Agenda 03/20/1986 PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
�... AGENDA
✓ March 20, 1986
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will hold their monthly meeting on
Thursday, March 20, 1986 at 9:00 a.m. at the Collier County Racquet Club on
Marco Island.
I. Call to Order
II. Approval of Minutes
III. Addendum
IV. Old Business
A. Naming of Golden Gate Community Park
V. New Business
A. Review of a rezone petition for Foxburn PUD for compliance of the
Comprehensive Plan
VI. Discussion of Addendum
VII. Adjournment
TSV:pc:D/2
f
•
LET IT RE REMEMBERED, that the Parks & Recreation
Advisory Board met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in Building "F"
(:) of the Courthouse Complex, Fast Naples, Florida, with the
following members present :
CHAIRMAN: Dan Monaco
VICE CHAIRMAN: Ron Burton
Scott McQuillen
Charles Stevens
ABSENT: Steve Price
ALSO PRESENT: Maureen Kenyon, Deputy Clerk; Tim
Vanatta, Parks & Recreation Director; Ed Torrini , Murdo
Smith, and Pat Cookson, Parks & Recreation Department .
AGENDA
I . Call to Order
II . Approval of Minutes
III . Introduction of New Members
IV. Election of New Officers
V. Addendum
VI . Old Business
A. Construction update of the community parks.
B. Discussion of community park bid strategy
VII . New Business
A. Change order for North maples Community Park
exceeding $2,000
VIII . Recreation Reports
A. Introduction of new Recreation Supervisor
B. Review of the golf, tennis and gymnastics programs
IX. Discussion of Addendum
X. Adjournment
MINUTES OF JANUARY 16, 1986 - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Mr. Burton moved, seconded by Mr. Stevens and carried
unanimously, that the minutes of January 16, 1996, be
approved as presented.
Page 1
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 20, 1986
DAN MONACO ELECTED AS CHAIRMAN AND RON BURTON ELECTED AS VICE
CHAIRMAN
Mr. Burton moved, seconded by Mr . McQuillen and carried
unanimously, that Mr . Monaco be elected as Chairman.
Mr . Monaco moved, seconded by Mr. Stevens and carried
unanimously, that Mr . Burton be elected as Vice Chairman.
CONSTRUCTION UPDATE OF COMMUNITY PARKS
Mr. Fob Furlong of Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek,
Inc. , stated that the five community parks are Golden Gate,
North Naples, Immokalee, Marco Island and Fast Naples . He
noted that Golden Gate and North Naples parks are under
construction with the estimated completion date being July,
1986. He stated that the bids for the Immokalee park have
been awarded and the contract awarded and the notice to
proceed with construction will be issued the beginning of
March and completion is expected in about 7 months or around
September . He reported that Marco Island park will go out
for bid by the end of March with all bids returned by the
C.; middle of April and the contract should be awarded and
construction started by the middle of June. He stated that
it should take about 8 months to construct the Marco Island
park. He reported that the Fast Naples park is in the
permitting stages because of the DER problem, adding that the
permitting could take awhile but in the meantime, he is going
ahead with design phases and advertising for bids by the end
of June. He stated that if all goes well, construction will
begin in the middle of September and be completed by May,
1987.
Mr . Monaco stated that he understood the new plan had
been revised and submitted and questioned if there will be
any problem with reference to a permit under the new plan, to
which Mr. Furlong stated that the new plan was revised after
discussions with DER and SFWMD to include the wetland area in
the master plan. He stated that the plan could be modified
before the permit is obtained with regards to the wetland
area, adding that half the site was under the jurisdiction of
DER, but the wetlands are not all good wetlands and there-
fore, the DER is willing to compromise if the plan calls for
Page 2
` PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 20, 1986
• a lake adjacent to the wetlands .
Mr. Vanatta stated that there is a possibility that the
(;)
land could end up being useless, depending on the DER and if
that is the case, then the County would either have to sell
the property or trade it, or salvage whatever is left .
i
Mr. Furlong stated that the wetland area consists of 20
1 acres of land of which a portion is not a useful wetland,
adding that the County was going to improve a portion of the
1
wetlands by revegetating and replanting species and putting a
lake adjacent to it and the DER is willing to cut the wetland
1 area to about 7 acres . He stated that he has met with DER
and does not see any major problems with the revised plan,
but it has to go to Tallahassee for final approval. He
stated with reference to the Golden Gate park, Harper
1 Brothers was awarded the contract for the site preparation
and they have, recently completed same. He reported that
1 Mid-Continent has completed the underground work and
Macasphalt is now scheduled to put down limerock for the
roads and parking areas. He indicated that Bunn Construction
was awarded the contract for buildings and they have already
Qstarted. He stated that the same contractors were awarded
the contract for the North Naples park and they were
proceeding on that one at a rate of about two weeks behind
Golden Gate.
Mr . Monaco stated that it appears that the park system
could be a viable system within 12 months .
Mr. Furlong stated that they are going to go ahead with
the East Naples plans with the assumption that everything
will be approved by PER.
Mr . Monaco questioned if the Parks g4 Recreation
Department is
p prepared to handle a full park system, to which
Mr . Vanatta stated that Staff has been spending 75% of their
time planning park and maintenance programs, adding that he
budgeted certain items in last year ' s budget based on the
construction timetable for this year as he plans to do more
work in-house. He stated that playground equipment would be
(;) installed in-house which would save money and, therefore,
give the consumer more for their money. He reported that he
is planning as well in advance as he can, but with a project
Page 3
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 20, 1986
this size, there are bound to be problems. He noted that he
would like each member to play a more active role in regards
to what their district would like for programs in the future.
'`r,. CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $5, 100 FOR RIPRAP AT NORTH
NAPLES COMMUNITY PARK - APPROVED
Mr. Vanatta stated that anything that goes to the Board
with regards to the Parks comes before the Parks & Recreation
Advisory Board first . He stated that there was a need for a
$5, 100 Change Order and he did not want the project delayed
because of the Change Order, therefore, he authorized it
himself and is now asking for approval from the Parks &
Recreation Board to go to the Board with said Change Order .
He stated that this Change Order is in regard to additional
riprap for the project and the contractor was on site and
therefore, he approved the Change Order as it would have cost
more if he had gone through the normal process and the
contractor had pulled off the site.
Mr. Furlong stated that sometimes in the process of
construction in order to avoid having to stop work and the
contractor leaving the site, the engineer on the job has to
Qmake decisions . He noted that in this case, it deals with
the box culvert on the entrance road and the Change Order is
for additional riprap which goes on the end walls on each
side of the box culvert . He noted that the difference in the
amount of riprap came from his estimation of the amount of
excavation and the restablization of the bank on either side
as opposed to what was actually necessary in the field to
excavate in order to construct the end walls . He stated that
the extra riprap takes in three times the area.
Mr. Burton questioned why the Chairman was not contacted
regarding this matter as this was discussed at one meeting
and made a policy with reference to emergencies coming up.
Mr . Vanatta stated that at the time, there was not a
1 Chairman and technically he probably should have called the
Vice Chairman. He stated that he does not have a problem
1 with that, adding that this was to expedite things because if
he had to wait for a meeting, it would delay things a month
and there is not really a need to call a special meeting and
that if that was done, there would also be a delay.
Page 4
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 20, 1986
Mr. Burton stated that if Mr . Vanatta had contacted one
of the members, there would not be a need to even discuss
(;)
this matter at the meeting.
zr. Monaco stated that if the Chairman cannot be
reached, then the Vice Chairman should be contacted.
Mr. Vanatta stated that there are two kinds of Change
Oorders, one is design changes or adds to facilities and.
quantity changes . He stated that when there is something
that has to be done, he feels that the members should be
aware of it, but he does not feel that time should be lost
because of a Change Order .
Mr. Furlong stated that this particular Change Order was
a quantity change, adding that the riprap that was estimated
to go in the box culvert was not estimated right due to the
amount of excavation that was needed.
Mr. Vanatta stated that if there are quantity change
orders, he will contact the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board for approval and 'then
expedite the matter to the BCC and on design changes, he will
bring the matter to the meeting of the Parks & Recreation
CAdvisory Board. He stated that what he needs now is approval
after-the-fact .
In answer to Mr . Monaco, Mr. Furlong stated that the
reason for the Change Order is that the contractor hit rock
in the area, and it caused a larger excavation to be required
in order to have room to build the end wall .
Mr. McQuillen moved, seconded by Mr. Stevens and carried
unanimously, that the Change Order for $5, 100 be recommended
for approval and forwarded to the Board.
DISCUSSION OF COMMUNITY PARK BID STRATEGY
Mr . Vanatta stated that the Board has indicated to the
Parks & Recreation Department the way to bid, which. is what
they are doing.
Mr . Burton stated that the way Marco Island park is
done, the whole park would be bid and then if there was not
enough money, items would be cut from the park, but not parts
of items . He stated that prioritized items are set up and
then they are all hid and if the bid went over one of those
prioritized items would be deducted completely. He noted for
Page 5
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 20, 1986
example, that if a prioritized item like a playground was bid
and there was not enough money to build the complete play-
ground, then it would not be built at all until the money was
; 4:) available . He stated that instead of taking two swings out
of the playground the whole playground would be left out at
that time .
Mr. Vanatta stated that if a contractor bids on 3
shelters and the bids come in and the County finds out that
they can only build 2 of the shelters, the contractor has bid
on bulk and cutting out a shelter would amount to the same
thing as cutting out a portion of landscaping.
Mr . Burton stated that this could be the same thing, and
maybe individual bids might have to he done on individual
items. He stated for example, that if there are 100 trees
bid and then five of them is cut, part of the job is being
deducted, adding that he feels that the County would be
better off taking the whole item out or it should not be bid
at all.
Mr . Vanatta stated that this is the way it was done
4171) until the Immokalee park was done. He stated that things
were changed at the Immokalee park due to the fact that the
site is barren and a species costing less money was better
than nothing.
Mr . Burton stated that for the benefit of the new
members, he had a concern because the bids were coming in and.
some of them were being reduced in dollars by fifty percent
and he thought that this was kind of unreasonable, adding
that he felt that the engineering firm was either way off on
their estimating or someone is doing something unfair . He
stated that another concern he had was that the bid may
indicate that it is a $150, 000 bid and a small contractor may
only have bonding capabilities of $100, 000 and therefore, he
would decline to bid, but after the bids are completed and
reduced it is actually a $60, 000 job and that small
contractor could have originally bid. He stated that there
has to be better control so that it is not overbid.
Mr . Monaco stated that the bid policy is set forth by
Cthe Board and Staff must abide by it .
Mr. Vanatta stated that the Purchasing Department sets
Page 6
, PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 20, 1986
up the percentage with regards to bonding, adding that
whether it is right or wrong, this is the way it is done.
Mr. Burton stated that one thing that bothered him was
(:) that Mr. Vanatta stated that large quantities are bid to get
a better price, and then they turn around and cut the
quantity. He stated that he considers this totally unfair .
Mr . Vanatta stated that if he said that, he was totally
incorrect . He noted that on the Immokalee bid, the
quantities were overbid and when the quantities were reduced,
they went back to each one of the contractors to renegotiate
a unit price based on the reduction.
Mr. Furlong stated that he took the reductions in
quantities and applied them to the low bidder and applied
similar reductions to the other bidders . He stated that in
some cases where the low bidders were close, he talked with
the contractors, but in the case of the Immokalee park, the
second low bidder was not even close and those were the only
two bidders on that particular bid. He stated that the
policy has been to do the best thing for the County and not
the contractor .
QMr . Monaco stated that there may be qualified people
being left out because of the County' s policy. He stated
that the conversation goes beyond the perameters of what the
Parks & Recreation Advisory Board was instituted for except
for the fact that this particular bid situation was not fair.
He stated that it seems that the basic philosophy with
regards to bidding should be examined and the problem is not
going to be solved by this advisory board.
Mr. McQuillen stated that he feels that accepting bids
r
on this type of basis is going to have a negative effect on
the County in the long-run.
Mr. Burton stated that something could be put in the bid
document that tells a bidder that the County may reduce the
size of the contract, and then include whatever percentage is
appropriate. He stated that at least the contractor would
then know that the bid may be cut . He stated that he feels
that Harper Brothers in this particular case was more than
Qfair to the County to reduce their unit price, which they did
not have to do.
Page 7
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 20, 1986
Mr . Furlong stated that this philosophy has been adopted
in the last few weeks and the park ammenities rid will have
such a statement incorporated in it and there will also be a
Crange of prices .
Mr . Vanatta stated that they will take this information
back and digest it and look at it again. He stated he
understands the issues better on the $8 million park
development and he will debate it out .
INTRODUCTION OF RECREATION SUPERVISOR AND REVIEW OF GOLF,
TENNIS AND GYMNASTICS PROGRAMS
Mr . Fd Torroni , Recreation Superintendent, stated that
his reason for appearing before the Advisory Board this date
is to bring forth some new programs for acceptance before he
goes to the Board with them. He stated that new programs
will be created rapidly as the park system grows and new
policies will be introduced and he would like the input from
the members on these types of things. He introduced Marilyn
McGinty who is the Recreation Supervisor, adding that he has
moved up to Recreation Superintendent . He stated that he
would like feedback from the Advisory Board as to content ,
4: extent, and quality of the programs that are going to be
offered. He stated that he also has an Athletic Supervisor
who will be basically in charge of programming for the new
parks .
Mr. Monaco stated that Mr . Torroni is becoming very
active in the planning process .
Mr . Vanatta stated that the program area will expand
five fold what it has been in the past and the policy that is
set up is that everything will come to the Advisory Board
before it goes to the Board . He stated that in the future,
people will become employees that operate these programs
instead of putting these things out for contract . He stated
that he is going to need the involvement of the members with
regards to these programs .
Mr . Torroni stated that he is in the process of hiring a
new tennis instructor under contract at this time and he
would like the Advisory Board ' s approval to go to the Board
' (1110) with his recommendation. He stated that he also needs
approval to have a gymnastics class and an Faster Egg Hunt.
Page 8
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD FEBRUARY 20, 1986
Mr . Vanatta stated that the only way this type of
service has been handled in the past is by contract which
will change in the future, but at the present time, approval
is needed for a new contract for a new tennis instructor and
approval for a gymnastics program. He stated that if all
these programs are done on a contractual basis, there could.
be 300 of them a year, adding that once he gets a new system
set up, these people will become employees. He stated that
this will probably be done at budget time when he will
present a complete outline of anticipated programs for the
next fiscal year.
Mr . Torroni stated that he plans on having an Easter Egg
Hunt this year at Bayview Park and he needs approval for
this . He stated that he would also like to enter into
contract with an instructor for a gymnastics program.
Mr. Burton moved, seconded by Mr. McQuillen and carried
unanimously, that the Easter Egg Hunt, the contract for the
Gymnastics Instructor and the contract for the Tennis
Instructor be recommended for approval.
41) Mr. Torroni stated that eventually he will be presenting
reports on the recreational activities and he would like to
know in the future how often the members would like to
receive a report on these activites . He indicated that he
would also like to have input from each member as to what
they feel that their district would like to have in the way
of recreational programs. He stated that he is in the
process of drawing up a general format of the basic programs
that are in existence.
Mr . Monaco stated that he would like to have the members
of the board receive a copy of the format when it is com-
pleted, adding that this would give the members an idea of
what programs there are and what programs will need to be
expanded.
There being no further business to come before the Parks
& Recreation Advisory Board, the meeting was adjourned by
Order of the Chair - Time: 10: 30 P.M.
(1110) PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Dan Monaco, Chairman
Page 9
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
Item IV. A. Naming of Golden Gate Community Park
Mr. John Agnelli, Vice-president of Power Corporation is requesting this item
to go before the PARAB again. I have attached a chronological sequence of
events of both the PARAB and the Board of County Commissioners on this
subject. Mr. Agnelli will be present to answer any questions.
Item. V. A. Review of rezone petition for Foxburn PUD for compliance of the
Comprehensive Plan
This is a request to rezone approximately 20.88 acres from A-2 to PUD for a
proposed development containing 144 multi-family dwelling units. The
property is located south of Radio Road, east of Foxfire. Ms. Barbara
Caccione of the Planning Department will be at the meeting to present this
project and answer any questions.
TSV:pc:D/7
,-- oc69ac,
C ". ,,%,. ,
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX
':arch 7, 1936
Mr. John Agnelli, Vice-president
Power Corporation
3174 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, Florida 33962
')ear Mr. Agnelli:
As a matter of introduction my name is Tim Vanatta, Director of Parks and
Recreation for Collier County. I have also been appointed Acting Public
Services Administrator since Mr. Don Norton accepted another position out of
state.
The reason I am contacting you is in regards to correspondence that took
place between you and Mr. Norton. This correspondence recently surfaced out
of Mr. Norton's suspense file. I am confused as to why Mr. Norton's letter
of "arch 7, 1935 (attached) and your letter of March 26, 1985 (attached) were
Cinitiated as the Board of County Commissioners officially, by formal vote on
"e'.;ruory 5, 1986, named the five community parks after their geographic area.
I have attached a chronological sequence of events of both the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board and the Board of County Commissioners outlining how
the formal vote of February 5, 1985 came about. I am unaware of any other
event that may have taken place.
As you are probably aware, the Golden Gate park site is well under
construction and the design team is close to ordering the entry sign to the
;park. if for some reason I need to re-address the issue of re-naming the
par's, I need to hear from you very soon. If indeed this issue is to
resurface, it will need to go on the agenda of the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board at their March 20, 1986 meeting. I normally send members of
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board their agenda the Friday before the
meeting, this being March 14, 1986.
Please contact me a your earliest convenience at 774-8414.
Sincerely,
Tim S. Vanatta, Director
Parks and Recreation
C TSV:pc:D/1
Attachments
cc: Pam Brangaccio, Assistant Deputy County Manager
3,20' 1 M1AM, TRA'' " . PLORII)A 33962-4977 813-774-8999
_-=MEN ---- BUILDERS &DEVELOPERS
.MM.
s mow 1 I WI i r11111111r 3174 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL • NAPLES, FLORIDA 33962
Awr*AIM • ® TELEPHONE 813 775 2230
co'�a�ng.
C
February 4, 1985
Mr . Max A . Hasse , Jr.
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County Courthouse
Naples , FL 33942
Dear Commissioner Hasse :
Further to your meeting today with Mr . Higgs and myself
regarding the naming of the park on Santa Barbara Boulevard,
I would confirm that our interest, and that of the
overwhelming majority of people we have spoken to, is that
the park be named "Santa Barbara Park" with a subheading
"Golden Gate Area" . As we discussed , this name offers the
most accurate geographical description and would avoid any
confusion with the existing Golden Gate Park which G .A .C .
installed .
As you know our development, Berkshire Lakes , abuts the park
site on two (2) sides and we plan to be , as we have always
" been, a good neighbor to the County . During the re-zoning
process for the Berkshire Lakes community we agreed , amongst
other things , to donate a 100 feet strip of land, one ( 1 )
mile long, to accomodate the future extension of Santa
Barbara . During the negotiations for the sale of the park
site we agreed to not only donate $50 ,000 .00 for the
enhancement of the site, but also to install sewer and water
lines and, as we pointed out to you, the contract specifies
that we will be allowed some input with respect to the
naming of the park.
We therefore officially request that this park be named
" Santa Barbara Park" with a subheading "Golden Gate Area"
and should this be the case herewith agree to supply a park
sign according to County specifications . On behalf of Mr.
Higgs and myself may I thank you for your time and
consideration.
Yours truly,
John J . Agnellt2
Vice President
JJA/pc
bution shall be used for park improvements and for equipping
the park in a manner that is over and above the anticipated
improving and equipping of the park contemplated by County.
The County shall not reduce its expenditures by any amount
for this park site in anticipation of receiving all or any
portion of said $50,000.00 contribution; nor shall the County
discriminate against this park site in making expenditures
for improvements by reason of its knowledge that the afore-
said $50,000.O0contribution is available.
C. Seller shall be notified in writing as to the time and location
of the Park and Recreation Advisory Committee meeting and/or
the Board of County Commission meeting at which the name of
the community park shall be selected. Seller shall be given
an opportunity to submit recommended names and to comment on
any proposed names for the park site contemplated in this
agreement.
3. USE OF PROPERTY
County represents that the Premises are to be used for the public
purpose of a community park as defined in the Parks, Recreation
and Open Space Element of the Collier County Comprehensive Plan,
and no other use.
ow** 4. ACCESS ROAD
A. Since the preferred horizontal alignment for park roads
is curvilinear versus straight (see Exhibit B) , and since
a curvilinear road provides a more scenic approach to the
proposed community park as well as to Seller's remaining
property, and since the realignment of the existing road
right-of-way allows for additional acreage to be incorpo-
rated into the park site, the Seller hereby agrees to pay
all increased construction costs for realignment of access
road shown on Exhibit "B" in such case said road is relocated
from the existing right-of-way to a curvilinear alignment.
Costs due from Seller shall be determined by calculating
the difference in construction costs between existing align-
ment and proposed curvilinear alignment.
In the event the DOT transfers the obligation to construct
the aforesaid road to the County and pays a sum of money
to the County for such purpose, the seller's obligation
under this paragraph shall be the lesser of the following
two amounts:
1. The amount by which the construction of the
curvilinear road exceeds the amount of money
transferred to the County by the State to con-
struct the aforesaid road.
err 2. The difference in construction costs between
the straight road alignment and the proposed
curvilinear alignment_.
County shall be responsible for costs of engineering and design.
Design and construction shall satisfy State standards.
B. Upon determination by the County that the road realign-
ment is not feasible or desirable for any reason Seller
agrees to sell and County agrees to acquire 31 .94 acres
of the property shown of Exhibit "A" for the total
purchase price of Five Hundred Fifty-eight Thousand Nine
Hundred Fifty Dollars ($558,950.00) thus amending paragraph
1 of this agreement. In such event Seller shall have no
obligation to pay any cost of construction of said road.
PACE 2 OF 4
--=
• r
M E M O R A N D U M '��141-14
,�Y ter. �f-
/ / i '�e)‘-,"2?<_
DATE: February 15 , 198 "e�
TO: Don Lusk, C.`,n Manager
FROM: Don Norto tPu is Services AdministYfator r 212.7/,
RE: Naming of Count ' s Five (5) Community Parks
Attached you will find a copy of a memo from Mr. John Agnel --"
representing Mr. Higgs of the Power Corporation. Also attached ' /
is an excerpt of the purchase agreement for the Golden Gate
Community Park site. Both items were supplied to me at a
February 14 , 1985 meeting between Mr. Agnelli and myself.
You will recall that the County purchased the referenced park
site from the Power Corporation. The total cost was approxi-
mately $615 , 000 . Ever since before the purchase, the Power
Corporation has expressed extreme interest in the naming of the
park.
Initially, Power wanted to include in the agreement a stipu-
lation that they be allowed to actually name the park, pre-
,.A„ sumably something like Berkshire Lakes Park which, of course,
is the name of their adjacent major development. Staff felt
this was not an appropriate stipulation. Through negotiation
for this nearly ideal park location, the agreement evolved into
that finally approved, a portion of which is attached.
As you can see, the issue of what name shall be used is appar-
ently not closed, even though I felt the Board of County
Commissioner ' s position, based on staff recommendation was
quite clear. However, in keeping with the agreement, the
County appears to have some obligation to go through the
procedure of notifying the Power Corporation and allowing their
submission of recommended names, and to comment on other
proposed names.
Clearly the name of the park is a major concern of Power. This
is , I believe , understandable. Conversely, however, in
relationship to the overall park program, it is much less
significant. And, in fact, I feel the issue could stir up
enough bad feelings, particularly from the Golden Gate public,
to perhaps jeopardize the effective pursuit of the entire
program. Candidly, the parks program is proceeding more
smoothly, with less controversy, than it ever has before. I am
very reluctant to see this issue addressed at this time because
I feel it will cause controversy.
I am pleased to see that Power Corporation is apparently
44.0 agreeable to a "generic" name such as "Santa Barbara Park -
Golden Gate" or whatever. But I think the timing is very bad.
I believe under the circumstances, my recommendation is that we
notify Power Corporation of our concerns , while assuring them
that we will meet the obligations of the agreement at a more
appropriate juncture. Their problem with this is that the -
longer it is referred to by its geographic name, the more
accepted the name becomes. I understand this position as well.
I think it is clear that in addition to the people in general,
at least some of the Commissioners , perhaps the majority, may
strongly support the idea that all sites maintain their geo-
graphic names - most certainly for the immediate future.
If you agree , I will acknowledge the Power Corporation that we
are aware of the stipulations contained in the purchase agree-
ment, and that the County will comply with same. But, we
should also clearly indicate that the issue will not be revis-
ited until such a time prior to the actual opening of the park,
that the County feels is more appropriate.
I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with
you, in more detail , at your convenience.
You may also wish to pass this memo along to the Board members,
and perhaps receive their comments.
DWN/cms/S167
Attachments
cc: Tim Vanatta, Parks & Recreation Director
•
*
�acapr......4rerz=mg BUILDERS &DEVELOPERS
WI;= = 3174 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL • NAPLES,FLORIDA 33962
W V . MIMI TELEPHONE 813-775-2230
March 26, 1985 1 /
V
Mr . Donald W. Norton
Public Services Administrator
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County Courthouse Complex
Naples , FL 33962-4977
Dear Mr. Norton :
Thank you for your letter of March 7 . We are quite happy to
be able to work with you on this situation and will follow
your guidance with respect to the time the issue should be
raised .
As I mentioned to you on February 14, our main concerns are
that the park be named according to its geographical
location - Santa Barbara Boulevard, for example - and that
(:: the opportunity for judicious consideration of this point
not be lost because everyone is accustomed to calling it the
Golden Gate Park. Certainly other communities such as
Wyndemere, Green Heron, Heron Lakes , Loch Louise, and of
course Berkshire Lakes will also make use of the park, thus
providing another argument for a more "generic" name .
I should also inform you that Mr. Higgs and I met with
Commissioner Hasse in late January on this matter and at
that time Mr. Higgs volunteered to supply the sign for the
park, in addition to the $50 ,000 .00 already pledged, if it
were given a name not as specifically aimed at one
community. Mr. Hasse was in favor of this suggestion and in
fact thought that the name Santa Barbara Park, with a
smaller subtitle "Golden Gate Community" , was quite
acceptable .
I would like to thank you for your cooperation and ask that
you keep me advised as to when and what our next step should
be .
Yours truly,
2
John J. Agnelli)
Vice President
JJA/slp PUBLIC SERVICES DIVISION
MAR 2 7 19P; A.M.
aoez/xa/o/ceoun4€ `V anlmr,Qacanel'd // /7 $.S
COLLIER COUNTY COURTHOUSE COMPLEX
NAPLES, FLORIDA 33962-4977
ANNE GOODNIGHT JOHN A. PISTOR MAX A. HASSE, JR.
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER
C. C. "RED" HOLLAND FREDERICK J. VOSS WILLIAM J. REAGAN
COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER CLERK
March 7, 1985
Mr. John Agnelli , Vice-President
Power Corporation
3174 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 33962
Dear Mr. Agnelli :
I appreciated you taking the time to meet with me
February 14th to discuss the Golden Gate area community
park name question.
Since that meeting , I have made other appropriate
persons aware of your concerns in this matter.
You should be aware that the County is not anxious to
open up additional controversy on any community park
matter. However, we are also fully aware of the
stipulations contained in the purchase agreement for the
referenced park site and fully intend to live up to said
stipulations. Accordingly, no final naming of the park
will occur until after you have had the opportunity to
further submit recommended names to the PARAB, as well
as to comment as you wish on any proposed names.
Further, such additional consideration for naming the
park will most certainly occur prior to the Park' s
formal opening.
While I am reluctant to see the issue resurface, as I
indicated to you previously, if you believe it best to
address it immediately, we will work with you as
appropriate.
Noise
-2-
Again, let me assure you that we fully intend to meet
all of the stipulations contained in the purchase
agreement.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me at 774-8468.
Sincerely,
rill
Donald W. No ton
Public Services Administrator
DWN/cros
cc: Pamela Brangaccio, Deputy Asst. Cty. Mgr.
® Tim Vanatta, Parks & Recreation Director
!II
,taimms ‘rrrrr A rworw
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting - 5/18/84
Pr. Caballero stated that Mr. John Agnelli has a suggestion for naming the
Golden Gate park but was unable to attend this meeting. The members agreed
to continue this item until Mr. Agnelli could be present.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting - 7/27/84
Mr. John Agnelli, of Power Corporation, explained that the proposed Golden
Gate Park is inside the Berkshire Lakes PUD and that the developers request
that the name be something other than Golden Gate Park, since the park will
serve areas to the south of Golden Gate, as well.
''1r. Caballero said he would take this request to his committee for
discussion.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting - 8/17/84
lank Caballero said that he contacted a number of members of the Golden Gate
Committee by letter, and four (4) responded that perhaps the Golden Gate
community should have input for the naming of the park since it is their
park. Mr. Caballero said that the committee suggested a park naming contest
where the winner may receive a $100 savings bond. Mr. Caballero concluded
that he would invite John Agnelli to participate with the Golden Gate
Committee in making a final decision for the naming of the park in Golden
Gate, and the final recommendation would be presented to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meeting - 12/20/84
There was a general discussion regarding naming the five community parks.
Mr. Caballero indicated that he did not want the parks to he named by their
geological name and the Advisory Board could set up some type of guidelines.
Mr. Peek indicated that the parks have basically been given their geological
name.
?sir. Monaco indicated that the geological name could be retained along with
another name for the park, adding that he thought a contest could he held if
the names were to be changed.
Mr. Burton indicated that he felt the discussion should he tabled and brought
up at a later date as there is plenty of time.
Mr. Caballero moved, seconded by Mr. Monaco and carried unanimously, that the
discussion regarding names for the five community parks be tabled at the
present time.
• Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - 1/24/85
Mr. Caballero stated that he wrote a letter to Commissioner Voss with regards
to the naming of the community parks, adding that Commissioner Voss has
indicated that this subject will be discussed at the BCC workshop on January
31 , 1985.
=k X=
Workshop meeting of the Board of County Commissioners - 1/31/85
Public Services Administrator Norton said that this item has come before the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on several occasions and they have had a
difficult time dealing with the situation and they are requesting Board
input. He said that staff feels strongly that the parks should maintain
their geographic names, adding if the names need to be changed this is not
the correct time to do it. He said that staff feels the names used now are
very descriptive of the parks.
Commissioner Goodnight said she thought the name of Immokalee Community Park
should be kept. Commissioner Hasse said this is the best way to approach the
matter. County Manager Lusk stated this item will be on Board agenda for
2/5/85.
Mr. Norton said that the Board does not need to take any action other than to
• respond to a letter from Mr. Caballero, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board. Commissioner Voss said he would not respond until he had
direction from the Board.
Board of County Commissioners meeting - 2/5/85
Public Services Administrator Norton stated that the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board has tried to deal with naming the five community parks, adding
that from staff standpoint, he sees very little benefit in renaming the parks
anything other than their geographic names. He stated that the geographic
names tend to instill a sense of pride in those communities and in the county
as a whole, and therefore, staff recommendation is that the five community
park not be renamed at this time.
Commissioner Holland moved, seconded by Commissioner Goodnight and carried
4/0, that the five community parks named after the geographic area remain
with the same names.
/pc/D/9
C
MEMORANDUM
TO: The Parks Advisory Board
FROM: Barbara A. Cacchione )
Planner III
DATE: March 10, 1986
RE: Review of Rezone Petition R-85-27C, Foxburn PUD for Compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan.
Petition R.-85-27C, Foxburn PUD is a request to rezone approximately
20.88 acres from A-2 to PUD for a proposed development containing 144
multi-family dwelling units. The property is located south of Radio
Road, east of Foxfire PUD in Section 6, TWP 50S, R26E.
In reviewing this petition for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan,
the project was rated by the point system to determine a maximum density
range. The density range achieved by this project is 0-5 units per
gross acre.
The petitioner has requested 6.9 units per gross acre in the PUD document.
In order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan and achieve the density of
7 units per gross acre the petitioner has elected to use the option of a
payment in lieu of land dedication for a Neighborhood Park. This option
awards the petitioner 10 points and increases the density range to 0-7
units per gross acre. The specific section of the Comprehensive Plan
which discusses the Neighborhood Park option is attached for reference.
To determine the fee for the development the following process was used
as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.
Step 1: Estimate development population
Number of Dwelling Units Population Per Estimated
in the Development X Dwelling Unit = Development
Population
144 2.5 360
Step 2: Estimate needed facilities
Development populations acres of facility acres of
(expressed in thousands) needed per 1,000 recreational
persons facility needed
for the develop-
ment
.360 2 .72
Credit for Private recreational facilities provided within the development
2 swimming pools, with shelter bldgs. and picnic areas
2 tennis courts
2 racquet ball courts
1 recreation center
1 Trail (walking, jog, bike paths)
1 Recreation open space/Playground area
The Percentage credit allowed for 9 or more on site facilities is 50%.
Therefore the required land dedication is .36 of an acre.
Step 3: Estimate fees (Payment in lieu of land dedication)
Acres of recreational land fee for the
facility needed for the X acquisition = development
the development cost per acre
.36 $17,160.00 $6,177.60
The land acquisition fee was determined by the Real Estate Section of the
Public Works Division and their report is attached.
The PUD document will need to be amended and language inserted which
states that the petitioner will make a payment to the Board of County
Commissioners in the amount of $6,177.60 to be used for a neighborhood
park prior to the issuance of any building permits. The petitioner shall
also identify the private recreational facilities within the development
which were credited towards the required park dedication fee. These
facilities shall be listed in the PUD document and shown on the site
plan. Appropriate assurances shall be given and reviewed by the county
attorney to ensure that the recreational facilities will be developed and
maintained.
The monies collected shall be held in a trust and must be tightly
earmarked. The money paid by the developer must be used for the
immediate needs of the residents of that development or for improvement
of other existing parks which already serve those needs. If the money
is not spent within seven years it will be forwarded to the Department
of Parks and Recreation general operating budget. The money will be
collected by the Board of County Commissioners.
This petition was continued by the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPC) on February 20th, 1986 to resolve this matter. The Parks
Advisory Board (PAB) is scheduled to review this petition on March 20,
1986 and the CCPC is also scheduled to hear the petition following the
PAB review on March 20th.
REVIEW FOXBURN PUD
PROJECT REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH •
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
-
Project Name or Number R -83---c2 7 - fo '&i, , , PUD
Project Location Sec. 6
Twp. 0 S Rge. ae, G o70.
Name of Petitioner �J�G4�� wives i�4JSiC.. t
/�� //I AEA Phone c2,6 a� -9/s e,/
14
Type of Development: Residential
Non-Residential
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Vie g NJ
Ivy v,,,r-s o,7 /24,-
Point System For Determining Availability
Of Services And Facilities
Points Petitioner
Facility Guarantees Prior To
Existing Points CCPA Public Hearing
1. Proximity to Commercial* T S -
2. Access /..1- /s
( . ,. . 3. Water 3--/ �-
4. Sewer Jr _ �''
5. Fire /0 /0 `
6. Public Schools* (p 4
7. PUD ,..3- s,
8. Neighborhood Parks*
9. Affordable Housing*
10. Other
•
Total 7/
* Applies Only To Residential Projects
Density Range Permitted d
Meets Minimum Points Required For Non-Residential Projects
Comments: GZ — cz .?2
X21 k , a, eVe_ � .��-i,,-� � e ,J, 6- .
Signature of Rating Official g,ele2/64,c nil/e/4 e
Date
NOTE:
(..:ime These results are based upon a formal review
of the rezone petition by
the Planning Department. However, this document is not a commitment by
the County for project approval of a specific density level.
Formal Review
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Cacchione, Planner II
Planning Department
FROM: Pat Carroll
Planning and Contracts Engineer
DATE: March 13, 1986
RE: MARKET ANALYSIS OF THE FOX BURN DEVELOPMENT
Please find attached a market analysis that was prepared upon your request
determining an estimate of value for the land referred to as Fox Burn
Development. The indicated market value of this property is $17,160.00 per
acre.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding the attached report.
PMC/j he
attachment
of C,
MARKET ANALYSIS
Upon request of Barbara Cacchione, Planner II, with the Collier County Planning
Department, I have prepared a market analysis estimating value of property in
Section 6, Township, 50 South, Range 26 East. This property is referred to as
Fox Burn Development and is more completely described as follows:
The West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of
Section 6, Township 50 South, Range 50 East, Collier
County, Florida, less the North 50 feet thereof reserved
for road right-of-way; and further less the East 212 feet
thereof; and further less the West 110 feet thereof,
containing 20 acres more or less.
Zoning: A-2
I have searched the general vicinity for sales of land comparable to the
subject property. Please see the attached sales grid and location map for the
particulars on each sale. For this market analysis, I have adjusted the sales
for time. This adjustment is made by multiplying each sale by an estimated
percent per year appreciation representing an increase in value for lands in
the vicinity of the subject property. According to a local appraiser, there is
very little indication of property appreciation from a strong sales market for
the past two years. An applicable adjustment for time would represent the
inflation rate. I have used four percent per year for my time adjustment since
that is representative of the inflation rate for the past couple years. This
adjustment brings each sale to a more comparative position. Any reference
hereafter to a per acre value will be the adjusted sales price as shown on the
sales grid.
Sale number one is a sale of the subject property which occurred in February of
1985. The adjusted sales price is $17, 160.00 per acre. This is the best
indicator of value for the subject property. Sale number two is the sale of a
half section of land in Section 5, Township 50, Range 26 East. The property
is zoned A-2. The indicated value is $14,309.00 per acre. This property is
larger than the subject. The $14,309.00 per acre figure probably reflects the
fact that it is a large land sale resulting in a lower unit price than what a
smaller piece of land would sale for. Sales three and four are in Section 7,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East. Sale three indicates a value of $28,427.00
per acre and sale four a value of $22,000 per acre. Sale three is zoned for a
PUD and sale four was the purchase of a small piece of property which is
included in this PUD; therefore, these sales indicate the upper range of value.
Sales five and six are located in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 26 East
and are zoned A-2. Sale five indicates a value of $12,604.00 per acre and sale
six $13,655.00 per acre. Both of these properties are interior properties and
do not have frontage on a major roadway. These properties are inferior to the
subject and indicates the lower range of value. The range value indicated by
these sales after adjusting the price for time appreciation, is $12,604.00 per
acre to $28,995.00 per acre. Based on the above discussion, this market
analysis supports a value of $17,160.00 per acre for the subject property.
Please be advised that due to time constraints the sales used in this report
were not verified or inspected.
Pat Carroll
Planning and Contracts Engineer
a
W O O 00 O O O
�+ b a)
• Cl i .o - ui
a) a) 0 .0 O rn .o O Ln
a a- 01-1 ---+ 01 O. LI .O .O
m H
CO Cr) N Cr)
U •n — '-1 N N .--4
•-1 b V} V? <!? </} V? <!T
1a 6
P••
a)
00 0 0 0 0 0
0
v p
a) m • o. N- •0 0
a) 4J 1.) O CO N O O O
P, U v) u'1 O O Ln
a)
a)
1-1 U .O Cr) CO N N N
U 44 O — '-4 N N
•- tea) ("., <? <h <? <? <1} <I)-
p.4
v Co CO CO CO co co
cu
4J Iy O N .O C1 O CO
C co N \ \ N .-I N
('., C.) \ O N \ \ \
a) N '-4 '-I Ln 4 N
A c6
H
C7
W
d G CO CO CO CO CO CO
b OD L'1 O d N- .O
a) N \
)) a) \ \ \ in
ca C'. N CD O N
•O
G <4 6 P-
O
•
AI O .O
a) .N O .N N N N N
\ G O O O O O1 CD
• N ul u'1 1t1 to
W' I I I I I I
U .O to N- n r+
a) M C1
C/)
a) a)
cti E✓ .-a N M - u'1 .0
L7
z •
ommEmmmo
COLLIER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
equivalent to the County School Board and if the County School
Board accepts the site or cash equivalent only for a school
site, the developer may be awarded 8 points. In addition,
those projects with medical features such as life care facil-
ities, retirement communities with health care facilities
and adult congregate living facilities receive the full 15
- points.
*** Optional; to implement this program the Collier County Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board will be designated as the body to
oversee this procedure. The Advisory Board will review all
future residential rezones of 100 units or more for compliance
with the following criteria.
1. Criteria - All residential developments of 100 units or
more shall be required to contribute acceptable neighbor-
hood park facilities. The 1980 Census figure of 2.5
persons per household (housing unit) will be used to
arrive at the total population for the proposed devel-
opment. A development of 100 units with an estimated
population of 250 would begin to impact upon the park
facilities in the area and create an additional need. The
standard used for determining the necessary park require-
ments is a neighborhood park is 2 acres per 1,000 popu-
lation.
2. Site Dedication & Selection Criteria:
If the developer chooses to dedicate land for a park site
the following criteria regarding the selection of that
site must be met. Also, the site would be de.ded to the
county, who would then be responsible for the maintenance
of the site.
Site Selection for Neighborhood Parks
a. The site must be a minimum of (5) contiguous acres;
b. Where possible, it should be located adjacent to an
elementary school;
c. The site must be suitable for recreational or park use and
capable of immediate development or developed at a mutual-
ly agreed upon time;
d. The site must be suitably located with respect to the
surrounding developments that it serves; and
e. Direct access cannot be to a road classified as an arter-
ial or larger.
31
3. Payments-In-Lieu of Dedication - If a developer so chooses
and it is agreeable to the Board of County Commissioners,
or if the Board of County Commissioners deem it is in the
County's best interest, payments may be accepted in lieu
of land dedications. The payments will be based on the
fair market value of the amount of land to be dedicated.
The fair market value will be determined at the time of
the required dedication. The fair market value must be
based on the land in the immediate area of the develop-
ment. If a developer does not agree with the amount
arrived at by the County, the developer may object and do
his own independent appraisal. The County may use the
independent appraised value if they so choose.
The monies collected shall be held in a trust and must be
tightly earmarked. The money paid by a developer must be
used for the immediate needs of the residents of that
development or for improvement of other existing parks
which already serve those needs. If the money is not
spent within seven years it will be forwarded to the
Department of Parks and Recreation general operating
budget. The money will be collected by the Board of
County Commissioners.
4. Dedications and Payments - In some instances both land
dedications and payments may be accepted by the County.
This may occur if a major portion of a site has already
been acquired.
5. Credit - In some instances, private recreational facil-
ities within a development may be credited towards the
required dedication. This credit cannot exceed 50% of
the required acreage to be dedicated.
a. Types of facilities eligible for credits:
1) Water related activities;
2) Group family picnic areas;
3) Golf courses;
4) Playgrounds (tot lots) ;
5) Recreational center;
6) Shuffleboard/horseshoe courts;
7) Swimming pools;
8) Tennis/racquetball courts;
9) Trails (horse
jogging, bicycle)
10) Others - Each to be approved by the Parks and Rec-
reation Advisory Board.
b. Percentage of Credit Allowed:
Percentage Credit Number of
Allowed Facilities Provided
50% 9- or more
40% 7- 8
30% 5- 6
20% 4
10% 3
0% 0- 2
c. If a developer chooses to be credited for private recre-
ational facilities, the private facilities must be clearly
identified on the development site plan and plat, if
appropriate. Assurance shall be given, in the form of
subdivision deed restrictions, condominium declaration,
homeowners agreements, or maintenance agreements that are
legally acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners
after review and approval by the County attorney that the
areas shall be adequately maintained and that all home-
owners or tenants shall be required to belong to and
financially support the operation and maintenance of said
facilities.
The remaining acreage required shall be dedicated to the
ti County in terms of a park site or a payment in lieu of
i ` dedication.
Following are the three steps used in determining the amount of acreage
or payment in lieu thereof:
Step 1: Estimate development population
Number of population estimated
dwelling units X per dwelling = development
in the development unit population
Step 2: Estimate needed facilities
Development acres of acres of
population X facility = recreational
(expressed in needed per facility needed
thousands) 1,000 persons for the
' development
Step 3: Estimate fees
Acres of recreational land fee for the
facility needed X acquisition = development
for the development costs per
acre
33