't it correct that the marketability of the project is going to determine what recreational amenities go into the project? Wouldn't you say? MR. WOOD: Well, certainly -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And I know that's speculative versus not. MR. WOOD: Yeah, it is. I agree, Commissioner. But if it's a situation where everybody that wants to come out and buy, wants to see future recreation facilities, then that's obviously a factor my client's going to have to consider. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let's hear from the public, please. MR. FERNANDEZ: You have three speakers registered on this subject, Madam Chairman. The first is Robert LaFortune, the second is Beverly McNamara, then Joseph Costello. MR. LaFORTUNE: Good morning. My name is Robert LaFortune, Falling Waters Beach Resort. We're not on Davis and we're not even compared to Davis. I wrote you-all in anticipation of the 14th April meeting, and we were delayed. But I appreciate your concern and your response from all of you. And after listening this morning, I think logic and common sense is going to prevail here. Because there's a few things happening here that we're not happy with. And the first one is we're not even half occupied yet, and all the land by the exit that we're talking about is still bare and it doesn't affect anybody because they're not there. The other thing is the existing exit and entrance, we can only exit going north on 951. Now, if we have to go to 41 or south on 951, we have to either go to Lely Resort or make a U-turn, which is not too safe at most times. The other point is, the original advertising on all the brochures, it shows an eight-unit building on that road going south with two tennis courts. And when they built our rec. room, they admitted it was kind of small, and he would be willing to delete the eight-unit building and put another exercise room or communication room in there, and the tennis courts of course would remain. Now, I don't know -- I'm sure you know, the other Sunday they closed Alligator Alley because of brush fires. 951 going south right in front of us was backed up all the way back to 75, which is a good seven miles. Yet I anticipated everybody coming off of Marco, which I think would be a minimum of about 19,000 people off season trying to go north. And we have no other way to get out other than to go north on 951. I think we should have an option to do something else, in anticipation of whatever, emergency or just to get on 41. And if it's already in the plan, why is it in the plan? Is it for safety reasons? Is it your -- minimum zoning -- the whole complex is a mile and a half around. And that exit is about two-thirds of the way down. So there's area there that I think can be utilized. The other point is, we're not compared to Davis at all. And I'm not sure what this builder is doing and not doing. I never spent so much money and knew what I had -- or what I don't have other than a nice building. And a building is not a home. And we're having much dissent in our neighborhood now, because we can't get him to decide on anything. Falling Waters on Davis was shown to us as a model and as a community, and we used that for what we were purchasing, besides just a building. We went into Davis, thousands of flowers all over. We're not having thousands of flowers. We're having low maintenance shrubbery because it's going to be cheaper for us to maintain. We like the flowers. We put our own flowers in by our units. We have inadequate lighting. They have lighting going down the middle of the street on Davis. I called -- or my neighbor called up Florida Power and Light. They said there was nothing told to them about any specific lighting. And the road was already in, so they couldn't put alternating lighting in, and they put their standard light shade light pattern in for our whole road. And it's a very twisting road, because it goes in a semi-circle. And I'm fortunate I don't live in the back, because people are saying it's dangerous, it's too dark. You can't ride a bike. Well, we don't have sidewalks, and it's very dangerous because we don't have sidewalks. Davis has sidewalks on either side, from what I understand. They have a pool like something out of Hollywood. And this builder got an idea out of Disney World, and he put this three-foot deep river for a pool for -- which is very beautiful and it's nice to socialize and get wet, but very impractical. Now he says if you don't put the road in, we'll put another pool in. I'd like to have him put it in writing just one thing so we know what we're getting. The putting green was supposed to be on dirt and maintained. He put it on concrete with Astro turf, indoor-outdoor carpeting. Everybody knows you can't golf on that. So don't do me any favors. I volunteered to put in horseshoe pits myself if he would give me some land. But everything is getting to the point where it's either money or impracticality, because -- I need you people to help us, because we don't know what to do. We have ditches that don't drain; we have inadequate lighting. I've got lights by our units that shake so much that the bulbs break. I have to put nine dollar fluorescent bulbs in there to keep it light. And it just goes on and on. We are not Davis. We are second class citizens over here at Beach Resort, and we need your help. And I'd appreciate it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Second speaker is Beverly McNamara and then Joseph Costello. MS. McNAMARA: Mr. Costello had to leave. He works on Marco Island in real estate and he had to leave. This is for you. My name is Beverly McNamara. Good morning. I wrote you-all a letter, which is pretty self-explanatory, and I sent you the pictures. They're a little wavy, because I used Elmer's glue, and -- but the pictures do speak for themselves. And when we first -- when this site plan was first represented to us, it was represented that we would have the two entrances. And I'm sorry that we didn't bring the original Falling Waters brochure. But we're just looking at that access road now as merely a safety measure. We did a sort of a scenario with the fire department. We had the East Naples Fire Department come down with their regular fire truck and -- on Easter Sunday morning. And I took pictures. I only have two, but you can pass them around. These are the fire trucks just so you see. We did a four to six-minute sort of thing where they would come from where they're located over by -- on 41 across from the Coral Mall, and to come down and see what it would be on a regular evening when the security is off-duty now from 10:00 at night until 7:00 in the morning. They're not security for us, they're security just to protect Falling Waters' washers and dryers and things that seem to be disappearing from the buildings at night. And so they came down. And what it would be ordinarily would be one gate would be open, and they would stop and do the turnkey and open the gate. And when they came in the gate, the short engine, they came in and couldn't make the turn. It wasn't one fell motion, so they had to stop and back up and then go on their merry way. The lieutenant said that would be okay, there would only be 10 or 15 seconds lost there. But he said that if the structure vehicle had to come in for a second story fire or something like that, there would be no way that they could make that sharp turn. Now, I have a lot of pictures here. I believe in pictures because I think that they speak a thousand words. I mean, you can probably picture it in your mind, but if you look and see -- and some of these pictures, you'll see the turn from the main gate to where that fire truck has to turn, and you'll see that it's very sharp. And you'd have to -- I mean, you don't have to use your imagination to know that a big fire truck could not make this turn. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: These become part of public record. Are you aware of that? MS. McNAMARA: Sure, I have a ton of them. So that's one reason why we're very -- we're even more adamant about having the access road. We want the complete access road, we don't want just an emergency exit. We want it so that we can come and go. Many of us shop in Marco, and when we look to the future, we look to a time when they're going to be working on the roads to Marco, they're going to be widening it, it's going to be a better road eventually. And when they start that project, then we're going to have to find an alternative route, which would be going down to 41 to 92 and right over at the Goodland Bridge into San Marco Boulevard. It's only eisht miles. And so it -- you can go this way and sit in traffic going to Marco, or you can just go a little faster. And that area is building up, Fiddler's Creek and, you know, that whole area. I don't have to, you know, beat a dead horse on that. I'm sure you're well aware of all that that's going to happen in our area. But mainly for the safety thing. Now, we know -- we know this developer. We know that he's not a man of his word at this point. It's sad, but it's true. He tells us a lot of stuff and it never happens. Now, I was the very first resident living in my development. I was there by myself for many months, and I've watched everything. I've gone to many meetings and listened to his promises and his bargaining with FPL and oh, it's the state's fault that the pool is three feet deep. And I have -- I've done my homework. I mean, I went into these agencies and I said look, how could you approve this pool at three feet deep? I mean, you stand in it and it's like, you know, what do I do? You scrape your knees, you scrape your toes. I mean, it's ridiculous. It is beautiful to look at. And he -- you know, and he still has the audacity at our meetings to stand there and say you should all go to Disney World, because then you'd have ideas that I have and we could all get together and have these wonderful ideas. I mean, we're just kind of at an impasse here, really. Now, we want that access road. We're willing, most of us -- and I have a new petition to submit to you today. These are new people. We're up to building 10 now. This petition is mostly from building seven through 10. This is an additional 34 signatures that we just got last night. People just -- because they're thinking a little differently. They're younger and they're thinking a little differently. The older people, they're thinking well, gee, he's not going to give us another pool if we let him have the access road, or if we want the access road. They're not thinking that. I mean, there are no Johnny Weismiller/Esther William types walking around our development, believe me. I mean, they're not thinking; they're 65, 68 now. They're not thinking in 10 years those ambulances, we're going to be wanting them coming in, and we're going to want them to come fast and be able to come in in one turn, you know? It's not going to be like, you know, that this is something that's not going to happen. Everybody thinks it happens to somebody else. But we need to have that access road. We need those engines to be able to swing in, come in and help us when we need it. There's such a dilemma when they get in there anyway. Ail the garages look alike, they're not numbered, it's one through 14 every other building. They're so confused. The lieutenant told me that the fire department has a terrible time -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Your time is up. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Your time is up. MS. McNAMARA: Am I? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That noise meant your time was up. MS. McNAMAP~A: Oh, I'm sorry. I was going to bring an egg timer for myself, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Sounds like you need to be four feet tall to enjoy the pool. MS. McNAMARA: But anyway, that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Take the kids. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You made a compelling case. We appreciated that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Absolutely. MS. McNAMARA: Can I say one more thing? Just a little thing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Two words. MS. McNAMARA: When we talk about safety, he already has an access road that's as big as this room running -- that anybody could drive in from 951 and go right down and come into our development. So gates and security and all that is just an absolute -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You just told the whole world. MS. McNAMARA: -- misnomer. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Attention all criminals. MS. McNAMARA: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: No other speakers. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No other speakers? Okay. At this time, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I don't have a problem with the majority of the PUD amendments, but the one eliminating the access to U.S. 41 I think, as we've heard from the public, is just simply not acceptable. So I don't have a problem with the balance of the amendments, but that particular one, I do not want to delete, I want it to remain in the PUD. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask clarification on your motion -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: -- that the two and a half acres to be added to the PUD, is that still with the stipulation that it be only used for recreational purposes and not for residential use? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like I say, I don't have a problem with that, but -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I just wanted to -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- not -- not just only recreational purposes, but the access road portion is not to be deleted, so obviously an access road is an acceptable use in that parcel. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So access road and recreational purposes are acceptable uses in that two-acre parcel, but nothing else? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Correct. MR. NINO: Madam, may I -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: -- bring to your attention the need to -- to create a change to section 25 -- it's a slight wording change -- which would reduce, allow us to reduce standards under a common architectural theme site plan. The docket that you have says waive. We corrected it to reduced. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. And Commissioner Norris, on that clarification, as I understood Mr. Wood, though, the original site plan had buildings in that location? Mr. Nino, were these -- these two acres were not a part obviously of the original PUD; is that correct? MR. NINO: No, they weren't. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, so since there were no units described for these parcels -- MR. NINO: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we're restricting it to access purposes and recreational use only? Mr. Weigel, is that within our rights? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it is. I think it is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay, thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. So the adding of this 2.5 acres is what they're doing; is that correct, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: They're adding 2.02 acres, providing for -- only providing for its recreational use and creating an access point with U.S. 41 East, or Tamiami Trail. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In addition to the name change and the others -- MR. WOOD: Excuse me, Commissioners -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry, Mr. Wood -- MR. WOOD: I'd like to withdraw the petition, though, at this time. Because I think as Mr. Nino would indicate, the whole thing, when we had talked about this rezone, as far as removing the access or as far as putting the recreation facilities in that two and a half acres -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Can that -- can this happen -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Excuse me just a minute. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- after the public hearing's closed? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Just a second, please. Mr. Weigel? MR. WOOD: In essence what you're doing is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Wood, excuse me, please. Mr. Weigel, can we do -- I mean, we have gone through this whole public hearing process. Can the petitioner come back up now and ask COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: After. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- when we get ready to vote, after a motion has been made, can he then come back up and withdraw the petition? MR. WEIGEL: The public hearing is closed. I think the opportunity for any action or request to the board is over. It's at the discretion of the chair at that point. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'm sorry, we had the public hearing, the people spoke, and we're now ready to take action on this. If there had been a desire and any question, then it should have been done prior to us hearing this, I believe. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And we were talking about this all throughout. I mean, just to add something for the purpose of a record is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Exactly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- you know, there's just no question that we've discussed -- every indication has been among the discussions of the board that we were going to -- we were leaning toward requiring this piece to be a road. So you can't plead surprise. We were talking about that and now the public hearing is closed and you're shocked. Well, that's what we talked about the whole time. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let's call the question and see how the vote turns out. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and I believe a second on this particular item. I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's lunch time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And it is lunch time, and we will hear the rest of the items at approximately 1:15. (A lunch recess was taken.) Item #13A5 PETITION V-98-1, A. KURT ARDAMAN, REPRESENTING ABC LIQUORS, INC., REQUESTING A 15 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER STRIP TO ZERO (0) FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LOT 36, NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK COMPANY'S NO. 2 - CONTINUED INDEFINITELY CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'd like to reconvene the meeting. We're going to move on the agenda to item 13(A) (5), which is petition V-98-1. ABC Liquors is requesting a 15-foot variance from the required 15-foot landscape buffer strip to zero feet for property located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East. Mr. Mulhere -- oh, wait, just a minute. I need to swear in anyone that's going to speak to this issue. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, one reason we're moving this up is it only requires three votes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And also, I've been requested by the petitioner's representative to move this up. He has to be back in Orlando, so we need to do this. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. -- Commissioner Norris, do you have anything to disclose on this item? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, I don't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm sorry, which one are we on? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: This is the ABC Liquors, the 15-foot variance for a landscape buffer. Have you had any -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- thing to disclose? Nor have I. Please proceed, Mr. Mulhere. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Bob Mulhere, planning director. This petition or request for a variance is generated by the taking of land from the property owner for the widening of U.S. 41. Approximately 20 feet of land fronting along Tamiami Trail. We've -- the board has reviewed a couple of similar variance requests in the past. In general, staff has not rec -- or supported these requests, because the Land Development Code administratively allows for a reduction in a required yard when the reason for the reduction is through a right-of-way taking or some other governmental action. There is no requirement for the applicant to reinstall the landscape buffer at this point in time, because the state took away the property; however -- and the reason why the staff in the past has not recommended or supported these types of variance requests is we were concerned with a situation where redevelopment might occur, and we would want to see that landscape buffer possibly replanted, or at least to the greatest extent possible. In this case, the Planning Commission, in their review of this petition, recommended approval subject to -- or limiting this variance request to the existing structure so that at any point during redevelopment they would then be required to go through a site development plan and reinstall the landscape buffer in accordance with the provisions in effect at that time, or to the greatest extent possible. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Bob, isn't that what the status is if we don't give the variance? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No, that's the same thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the status if we don't grant the variance. MR. MULHERE: I would concur. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I don't want to grant a variance. We're doing a redevelopment effort in here, and I want as much -- I want as many feet held to the fire as possible in improving the properties along there. So I don't understand why we would consider granting it. MR. MULHERE: Well, the staff's recommendation was to not approve. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: The net effect is the same whether we grant the variance today or -- I mean and stipulate that under redevelopment they have to put in the buffer, or whether we just don't grant the variance. But the difference from our perspective as the county is that it's another legal step that we would have to expend staff time on to install a variance, and then we would have to make sure that we followed up in the event of some redevelopment or change on the property and made sure that it didn't slip through the cracks. So I really don't see the point in it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's in it for the general community? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But maybe the petitioner can throw some brand new light on this that nobody's ever thought about before. MR. ARDAMAN: I'd like to thank you, Madam Chairman, Commissioners. My name's Kurt Ardaman, 170 East Washington Street, Orlando, Florida. I do appreciate you advancing us on the agenda. It is for a public purpose, as I'm a trustee for a hospital district up in Orlando and it will help me get back, so thank you for that. I do represent ABC in this case. The commissioner's question is a good one. Why should you approve a variance if in fact we would be in the same condition? There are a few differences. First of all, just so we all can understand exactly where we are, the 20-foot taking across the front by the Department of Transportation for the Tamiami Trail widening project took five parking spaces from the store. If the landscaping buffer were in fact reimposed, which I understand staff's position is that it is not reimposed. But if it were, we would lose an additional five parking spaces. What that put ABC in the position of claiming in the condemnation action was severance and business damages in excess of $300,000. What we were able to achieve and save public dollars in negotiating a settlement with the D.O.T. was, we would -- we would be able to reduce by hundreds of thousands of dollars that claim, settle the case, and everybody could go about their business. The problem is that that settlement between ABC and the D.O.T. requires that we get a variance to that 15-foot landscaping buffer. The code, though -- and the questions, are they the same, even in the -- even in the staff packet -- I believe in your packet, there is a memorandum between -- I guess it's really from Wayne Arnold to George Archibald -- pertaining to the project, and variances, nonconformities and the like. If in fact there was no variance granted and there was a delay, or non use of the property for 90 days, we would then have to come back in and reinstall the 15-foot landscaping buffer. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That sounds like a reason not to approve the variance. MR. ARDAMAN: It may be, but that's just one. There are other questions in the code about if in fact ABC were to come in and do internal work, reroof the building, not increase the size; if they were to do substantial reconfiguration of the appearance or the cost of the building, if we exceed some 50 percent threshold, we may be back in the same condition where the variance could be triggered, even though there was no increase in intensity. So what -- there are a few little gaps. Staff is generally correct, their primary concern was if there was an intensity increase, expansion of the building or redevelopment, then in those two cases that we would have to meet the buffer requirement. That's fine with us. In fact, we stipulated to that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Let me ask a question. MR. ARDAMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Mulhere, are you confident that you could craft a binding letter to these people that would satisfy them from your perspective that there is not going to be a buffer required under the circumstances that the gentleman has proposed, such as reroofing or, you know, internal modifications? Can you draft a letter to satisfy that? MR. MULHERE: I can. The code -- the gentleman is correct, the code says if the value of the redevelopment or the reconstruction exceeds 50 percent of the value of the structure, then they're required to meet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: What's the assessed value? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Well, that would apply anyway. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That would apply anyway. So would that letter that I described satisfy your purposes? MR. ARDAMAN: Commissioner, the Planning Commission -- at that hearing we offered that letter. And in fact we submitted those two conditions to staff. Staff has approved that. We voluntarily offered to do that. And I'll submit those -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He says in -- his point is in lieu of a variance, but guys, please pay attention to the fact that we are in the midst of a redevelopment effort in the triangle that may not -- that in many cases will not -- we hope that this store stays there. But we also hope that they put a new roof on, that they completely change the architectural elevation, that they do a whole lot of improvements to their property as a portion of redevelopment of the Gateway Triangle. But we certainly also hope that you won't give them a variance so that there will be a landscape buffer and then a gap of landscape buffer and then it continues on down the road. I can't see any good reason -- I understand the reason here is does D.O.T. have to pay them an extra 200,000 or whatever they think it's worth to lose those five parking spaces. But to this community, the question is are we committed to the redevelopment beautification of that triangle. And if we are, and if you can prove a business loss as a result of it, then you should be compensated for it and God bless you. But we're changing the face of this community in that part of town, and I don't want to see a gap in the landscaping buffer. MR. ARDAMAN: But by granting the landscape variance you would put ABC in a position to carry out its current plans around the state. They're upgrading all of their stores -- or most of their stores -- to an ABC fine wine and spirits location. If you don't approve the variance, and we do expend more than 50 percent of the value of the property, we then would -- if we don't expend that much -- let's say this: ABC comes in, wants to redo the store, and they're going to spend more than 50 ~ercent of the value. In that case then we would have to -- if no variance was granted, we would have to meet the variance -- excuse me, the landscape buffer. But if the variance was granted and we do spend more than 50 percent, we would be still in a position to be able to do the improvement at a great expense to ABC and not lose the business that we would lose if the variance was not granted. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And not install the landscaping. MR. ARDAMAN: No, but they are -- all -- their modus operandi now is, it's away from the old image of ABC. They're gourmet foods, coffees, it's a new -- wines, focus on wines instead of the old liquor. Focus -- there's a big change. So there is a real chance that that kind of improvement would happen. And I don't -- I would hate for this issue to preclude or at least be a negative factor in ABC's decision about whether it was to do the improvement or not. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If they lose five parking places, that will be such a financial detriment to them that they won't improve their property? MR. ARDAMAN: They've already lost five. They would lose five more. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: They lose five more. MR. ARDAMAN: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How often is that parking lot jam packed full? MR. ARDAMAN: Numerous times. Principally during the holiday seasons. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah. MR. ARDAMAN: But that's when the store makes enough money to make it a very profitable store, in the event that that -- I mean, I don't have the business damage numbers with me. But I -- that's when they make their money. So it is important and it is a very -- the D.O.T. is of course in favor of it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you got this variance, are you making a commitment that they will substantially -- can you tell us what that store is going to look like? If we give you a variance on the landscaping, can you commit on the record that within a period of time it will be improved and it will look like -- MR. ARDAMAN: I don't have those -- I have no idea, ma'am. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then what's -- what are we -- why would we consider it? MR. ARDAMAN: Because it is a $300,000 plus savings. And it really is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: To the state. I mean -- MR. ARDAMAN: Yes, ma'am. And it is in fact meeting the staff's requirements. That's why those two conditions we voluntarily agreed to. And those are the two concerns I think that staff is really worried about. If the building was razed and redeveloped, or the site was redeveloped, or we increased the intensity at all. All we're trying to do is maintain the status quo and settle a very expensive case that really shouldn't be that expensive. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're trying really hard to change the status quo. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Ardaman, you're -- MR. ARDAMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- you're kind of dealing with something that you probably didn't anticipate -- MR. ARDAMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- which is an aesthetics standard that Naples has that most other places don't. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Collier County has, anyway. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Collier County, yes, thank you. (Commissioner Constantine enters the board room.) COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, as you may be aware, we even have an architectural standard that covers our entire county. So when we talk about landscaping, it's just not -- not just bushes and -- MR. ARDAMAN: I understand. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- plants, it's an image. And this particular area has suffered from a poor image due to the period in which it was developed for a long time. And Commissioner Mac'Kie and others work very hard to try and bring that up. Our concern is that by granting of this variance -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Pam -- but by granting this variance, what we're hearing is ABC some day may bring the site up to a better standard and they may do some landscaping, and they may make it look nicer. But we have to deal with worst case scenario. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which is that by granting of this variance there's going to be a gap in the landscaping buffer on the roadway where we're going concrete to concrete to concrete, which is not the image Naples wants to have. It's not something you anticipated, and I understand the savings with the D.O.T., but our question is, what are we trading in by way of this community's imagine for the D.O.T. savings? And I think -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- want to add to that, that he's worried about $200,000 that the D.O.T.'s going to have to expend if we don't approve this. You are already expending $100,000 on studies and beautification of that area of Collier County dollars that this would -- a granting of this variance would go -- fly in the face of. MR. ARDAMAN: If I might, by granting the variance, I think you increase the likelihood that you will see improvements. If you don't approve the variance, then there's no -- I mean, there's concern about what happens if in fact they do spend more than 50 percent on the building, because then they'd have to lose those additional five spaces, and they don't want to lose those five spaces. So by approving the variance, what you've created is keep -- keep -- what will happen anyway, whether the variance is approved or denied in effect, but you've created a legal ability for ABC to expend more than 50 percent on its building. If you don't a~prove it, then they can't spend the 50 percent without having to put mn a brand new landscaping buffer and lose 15 spaces -- lose five spaces. The bottom line is it's not about whether ABC intends to or not intends to now. I mean, the main thing is if nothing is done, the status quo clearly will continue. If the variance is granted, I think you really have -- even though it's not a lot of increase, but you have to some degree increased the likelihood or the ability of ABC financially to do that improvement. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: And conversely, we're not decreasing it by a large amount, either. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My point is if you're willing to make such a tremendous argument to the state that the loss of those five spaces is worth $300,000, how am I to believe that the odds of improving the property and doing some type of landscaping where you would -- the only -- see, the only middle ground here is to lose those five spaces and do landscaping. I mean, there's not a midpoint. You can make the building prettier. But if we go back from a curb to a sidewalk to an asphalted parking lot, that's not what we are trying to accomplish there, and that's what we're trying to get around. So I don't think by granting the variance -- we may potentially increase, and we're getting enough adjectives in there that, you know, a betting man wouldn't touch it. But we may be potentially increasing the ability for the property owner to put some money in the property and make it look nicer, but we're still dealing with the ugly issue of pavement right on up to the front door of the building. And you are giving us no solution -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that in the future would alter that in any way, shape or form. We're still going to have pavement from the center line of that roadway -- or from the landscaped median, once it's completed, all the way up to the front door of ABC for a stretch of parking area there. That is our problem. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If you wanted -- if I could -- you know, we had another property that came in and wanted a variance. Remember the car dealership place and all that kind of stuff? And what we said was go away and come back with a site plan that shows us how you're going to improve the property and then we'll talk about variances. And it's only under those kind of circumstances that I hope this board will talk about it at all. And I wonder if you could consider some kind of a continuance while you come up with a plan to redevelop that property; to improve, not change the use, but beautify that property. MR. ARDAMAN: In the event that the property was redeveloped? Is that -- or you're saying commit to a particular time for redevelopment? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes, commit to a particular time and plan. MR. ARDAMAN: I think -- I mean, I can inquire of ABC. Because I don't know what their plans are for the store. Now, we all presumed that this would not be a difficult thing to do. And I understand your concerns. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Welcome to Collier County. MR. ARDAMAN: Well, it's kind of interesting, in Volusia County, Nova Road has an expansion project, and the City of Port Orange is very intent on keeping their trees and landscaping. It's very similar -- I mean, I'm sure yours is better. I mean, Volusia County does that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You are a good study. I'll give you that. I think where we see this going is the variance does -- it doesn't look like there's a lot of -- the degree of comfort with the variance. I think your best opportunity would be to request a continuance to check back with your client. I know it's timely, I know you have to travel from Orlando, but if it's that important to him, if you can show us kind of a quid pro quo, what are you willing to do to help mitigate for what we are in effect losing there by this landscaping being gone, and we can see that picture and say yes, this is acceptable, I think you have a greater degree of -- or a greater chance of success there. Right now, I don't think that this is going to go anywhere today, to be quite honest with you. MR. ARDAMAN: I will make that formal request then for a continuance, until we can submit something back to the County Commission for their consideration. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close it. Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we have none. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing then. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'll move that we continue this indefinitely. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. MR. ARDAMAN: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second for a continuance indefinitely on this item. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries unanimously. MR. ARDAMAN: Thank you all. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you, sir. Item #12B5 ORDINANCE 98-34 RE PETITION NO. PUD-91-2(1) WILLIAM R. VINES, OF VINES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING ROBERT S. HARDY, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD AMENDING THE NORTHBROOKE PLAZA PUD LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF 1-75 AND NAPLES-IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) - TABLED FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, going back then to item -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: 12(B) (5) , I -- 12 (B) -- yeah. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: 12 (B) (5). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, 12(B) (5) . Petition number PUD-91-2(1) . This is requesting a rezone from PUD to PUD, having the effect of amending the Northbrooke Plaza PUD to increase the amount of gross floor area devoted to retail/service/offices. Mr. Nino -- excuse me. Oh, yes, swearing in. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Swear in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All individuals wishing to speak to this item, please rise and be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Any disclosures, Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. Only what I've read in the paper. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: That was mine. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So you have no credible information whatsoever. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No credible information whatsoever. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I had contact with someone who has a concern about this particular item, but not from the petitioner. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No disclosure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm better off than you, I haven't read what was in the paper. But I had discussion with members of the Second District Association and constituents on this matter. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, very good. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. For the record, my name is Ron Nino. The petition that's before you seeks to have you amend the Northbrooke Plaza PUD by actually repealing it and readopting it in its amended form. I might add the parenthetical that they're coming before you a year and a half sooner than they would otherwise have to come before you, asking for this, because under sunsetting you gave them a two-year extension. The effect of this PUD is to amend the current specificity in terms of how the land will be used from retail and service, gas stations, restaurants, general retail, and to -- and to combine that into one category of retail and service, while maintaining the motel/hotel and the residential component. The bottom line is that the intensity would be increased from 196,000 square feet to 270,000 square feet. However, in a compensating manner, for every hotel -- for every 26 units of hotel space that takes up an acre, commensurate reduction in the 270,000 square feet would occur, and in addition to that -- and let me say that the current PUD allows 150 hotel units, the current (sic) PUD does not require -- does not refer to hotel units -- well, it refers to 130 hotel units instead of 150. So there's immediately a 20-unit reduction there. And additionally, for every acre of hotel space, there will be a commensurate reduction of 10,000 square feet from the 270. In addition, the residential component will be reduced from 150 to 120 units. The bottom line is that that pretty well shakes out in terms of traffic intensity to not substantially change the average daily traffic generation characteristic here. None of these issues bear on any growth management relationships. The land is within an activity center. They're actually reducing -- well, they're maintaining -- I should say they're maintaining the density at 12 units per acre because they also reduce the residential tract. One other thing this PUD does, instead of having three tracts, there will only be two tracts. In the current PUD, two of the three tracts were commercial, with specific allocations to each tract. And one tract was residential. In this amendment, there will be two tracts; one with the current package and the remaining with the residential development. The -- with respect to the commercial intensity, I would remind you that as a rule of thumb, we've always talked about 10,000 square feet of commercial development per acre of commercially designated land. This PUD, even at the 270 will be less than that rule of thumb application that we've applied over the years. We had a couple of outstanding issues that have to be addressed prior -- after you received your package, and I'd like to hand them out. One had to do with the environmental stipulations. We weren't able to formulate those environmental stipulations until a later period of time. And in addition, we included in here an issue that I'm sure you're going to talk about, and that is DRI threshold relationships. This PUD specifically provides on table -- on page seven that I just handed out, that the mixed use thresholds for retail -- for commercial and hotels and offices would under no circumstances trigger a DRI threshold for this project, for the Northbrooke Plaza. And I might also add that -- and I'm sure Mr. Vines will talk about it as well -- that we have talked to DCA and we have also talked to the Regional Planning Commission about this project, and I have not heard any concerns about the issues of aggregation. And the only issue that we discussed at some length was whether or not this particular PUD triggered a DRI threshold. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a question on that point. MR. NINO: And with this caveat, it does not. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you had a question? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, my question was engendered by in the staff report where you say the burden for determining likely DRI relationship lies with the RPC and the DCA, and that worried me. I understand that it's their obligation, but I certainly always assumed that our staff, if their -- if their antenna went up, if there was some reason to think that this may be something that we don't want the RPC to miss, that they would raise that issue with the planning council. Am I right or wrong about that? MR. NINO: You're right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm right about that. MR. NINO: You're right. An issue was raised with the planning council. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And so with this particular PUD you've raised aggregation issues. I understand you saying that you've raised the issues of whether or not this particular PUD might be a DRI and that -- and everybody agrees it's not. The question was, have you raised aggregation issues on this group of PUD's up there with the planning council or DCA? MR. NINO: Yes. We've talked to DCA staff and regional planning council staff and discussed that issue. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And everybody agrees that there are no aggregation problems at all? MR. NINO: I don't know. No one has related anything back to us that their analysis indicated the need for applying the aggregation standard. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So you alerted them, and now they'll do what they will or won't do. It's in their court, so to speak? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, unfortunately the chairman of the RPC sits on this board, as do I, and so, I mean, we've got people that are there and active and participate. But realistically, when you look at the facts of that situation up there, you have all kinds of different corporate entities, some with similar partners, some with different partners, who have done that over a 20-year span. And to try to tie that back now as a DRI is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: See, I don't know. I don't know who the partners are, I don't know who the players are. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and I appreciate you raising the question, but I would respectfully suggest you research some of that information before you bring the item up, just because -- I mean, it has -- the discussion's been at the RPC staff level, and while I understand the newspaper has raised the issue and said, you know, boy, there is one individual who's involved in many of these, there are all kinds of people who are involved in one and not the other and so on, so forth, so -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it does not mean what it appears. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: My only question, and I wanted to be sure, and Mr. Nino has reassured me, I was troubled by the staff report line that said this is not our problem or not our job, and I wanted to be sure that our staff knows that it is, and they are doing exactly what they should do and that is if something looks like it might be questionable, they raise the question. And that was all I intended to ask. I'm not digging into this, because it's not my issue. It belongs to -- it's a regional issue, it belongs to the region. The only other small comment I had is that -- my copy anyway doesn't have -- it says if you're a contract purchaser applicant, to attach a copy of the contract, and that's not in my packet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So you need to know for -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I don't think it's a contract purchaser. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, it says here, it says Robert Hardy, president, 100 percent owner of the -- RSH of Naples, Inc. is the -- I mean, that's the box they checked. So if they -- if they already own it, then show me the deed; if they don't already own it, then show me the contract. Just one of the little things of my mental checklist. MR. NINO: I thought I had everything in there. I -- perhaps Mr. Vines could -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe the petitioner can answer that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is it an ownership or a purchase situation at this time, Mr. Vines? MR. VINES: The land is under contract. It is subject to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself, please. MR. VINES: -- the PUD adjustments which are the subject of your hearing today. MR. FERNANDEZ: You need to identify yourself for the record. MR. VINES: I'm sorry, I'm William Vines, agent for the petitioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just the contract is supposed to be a part of the packet, and I wanted to get to see that. I'm sure it's in here somewhere. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, and if it's not, and we can't answer that question, then we can continue it to another day, because if anybody has any conflicts, they can't be -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Gotta know. MR. NINO: I can't -- I thought it was in the package. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bill, do you know who's involved in the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Maybe we can continue with this and somebody just go pull it out of the file. It must be somewhere. I thought that was just going to be a quick little checklist item. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who's involved in the contract? So Commissioner Mac'Kie can know if she has any conflict with them? MR. VINES: The contract is between Robert Hardy and his corporate entity, RSH of Naples, Inc., and the land trust, which owns the land. And that's -- and the trustee of that land trust is local attorney Richard Bennett. And the contract provides that RSH of Naples, Inc. will purchase and develop the property subject to adjustment of the PUD in the manner that the application that you are considering today is described. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't know who's in that land trust? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's the problem, Bill. We need MR. VINES: Oh, do I know who is in the land trust? Commissioner, there's probably 25 people, all passive investors. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We've got to have that list. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We need to know that now. MR. VINES: I can -- I am almost positive that Ron asked me and I delivered to you -- I know I did -- MR. NINO: Yes, you did. MR. VINES: -- because I went to Dick Bennett to get the updated MR. NINO: MR. VINES: MR. NINO: MR. VINES: can't -- we? Yes, you did. -- list. And I thought it was in the package. And I don't have my full files here today and so I COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: God knows, Ron, we've beat up -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- on people enough on that one, haven't MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? MR. NINO: I have that list. MR. FERNANDEZ: I suggest that we table -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Unfortunately, I don't. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- this item for -- temporarily and give the staff a chance to -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- find that record and bring it back and -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to table. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second. MR. FERNANDEZ: -- that way we can get on with our agenda. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. We have a motion and a second to table this item until we can get some more information available. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We anticipate that being before the end of the day? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. Item #12B6 RESOLUTION 98-111 RE PETITION SNR-98-2 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION REPRESENTING THE BCC REQUESTING STREET NAME CHANGES FOR 1ST AVENUE NW TO BE CHANGED TO TEAKWOOD DRIVE; 3RD AVENUE NW TO BE CHANGED TO CORAL WOOD DRIVE; 5TH AVENUE NW TO BE CHANGED TO HICKORY WOOD DRIVE; AND 7TH AVENUE NW TO BE CHANGED TO CHERRY WOOD DRIVE LOCATED IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll move on then to item 12(B) (6), community development and environmental services division. We're going to be looking at some street changes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: They misspelled the word carrot. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Again. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Any objection to this? MR. MULHERE: For the record, Bob Mulhere, planning director. I'm sorry, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Any objection? MR. MULHERE: I did receive some letters of objection and some phone calls. I tracked those letters and calls, and I have a -- I've received a total of 25 calls, 11 in favor and 14 in opposition. But I would qualify that a number of the opposition calls were not necessarily in opposition to the street name change. Several of them were concerned with the names that were selected. So -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Carrotwood. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's kind of like picking the color -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Bob, if I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Christmas. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- can, a quick history on this. If you remember, we changed the four streets on the southern half of Logan. At the time we said we would also look at changing the four names to the north, but we needed to go through the process to get that done; picked the names out and so on. At the time that we did the initial four streets, I sent a letter out not only to those four, but to the northern four streets as well, and I got back an overwhelming response. I got several hundred letters between the eight streets, and had about a 75 percent favorable response. It was an overwhelming in favor of changing. So I know there's been some questions specifically about a couple of the names and I don't think that's been an overwhelming objection, but there has been some objection. MR. MULHERE: I just need to get on the record that we notified somewhere in the neighborhood of just under 300 homeowners. And I did get a fax to me -- I guess you would call it a petition. It has one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight names, and they are opposing the renaming of Seventh Avenue Northwest to Cherry Wood Drive. And I don't know if that is necessarily the name or simply the act of renaming the street. And I know we have one or two members of the public here who are registered to speak. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have five registered speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, let's hear them. MR. FERNANDEZ: First speaker is Christine Holes, and then the next is Eleanor McMullen. MS. HOLES: Hello, my name's Christine Holes. I'm here to speak about the subject. I've talked with Mr. Constantine on the phone before about this, and I don't need to go all over it, but, you know, we talked about we don't have to do a petition because you said there was an overwhelming response. I brought with me several letters of neighbors that wanted to be here today that are all for it, but they had to work or whatever. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Could you submit those to the court reporter here so we have them for the record? Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That pesky thing called work. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Details. MS. HOLES: Let me see. I just wanted to say that I support it because we just recently built on Third Avenue, which would then now be Coral Wood Drive. I thought it was a nice idea because it brings together a sense of community, plus there's eight little streets there and only four were named, and it just seemed funny that the other four weren't. But it also would -- I know building and having things delivered, it was a pain telling people, you know, Third Avenue Northwest, and then they wouldn't show up, and it's like no, not over there, I'm over here, and that's different. I had sent out letters to everyone on Seventh, Fifth, Third and First saying, you know, that it was basically a done deal, we need to pick out some names. That was all that was left to do. And everyone sent in their suggestions, you know. And then I sent them -- I don't remember the girl's name -- but in for duplication. And there were approximately 50 names that we sent in. And there was I think like seven names that were not -- or that were able to be used, because all the other ones were, say, on hold for future developments coming in. And I was instructed that they wanted it to be as closely matched in names as we could get for like 9-1-1 purposes and stuff. That's the Teak Wood, the Coral Wood, like that. There were four names that were like that, and there were two others that did not match at all. That's why these four were submitted to Christine, Mr. Constantine's secretary. I gave them to them. And that's how we came about the names. They were submitted by residents there. And I haven't -- I'd say 99 percent of the people, at least on my street, think it's great. So, I mean, it's -- so I guess that's all I have to say. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Can you tell me where I would find the elusive coral wood tree? MS. HOLES: I have one in the island in my driveway. I do. They're very pretty. But whatever. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MS. HOLES: I guess that's it. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Eleanor McMullen and then Mark McCabe. MS. McMULLEN: Good afternoon. I'm Eleanor McMullen and I've been a resident on Seventh Avenue Northwest for a little over 15 years. And many of the home -- in fact, most of the homeowners on our street were wanting to be here and wanted to speak. They sent in several names, calls, so forth, but they're working so they couldn't be here. And since I have been out of state for quite a while, I was chosen to get here -- come here. And I did want to speak to them seriously about the name.chanse. They really were opposed to the change, and especially if it is going to be -- and it is going -- as I understand it, going to be Logan Woods, that we should keep in the woods. But they want to have a say. If that is a fact, for various reasons, that they were resenting a change, and of course some of the owners are -- have their own businesses and went to an awful lot of expenses, and a couple of other things. But that if it is going to be a tree or a woods, they sure wanted a say in that change. Cherry Wood, I'm doubtful if there's a cherry tree in the State of Florida. There's sure not in our street or in our vicinity. So what they would like to do is very much have a.sa¥ in naming that street. And we would like to request of the commissioners, if you would be gracious enough to grant us a continuance of a minimum of 30 days where we can come together and meet with each other and discuss this, and to give your -- to come back to you and submit a more acceptable name. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could we do three out of four today? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're really talking to people that live on what is proposed to be Cherry Wood; is that correct? MS. McMULLEN: Right. Seventh Avenue Northwest, right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can definitely consider that. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Mark McCabe, and then Karen Shepherd. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. McCabe is no longer here. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next is Karen Shepherd, and then Jean Atkinson. MS. SHEPHERD: Hi, I'm Karen Shepherd. I live on Third Avenue Northwest. And I'm for the street name change, and for all the reasons that Chris said. And I think it's kind of confusing for like paramedics to go on Logan and get to First Avenue Northwest and not know where they're going next. And it's kind of confusing. So I don't really have much to say. I think that if we could have our street changed now, we'd really appreciate it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Actually, if you recall, Chief Don Peterson was here first time I went through this and you said he had no objection as long as we changed all eight. He said if you have half and half, it does make it more difficult. They'll get wherever they need to go, but it's more difficult for them. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And that may be a reason why not to delay the eighth one, because then we'd have seven with names and one with numbers for awhile. You know, that's a concern, anyway. MR. FERNANDEZ: Last speaker is Jean Atkinson. MS. ATKINSON: Hi, I'm Jean Atkinson, I live on First Avenue Northwest. And shortly after Christmas I was -- I had been very concerned and wondering about the street name change. I, as a lot of other people, assumed that our four streets were going to be changed, too. So I sent a little letter out to my neighbors and I got a very good response to the change. In addition to that, I chose names, because I was in contact with somebody in planning and she said that their problem was trying to find names and that we couldn't duplicate or be too similar to names in Naples. So I went through some maps in Georgia and Alabama and I came up with a fairly large list, which I submitted to her, and that's where the names came from. The other problem with the names was that there are a lot of names that have already been taken in developments that are not yet developed. So what a lot of the people on these streets don't realize is that we don't really have a wide choice of names. We're very limited to the names. And that's how we came up with the names that we came up with. And we were trying to follow suit with the other names -- the other four streets, which seemed to have ridge in them or wood, and that's really where the names came from. I mean, we were just real limited on names. I really didn't intend to get involved in the name change thing, but -- I mean in the names themselves or -- what happened was, when I sent my letter out, I said, you know, who's interested here, and if you are, what names do you suggest? And so that's where -- you know, that's how we got rolling on this name change, so -- or the names that we pulled out. Again, I think the people that live on these streets, a lot of them just simply didn't realize that we were very limited on the names. But the majority of the people on First Avenue Northwest were interested in changing. We did have a handful of people that were very concerned. The reasons I thought were not major reasons. Inconvenience was one of the main ones. Higher taxes, which I was told is not going to change the taxes. So to me, there -- you know, there wasn't a -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If we can increase the value of property by changing the name, can we start with my street? MS. ATKINSON: We -- the majority of us felt like it was a definite improvement. And we would like our street name to be as -- to continue on with the others, First Avenue Northwest. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Commissioner Mac'Kie, I know you had expressed a concern, just making sure everybody had a chance. But not only did these folks send a letter, apparently to each of the homes, but in October, November, whenever we heard this, I had sent, as part of my letter, to virtually every property owner in Logan Woods and said if you have suggestions, now is the time to share them. And -- because we didn't want to just pick names at random, we wanted things that people were happy with. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Sounds like you've covered it already. Can't make everybody happy, but it's a good idea. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've often said that come Christmastime, just about any homeowners' association, you can ask what color the Christmas lights should be and you'd get a split vote. So no matter what you do sometimes on these things, people are not going to like 'em one way or the other. But I honestly think -- you know, even if it's Cherry Wood, it does have a more -- you know, a little better ring than Seventh Avenue Northwest. I think that's how most people seem to feel. Would you agree, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing then. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve the four name changes. Any other questions or concerns? All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Did Mr. Vines get away? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Where's Mr. Vines? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think he's trying to get the contract. Item #12C1 RESOLUTION 98-112 RE PETITION AV 98-005 VACATING A PORTION OF THE PLATTED 10 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS ON LOTS 3, 4, 10, 11, 27, 28, 32, 33, AND 37, TRACT 5 OF PELICAN STRAND REPLAT-1B - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Oh, he's checking? Ail right. Then we'll go on to 12(C) (1). Petition AV 98-005, vacating a portion of the platted 10 foot wide drainage easements on lots 3, 4, 10, 11, 27, 28, 32, 33 and 37, tract five, Pelican Strand. it? Mr. Muller. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Muller, does this have a downside to MR. MULLER: No, sir. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Close the public hearing? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second to approve petition AV 98-005. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Muller. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: He's got another one. Thank you, Mr. Item #12C2 RESOLUTION 98-113 RE PETITION AV 97-029 TO VACATING A 7.5 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN LOT 1, BLOCK C AND VACATING A PORTION OF A 7.5 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN LOT 9, BLOCK C OF BRIARWOOD UNIT TWO - ADOPTED COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: He may well be here for the next one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Petition AV 97-029, vacating a portion of a 7.5 foot wide drainage easement in lot one, block C, and vacating a portion of a 7.5 foot wide drainage easement in block nine -- lot nine, block C, Briarwood. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Muller, does this have a downside to it? MR. MULLER: No, sir. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sensing a pattern in these. Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second for approval of Petition AV 97-029. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excellent job, Russ. work. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: each of those. Keep up the good He's always good. We probably could have spent four hours on Item #13A1 RESOLUTION 98-114 RE PETITION CU-97-27, WILLIAm4 L. HOOVER, AICP, OF HOOVER PLANNING AND BEAU KEENE, PE, REPRESENTING GOLDEN GATE ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE "1" OF THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR RECONFIGURING THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES OF AN EXISTING CHURCH AND FOR ADDITION OF BUILDINGS AND PARKING FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 39TH STREET SW AND 29TH AVENUE SW - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The next one is Petition CU-97-27. This has to do with the Golden Gate Assembly of God Church. Would all persons wishing to speak to this item be sworn in, please. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I was going to ask Mr. Reischl if there's a downside to this. (Ail speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioners, for -- any disclosure? Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I met with the two pastors and Mr. Hoover. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: As did I. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: As did I. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to render my decision as required by the laws -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We know that. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- in the State of Florida. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I got the official one pastor meeting with Mr. -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Mr. Reischl. MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon, commissioners, Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a reconfiguration of the property of an existing church, the Golden Gate Assembly of God, at the intersection of 39th Street and 29th Avenue Southwest. The church currently is configured -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You know, I really hate to do this -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Me, too. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- but this is just kind of a no-brainer. I think they met at -- Mr. Reischl, are there any difficulties or issues from staff's standpoint on this that need to be addressed today? MR. REISCHL: Well, the one issue that needs to be at least mentioned in your motion is the fact that staff, because of what we consider a gray area in the Golden Gate area master plan, it doesn't specifically allow for a reconfiguration this way. However, we believe that an interpretation by you would find it consistent with the master plan. So if you're inclined to approve, if your motion includes the interpretation. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers, Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, we don't. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, I'll close the public hearing then. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I'm going to make a motion we approve Petition CU-97-27 with the interpretation that the reconfiguration of the site which actually reduces the size of the parcel for consideration is indeed consistent with the Golden Gate master plan. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there's no further questions, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I liked it, Fred, the little crosses on the staff report. That was good. Did you see that? Item #13A2 RESOLLUTION 98-115 RE PETITION V-98-4 ROBERT L. DUANE REPRESENTING NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL REQUESTING A 30 FOOT DIMENSIONAL VARIANCE FROM TWO REQUIRED 15 FOOT SETBACKS TO ZERO FEET, TO CONSTRUCT A BUILDING ACROSS A COMMON PROPERTY BOUNDARY IN PUD ZONING DISTRICTS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COLLIER HEALTH CENTER PUD AND THE NORTH NAPLES MEDICAL PARK PUD ZONING DISTRICTS - ADOPTED CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, the next one is Petition number V-98-4. This is a 30-foot dimensional variance for two required 15-foot setbacks to zero feet to construct a building across a common property boundary. Ms. Murray -- oh, swear 'em in. Anybody wishing to speak to this item, would you please be sworn in. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MS. MURRAY: Good afternoon. Susan Murray, planning services. The applicant is requesting a 30-foot dimensional variance from the required 30-foot perimeter setback requirements for two adjacent planned unit developments. This request stems from the applicant's desire to construct a building across the eastern common perimeter property line between the two PUD zoning districts. The PUD's consist of the North Naples Medical Park PUD and the Collier Health Center PUD, which are adjacent to each other on the north side of Immokalee Road, just east of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. There are some special conditions and circumstances related to the subject properties. They are abutting PUD's, which generally allow the same type of medical uses. Both properties are under common ownership. And the building and the type of use desired would be allowed in either zoning district. There really is no hardship or other special conditions related to the property, and reasonable use of the land could be made without the use of the variance. However, consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code as they relate to the granting of a variance, and owing to special conditions related to the property, a diminution of the regulations should have no measurable impact of the public interest, safety or welfare. At a meeting held on April 2nd, the Collier County Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to the BZA that they approve V-98-4, subject to the stipulations found in the resolution of adoption. I did have quite a few telephone conversations with residents of Palm River. When they found out basically where this structure was to be located, I did not receive any objections. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. First off, do we have any disclosure from any Commissioners on this item? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No disclosure. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: None. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I have none either. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: None for me. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, Commissioner Hancock, you had a question. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. Ms. Murray, in the orientation, it appears as if the rear of the building will be the visible side from Immokalee Road. Does that side of the building have to comply with the commercial architectural standards in the Land Development Code? MS. MURRAY: Yes, sir, it would. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So we're not going to see air handling units and transformers and all kinds of garbage behind the building there? MS. MURRAY: They would be screened -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Screened and integrated and made purty (sic) . MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Made purty. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're interested in pretty. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We be pretty. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And this -- what I liked, frankly, in Mr. Duane's letter, if -- this is the children's medical center -- I was encouraged to hear that it is the hospital's intention to combine these two PUD's and come up with the unified plan, which is what I was going to talk about, frankly, until I read -- continued through and read your letter. And, you know, I understand that you need the variance so that you cannot lose the state grant to fund this children's center, and -- but I do hope that they will make good on that commitment to come through and combine those with the unified plan. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this the joint effort with the Miami Children's Hospital? It doesn't have anything to do with the rezone. I'm just curious, if you know. MR. DUANE: I don't -- I can't answer that question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect that Mr. Duane doesn't know the answer to that question. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It could happen. MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane from Hole, Montes and Associates. Thank you. It's a partnership with the department of -- the State of Florida Department of Health. That's who the partnership is with. And it's a million dollar grant. And the money has to be expended this year, which is why we needed to get under construction. I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff. They processed this petition in five weeks. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Great. MR. DUANE: And the hospital appreciated it and I did too, and thank you for all your good staff support. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do we have any public speakers on this item? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Then I will close the public hearing COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Motion to approve. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- unless there's further questions. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Is Mr. Vines back yet? Motion carries five-zero. No, he is not. Item #13A4 RESOLUTION 98-116 RE PETITION V-98-3 ANITA L. JENKINS OF WILSON MILLER, BARTON & PEEK, INC., REPRESENTING NAPLES HRS PARTNERSHIP, REQUESTING A 6 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 15 FEET TO 9 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 215 NORTH AIRPORT ROAD, FURTHER DESCRIBED AS TRACT "B" OF AIRPORT ROAD PLAZA ADOPTED WITH CHANGES Okay, then, moving on to item 13(A) (4). COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we send out a search party for Mr. Vines -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll get him. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- since we have the information? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Petition V-98-3. This is Naples HRS Partnership, requesting a six-foot variance from the required side yard setback of 15 feet to nine feet for property located at 215 North Airport Road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You know, Anita, you looked better when you worked here. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: For purpose of disclosure, I have met with the representative of the applicant and I believe a potential user of the site, which is the former JTPA. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No disclosure. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: None that I recall. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And nor do I have anything that I recall. All persons wishing to speak to this item, would you please be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Good afternoon again, Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a variance for the existing Children and Family Services building at the intersection of Radio Road and Airport Road. The request is for a proposed addition. The addition -- the petitioner came in for a pre-application meeting for a site development plan, showing the original site development plan for the Children and Family Services building which indicated a rear yard setback of five feet. However, the configuration of the lot, as they came in for that pre-application meeting, indicated that would be a side yard setback. We hashed through what had happened, and the story was that the state -- or the partnership had designed the addition at the same time as the main building when the front of the building was facing Airport Road. As you can see on Mr. Means' diagram, that driveway is actually a corridor going out Airport Road. There was frontage on Airport Road, there was frontage on Radio Road. At the time that original SDP was submitted, an interpretation was made that since the address was from Airport Road, the building faced Airport Road and they had access on Airport Road, that was the front of the building; therefore the east boundary was the rear. Therefore, the petitioner relied on that information and designed the addition so that they had a five-foot -- well, actually, more than a five foot, but at least a five-foot setback at the rear. However, since the existing part of the building was constructed, they sold the western most portion of the property, the corridor out to Airport Road, so that is no longer -- they have an easement, but it's no longer their property. Their only frontage now is from Radio Road. Therefore, the only way this can be configured is that Radio Road is the front yard. That makes the east property line the side yard, which requires a 15-foot side yard setback. Very confusing, but the reason that this variance is coming before you, they have -- they could have redesigned the addition, however, they had already gone through all the architecturals and structural design relying on that five-foot setback and decided to come before you for a six-foot variance. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The key to this to me is the adjacent property owner has no objection and in fact supplied a letter saying he has no problem with it. MR. REISCHL: He has no objection. And he could build up to the property line since it's a side yard and industrial. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I need to clarify, too, I do have some recollection now of a conversation regarding this for disclosure purposes. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'd also talked to the petitioner -- and maybe they can offer something -- about a sidewalk on that side and doing some landscaping as a way to kind of mitigate further due setback. Do we have any staff stipulations addressing either of those matters? MR. REISCHL: I don't know if there's a sidewalk along Radio Road. That would be the only -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I mean up near the building. MR. REISCHL: Oh, an internal sidewalk? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah. MR. REISCHL: We haven't seen the plans yet. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll let the petitioner -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We'll hear from the petitioner, please. MR. MEANS: Thank you. For the record, my name is Steve Means, representing the petitioner. I have for you to look at some color copies that are better than MR. REISCHL: Better than mine? MR. MEANS: Yeah, the ones that are in your agenda. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Limited funds for a good reason, Fred. MR. MEANS: The -- what I just gave you was a smaller rendition of what I put up on the bulletin board. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Before we go through a long thing -- MR. MEANS: Sure. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- does anybody on the board object to this? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: No. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Means, we talked about the entry to the back of this building, there being a sidewalk and whether additional landscaping would be added. Do you have anything on that in particular? MR. MEANS: I don't at this time, although I will entertain some suggestions that you may have. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We'd looked at a site plan that showed a sidewalk that kind of dead-ended on that side. MR. MEANS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But I'm sure there's a door to the rear of the building. MR. MEANS: Yes, there is. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I believe I'd asked that the sidewalk be extended to that door so there not be a beaten grass path. MR. MEANS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I'd also asked if you could consider doing -- particularly at this front corner here that would face Radio Road, the front right-hand corner as you're standing at Radio Road, to do additional plantings in that area to kind of soften the edge of the building a little bit, since it is so close to the property line. I guess I'm just -- MR. MEANS: I will -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- asking -- MR. MEANS: I will offer that up and we will extend the sidewalk to the back door -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. MR. MEANS: -- along that north/south interface there, and provide additional landscaping on that corner to hide -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Something in the area of two or three palm trees with some shrubs on the front right-hand corner there as you're facing it from Radio Road. I think it would help soften the edge of the building, being so close to the property line. So if you'd agree to those, I'm -- MR. MEANS: Yes. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- content. MR. MEANS: Yes, we will. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. It's another case of make it look nice. MR. MEANS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The theme. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'll close the public hearing. MR. REISCHL: Excuse me, Commissioners. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. REISCHL: Did you want those as part of the resolution, or just a verbal agreement by the petitioner? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think that's -- I think we'd kind of want that -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, I'd like to see 'em -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- to be part of -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- included. I'll make a motion that we adopt the resolution and include in the resolution the two constraints which are to continue the sidewalk along the eastern side of the building back to the access door, and that we have a minimum planting of the southeast corner of the proposed expansion of three mature palms and some low-lying shrubbery to soften that corner from the appearance of Radio Road. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Can I ask something on there -- can I make a friendly amendment to your motion? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Certainly. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I'd like to see if you would entertain the idea of having this be one of our conditional variances that would be -- that would expire if this -- if this particular encroachment was removed in the future. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. MR. REISCHL: According to the LDC language, greater than 50 percent destruction, that -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Whatever. It just -- you know, that's why we put that conditional variance in. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: So if a fire happens tomorrow, they can't come back and build to the property line along the entire thing. They have to come back through the whole process again. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes, my -- my motion includes that. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Then I'll second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there -- do we have any public speakers on this? MR. FERNANDEZ: We have none. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. If there's no further questions, all in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Thank you. MR. MEANS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Means, you do a fine impersonation of Ms. Jenkins. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Doesn't he? MR. MEANS: I'm not as good looking as her, but I did know the history on this project, and that's why I'm up here. Item #12B5 ORDINANCE 98-34 RE PETITION NO. PUD-91-2(1) WILLIAM R. VINES, OF VINES & ASSOCIATES, INC., REPRESENTING ROBERT S. HARDY, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM PUD TO PUD AMENDING THE NORTHBROOKE PLAZA PUD LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF 1-75 AND NAPLES-IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) - ADOPTED WITH CHANGES CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, we'll go back to the -- maybe we won't go back. We have Mr. Mulhere here. MR. MULHERE: I did track down Mr. Muller and Mr. Vines, who were hovering over a fax, but the fax is not producing the document, the contract. And -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Did we -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think what we're looking for -- we were looking for the trustees -- MR. MULHERE: That we have. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- for the beneficiaries. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Two things. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have that. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We have that. But if you'd look -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Do you still want the contract, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, somebody -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just quit your other job. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I don't have another job, guys. I just think this needs to be -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Maybe you don't understand. What purpose do you need the contract for? What information do we need that we don't already have? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What I'm curious about is the application for public hearing says that the name of the applicant is HRS of Naples, Inc., and then it checked F and said if it's a contract purchaser, attach a copy of the contract to indicate actual owner's name. It says that the actual owner's name is Robert S. Hardy, president, 100 percent owner, but it doesn't attach a copy of the contract. I guess if that's -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Vines said the buyer was this land trust and has just given us -- we have the list now -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, that's the seller. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- of who's involved in the trust. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's the seller? Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But doesn't that -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And actually what ought to be on that line is -- you know, it's just not filled out right. What ought to be there ms who the actual owner currently is, and that's not Robert S. Hardy, president. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, because he just bought it. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Because he's gonna buy it if we rezone it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The current owner are the beneficiaries of the land trust, represented by Mr. Bennett, right? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not ready to send this thing away because somebody checked the wrong box. I'm ready to continue -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I just want to know the facts. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- it if we don't know the -- if we don't know who's involved, that's one thing, but it appears we do. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we've got 'em. Mr. Nino has indicated that the beneficiaries of the land trust, as listed here, are the current owners of the project. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that correct, Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: That is correct. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The contract purchasers -- MR. NINO: Contract purchasers -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Mr. Hardy has testified on that particular piece of paper that he is 100 percent the owner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So the -- so the land trust currently owns it and HRS of Naples, Inc. has contracted to buy it. We have a sworn statement from Mr. Hardy that he's 100 percent of the ownership of the contract purchaser. If all that's on the record, that's -- you know, if that's a sworn statement, somebody will confirm it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: This was the only piece missing for me were the beneficiaries of the land trust. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right, that was the most important piece, for sure. MR. FERNANDEZ: Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: I understand that the contract document is not a required part of the backup to allow the board to legally take action today. It may be a piece of information you wish to have, but it's not essential from a legal standpoint, as I understand it, for you to have that before you. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, we usually -- we get it every time. And we get it every time with the price stuff blocked out. Of course they don't want to disclose that, but -- MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero. We've been making an effort to give you that, and we will continue to do so. I haven't been sworn in. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If you want to make it a requirement in the future we can have that discussion -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It is a requirement. We get it every time. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Actually, if you sign the affidavit saying that I'm 100 percent owner of the property, that's all that has been required in the past by law. It's an affidavit that says I own it, me, period. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But he doesn't own it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: If it's incorrect, then that's another issue. But I have to be shown something that says it's incorrect, either now or in the future. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Are you -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have enough information to determine that I don't have a conflict of interest in this case. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the county attorney says that we can proceed with it as is, that's fine with me. I'm just pointing out that it's not there. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So you're not -- you're not in -- you don't -- it's not a case of your questioning him being 100 percent ownership? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: (Shakes head negatively). CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Contract wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If he swore that he is, I'm taking it. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Off we go. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Is somebody going to gather up Mr. Vines and bring him back? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Like a sack of groceries, gather him up -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- haul him in. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Let the record reflect that the children are playing with the new toys up here on the dais. Mr. Cautero? MR. CAUTERO: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Vince Cautero for the record. The contract is coming in through the fax. It's 14 pages long. Do you-all wish copies of it? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: No. If Commissioner Mac'Kie needs a copy, that's great. Otherwise, can we go on with the public hearing, rather -- and hopefully you'll have it before the public hearing is over? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just so you understand -- I'm going to say this one more time, because I don't want you guys to be acting like -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's all right. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: -- I'm causing trouble down here. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It's not acting. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We're not acting. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The fact of the matter -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: State your reasons, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The fact of the matter is that this application for public hearing was submitted by Richard Bennett, trustee, and Bill Vines. Those two people have sworn before a notary that they have a contract with HRS of Naples, and they have sworn that Robert S. Hardy is 100 percent owner. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Of HRS. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Right. But Bob Hardy's hasn't -- his name doesn't appear anywhere in here. He doesn't anywhere in here say with his signature that he owns this. But that is a document filled out by somebody else. So do you understand that we're taking the seller's word that he has a contract with this buyer? I don't know if he's got a contract with this buyer or he's got a contract with Joe Smith. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Isn't it a land use item as opposed to -- it's not up to us -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is my conflict. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- to tell him who he does or doesn't sell to? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is the conflict question; is that in fact who he's selling to, or is it not who he's selling to? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: But Commissioner, all of these things have been disclosed and signed off on. If it turns out not to be the case and you voted -- and you think you have a conflict later, you're not responsible for that, because you relied on the information that was presented to you today. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Hey, John, I've relied on stuff presented to me and found myself in Tallahassee with a lawyer, so -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we get through the public hearing? And then if you're not satisfied that you have it before we're done, we can deal with it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm just surprised I'm the only one not satisfied. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We've been sitting here for 10 minutes doing nothing. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you know, the idea that no one else is -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's on his way. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that no one else should be -- you know, that we shouldn't be satisfied, I have a record owner, I have a contract purchaser, I have an affidavit signed to that effect and I have an agent. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The seller -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Look, commissioners, before any vote is taken us. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're gonna have the -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: -- we're going to have the contract before COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Why don't we go ahead? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: So let's go ahead. Mr. Vines, if you'll go ahead and present the rest of the information that you think we need to know, or if we have any questions for you, would you please do that? MR. VINES: I have very little information to add to what Mr. Nino said -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Excuse me. I make a motion to take this off the table. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, we need to do that. We have a motion and a second to untable this item and put it back before the commission. Ail in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. Now we have all this done, Mr. Vines, would you -- MR. VINES: Fine. The only purpose of this rezoned petition is to add some flexibility so that the contract purchaser, once he becomes the purchaser, can make improvements to the property and offer development sites to end users; presumably those end users who normally occupy the interstate interchanges: Hotels, restaurants, fast food places, gasoline service stations, which these days usually include convenience service facilities with it; together with a 10-acre multi-family site which is also eligible for life care facilities, should that option be elected. The contract purchaser, Bob Hardy, is not going to develop any of those things. He will simply make the land -- install the land improvements and market sites for use in accord with PUD development standards. And since he doesn't know how many motels or whether any -- how many square feet of office building or what kind of retail facility, he cannot provide detailed plans for those, and he was very uncomfortable with the existing PUD which set forth a specific number of acres and a specific number of square feet for these various different uses. So we submitted this application, which maintains the same permitted uses, maintains the same development intensity, but provides flexibility with regard to how many sites of what size for which of the particular uses permitted. That's what it's all about. And that's the only thing that's about. It's a minor PUD amendment, which initially, as I presented it, included only those changes needed to accommodate that which I just described. And the planning staff then said well, let's bring it somewhat more up to date by eliminating language which is no longer applicable, it being nine years old, and by correcting references which were installed nine years ago but no longer are pertinent. The Land Development Code having been adopted and there having been -- so we made all those changes. And then as the staff reviewed and processed it, a number of other suggestions came back and we accommodated each and every one. And you have the final product. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. I'd like to make a comment, first off. Everybody talks about the gateway into Naples, and they usually refer to it as the Pine Ridge interchange and so forth. That was done -- exit 15, whatever. This is exit -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Sixteen -- no. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's 17. I'm getting confused up here. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: You've got too much help. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I've got a lot of help. At any rate, at this point in time, this is one interchange off of 1-75 that there virtually has been nothing done to -- in the immediate, right as you exit, on all four corners. MR. VINES: Well, the northwest is now being developed. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, it is, but it's Pelican Strand that's in that area and there's a Publix and so forth. But when you come -- when you come off of 1-75, virtually you don't see very much, Bill. MR. VINES: It's unspoiled. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay, it's unspoiled at this point in time. MR. VINES: Right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We have an opportunity -- at this point in time, the other two interchanges, exit 15, exit 16, those have already been done -- I mean, it's already been started into. We have an opportunity at this time to make this exit a little bit different. And I don't know how you go about doing it. I don't have Mr. Hancock's expertise in this area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I might have a suggestion or two. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: But I would like to see if we couldn't do something different in this particular area that we have up there. And I was told at one time, Bill, that that was exactly what they wanted to do was to explore doing something a little bit different on all of those different quadrants. As I said, I'm not a planner, but I know if I don't like the looks of something, I know that I don't like the looks of it. I too don't want gasoline alley. I agree with that. We have an opportunity to change it. There's been no precedent set at this point in time in this area, so we have an opportunity to do something different. I would like to see us explore this. I don't know how -- what I'm saying, how can we work this into this particular petition? But if there's some possibility, I'd like to do that. Now, tell me how I get there, or if the rest of you are interested and that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm interested. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That was my only concern, Bill, when I looked at this was that we're kind of heading in a direction as a board where we seek increased specificity in PUD's that don't allow things to be shifted and moved around with a tremendous amount of flexibility, for the simple reason that, you know, it would be better to know what you have than to kind of roll the dice a little bit. We've been burned in the past on some projects where someone stood up and said we're going to do a quality development, turned around and sold it the next day and what pops up is anything but quality. So what we and our constituents have been asking us to do is to kind of tie things down, as much as is reasonable, still allowing for market flexibility. The proposed PUD kind of goes the other way here. And I understand the reason for seeking the flexibility. But there's some uses here. Let's take hotel/motel, for example. If that were to occur of the very southwest corner of tract A, I don't have as big a problem with it. But if it's to occur on the northern perimeter adjacent to tract B where existing or future homes up in Cypress Woods are nearby, you know, we're going to get the phone calls the moment they start pouring the footer. And -- MR. VINES: Tract B is residential. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. But that -- but it doesn't matter. Because if you start building in tract B and that hotel gets put up right next to it in tract A down the road, we're going to be accused of poor planning. Just like you wouldn't put a four-story hotel 50 feet from a residence. So when I look at this in tract A, the flexibility of location of some of these uses causes me concern, just as we were discussing earlier with a site on Pine Ridge Road. Some of the uses may have been acceptable if they were done a little differently or located a little differently. So it's kind of going the opposite way. So, you know, what Commissioner Berry is asking for, there's one way to accomplish that, and that is to try and tie everything in tract A together, whether it be through common architectural theme and applications and what not. And the only other option given us is to remove those uses that would not be appropriate if located immediately adjacent to tract B, since we have no way of moving it elsewhere on the site. We have no assurance that they're going to be put in a proper location within tract A, as opposed to a -- you know, a less than compatible location. So I think that's -- have I in a nutshell kind of put what I think we're going to be wrestling with on this project? Because I do know that at least the folks that are here today in the second district association, that's part of their concern. Another part is that I know that hotels and motels make a lot of sense next to the interstate, but I get a little concerned when I see like at Pine Ridge Road, the idea of having that kind of a unit, that kind of a building at every interchange at Collier County just isn't attractive to me. And we talk about gateways. You know, those big hotel buildings that are typically your economy hotels are just not the image of Collier County that the motoring public I think should be -- you know, should receive as they arrive here one way or another. And exit 16 is the northernmost exit for Collier County -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seventeen. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Seventeen. Excuse me, 17. Immokalee Road. Forget the exit numbers. Is that receiving point. It's the first one as you come in south that says Naples with an arrow this way. So we do get a lot of people new to the area coming off on Immokalee Road. So I'm trying to wrap all those concerns up just to say that we've got to tie this down a little bit better than what's been proposed here. Just so we know what we're getting. Or we at least know the range of uses we're getting in proximity to other uses. Otherwise, I have a high degree of -- or a lack of comfort on this particular proposal as it sits today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, I think one of the things that we've talked about, and I know, Commissioner, you've expressed this as well: If you look at the properties that are adjacent to this particular interchange, this is an opportunity to have -- and I know we can't dictate specifically what kinds of businesses are going to go into these particular properties. But this is an opportunity, because of the proximity of some neighborhoods very close here, to have some things included in this particular interchange that would be beneficial where people could walk to this interchange for that, quote, neighborhood concept. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's right. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: And again, I know we can't dictate the businesses, but boy, this is certainly an opportunity that something along this line would be beneficial for this particular area. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It sounds funny, but I'm almost of a mind to say "X" amount shall be used for retail and commercial square footage with a pedestrian orientation, again -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- just to get some retail services out there. Because as we look out to the east, out in the Estates -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- we don't see a lot of commercial services out there, and a lot of people raise -- you know, raise their voices about having commercial services out there. So the more we can provide them near to the individuals where they live, the better off our transportation network is going to be. These are a lot of things that come to bear on your project, Bill, but they're considerations we have to make today. And we've got to find a way to solve them if we're going to move ahead on this. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, I think every project that we have an opportunity -- and this is an opportunity. We don't always have it on every PUD that comes before us. But this is an opportunity to plan on some of these kinds of things. You've got -- with Huntington Lakes, and you're going to have the Cypress Woods development up in there. You've already got existing Long Shore Lake, you've got the Quail Creek area. Extremely close proximity that through pathways and what have you, you could connect to this. The opportunity is there. Now, how we address it is a concern. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And a motel and gas station isn't going to provide capture rates -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- or the services that those communities need. And so I know we're kind of piecing together a town planning concept here, but the truth is, we need to make sure, if we're going to have activity centers, whether they be interchange or not, that portions of those activity centers be designated or set aside to provide the services that people who live around them require. That's smart planning. That's smart land use decisions. And I think that's where we want to go on this. And obviously, Bill -- I mean, I can sit up here and tell you how I would do it if I were in your shoes, but we can certainly use some help from you on this. I know you've got some speakers to address some similar matters, but I think those are the things that I'm trying to just understand and get a picture of in my mind where this is going to go, rather than just doing a blanket approval and hoping for the best. MR. VINES: If you had a development sponsor -- and these are rare -- who was going to do the entire 40-acre tract and could do a detailed development plan up front, then, you know, you can accomplish everything you're talking about on the drawing board. But almost never does that occur. Most of the time the commercial locations like this are selected by a Shell Oil Company, a Publix, a Sheraton Hotel, an office developer, you know, all of the things that you see there, and they're not selected all at one time. And they -- you can't provide detailed plans for them in advance. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But Bill, that's what makes it necessary for us to come up with some standards in the PUD. MR. VINES: Well, I heard you this morning talk at length about in process standards requiring architectural continuity and a variety, and -- and I have no problem with that. I think this is the kind of project that needs that if it's going to be tied together. I suspect it needs to be more of a general rule set forth in your Land Development Code than in this PUD document. But either one would work. I don't know how far alon$ your staff is with that work, but if it -- if it is completed in good order, and in good time, I assume it will be applicable to this area and all others not yet developed. I don't know how to get at the business of doing detailed design for unknown future landowners. That's tough. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And I don't think we're going to go to detailed design, but I think we are looking at creating a more specific envelope. And when I talk about tying them together, exactly what you said, I'm just talking about requiring common architectural theme of similar styles and whatnot. You know, that -- tying it together, that we can accomplish, and we have done in the past, and it's not -- you know, it's not too strict on the property owner. But again, I'm not going to approve something that puts a potentially 10-story hotel next to 120 residential units. MR. VINES: Well, no hotel could be taller than three stories without your specific approval, after you've seen specific plans. The maximum building height is three stories, and then there's the proviso that the board can, given good cause, permit an increase in height. So I don't think that's a threat. The only thing that I know that's missing is the language that you would like to have applicable when the site development plan applications are submitted. That's the point at which you're going to get at all of these details. That's when you can talk turkey with the actual end users, and their specific site development plans, the architectural character and quality and all the other things that you're interested in. And I -- you know, all I can do is encourage completion of the work that I understand is in process. If I can contribute to it, I'll be glad to. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have a staff question. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Sure, Commissioner Mac'Kie. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Just trying to understand. Compare this PUD to the Pine Ridge one, you know, as far as intensity of uses that we talked about today. And this one doesn't have SIC codes and that one did. How do we decide? I mean, can I know that when this says, you know, medical -- you know, do these relate to the same SIC codes? How did we decide not to put SIC codes? MR. NINO: No, there's no relation, Commissioner. This is a generic description. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I thought one of the things that we did in our updated PUD's was add that code. You know, I complain about 'em, but consistency. MR. NINO: You know, it depends on the magnitude of the amendment to the PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Isn't this a sunset? MR. NINO: In our discussions with the applicant, the -- their comfort level was basically to leave -- to do the minimum amount of change to the PUD as possible and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is this a sunset PUD, Ron? MR. NINO: It was a sunset PUD, and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is one that we've asked to come back. MR. NINO: -- received an extension of two years. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: This is one that has to either change -- it's got two years to either build or change? MR. NINO: Change or come back with -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or come back, that's what I mean. MR. NINO: -- request a new PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: So this -- MR. NINO: There's nothing inconsistent about this PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, it's just that since it's one of the sunset PUD's, it seems to me that we ought to be consistent in how we are -- you know, it's an old one we're trying to bring up to standards. I wonder why we don't do it consistently with SIC codes and otherwise. MR. NINO: Because the owner felt more comfortable with retaining as much as they had of the original approval and -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What's the point of sunset then? MR. VINES: If you -- if you want to know the truth about the SIC codes, I regard them as unwielding, difficult to understand, requiring some kind of interpreter, and I don't know why you bother with them. To tell you the truth, the way this PUD was written back in 1991, it says in plain English what's permitted. An SIC code gives you some indication and then a lot of question marks. I -- you know, if I were in Ron's position advising you on it, I'd ask you to give serious consideration to just junking them. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Commissioner Mac'Kie, you aren't asking that we install SIC codes in this document, are you? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I guess I am asking to know what SIC codes would comport with this one so I can have some framework, some basis of comparison to is this more intense or less intense than the one at Pine Ridge. MR. NINO: This is tremendously less. Less definitive in terms of the laundry list of uses. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's less what? MR. NINO: It's much smaller than the laundry list of uses that comes out of the SIC codes. This, for all intents and purposes, are four digit SIC codes, and to that extent is far more restrictive than if we had resorted to an SIC code which would have ballooned out the number of uses that would have been permitted in this PUD. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Then I think I agree with Mr. Vines and wish you'd drop the SIC codes altogether. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can we just stick to the one item in front of us and decide whether this is appropriate? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tim, I have to ask questions that are information for me to understand how intense this proposed -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I understand, but comments such as what we should do generally with our Land Development Code just don't have any place in this public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It was one last sentence after -- COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But it's not atypical. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, I'm sorry if you don't like how I find the information, but I'm ready to go, too, but I have to know what I need to know. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. -- if I may, Madam Chairman? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Vines, you mentioned that anything above three stories would have to come back to the county. The actual wording, though, is not that clear. It says taller buildings may be authorized at the site development plan approval stage, which is an administrative process. It goes on further to say that prior to authorizing a taller building, determination shall be made by the county. I'm not comfortable with that because it's not specific enough. MR. VINES: Well, that's 1991 language, and we didn't -- I didn't even read it that carefully. I -- we had no intention whatsoever in this PUD adjustment application to make any changes to the permitted uses. And so -- but if that language -- if a clarification of that language is to make it specifically require board approval, you know, fine. I -- it's very difficult for me to visualize any buildings taller than three stories in the near term. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, but, you know, all of a sudden MR. VINES: Down the road, who knows. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- Vince gets hit by a truck and his replacement is here and decides that 10 stories is a good idea there, you know, I think we want some say in that, so -- MR. VINES: Well, slide that word in there, it suits me. It's no -- no objection. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Would you have any objection of just stopping at three stories? MR. VINES: Just make it a flat three stories? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's better for me. MR. VINES: No, I wouldn't. I -- you know, there could be some day when a site remains and a Hilton Hotel comes in and wants to make a run at a five-story building. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Couldn't they do a PUD amendment at that point? MR. VINES: Well, they could. Or they could -- you know, depending on what this one requires. And they should -- absolutely could. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm looking at that being three stories and limited to the south half of tract A, so it puts it near the road and away from the residences. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The second thing I'm looking at is in tract B in residential. On Cypress Woods across the street, I think we have a maximum of two stories on those condos. I don't know if it's two or three. But when we look at tract B, the ten acres, it has five stories above ground level parking for maximum building height. Five stories is not compatible with two or three in my book for residential or residential use. So that in my opinion needs to come down to be no more -- at least along the property line, no more than Cypress Woods. Mr. Nino, do you know if the project Cypress Woods allows anything over two stories? MR. NINO: The SDP is in for two stories on that project. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. You know, again, looking at tract B, I would say that, you know, on the north half of tract B -- and I know these are general terms, north half, but, you know, I'm just saying that should be no more than two stories for compatibility purposes, no more than three for the entire project for all of tract B. So three story maximum, two stories within -- I don't know what the foot -- the scale is here. Within 500 feet of the property to the north. That's kind of where I'm going with that to ensure some level of compatibility for the -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I think that's a great idea. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- residential section. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: It's a great idea. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And then when we go to tract A, I'm trying to do the same thing also. It's three stories maximum, but hotel/motel use needs to be located further away from the residential due to the nature of its use, which I will say is the south half of tract A. The only thing left for me is two things that I'm concerned about, and then of course we need to hear from the folks that have waited all day to talk about this. One is just tying a common architectural theme throughout the project. Mr. Vines, do you know if that internal access drive will be a public or private roadway? MR. VINES: I would expect to it be private. It's just it serves the project itself. But I don't think that subject has ever been raised. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I figured it would be private, too. The question is, did -- the application of commercial architectural standards on private roads versus public roads is very different. Would they only apply to public thoroughfares, not to private roads? So if we have an internal lot in there on a private drive, I don't know if our commercial architectural standards would apply. MR. NINO: No, I'm sorry, they apply to all commercial development, whether it's a condominium setting or on a public road or on a private road. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do they vary? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We're better than I thought we were. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah? Well, good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Then really, all I'm looking for there is some type of a common architectural theme throughout tract A. You know, the specificity can be determined in negotiations with staff, but again, to focus on style, architectural theme and color considerations are the main area there. And the last thing is I wish we had -- there was some way here for us to say there's an emphasis on retail commercial for a certain portion of the project. 270,000 square feet on 30 acres, even though it's an increase, is within acceptable standards. It's not a maximization. I was very concerned about that increase; it's like a 38 percent increase. But I've seen the mitigation now, the other trip reductions. So I'm not as concerned about 270,000 square feet. I would just like to know that a portion of this project be designated for retail commercial for the purposes of serving the surrounding community. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Or that town center concept we've been talking about. I'd love that idea. I don't know how -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We can't really throw that in there yet, because it doesn't have any form to it. But as I look at 30 acres and I think a neighborhood shopping center is, you know, at least -- and Mr. Nino, help me with this, because you deal with it more than I do on a daily basis now. But we're probably looking at minimum 120,000 square feet for a viable shopping center. Most are much larger than that now. But what would you say is a -- say Neapolitan, the Publix at Neapolitan Plaza, that's about as small a center as I think is viable. MR. NINO: You're looking at 50,000 for a Publix or a Winn Dixie. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right. So -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I was going to say, look at the one at the Strand. MR. NINO: Another 60,000 square feet would probably give you another 15 stores. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Probably -- okay, somewhere between 100, say 110, 115,000 square feet. I'm just -- I'm trying to say something to the effect of, you know, 10 acres of tract A shall be reserved for retail commercial use. So that at least gets the emphasis on kind of a neighborhood little shopping center being put in there. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Would you talk about where on tract A? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Well, if a hotel/motel is -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I would hope -- I would hope it would be the eastern portion, perhaps. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Me, too. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Get it over as close away from the interstate. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would, too. But -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You know, again, I -- MR. VINES: Well, the traveling public, the hotel/motel, gas station, the fast food, those need high visibility locations. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I've got those on the perimeters. I sit here and -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yeah. MR. VINES: And the neighborhood serving shopping center needs some more interior position. And of course there are always some uses that serve some of both, you know. I have no problem. I would say 12 acres, Tim. Ten acres in my experience is just a hair small. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I agree, but again, I'm trying to create something without being too necessarily limiting there. The only other thing, and Bill, maybe you can -- maybe you've looked at this and maybe you haven't. In your original PI/D, you had movie theaters in there. Normally -- MR. VINES: We didn't take them out, did we? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: No, they're in there. But that's my concern. When I go to Hollywood 20 on a Friday night and you see the traffic coming out of there, the distance between its location on Naples Boulevard and Airport Road is significant, yet it backs all the way up to the theater. They don't build four-screened theaters anymore. They build them in bunches, in twenties and whatnot. Because of the kind of constrained configuration of Oaks Boulevard Extension and your -- the access issues that this center is going to be dealing with, I'd think movie theaters -- if you had a hotel/motel in there, a movie theater and a shopping center, which conceivably could be done, I think the traffic congestion and backup issues at peak periods, when all those things work together, are bad. The movie theaters give me cause for concern. So I'd like to see the movie theater removed as a use. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess I'm wondering how practical it is just because of the square footage limitations. And you're right, I mean, you're looking at 10 minimal to be financially feasible in today's market. And you get beyond what I think you could realistically fit in your PUD there when you get up to that many. I mean, each screen, even a small screen theater, takes up pretty healthy square footage. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I don't think they're going to locate one there anyway. MR. VINES: I suspect not. I can't -- you know, I -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I know you can't give the store away, Bill, so -- MR. VINES: We don't know who's going to come looking for sites. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: There may be a video rental store there, but -- which would -- might be all right. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's the road configuration of Oaks Boulevard Extension that concerns me, because when you talk about stacking distances -- when you talk about shopping malls and movie theaters, that's when stacking is key for peak periods, to me. So I don't think there's enough stacking room here for a movie theater. I just don't want to create a traffic congestion issue, so I'd like to MR. VINES: Well, probably not a big one. I don't know, if they go back to the smaller ones that are an integral part of the shopping center, then fine, but not one of these mega groups of theaters that COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: But again, if you had a pub and brew come and want to go in there, then a minor amendment is not a big issue, and you have something to deal with then. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Another area of expertise. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Again, alcohol related. Do we need to do anything on this PUD, Mr. Nino, like what we talked about on the Pine Ridge one about the gas stations? It doesn't have that same language in there about once you create the new code about gas stations, that this will have to comply with. Wouldn't that need to go -- MR. NINO: It would automatically. I mean, if we were dealing with the gas station LDC amendments in the latter part of June -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, in Pine Ridge PUD, you thought that you needed to add it specifically. MR. NINO: I don't know why you would have needed to do that, with all respect to that discussion. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, I'm just wanting to be sure that whatever the reason was -- motivation was for having it there, that it's also here. MR. NINO: If we're -- if we have LDC amendments at the end of June that address and regulate gas stations, any gas station that will be built in this PUD will be required to comply with those regulations. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Do we have any speakers? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, ma'am, you have two speakers. Sally Barker and Terri Tragesser. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: In which I have to give both credit, because a lot of the points I raised were initially raised in a meeting with them, so -- Bill's sitting there saying he's not smart enough to figure that out by himself. Who helped him? MS. BARKER: For the record, my name is Sally Barker, and I'm representing the Second District Association. And we've listed our concerns from which Tim freely cribbed, and I will pass these out to you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Just so happens they're my concerns, too. You know, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Your concerns are his concerns. MS. BARKER: We all have concerns. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you, Pam, check's in the mail. Although I'm not authorizing you as my s~okesman. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I was going to say, dropped by Norris, picked up by Hancock. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Do it again. I'm a good press agent. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Vines needs one. one. Okay. Everybody's got COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: No, the record. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: The records. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: She's got one. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Everybody has one. MS. BARKER: Is everybody passed out? We have plenty. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: We're all passed out up here. MS. BARKER: Good. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: We should be so lucky. MS. BARKER: Well, fortunately you, Commissioner Berry, and you, Commissioner Hancock, pretty much -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Identify yourself. MS. BARKER: -- addressed the concerns that we raised. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Say who you are. MS. BARKER: I thought I did that. Didn't I do that? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, yeah. MS. BARKER: I did that. I know who I am. Well, some days I know who I am. Not every day. As I was starting to say, that you did address many of the concerns that we raised. I still have some hesitation about this idea of the generic everywhere U.S.A. interchange. And is that really what we want to see at the very first exit coming into Collier County? Is this the statement we want to send out to the world, you know, that hey, we're no different from any interchange between here and Michigan? Come on, fill your tank, grab a hamburger, maybe grab a night's sleep in a Motel 8 or whatever and go on your merry way? You know, that's just not what we want to do here. And this board has been very committed to doing things better than we have done in the past. And I was very heartened by your discussion that you have ideas on things that could be done better in this particular quadrant. One of the things that you didn't mention was a potential for a frontage road. And the traffic situation in that quadrant along Immokalee Road is currently a nightmare. It's going to be more of a nightmare when Immokalee is six-laned. And this is the ideal time to start thinking about how we improve access to parcels like this, especially if you're going to have a neighborhood component in it. Because this area is surrounded by residential neighborhoods, many of them developed by the same developer. So it would be nice if they had a way of being able to get to and from without having to drive out on Immokalee Road half a mile to get to the Publix. I mean, it just makes sense. So I would really like to encourage the concept of possibly putting in a frontage road along here. Other than that, let's see. Let me go down my list and see if I'm missing anything here. I usually am. You know, little short-term memory lapses. It happens at my age. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: It happens to Barbara all the time. MS. BARKER: Did I hear something? CHAIRPERSON BERRY: No, just some mumbling up here. MS. BARKER: Hey, I'm older than you are, so I can claim it. Well, that pretty much addresses the concerns that I had. And I just want to say that I think we are very fortunate to have a Board of County Commissioners who do have more vision and more sensitivity to these sorts of future needs than perhaps previous boards have demonstrated. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can you repeat that for Clay one more time? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Madam Chairman, would you give this lady five more minutes? MS. BARKER: And I just want to conclude by saying that I have every confidence that you'll do the right thing. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Clay is apparently still smarting from the insult of the deal 20 minutes ago, because we didn't even get a smile out of him on that one. MR. CAUTERO: We'll talk. MR. FERNANDEZ: Next speaker is Terri Tragesser. MS. TRAGESSER: My name's Terri Tragesser. I'm not sure I can add much to this at this point. I usually don't jump at opportunities to stand before you. I must add one thing and that is that I'm a little bit disappointed that we've made an assumption -- we being the petitioner or the people who are involved in the land transaction -- that this should be an interchange where we have transigent (sic) activity, i.e. lodging, fast food, et cetera. While that may appear outwardly to be the logical use for Collier County, we have made the decision that our activity centers will be our urban centers. That being said, we view them as an area that represents the opportunity for our citizens to come and identify a place that is their town or their section of town. And I would hope that as we go forward -- and it looks like there's certainly going to be the potential for some lodging and fast food in this corridor -- that we keep in mind all those wonderful things that we want to accomplish through architectural themes for the area. We have a very large ag. community out in the Immokalee area that comes in with their tomato trucks and their orange trucks, and those are going to add to the complexability (sic) of the traffic issues at that interchange. And so I think you're doing it. You're taking a look at everything. And we appreciate that. And if I had one request, it would be not to you because you have no control over it, but for the petitioner to please take a real hard look at how they use their land on this particular quadrant. Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: That was our final speaker, Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Final speaker? Okay. I will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Question for staff. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The idea of a frontage road, we've talked about that a lot. How did that not come up, or what's your opinion about that? MR. NINO: Well, let me remind you, commissioners, that this PUD makes no provision for direct access to Immokalee Road. All access must be gained from Northbrooke Drive; therefore, to talk about an access road parallel, which we assume is a marginal access road, which would be parallel to Immokalee Road, would have no practical application here. There will be an internal access system, and it will directly access Northbrooke Drive, which for all practical purposes only services -- serves the activity center. Because as you'll recall, Oak Drive takes all of the traffic to the residential communities. I should also remind you that not too far east of this site, at the corner of 951 and Immokalee Road, there will be a neighborhood shopping center. As a matter of fact, we're reviewing site development plans currently in our office for major -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's the Strand. MR. NINO: -- major -- no, Pebble Brook. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Pebble Brook. MR. NINO: And I should also remind you that there's probably 15 acres of undeveloped commercial land immediately east of this site, next to the office building that the Hardy organization is constructing, you know, that has been crying for a buyer probably for many, many years. So if there was a demand for neighborhood type commercial activities, one would assume that the marketplace would have stepped up and responded to that. I have nothing more to add. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I think I may be able to craft a motion here, if you'll bear with me for the several points included in the motion. I'd move approval of -- I lost the name of it -- of petition PUD 91-2(1), with the following changes to the proposed document: Number one, hotel/motel use be limited to the south half of tract A. Two, that a common architectural theme to include similar style architectural design and color considerations be submitted to staff at the first site development plan approval stage for vertical construction, not just for roads, water and sewer going in. Three, that we designate a minimum of 12 acres of tract A for the purpose of shopping center or retail commercial use. MR. NINO: May I interrupt, Commissioners? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Please do, Ron. MR. NINO: Would -- might I suggest that you direct that -- that that commercial be of a convenience nature? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. MR. NINO: Otherwise -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's the intent. MR. NINO: -- we're dealing with neighborhood. I think that's where you're coming from. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That we designate a mix of 12 acres of tract A for convenience commercial use. That movie theaters be removed as a permitted use. That we limit residential development on tract B to two stories within 500 feet of the northern property line. That the maximum building height in both tracts A and B be limited to three stories. And one that I didn't mention that I didn't catch when Mr. Vines was up, was to remove automobile dealerships as a permitted use. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Can I just ask your rationale on that? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The rationale is that if we're talking about this as a gateway, seemingly the -- unless it's what we've seen on Airport Road in the recent development, most dealerships are not the prettiest thing in the world, and you know they'd be right on the roadway. So I just don't think it's the image we want to send. COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not compatible. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Not compatible from a visual and use standpoint. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We have a motion and a second. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Mr. Constantine just got this on the record for future use. Okay. We have a motion and you -- who seconded it? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I did. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Mac'Kie seconded it. Any other comments or questions? If not, I'll call for the question. All in favor? Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Motion carries five-zero. MR. VINES: May I have a word? A comment, not -- I don't want to interfere with -- COMMISSIONER NORRIS: It's over. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: It's over. Sure, you can comment. MR. VINES: All right. I've been a planner for a long time, and I don't think you really can do what you just did, which is to rewrite a PUD and approve it in a rewritten form without the applicant's approval. And for the record, I approve. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, he makes a good point, and I'm going to take a chance too to say I'm disappointed, and I wish we were looking at these PUD's as they come mn on the sunset review. This is our blank slate. It's our only shot at a blank slate. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think it may be in the future a process question that if a commissioner wants to make a motion, state the elements in the motion, ask the petitioner if they're willing to comply. If they're not, you may be required then to deny the request. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I think that's Mr. Vines' point. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: We really discussed it -- COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Because I sense that we had discussed most of those points with the exception of the last one. And I didn't mean to sneak it on you, I just forgot about it. But I understand the point. MR. VINES: I really do think, you know, that you need to get agreement, or else just approve it. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Understood. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we're maybe in the -- trying to be accommodating and trying to save you having to come back again. And if we can kind of come to some resolution of the problem -- MR. VINES: I appreciate that very much. And I just wanted you to know that I have no problems with the conditions. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thanks, Bill. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think everybody's trying to be interested and are interested in trying to preserve the quality of life in Collier County. Is that correct, Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: That's just the tip of the iceberg. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: All right. Item #14A COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LORENZO WALKER'S PROPERTY Staff communications. Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to talk about today? MR. WEIGEL: Yes, I do. Last week we mentioned that we'd be coming back this week to discuss further the issue of land potentially donated -- to be donated to Collier County from Mr. Lorenzo Walker and other cases similarly situated. We passed out, during the course of the meeting to you, an informational memo in that regard that sent some directive from the board. Some time ago we had polled -- we, the county attorney's office, had polled the Bar Association office and some law firms that are in the real property area of law practice, and we didn't have any confirmation at this point of a desire or ability for the firms to take on and do pro bono work to clear title on property that might otherwise be conveyed to Collier County. And I -- to refresh us a bit, in regard to Mr. Walker's property, or other properties, he specifically had obtained some property through tax deed sale, only to learn that it had significant liens against it. Weed abatement liens, I think among others. And since his acquisition to the title of the property, it continued to incur additional costs and liens for the cutting of weeds on that property. Part of the issue that we look at from a county staff determination, as well as legal review, is that the cost of the liens -- or the cost of someone to remove the liens from the property to make it attractive to a purchaser or a donee are significant, in some cases higher than the actual value or marketable value of the property. So at this point we come back to say that we're still working on it in the sense that we may be able to find a legal services provider that can provide the service of assisting and providing clear title to the property. But once we know who the -- once we know who the title -- or that the title is in one owner alone and there are not other issues out there, there still remains the assessment issue with any individual parcel; that is, an outstanding assessment that has to be assumed by any potential future owner. And then there's another question, which we faced a little bit during the Bayshore MSTU project, and that was that -- where we have the offer of property to come to Collier County, there's always the potential environmental risk of it becoming part of the chain of ownership of the property. And with those parcels -- I think it was two parcels down on Bayshore Drive -- the county staff did a Phase I environmental check, and the property ultimately checked out okay. But I would also certainly advise the board that if they were to pursue this, a concept of potentially accepting property that has significant liens on it, once we get past the title ownership issue, that we'd still always have an environmental issue that we'd want to look at very carefully. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But don't we have that issue even if we take it in foreclosure? That's not a new issue. MR. WEIGEL: That's right, we're not foreclosing on anything right now, either, quite frankly. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's probably a good idea. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I asked a question when we discussed this last, and I'll just pose it to you now, and if the answer is either not available or terribly lengthy, please just get it to me in writing, but -- isn't that nice of me? What's -- are there any civil remedies; assuming we had to go and put this parcel out and sell it for what it's worth, and we still have $3,000 in outstanding liens, you know, is there a way to attach or pursue a civil remedy for that balance against the former property owner throughout that process, because the simple reason is I see this advocating someone going out, being involved in a tax deed sale, hoping for a windfall, and if it doesn't happen just sitting on it and not doing anything until the County has to take it over. Not that that's what Mr. Lorenzo tried to do or didn't. I don't know him personally. But -- MR. WEIGEL: No. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: -- that potential exists. MR. WEIGEL: No, and that's not the case with Mr. Walker. He came to the county in good faith and with all the information that he could provide. Certainly no bait and switch or anything else there. But I think -- I think that, you know, we in county government are involved with tax deed -- tax certificate and tax deed sale process. Perhaps we can assist those persons who are purchasing -- and this is done in part to the clerk's office that administers this. But we can assist them to know that there are additional risks in becoming a title owner of property, as there is for anyone who becomes a title owner of property. And then if you don't do your title homework and check out the underlying liens and other issues that are there, that that property that a person has purchased cheaply may not be the godsend that it otherwise might appear to be. Because the underlying environmental liability runs with the land and therefore runs with the ownership. And along with running with the ownership is the chain of title, and that's the risk that the county has in getting involved with chain of title from any -- from any type of a transfer, whether it's donated or purchased. But additionally, I think that maybe one of the bigger pictures that the county may want to look at spinning off from this is that where we ran into -- and attached to the memo that was provided were some of the larger liens on property, and it also shows that the so-called fair market value, in some cases it's quite topsy-turvy, where the lien value is significantly higher that the property value. But at any rate, county, in performing its legal duties for Code Enforcement weed abatement, responding to complaints, we find certain properties where we go out, the county through its contracting agents performs a service; those service providers must be paid, and they are paid, and the lien attaches to the property and the property continues to be uncared for. And the county goes out and does it again and again, and it becomes beyond a certain point problematical for the county to recover the money. At the same time, we're faced with the problem of a physical disparity in compliance with weed abatement rules on that particular property. And it seems to me we may be able to utilize Code Enforcement Board as opposed to the pure lien process to get a little stronger response from the people who aren't owning up to their land owning responsibility. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: We're just going to need some recommendations. We're all intimately disgustingly aware of 'em, and it's a big problem. We need some solutions proposed. MR. WEIGEL: I think that county attorney office with county administrator staff could come back with some little bigger picture recommendations for you in that regard. In the meantime, in regard to Mr. Walker's property and others similarly situated, I will continue to see if we can find a service that will assist these owners with the clear title necessity that they would have before the county government or ostensibly any realistic potential donee or grantee of the property, that they would want to have that homework done before they entertain the transfer of that potential liability. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Commissioner Mac'Kie, do you have any words of wisdom -- oh, I'm sorry. MR. FERNANDEZ: I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: You don't have a thing to say to us today? MR. FERNANDEZ: Nothing to say. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: That's a disappointment. COMMISSIONER NORRIS: What do you have to say for yourself? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, if you put it that way, I can go on and on, but I'd rather not. The hour's late, and I'll reserve that for another time. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Okay. Sorry about that. Commissioner Mac'Kie? COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Tempting as it is to harass Commissioner Constantine even more, no, nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Norris? COMMISSIONER NORRIS: I need a chiropractor. Pain in my neck. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: He's got a pain in his neck today. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Well, you know what? What goes around comes around. Commissioner Constantine? COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Well, just let the attorneys in town note that I now have on record officially that Commissioner Mac'Kie is acknowledging harassment. So -- CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Commissioner Hancock? COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Nada. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nor do I. Ms. Filson, do you have anything? MS. FILSON: I have nothing. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: Nothing. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pain of death. CHAIRPERSON BERRY: I think we say goodnight. ***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Norris and carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent Agenda be approved and/or adopted: ***** Item #16A1 COMMERCIAL EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.639 GREY OAKS PHASE 1-B LAKES 26, 27 AND AN ADDITION TO LAKE 22, BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY WORLD TENNIS CENTER AND KENSINGTON PUD, ON THE WEST BY AIRPORT ROAD, ON THE SOUTH BY GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND ON THE EAST BY WYNDEMERE AND THE PROPOSED LIVINGSTON ROAD Item #16A2 RESOLUTION 98-106 APPROVING THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (HAP) FOR FISCAL YEARS 1998-99, 1999-2000, AND 2000-2001 AS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM; APPROVING A MAXIMUM AWARD SCHEDULE; APPROVING AN INCREASE IN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS OF THE HAP TO A MAXIMUM OF TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ALLOCATION; AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF THE HAP TO THE FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL; AUTHORIZING THE NECESSARY CERTIFICATIONS BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AND APPROVING THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT Item #16A3 ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATE SECURITY FOR WATERWAYS OF NAPLES UNIT TWO AND ENTERING INTO A NEW CONSTRUCTION A_ND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE Item #16B1 RESOLUTION 98-107 AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISTIION OF LAND BY GIFT OR PURCHASE OF FEE SIMPLE TITLE INTERESTS AND/OR NON-EXCLUSIVE PERPETUAL, ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALK, UTILITY, DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE, DRIVEWAY RESTORATION AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION INTERESTS BY EASEMENT FOR GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD PROJECT, CIE NO. 62 Item #16C1 RENEWAL OF SOVEREIGNTY LANDS LEASE WITH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Item #16D1 AMENDMENT TO THE HAZARDS ANALYSES UPDATE AGREEMENT #98CP-3V-21-22-005 WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS Item #16D2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UNIFIED MITIGATION STRATEGY FOR COLLIER COUNTY AND ITS MUNICIPALITIES Item #16E1 BID 98-2791 FOR BOLLARD LIGHTING IN PELICAN BAY - AWARDED TO STONELIGHT CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $46,740.00 Item #16E2 BUDGET AMENDMENT 98-209 Item #16Gl MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the Board of County Commissioners has been filed and/or referred to the various departments as indicated on the miscellaneous correspondence: Item #16H1 ENDORSEMENT OF SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION FOR FUNDING FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ANTI-DRUG ACT FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM (SERIOUS HABITUAL OFFENDER COMPREHENSIVE ACTION PLAN PROGRAM) Item #16H2 ENDORSEMENT OF SHERIFF'S OFFICE GRANT APPLICATION FOR CONTINUED FUNDING FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ANTI-DRUG ACT FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM (STREET GANT PRVENTION AND APPREHENSION PROGRAM) There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:35 p.m. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL BARBARA B. BERRY, CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC