BCC Minutes 10/25/2016 R BCC
REGULAR
MEETING
MINUTES
October 25, 2016
October 25, 2016
Page 1
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, October 25, 2016
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:
CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala
Tim Nance
Tom Henning
Georgia Hiller
Penny Taylor
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Crystal Kinzel, Director of Finance and Accounting
Troy Miller, Communications & Customer Relations
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Community Redevelopment Agency Board (CRAB)
Airport Authority
AGENDA
Board of County Commission Chambers
Collier County Government Center
3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor
Naples FL 34112
October 25, 2016
9:00 AM
Commissioner Donna Fiala, District 1 — BCC Chair
Commissioner Tim Nance, District 5 — BCC Vice-Chair; CRAB Chair
Commissioner Georgia Hiller, District 2 — Community & Economic Develop. Chair
Commissioner Tom Henning, District 3 — PSCC Representative
Commissioner Penny Taylor, District 4 — CRAB Vice-Chair; TDC Chair
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE
ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO THREE
(3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT OR
FUTURE AGENDA TO BE HEARD NO SOONER THAN 1:00 P.M., OR AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE AGENDA; WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
Page 1
October 25,2016
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53 AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE
BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING,
YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN
ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES
MANAGEMENT DIVISION LOCATED AT 3335 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
SUITE 1, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DIVISION.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Michael Bannon of Crossroads Community Church of Naples
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
A. Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for consent agenda.)
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Page 2
October 25, 2016
A. Proclamation designating October 24-30 as Marco Island Woman's Club
Week in Collier County, in recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the
founding of the club and in celebration of"50 Years of Giving Back." To be
accepted by Jacquelyn Pierce, President; Priscilla Penn, Vice President;
Austine Frawley, Recording Secretary; Ronda Balham, Corresponding
Secretary; Debbie Rago, Treasurer; and Lynn Nocifora, Assistant Treasurer.
B. Proclamation designating November 5, 2016 as Florida Panther Festival Day
in Collier County in recognition of the festival's goal of educating attendees
about the Florida panther's life and habitat. To be accepted by Amber
Crooks, Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge; Jessica Sutt, Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge; and Jack Mulvena, Naples Zoo.
C. Proclamation recognizing the expansion of the von Arx Wildlife Hospital at
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and designating December 6, 2016 as
"von Arx Wildlife Hospital Outdoor Rehabilitation Day." To be accepted by
Joanna Fitzgerald, Director of von Arx Wildlife Hospital and members of
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
D. Proclamation designating October 28, 2016 as the 17th Annual Red Walk at
Lely Elementary School, in celebration of Red Ribbon Week activities. To
be accepted by Dr. Kamela Patton, Superintendent of Collier County Public
Schools; Ms. Christa Crehan, Lely Elementary School Principal; and Mr.
Craig Alan Greusel, Project Director.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of the 2016 James V. Mudd Fellowship Award. To be presented
by Tim C. Durham, Executive Manager of Corporate Business Operations.
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
Item #7 to be heard no sooner than 1:00 pm unless otherwise noted.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS NOT ON THE CURRENT
OR FUTURE AGENDA
Item #8 and Item #9 to be heard no sooner than 1:30 pm unless otherwise noted.
Page 3
October 25,2016
8. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
A. This item to be heard at 10:30 a.m. To provide the Board of County
Commissioners (Board), acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the
review of the appeal filed by the Vaguna Corporation, owner of the Beach
Box Cafe, of the Zoning Director's revocation of the Administrative Parking
Reduction APR- PL20150001922, that had requested a reduction of the
required parking from 47 parking spaces to 16 parking spaces. The subject
property is located at the northeast corner of Gulf Shore Drive and
Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 32, Township 48 South and Range 25
East, in Collier County, Florida.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. This item to be heard at 1:30 p.m. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2006-50, the Creekside Commerce
Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), as amended, by
increasing the allowable square footage in the Industrial Commercial District
by 166,000 square feet for a total of 716,000 square feet of gross floor area
of industrial/commerce uses and increasing the acreage from 41.6 to 49.90
net acres; by amending the Business District to increase the allowable square
footage of floor area from 260,000 square feet to 292,000 square feet
including 200,000 square feet to 242,000 square feet of office use and from
60,000 to 50,000 square feet of retail use; by amending the Industrial
Commerce District to allow parcels west of Goodlette-Frank Road to
increase the zoned height from 35 feet to 50 feet except for Tract 5 on the
Master Plan which shall have a zoned height of 104 and actual height of 122
feet; by amending the Business District to allow Tract 9 on the Master Plan
east of Goodlette-Frank Road to increase the zoned height to 75 feet and
actual height to 85 feet; by increasing the overall floor area ratio from .35 to
.45; by reducing the preserve requirement and by adding a deviation to allow
a portion of the preserve to be off-site; by adding a deviation to allow Tract
5 on the Master Plan to be eligible for the County's architectural deviation
process. The subject property is located south of Immokalee Road and both
east and west of Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 27, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 106 acres; and by
Page 4
October 25, 2016
providing an effective date. [PUDA-PL20160001865] (Companion to VAC-
PL20160002294-Agenda Items #9B and#11C)
B. This item to be heard immediately following Item #9A. This item
requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be
sworn in. Recommendation to approve Petition VAC-PL20160002294 to
disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion
of Tract "R", Creekside Boulevard right-of-way, being a part of Creekside
Commerce Park West-Unit Two, Plat Book 35, Page 43 of the Public
Records of Collier County, Florida. The subject property is located south of
Immokalee Road, between Arthrex Boulevard and Creekside Street in
Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Companion to Agenda Items #9A and #11C)
10. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to award Contract #16-6675, Lake Trafford Road at N.
19th Street Intersection Project, to Bonness, Inc., in the amount of
$1,385,000.01, Project No. 60192. (Jay Ahmad, Transportation Engineering
Division Director)
B. Recommendation to approve the third amendment to the Real Estate
Purchase Agreement approved April 26, 2016, dated May 9, 2016, between
Real Estate Partners International, LLC (Purchaser) and the Board of County
Commissioners (Seller), acting as the authority for the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle Redevelopment Area regarding the cell telephone tower relocation.
(Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager)
C. This item to be heard immediately following Item #9B. Recommendation
to approve a Developer Agreement with Barron Collier Partnership and
Arthrex, Inc., (Developer) and Collier County (County) to design, permit
and construct roadway and intersection improvements and relocation of the
Pine Ridge Weir located within the Creekside Commerce Center Planned
Unit Development. (This is a companion to Agenda Items #9A and #9B,
PUDA-PL20160001865). (Amy Patterson, Capital Project Planning, Impact
Fees and Program Management, Division Director)
Page 5
October 25, 2016
D. This item to be heard at 10:00 a.m. Recommendation to approve an
Agreement with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to convene an Advisory
Services Panel in Collier County to result in high level housing policy
recommendations and therefore assisting in the process of the Housing Plan
Development; and to waive competition declaring this a single-source
service and in the best interest of the County. (Kim Grant, Director,
Community and Human Services)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
A. Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit seeking
to recoup in excess of$6.5 million paid to Holiday CVS, LLC, a corporate
subsidiary of CVS Health Corp., and Realty Trust Group, LLC pursuant to a
jury award in January 2014. The claims in the lawsuit are for unjust
enrichment and civil conspiracy to commit extrinsic fraud on the court.
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY AND/OR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
A. AIRPORT
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
15. STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are considered to be
routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of
each item. If discussion is desired by a member of the Board, that item(s) will
be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to Recommendation to award and authorize the
Collier County Board of County Commissioners Chairman to execute
Contract #16-6617 in a total amount of$662,496 for professional
Page 6
October 25, 2016
services pursuant to the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Corridor
Study to CH2MHill.
2) Recommendation to award RFP #16-6610 "Annual Contract for
Landscape Maintenance Vendors" and authorize the Chairman to
execute contracts with eight vendors: Hannula Landscaping and
Irrigation, Inc., Florida Land Maintenance d/b/a Commercial Land
Maintenance, Ground Zero Landscaping Services Inc., Caribbean
Lawn & Garden of SW Naples FL Inc., Scott Lowery Landscaping,
Inc., Signature Tree Care, LLC, The Davey Tree Expert Co., and
Stahlman-England Irrigation, Inc.
3) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of water and sewer utility facilities for Riverstone Plat 6,
Parcel F, PL20140001215, and authorize the County Manager, or his
designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond in the total amount of
$4,000 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
4) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of water and sewer utility facilities for Esplanade Golf&
Country Club of Naples, Phases E and G2, PL20150000684, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer's designated agent.
5) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of water and sewer utility facilities for Esplanade Golf&
Country Club of Naples, Phases GI and R3, PL20150000179, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer's designated agent.
6) Recommendation to approve final acceptance of sewer facilities
for Coastal Beverage Warehouse and Maintenance Facility,
PL20150000688, and authorize the County Manager, or his designee,
to release the Utilities Performance Security (UPS) and Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,996.23 to the Project
Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
Page 7
October 25, 2016
7) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for Isles of
Collier Preserve, (Phase 1) Sub-phase 3, PL20130002517, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond in the total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer
or the Developer's designated agent.
8) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water utility facilities for Isles of Collier
Preserve, (Phase 1) Sub-phases 1 and 2, PL20130001825, and to
authorize the County Manager, or his designee, to release the Final
Obligation Bond, and Utilities Performance Security bond in the total
amount of$19,486.18 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
9) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of potable water and sewer utility facilities for the
Quarry, Phase 7, PL20150001157, and to authorize the County
Manager, or his designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond in the
total amount of$4,000 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's
designated agent.
10) Recommendation to approve final acceptance and unconditional
conveyance of the potable water and sewer utility facilities for
Canopy, PL20140000042, and to authorize the County Manager, or
his designee, to release the Final Obligation Bond in the total amount
of$4,000 to the Project Engineer or the Developer's designated agent.
11) Recommendation to authorize the Clerk of Courts to release a Cash
Bond in the amount of$2,000 to the applicant, SWF Development
Group, LLC which was posted as a development guaranty for an Early
Work Authorization (EWA) (PL20150002901) for work associated
with the BizPark, Site Development Plan (SDP).
12) Recommendation to approve a waiver in accordance with guidelines
set forth in the Advance Street Name Guidelines policy and
Resolution No. 2012-114 for the placement of advance street name
guide signs along Airport-Pulling Road at the approaches to Hawks
Ridge Drive.
Page 8
October 25, 2016
13) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Del Webb Naples Parcel 204,
(Application Number PL201600001451) approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the
amount of the performance security.
14) Recommendation to approve an extension for completion of
subdivision improvements associated with Arrowhead Reserve at
Lake Trafford Phase One (AR-3771) and Arrowhead Reserve at Lake
Trafford Phase Two (AR-3974).
15) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Angel's Subdivision,
Application Number PL20160000116.
16) Recommendation to grant final acceptance of private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Riverstone— Plat Three
Application Number 20120001441 with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained, authorizing the release of
the maintenance security, and acceptance of the plat dedications.
17) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Coral Harbor Phase 1,
(Application Number PL20160001134) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
18) Recommendation to grant final acceptance of private roadway and
drainage improvements for the final plat of Quarry Phase 1
Application Number AR-6468, with the roadway and drainage
improvements being privately maintained, acceptance of the plat
dedications, and authorizing the release of the maintenance security.
Page 9
October 25, 2016
19) Recommendation to approve an extension for completion of
subdivision improvements associated with the Arrowhead Reserve at
Lake Trafford Block 'C' (AR-10335) subdivision pursuant to Section
10.02.05 C.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code.
20) This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by
Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all
participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the final plat of Coral Harbor Phase II,
(Application Number PL20160001577) approval of the standard form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
21) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with an accrued value of$132,800.78 for a payment of$2,550.78 in
code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners v.
Bernard A. Losching, Est., Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CEPM20140022483, related to property located at 13102 Pond Apple
Drive W, Collier County, Florida.
22) Recommendation to approve the release of a code enforcement lien
with a combined accrued value of$18,128.16 for a payment of$4,000
in code enforcement action entitled Board of County Commissioners
v. Black River Rock, Code Enforcement Board Case No.
CESD20140018277, related to property located at 6665 Collier
Boulevard, Collier County, Florida
23) Recommendation to acknowledge and approve the "HITS Triathlon
Series" (Horse Shows In The Sun) event to take place in Collier
County on January 7th & 8th, 2017, including evening hours.
24) Recommendation to award Contract #16-6598, "Fixed Term
Landscape Architectural Services" to the following six firms: Michael
A. McGee, Landscape Architect, P.A. d/b/a McGee & Associates;
Goetz + Stropes Landscape Architects, Inc.; Johnson Engineering;
Windham Studio, Inc.; Q. Grady Minor; and Urban Green Studio,
PLLC.
25) Recommendation to approve a budget amendment totaling $269,600
Page 10
October 25, 2016
from Fund (112) reserves and appropriating these dollars within the
following Fund (112) projects to continue implementation of the
median capital landscape program: CR951 - Fiddler's Creek to
Mainsail Drive (Project No. 60149) for permit fees; Immokalee Road
- CR951 to Wilson Blvd. (Project No. 60018); Collier Blvd. - US 41
to Marino Circle (Project No. 60001); and Santa Barbara - Davis
Blvd. to Bridge No. 030206NB, 030205SB at I-75 (Project No.
62018) for landscape architectural design services.
26) Recommendation to approve a Resolution requesting the Florida
Department of Transportation to Accelerate Funding for State Road
82 Roadway Improvements.
27) Recommendation to approve an Option Agreement for Excavation
Material between RP Orange Blossom Owner, LLC., and Collier
County to provide an option to purchase excavated fill for use on
County projects. (This item is a companion to Orange Blossom Ranch
PUDA Item #17B)
28) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution to declare a public hearing to
consider vacating a portion of the east end of Mainsail Drive right-of-
way, being a part of Marco Shores Unit One, Plat Book 14, page 33 of
the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, located in Section 26,
Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (VAC-
PL20160000379)
29) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #16-6624 "Concrete:
Sidewalks, Curbs, Floors and Other Applications" to Heritage
Builders, LLC d/b/a Heritage Utilities; waive minor irregularities of
bid submission documents; and authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached contract.
B. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
1) This item has been continued from the October 11, 2016 BCC
Meeting. Recommendation to approve Change Order#4 to extend
Contract #13-6012 with RWA Consultants, Inc., for an additional 552
days; increase the contract amount by $70,650.00; and authorize the
Chairman to execute the Change Order to permit the completion of
Page 11
October 25, 2016
the Thomasson Drive/Hamilton Harbor Streetscape Design Project in
order to promote safer vehicular and pedestrian traffic movement.
C. PUBLIC UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award Invitation to Bid #16-6542 for the
purchase and delivery of cartridge filters for North and South County
Regional Water Treatment Plants to Tri-Dim Filter Corporation.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to approve the Collier County Domestic Animal
Services Veterinarian Licensing Agreement which allows
veterinarians and authorized agents to sell Collier County licenses,
collect fees, and relevant surcharges established by Resolution No.
2016-125.
2) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to State Housing
Initiatives Partnership Program Subrecipient Agreement with
Community Assisted and Supportive Living, Inc. d/b/a Renaissance
Manor, to increase Fiscal Year 2015-2016 funding to $300,000 and
clarify or update program information
3) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to a State Housing
Initiatives Partnership Program Subrecipient Agreement with
Community Assisted and Supported Living, Inc. to decrease the total
award amount, revise required spending requirements and update
county staff contacts.
4) Recommendation to approve a standard Donation Agreement that
allows Global Properties of Naples, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company to donate a 2.73-acre parcel along with a management
endowment of$10,633.35, to the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program under the offsite vegetation retention provision
of the Land Development Code LDC Sec 3.05.07H.l.f.iii. (b), at no
cost to the County, and authorize the Chairman to sign the Donation
Agreement and staff to take all necessary actions to close. This is a
follow-up to Ordinance 2015-33, approved June 9, 2015, Item #9B.
Page 12
October 25,2016
5) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Third Amendment to the Agreement with the David Lawrence Mental
Health Center to extend the term, modify grant staffing, and adjust the
grant and match budget.
6) Recommendation to approve an agreement with the David Lawrence
Mental Health Center to govern the allocation of the state mandated
match for FY17 in the amount of$1,649,400.
7) Recommendation to approve the FY16-17 contract with the State of
Florida Department of Health for the operation of the Collier County
Health Department in the amount of$1,419,500 and also approve an
addendum to the contract to allocate an additional $249,220 to fill a
funding gap due to state non-funding of ACHA Medicaid match
programs and authorize necessary budget amendments.
8) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign two
Memoranda of Understanding with the Southwest Florida Workforce
Development Board, Inc. for the delivery of the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers swimming skills and drowning
prevention "Miracle Plus 1" and "Miracle Plus 2" programs.
9) Recommendation to approve a lease agreement with the Friends of
Marco Island Flotilla 9-5, Inc., to recognize the Friends donation in
the amount of$51,000, and approve the necessary budget amendment
for the donation to purchase and install a new modular unit at
Caxambas Community Park for the use of the Friends to provide
boater safety education to Collier County residents and visitors.
10) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Collier County Child
Advocacy Council, Inc. to provide mandated services identified under
Florida Statute 39.304(5) for FY 16/17 (Fiscal impact $80,000).
11) Recommendation to approve a Victims Advocacy Organization
(VAO) after-the-fact grant application for a 3-year Florida
Department of Children and Families Criminal Justice, Mental Health
and Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant in the amount of
$1,042,505.66.
Page 13
October 25, 2016
12) Recommendation to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with
Friends of Collier County Public Library, Inc. to clarify the operating
relationship between the Collier County Public Library and Friends.
13) Recommendation to approve a resolution updating the Collier County
Health Department Fee Schedule.
14) Recommendation to adopt a Resolution related to Gift or Purchase of
bus stop easements that exempts a purchase in the amount up to
$100,000 from the requirement for an external appraisal.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
1) Recommendation to award RFP #16-6613, Property and Casualty
Brokerage Services to Insurance and Risk Management Services, Inc.
(IRMS).
2) Recommendation to adopt a resolution authorizing the cancellation of
2016 taxes upon a fee-simple interest in land Collier County acquired
by Special Warranty Deed for Conservation Collier without monetary
compensation (on behalf of the Public Services Department).
3) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the
Assumption Agreement from Schlumberger Water Services USA, Inc.
to PB Water Services USA, Inc. as it relates to Contract #13-6164,
"Professional Services Architect and Engineering" for the following
discipline: Wellfield Study, Planning and/or Design (WEL).
4) Recommendation to approve and authorize the removal of
uncollectible account receivables in the amount of$313.05 from the
financial records of the Human Resources Division in accordance
with Resolution No. 2006-252 and authorize the Chairman to execute
the attached Resolution.
5) Recommendation to approve a Lease Agreement with North Collier
Fire District for EMS Division's continued use of Station 48 at an
annual cost of$10,740, effective October 1, 2016.
Page 14
October 25, 2016
it
6) Recommendation to waive competition and authorize single-source
purchases for closed circuit television pipeline inspection vehicles,
software, supplies and parts in accordance with the Board's prior
approval to standardize these purchases with Community Utilities
Environmental Services, Inc. (CUES).
7) Recommendation to approve the administrative reports prepared by
the Procurement Services Division for change orders, surplus property
and other items as identified.
F. COUNTY MANAGER OPERATIONS
1) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reviews
and approves the proposed FY2017 Action Plan for Leo E. Ochs, Jr.,
County.Manager.
2) This item continued from the October 11, 2016 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation to approve Amendment #1 to Tourism Category
"B" Contract #16-7008 between Collier County and Spirit Promotions
for reimbursement of the operating expenses for the 2017 US Open
Pickleball Championships in the amount of$60,000 and make a
finding that these expenditure promotes tourism.
3) Recommendation to approve Tourist Development Tax Category "B"
funding to support the Senior Softball USA Winter Nationals up to
$6,500 and make a finding that these expenditures promote tourism.
4) Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating grants, donations, contributions or insurance proceeds)
to the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget.
5) Recommendation to approve the proposed Collier County State and
Federal Legislative Priorities for 2017 and adopt attached resolutions.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Page 15
October 25, 2016
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous Correspondence
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1) Recommendation to award RFP #16-6684 Arbitrage Compliance
Services for Collier County to PFM Asset Management, LLC in an
estimated maximum annual amount of$25,000.
2) To provide the special interim reports for approval as detailed in
Section 2c of the agreed-upon order dated July 16, 2015 by Judge
James R. Shenko in the manner requested by the Board of County
Commissioners (previously included in item 16.I) and that prior to
payment, the Board approves these expenditures with a finding that
said expenditures serve a valid public purpose and authorizes the
Clerk to make disbursement.
3) To record in the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners, the
check number (or other payment method), amount, payee, and
purpose for which the referenced disbursements were drawn for the
periods between September 29 to October 12, 2016, pursuant to
Florida Statute 136.06.
4) To provide to the Board a "Payables Report" for the period ending
October 19, 2016, pursuant to the Board's request.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1) Recommendation to appoint two members to the Golden Gate
Community Center Advisory Board.
2) Recommendation to reappoint two members to the Radio Road East
of Santa Barbara Blvd. Advisory Committee.
3) Recommendation to appoint one member to the Public Transit
Advisory Committee.
4) Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners appoints
Page 16
October 25, 2016
Patrick Dearborn, representing Commission District 2, to the Collier
County Planning Commission, to a four-year term expiring on
October 1, 2020.
5) Recommendation to approve a proposed Joint Motion for Stipulated
Final Judgment and Order of Taking in the amount of$50,109.29 in
total compensation, including outstanding ad valorem taxes, for the
taking of Parcel 311 FEE in the pending Eminent Domain case styled
Collier County v. Joseph Bartoszek, et al., Case No. 16-CA-1200,
required for expansion of Golden Gate Blvd. from 20th Street East to
east of Everglades Blvd., Project No. 60145. (Fiscal Impact:
$50,109.29)
6) Recommendation to authorize the County Attorney's Office to make
an Offer of Judgment to Respondent, Gulf View Townhomes, LLC, in
the amount of$200,101 for the acquisition of Parcel 145DAME in the
pending lawsuit styled Collier County v. April Chappell, et al., Case
No. 10-3932-CA, Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project
(LASIP) No. 51101. (Fiscal Impact: $124,101 excluding attorney fees
calculated according to the statutory benefit formula if the Offer is
accepted, plus expert witness fees as may be awarded by the Court).
7) Recommendation to approve an Amendment to Agreement for Legal
Services for the Retention Agreement with Woods Weidenmiller
Michetti Rudnick & Galbraith, PLLC.
8) Recommendation to request for authorization to advertise for future
consideration an amendment to Ordinance No. 2010-29, the Collier
County Public Parks and Beach Access Parking Ordinance, to clarify
its intent as it relates to park and beach users who also wish to visit
nearby shopping and restaurants as part of the overall recreational
opportunity for that beach or park.
9) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Chair to execute a
Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release in the lawsuit styled
Mayra Moya v. Collier County (Case No. 15-CA-000590), now
pending in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and
for Collier County, Florida, for $40,000.
Page 17
October 25,2016
17. SUMMARY AGENDA - This section is for advertised public hearings and
must meet the following criteria: 1) A recommendation for approval from
staff; 2) Unanimous recommendation for approval by the Collier County
Planning Commission or other authorizing agencies of all members present
and voting; 3) No written or oral objections to the item received by staff, the
Collier County Planning Commission, other authorizing agencies or the
Board, prior to the commencement of the BCC meeting on which the items
are scheduled to be heard; and 4) No individuals are registered to speak in
opposition to the item. For those items which are quasi-judicial in nature, all
participants must be sworn in.
A. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the
Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, which is the Collier County
Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, to provide for an amendment to Section
74-401 to allow impact fee deferrals for all owner-occupied dwelling units to
include automatic subordination to the owner's first mortgage.
B. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are
required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an ordinance
amending Ordinance No. 04-74, the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit
Development (PUD), to allow offsite removal of excess material associated
with excavation permits and amend the Master Plan to change the landscape
buffers to current Land Development Code requirements; and providing an
effective date. The subject property is located on the north and south sides of
Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road
(C.R. 846) in Sections 13, 14 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East,
and Section 19, Township 48 South Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida
consisting of 616+/- acres [PUDA-PL20160000787] (Companion to agenda
Item #16A27).
C. Recommendation to adopt a resolution approving amendments
(appropriating carry forward, transfers and supplemental revenue) to the
Fiscal Year 2016-17 Adopted Budget.
18. ADJOURN
Page 18
October 25, 2016
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 252-8383.
Page 19
October 25,2016
October 25, 2016
Page 2
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your
seat.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Good morning,
everyone. Thank you so much for being here. Look at the Marco
Island contingent over here. It's so nice to see you. So nice to see you.
I'm going to ask that we stand. And we have a prayer, but before
we do that, we had the patriot and a loving, dear, sweet man who just
died this past week, and his name was Dick Shanahan. And Dick was
on the County Commission from 1988 to 1992, and he's stayed active
ever since. Just a beautiful person. So as we pray, I would ask that
you keep him in your prayers as well.
Thank you.
Reverend?
Item #1A
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – PASTOR
MICHAEL BANNON OF CROSSROADS COMMUNITY CHURCH
OF NAPLES – INVOCATION GIVEN
PASTOR BANNON: Let's pray.
Lord God, in these momentous times which we find ourselves, as
people who don't know the future, it's fitting for us to come to you,
eternal God, who knows the end from the beginning and ask you, Lord
God, for wisdom for the days ahead.
We pray for this family that has lost the loved one, the Shanahan
family, and ask, Lord God, that you would be their comfort and their
stay. We thank you for Dick's service to this community.
Father, we pray for our county commissioners, that you would
bless them with wisdom and insight into the matters that are before
October 25, 2016
Page 3
them. We thank you for their service to our community as well. And
thank you for blessing us with this wonderful place to live.
And I pray for we who are citizens of this community; that you,
Lord God, would give us a sense of community; that we would be
partners with our county commissioners in sharing the load, building
together; that this place might be beautiful for the days ahead.
And so we commit this time to you praying that you would help
us know you as you want to be known.
Amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, would you lead
us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And, County Manager, before you begin,
I would just like to recognize that Dr. Kamela Patton is in the
audience, our Superintendent of Schools. Stand up so people know
who you are.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Now it's your turn.
Item #2A
TODAY’S REGULAR, CONSENT AND SUMMARY AGENDA AS
AMENDED (EX PARTE DISCLOSURE PROVIDED BY
COMMISSION MEMBERS FOR CONSENT AGENDA) –
APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am. Good morning,
Commissioners. These are the proposed agenda changes for the Board
of County Commissioners meeting of October 25th, 2016.
The first proposed change is to move Item 16D4 from the consent
October 25, 2016
Page 4
agenda to become Item 11E. This is a recommended donation
agreement for a parcel of land to the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition program to satisfy offsite vegetation retention
requirements. That item is moved at Commissioner Nance's request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16F5 to become 11F
on the regular agenda. This is a recommendation to approve the
county, state, and federal legislative priorities for 2017. That was
moved at Commissioner Taylor's request.
The next proposed change is to deny Item 16J4 until such time as
the Clerk certifies that the payables presented in that report have been
previously pre-audited as specified by the Board. That's a staff request.
The next proposed change is to move Item 16K8 to become Item
12B under the County Attorney's regular agenda. This is an
authorization to advertise for future board consideration an ordinance
amendment regarding the Collier County public parks and beach
access parking ordinance, and that item is moved at Commissioner
Taylor's request.
We have a number of time-certain items this morning and this
afternoon, Commissioners. Item 11D will be heard at 10 a.m., Item 8A
will be heard at 10:30 a.m., and Items 9A, 9B, and 11C, all related to
the same project, will be heard at 1:30 p.m.
There is one note regarding 17B on your summary agenda having
to do with the Orange Blossom PUD. The master plan that was
attached was amended to add an access point, and that was
inadvertently omitted from the master plan, but it has been since
corrected.
We have court reporter breaks set for mid morning and mid
afternoon, and public comments on general topics not on the current or
future agenda will be heard no sooner than 1 p.m. or at the conclusion
of the agenda, whichever comes first.
Those are all the changes I have this morning, Madam Chair.
October 25, 2016
Page 5
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, County Manager.
County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: No changes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, do you
have any changes, corrections, additions?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't have any ex parte
communication. I made some notes on the consent, but Leo and Nick
and Jeff has addressed my concerns. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Very good.
I would like to ask that we pull Item No. 16K4, respectfully ask to
do that for discussion at the open meeting.
MR. OCHS: That is a recommendation to appoint a member
representing Commission District 2 to the Collier County Planning
Commission.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have nothing on ex parte and no
other additions, corrections, or changes.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, what I guess one -- 16K4 is
going to become which item, Mr. Ochs?
MR. OCHS: That will become 12C on your regular agenda;
County Attorney's regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you. Thank you Madam
Chair.
I have no additional changes. I guess we're going to give ex parte
on public hearing at that time, Madam Chair. Is that what we're going
to do, or do I declare that now?
MR. OCHS: At that time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: At the public hearing we'll declare that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. We'll do that.
Other than the public hearing, I have only ex parte on Item 17B,
which is on today's summary agenda; I've read the staff report and read
October 25, 2016
Page 6
letters and communications, I've had phone calls and meetings with
staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And, Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I have no ex parte. The ex parte
with the item, I guess it's 9A, et cetera, I will declare at that time, but
nothing else at this point, and no changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No ex parte, no changes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
And with that I ask for a motion to approve the agenda.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: So moved.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and second. All in
favor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to Item 4 on today's
agenda, proclamations. I'm sorry, ma'am. You have to first approve
Item 2A.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So moved.
MR. OCHS: So moved.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All
October 25, 2016
Page 7
in favor, signify saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
October 25,2016
Move Item 16D4 to Item 11E: Recommendation to approve a standard Donation Agreement
that allows Global Properties of Naples,LLC,a Florida limited liability company to donate a 2.73
acre parcel along with a management endowment of$10,633.35,to the Conservation Collier Land
Acquisition Program under the offsite vegetation retention provision of the Land Development
Code LDC Sec 3.05.07H.l.f.iii.(b),at no cost to the County,and authorize the Chairman to sign
the Donation Agreement and staff to take all necessary actions to close. This is a follow-up item to
Ordinance 15-33,approved on June 9,2015,Agenda Item 9.B. (Commissioner Nance's request)
Move Item 16F5 to Item 11F: Recommendation to approve the proposed Collier County
State and Federal Legislative Priorities for 2017 and adopt the attached resolutions.
(Commissioner Taylor's request)
Deny Item 16J4 until such time as the Clerk certifies that the payables presented in this report have
been pre-audited as previously specified by the Board: To provide to the Board a "Payables
Report" for the period ending October 19,2016 pursuant to the Board's request.(Staffs request)
Move Item 16K8 to Item 12B: Recommendation to request for authorization to advertise for
future consideration an amendment to Ordinance No.2010-29,the Collier County Public Parks
and Beach Access Parking Ordinance,to clarify its intent as it relates to park and beach users
who also wish to visit nearby shopping and restaurants as part of the overall recreational
opportunity for that beach or park. (Commissioner Taylor's request)
Note:
Item 17B Orange Blossom PUD: The master plan attached to the proposed Ordinance shall be
amended to add an access point to the commercial property which was erroneously omitted on the
master plan. This access point is shown on the master plan approved by Ord.No.04-74. The
commercial property owner is not a participant in the PUD amendment. (Staff's request)
Time Certain Items:
Item 11D to be heard at 10:00 a.m.
Item 8A to be heard at 10:30 a.m.
Item 9A to be heard at 1:30 p.m.,immediately followed by Items 9B and 11C
October 25, 2016
Page 8
Item #4
PROCLAMATIONS – ONE MOTION TAKEN TO ADOPT ALL
PROCLAMATIONS
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 24-30 AS MARCO
ISLAND WOMAN'S CLUB WEEK IN COLLIER COUNTY, IN
RECOGNITION OF THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
FOUNDING OF THE CLUB AND IN CELEBRATION OF "50
YEARS OF GIVING BACK." ACCEPTED BY JACQUELYN
PIERCE, PRESIDENT, MARY DEETJEN, DEBBIE RAGO,
SHIRLEY THAYER, ROSEMARY WICK, AND HAYLA CRANE –
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4A is a proclamation designating October 24th
through the 30th as Marco Island Woman's Club Week in Collier
County in recognition of the 50th Anniversary of the founding of the
club and in celebration of "50 Years of Giving Back." To be accepted
by Jacquelyn Pierce, president; Mary Deetjen; Debbie Rago; Shirley
Thayer; Rosemary Wick; and Hayla Crane. If you would please step
forward and receive your proclamation.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Step forward to the dais.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Come forward so the cameras can see all
of you. Thank you.
Would one of you like to speak?
MS. PIERCE: On behalf of the members --
MR. OCHS: Ma'am, I'm sorry. You need to step to the podium,
October 25, 2016
Page 9
please.
MS. PIERCE: Thank you. Jacquelyn Pierce, president of the
Marco Island Woman's Club. On behalf of the over 200 members of
the Marco Island Woman's Club, we sincerely appreciate this
proclamation. It is most fitting that it is being held today on the 25th
because yesterday, on October 24th, we celebrated Founders Day, and
this is the nature of our club for over 50 years.
We began the day with a service project in which the members of
the club served luncheon at the firehouse for the first responders. We
then celebrated the day with a very elegant reception open to the public
that featured a chamber of commerce music.
So, again, we thank you, and hopefully we'll have our fathers (sic)
and our daughters and granddaughters be here another 50 years from
now to celebrate the hundredth.
We look forward, Commissioner, Donna, for you to be with us at
our December meeting when you will graciously read the
proclamation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We are looking forward to it.
MS. PIERCE: Thank you one and all. Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's pretty -- I admire that, 50
years.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: On Marco.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: On Marco, yeah.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 5, 2016 AS
FLORIDA PANTHER FESTIVAL DAY IN COLLIER COUNTY IN
RECOGNITION OF THE FESTIVAL'S GOAL OF EDUCATING
October 25, 2016
Page 10
ATTENDEES ABOUT THE FLORIDA PANTHER’S LIFE AND
HABITAT. ACCEPTED BY AMBER CROOKS, FRIENDS OF THE
FLORIDA PANTHER REFUGE; JESSICA SUTT, FLORIDA
PANTHER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE; AND JACK
MULVENA, NAPLES ZOO – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4B is a proclamation designating November
5th, 2016, as Florida Panther Festival Day in Collier County in
recognition of the festival's goal of educating attendees about the
Florida panther's life and habitat. To be accepted by Amber Crooks,
Friends of the Florida Panther Refuge; Jessica Sutt, Florida Panther
National Wildlife Refuge; and Jack Mulvena, Executive Director of
the Naples Zoo.
If you'd please step forward.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who takes this?
MR. MULVENA: Thank you.
Good morning, everyone.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good morning.
MR. MULVENA: So I just wanted to say how honored the
Naples Zoo is to be the host site of the Fifth Annual Florida Panther
Festival, but the festival's really a product of really a strong and diverse
collaborative partnership between a number of organizations and
entities: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Big Cypress; Conservancy; CISMA;
Defenders of Wildlife; both FGCU and Hodge's University; the Florida
Panther National Wildlife Refuge and their friends organization; and
the Naples/Marco Island/Everglades CVB.
We also receive support from ASH, the Animal Specialty
Hospital, Florida; Naples Daily News; Florida Wildlife Federation; and
Gulf Shore Life and others. So on behalf of the partners, thank you
very much.
October 25, 2016
Page 11
Both Nick and Leo warned us that we weren't able to bring any
tokens of our appreciation. But we're a resourceful and creative bunch,
so we found a way around that. We scheduled a panther festival on
Collier County’s free Saturday. So you can come out and enjoy your
zoo and help celebrate panthers with us.
Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, tell us when exactly this is
going to be and how people can participate and what they're going to --
you know, give yourself a little bit of publicity while you're standing
there.
MR. MULVENA: Yeah, absolutely. The panther festival will be
throughout the zoo and around the zoo. All the collaborative partners
will be there helping to increase the appreciation and understanding of
Florida panthers. It will be Saturday, November the 5th. And, again,
for Collier County residents -- that's free for our wonderful Collier
County residents, so everyone can come out and celebrate not only
their zoo but help us celebrate panthers and learn more about how
important they are. They're our state animal, so very good.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And how is -- is it Uno?
MR. MULVENA: Uno. Uno's doing great. Uno is our Florida
panther injured in Collier County. He's doing extraordinarily well. The
staff is taking fabulous care of him. He's actually gotten to the point
where our staff has trained him so that they can put eye drops in his
eyes. He, you know, has been blinded, as has been reported. But he's
back up to normal weight, and he's doing great. He's a great
ambassador for the zoo and a great ambassador for his brothers and
sisters in the wild.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Are you taking him over to
Bascom Palmer there, are you?
MR. MULVENA: Yeah, we do house calls.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
October 25, 2016
Page 12
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
MR. MULVENA: Thank you very much.
MR. OCHS: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE EXPANSION OF THE
VON ARX WILDLIFE HOSPITAL AT THE CONSERVANCY OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA AND DESIGNATING DECEMBER 6,
2016 AS "VON ARX WILDLIFE HOSPITAL OUTDOOR
REHABILITATION DAY." ACCEPTED BY JOANNA
FITZGERALD, DIRECTOR OF THE VON ARX WILDLIFE
HOSPITAL AND MEMBERS OF THE CONSERVANCY OF
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4C is a proclamation recognizing the
expansion of the von Arx Wildlife Hospital at the Conservancy of
Southwest Florida and designating December 6, 2016, as von Arx
Wildlife Hospital Outdoor Rehabilitation Day. To be accepted by
Joanne Fitzgerald, director of von Arx Wildlife Hospital, and members
of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
If you'd please step forward.
(Applause.)
MS. FITZGERALD: Thank you for having me here this
morning. Thank you to the Commissioners and also to the community.
We really couldn't continue our work without the community's
support, so we're extremely excited to have made this expansion to
help us improve the quality of care that we provide all the injured and
orphaned and sick native wildlife to Florida in our area. So thank you
so much for this award, this proclamation.
October 25, 2016
Page 13
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How many -- what do you have
in there now? Tell us what you have.
MS. FITZGERALD: Well, shockingly, we're already over 3,300
animals, which is more than we had in the entirety of last year.
Unfortunately, we're getting a lot of birds in every day from the red
tide. The Double Crested Cormorants are astounding, the numbers that
we're getting in. So that's a huge part of it.
Also, it's migration, so we're getting a lot of little warblers and
things like that that are coming through. Unfortunately, they tend to
hit windows and things like that. But for us, it's the shorebirds and the
Cormorants. And the scary part is, when they start to feel well, they
are one tough little bird. So we want them to get better, but it's also a
little scary on the side as well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And then I think everybody in the
audience has enjoyed the articles that she writes in the Naples Daily
News about the hospital every week. It's so interesting, and it kind of
makes you feel like you're in tune with the animals and being a part of
it, or at least a cheerleader squad.
MS. FITZGERALD: I appreciate that. The best we can do is to
try and continue to educate and hopefully help people realize that it is
an amazing resource to co-exist with the wildlife in our area, and that's
what we try and do. We rehab and educate, so I really appreciate that
comment.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And long before the Dolph von
Arx was established, you always took in native injured animals. I've
dropped many off to you. And what was so amazing is, is that you
could drop it off and fill it out, and then you could call back and get an
update on the health of the animal, whether the animal died. You
know, it was such a -- it is, but was right from the beginning, you
know, very serious about preserving our natural -- our natural wildlife.
October 25, 2016
Page 14
And the Conservancy's to be commended for that.
MS. FITZGERALD: I appreciate that. We've had a vet on staff
for just over five years now, and the quality of care that we've been
able to provide with her knowledge -- everybody was already working
so hard, like you said, so for so many years --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MS. FITZGERALD: -- but to add that expertise to just really
raise the bar of what we can do and what we just keep trying to do
every day, so thank you.
But it really is a community effort with our volunteers and local
businesses that donate to us. We really couldn't do it without the
community, so we're very grateful for where we are.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING OCTOBER 28, 2016 AS THE
17TH ANNUAL RED WALK AT LELY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL,
IN CELEBRATION OF RED RIBBON WEEK ACTIVITIES.
ACCEPTED BY DR. KAMELA PATTON, SUPERINTENDENT OF
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MS. CHRISTA
CREHAN, LELY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL; AND
MR. CRAIG ALAN GREUSEL, PROJECT DIRECTOR –
ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Item 4D is a proclamation designating October 28,
2016, as the 17th Annual Red Walk at Lely Elementary School in
celebration of Red Ribbon Week activities. To be accepted by Dr.
Kamela Patton, Superintendent of Collier County Public Schools; Ms.
Christa Crehan, Lely Elementary School Principal; Mr. Craig Alan
October 25, 2016
Page 15
Greusel, project director; and Tammy Caraker, executive director of
federal programming.
If you'd please step forward and receive your award.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And while they're coming up --
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: While they're coming up, I want to tell
you about Craig's voice. I've been blessed to be able to attend most
every one of these, except for this Friday I won't be here, but I needed
to miss it. This man, he sings like an angel, and the kids all sing out
loud with him. He brings -- he brings knowledge to them through their
songs, and I'm just so proud to call him a friend. Thank you so much.
(Applause.)
MR. GREUSEL: It has been my privilege to stand before this
commission for 17 years and celebrate Red Ribbon activities within
Collier County School District and our community. Each year we've
tried to put a twist or a unique spin on how we celebrate. This year our
theme, our slogan, is let's "Get steamed," don't do drugs, let's be drug
free, and the gist of that, the "steamed" comment, is that we are, this
year, in accordance with our district programming, it is STEAM week
as well. STEAM, as you know, stands for the integration of arts now
into science, technology, engineering, and math concepts.
Each of our zones this year on the walk is a STEAM zone. So as
the children and the community members walk, they go from a science
area to a technology area to an engineering to an arts and to a math
zone.
In addition to their projects in the morning, as they walk and they
are given presentations by our local and community charitable
organizations, service personnel, and other presenters, that's their
morning activity. In the afternoon, they give back. Every one of our
children will be going to an area, field trip area and providing concerts,
making art projects, doing all kinds of things where -- Meals of Hope
October 25, 2016
Page 16
is one of our work projects this year as well.
So children get to learn, and they get to give on the same day,
making the Red Ribbon idea not just celebrating drug-free activities,
but making the Red Ribbon idea an idea that we have a healthy
lifestyle that we can get and receive and give back.
And I thank you for letting us come again before you for another
year, and I'll see you next year. Come on out and join us. Let's get
"steamed."
MS. CREHAN: And real quickly before I go, my name is Christa
Crehan. I'm the principal of Lely Elementary School. I started there
last year as principal. And what was amazing, every year this morphs
a little more. So last year we added service to -- we get to meet service
workers in the morning, and in the afternoon the children give service.
And one amazing thing -- I will tell you this amazing fact. Last year
fourth and fifth graders in an hour and a half made 47,000 Meals of
Hope --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wow.
MS. CREHAN: -- for the community that went out to serve
Collier County. So that -- I mean, that's a pretty amazing thing. And I
also want to state, this year we added -- we aligned it with our school
district strategic plan. So we added the STEAM component, so we're
just -- we keep ramping it up every year.
And I want to thank you again. Thank you for always coming
out, Commissioner Fiala.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're welcome. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I could get a motion to approve
today's proclamations.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion and a second. All in favor?
October 25, 2016
Page 17
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF THE 2016 JAMES V. MUDD FELLOWSHIP
AWARD. TO BE PRESENTED BY TIM C. DURHAM,
EXECUTIVE MANAGER OF CORPORATE BUSINESS
OPERATIONS – PRESENTED
MR. OCHS: That takes us to Item 5 on your agenda this
morning, presentations. Item 5A is a presentation of the 2016 James
V. Mudd Fellowship Award. Presentation will be begun by Mr. Tim
Durham, our Executive Manager of Cooperate Business Operations.
Tim?
MR. DURHAM: Good morning, Commissioners. Happy to be
here. Today we're happy to present to you and to honor the 2016
James V. Mudd Fellowship Award recipient. The James V. Mudd
Fellowship Award was created by Leadership Collier Foundation, a
program of the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, to honor
former County Manager Jim Mudd and acknowledge his outstanding
public service. And I must recognize his wife, Toni, is here blessing us
with her presence today.
(Applause.)
MR. DURHAM: And also Michael Dalby from the Chamber.
October 25, 2016
Page 18
(Applause.)
MR. DURHAM: The fellowship annually acknowledges an
outstanding leader whose contribution mirror those of County Manager
Mudd's devotion to enhancing leadership and stewardship. Each year's
fellowship recipient is granted a full scholarship to the Leadership
Collier program.
A little bit about the man for whom this fellowship is named after.
Many of us knew Jim and had the honor of knowing him very well, but
I can't assume that the general public and others don't (sic), so if I may
talk a little bit about that.
Jim was a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in
1974 and spent 26 years in the U.S. Army, retiring as a colonel. He
was a professional engineer by trade and served on General
Schwarzkopf's staff during the first Gulf War. He served as County
Manager from 2002 to 2009 and, I must say, passed too soon, well
before his time, in 2010 at the age of 58.
Jim led the county through -- I didn't know this till I did a little bit
of background research. He led the county through 10 hurricanes and
tropical storms, and those that knew Jim knew that public service was
always -- and public safety always first and foremost in all he did.
Devoted husband, loving father, and a grandfather.
The fellowship recipient is selected each year by a confidential
committee based on the candidates' qualifications compared to the
following criteria: Integrity, doing what is right always;
results-oriented, being inclusively and positively results oriented;
selfless community service; and inspiring others to collaborate, follow,
or lead.
And it's my pleasure to introduce Sheriff Rambosk who will tell
you about this year's recipient, Harvey Lewis.
SHERIFF RAMBOSK: Thank you. Good morning,
Commissioners. It is my pleasure to give a little background on one of
October 25, 2016
Page 19
our favorite members of our organization.
Harvey was born in Washington, D.C., and grew up in Bethesda,
Maryland. He is a Vietnam Veteran. He served from 1968 to 1972.
He was a military intelligence officer.
He retired the U.S. Army as a Lieutenant Colonel after 26 years,
and that alone, we want to thank you for your service and all those who
give their service to the United States.
He has a bachelor's degree from the University of Maryland; that
was in business. He has graduate work from American University and
George Washington University. He's held senior management
positions in mine safety and health administration, Administration
Office of the U.S. Courts, and the Solicitor's Office of the Department
of Labor.
And once he had a chance to straighten out Washington -- and all
of you that have worked with Harvey know that's exactly what he
would do and nothing less -- he came to us in Collier County in 1998.
He started as a budget analyst, he took over fleet management, and in
2004 became our IT Director. That is his current position.
He's been married to his wife Margo for 45 years. He was a
tri-athlete. When his children were growing up, he was involved in the
United States Swimming Organization. And he holds numerous
service awards in recognition of the work he's done.
In addition, for our agency, you know, he has done not only his
normal functions and every day but key projects along with an
excellent team of our members who work together to serve Collier
County. They've created the CAD upgrade, they're working on the
finance upgrade, and they're working through a system-wide upgrade.
Harvey is a troubleshooter, he is a problem solver, and he is an
innovator, and it's my pleasure to introduce Harvey Lewis.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like him up here to take a
picture?
October 25, 2016
Page 20
MR. DURHAM: Harvey, if you don't mind, come up first. I'm
going to present you with an award, and you'll be happy that we're not
in France, because I will not kiss you in the cheek.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Come on, Mr. Durham, where's the
fun?
(Applause.)
MR. DURHAM: Would you like to say a few words?
MR. OCHS: Hold on.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Hold the plaque.
MR. DURHAM: And if it's okay with you, may we call up
Margo and maybe Toni Mudd? Would you come up, ma'am. And
your classmates real quick.
MR. LEWIS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Michael, do you want to come up, too.
MR. DALBY: Sure.
MR. OCHS: Tim, get Toni over there next to you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two rows.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All attitudinally challenged people
in the front.
MR. OCHS: Great.
(Applause.)
MR. LEWIS: I'm obviously deeply honored by this recognition.
Jim Mudd was an outstanding public servant and an outstanding
leader. He dedicated his life to public service, first, as you heard, by
serving our nation as an army officer, and then here as the County
Manager.
And in all his roles, from everything that I've heard, he served
with honor and integrity and distinction. And, you know, I'm very
proud to be able to receive an award in his name and his memory.
Again, I think, also, he was a warrior, and from, what I know, he
fought his final battle with dignity and grace right up to the end.
October 25, 2016
Page 21
It's also an honor to receive this award from Tim, because Tim's
not only a previous awardee but Tim's a hero in his own right. Tim
also served and was a recipient of the Bronze Star, so it's moving to
receive the award from him.
I'd like to thank the Leadership Collier Foundation, the Chamber,
the Board of County Commissioners. I'd also like to thank Sheriff
Rambosk for continuing to give me the opportunity to serve, and
especially to serve the dedicated men and women of the Sheriff's
Office and to provide them support every day.
Finally, I'd like to thank my wife, Margo. Margo and I were
married in 1970 when I was a second lieutenant in the army in the
middle of the Vietnam War. And it said 45 years, but it's now been 46.
It got updated a year.
And she's been with me along all the good times and the bad, et
cetera. So -- and I'd like to thank everybody who's come to share this
moment with me. I appreciate everybody, the people who work for me
who are in the back of the room and my classmates who are here.
So thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Congratulations, Mr. Lewis.
Item #5B
COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR LARRY RAY
PRESENTATION OF TURN-BACK FUNDS TO THE BOARD IN
THE AMOUNT OF $6,865,518.34 – PRESENTED
Madam Chair, after we started today's meeting, we received a late
notice from your Collier County Tax Collector, Mr. Larry Ray, who
wanted to make a brief presentation. I wonder if the Board would
indulge the Tax Collector and add Item 5B to today's agenda, please.
October 25, 2016
Page 22
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Certainly. Come on up, Larry. I don't
know if I need -- should I take a vote on that, or can I just say yes?
Come on.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Make a motion to accept.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You're the grand --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not an action item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, good. Thank you anyway for
backing me up on that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. I'll withdraw the motion.
MR. RAY: Thank you. So imagine the value you get out of
those retired military people, I can tell you that.
I just -- I want to apologize for my attire. We were in the middle
of stuffing 238,000 tax notices that will start the next year's cycle off
and will end with something similar to this about this time next year.
I was just going to send this check over to the accounting
department, but I realized that some of you won't -- I won't get to see
you anymore in this role, so I thought, well, what the heck, I'll come
over one last time and wish you the best of luck in whatever the future
holds for the three of you that won't be here hopefully the next time I
am over presenting this check.
But I have a check of unused fees for $6,865,518.34 that I'd like
to present to you. If I had a big poster board check, I would give it to
the Commission, but I think I better give this one to Leo here. That is
a negotiable check.
We had a successful year, and I think we'll have a good one next
year. I hate to see the Commission change over, but I know that's part
of the deal, and I wish you the best of luck from the Tax Collector's
Office. It's been a pleasure working with you guys.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you so much.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much, Larry.
October 25, 2016
Page 23
(Applause.)
MR. OCHS: Thank you, Larry.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Leo, where did you put that
check? Nick's walking out.
MR. OCHS: Mr. Casalanguida is on his way over to Ms. Kinzel
right now. It's our version of the Pony Express.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Any and all people that have
$6 million checks for the Board should be added to the agenda.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: As soon as practicable.
MR. OCHS: I didn't think there'd be an objection to that this
morning.
Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11A
RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD CONTRACT #16-6675,
LAKE TRAFFORD ROAD AT N. 19TH STREET INTERSECTION
PROJECT, TO BONNESS, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF
$1,385,000.01, PROJECT NO. 60192 – APPROVED
That moves us on to Item 11A under the County Manager's
report. This is a recommendation to award a contract for the
improvements to the intersection at Lake Trafford Road and North
19th Street to Bonness, Incorporated, in the amount of $1,385,000.01,
and Mr. Jay Ahmad can make the presentation or respond to Board
questions. This is a competitive sealed low-bid award to the lowest
responsive bidder.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to say something,
Commissioner Nance?
October 25, 2016
Page 24
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
I think this is a wonderful agenda item. It's so much needed in the
community. I'm going to make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second.
Any comments? Questions? No speakers?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we love your presentation.
MR. AHMAD: Thank you very much, Commissioner. Love it.
MR. OCHS: Good work, Jay. Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #11B
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE THIRD AMENDMENT
TO THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT APPROVED
APRIL 26, 2016, DATED MAY 9, 2016, BETWEEN REAL
ESTATE PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, LLC (PURCHASER)
AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (SELLER),
ACTING AS THE AUTHORITY FOR BAYSHORE/GATEWAY
TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AREA REGARDING THE CELL
TELEPHONE TOWER RELOCATION – APPROVED
Item 11B is a recommendation to approve the third amendment to
October 25, 2016
Page 25
the real estate purchase agreement approved on April 26, 2016,
between Real Estate Partners International and the Board of County
Commissioners acting as the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area regarding the cell tower relocation.
Mr. Casalanguida will make a presentation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners.
If I could, Leo, get the podium computer on.
MR. OCHS: Yes, sir.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
Commissioners, this agreement or amendment was contemplated
when we did the purchase and sale agreement. The highlighted red
area is the cell tower that encumbers our property. The proposal for
the solicitation identified the encumbrance and noted in his proposal
that he would pay no relocation costs that would encumber. The
county would be responsible for those relocation costs.
During the negotiation of the purchase and sale, we said, that's
unacceptable. We recognized it's an encumbrance on our property.
When we go through the due diligence and inspection period, we'll talk
about how we do that because if you think about it, the costs are going
to be associated with how he designs his site and what he permits and
the timing of all that as well as our ability to find a relocation spot
outside of that site, if possible, as well as the tower owner's ability to
work with the subtenants that are there.
So we've met over the past month to talk about that. We've begun
preliminary negotiations. And what we suggested is a cost-sharing
proposal. So what's in front of you is exactly that. So there's incentive
on both sides to try and get this cell phone tower off our property.
The lease expires in 2024. So you can imagine if the cell tower
doesn't come down before that, they can't redevelop the site.
So what we've put aside is a half a million dollar of your purchase
funds in an escrow account where their first $250,000 would be used to
October 25, 2016
Page 26
start the relocation, if it was up to that amount. The second tranche up
to 500,000 will be split equally. Our exposure is limited at half a
million dollars for this relocation; 250,000 of the second tranche would
come out of the purchaser's additional funds not to be reimbursed ever.
If the relocation costs exceed $750,000, then the purchaser would
have to cash flow that relocation, and then he would be reimbursed
only at the time that the property's developed and the TIF or the tax
reimbursement comes back to him at a later date. He would have to
spend close to $200 million to develop the site and then the tax
increment would kick in.
So this way both parties would work with the cell tower owner.
We have a limited exposure to it. His exposure is limited to the extent
that he could finance it.
And that's the proposal that's in front of you, and I think it allows
both of us to work with the cell phone tower owner and try and come
up with a solution to get rid of that tower.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions, Board Members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: May I hear a motion then?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And a second, okay. And we have no
speakers for this subject.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. What was the purchase
amount?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: About $6.2 million, sir, and it was
appraised at about five.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Pardon me?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was about 6.2 million, and the
property was appraised at about 5 million, sir.
October 25, 2016
Page 27
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: (No verbal response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. It's a 5-0.
Item #11E
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A STANDARD DONATION
AGREEMENT THAT ALLOWS GLOBAL PROPERTIES OF
NAPLES, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
TO DONATE A 2.73-ACRE PARCEL ALONG WITH A
MANAGEMENT ENDOWMENT OF $10,633.35, TO THE
CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION PROGRAM
UNDER THE OFFSITE VEGETATION RETENTION PROVISION
OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDC SEC
3.05.07H.1.F.III. (B), AT NO COST TO THE COUNTY, AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN THE DONATION
AGREEMENT AND STAFF TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY
ACTIONS TO CLOSE. THIS IS A FOLLOW-UP TO ORDINANCE
2015-33, APPROVED JUNE 9, 2015, ITEM #9B – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, our next two County Manager
items are time-certain, so we'll move to Item 11E, which was
previously 16D4 on your consent agenda. This item was moved to
the regular agenda at Commissioners Nance's request. This is a
recommendation to approve a donation agreement with a Global
October 25, 2016
Page 28
Properties of Naples, LLC, to donate a 2.73-acre parcel along with a
management endowment of $10,633.35 to the Conservation Collier
Land Acquisition program under the offsite vegetation retention
provisions of your Land Development Code.
Mr. Williams is ready to make a presentation, or we can field
questions from Commissioner Nance or the other board members at
the pleasure of the Board.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, Madam Chair, I pulled this
agenda item not because I object to the proposal from Global
Properties, but what I wanted to do was I wanted to bring this back to
the attention of the Board one more time regarding the long-term
ramifications of this program.
The management endowment that's being paid by the petitioner
through the process that's been approved by the Board and that is
consistent with our LDC of $10,633 is estimated to be the amount of
money necessary to go forward for only seven years. The difference in
time between forever and seven years is substantial, at least by the
number of decimal places I have on my little calculator.
So what I'm suggesting to staff and to this board and the future
board is that we are going to have to come to grips with these sorts of
transfers. I think they're appropriate. I think they make rational sense,
but there's not a funding mechanism to go forward.
In the future, it is likely that we're going to have many more
parcels like this, and we may have parcels that become owned by the
public as a result of other Transfer of Development Rights programs
and so on and so forth. The cost is not in acquiring the properties. The
cost is in the ongoing maintenance.
We also have to consider this as we evaluate the renewal of
Conservation Collier going forward. Conversation Collier is in very
much the similar situation. At present, they really do not have a
operations and maintenance endowment that is sufficient to maintain
October 25, 2016
Page 29
their properties in perpetuity, and that's what we're talking about.
People fail to realize that perpetuity goes beyond -- well beyond our
lifetime.
So I just wanted -- I want to make a motion to approve this item,
but it is with a caveat that much, much more work and deliberation
needs to be taken so that we can fund this unfunded mandate. You
know, it says in this recommendation "at no cost to the county." There
is a substantial cost to the county over many, many years going
forward.
So this has to become to grips with. I know staff has got some
LDC changes in the offing, but this is a 30,000-foot thing that needs to
be addressed. That having been said, I'll make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion to approve and a
second.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, per the Land
Development Code, they're to clear the exotics prior to purchase or
prior to donation. So, you know, I find it quite interesting the
estimated cost to maintain that land of exotics. I mean, I don't know
what else you would maintain there besides exotics. And maybe
there's a different approach that should be made -- I'm not an expert by
any means of a -- if you go out there and maintain it more frequently,
your cost -- will your costs go down, or if you extend it out.
You know, you're talking about pepper hedge and melaleuca -- I
don't know of any other ones -- or there may be some areas that we
don't want to accept donation because of the proliferation of exotics.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, you know, Commissioner,
these properties also have to be maintained with fences, they have to
be maintained regarding firebreaks if we're to, you know, keep the
quality of the property there. You know, if we have invasive snakes
October 25, 2016
Page 30
and animals that come in there that need maintenance in the future, that
may need to be addressed. It's unknown what's going to have to be
done, but the fact remains is there's no funding to do any of that going
forward. The estimate is that it's going to run out in seven years.
So somebody's going to have to think out of box. You know,
perhaps that's a fee -- if these are residential, you know, CDDs that go
forward, maybe they need to have -- maybe they need to have
something rolled into their annual fees that, you know, fund their
commitment to these mitigations. I don't know.
Somebody's going to have to come up with something, or the
county is going to simply assume an ever-increasing burden.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or hydrate the area. Rehydrate
the area because that is -- that's a huge swamp over there. But
anyways --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- that being said.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I believe Mr. Vasey gave us a
document, and I don't remember the authoring, but it's a -- maybe it's
soil and land conservation. Anyway, they actually can determine --
there's a whole schedule of how to determine the cost of land.
I think maybe -- Madam Chair, maybe we need to discuss this at a
future meeting and then start that process maybe at a workshop, but
I've heard Commissioner Nance and Commissioner Henning again and
again, and I think they're on point, so I think now's the time.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, if I might. And Commissioner
Nance referenced this. This might help you also, Commissioner
Taylor. The staff has been previously directed by the Board to
evaluate an LDC amendment on this item that would be essentially
intended to recover a greater portion of the cost and offset our costs of
perpetual maintenance, I think, ma'am --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
October 25, 2016
Page 31
MR. OCHS: -- in line with what you're suggesting.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. I have a motion on
the floor and a second.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #12A
RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY TO FILE A LAWSUIT SEEKING TO RECOUP IN
EXCESS OF $6.5 MILLION PAID TO HOLIDAY CVS, LLC, A
CORPORATE SUBSIDIARY OF CVS HEALTH CORP., AND
REALTY TRUST GROUP, LLC PURSUANT TO A JURY AWARD
IN JANUARY 2014. THE CLAIMS IN THE LAWSUIT ARE FOR
UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND CIVIL CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
EXTRINSIC FRAUD ON THE COURT – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, let's, if we don't mind, jump down
to County Attorney's report and take Item 12A. This is a
recommendation to authorize the County Attorney to file a lawsuit
seeking to recoup in excess of $6.5 million paid to Holiday CVS and
Realty Trust Group pursuant to a jury award in January of 2014. Your
County Attorney, Mr. Klatzkow, will present.
October 25, 2016
Page 32
MR. KLATZKOW: Good morning.
Back in 2013 we had an intersection project at the corner of 41
and Collier Boulevard. This is the northeast quadrant. You can see in
red the piece that we took from the present-day CVS. The issue really
isn't the value of the land. The issue was the impact to their business.
During the case and at trial, CVS took the position that the loss of
this parking would result in their closing their store. They testified at
trial that they would be closing their store, day certain January 1st,
2015. And that's their testimony.
Now, I happened to go back there last Wednesday and, lo and
behold, they're still open. I bought a chocolate bar. As Commissioner
Hiller knows, you know, we share a love of chocolate.
You can see the parking lot. That's one view of it, a number of
cars. Another view of it. I have not been in a CVS store this busy, by
the way.
Another view.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Did they give you half off because
they were closing, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, no. I didn't tell them who I was.
This would be the area of the taking over here, and you can see
that there's still plenty of parking here.
Anyhow, at the end of the day, the county spent well in excess of
six-and-a-half million dollars to compensate CVS and the landlord for
their losses, including their attorney's fees and expert costs.
The whole purpose of eminent domain is to repay people for their
loss, to give them just compensation for the value of the land. Frankly,
it's a foundation of private property rights.
At the end of the day, they structured their case to get the greatest
award possible, which is fine, except that I don't think they ever had
any intent to close the darn store, all right. Twenty months after saying
they were to close the store, that store remains open. Month to month
October 25, 2016
Page 33
the landlord's getting his rent. Month to month, the cashiers are
ringing up the customers, all right.
I'd like to bring an action, and I put that in your agenda, to bring
suit against CVS and the landlord taking back taxpayer money that we
lost on this, on the case -- on two basic premises: One, fraud on the
Court, and the second, unjust enrichment, all right. They got money
that they said they were losing, that they never lost.
So they can take one or two tactics at trial. They can say we were
wrong. Okay, give us back our money; and they can say, well, we lied.
Okay, give us back our money. Either way, I think we ought to get our
money back. I think that's the fair thing to do.
Just to note, we currently have over 150 parcels going through the
eminent domain process. I'd like those property owners to know that
we are happy to fairly compensate them for their loss. Even more than
fairly compensate for their loss, quite frankly. Just don't lie to create
claims that don't exist. It's not right. It undermines the whole process.
What I'd like to do is, if I get permission from the Board to file
this complaint, to write a letter to the chief executives over at CVS,
because I don't know that they're aware of this. This could be just a
local issue. And I'd like to see if CVS headquarters makes the right
decision, gets in contact with us, and we can just resolve this amicably.
Maybe that happens, maybe that doesn't. We're going to find out a
little about CVS along the way. And that's my presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You made the point that the
property is owned by somebody else.
MR. KLATZKOW: Real Estate Investment Trust.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're suing the trust as well as
CVS?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
October 25, 2016
Page 34
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And with respect to the amount
you're claiming, you are giving them compensation for the value of
what we took --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- so this is the net amount?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not in dispute.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm seeking is the lost rentals that are
claimed and the lost profits that were claimed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion to
instruct or to direct our County Attorney to take whatever measures he
deems correct to recover our money.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor and a
second. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you, Commissioners.
Item #12C
RESOLUTION 2016-233: RECOMMENDATION THAT THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPOINTS
October 25, 2016
Page 35
PATRICK DEARBORN, REPRESENTING COMMISSION
DISTRICT 2, TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION, TO A FOUR-YEAR TERM EXPIRING ON
OCTOBER 1, 2020 – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have two minutes before your
time-certain item. Perhaps you want to take Item 12C, which was
moved at the chairman's request from the consent agenda. That would
be Item 16K4 that became Item 12C. It's a recommendation that the
Board appoint Patrick Dearborn representing Commission District 2 to
the Collier County Planning Commission to a four-year term expiring
on October 1, 2020.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me just say first, the only reason I said
it because -- I hated to do that because I know that's your choice,
except you're leaving.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. May I speak? Since it's my
item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, yeah. I can't even -- well, I'll say
what I want to say after you're done. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I consulted with Andy Solis,
who is my successor on the Board, and we agreed that Mr. Dearborn is
the right choice and that there was no reason to delay having him
appointed. He's an outstanding citizen. He's in the real estate industry.
He works for John R. Wood and is their top performer and has a real
understanding of real estate and the real estate market as well as the
development issues.
We've had realtors on the Planning Commission in the past, and
they have added very significant value to address issues like affordable
housing, like development in the east, you know, and ensuring that we,
you know, have communities in the east that are self-serving that they
don't have to -- that they're not bedroom communities, that you see the
October 25, 2016
Page 36
development of commercial in conjunction with residential.
So Andy is in full support and is fully aware, has seen his
application, knows him, and so that's why I'm making this motion. It's
my right, and he was very supportive of me bringing this forward
today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, it didn't say that in here, and
so -- and I was thinking of how I would feel or how would you feel if
somebody chose who I was going to have to live with for the next four
years without asking me. But as long as you've asked -- I didn't get a
notification from Andy Solis, so I didn't know that either. I don't know
if staff has.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. It's not required, but that is
what happened, and we're both very happy with the choice, and this
board will be very happy, and this community will be very happy.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I'm sure of that. I don't say that
your choice isn't good. I'm just saying that it's something that the new
commissioner will have to live with for the next four years.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He's understanding of that, and he's
very happy with it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So I'm going to take you at your
word.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll say a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
October 25, 2016
Page 37
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning,
did you just put that on?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I did. I'll just say
something real quick. If we were going to wait till the new board takes
over for actions coming before this board, then we might as well recess
until the new board takes over.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's a very good point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. Commissioner Henning, this is --
because this in particular is the only thing we get to really choose on
our own.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We get to choose --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Everything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We've got a thousand items on
the agenda. We choose all of them. And if the sitting board wants to
put something on the agenda or take it off, I mean, that's what we're
elected for. This particular ordinance is very clear, Planning
Commission members, it's a recommendation of the county
commissioner that represents that area. And the new board doesn't
take over until --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I stand corrected then. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I don't -- I want to make it
clear. I understand. I'm very sensitive to the new board taking over,
but, you know, the ordinance is -- this particular ordinance is very
clear, and -- but if you want to recess until December, I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, sir. That's -- that was uncalled for.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, that's a little joke.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A little bit of sarcasm.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, it wasn't aimed for you. I'm
just saying, I'm okay for recessing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor and a
October 25, 2016
Page 38
second, and it's been approved 5-0.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
Item #11D
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH
URBAN LAND INSTITUTE (ULI) TO CONVENE AN ADVISORY
SERVICES PANEL IN COLLIER COUNTY TO RESULT IN HIGH
LEVEL HOUSING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND
THEREFORE ASSISTING IN THE PROCESS OF THE HOUSING
PLAN DEVELOPMENT; AND TO WAIVE COMPETITION
DECLARING THIS A SINGLE-SOURCE SERVICE AND IN THE
BEST INTEREST OF THE COUNTY – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, that takes us to your 10 a.m.
time-certain hearing this morning. It's Item 11D on your agenda. This
is a recommendation to approve an agreement with the Urban Land
Institute to convene an advisory services panel in Collier County to
provide housing policy recommendations and further assist in the
process of development of your community housing plan.
Ms. Kim Grant, your director of Community and Human
Services, will make the presentation. Ms. Grant?
MS. GRANT: Good morning, Commissioners. I do have a few
comments.
I would like to introduce myself, Kim Grant, Director of
Community and Human Services, and I also have with me Stephen
Hruby who is the chair of our Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee, your Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
The item before you today is to further and accelerate the
development of the housing plan that's been being talked about for
October 25, 2016
Page 39
quite some time. And the recommendation is that we enter into a
contract with the Urban Land Institute for a week-long advisory
services panel engagement.
ULI is a non-profit organization focused on research and
education in the use of land, including housing. They conduct
research, perform analysis, develop best practices on land use, and
development priorities with special attention to workforce and
affordable housing, which is what we are dealing with here.
They are the only organization that provides multi-disciplinary
teams of practitioners that provide objective and unbiased advice on
addressing challenging issues such as what we face here in our
community. They are not consultants. Their services are not available
through any other means.
Briefly, what you get with the Advisory Service Panel is a
week-long engagement where these national experts/practitioners
convene in Naples. They conduct extensive public input, they tour our
community. They review information that we put together ahead of
time, all the studies and so forth that have been done to date. They are
likely to interview between 50 and 150 individuals, and they will take
a look at best practices. And at the end of the week they will meet
with the Commission and the community to offer high-level
policy-level recommendations. Ninety days thereafter the county will
receive a hard-copy report detailing the recommendations.
What this does, Commissioners, is accelerate the policy-level
discussion and allows policy to be set sooner than originally planned,
and this will allow us to focus keenly on the recommendation.
This approach that's being recommended replaces the prior RFP
and splits it into a two-phase project, policy first and then
implementation. We will competitively procure the firm to assist with
implementation.
I'm happy to indicate that at their respective meetings the
October 25, 2016
Page 40
stakeholder committee and the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee are supportive of this recommendation.
And, finally, ULI has been engaged in many of these types of
advisory services panels in Florida and throughout the country and
throughout the world, and the clients that we've spoken to have been
very satisfied with their products.
I'd be happy to take any questions, or Mr. Hruby would be happy
to make some comments if you'd like to hear from him.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, I think you have two registered
speakers as well, just so you know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you. We'll take the
registered speakers first. Thank you so much.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, your first registered public
speaker is Nick Kouloheras. He'll be followed by Mary Walker (sic).
MR. KOULOHERAS: Good morning, Commissioners. My
name is Nick Kouloheras, and I am the chair of the Community
Housing Plan Stakeholder Committee. This is a position that was voted
upon by all members of the committee, and I am honored to serve on
its behalf.
I would like to thank the commission for addressing this very
important issue we are facing in Collier County. As we continue to see
the need for workforce housing grow, the stakeholder committee
strongly believes action is required.
After a less-than-satisfactory response to our RFP to hire an
outside consultant, the committee held an emergency meeting where
not all members were present, but those present unanimously voted
move forward in the interest of time to engage ULI.
Subsequently, the draft contract material was also provided to the
stakeholder committee for review, and they were invited to attend last
week's AHAC meeting. Several did attend.
October 25, 2016
Page 41
ULI, which is a world-renowned leader in planning, design, and
policy, will help us solidify our needs and give us high-level strategies
to bring forward. Our committee, along with the Affordable Housing
Committee, made a unanimous vote in favor of hiring this
organization, and we hope you will do the same.
Thank you for your time.
MR. MILLER: Your next and final speaker on this item is Mary
Walker (sic).
MS. WALLER: Hi. My name is Mary Waller. I am the
vice-chair of the stakeholder’s committee. I just want to say very little.
The ULI is -- basically it gives us the vision that was set forth by
Collier County Government. The vision here is to be the best
community in America to work and play. We cannot be the best
community in America to work and play based on the housing
problem.
We will have -- they will provide us with a concrete plan that we
can take and put into action as opposed to accumulating a lot of data
that goes nowhere. We need something to move forward and figured
they are a great organization. We have looked at a lot of their
proposals, and they're wonderful.
So I thank you for letting me speak, and good morning and thank
you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I don't see that this is a
sole source. It's just like the university that wanted to do a study on sea
level rise. There are plenty of firms that would do a study or assist the
panel, and I don't see an urgency to do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: One concern that I do have is we
have a contract here that we're approving with this agenda item, and
October 25, 2016
Page 42
what my concern is, that with the turnover of three Commissioners --
and I agree with Commissioner Henning, we need to move forward,
but at the same time, you know, there are assumptions and there are
board policy elements to this whole activity.
And I would hate to have monies expended and work done
without clearly knowing that the assumptions and the basis and the
approach to this is not supported by a new board majority. So I had --
you know, I would like -- I would just like to make sure -- and I've
looked at this, and I may have overlooked it. If I have overlooked it, I
apologize.
I would just like to make sure that the time frame that they're
working under allows the newly constituted board to engage the ULI,
because I see that there's a discussion about 90 days after their work is
concluded, but I don't really see the time frame that they're working. It
may just be an oversight by me.
If you could tell me what -- what is the time frame for their work
before they come to a conclusion and recommended policy for the
Board?
MS. GRANT: Thank you for asking.
The tentative date for the week-long panel is the last week of
January, first week of February of next year. There would be advance
work done in advance. It would probably start in the next few weeks,
but this should give new commissioners absolutely an avenue to meet
individually with these folks and to also participate in any preparation
that they feel would be important for these folks to see or hear in
advance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I mean, you know, clearly --
and I've spoke with the different candidates that are in my district, and,
you know, they're -- catching up to this important issue is going to be
very, very important for them. There's been a lot of work done.
There's been a lot of determinations made. There's a lot of information
October 25, 2016
Page 43
for them to digest. And, you know, in order for them to be effective
and move forward as the reconstituted board, they're going to have to
catch up to this issue.
So my concern is just that they have enough time to do that and
nothing more. I certainly support the ULI. I think it's a very credible
organization, but that's my concern.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just so that -- a point of
clarification. You did go out for bid, and no one responded; is that
correct?
MS. GRANT: That's correct. We went out for bid in August.
We had one prospective group join us for the pre-bid meeting. Since
then there's only been one additional inquiry through the purchasing
department, and to date there have been no submissions. We've
extended the date twice, so that's where we stand at this point.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. OCHS: If I might ask our new procurement services
director, Mr. Coyman, Ted Coyman, to step up and address the
single-source versus sole-source provisions of your ordinance.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I stand corrected.
MR. OCHS: You okay, sir?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
MR. OCHS: Okay. Thank you, Tim.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I still have to speak.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I speak?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Are you done?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I am done.
October 25, 2016
Page 44
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay, fine.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: How is this solicitation phrased?
MS. GRANT: How is the solicitation raised?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Phrased.
MS. GRANT: Phrased.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: In other words, how did you --
how did you describe what you were soliciting that resulted in such
few responses?
MS. GRANT: The solicitation was detailed into five or six key
tasks. It provided background as to the situation in the county, and it
outlined the key tasks, which were essentially review all the material
and work that's been done so far, conduct a lot of additional public
input, research best practices, work with our community, and come
back with recommendations for policy and for implementation.
The RFP was reviewed by the stakeholder committee and the
AHAC, so we had a lot of great input and, of course, procurement
made sure it met all the requirements for the county.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And you didn't make it overly
narrow that would have tailored the solicitation to this organization as
opposed to making it --
MS. GRANT: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- you know, flexible, where others
could apply?
MS. GRANT: Absolutely not. It was intended to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Be as open and as broad as
possible to achieve your objective?
MS. GRANT: Absolutely, yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Everyone has spoken. And I, too --
I think ULI is just such a highly respected organization, and I've seen
October 25, 2016
Page 45
many of their presentations. And they're very, very credible. I would
have no problem with it either.
Do we have a motion or anything?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd like to make a motion to
approve the agreement with the ULI and look forward to their
participation in our questions about affordable housing in Collier
County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All
in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's a 5-0.
Leo, I was just going to suggest, being that we have a 10:30
time-certain, maybe we ought to take a break for our stenographer.
MR. OCHS: Absolutely, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. OCHS: Great minds think alike. We'll be back at 10:30 for
your time-certain at 10:30.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you please take your seats.
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, this takes us to the 10:30 a.m.
time-certain item this morning. This is Item 8A on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
October 25, 2016
Page 46
Item #8A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL 2016-234: PROVIDING THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOARD), ACTING AS THE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BZA), THE REVIEW OF THE
APPEAL FILED BY THE VAGUNA CORPORATION, OWNER OF
THE BEACH BOX CAFE, OF THE ZONING DIRECTOR’S
REVOCATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING REDUCTION
APR- PL20150001922, THAT REQUESTED A REDUCTION OF
REQUIRED PARKING FROM 47 PARKING SPACES TO 16
PARKING SPACES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GULF SHORE DRIVE AND
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH AND RANGE 25 EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA – MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL – FAILED;
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: This is a matter to provide the Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals, to review -- to
conduct a review of the appeal filed by the Vaguna Corporation, owner
of the Beach Box Cafe, of the zoning director's revocation of the
administrative parking reduction that had requested a reduction of
required parking at the business from 47 parking spaces to 16 parking
spaces.
Mr. Klatzkow, in terms of the process at this point, how would we
like to proceed?
MR. KLATZKOW: The process will be, Mr. Bosi will give a
staff report on this so that the Board and the public are familiar with
the general background. Following Mr. Bosi's presentation, the
applicant who took the appeal will go.
I've spoken to applicant's counsel. He would like 10 minutes to
October 25, 2016
Page 47
make his argument, reserving 5 minutes at the end to counter any
questions that might come up.
After the applicant has gone, we'll do our common public
comment, same time as normal. I've spoken to Mr. Pires. If there are
any questions he has towards the applicant or anybody else, he can ask
the Chair to ask the question. If the Chair believes the question is
relevant and pertinent, the Chair can ask the question. But this is
primarily an appeal of a parking reduction.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And for the audience's sake, I
would like to say that we hope we can get all of this done before lunch,
but we have a time-certain at 1:30. If we cannot finish this morning,
then we'll have to hear the rest of this after the 1:30 time-certain, okay.
Just so everybody knows. But we should be able to move through this
quickly. I would hope that that will be the way it is. So I just wanted
to make some plans just in case.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Madam Chair. Yeah, so we are
going to break at noon for lunch?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Mr. Bosi?
MR. BOSI: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners.
Mike Bosi, Zoning and Planning Director.
My intent today is to provide an overview of the sequence of
events that brought us here today to this appeal hearing. This is an
appeal of an administrative decision. Like many other terms within
our planning world, this is an acronym. So I wanted to provide a
clarification for what an APR is, and that's an administrative parking
reduction. That's something that an individual business owner can
request from the county, and it is simply an administrative review of a
request to reduce the required number of parking at an individual
location.
October 25, 2016
Page 48
LDC Section 4.05.04 F.2 reads that the county manager or
designee may determine the minimum parking spaces for a use which
is not specifically referenced below or for which an applicant has
provided evidence that a specific use is of such a unique nature that the
applicable minimum parking ratio listed in this LDC should not be
applied.
In making such determination, the County Manager or designee
may require submission of parking generation studies, evidence of
parking ratios applied by other counties and municipalities for the
specific use, reserve parking pursuant to Section 4.05.05, and other
conditions and safeguards deemed to be appropriate protecting the
public health, safety, and welfare.
So those are the criteria that our Land Development Code has
established for how an individual applicant can go about to seek a
reduction for parking, a number of different ways. And what I
highlighted in red was evidence from parking ratios applied by other
counties, municipalities for specific uses which, in this case, what was
submitted as the justification, which I'll get into in a bit.
And I note that in 2016, 17 parking administrative parking
reductions have been issued by the Growth Management Division. On
average, we average about 20 to 25 APRs a year.
This is the first APR that I'm aware of that we've had an official
appeal on. So the majority of these APRs are issued, and there's no
issue. There's no issue, and they enjoy the reduction based upon the
justification as provided.
And I just wanted to provide a context to the volume of activity
that's transpired around an APR and the number of times that we do
see an issue associated with it.
Within the current application for the administrative parking
reduction from the Beach Box -- and it was submitted last summer,
2015 -- and it was based upon what they want to do with their facility.
October 25, 2016
Page 49
Their current facility, in 2015 when they made application -- and they
had a seven-seat cafe, a 1,770 square foot retail space, 900 square feet
of office space, and four residential units. That would require 22
parking spaces, but they had 16 that was currently provided for this
facility.
That's what they had, but they wanted to change that land-use
arrangement, and this is what the APR was about. The APR was about
making some modifications towards how their business was going to
be arranged within the facility.
Their proposal was to basically exchange a considerable amount
of the retail space in lieu of restaurant cafe space. They said -- they
wanted to seek 68 seats of cafe seating, retain 500 seats (sic) of retail
space, maintain the 900 square feet of office space, and four units of
residential, and that requirement would turn out to 47. So 47 parking
spaces which would be required.
The parking that's available, they recognized that there was no
ability to add additional parking based upon the site constraints of the
facility, and based upon that, they sought an APR. And within that
APR, the concept of "park once" was submitted as the foundation for
the justification of that reduction in parking.
Based upon that "park once" concept -- within the application
they pointed out the availability of the parking garage as well as 17
on-street spaces within the Vanderbilt Beach Road area. As you can
see on the overhead, the Beach Box location is at the corner of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and Gulf Shore Drive, about 120 to 130 feet
away from the entrance of the beach access. And based upon that
concept of "park once," they said this is a unique situation within the
county. Because of the public parking spaces that are provided, the
need for our facility to maintain the required LDC parking is not as -- it
is not imparent (sic), that there is a justification for a reduction within
that parking.
October 25, 2016
Page 50
And my staff reviewed it, I signed off on the original parking
reduction. That was issued on September 22nd, 2015, and as I said,
the "park once" concept was expressed in the application, and it was an
example of a jurisdiction or a municipality that the LDC requires to
provide that justification, and it was a similar concept that was
provided for within Fort Myers Beach.
Through a series of interactions with Mr. Tony Pires, there were
some questions over the authenticity of the APR and some of the
specifics of the application. That culminated in a public presentation
before the Board of County Commissioners in which the Board asked
staff or Mr. Pires asked the Board to ask staff to re-evaluate that APR
and bring -- and re-issue if they felt that the conditions were
appropriate still regarding the justifications for that APR.
On May 18th, based upon staff's review, we reissued the APR.
And there was some additional criteria that we looked to. I reached
out to the Parks Department, and I was curious to see -- because we
know that there are a number of public parking spaces with -- or
parking spaces available. What was the magnitude of the beach-access
traffic?
And in 2015, for the Vanderbilt Beach area, you see it's second
from the bottom, 347,929 individuals accessed that beach access. So
within 130 feet of the entrance of the Beach Box, there was close to
350,000 people.
In 2016, as you can see, the projection for this year is 413,000
individuals. So there are a number of foot traffic that's within close
proximity to the Beach Box. Staff felt that further justified that APR.
On June 15th -- when staff reissued that APR back in May -- in
May, it opened up an additional 30-day appeal period. And one of the
things about an administrative appeal is it has to be filed within 30
days of the issuance of the administrative decision. Now, a unique
aspect of the parking -- the APR or the parking reduction is there's no
October 25, 2016
Page 51
public notification, there's no letters that are sent out to adjoining
property owners of the issuance of an APR. It's issued, and if in 30
days there's not an appeal, that APR has officially satisfied its appeal
period.
In the June 15th appeal submittal by Mr. Pires, staff was made
aware -- and this was a fault on staff that I was not aware during the
first and the second issuance of the APR that that "park once" concept
cannot exist based upon the strict reading of the Administrative Code
Section 130-79.
And I'll read you verbatim what that specifically says. It says,
public's park -- public parks and beach access parking is to be utilized
solely for the purposes of accessing public parks and beaches. It shall
be a violation of this division for anyone to park in an area designed as
public parking or beach access parking who is not utilizing a public
park or beach during the hours from dawn to dusk.
Based upon that, staff, I felt obligated that I had to deny that
issued APR based upon the conflict that that section creates with the
concept of "park once." And because of that strict reading, I rescinded
that APR.
Based upon that action, the Beach Box submitted an appeal to
that decision, and that was submitted on August 12th, 2016, and that is
what the matter is today. It was the appeal of the Beach Box of the
rescission of the APR that had provided that reduction in parking.
And one of the things that are common to all APRs is they are all
approved conditionally. Each APR that is issued will have three
conditions, and I'll read the three conditions. Approval of this
administrative parking reduction is predicated on the information
outlined above and the evidence presented in the application request.
Number 2, this APR shall be void if 9002 Gulf Shore Drive is
occupied by uses other than a cafe, retail, office, and residential in the
square footages stated in the application.
October 25, 2016
Page 52
And the third, if at any time it is deemed necessary by Collier
County staff, the owners shall be required to address any additional
parking needs or reduce business operations of the facility should the
existing spaces provide to be inadequate.
Those are standard conditions that are always attached to an APR,
and that allows staff to be able to make adjustments when the
adequacy of parking provides to be just that, inadequate based upon
the issuance of that APR.
The appeal to the administrative decision was submitted on
September 7th, 2016, by Mr. Brian Cross representing the Vanguna
Corporation, or the Beach Box, and a clarification, that the appeal from
both parties, this requires a simple majority of a decision by the Board
of County Commissioners.
And that's the context of how we -- how we arrived upon this.
And when I've spoken with the administration and spoken with my
individual planners, I said, the toughest question about this individual
issue is there's justification on both sides for both of the arguments, the
number of foot traffic that passes by the facility, but also the strict
application of our parking requirements says that beach-access parking
is to be utilized solely for the beach access. So there's arguments on
both sides within this question.
And this was simply just to provide an overview of what the APR
process is, the sequence of events that arrived (sic) us here today, and a
better understanding of the dynamics that are contained within those
APRs and the conditional nature of that.
I could field any questions that you could have at this time, or we
could move on to the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're going to go to the speakers first,
and then we'll -- oh, no. We have a --
MR. OCHS: Do you want to hear the appellant first?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
October 25, 2016
Page 53
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I'm sorry.
MR. OCHS: Then the public speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I skipped over him. Excuse me.
MR. KLATZKOW: And you'll have 10 minutes, sir.
MR. CROSS: No problem, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Board of County Commissioners.
As mentioned, I'm here on behalf of Vaguna Corp and the Beach
Box Cafe. I was able to meet and present at the last meeting, and I
appreciate you guys keeping this on the agenda and keeping it moving
forward.
Mr. Bosi accurately reflected the series of events that led us to
where we are today. Back on August 22nd, 2015, my client did pay
the proper fees, get the proper studies, and apply and go through an
application to get an administrative parking reduction.
It was approved on September 22nd, and it had a 30-day window
under which Florida law and the Code of County Laws and Ordinances
gives any appellant or third party a right to appear and challenge.
Once that window closes, the person who gains the property -- the
vested property right of the APR has the right to rely upon that, as my
client did, and spend several hundred thousand dollars rebuilding a
building and a restaurant in order to get it to the place that it is today.
Now, I understand and agree with Mr. Bosi, that APRs are not a
vested property right as in forever and can never be modified as the
title to your house, Madam Chair, and the deed; however, the manner
in which they can be addressed is laid out as Mr. Bosi stated, "if staff
determines it necessary that there's an inadequacy of parking." And
how we got here today, there was never that determination. There was
never any evidentiary hearing. There was no evidence of parking
being an issue because of the Beach Box or the APR.
How we got here today was that, as noted by Mr. Bosi, Mr. Pires
came before the Board because he recognized that his appellate
October 25, 2016
Page 54
window was gone and nobody could take away the vested appellate
right, the 30-day window. And he asked the Board to direct staff to go
re-evaluate it or see if there's any stones that could be overturned in
this.
That was a violation of the Board's policies in the fact that there is
no right for a third party to challenge outside of the 30-day window,
and the Board does not have the right to direct county staff to reissue
and perform administrative functions, and that's Subsection 2-79 of the
county administrative ordinance.
The reason why -- that it was reevaluated and quote-unquote
reissued is so that the 30-day window could be recreated and reopened,
which isn't legal under Florida law. The law is clear; you cannot
reissue something that's issued. They could have come back to you
and said, yes, everything's fine. But to call it a reissuance, you can't do
it. That was done in 2015 because they -- otherwise, every time an
appellate window passes and your members of the public and your
business have a right to rely on what you guys approve, somebody
could come along and say, hey, you know, seven months ago or a year
ago you guys made a decision that I didn't like. Tell staff to go look
into it again, and when they redo -- reissue that decision or reissue that
permit, then I can take them to court and I'll appeal it because I'll have
a new 30-day window. That's not Florida law, and it's not valid here.
Those are two bases by which it cannot be taken away.
Now, staff, if members of the public did complain about the
parking, could conduct an investigation, and they could have come to
Beach Box and said, you know what, we've been out here. We see
parking problems. We'd like you to provide, you know, a further
updated study on your foot-traffic analysis, which they did provide
when they got their APR. We'd like you to add three parking spaces.
We think that will fix it. What they can't do is just a year later is just
say, oh, it's revoked. Sorry, we never should have given it to you.
October 25, 2016
Page 55
Sorry that you spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on your
restaurant. We're just taking it away because of an invalid and void
ordinance that I believe all of you recognized at the last meeting that
the County Attorney's going to present later, which will make this
moot.
I'm not here just to argue, because I do believe the ordinance
change will make it moot. The reason I'm here is if the ordinance
changes, that doesn't go back and undo the improper revocation. It
will leave my client still without the APR as it supposedly sits on the
county books today, and then we'll have to reapply and go through the
same fees and processes as we've had to here to pay the thousand
dollars to do an appeal and come fight something that's not necessary.
The common sense of the matter is, as Mr. Bosi testified to,
you're going to hear about we don't want to be Fort Myers Beach. We
don't want the Lani Kai and bar fights. And there is none of that at this
area. Are the people that park at the most popular beach in Collier
County where they shouldn't park sometimes? Yeah. I used to do it
illegally, I'll be honest, back when I was a 17-year-old kid and couldn't
find a spot. Sometimes I parked on the side of the road. And you know
what happens? There are laws out there for that. They tow your car.
If a person that goes to the beach and doesn't want to go to the
Beach Store next door parks in his spot, he calls the tow truck
company. They do it all the time. That's how you enforce people that
park improperly, not we're going to take away the reduction.
There are hundreds of thousands of people that go to the Beach
Box -- that go to the beach on Vanderbilt Beach that then come up and
go to the Beach Box, the Beach Store. They may walk to the Turtle
Club. They may go to a multitude of places. They -- if you go into the
Beach Box on any day of the week, you're not going to find somebody
in there that doesn't have a bathing suit on with sand on it that's not
coming just from the beach. It is not a destination-based restaurant.
October 25, 2016
Page 56
I believe that it is crystal clear -- and you can check with the
County Attorney -- that the code that authorizes the 30-day window is
250-58, which Mr. Bosi alluded to, "the basis to just simply take away
a vested property right." Now, if they were to have an evidentiary
hearing and found inadequate, they could say, build more spots, update
your study. This isn't about parking. This entire thing is driven to try
and put the Beach Box out of business because it's a competitor in the
area, and there are a few people down there that do not like the fact
that it's busy or that it's got to be a new popular spot in the area.
The bottom line is that the Beach Box -- the Beach Box are
members of the paying public that paid for an APR, that went through
an administrative decision, provided all the necessary stuff that they
did. They have a right under Florida law to rely upon that to go spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there is no basis or mechanism
under -- without violating the procedural due process of the Vaguna
Corp and Beach Box for the Board -- or for staff to simply revoke it to
have us here a year later, a year and three days after this final appellate
window closed, to have us back to have to spend tens of thousands of
dollars to continue to preserve something that was given to ourselves.
That is the brief summary that I will have because I know that
there will be other speakers. I'm willing to take any questions from the
Board or County Attorney's Office, should they have any.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to say something now or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I want to -- I have a
question or -- for staff or the appellant. There's -- that's a two-story
building, correct?
MR. CROSS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And --
MR. CROSS: It's a three-story.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Three-story. Does Beach --
October 25, 2016
Page 57
what portion does Beach Box occupy?
MR. CROSS: The entire -- the first floor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. What is on the second
and third floor?
MR. CROSS: There are, I believe, five -- there are four
residential condominiums.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And do those have parking
designations?
MR. CROSS: Yes, they have specific spots assigned to them in
the back of the building.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did staff take a look at that?
MR. BOSI: I had -- Mike Bosi, again -- coordinated with Mr.
Fred Hood from Davidson Engineer (sic) who had provided me the
location of the 16 spots that was associated with the original APR
request.
So the condominiums that sit above the retail establishment were
always part and contemplated as one of the consumers of the potential
-- or the need for parking spaces, and that was contemplated within the
calculations that were provided.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are those marked for residential
parking for those units? How is that designated? Because I know in
the businesses around there, in their parking lot, they clearly state this
is the use for whatever it is, and if not used for that parking, they can
be towed away by a certain tow company.
MR. CROSS: Yes, Commissioner Henning, there are specific
spots behind the building that are marked directly to the residential
unit. This is assigned for that spot. All of the signs on all of the
parking down there have the tow-away notice because parking is
congested at the most popular beach. It doesn't matter -- you could
build another garage next door to that garage, if you're able to get the
land, and it would be full in the busiest season of the year.
October 25, 2016
Page 58
We have one of the most beautiful places in the world. That
beach is one of the top -- is the top public-beach destination in Collier
County, according to the Board of Tourism.
The other thing that I would also note on this matter is, is that
there are hundreds, if not several -- a thousand parking spaces of the
residents in the area that live there that ride their bikes and walk to the
Beach Box and walk down to watch the sunset.
As I stated before, the foot traffic certainly solves it. I believe
that if the Board follows its directive last time and the County
Attorney's recommendation of getting rid of the restrictions that it
solely be used for the beach so that Commissioner Henning and
Commissioner Taylor can take their kids or grandkids to get an ice
cream cone without being arrested, I think that will resolve this issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. See, I don't see the
parking ordinance connected to this issue, because people are utilizing
that parking garage to go to the beach and, oh, by the way, while
they're there, they're going to stop at a number of commercial
establishments up there. So it's really a capturing of trips, if that makes
sense.
MR. CROSS: Correct. And the purpose -- like I said, this appeal
has multiple legal bases to stand on its own to where the action of
revoking it was improper and a violation of procedural due process.
We really shouldn't have had Mr. Pires' appeal, that I then had to
appeal to get before you guys, because all of the stuff that you're about
to hear about, oh, I don't think it's great. You shouldn't allow them.
They're taking, you know, parking spaces that I used to have for my
customers, or it's too crowded, that was to be done when the appeal
was asked for with the county and it was approved, the administrative,
on the consent agenda.
And then I'd like to reserve, I guess, the eight minutes of my
entirety just as a final rebuttal as to whatever opposition I may face.
October 25, 2016
Page 59
Thank you so much for allowing us to be here today, Board.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. What I would like to do is go
to the speakers next. Or do we have anybody else involved with
presentations?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I just ask a question about the
process before we go to the speakers.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Jeff, what is -- do we have a
document -- do we have it documented anywhere as to what the
process is supposed to be in this type of an appeal hearing?
MR. KLATZKOW: We do not. In fact, to my knowledge, this is
the first time we've had an appeal of a parking.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. Well, my concern is, since
this is a formal appeal, are we acting in a quasi-judicial capacity?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. This is not a quasi-judicial hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So what type of appeal is this?
MR. KLATZKOW: Quasi-judicial -- quasi-legislative, actually.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Quasi-legislative.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So this decision then, if it's
quasi-legislative, only requires three votes?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And with respect to who
can speak and who is before us today, we have Beach Box --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that is appealing this and,
obviously, they have standing to do so. Who else has standing to speak
before us on this?
MR. KLATZKOW: Any affected member of the public.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And that is --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's no different than, like, a rezone.
October 25, 2016
Page 60
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Any affected member of the public has a
right to speak on the issue.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. Not anyone that has
standing in particular with respect --
MR. KLATZKOW: Not if you're coming from St. Petersburg;
you'd have no standing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you came, for example, from St.
Petersburg, you'd have no standing to talk on this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So anyone who lives in Collier
County would have standing?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Who has standing on the public
side?
MR. KLATZKOW: The people impacted by this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And how do you define "impact"?
MR. KLATZKOW: Ultimately, that's up to the Board. After
hearing them, you may say that this has no impact on you. What
you're saying, telling me is not relevant or material.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. And with respect to C --
can you put C back up there. The wording in C, if at any time it's
deemed necessary by Collier County staff. What qualifies as
"necessary"? It has to be based on the proceeding -- can you put up the
proceeding section -- that -- not that one. The section of law, you
know, where it talks about public health, safety, and welfare. Okay.
So that this -- the conditions and safeguards are deemed to be
appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
So anything that's done under C, if C could even -- if C were to be
deemed legally valid, which I do not believe it is -- would have to be
done under public health, safety, and welfare, correct? I mean, you
October 25, 2016
Page 61
have to have --
MR. KLATZKOW: Let me put it this way. One of the --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I mean, it can't be an arbitrary
decision.
MR. KLATZKOW: The concern I have on the process is that we
don't give public notice as to the application or the decision.
I've never been concerned about it because nobody's ever
challenged it. These things are ministerial in nature. To my
knowledge, Mr. Bosi can, you know, tell you otherwise. In the 10
years I've been working with -- this has never been challenged. So
nobody's ever given it any thought.
And I'm not sure it makes any sense to do public notice of
hundreds of items that never get challenged. And -- so that nobody in
the community had notice that this even went on.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, no one had notice in the
community that -- and I'm not sure that nobody had notice, but let's
assume --
MR. KLATZKOW: Nobody had notice from us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let's assume for purposes of
this discussion that that's the case, but that's a factual question that we
have yet to determine. Club Pelican Bay, as was presented on the list,
has reduced parking based on administrative -- an administrative
appeal.
MR. KLATZKOW: Right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So right now someone could come
and challenge that based on your argument --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. What they would do is --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- because you're saying due to
lack of notice the appeal period of 30 days from the date that that was
rendered is --
MR. KLATZKOW: These are --
October 25, 2016
Page 62
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- not correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: These are conditional approvals. If it turns
out that --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. But hang on. But after the
appellate period has expired, then -- or the appeal period has expired it
becomes vested --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's not --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and the property owner is
making investments based on the granting of that right, and if there is a
subsequent reversal of that, it can only be done to protect public health,
safety, and welfare. It can't be done arbitrarily and capriciously. And
if that person or business has detrimentally relied on a granting of a
right that induced them to make investments and the government turns
around and takes away what was granted without a public health,
safety, and welfare justification and doesn't compensate for that
reversal, I believe you have a taking.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. This is not a vested right. What
happens here is that somebody says, guys, I have unique circumstances
so that I don't need the parking your code says I need. Staff takes a
look at it and says, you know, we think you're right; however, if it
turns out you're not right and you needed that parking because you're
impacting other people now, okay, you're taking away their parking
because you didn't have adequate parking of your own, at that point in
time staff can come back and say --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's not what it says. That's not
what it says. It doesn't say that "if you are taking someone else's
parking away." Because the reason that this decision was made was
that evidence was presented that only so many parking units were
necessary for that business to service an anticipated number of clients.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's true, but if it turns out that that was
untrue, staff can take it away.
October 25, 2016
Page 63
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but it isn't untrue because no
evidence has been --
MR. KLATZKOW: Ah, but we have no evidence yet. I have yet
to hear evidence sitting here.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Staff has presented -- it's staff's
burden since staff made the decision to make a reversal. Staff can't
arbitrarily say, well, I changed my mind because I don't think --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- what I concluded initially was
correct.
MR. KLATZKOW: Ma'am --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have 15 -- excuse me.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's staff's burden to provide
evidence.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think you should stop this right now.
You said you just wanted procedure. You're going on to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have the right to speak. I'm
speaking --
(Multiple speakers speaking.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, you do, but, you know, so does
everybody else, and we've got 15 speakers. That's 45 minutes. And
then you're going to have all the time you want afterwards. I'd like to
get the speakers heard --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- so we can move this process forward.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely, absolutely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Commissioner Nance, if you don't mind, would you please wait?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am. I'm at your service.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
And, County Attorney, I hope that's okay with you --
October 25, 2016
Page 64
MR. KLATZKOW: More than okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- but we need to move on.
Okay, fine. Very good. Would you call the speakers, please.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairman, we have 15 registered
speakers. Your first speaker is -- I'm going to ask speakers to come to
both podiums, utilize both podiums, please. Your first speaker is
James Hoppensteadt. He'll be followed by Kathleen Robbins.
MR. HOPPENSTEADT: Commissioners, hi. I am Jim
Hoppensteadt from the Pelican Bay Foundation.
As Mike Bosi described to you, there's one element that was not
considered when this APR was granted in that this property is deed
restricted, and the deed restrictions limit the use of the property to
parking only for beach access. Regardless of what your ordinances say,
when this property was deeded to the county, it was deeded so with the
restrictions. And you, making a decision now, considering the use of
parking for businesses, puts you in violation of those deed restrictions.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Kathleen Robbins. She'll be
followed by Anthony Pires.
MS. ROBBINS: Thank you, Commissioner. Kathleen Robbins,
Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association.
We would like you to encourage -- encourage you to follow your
staff recommendation and deny -- uphold the denial of the APR.
When we made our public petition back in April of 2016, Mr.
Cioffi, Mr. Marks were here in this room at the time and made no
objection to our public petition.
Also, the details provided in the APR application do not
correspond with the facts. That alone is enough to void the APR on
the face of it.
We are not trying to put them out of business. We would look
forward to having a thriving business on that corner. We are just
October 25, 2016
Page 65
asking that they follow the same rules that everyone else has to follow.
And it's important to note that contrary to the implication that's
been made, they're currently operating as a business with 16 parking
spaces. The neighborhood is having current problems with the parking.
The patrons are spilling their parking over into condominiums that are
adjacent and other businesses.
That speaks to the third condition of the APR being granted,
referred to by Mr. Bosi. If they are allowed to expand the business,
this will only get worse.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Anthony Pires. He'll be
followed by Gary Brecka.
MR. PIRES: Madam Chair, Members of the Board, Tony Pires
representing the various parties to another appeal, the Vanderbilt
Beach Residence Association; Garlock, LLC; Beachmoor
Condominium; and Mr. and Mrs. McAlister; and Mr. and Mrs.
Brownback.
And if I could, Madam Chair, I know you've got a long agenda,
we've got a number of speakers. Because of a number of issues that
have been raised today and raised in this proceeding, I'd like to have 10
minutes, if that's possible, and I will keep it to that 10 minutes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have somebody who's going to
relinquish their time to you?
MR. PIRES: I believe so. I believe Mr -- Charlotte Galloway
will and Lesley Garlock will.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. They're already on the list?
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MILLER: So that's nine minutes.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly.
Initially I made some objections to the hearing being held today;
October 25, 2016
Page 66
reiterate that request to change the hearing date to after November
22nd and also made a further filing last week, which you all received
by email, with regards to requesting that Commissioner Hiller not
participate in this because she's already made up her mind that, number
one, she asserted my clients do not have any standing and, secondly,
she asserted that Mr. Bosi did not make a mistake. So she's already
predetermined it, and I'd asked this board to ask Ms. Hiller not to
participate in this proceeding at all. And that's a procedural issue, if
you could take that up. And we object to Ms. Hiller participating. We
object to this hearing being held today on this appeal.
One other thing that's important to note is, my clients have a
separate appeal that is still pending. It's never been noticed, never been
scheduled, and that’s not being heard today. So whatever happens
today, we still have a pending appeal that we have not yet withdrawn.
So that may -- you may be coming back on our appeal.
I also think, what's important is that my clients are adversely
affected people. I find it incredulous, with all due respect to
Commissioner Hiller, that she would say my clients are not adversely
affected. I'll put it on Elmo.
And, Leo --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to make an objection on the
record. I have never made any statement as to whether his clients, who
I've just learned are his clients, were or were not adversely affected.
And what was your second statement? Bosi what? What was your
second claim?
MR. PIRES: Well, I'm not -- Madam Chairman, if I may
respond?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, and not only that, but then each time
--
MR. MILLER: I'm pausing. Yes, I paused the clock.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I would prefer that nobody interrupt
October 25, 2016
Page 67
this --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have to address this issue, though,
at this point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You'll be able to address it when you have
your time to speak, yes.
Go ahead.
MR. PIRES: If I may, thank you. In my filing that I made on
October 21st -- and I have additional copies for the record -- I cited
from a transcript that I prepared. On Page 48 of the transcript, Ms.
Hiller stated, yes, first of all, Mr. Pires has an invalid appeal because
he didn't file timely. Second of all, Mr. Pires doesn't have standing to
object to Mr. Cross's appeal.
And my clients, the parties that I'm representing today, were well
named and well listed in all of my filings in this case.
Then I also go on to the next page; an excerpt from the October
11th, 2016, board meeting. Page 56, Lines 22 to 25, and Page 57, lines
l through 20. Commissioners Hiller, with regards to Mr. Bosi: in fact,
I don't believe that Mr. Bosi made a mistake. In fact, no mistake was
made because he did not rely on the parking garage as the basis for his
parking variance approval in the first place.
In fact, what he made very clear was that the primary reason for
the variance approval, based upon what I reviewed, was that the bulk
of the traffic at that facility is pedestrian and, in fact, he quoted, like,
huge numbers, and this is Mr. Bosi in his opinion.
So the fact that the parking garage was mentioned did not make it
the dominant argument in Mr. Bosi's initial appeal. That being said, he
then turned around and denied it based upon Mr. Pires' presentation,
which I have to say is probably institutionally problematic.
So, in my opinion, I'm requesting that Ms. Hiller not participate
because she's already predetermined her decision in this particular
process and is not fair and unbiased and is prejudicial to my clients.
October 25, 2016
Page 68
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chairman, I think this is
a legal matter that the County Attorney has to opine on.
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner Hiller, are you biased?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: Have you predetermined the outcome?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you have to recuse
yourself under what basis, that you have a personal financial interest,
right?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not the issue that's been raised by Mr.
Pires.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I know, but according to
the law, there's only a few instances that you cannot participate in
items before the Board.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: There's only one, and that is having
a real conflict of interest, which is making some sort of -- having some
sort of financial gain, direct final gain as a result of the vote, which is
why I had raised the issue in the past when Commissioner Taylor tried
to recuse herself on a vote involving Truly Nolen. I said, I'm not sure
that she can because she didn't have any direct profit from the vote that
she was trying to avoid.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So if -- let's say that a board
member did have -- predetermined their decision -- and I've done that.
I think I've done that on several items on 10 or 11 -- do we have a right
to not participate?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. The real issue here is whether there's a
bias. Usually -- and I'm just talking generalities now. Let's say there
was a bias based on personal relationship. At that point in time, you
really shouldn't hear a quasi-judicial type of a hearing. But absent that,
October 25, 2016
Page 69
you've got the requirement that you've got to vote absent some sort of
financial interest in the matter. Commissioner Hiller does not have a
financial interest in this.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And on top of that, this is
quasi-legislative, not quasi-judicial.
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't have an issue with Commissioner
Hiller voting on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or participating?
MR. KLATZKOW: Or participating.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead. Continue, Tony. I'm sorry.
MR. PIRES: Thank you very kindly. No; thank you.
On Elmo is a graphic -- a graphic reflecting the various parties I
represent and the Beach Box. As you can see, they are all around the
Beach Box. In fact, next door is Sun Realty, Lesley Garlock, and they
will testify about the parking problems they're having with the Beach
Box bed-and-breakfast patrons which, by the way, is a transient
lodging not allowed, which is a different use than indicated in the
initial APR application. And if staff -- if the uses change, staff can also
use that as a basis for revoking the administrative parking reduction.
That's in the code. That's in the ordinance.
So this will be part of the record showing my clients are around
there and are adversely affected and aggrieved parties to have standing
for this appeal.
Additionally, what's interesting is Mr. Cross has repeatedly stated
hundreds of thousands in renovations and improvements were made
after the initial September 2015 APR was approved. There's nothing
in the record to support that. In fact, there are no permits of any
magnitude other than an awning and a privacy fence and an A/C
change-out after the APR.
October 25, 2016
Page 70
Additionally, in a filing I made last week, and I'll make it part of
the record, is there was a site improvement plan applied for for this
improvement for these renovations that in December of 2005 there was
an insufficiency letter that was never responded to or replied to, and I
have an email from Chris Scott of your planning department stating
that by virtue of that failure to respond, that site improvement plan is
deemed withdrawn and canceled.
Right here it states -- that's the site improvement plan for the
Beach Box, Beach Box Cafe. It says -- this is as of October 18th, 2016.
Mr. Pires, there has been no activity on this petition. The last
insufficiency letter was sent to the applicant on 12/10/2016. Per the
Land Development Code, the application is now considered withdrawn
and canceled. There is no reliance. They have a site improvement plan
that they have to have approved before they can even do these
improvements to reduce the parking, and that is now withdrawn and
canceled by their inactivity. They failed to reply. And, again, there's
nothing showing any extensive amount of money being spent.
What's also interesting, and for the record I have a copy of the SIP
insufficiently letter. There are -- it's about five pages long with
numerous comments rejecting the site improvement plan. So any
argument about good-faith reliance, in my humble opinion, is not
worth this piece of paper.
Additionally, we've heard the issue with regards to the ordinance.
This not the town of Fort Myers Beach. This board has not made a
determination, a legislative determination that Vanderbilt Beach is a
"park once" -- planned "park once" district. That's what it says in the
town of Fort Myers Beach ordinance, that that Times Square area is a
planned "park once" district. Vanderbilt Beach is not that.
Additionally, and it's been mentioned before, we're not talking
about the existing use as far as the administrative parking reduction.
We're talking about an expansion of use. And, again, the uses, as
October 25, 2016
Page 71
stated in the APR, are not the uses, and it's much more intense and
different.
Under the fire code, I have an -- the fire department's indicated it
may qualify as a hotel because you have the transient lodging upstairs.
And the condominium was terminated, so the condominium doesn't
exist. So any reference to condominiums -- and I've put in the record
the Property Appraiser's card that showed the termination of the
condominium. You have a bed-and-breakfast consideration.
Again, the asserted availability of off-site parking in the parking
garage is illusory. Assuming, for sake of discussion, that you were to
go ahead and change your ordinance. Assuming, for sake of
discussion, that you would win in a lawsuit by the Pelican Bay
Foundation and forced into deed restrictions. That garage is closed
from dusk to dawn. So the Beach Box cannot consider utilizing those
spaces from dark until dawn at all.
And, again, there's a red herring and a smokescreen here. The
issue isn't about somebody happened to park in the garage and is using
the businesses around there. The issue isl, you have a private business
that wants to expand and can't because of the property that they own,
that they know darn well that they have parking limitations, want to
use and be allocated 31 parking spots in a public parking garage. We
already have huge parking problems. We all have talked to Pelican
Marsh CDD about using some of their land for a parking shuttle.
And you have a parking problem, and now you are allocating, in
essence, reserving 31 spots by the initial approval in the parking garage
for a private business.
I just have a few more comments, if I may, Madam Chairman. I
think I'll wrap it up.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You've still got the green light.
MS. PIERCE: I know. I see that.
One approach that the applicant could have taken and other APRs
October 25, 2016
Page 72
have taken, they show long-term leases of offsite parking. They've not
provided that. So they are trying to rely on utilization -- of an
improper utilization of this public parking garage.
What I'd like to do is make sure that all of my filings from
October 10th, September 27th, October 20th and 21st that I sent to
you-all are in the record, and I have copies for the court reporter.
We would request and suggest that you deny this appeal. And
also one other aspect is, you heard staff say they've never had a denial
or an appeal previously of an APR. The problem is, there is no notice,
and that's the problem. Nobody knows about it until later on. My
clients did not find out about it until months later.
Based upon all of these submittals that we've made today, we
respectfully request that you deny this appeal.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Mr. Pires, who was the second name you said
would cede time to you? I got Charlotte Galloway. I wasn't sure on
the second name.
MR. PIRES: Lesley Garlock.
MR. MILLER: Thank you.
Your next speaker, Madam Chair, is Gary Brecka. He'll be
followed by Robert C. -- is it Burns? Bruns?
Go ahead, Mr. Brecka.
MR. BRECKA: Hey. Good morning, County Commissioners.
I'm happy that you've given me a moment to speak here.
I'm one of the owners of the Beach Box Cafe, and I've got to tell
you, I'm sufficiently confused by the legality of what's going on here
today. So I just thought maybe I'd offer some context into what it is
that we're actually seeking to do and what it is that we're not seeking to
do.
Contrary to some of the noise that I've heard today, we are not
seeking to expand our business at all. I'll go on the record and tell you
October 25, 2016
Page 73
we're not seeking to expand the Beach Box Cafe. The reason that we
applied for the administrative parking reduction was a very simple
reason; that unless we were granted a parking reduction, the restaurant
has a seating capacity of seven. It now, under the parking reduction,
has a seating capacity of 68.
Whether this parking reduction is granted or revoked or whether it
exists or whether it does not exist, there will not be one parking space
added to that area. There will not be one parking space deleted from
that area. There will not be one parking space moved. There will not
be a parking space changed. The parking that's there is the parking
that will always be there, and we are not seeking to change it.
What this will have the effect of doing, if this administrative
parking reduction, which we initially applied for and was granted and
later challenged and granted again -- if this administrative parking
reduction is withdrawn, it will have the effect of putting the Beach Box
Cafe out of business.
This is a very simple issue about whether or not we will be
allowed to continue our business operations and provide seating for
people to sit and eat or whether or not we will have seven seats and
patrons will have to either sit on the floor or the curb or somewhere
else.
We are not seeking to dupe the county. We've applied for permits
and properly permitted and completed the work for our restaurant. We
have the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco, we have restaurants, we
have permits. We have done so much to operate this business and to
cater to the public beach. And, in fact, we get so much from the public
beach that we spend a tremendous amount of resources giving back to
the public beach.
If you've never been to the Beach Box Cafe or know about our
history, we've hosted over 71 charitable events for local Collier County
charities. We've raised more than $44,000 in the last 16 months for
October 25, 2016
Page 74
local Collier County families. We permit and host beach wetland and
beach cleanup activities. We're a productive member of this
community, and we deserve the right to quietly enjoy our business.
We properly applied for this permit. When it was challenged, it
was properly continued, and now the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association, which has been attacking us since day one, is continuing
their assault hopefully with the outcome, from their perspective, of
putting us out of business.
I implore you to support your staff's initial decision and support
your staff's second review of our administrative parking reduction
which allowed us to keep our business in place.
Thank you so much for the time.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Robert C. -- I'm sorry, sir.
Is it Burns?
MR. BURNS: Burns.
MR. MILLER: Yes. And he'll be followed by Sebastian Paguni.
Go ahead, sir.
MR. BURNS: Thank you. I'm a resident of Gulf Shore Drive
and familiar with the Beach Box area. And it's been an unusual amount
of activity down there. But from the purpose of what you're doing
today, I just wanted to relinquish my time to go on to the others. Okay.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker, Sebastian -- is it Paguni?
MR. PAGUNI: Yes, it is.
MR. MILLER: And he'll be followed by David Galloway.
MR. PAGUNI: Hi. I'm Sebastian Paguni, and we have the
business that's right next to the Beach Box Cafe. It's called South Bay
Realty. So we're actually touching buildings.
We are in favor of growth and businesses down in Vanderbilt
Beach, but what we're not in favor of is relinquishing parking spaces.
Every day -- and when I say every day, it is every day we are out, my
October 25, 2016
Page 75
staff, are out in the front of our parking lot, in the back of our parking
lot asking people to move their cars for our patrons and our staff.
We have six parking spaces in front of our building, and we have
five parking spaces in the back of my building, and I rent seven other
parking spaces for $1,000 a month behind my building. Those parking
spaces are being used not only by Beach Box patrons, but by beach
parkers also.
So every day. It's not just, hey, it's happening on Thursday. It is
from morning till night we are asking people very nicely to not park in
our parking spaces. We have signs up that say "South Bay Realty
parking only. Violators may be towed."
So what happens? We have security cameras in the front of our
building, and we have security cameras in the back of our building,
and every time someone parks in the spot, there's a notification going
up at the front desk and it shows my receptionist who's parking there.
And a lot of times what happens in the back of the building, we
go outside and there's people parking in the back, and they're actually
the people that are going to stay above the Beach Box Cafe in their
four residential units that they're renting out. So you have three
3-bedroom units and one 5-bedroom unit that's on the second and third
floor of their business. The only access-way to that, is from the back
of the building, not the front of the building.
So no one knows who's going upstairs. They have the keys, and
they go to park. And, you know, God, they have three parking cars --
they have three spaces. And then, you know, I have five cars. You
know, it's all couples coming in. Well, we're just going to park over
here in South Bay Realty's spot or we're going to park in the valet
parking spot.
So, again, my staff goes out and says, listen, I'm sorry, but that's
not your parking spot. Well, where could we park? Well, I can't tell
you where to park, but those spots are for my clients and my staff.
October 25, 2016
Page 76
The same thing happens in the front of our building. The meter
goes off, a car pulls up. I have my staff go out, say very nicely to
them, listen, I'm so sorry. Well, we're only here to pick up food. Well,
we'll only be five minutes. Well, no, we can't let you park there for five
minutes because the people that are coming in to my business do not
have parking.
And this happens every day. Not once a week. So when you say,
who does it negatively impact, it negatively impacts my business that
is right next door to the Beach Box Café, who have 16 parking spaces
for four residential units, a real estate office, and their bar.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Galloway. He'll be
followed by David Jeskie.
MR. GALLOWAY: Thank you, Commissioners. And, again, it's
not necessarily a pleasure, but I enjoy coming here to listen to the folks
here.
David Galloway, I'm president of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association.
First of all, I'll say, in all honesty, to Mr. Brecka, Mr. Cross, there
has not been one person ever to say, we want you out of business, that
we've had a problem with VBR. That is totally -- Gary, that's the first
time you've ever said that to me, the many times we've met, and I'm
appalled that you would say that in an open forum. That is not the
issue. A lot of us come from business. We want a viable thing there
because that's part of the major corner of that beach. So I was appalled
to hear that and offended. I want that to be public record.
VBRA, Vanderbilt Beach Residence Association, is a very
friendly organization. As you know, we do a lot of good things. We're
very supportive of everything, the beach renourishment. We try to
give the county folks, when they ask questions of us and they call us --
and they do all the time -- of our opinion, just our opinion. And we try
October 25, 2016
Page 77
to be as forthwith as possible. We want a viable business there. We
think it is a viable business.
We don't agree with the changing of the parking reduction by
almost 70 percent to accommodate an expansion of the business. The
Beach Box Cafe does not -- does advertise for a business outside the
area, through direct mail advertisement, brochures, et cetera -- we have
copies of those -- obviously, generating auto and motorcycle traffic
from outside the area, especially when they're advertising for bed and
breakfast lodging on the Internet and other places, Facebook and
whatever.
We want the Beach Box Cafe to stay in business, but they should
not be allowed to expand without adequate parking. In my opinion,
their problem of trying to expand their business and make more money
-- it's all about money, folks -- should not become the taxpayers of
Collier County's problem. This is not the right response to the many
negative phone calls, and personal contact that I have received, tells
me folks are not in favor of the reduction of this APR. These come
from individuals that I'm in contact with daily as a volunteer president.
I don't want to hear some of these calls, but they call me, they meet
with me, they see me on the street when I'm walking. They ask, what's
happening down the street?
And they're not in favor of the reduction. They just want a viable
business there. They said, why should we live in an area, our taxes
extremely high to generate money through a parking reduction so
another business can benefit from it? It's not the right thing to do
folks.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Jeskie. He'll be
followed by Bob Naegele.
MR. JESKIE: Good afternoon. I did have an opportunity to
speak briefly at the last Commissioners' meeting. Before I start, I'd
just like to clarify a couple things. After I had a chance to speak, a
October 25, 2016
Page 78
number of the Commissioners were, you know, trying to sidetrack and
throw up a smokescreen to say, oh, let's get the parking police out there
if somebody parks in the county garage and goes to the local business.
That has nothing to do with this. I think every business down there
benefits from the parking garage, okay.
Whether Mr. Henning gets an ice cream cone, whatever, he's still
going down to the beach. Nobody is disputing that. Everyone down
there, including the Ritz, benefits from it, okay. We all benefit from it.
The difference between the other businesses down there and the
Beach Box is the other businesses provide adequate parking for what
they do. I provide my adequate parking. I have four spots there. The
Ritz provides their adequate parking, the Turtle Club, South Bay. We
all provide adequate parking. Would we all like to expand?
Absolutely. But we live within the confines of our building and
business.
The one point that's being missed is that location has been around
for 30 years now, okay. Adequate businesses have survived in that
property for 30 years. What's coming about now, an individual wants
to expand, okay. As they exist today, they're fine. They want to
expand their seating, not necessarily for food, okay, for liquor. They
have a full liquor license, a four COP liquor license. So to get the
additional seats, they need to expand their seats inside and outside to
expand their liquor license.
What I ask is that every business provides adequate parking,
okay. This isn't Christmas. This isn't a gift that we give to certain
individuals, okay. We have a Land Development Code. Let's follow
it. It clearly indicates how many spots should be allocated to each
business type. And I would hope that the Board would stick to that,
because I think by denying the -- or by granting the appeal, you're
really opening up a can of worms as far as how many other businesses
in the area could truly expand on the burden of the taxpayers.
October 25, 2016
Page 79
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What business are you with, sir?
MR. JESKIE: The Beach Store of Naples.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. JESKIE: I also have the business right next to the Beach
Box.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bob Naegele. He'll be
followed by -- I'm having a real problem with this one -- Darryl
Hoppi? Darlene Hoppi? I'm not sure.
Please, Mr. Naegele, go ahead.
MR. NAEGELE: Thank you very much.
Commissioners, Madam Commissioner, my name is Bob
Naegele, 7993 Via Vecchia in Pelican Bay. I'm a resident of Pelican
Bay and, by virtue of that, I'm a member of the Pelican Bay
Foundation, so I believe I have standing.
In addition, I'm the president of the Pelican Bay Property Owner’s
Association which is the individual homeowner’s association
voluntarily subscribed to in Pelican Bay.
Historically, we -- if you remember the Vanderbilt Beach pier
proposal, we fought that back along with Ms. Hiller some time ago.
I think it was maybe 2008. And then in 2012, we had the Vanderbilt
Beach pavilion proposal, which was 4,000 square feet, two-story
structure, across from the Beach Box. And we fought that
successfully. And so now in the place of that 4,000 square feet on the
pavilion, we have a wonderful bathroom that we dedicated a couple of
years ago.
So a group of us, we call ourselves the North Naples Community
Association, VBRA, individual members, the Beachwalk, members of
Pelican Bay, have fought together to retain the -- to retain that area
much as it is, and we objected to the pavilion because of its size,
October 25, 2016
Page 80
because of the traffic, and it violated the Pelican Bay covenants.
Now, if you'll remember, in 2003 there was an agreement made
between the county, WCI, the successor being the Pelican Bay
Foundation, and the Ritz of which resulted in this great public parking
facility. And so, at the time in 2012, when we objected to the pavilion,
Ed Staros came and said, look it, if you allow this to happen, it will
cost me a star. I'll move from being a five star to being a four star.
Similarly, he is at this point -- I've talked to him a couple of times
over the weekend. He is concerned over this item. And based on the
current facts, I want you to know that the Pelican Bay Property Owners
Association, we support the denial of this appeal.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Darlene, I'm assuming. It is
Hoppi?
MS. HOPPI: Hoppi, yes. Sorry for my bad handwriting.
MR. MILLER: That's okay. And she'll be followed by Carol
Wright.
MS. HOPPI: I'm a member of the Vanderbilt Beach Residents
Association and don't really have anything further to add that, you
know, everyone from that organization has already said and the
adjoining businesses. I just want to go on record that I am with them.
That's really all I have to say, so it's still green.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Carol Wright. She'll be
followed by Nancy Kane.
MS. WRIGHT: Good morning. Carol Wright. I'm with VBRA,
and I'm just asking you to deny this appeal.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is -- I'm sorry -- Nancy Kane.
She'll be followed by Jacqueline Bammel.
MS. KANE: I'd like to transfer my three minutes to Mr. Pires.
MR. MILLER: And that was Carol Wright, yes, ma'am.
MS. KANE: Nancy Kane.
October 25, 2016
Page 81
MR. MILLER: Oh, Nancy Kane. I'm sorry. Jacqueline Bammel.
MS. BAMMEL: Bammel. I'd like to also give my three minutes
to Mr. Pires.
MR. MILLER: Okay. And that's the last two speakers, Madam
Chair. I just was handed one more speaker slip. I know we normally
-- it's up to you whether we accept this because the item had been --
John Mar -- I'm sorry, sir.
MR. MARQUES: Marques.
MR. MILLER: Marques, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I figured the last couple speakers
didn't say -- before these two ladies didn't say much of anything. They
were quick, so that's why I said go ahead to take the other one.
MR. MILLER: Thank you, ma'am.
MR. MARQUES: Thank you.
Thank you, Board. Thank you, everybody. I'm with Beach Box
Cafe. I'm one of the owners, also one of the general managers. I'm
there day to day. Never once has one of our neighbors towed a car.
Never have they come over except for one time to ask us to move a
car. And, actually, that one time it was South Bay Realty. I have it in
writing. They said, can you please get this patron to move their car?
Well, it ended up being a competing real estate firm parked in his spot.
I'd also like to make the point that we actually rent the same spots
that South Bay does. We have the same lease for our extra spots over
and above the 16 on the APR that are not zoned so they're not included
in our parking, but we have the same lease that they do and many of
the other people around them do.
In addition, we are not trying to expand the business. The site
improvement plan that they're talking about was to try and beautify the
landscape. It was not to expand the business, as Gary said. It was only
to do the landscape around Beach Box Cafe. So I don't want that to be
misconstrued to the public here.
October 25, 2016
Page 82
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a problem understanding that,
being that --
MR. MARQUES: Sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- you started with seven seats and now
you want -- you have 68 seats. And that sounds like an expansion to
me. Where am I wrong?
MR. MARQUES: We already had the seating in place. We
wanted to have the seating in place, I should say, and we were not
going to not have less parking or more parking. It was not about the
parking spots, more or less. It was about allowing us to have the seats,
given we were not able to get the parking. That was the only reason.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I build on what Commissioner
Fiala just asked?
I mean, based on the review of what was presented by staff, it
appears that what you are doing is reallocating how you use the space,
not that you're expanding your business, but you have shifted from
office and retail to the restaurant, and you've reduced office and retail
and adjusted the restaurant space accordingly.
MR. MARQUES: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So it's really just a shifting of uses,
not that you're expanding your business.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Can we get to that a little bit more --
MR. MARQUES: And that was done in 2015.
(Multiple speakers speaking.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- quick answer on this because I wanted
to finish this because I didn't understand that.
MR. MARQUES: Okay, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But you've made a good point. Those are
the same things I wanted to ask but I'm waiting until all of our speakers
are done, and I'm sorry, I just had to get clarification for not expansion
when it seemed to be expanding.
October 25, 2016
Page 83
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I ask a question?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So let me see. No, not yet. Two -- are you
finished, sir?
MR. MARQUES: If you have a question for me. If not --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no. Two ladies came up and
dedicated --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He still has time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- their time to Mr. Pires.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: He still has time.
MR. MARQUES: The only thing I do want to say is the
expansion was done in 2015 in a permitted process. So them
misconstruing that the future expansion that they speak of, that is not
what we're seeking to do. It was already done as a result of APR.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like to ask a question of him
since he's at the stand.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. But could you not belabor it too
much, please?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm going to speak as much as I
like --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- as much as I feel is necessary to
--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I love that cooperation from you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, ma'am, that isn't the thing to say.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- ensure that justice is served. I'm
not here to be silenced, because I have a community that is concerned.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Ma'am, would you just get on with your
question, please.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You're extremely rude.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I think you were.
October 25, 2016
Page 84
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, you are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But anyway...
Okay, I am. I just want to keep this in order. Let's move.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'd like -- and I'd like to also have
South Bay come up as well. I don't understand what you're all doing
about renting additional parking spaces. South Bay said that they had
parking spaces and that they were leasing those parking spaces out to
private citizens, and then you indicated that you were leasing parking
spaces as well. So where is this additional parking and where -- you
know, obviously, the parking was supposed to be -- that is there that
you-all are leasing, whether you're the lessor or the lessee, was
allocated to a business because there was a determination by the
county that that business needed that much parking.
And now all of a sudden I'm hearing that, for example, South
Bay, while they're making a claim that, you know, their parking spaces
are being used by your clients, which you have denied on the record,
are, separate and apart from that, leasing out spaces that they have
additionally -- that could be for their clients, but now they're leasing
them to I don't know who for what purpose.
And then you're telling me that you've got additional parking
because you have the ability to lease parking from whom?
MR. MARQUES: We both lease parking --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Why?
MR. MARQUES: -- from the same person. We don't lease it out
to people. We lease it for the purposes of our staff and our patrons, but
it's not included on the APR because it's not in the same zoned section.
So South Bay and us both lease spaces from, indirectly, the Turtle
Club, and it's an annual lease. So their parking is also based on the
exact same thing that ours is.
MR. PAGUNI: Actually, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, hang on a second. Let me
October 25, 2016
Page 85
just --
MR. PAGUNI: The leased spaces --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: You just wait. I'd like to -- I'd like
your clarification also. I want to hear what both of you have to say.
So the Turtle Club is leasing parking spots?
MR. PAGUNI: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Hang on. You'll definitely have
the opportunity to speak.
MR. MARQUES: It's a subsidiary. They lease it from the
Minnesota Group, I think it's called, but they have the lease, the master
lease to lease it to us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And the parking that you are
leasing was parking that was allocated to which commercial property
in that area?
MR. MARQUES: It is not. It's -- it has been -- it's owned by a
group in Minnesota.
MR. PAGUNI: No, it's allocated --
MR. MARQUES: It's leased --
MR. PAGUNI: It's allocated --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just a second. Sir, you have -- one
at a time, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will you stop interrogating them, please,
so that we --
(Multiple speakers speaking.)
MR. MARQUES: Is it my turn to speak or is it this gentleman's?
I'm sorry. I'm confused.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Go ahead, go ahead.
MR. MARQUES: Thank you. I don't know the exact terms of
the lease, but a group from Minnesota leases it to the Turtle Club, a
subsidiary of theirs, Terrapin Parking, and then all of us, including
them, lease spaces from Terrapin Parking, but it's not zoned because
October 25, 2016
Page 86
it's not on our property. So we couldn't get it as part of our counted
parking even though we have more parking than they're saying we do.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So is this -- is there a parking lot
that --
MR. MARQUES: There is, directly behind us.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And it's a public -- I mean, it's a
privately owned parking lot that the surrounding businesses are leasing
parking spaces from --
MR. MARQUES: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- for their respective businesses.
MR. MARQUES: That is correct. The Beach Store uses it,
South Bay Realty uses it, Beach Box Cafe uses it. And then they also
lease it out to patrons to use for beach use.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
MR. MARQUES: So it's multi-purpose.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Mr. Bosi, are you aware of this
business in that area doing this?
MR. BOSI: I'm not aware of their -- as part of any -- any parking
arrangement that a business would have. If they wanted to -- if they
wanted to indicate parking spaces additionally to what's on their
property, it would require a shared parking agreement that dedicates
for 10 years that those spots will be made available for the commercial
user. Those are the restrictions that we would have per our code that
could be utilized for additional parking to satisfy the requirement.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So you're not familiar with this
parking business --
MR. BOSI: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- that these businesses are all
participating in?
MR. BOSI: (Shakes head.)
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Could you please look into that?
October 25, 2016
Page 87
I mean, that seems to me to be a code enforcement issue.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And did you want to have this other
gentleman --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, I'd like to speak to him.
Yeah, I'd like to hear. Yeah, thanks. Yeah, go ahead.
MR. PAGUNI: Actually, the parking behind all of our buildings
--
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Would you just state your name for
the record --
MR. PAGUNI: Sebastian.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- for the benefit of the court
reporter.
MR. PAGUNI: Sure. Sebastian Paguni. Again, part owner of
South Bay Realty.
But the parking behind our businesses are owned by a group out
of Minnesota. And right behind our businesses -- so, I have five
parking spaces behind that is deeded on my property, and I have six
parking spaces in front of my building that's deeded on my property.
Then there's a right-of-way alley, and then after the right-of-way
alley, there's parking spaces, and a parking lot, and that parking lot
used to be the parking for the Sea Witch restaurant, okay. So those
parking spaces, because the Sea Witch is closed now, are owned by a
group out of Minnesota who leases those parking spaces to individuals.
For instance, the parking lot is leased to the Vanderbilt -- it's Terrapin
Valet, and they rent those spaces out to beachgoers, okay. So we have
the beachgoers in the big parking lot.
Behind my office, there's 20 spaces that are leased to the Turtle
Club, and they have Turtle Club parking spots on them. There are
seven spaces that are leased to my office, and there's three spaces that
are leased to the Beach Box Cafe or that building, and then there are
October 25, 2016
Page 88
eight spaces that are leased to Mari Vesci's office, but we all pay
Terrapin Valet, who manage that for Minnesota Group, okay.
So now, daily, what we're saying is, not only in my parking
spaces and in the Beach Box parking spaces we're noticing that every
day there are people from the beach parking in our parking spaces not
only on our property but the ones that we actually rent, every day.
So now besides that, we have people that are patronizing the bar,
and they're parking not only in their own spots, but they're parking in
our spots also. Not only are they parking in our spots, they're parking
in the restaurant's spots, which is the Turtle Club. And every day --
when they say we haven't had cars towed, we have cars towed all the
time.
What we've -- what we do, though, to be nice is, we go next door
and we say, are any of these cars your patrons? Well, yeah, they are.
Well, could you please have them move before we tow them. But a lot
of times what happens is they don't know who they are because they
were their patrons and then they go to the beach. There's no tag on
them that says, hi, I've been at the Beach Box or I've been at the beach.
They just go and have a beer or a hotdog, and then they walk to the
beach.
Now, with our parking, every single one of my employees and
every single one of my agents, have an assigned parking tag. This is
how bad it's become. It's l through 100, and we put them up in the
little rear-view mirror, and it says South Bay Realty, and we assign
them, so when there's not a parking tab there, I literally go outside, or
one of the staff -- mostly it's staff because I'm not there -- goes outside
and they say, ah, there's no tag there. We have to call the tow truck
company. And it's a company that we didn't hire. It's a company that
Terrapin Valet hired because it happens all the time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. PAGUNI: Okay.
October 25, 2016
Page 89
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, Commissioner Nance, you have
your button on, and I wanted to ask --
MR. MILLER: Yeah, Madam Chair, I had two final speakers
who had not spoken who ceded their time, a total of six minutes, to Mr.
Pires.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. That's exactly what I was just
going to --
MR. MILLER: And then that will conclude all the speakers'
time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Why don't we finish that, then we'll go to
Commissioner Nance, and then we're going to take a break.
MR. PIRES: Thank you, and I'll actually try to take less. And I
believe that we heard, then, from the South Bay Realty, from Mr.
Sebastian, is that he has 11 parking spots of his own, and he has
enough for his business, and the additional is excess over what's
required, as opposed to the Beach Box that doesn't have the requisite
parking on site to expand their use.
Now, again, looking to the records, and I -- the CIP -- the Site
Improvement Plan is deemed withdrawn and canceled. That Site
Improvement Plan was for the purpose of expanding seating on their
site. In addition, one of the conditions in the Site Improvement Plan
application, the staff said, no amplified sound or live performances are
permitted in outdoor serving areas. That's what they wanted to do is
add outdoor seating. An enhanced 10-foot Type D buffer is required
between the outdoor seating and adjacent residential zoning districts.
These conditions are necessary to mitigate the impacts of outdoor
serving areas on adjacent residential zoning districts and uses.
They have outdoor seating, they have outdoor picnic tables that
are not permitted by your Land Development Code. They have not
been improved.
Now, there were improvements made to a hood suppression
October 25, 2016
Page 90
system in 2014. There was improvements made to a walk-in cooler in
2015, but based upon my review of building permits from CityView
portal, no other renovations occurred downstairs except for signs and
an awning. The renovations that were extensive were upstairs when
they terminated the condominium and made them into a B&B, a
transient lodging facility.
And we've notified Code Enforcement of that because we have all
these glowing reviews about their short-term stays which, again, may
even qualify as a hotel based upon the operation that's going on, which
again is transient lodging, is not allowed.
We request that you deny the appeal. You heard, again, the
testimony from the adjacent property owners. They want this to be a
successful business. There have been other businesses there for 30
years. This is a problem that will be exacerbated if this appeal is not
denied, and for a number of reasons as articulated. And thank you
very kindly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I have a couple different
questions I would like to ask. I'm going to need Mr. Bosi and I'm
going to need a representative from the appellant to be able to answer
my questions if you don't mind.
MR. CROSS: Yes, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Bosi, at the time the
administrative parking reduction was granted, were the recipients of
the APR informed it was a conditional approval?
MR. BOSI: The three conditions were stated clearly at the --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. Were they clearly informed
that that was the case? Were they aware that was the case?
MR. BOSI: It was in the approval letter.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. How much improvement
has been done on your facilities since the administrative parking
October 25, 2016
Page 91
reduction was granted?
MR. CROSS: I don't have an exact dollar figure. I would have to
defer to Mr. Cioffi or Mr. Brecka.
MR. CIOFFI: $457,000.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: $450,000. And those were permits
granted by Collier County?
MR. CIOFFI: Yeah, that was improvement on the entire
building.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You have to be --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir. Please step up and
identify yourself and testify. I want -- you know. So you're asserting,
sir, that following the administrative parking reduction, you embarked
on getting permits and making --
MR. CIOFFI: Yeah. My name's Ralph Cioffi. I'm one of the
owners of the Beach Box Cafe.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, sir.
MR. CIOFFI: The improvements included painting the entire
building.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Painting?
MR. CIOFFI: Painting, renovating all the condominium units
upstairs, repaving the parking lot in the back. I have itemized bills that
we could certainly present to the County Commission, but it's
$457,000.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Hold that thought just a second.
It was my understanding that the administrative -- one of the primary
reasons the APR was issued was that the applicant asserted that the
uses -- that the APR should be granted because a great deal of the
business that the Beach Box Cafe was getting was foot traffic which
was ancillary to use of the beach.
Is that correct, Mr. Bosi?
MR. BOSI: That was part of the justification.
October 25, 2016
Page 92
COMMISSIONER NANCE: That was part of the justification
for the APR. But now, sir, you're telling me that you would not have
paved the parking lot, you would not have painted the building, you
would not have done that if you didn't get an administrative parking
reduction?
MR. CIOFFI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You would not have painted the
building?
MR. CIOFFI: Well, painting the building we may have, but we
wanted to upgrade the entire corner because we wanted to improve,
you know, the business we had there.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay.
MR. CIOFFI: So yes. And it wouldn't have allowed us to have
the condominium access either without the parking.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Are you operating the facility for
transient lodging at present?
MR. CIOFFI: We allow 30 days or less rental. So we do weekly
-- weekly rentals, yes, during the season, vacation --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So it's not owned by condominium
owners? It's --
MR. CIOFFI: It's only by -- well, we have a long-term use --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Who owns the unit?
MR. CIOFFI: Well, the building's owned by Vaguna Corp.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Who owns the units, the
condominium --
MR. CIOFFI: Vaguna Corp does.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. So Vaguna Corp people are
living there?
MR. CIOFFI: No, no, no. We have a master lease with Vaguna,
and then we sublet the units out to vacation renters.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Mr. Bosi, is that a legal use of the
October 25, 2016
Page 93
property?
MR. BOSI: Not according to the zoning. It is a -- it is a place of
residency.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. My concern here -- and I'll
conclude my remarks now. My concern here is that, you know, I think
Mr. Jeskie testified that he was certain that the parking facilities
benefited everybody, and I think that's certainly the case. And as far as
ancillary use of the beach is concerned, I'm sure that's the case. But
what I'm concerned is -- and I think there is an issue here that part of
your intended use is really as a destination and not as an ancillary use
of the beach.
I think it's a -- I think your business is mixed, but I think the part
that's problematic is, you know, if you're advertising as a destination,
you're operating your -- you're operating facilities there for rental
purposes and lodging, which is not an approved use, that you're
operating your facilities as a destination, and the parking garage,
although it may -- you know, an argument can be made that it certainly
benefits ancillary people to the beach, I'm not sure that that's -- the
purpose of that is as a destination, and I'm not sure that that was clearly
indicated on your application for an APR.
Mr. Bosi, would you like to comment on that? I'm just trying to
figure out what the facts are here.
MR. CROSS: If I may, as to the transient use, County Attorney
Mr. Klatzkow and I have had numerous issues, not related to this, to
whether that is a prohibited use and whether or not the tax collector
can collect millions of dollars of short-term rentals and -- but I don't
believe that it ties into what was granted as it was presented.
There is nothing in the 2016 Site Development Plan that
Commissioner Fiala is referring to as an expansion that has anything to
do with why we're here today. We're here today based on what the
plans and what the use of the buildings were back in 2015 when the
October 25, 2016
Page 94
application was made and it was approved.
The Beach Box knew of the conditions, but the conditions do not
state that staff or county commissions can revoke and take away an
APR. What they can do, and in their exact words, in the ordinance and
in what Mr. Bosi read, is that if the staff determines, then the owner is
required to address additional parking needs or reduce business
operations. That means the staff and the county would come to the
owner and say, there's some problems here. You need to lease 12
more spots or you need to reduce your seats, not we're just taking away
the vested APR.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, everything you say may be
true. What I'm -- the thing I'm trying to get to is I'm trying to get into
the mind of Mr. Bosi here and understand the different facts that were
presented to him and the application that was supplied to him to
request an APR and whether, in fact, that application was indicative of
justification for an APR or, in fact, there were other ancillary or --
excuse me -- other additional facts that were either not conveyed to
him or not readily accessible to him to make this determination. That's
why I'm asking the questions. Let me see if there's anything else.
Is the parking garage closed at night?
MR. BOSI: At dusk.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: At dusk. Is beach access closed at
night at that location?
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So beach access is still open but the
parking garage is closed?
MR. OCHS: Correct. I mean, you can get on the beach.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You can go to the beach but you
just can't park in the parking garage --
MR. OCHS: Right.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- during the evenings. I have no
October 25, 2016
Page 95
further questions. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I will wait until -- it's noon, and I
know we need to get back by one, so I will wait until this is continued
to after lunch or after the --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Our first item is at 1:30,
time-certain.
MR. OCHS: Right. I mean, theoretically, if you still want an
hour lunch, you can go to 12:30 and go from 12:30 to 1:30.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure, we can do that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or we could leave now and
come back at --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We have public comment at
1 o'clock.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, we do have public comment.
MR. OCHS: It's no sooner than 1 o'clock. You can have it
anytime after 1 o'clock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: There's a lot of people here that
want to know what the Board's decision is.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Wrap this up.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think the biggest question
is, they had seating for seven previously, if I'm right. So did they have
more business than seats prior to the parking? And if the answer is
yes, then it's already people utilizing that area. They're already in that
area because they couldn't park.
You know, my observation of this recently is you're not going to
see the types of people in a suit and tie go there and sit down. They're
going to be in shorts, swim trunks, bathing suit, bikini, or whatever
going to the facility.
So, you know, unless somebody can say they're expanding their
business, I don't think they're expanding it. I think they're serving the
October 25, 2016
Page 96
public who is there today and who was there in the past who's utilizing
the beach. It has nothing to do with the parking lot -- in my opinion, it
has nothing to do with the parking lot. They are capturing patrons
going to the beach. Like the gentlemen stood up there and said, yeah,
you know, I witnessed somebody going to the Beach Box having a
beer and then going to the beach. That could be the same person going
to the beach and having a beer, or he parks in the parking lot and stops
by. I'm going to have a beer before I take in some sun.
So I think that's -- that's the real issue here. It's not a utilization of
the parking lot. It's utilization of the public's property, the beach and
the parking lot.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. This was still Commissioner
Taylor's turn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm done.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's quite all right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Klatzkow, the appellant raised the
issue of -- that the APR cannot be changed beyond a 30-day window.
Would you agree with that?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's a conditional consent.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. And could you please
define for me the difference between transient and residential lodging?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Residential lodging is your typical
one. It's your standard family neighborhood. People buy houses, they
raise kids, what have you. They're there long-term. Transient is like a
hotel. It's for our tourist business. People come in for a week, two
weeks, month, maybe even season, and then leave. So there's a
turnover in the use of it. Transient is a commercial use, not residential
use.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay.
Mr. Bosi, I believe the appellant has said that it's a 30-day-or-less
window for the people going in and out of these apartments upstairs.
October 25, 2016
Page 97
What is that defined in as the code? Is that defined as a hotel?
MR. BOSI: The code defines transient lodging as anything below
the six-month mark. Anything above six months would be considered
a permanent residence. Below six months is the line that we utilize for
transient lodging.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Are you aware that this -- has this
Beach Box been registered as a hotel? Are you aware of that -- or
zoned as a hotel?
MR. BOSI: Let me provide clarification. In the original APR
that was requested, residential use was expressed as for residential
units. The APR states, and reading verbatim from the APR, "The
existing uses (cafe, retail, office, and residential) at the subject site are
proposed to change by reducing the retail area and increasing the cafe
area. The cafe would increase its interior area as well as outdoor
seating. The available parking is limited to 16 spaces." So that's the
basis of why they submitted an APR.
They wanted to reallocate their existing space from retail to
restaurant. And I don't deny that that restaurant's probably a much
more complementary land use to the beach, but it does -- it does add,
per our code, additional parking required from the facility.
And based upon the concepts that were submitted, I agreed that
there was a justification for a reduction. It was only against the
restriction of the public -- the public parking section of our code that
invalidated that concept, and that was the basis for it. But it has always
been -- they had an existing retail establishment that they wanted to
exchange for more restaurant use. That's what triggered the need for
an APR. That's what triggers the need for additional parking per our
Land Development Code.
In their APR, they submitted that it was residential use that was
above the -- and that required -- that required eight parking spaces.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Do we have in this area or any
October 25, 2016
Page 98
area in Collier County a "park once" plan?
MR. BOSI: No. We have a restriction upon the utilization of
public parking for parks and beach access to be used exclusively for
that activity.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Klatzkow, just one other question. We heard from Mr.
Hoppensteadt that the Pelican Bay Foundation, I believe -- forgive me
if it's not that -- the foundation has stated that there are deed
restrictions on that parking garage. That indicates that that parking
garage can only be used, I believe, for parking of the beach and, I
believe, for certain activities at the Ritz-Carlton, but I'm not sure about
that.
Is that -- that is not -- that is not something that we can tinker with
and ignore; is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think that's germane to anything
before you, all right. The use of that parking garage is for beach
access. Now, if while you're on your way to the beach you want to
buy some suntan lotion, I don't see how that changes anything. I don't
see how it changes anything if I use that parking lot and I'm sitting on
the beach and some guy walks by with sodas and I buy a soda, or if I
get up and I go to the Beach Box and I buy a soda, so that the use of
your parking garage is beach access.
So I do not think the concerns raised by the Pelican Bay
Foundation have any import in this particular hearing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Except you have a parking garage
that is being used, I believe, by the appellant to justify or to allow the
expansion of a business which changes one use to another which
requires additional zoning, and they're using that parking garage as a
vehicle to be able to do that.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can't use the parking garage solely to
go to the Beach Box, but if you're using the parking garage to go to the
October 25, 2016
Page 99
beach and that's your primary purpose of being there, then you want to
go out and have a beer or a soda or whatever as part of your
beach-going experience, that's not an issue, all right. The issue
becomes using that parking garage to service the businesses.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right. That's right. So if
that's the case, then they cannot claim that they have X amount of
spaces in the beach -- in a parking garage to justify the difference in
parking requirements between a restaurant and a retail.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think the issue is foot traffic. I've always
thought the issue was foot traffic. This is a very unique spot. If you
believe that their primary business involves people using the beach and
then accessing the premises, you can rule one way. If you believe that
they need the parking because they're a destination point, all right, you
can rule a different way.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Mr. Bosi, the hotel requirements,
if you define this as a transient lodging site, how many additional
parking places do they need for transient lodging versus the stated use
of it as residential?
MR. BOSI: With three units having three rooms and one having
five, I think that that may change from eight to 11, so there may be
three additional parking. So the total, it would -- could potentially be a
difference between 47 and 50.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you. I don't have any
questions. Our chairman --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I agree with the County Attorney. The County Attorney hit the
nail on the head when he says this is not about the parking garage,
because -- and to clarify a false statement made by Mr. Pires, when he
said that it was intended that 31 spots in the public parking garage
were going to be reserved for the benefit of this business, that isn't the
October 25, 2016
Page 100
case at all.
What is clear from their application and from staff's analysis that
staff relied on to award the variance was that 350,000 people use
Vanderbilt Beach Park, and it is that population that is walking across
the street, in I would say the supermajority of cases, to use this
business.
And Commissioner Henning is also correct in saying that they're
not expanding the business. The business is there, and they are
reallocating from retail and office to the restaurant to place those seats
there for that business that is there to be accommodated.
You know, Mr. Jeskie made a very strong point. He said all the
businesses in that area are benefiting from the parking garage. Well,
all the businesses in that area are benefiting from those people that
have parked in the parking garage and are using the beach and crossing
the street to use his business; South Bay Realty, Mari Vesci's business,
the Lighthouse Restaurant, and the Beach Box. I don't see, based on
staff's initial determination, given 350,000 people that use the beach
and have the ability to cross the street to use the Beach Box restaurant,
that when staff made that determination they were unjustified in doing
so.
And when staff reversed its decision because of an ordinance that
says if you use the parking garage you can't do anything but go to the
beach and that's it, that, even if you eliminate that parking garage,
doesn't eliminate the fact that you have all these people who are at the
beach who park in other areas, who walk to the beach, and who bike to
the beach who still have access to that restaurant.
In fact, I would submit that the county has knowingly waived the
requirements of that beach-parking restriction within that ordinance
and does nothing to enforce that only people who use the beach can
park there and that they have to stay at the beach and not leave the
beach and do anything else but go to the beach, go back to the garage,
October 25, 2016
Page 101
go back to the beach, go back to the garage. It's ridiculous, absolutely
ridiculous.
Staff, when they reversed their initial decision to award this
variance, which is something that has happened -- and I don't mean the
reversal, but the award of variances done administratively has,
obviously, as with -- as was shown by staff at the beginning of the
presentation, happened a lot, staff was wrong when they reversed,
clearly wrong when they reversed, and did not express any evidence to
show that there was a public health/safety reason for the reversal
whatsoever.
I absolutely believe that based on what has happened, that if we
were to uphold staff's reversal and not reinstate the variance as was
granted, which was not appealed by anybody within the 30 days as
required by law, that we as a board would be engaging in a taking,
and we cannot do that.
We have no justification to take what was granted, that this
property owner relied on to make substantial improvements,
substantial financial improvements to that business so he could serve
the public, since the public, obviously, wants to use what that business
has to offer.
So I'm going to make a motion that we not uphold staff's reversal
of the variance and that we uphold the variance as awarded since the
variance is clearly justified and has not proven in any way to cause any
adverse public health, safety, or welfare detriment to the community.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, yeah. I think the staff is
narrowed in reviewing a reduction of parking spots because of the
Land Development Code; however, if you take under consideration of
what we've done with impact fee reduction, they have to. And we've
done this for several businesses.
They have to determine that the impacts to the roads are just. In
October 25, 2016
Page 102
other words, we did this for several car dealers, they are serving the
public that's driving down the road by trips that are pass-through.
They're there already. And that's the point is -- I don't think staff has
errorred (sic). I think it's a law that's an error because it cannot be
applied to all in all cases.
And in this case, in my opinion, is it's a capture rate. They are
capturing the public that's already in the area anyway.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So I'll second that motion with
the understanding that in my opinion staff did not error. I think they've
-- it was correctly pointed out that the parking garage is there for the
public to utilize the beach; however, in this case one glove doesn't fit
all.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And I agree with you,
Commissioner Henning, and I just want to clarify. The error was in
reversing what they correctly awarded by way of this variance in the
first place; that their initial conclusion with respect to what you just
said should stand. And I agree with what you said, and I agree with
your reasoning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I'd like to ask the petitioner
another question, another follow-up to the question that I asked about
his improvements to the property.
What has been done regarding the cafe that was indicated was to
add 68 seats? Is that currently being --
MR. CROSS: If I may. Yes. I think we're getting confused,
because Mr. Pires threw up this 2016 Site Development Plan which
was to put additional, on top of this, new landscaping and some other
picnic tables. That's been withdrawn.
MR. KLATZKOW: Just answer the question.
MR. CROSS: I am. But as to the 68 seats, that work and all that
October 25, 2016
Page 103
money was done back in October of 2015 when the appeal period
ended. That's when all the work was done. It's built out to the 68 seats,
and it has been for the past five months or six months.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So that was all permitted work?
MR. CROSS: Everything that was done down there has been
done permitted. Trust me, Mr. Galloway has had Code Enforcement
there about 45 times in the past 12 months.
MR. GALLOWAY: I beg your pardon?
MR. CROSS: Well, you can look at the Code Enforcement
records to determine that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. So at present you're
utilizing 68 additional seats?
MR. CROSS: Plus a lot of people sitting on the ground and
sitting outside during the season; yes, we are using all the seats.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. Do you take reservations
there? Can I get a reservation? No, I'm just asking.
MR. CROSS: No, I do not believe -- again -- no, the owners are
waving their head. They don't do reservations. It's just a walk-up, you
know, flip-flops, no T-shirts place from the beach.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. I have no further questions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
and a second.
MR. PIRES: Madam Chairman, I believe I have four minutes
left.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. We closed the public hearing.
The Board's in deliberations. Commissioner Nance had a question.
Tony, you're done unless a commissioner has a question for you.
MR. PIRES: If I may, Madam Chairman, some facts --
MR. KLATZKOW: What about "you're done" that you don't
understand? Unless the Board wants to hear you, you're done, Tony.
October 25, 2016
Page 104
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This is not a public hearing. It's
a public comment.
MR. PIRES: Well, misrepresentations about permits. The
permits were for the renovation of the condominium units that were no
longer condominium units.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, but we are finished with any
comments. We are now in the voting stage.
MR. PIRES: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So we have a motion on the floor
and a second. Any further comments from board members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
How did you vote?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Opposed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So that's two for the motion, three
against.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So it's denied.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yep.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, are you going to break for lunch until
1:30?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. Yes. Yes. I mean "yes," not
"yeah."
(A lunch recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
October 25, 2016
Page 105
seats.
Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
Well, good afternoon, everyone. Nice to see a whole new crowd
coming to see us this afternoon. I wish the morning ones would stay.
We'd have a really full house then, but thank you all for being here.
Leo, would you like to move forward with us?
Item #9A
ORDINANCE 2016-32: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2006-50, THE
CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK COMMERCIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD), AS AMENDED, BY
INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE
INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BY 166,000 SQUARE
FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 716,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS
FLOOR AREA OF INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCE USES AND
INCREASING THE ACREAGE FROM 41.6 TO 49.90 NET ACRES;
BY AMENDING THE BUSINESS DISTRICT TO INCREASE THE
ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF FLOOR AREA FROM
260,000 SQUARE FEET TO 292,000 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING
200,000 SQUARE FEET TO 242,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE
USE AND FROM 60,000 TO 50,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL
USE; BY AMENDING THE INDUSTRIAL COMMERCE
DISTRICT TO ALLOW PARCELS WEST OF GOODLETTE-
FRANK ROAD TO INCREASE THE ZONED HEIGHT FROM
35 FEET TO 50 FEET EXCEPT FOR TRACT 5 ON THE MASTER
PLAN WHICH SHALL HAVE A ZONED HEIGHT OF 104 AND
ACTUAL HEIGHT OF 122 FEET; BY AMENDING THE
BUSINESS DISTRICT TO ALLOW TRACT 9 ON THE MASTER
October 25, 2016
Page 106
PLAN EAST OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD TO INCREASE
THE ZONED HEIGHT TO 75 FEET AND ACTUAL HEIGHT TO
85 FEET; BY INCREASING THE OVERALL FLOOR AREA
RATIO FROM .35 TO .45; BY REDUCING THE PRESERVE
REQUIREMENT AND BY ADDING A DEVIATION TO ALLOW
A PORTION OF THE PRESERVE TO BE OFF-SITE; BY ADDING
A DEVIATION TO ALLOW TRACT 5 ON THE MASTER PLAN
TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE COUNTY’S ARCHITECTURAL
DEVIATION PROCESS. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED
SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND BOTH EAST AND WEST
OF GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 106 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDA-PL20160001865] (COMPANION TO
AGENDA ITEMS #9B AND #11C) – ADOPTED
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2016-235: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE
PETITION VAC-PL20160002294 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE
AND VACATE THE COUNTY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN
A PORTION OF TRACT “R”, CREEKSIDE BOULEVARD RIGHT-
OF-WAY, BEING A PART OF CREEKSIDE COMMERCE PARK
WEST-UNIT TWO, PLAT BOOK 35, PAGE 43 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD,
BETWEEN ARTHREX BOULEVARD AND CREEKSIDE STREET
IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (COMPANION TO AGENDA
ITEMS #9A AND #11C) – ADOPTED
October 25, 2016
Page 107
Item #11C
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPER
AGREEMENT WITH BARRON COLLIER PARTNERSHIP AND
ARTHREX, INC., (DEVELOPER) AND COLLIER COUNTY
(COUNTY) TO DESIGN, PERMIT AND CONSTRUCT
ROADWAY AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND
RELOCATION OF THE PINE RIDGE WEIR LOCATED WITHIN
THE CREEKSIDE COMMERCE CENTER PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT. (COMPANION TO AGENDA ITEMS #9A AND
#9B) – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Commissioners.
This takes us to our advertised public hearings and our 1:30 p.m.
time-certain hearing, which is Item 9A on your agenda today,
Commissioners.
This is a recommendation to approve an ordinance amending the
Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development,
and after 9A, you are also scheduled to hear Item 9B, which is the
vacation of a roadway inside the Creekside PUD, and that would be
immediately followed by 11C on your agenda, which is a
recommendation to approve a developer agreement with both Arthrex
and the county to design, permit, and construct roadway and
intersection improvements and relocation of the weir in the Creekside
Commerce Center Planned Unit Development.
I'm going to ask the County Attorney to go over some process
issues for the Board before we begin.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, Commissioners. These three items
are all intertwined with each other. My recommendation is we hear all
three at the same time. In essence, you vote on all three at the same
time as well.
October 25, 2016
Page 108
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, Items 9A and 9B do require ex parte
disclosure be provided by commission members, and everyone that
will be participating and speaking needs to be sworn in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Would you please swear in
the speakers that are sitting in the audience.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. And for ex parte, let's begin
with Commissioner Taylor.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, dear.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: The chosen one.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes, the chosen one.
Mr. Klatzkow, how specific do I need to get? Do I need to name
meetings and dates, or is it sufficient for me to say meetings with...
MR. KLATZKOW: You can say just meetings with who.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay, good.
I attended the Arthrex NIM; I had meetings with John
Schmieding and David Bumpous at Arthrex; I had meetings with
Nicole Johnson; meetings with Bob Pritt; telephone calls with Bob
Pritt; telephone calls with John Schmieding; telephone calls with
David Bumpous; a meeting with Reinhold Schmieding, David
Bumpous, and Dan Hall and Kristi Bartlett at my offices; emails from
over 60 residences -- residents; and also we just received a verbatim
transcript of what Bob Pritt is going to be saying at this meeting. It's in
my office; I reviewed the staff report, and I had several meetings
ongoing over these months with staff about this issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. On Items 9A and 9B, my
disclosure is identical. I've read staff reports; I've had many letters,
emails, and correspondence, which are in my file; I've had meetings
October 25, 2016
Page 109
with community members in my office; I've met with representatives
from the petitioner; and I've had numerous meetings with staff. It's an
extensive, extensive ex parte, and it's available should anybody like to
take a look at it. Here's a small portion of it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Hold them up.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It's a couple pounds worth. It's a
good one.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's a lot of reading to do.
And I, for ex parte, I've had meetings with Reinhold Schmieding,
David Bumpous, Dan Hall of Arthrex, and Kristi Bartlett with the
Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce; meeting with Nicole Johnson
of the Conservancy; meeting with Bob Pritt; many letters and emails
from surrounding communities; staff report, phone calls; discussions
with Planning Commissioners and also with our staff, and I just
brought a few of our emails along with me. Thank you.
Commissioners Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
So I've received the same correspondence that we've all received,
and I had -- I was invited to a meeting with Bumpous, Hall,
Schmieding, and Bartlett during which I told them that I don't discuss
these issues ahead of the hearing.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No meetings. My
correspondence would be voluminous amount of emails; I had a brief
conversation with Jim Carter on it, but no details on it; and I spoke to
Planning Commission Member Diane Ebert.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Okay.
With that, we've all declared, and shall we --
MR. OCHS: Begin with the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. I have to say that that's a nice
tie.
October 25, 2016
Page 110
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Actually, I really like the suit, and
I think the combination of the shirt, the tie, and the suit go really well
with your hair.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Wow. This is a good day.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That does not make me bias to vote
for you and your client.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: His daughters help him these days.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Most of the time.
Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of
the petitioner. Before you you have three petitions dealing with
amendments to the Creekside PUD. The team that we have with us
today includes David Bumpous; John Schmieding; Dan Hall and Lisa
Gardner -- or Gardener from Arthrex; Wayne Arnold from Q. Grady
Minor; David Gensen with Barron Collier Companies; Norm
Trebilcock, who's our transportation consultant; and Tim Hall, who is
our environmental consultant.
On the visualizer outlined in the yellow is the Creekside PUD.
It's roughly 106 acres. It's divided into two different categories of
development: IC, which is industrial, and business, which is intended
for business park uses.
We're making changes to both sides of the road. The property is
at the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalee Road.
The IC district currently allows for 550,000 square feet. We're
increasing that to 716,000 square feet primarily for increases in Tract 5
that Wayne will show you on the master plan to allow for Arthrex to
expand its operations here in Collier County. And Dave Bumpous will
take you through in greater detail Arthrex's plans for expansion within
Collier County.
In the business district, we're increasing the square footage from
260,000 square feet to 292,000 square feet, which is primarily on the
October 25, 2016
Page 111
east side of Goodlette-Frank Road. So the overall PUD amendment
today would be to increase the square footage by 190,000 square feet.
There are some changes to the different heights within the PUD
that we're requesting. We're basically requesting that Tract 9, which is
on the east side of Collier (sic) Boulevard, be allowed to go to a zoned
height of 75 feet with an actual height of 85 feet.
The parcel where Arthrex is currently located we're asking to go
up to 50 feet to allow for, basically, an outside patio to have a cover
placed over it, and then Tract 5, which -- where's the cursor? The
cursor right there is Tract 5, and that's what we're proposing today to
increase the zoned height to 104 feet and overall tippy-top actual
height to 122 feet.
We're also going to modify Collier Boulevard to vacate a portion
of Collier Boulevard --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Creekside.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Creekside. Creekside, thank you. I got a
lot of helpers. Creekside, my mistake. Not Collier; Creekside.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. When you said Collier
Boulevard before, I was looking at the map trying to think, where is
Collier Boulevard on here?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I say that before? Well, I apologize.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's all right.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Maybe I should put the readers on instead
of putting them on the top of my head.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, that does help.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: There we go.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But Creekside Boulevard -- we'll be
vacating a portion of Creekside Boulevard in front of the post office as
well as Arthrex's part of one of the petitions in front of you today and
making certain transportation improvements related to those that Norm
Trebilcock will take you through.
October 25, 2016
Page 112
The height, as I already mentioned, on Tract 5 has been one of the
primary concerns of residents as well as the vacation of a portion of
Creekside Boulevard.
A third issue that has raised some concerns is there's a preserve
area on the east side of Goodlette-Frank Road that we had proposed
impacting to allow for some additional development on the east side of
the road, namely both a hotel and an office building.
We have agreed to withdraw the deviation related to the impact of
the preserve during this process. There may be future amendments to
the PUD to try to address the development we were anticipating doing
through the impact to the preserve. So we'll reserve that for later
amendments if we decide to go forward with those related
amendments. But for now the preserve area impact is not being
considered today. There was -- so that's one of the stipulations that
your staff had had in the staff report was to deny that deviation; that's
off the table, so that goes away.
The second stipulation that staff had was for us to agree to a
location of an irrigation line in the project. My understanding is that
irrigation line has been agreed to, and the exact location is now
identified and will go forward with the necessary conveyance
documents or authorizations for that line to be constructed within the
project. Since we now know the location -- our prior objection was to
the vagueness of that stipulation, but now that we know where it is,
we're fine with the stipulation as currently written.
I want to turn this over now to Mr. Bumpous to take you through
Arthrex's plans for Creekside and the campus they anticipate having
and why we're here today for the changes that we're proposing.
After Dave goes will be Wayne Arnold, and after Wayne Arnold
will be Norm Trebilcock, and with that, we'll -- obviously, you can ask
questions at any time, but if we can go through the initial presentation
and maybe save questions till the end of the presentation, we may
October 25, 2016
Page 113
answer questions as we go along.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. We would prefer to hear you first
and then hear the audience before we get into questions by the
commissioners.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
MR. BUMPOUS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
David Bumpous. I'm the Senior Director of Operations at Arthrex. It
gives me great pleasure this afternoon to be here before you to talk
about Arthrex.
We have some very exciting things that have been happening
over the past 12 months at Arthrex, and I would like to also, of course,
share with you the issues before you in the PUD amendment.
Many people here locally know Arthrex as the white building
with great landscaping on Creekside Boulevard; however, we're also
very proud of our global presence that we have. Arthrex, being a
minimally invasive orthopedics company, has locations and presence
around the world.
One thing you'll notice from this map is it focuses on our
international presence. Obviously, our world headquarters is here in
Naples, and this is also the project in which we are asking to expand.
We also have operations spread around other parts of the United States
as well.
One thing we're certainly proud of is with our continued growth
we continue to make a significant portion of our products here in the
United States, as you can see, 95 percent of those products, and 70
percent of those products right here, not only in Southwest Florida, but
in Collier County. So, again, something we're very proud of and like
to speak about it frequently.
Certainly, another item that we're proud of is the recognition
October 25, 2016
Page 114
Arthrex has received over the past few years as being one of the top
100 companies in the United States to work for. That's a great
testament to our leader, Mr. Schmieding, and the culture in which he's
created at Arthrex.
These are some photos of recent expansion and work that's
happened on the Creekside campus there at our world headquarters.
When the facility was originally built -- many of you will remember
that. We moved into the facility back in 2003, and we had a warehouse
there of a little over 18,000 square feet. So most of our shipping was
done at that time from this location.
Over the last 12-plus months, we've done a major renovation of
that space. It's allowed us to provide additional square footage for
offices. It's allowed us to provide a brand new cafeteria, which many
of the guests here today have seen. At the same time, it's allowed us to
expand our medical-education capabilities. In fact, we've more than
doubled our capabilities there on the Creekside Boulevard.
So, again, things that we're incredibly proud of to do here in
Naples to continue to grow our business, to grow the medical tourism
that's occurring each year with the tens -- or more than 10,000 visiting
surgeons each year.
To take just a moment, I also would like to highlight our
operations at Ave Maria. Again, certainly nothing new to the Board;
however, if you, again, look at the cursor, this portion of the building is
approximately 200,000 square feet. That was built around -- about four
years ago. Since then we have added an additional 55,000 square feet
of finishing process behind that building, and within the next two
months, we're proud to say we'll be opening an expansion of 163,000
additional square feet.
Again, very vital to that continued growth, very vital to the
continued growth of our employee base, and making products here in
the U.S. to ship around the globe.
October 25, 2016
Page 115
This is a shot of our warehouse. I just mentioned the warehouse
we had on Creekside for many years. We acquired a facility in Fort
Myers. This is a 258,000-square-foot facility. It's a beautiful facility if
you haven't visited. We ship over 700,000 packages a year to more
than 100 countries from this facility in Fort Myers.
But this is why we're really here is to talk about who Arthrex is
and what this project entails. You'll see from an economic impact and
community impact study performed by Kingfisher Analytics out of
Tampa that it was calculated that Arthrex is putting about $837 million
annually into the local economy. That is estimated to grow by 2020 to
1.67 billion. And, again, I emphasize the word "annually" to the local
economy.
But the project we're here to talk about itself will generate an
estimated $73.4 million to the local economy. This will be through
local subs, local contractors, local businesses, hotels, and the list really
goes on and on from there. And, of course, the tax implications as well
at $1.7 million for this project.
So it's a very exciting time for us, but we also like to point out
some of the things that make Arthrex who we are. Charitable giving is
certainly one of those things. Arthrex gives millions of dollars each
year to local charities as well as charities around the U.S. and even
abroad. More importantly, Arthrex employees dedicate thousands of
hours each year to these charities, helping worthy cause, helping
further their cause, and we're incredibly proud of that and, again, the
encouragement we all receive from Mr. Schmieding and the senior
staff.
But this is why we're here. We're here to talk about the vision,
the future, and the PUD amendment before you. What you see here is
certainly a conceptual drawing, and I will do my best to use the cursor.
But what it depicts, of course, is across here Creekside Boulevard
being re-routed around. The transportation professional and expert
October 25, 2016
Page 116
will talk soon about the modifications and improvements that will be
made both to Arthrex Boulevard as well as to the Creekside connection
over on Goodlette-Frank and, of course, Goodlette-Frank itself.
You can see from the Tract 5, which was pointed out by Mr.
Yovanovich, this is where we are planning our new facility across the
street.
I want to take a minute to address something that continues to
come up related to the vacation of the road. I think to most people it
makes sense; to grow, you need a large building. You need additional
space, square footage, all the things necessary to support the
locomotive that we call Arthrex, supporting growth management,
supporting product development, supporting our research and
development, but the key for us in creating a campus environment
where the 1,200-plus employees we have currently on the campus and
over 10,000 visiting surgeons a year that's growing each year can have
a safe and meaningful environmental as they transverse across the
campus.
So you'll notice, again, it's conceptual, but there are a number of
walking paths, common areas, and other things that tie the campus
together. We will continue to make great strides as we refine our
drawings for more walkways, bike paths, water features, and the like.
But why is this important? Well, let's back up and first of all take a
look or think about the original design process.
When we went down this road and began looking at options, we
looked at numerous options, and I think there's a little bit of an
impression out there that perhaps we did not. We have renderings that
were done for overpasses, for flyover, bridgeways, if you will, for both
pedestrians, bicycles, golf carts, all the things that are constantly
buzzing around the busy campus that we call home there at Arthrex.
We had that priced out. We looked at various options. There
were a number of hurdles associated with that due to ADA compliance
October 25, 2016
Page 117
and so forth. At the same time, we had a gentleman come in from
Jacksonville who's considered to be an expert in both roundabouts and
calming devices for Creekside Boulevard.
Very good meeting. He presented us with numerous ideas;
however, after all that was said and done, we came to the conclusion
that we felt was best for the growth, the safety, and the benefit of the
entire campus as it continues to grow, which is the vacation, of course,
of Creekside Boulevard.
I mentioned the cafeteria a few minutes ago. That was by design,
as you can imagine. The employees that will be working across the
old Creekside Boulevard will all be making at least two trips a day
over to the cafeteria in addition to, again, all the visiting surgeons that
will make that trip daily and all the additional employees that interact
between research and development and the other product development
and product management departments.
We've heard a lot of testimony and comments from the public
over the past few months about they don't see people walking around.
I'm not sure where they're viewing, because anytime you're traveling
down Creekside it's very common to see dozens and dozens of people
crossing the streets, riding bicycles, in golf carts, and other things. So I
wanted to highlight that because we feel it's very important, an
important aspect of this plan.
I'm very proud to present now the Arthrex innovation center, the
conceptual drawing for this property. It's a seven-story building; it's
multi-levels. It has an atrium and has a parking structure off to the
right side. That parking structure is three stories. A portion of this is
tucked under the building to provide for better aesthetics, and we also
hope better flow as well, of our employees and visitors.
This would be a view from the north. Coming off of Immokalee
Road perhaps, best said, if you were standing behind the Mobil.
This is a cross-section representing the height of the building. As
October 25, 2016
Page 118
you can see, it's a zoned height of 104 with an actual height of 122.
Again, conceptual drawing, but this is our best estimate at this time. It
certainly would not exceed what we are requesting.
And my final slide, the top portion here represents -- well, first of
all, all of these photos were provided by our neighbors in Bay Colony.
The top three were provided as their rendering of a 205-foot-tall
building. We all know that's where we started some time ago. The
second row of pictures actually depicts what that building would have
looked like from the architectural team and then, finally, the two
pictures on the bottom; the one on the left is from the driving range
within Bay Colony, the other is somewhere around or along the 11th
green is my understanding.
And, yes, we make no secret that there are small portions of this
building that would be visible as well as in this picture, which was
provided by them, you can see a portion of the hospital in the distance.
Arthrex is incredibly proud of this project. We're proud of the
community, we're proud to be an important member within the
community, and we feel like some of the concessions we've made,
some of the things that we have tried to do to hopefully help our
neighbors and others within the community have not been lost.
And with that, I would like to thank the commissioners for all that
you have done for Arthrex and for listening today, I would like to
thank the State of Florida as well, I'd like to thank our employees, and
I'd also like to thank all of the community who are out there maybe
silently, many of them, but that are supporting this project. We're
receiving many calls and letters as well.
Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I'm Wayne
Arnold. I'm a professional planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates.
I've appeared before you before and have been proffered as a planning
expert on numerous occasions.
October 25, 2016
Page 119
What I thought I'd do is just talk for a few moments to you about
Comprehensive Plan consistency. That's an important aspect of
everything you do to ensure that the new projects that you do approve
are consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
So I've evaluated your Growth Management Plan, and there are
really two elements that are most critical for my analysis, and that
would have been your Future Land Use Element and your Economic
Element.
Mr. Trebilcock is our traffic consultant, and your Transportation
Element is also an important aspect of what we're doing today, and
you'll hear Norm talk about that in some detail because we are part of
what's known as a Transportation Concurrency Management Area,
which is an important distinction that you need to consider.
But going back to where Rich started, and that is, you know,
adding a significant amount of new square footage to the project, but
what Rich didn't mention is that all of the new square footage we're
adding is for medical-related uses, and that's an important distinction,
because I would call it one of the overriding themes throughout your
Growth Management Plan because it's touched on in your Future Land
Use Element and your Economic Element, and even your
Environmental Element talks about trying to create jobs, retain jobs,
and enhance our economy.
And that's important because you've targeted medical-related
industries and medical research industries as those types of jobs that
you want to grow and retain here. And I think, clearly, what you heard
Mr. Bumpous say and what we all know in the community that
Arthrex does, they clearly are a medical-related use.
Your Future Land Use Element says that PUDs like Creekside
can grow when they're within a quarter mile of a hospital. Well, we
are within a quarter mile of the North Collier Hospital. So Tract 5 that
Mr. Bumpous showed you their design plans for the new world
October 25, 2016
Page 120
headquarters building is within a quarter mile of the North Collier
Hospital, and all portions of Creekside located east of Goodlette-Frank
Road are within a quarter mile of the hospital. So we fulfill your
requirement under the Comprehensive Plan to qualify for the
medical-related uses that we're seeking.
In the Future Land Use Element, you have several policies in
addition to the one I just discussed about the medical-related uses, but
you also have what's known as Policy 5.3, and it's a policy that
discourages urban sprawl by trying to go ahead and create infill parcels
and grow where we have infrastructure to support new development.
And I would submit to you that the Arthrex folks have all the
infrastructure they need at their corporate headquarters. They also
have all the infrastructure they need with regard to water and sewer
and transportation access at this location. So what they're doing is very
consistent with your policy to discourage urban sprawl.
You also have a policy called 5.5, and that also encourages you to
utilize sites that are already designated for urban intensities, and while
we're not an activity center, we were designated under your old former
industrial under criteria because this project was -- formally a portion
of it was zoned industrial. It's now become more of a business park.
But it is an area that's quite intense between having the hospital located
immediately across the street, the Naples Daily News headquarters
immediately to the west, U.S. Postal Service. So we are in an area of
intense urban development, and expanding here does make sense with
that policy.
The Economic Element is an important optional element that you
all added many years ago to your Comprehensive Plan, and you have a
couple of objectives and policies there. And I'm not going to belabor
those, but they do clearly encourage the development and retention of
jobs for medical related and medical research and, clearly, Arthrex fits
that bill, and what they're doing is very consistent with your Economic
October 25, 2016
Page 121
Element.
You also heard some of the economic incentives and benefits that
they're going to provide to our community, and I think it furthers those
objectives and policies as well.
The biggest focus for some of the opponents has been the
compatibility of what we're proposing with regard to the building
heights. And as Mr. Bumpous indicated, we originally started with a
building that was exceeding 205 feet, and that was reduced to what
you're hearing today, which is the zoned height of 104 feet with the
actual height of 122 feet. And I think what I'd like to focus on is the
104 feet because most of our neighboring projects have zoned heights.
They don't have actual heights because of the age of those planned
developments. We didn't deal with the tippy-top height, as Mr.
Yovanovich calls it.
So what really starts out as a maximum height of 80 feet, 100
feet, 75 feet, whatever that number is, that's the zoned height which
gets you to kind of the top of a roofline, but it doesn't account for
things that stick up beyond.
And if you reviewed Mr. Bumpous' exhibit, the zoned height of
the 104 takes it to the roofline, and the 122 feet takes it to the top of
some of the structural components of the building and some
architectural features and things of that nature.
So the focus for the analysis really should be on the 104 feet.
And I think that's an important distinction, because some of our
opponents have produced some exhibits that we've seen that show
views from 122 feet, and I don't think that's a fair representation of the
heights that most people would actually see unless you're a service
worker maintaining a portion of that building, because a seven-story
building, as Mr. Bumpous indicated, the zoned height's 104 feet, which
is the top of the roof. So your floor level of the highest floor is
probably another 12 to 14 feet below that.
October 25, 2016
Page 122
So the representation for the opponents is kind of a
misrepresentation of the views that would be there. I don't want to
belabor that point either because I think it's well understood. But I do
think it's worth pointing out that, you know, we're not doing for a
height that's crazy. The 104-foot zoned height, for instance, is four
feet higher than the hospital PUD allows. It's four feet higher than the
commercial components of Pelican Marsh were allowed to be.
So for four feet we seem to have an objection to a building that,
one, is not going to be right on Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank
Road. In fact, it's going to be -- as Mr. Bumpous indicated, they're
going to tear down their current building and rebuild on what's now
known as Tract 5 of the PUD, which is internal to the PUD and
certainly, you know, parts of it may be visible from Immokalee Road
but it's not going to be on Immokalee Road or Goodlette-Frank Road.
It's very central to the site and will have commercial buildings both
north and south of it to provide those buffers to our adjoining
neighbors.
So what we're asking for in height is very consistent with what
has been approved in other places.
You know, I've got a lot of slides and examples of height that we
looked at, because, you know, when we first started this, somebody
had told us that this is completely incompatible to think that we're
going to have a tall building like this, one, east of U.S. 41 and,
secondarily, this close to residences. And our firm has had the
pleasure of doing a lot of work for WCI communities in Pelican Bay
and some of their other communities, and I think all of us can probably
appreciate the Naples Grande hotel or the Ritz-Carlton hotel. Both of
those are part of the Pelican Bay PUD. They are commercial
properties, and I can tell you that both of those structures are closer to
residential development than the Creekside office building will be.
And those buildings both approach 200 feet in height.
October 25, 2016
Page 123
And I think, you know, from the playability of the golf course, the
only thing I would tell you is that if you drive on Pelican Bay
Boulevard, the Pelican Bay golf course is immediately across the street
from residential buildings that approach and sometimes exceed 200
feet in height. So it can't just be an issue of height, because if that's the
case, we wouldn't have had Pelican Bay, we wouldn't have had other
communities like Bonita Bay, we wouldn't have had Pelican Landing.
All of those are award-winning communities in Southwest Florida that
have components that are taller than other components of those
properties and put tall buildings in proximity to lower structures or golf
courses.
So what we're asking for is not a foreign concept and, in fact, it's
one that's been used successfully throughout the area, and it's one that,
in my professional opinion, is a compatible relationship.
The staff, as part of their staff report, did a good job identifying a
lot of findings that you're required to make as part of a rezoning, and
this PUD amendment is considered a rezoning. And I've talked about
Comp Plan consistency. That's important. It's my opinion that you are
consistent with your Comprehensive Plan if you take this action to
approve as we've requested.
I've talked to you about some of the land-use patterns. You
know, we're in an area that's adjacent to Naples Daily News that allows
buildings up to 75 feet in height. The Collier's Reserve project across
the street allows buildings 80 feet in height. The hospital allows
buildings 100 feet in height. So what we're asking for at 104 feet is not
a number that seems out of line and, in fact, it makes perfect sense in
this location.
I think it's well assured that we're not going to reduce people's
light and air with the building being located in the central part of the
site. It's not immediately adjacent to any residential component. In
fact, it's well over a thousand feet to the nearest residence in Bay
October 25, 2016
Page 124
Colony.
One of the findings is why can't we use the property with the
existing zoning. Well, Mr. Bumpous just told you that with the
significant growth that Arthrex anticipates, and through their state
grant, wants to make happen here. They have no choice but to build
up. There's so little land left in Collier County where you can spread
out. You are going to go up. And in this case it makes perfect sense. It
may not make sense in other locations, but it does make sense in this
location.
Were there other sites evaluated, yes. But, again, this is where
their headquarter facilities are. This is where a large employee base is.
They can displace some of their manufacturing component out to the
Ave Maria facility that you heard discussed and build the world
headquarters, the research and development, and all those great
high-quality jobs that we want to produce, and we can produce them
right here.
Again, we analyzed all the public facility impacts, and we have
plenty of water and sewer and solid waste and all those things. We've
talked a little bit about traffic. Mr. Trebilcock's going to follow me
and tell you why we're consistent with the Growth Management Plan
and why we don't have level-of-service issues with regard to traffic.
And then the other factors that you need to consider, well, job
creation's certainly one that you can consider as an important
community aspect of why this zoning needs to happen. Business
retention, in addition to job creation, is an important factor. Your
Economic Element says you should do that.
And then the overall economic impact is something else that
makes absolute sense for our community.
With that I'll close. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Troy, how many speakers do we have,
please?
October 25, 2016
Page 125
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, we have 23 registered speakers for
this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh. Okay, fine.
Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. I just want to add one more
disclosure, ex parte disclosure. I had conversations with Jerry Thirion
and told him the same thing, that I don't discuss the details of these
issues ahead of the hearing. So I just want to make sure, in fairness to
the other side, that they know that we spoke as well, because he was
asking for a meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you so much.
Okay. Norm Trebilcock.
MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is
Norm Trebilcock, for the record. I'm a transportation engineer and
planner, certified as a planner and engineer. I've worked in the area
here for 26 years, right in Collier County, and I've been identified as an
expert in the past and presented to you-all as well.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you-all
today, and I'll cover the Traffic Impact Statement that my firm
prepared for the project.
With the Traffic Impact Statement, what we did starting out is we
used the Institute of Transportation Engineers' land use codes for
creating the trip generation for the project. We look at pass-by trips,
and those were only applied to the shopping center component of the
project, and we used the county guidelines of less than 25 percent.
Pass-by trip is basically if you're going from work to home or home to
work, you may stop by and get gas in your car or something like that,
and that's typically called a pass-by trip. Your main objective is to go
to another place, but you're going to just stop off. So it doesn't create
an additional trip on the highway.
The other thing is internal capture, and that's consistent with the
October 25, 2016
Page 126
county TIS guidelines as well. We're supposed to be under 20 percent,
and this project, depending on the time of day we're using, we're
between 5 and 13 percent. And internal capture is just really
recognizing the uses within the project. For instance, here we've got a
hotel use, and we've got the headquarters, and they've identified, and
realistically so -- you know, there's a real medical tourism type thing
that goes on here. They had, I think, last year they said 12,000 bed
stays in a hotel, and so that creates an internal capture between uses
there to help reduce the trip load that you have elsewhere, so that
would be the thing that gets identified there.
Then we look at the trip distribution on the county road network,
and that's consistent with prior approved TIS documents. We're not
looking at any additional access points for the PUD. They currently
have eight access points, and what that really does is helps distribute
the traffic around as traffic's created. We also look at the displacement
of cut-through traffic on Creekside Boulevard, and that's accounted for
in the TIS, and that's based on the county determination in 2014 of 64
peak-hour trips in the p.m. peak hour that we, you know, displace out
of there.
Now, rerouting Creekside Boulevard is also improved with
roundabouts and a divided Arthrex Boulevard road section that I'll
show you.
Public access through the PUD is maintained. We're not
eliminating folks from coming through, but they can use Creekside
Boulevard, Creekside Street, Creekside Parkway, and Arthrex
Boulevard.
The real objective here is to eliminate speeding through the PUD
and develop an integrated corporate campus. You know, currently you
have U.S. 41, and that's 50 miles per hour; you've got Goodlette-Frank
Road at 45 miles per hour; Immokalee Road at 45, and we've got this
link, Creekside Boulevard, that's posted at 30 miles per hour.
October 25, 2016
Page 127
And the data we have and the county's collected shows that folks
aren't traveling 30 miles per hour going through there, and that's an
issue. In particular where we know folks -- they're encouraging people
to walk, you know, so it's an impact, and we've addressed it elsewhere
in communities.
The improvements, though, to Goodlette-Frank and Arthrex
Boulevard are proposed as mitigation measures, and they really weigh
heavily in terms of big impacts for the community. And as additional
mitigation, developer impact fees will be used by the county to
improve surrounding roads and intersections as well.
Just kind of a summary of trips and such from the traffic study.
You know, this is a planning level traffic study. There's a lot of
different studies that we tend to do on projects and things, and the
numbers can confuse us and confound us in times, but here we're
consistent with the county's planning level studies that we do, and so
we looked at external trips of 2,045 peak hour p.m. trips, and the
approved trip cap is 1,745, so that's 300 net new trips. But we also
looked at the pass-by effect, because we are reducing some of the
shopping center use on the project, so actually we get a little more
external trips. And so we had 384 trips, external trips.
In addition, we have the 64 trips that we are conservatively saying
we're going to displace all those trips. Even though the road will be
available, we're going to say all those folks are going to go elsewhere
because they don't want to go slow, and they're going to go, you know,
onto another road. And so we've accounted for those, and those will be
impacts that they'll pay for as part of this project as well.
So in our study, what we look at is the distribution of trips around
the development. We also look at what we -- and we distribute. As
you move out from the project, the trips get less and less. Some of
them get absorbed. So one of the things we did, we identified an
absorption in the Naples Park, which is a large subdivision, but those
October 25, 2016
Page 128
trips, they get absorbed, but they move on to the west down
Immokalee Road as well so that they get disbursed through there, too.
I did get kind of a last-minute request to look at not absorbing the
trips. I had identified some trips down in the Pelican Marsh area and
identified not absorbing those so early, which we've done, and I
identified additional link percentages, and it doesn't create an
additional impact or anything above the 2 percent level or anything
like that, and I've shared that with your staff as well. So there's no big
impact there, but they -- you know, that's how we kind of look at
things from an analysis standpoint.
But looking at the project from a transportation standpoint, we
have Immokalee Road east/west, we've got U.S. 41. Nearby is
Granada Shoppes, the Naples Daily News, and then our project
boundary. And in green I'm depicting our internal roadways there on
the project.
Creekside Boulevard's running east/west, and then it kind of
hooks up, goes across Goodlette-Frank Road and hooks to Immokalee,
and then we have some of our internal streets as well.
So in our proposed plan, what we're looking to do is eliminate the
single link right in here. We've put in a couple roundabouts to help turn
the traffic, will improve Arthrex Boulevard as well, and that would
help reroute the traffic. So we're allowing the folks that want to go the
speed limit to have some traffic calming to move around to get through
the project and to allow good interconnection between us and our
surrounding commercial developments but not let folks just speed right
through the development because of the concerns there.
As a big mitigation measure, though, we're looking at some
significant improvements that they're willing to commit to because
they understand that, you know, there's a price to be paid for these kind
of impacts that you may have.
And so what we're looking at to do is this is Immokalee Road
October 25, 2016
Page 129
here -- I've kind of gotcha twisted a little bit here -- and this is
Goodlette-Frank, and this is Creekside Boulevard. But we're talking a
full four-lane capacity between Immokalee Road and Creekside
Boulevard and also carry it through to the intersection, about 500 feet
south of the intersection, and then transition from four to two lanes.
Currently, the four-to-two-lane transition is occurring right at the
intersection with Creekside Boulevard. And I drive this about every
day, and it's very distracting and disturbing to folks, I can tell you that
from my own personal experience.
And so this is, I think, a significant improvement, and also we're
looking to do on-street bike lanes and have the sidewalks along here as
well, and they were also willing to put in a signal as needed, that kind
of thing, to improve this overall area.
And this is a -- this will also add significant capacity out there to
the roadway as well. This will be what we call, between Immokalee
and Vanderbilt Beach Road, a combined four-and-two-lane roadway.
Similar, you have a roadway section on Vanderbilt Beach Road
between Golf Shore and U.S. 41, and that's what they call a
four/two-lane roadway, and that has about 40 percent more capacity
identified than this current two-lane section of road.
And I would submit that this section, as improved, would get
every bit of that 40 percent uplift by doing these improvements as well,
because there's not a lot of connections, there's not a lot of side friction
once you go south of Creekside Boulevard, you know. And the side
friction, the driveways and stuff are really what eat up the capacity.
So the other improvement, though, is on Arthrex Boulevard as
well. So in the lower -- whoops. In the lower area here, it's a little
difficult to depict, but we're planning a northbound -- an additional
northbound left at the intersection with Immokalee. And what that will
do is help clear the intersection when, you know, the traffic builds up
there and be able to clear out much more efficiently.
October 25, 2016
Page 130
In addition, we had planned to improve the intersection there with
the Naples Daily News and Creekside -- a lot of Creeksides here --
Creekside Parkway and Arthrex Boulevard, improve that intersection,
and then improve the section of Creekside Boulevard to a two-lane
divided section. So, essentially, you're going to have more efficiency,
and then you'll have a roundabout here at the bottom as well to help
turn traffic, too. And so those will help traffic flow better and really for
the area to be able to have a little better connection as well.
Speaking of the roundabouts. The roundabouts, as David
mentioned, we've -- Michael Wallwork has helped us look at these,
and he's a renowned expert on roundabouts. And these roundabouts
would be designed for truck traffic, because that's a key issue with the
Naples Daily News and others, to make sure those trucks can get in
there.
And so they're designed, and your staff has made some
requirements to design to a higher level truck that we have to -- WB62,
it's called. And so I have exhibits here that show roundabouts. And
these are called auto turn truck templates that show that they can make
these turns, U-turns, right turns, left turns, all sorts of turns they can
make and negotiate.
Also, I've got a little -- you hear the truck negotiating.
(Video playing.)
"Let's see how he does."
MR. TREBILCOCK: That's Billy Hattaway speaking here.
"He went over the apron just like he's supposed to. Did not run
over either curb."
(The video concluded.)
MR. TREBILCOCK: Oops. Sorry about that.
So -- and, again, the pedestrians is a key -- a key goal here in the
design, part of what we're looking at in the integrated Arthrex campus.
And this slide kind of helps us a little bit here in terms of speed. I
October 25, 2016
Page 131
mean, speed kills. You know, at 20 -- if vehicles are going 20 miles
per hour, you have a 90 percent chance of surviving a collision with a
vehicle, and your odds get worse as you go up.
Thirty miles per hour, you have a 50/50 chance, and at 40 miles
per hour, you have a 10 percent chance. And that's really a key issue.
You know, we looked at different ways and different concepts,
but we've really got to look at their vision and what they see here and
how they want to integrate that campus and do things a little differently
but, again, be willing to pay the price for those differences in terms of
what they're looking to do.
And, again, this kind of depicts that campus concept -- David
showed this to you -- where you really integrate. You've got your
cafeteria facilities, et cetera, folks can readily walk across there and
feel safe and comfortable as far as that goes.
You know, they have other buildings around here, too, so they
understand, you know, we've got to allow the traffic to get through
there, and they'll be able to address those elsewhere, but this just
seemed like a good visionary thing to do, and I would support it as
well from a professional standpoint.
Project impacts, they are significant, but they're not adverse on
Immokalee west and east to Goodlette-Frank Road and Goodlette
south. In fact, we'll be able to enhance capacity of the roadways with
the improvements we're proposing.
There is a level-of-service issue that is going to be there with or
without the project, and our project has less than a l percent impact on
that section of Immokalee Road there.
None of the other analyzed links are projected to be operating
below adopted levels of service in the 2021 planning horizon.
And we're located, as Wayne mentioned, in a transportation -- the
northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area, or TCMA,
and that's really to maintain a minimum level of service on all your
October 25, 2016
Page 132
roadways. And currently you're at 100 percent. And our mitigation
plans are really consistent and support those goals as well.
Thank you.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I just wanted to add one thing to Norm's
presentation. What we're talking about from a time standpoint going
from U.S. 41 to Goodlette-Frank Road by now having the roundabouts
and going around and vacating that portion of the roadway only
increases your trip time by 40 seconds. I don't think anybody's going
to try to avoid Creekside Boulevard to go from either 41 to
Goodlette-Frank Road over 40 seconds. But we've assumed that every
one of those people don't want to go that route any longer when we did
our traffic analysis.
As our experts have said, we're consistent with every element of
your Comprehensive Plan. Your staff has found that we're consistent
with every element of your Comprehensive Plan. I know staff will go
next, but we request that the Board of County Commissioners approve
all three petitions, the PUD rezone, the vacation of a portion of
Creekside Boulevard, as well as the developer agreement to construct
the improvements we discussed.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So then from there -- so now we have 23
speakers, okay. Would you --
MR. MILLER: You want to do speakers now?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have staff presenting anything?
MR. KLATZKOW: Usually you do staff report.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am, we have staff at this point.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I didn't even realize
we had staff members there. I'm sorry, Mike. I don't know how I could
have overlooked you.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair, Commission.
One item just -- I've been asked to read in the record, on 11C in
October 25, 2016
Page 133
the executive summary I just needed to correct the record. We need to
remove the reference to Barron Collier Partnership in the title of the
executive summary, as the agreement is between Collier County and
Arthrex, Inc. The agreement in the package is correct; it's just
incorrectly referenced within the executive summary, so I just was
asked to read that into the record.
The staff report contains staff's position on all the individual
levels. I just wanted to highlight where we started our individual
review of this petition. That was with the Growth Management Plan.
And as the applicant had indicated, two important elements were
analyzed in terms of its consistency.
The first is the Future Land Use Element, and that's how we
arrange our land uses in terms of their interrelationship that exist
between the land uses. And this is a unique provision within our
Future Land Use Element in that we recognize that hospitals are a
needed community facility, and those needed community facilities and
the support land uses that are associated with those hospitals need to be
protected.
So we have a provision within our Future Land Use Element that
says within a quarter mile of all existing hospitals, medical land uses,
medical-related research facilities medical office, doctors' office,
medical treatment facilities, those are all allowed land uses by the
Future Land Use Map, by the Future Land Use Element.
They're promoted. We understand that the synergistic
relationship that those support land uses have with our medical
facilities and our hospitals, and that was the -- that was the design to
make sure that we could protect those support land uses to those
existing hospital locations. And that's how it's gained consistency.
And we've had a request, or we requested the applicant to add
within their statement of compliance that the new square footage that's
being added to the PUD will be dedicated to medical and
October 25, 2016
Page 134
medical-related uses.
The other two -- or the element that we looked at closely was
your Economic Element. And there's Policy 1.2, which supports the
opportunity for development and establishment of hospital, nursing
home, and additional medical-related research and manufacturing
facilities, and this is a use that qualifies underneath that provision, and
it's also promoted within Objective 3 that says that we want to support
and promote and encourage the recruitment of new industries but also,
more importantly -- and more importantly within the economic
development business, we have to recognize and support the existing
firms that are within the -- within our jurisdiction, and this being a
home-grown business, from Collier County's perspective, that we
definitely want to promote this type of expansion.
So from those respects we found that it satisfied the Growth
Management Plan. From a compatibility issue, the zoning side of the
shop, we reviewed the submittals, we reviewed the amendments as
such. One of the things that we think that is important, it was
highlighted by the applicant, is its proximity of where the tower is
being located. It's over 400 feet from an external boundary of the PUD
from the north or to the east.
And the height of the building is providing a context with that
setback; therefore, the buffering of the other adjoining commercial
buildings on the exterior -- but the landscaping will soften the effect
that the height of this building will have on the surrounding area.
So from a compatibility standpoint, we felt that that could be
arrived upon with recognition of the existing structures in the
immediate area.
The third area where we spent a lot of time and a tremendous
amount of analysis upon was within our Transportation Element. And
Trinity Scott has provided a couple of comments that she wanted to
make in terms of what we went about within our review and how we
October 25, 2016
Page 135
came upon the recommendations and some of the conditions that we're
recommending for approval.
And with that, I will turn it over to Trinity.
MS. SCOTT: Thank you. Good afternoon. For the record,
Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager.
I just have a few slides that I want to go through quickly. County
staff reviews zoning petitions for consistency. And so the applicant
provided a Traffic Impact Statement that was consistent with our
adopted resolution. It was reviewed to determine consistency as
defined in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management
Plan. It was reviewed by county staff as well as an outside consultant
contracted by county staff.
For all of our Traffic Impact Statements, we look at the p.m. peak
hour as well as the p.m. peak direction traffic volumes, and those
capacities are utilized during our analysis.
When looking at the thresholds adopted in the Growth
Management Plan and the Transportation Element, these are the
roadways that we looked at to ensure that they were consistent with the
thresholds with the Growth Management Plan.
So you'll see that their traffic impacts went north on U.S. 41,
Immokalee Road over to Livingston, Goodlette-Frank Road south of
Vanderbilt Beach Road, Tamiami Trail, as well as Vanderbilt Beach
Road from 41 over to Airport Road.
We've had a lot of discussion today about Transportation
Concurrency Management Area, which we don't get to talk about a lot.
This is an item within our Growth Management Plan to encourage
compact urban development in certain areas within our Future Land
Use Element.
Each Transportation Concurrency Management Area must
maintain 85 percent of its north/south and east/west roadways at an
acceptable level of service. We look at these annually during our
October 25, 2016
Page 136
Annual Update and Inventory Report, and this TCMA is currently
operating with 100 percent of its roadways achieving the accepted
level of service.
I'm going to turn the presentation over quickly to Tom Ross from
CH2MHill to talk specifically with regard to the Creekside Boulevard
rerouting. He is our outside consultant that also reviewed the Traffic
Impact Statement.
MR. ROSS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. As Trinity said, I
did review the TIS statement. I will be here to answer your questions
if you have any based on my review.
Regarding the rerouting of Creekside Boulevard, we did require
the applicant to show all the trips that are currently on Creekside
Boulevard. As the applicant presented in their portion of the
presentation, there were 64 trips that are considered through trips on
Creekside Boulevard. Those have been re-routed in this study to
Immokalee Road, and I've reviewed that, and I concur with that
rerouting of traffic.
The applicant has been required to design the re-routed roadway
to accommodate semi trucks to account for the trucks that are going
into and out of the post office as well as other uses. And as you saw in
the applicant's presentation, those semi trucks will be able to navigate
the roundabouts.
The re-routed roadway will continue to provide all of the access
to local existing uses within the Creekside PUD and will continue to
provide the access through Creekside Boulevard and through the PUD
as it currently does. It would simply be re-routed in the fashion that
was shown in the applicant's presentation.
The reroute traffic will also include -- or re-routed roadway will
also include the two roundabouts that was presented earlier. Those
two roundabouts will help that flow of traffic continue through the
Creekside PUD. So although some trips will be diverted over to
October 25, 2016
Page 137
Immokalee Road, that traffic will be accommodated, and that pathway
will be able to be made through Creekside PUD, and it won't hamper
the ability of folks to use that to access other uses within the PUD or
get through to 41 or back the other direction.
MR. SCOTT: And I promise just a few more slides.
A companion item to the zoning is the developer agreement, of
which the developer has committed to design, permit, and construct
intersection improvements at Immokalee Road and Arthrex Boulevard
as well as improvements to Goodlette-Frank, four-laning down to
Creekside Boulevard, and then a taper back into the two-lane section.
This construction will be in excess of the impact fees that they would
normally be required to pay.
And then there's been some discussion about concurrency. And
with zoning applications we look at consistency, and concurrency
actually determined at the time of Site Development Plan or plans and
plat. So just to give the Board an idea of what will be required of the
applicant if this is approved and they come in for their Site
Development Plan; they'll be required to provide a new Traffic Impact
Statement at that time. We require that because many times there's a
lag between a zoning petition. There could be several years before
they come in for their actual Site Development Plan, so we ask them to
review it based on the new conditions.
There will be a determination at that time if sufficient capacity is
available. If it's not, because this is within a Transportation
Concurrency Management Area, the applicant would be required to
pay a proportionate-share congestion mitigation payment which, once
again, is above and beyond impact fees as well as their operational
improvements that they would have to do.
And per our Transportation Impact Statement guidelines, they
will have to do mandatory operational analysis of all site access
intersections, major intersections within 1,320 feet of the site access,
October 25, 2016
Page 138
and any major intersections that are within that significantly impacted
roadway area.
And that's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much. Do you have any
further presentation? You're all done?
MR. OCHS: Not from staff, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Commissioners, I would like to call on all of our speakers now for
the sake of moving along, unless there's --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's fine with you. All righty.
Very good.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair -- speakers, we're going to ask you
to utilize both podiums. I'll call two names so the second speaker can
be ready.
Your first speaker today is Nicole Johnson. She'll be followed by
William Sawers.
MS. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. For the record, Nicole
Johnson here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And
I'm very happy to say that the Conservancy's comments could be
summed up in one sentence. Thank you, Arthrex, for listening to the
concerns of the community and for removing your deviation to go into
the conservation easement protected preserve.
And while I could sum up in one sentence, I do have a few more
things to say. So bear with me. We understand. This rezone
application has a lot of complex components, and we're not trying to
minimize that, but from an environmental perspective, really the
concern was about protection of this 2.3 acres of preserve that was
being proposed for impacts.
As a company, Arthrex certainly has an important role and
October 25, 2016
Page 139
function in our local economy. As a member of our community,
they've been very responsive to committing to change their site plan in
order to stay within the existing developable area and to not go into the
preserve.
From the Conservancy's perspective, our job isn't done once we're
able to secure those environmental commitments. Our job has to go
further and to really publicly acknowledge and thank those who have
responded and listened to our recommendations.
The Conservancy believes that Arthrex's removal of their
Deviation No. 3 and not impacting the preserve is really a good-faith
gesture to ensure the community that they are listening to our
concerns. And we do look forward, as a continuation of this good
faith, for the owner of the preserve, Creekside East, Inc., to
immediately withdraw their state and federal applications for impacts
to that same preserve.
But for the issue here today, again, with Deviation No. 3 being off
the table, this has satisfied the Conservancy's concerns and, again,
thank you to Arthrex.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is William Sawers. He'll be
follow by Jerry L. Carbone.
MR. SAWERS: William Sawers, S-a-w-e-r-s. Thank you,
Commissioners.
My comments will be very brief. I have had the privilege of
touring the Arthrex facility on several different occasions, and I
certainly admire what they have done for Collier County and the
Naples area; however, one word I have heard used as much as any
other today is "consistency," and I just wonder how consistent the
commissioners are going to be in changing, rerouting, vacating,
whatever you want to call it, Creekside Boulevard.
I mean, there have already been three instances where you
mandate it be there, and since then there's been certainly Trader Joe's,
October 25, 2016
Page 140
additional shops, certainly increased traffic. And I know as a resident
of Pelican Marsh it is used quite significantly to go from Route 41
through to Goodlette-Frank and then re-enter Pelican Marsh via
Vanderbilt Beach Road, so it will be a major change.
And I think that -- I hope you will continue to be consistent.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jerry L. Carbone. He'll be
followed by Daniel Frost.
MR. OCHS: Once again, as a reminder, if we could have our
speakers queue up at each of the podiums. So the next speaker over
here, please. Thank you.
MR. CARBONE: Jerry Carbone. I'm from -- a resident of
Pelican Marsh. Been there from the very beginning. I'm usually a
representative of the people that don't show up at the meetings.
Initially, I thought I joined this chorus of why you should deny
this application, but I've had a change of heart. Forty years ago I
decided that there was more challenging being a land developer or
formerly known as fortunetellers than proceeding with the other
aspects of my career.
So I decided to work in two areas of the country and work both
sides of the Potomac River in Montgomery County, Maryland, and
Fairfax County, Virginia. Both of those counties stand within the top 5
percent per capita income and top 3 percent in public educational
excellence. Good places to live. But, more importantly, they both
have defined master planning and zoning regulations and standards
which are strictly enforced. They do not abandon standards unless the
public receives substantial benefit that cannot be obtained in any other
manner.
The real issue in this application is the respect for the process of
obtaining changes and variances to our land-use standards. I've been
amazed in the process here in Collier County for over 20 years. In the
October 25, 2016
Page 141
past, the usual process is an applicant asks for the move, and if there's
no public outcry, the request moves forward without much adieu. If
there is an opposition, they reduce a portion of the request, but the
standard is depleted not just for the applicant, but eventually for all
those that follow.
Case in point, applicant comes in for a variance from 35 feet in
height to 205 feet in height. Now, there is more than a normal
objection to the application, and within 10 days the request is modified
down to 104 feet. Did we just resurrect Einstein to redesign the
structure in two weeks?
Dollars to doughnut, there's a design in someone's briefcase right
now for a 90-foot building and no need for closing off a public road.
There's no respect for the system. The issue here in approving this
request is that you will be providing a precedent that will come to
haunt this county in the future. There are no first responders to this
type of damage.
Consider all future property owners coming to you in the near
future asking you to create high-rise structures along their own
property where they now currently have a two- or three-story structure.
How will you deny them? The precedent has been set. Miami East,
okay, is what you'll be leaving your children and grandchildren. This
is a request over -- to please judge the pluses and the minuses of this
request.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Daniel Frost. He'll be
followed by Doug Fee.
(Applause.)
MR. FROST: Yes. Thank you for listening to me or giving me
the opportunity to talk to you.
I'm impact (sic) on this probably the most of the people here. I
live right on the golf course at Bay Colony. I live at Bentgrass Bend,
October 25, 2016
Page 142
which we view the project that's going on.
We not only view it and worry about the viewing of the backyard
of our homes, our pools, and so on and so forth, but we also, every
morning, hear the impact of it. We hear the horns beeping for -- the
truck horns beeping for the delivery doors to be opened in the back.
We hear the traffic coming from 7:30 in the morning till 9:30 in the
morning, and it's quite a number of traffic and a lot of beeping. As you
probably are aware, people that are delivering things, they pull up to
the delivery doors, beep their air horns, and the doors are open. This is
quite a problem now, let alone putting this much traffic into it.
Also, I've observed -- and it's hard to believe this, and I'm not
exaggerating -- people on their campus coming up to the roofline of, in
essence, of our backyard, if you would, and looking over the fence
lines at the area there. Why they do it? My assumption is, like
anybody, you get out of a class and you're walking around to waste
time.
The traffic in that area as far as persons and noise is growing, and
I'm assuming it will grow as time goes along.
But those are the things I'm asking you to look at. Having this
type of a project back up to such a residential community really isn't
good for us.
I do understand the impact for the county, but we pay taxes, too,
and we vote, too, and the noise is atrocious back there.
They've already talked about the traffic and the viewing from a
height of that -- their offices being able to look in our backyards.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Doug Fee. He'll be followed
by George Mutter.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Doug
Fee. I appreciate being here this afternoon and each of you in your
position.
October 25, 2016
Page 143
Mainly what I want to talk about is we, last Wednesday, put out
an online petition through a website called change.org. We in the
North Naples area have used that website a few times to generate input
on these important matters.
We have delivered in an email to each one of you the comments
and the signatures from these petitions. To date, now, we have about
800 signatures. It grows every hour. And I'm proud to say that you
have a lot of people in this area, in the North Naples area, who are
following this very closely.
You have a tough job. You have a tough decision in front of you.
Several weeks ago when they had the neighborhood information
meeting, I attended that, and what was the most alarming to all of us
that were there was a height of 205, 205 feet.
Now, today it has been reduced. It's come down to 122 feet,
which is about half the height. That woke up the residents of North
Naples, the 205, because what we have in front of us and what you
have in front of you is, what is the appropriate height for a
neighborhood? We have to determine that. The City of Naples, which
is five miles south of us, their codes specifically says that their
commercial shall be limited to three stories and 42 feet. That's in their
code. The residents there voted that.
We have C4 zoning in all of Collier County, which is the most
intense commercial, that has a height limit of 75 feet. We see that as
the standard. It has to be the standard. We cannot be coming back to
these meetings every year and saying it's another 20 feet, it's another
30 feet. It's not fair.
We have to determine where the height limit is, and that's what
you have in front of you. You have a legacy that can say, let's
compromise here. Let's just do two buildings at 75 feet. There's plenty
of land. This is a great company. I know that, and I'm appreciative of
everything that they do. They employ a lot of people, and that brings a
October 25, 2016
Page 144
lot of good to this community.
But what they may be known as is that company that sets the bar
for our residents in North Naples.
So, please, take a look at the petition. We are saying deny it,
okay. And we start from a base of this, and so --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Doug.
MR. FEE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is George Mutter. He'll be
followed by James F. Day.
MR. MUTTER: Thank you. For the record, George Mutter,
M-u-t-t-e-r.
I really wanted to address mostly two areas today, although there
was a comment made earlier by the one of the petitioner's -- I'll call
them experts. One of the people that testified for the petitioner or the
applicant, I guess it's called -- and the comment was that that's where
the tower will be, this 122-foot tower.
One of the concerns is that the application doesn't really -- I don't
see anyway -- that the application limits the construction to only one
tower. It limits everything in that tract to 122 feet, but it doesn't say
one tower of 122 feet, so you could have more than one, and that is a
concern.
The other matters that I wanted to address are the rerouting of
Creekside Boulevard and then the zoning process as it has been applied
to Creekside and the nearby PUDs. Norm Trebilcock presented it for
quite a while. I mean, he went through the videos of the -- the videos
of the roundabouts and those things, and that should give you some
idea.
I mean, this road works fine. Creekside was a condition of
approval of the Granada Shoppes, and use of the roadways was a
condition of approval of the Naples Daily News PUD. The roadway is
serving its intended purpose as an important link in the county network
October 25, 2016
Page 145
providing convenient and free-flowing access to the 300,000 square
feet of retail and restaurants at Granada Shoppes, and reducing
pressure on Immokalee Road and at the intersection of Immokalee
Road and 41.
We all know about human behavior and how it relates to driving.
Who among us would volunteer to make four turns and add 30 or 40
seconds to the trip when the alternative is to stay on Immokalee or one
of those other roads? The idea that this is not going to add traffic to an
already congested series of streets, it's almost unbelievable. I mean,
who -- nobody's going to do that. You're going to put a lot more traffic
on Immokalee and the streets nearby.
The applicants say they want to close this road as a matter of
safety. The road has existed for a period that's measured in years, and
they've never instituted any traffic-calming devices. I mean, why all of
a sudden is it a matter of safety and for all these years there never were
speed bumps, there never were traffic signals installed?
So the last comment is about the process and the -- place yourself
-- there was a comment in the Planning Commission meeting where it
said this is the fifth, I think, amendment to these PUDs. Picture
yourself as a resident who lives there, and every couple years you're
coming back and being -- and the governor -- the county government
grants the amendment to the PUD. There's no stability. There has to be
a way to get the stability.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is James F. Day. He'll be
followed by Brad Merkel.
MR. DAY: Hi, I'm Jim Day. I'm a resident of District 2, Collier
County. I've owned property in Collier County since 2002. Been a
Florida resident since 2008, and I vote in every election.
I would like to address some particular remarks to the three
members of this board who will be leaving in November.
October 25, 2016
Page 146
Unfortunately, we've lost Mr. Henning already.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just -- I just want to mention for
the record, everything that you say is recorded in the back so if he had
to step into the washroom or anything like that, we actually have live
recording. So he is hearing everything that's transpiring.
MR. DAY: That's a relief.
I'd like to thank you for the good work that you've done for
Collier County during your time here. This is a pre-eminent place,
why many of us retire and specifically come here, and we come here
because of the great housing, golf community, shopping, restaurants,
arts, all of those wonderful things.
We do not come here because of the commercial/industrial
development. It's fine. Florida needs jobs. Florida needs infrastructure
to attract good companies like Arthrex, but that's not what has made
Naples famous and sufficient. So we need to keep our perspective
clear here on what are the true values that we're trying to promote.
We are all aware of the intense opposition to this Planned Unit
Development amendment, and others will speak to their opposition,
the technical aspects of the building, height, the traffic, the
environmental encroachment, and that kind of thing.
I want to speak simply to the governmental aspects of the process.
I did not hear of this proposed PUD amendment until I got notice of a
neighborhood information meeting, which I went to, was very
informative, but it occurred after I had voted on the District 2
commissioner seat. So all of us in this room in the most recent election
and in August, which was effectively the election of the next three
Commissioners, was done without a public discussion of this radical,
I argue, change to the character of the neighborhood. So this has all
taken place outside of the normal sphere of political discourse. This is
not right, not right.
Furthermore, there is a vacancy on the Planning Commission for
October 25, 2016
Page 147
District 2, the district in which this Planned Unit Development
amendment will have great impact. I am not represented on the
Planning Commission.
And, all due respects, Ms. Hiller, you've done a great job here, but
you're about to leave. So who has the political accountability for the
decision that you're making here which is going to radically, I believe,
as has been articulated by others already -- radically change the
character of North Naples.
I submit that the process is not good governance, it's not good
democracy, and I respectfully propose that the three outgoing
commissioners abstain from voting on this. Let the next three
Commissioners get seated to take -- and then vote, and not even then
should they be voting until District 2 Planning Commission represent
-- seat is filled and our area is suitably represented.
Thank you very much.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Brad Merkel. He'll be
followed by Jim Johannsen.
MR. MERKEL: Thank you. It's Brad Merkel, M-e-r-k-e-l. I'm a
full-time, year-round resident of 12519 Collier's Reserve. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak today.
My number-one issue as a resident in the neighborhood around
Creekside is traffic. We have a traffic crisis today in this area. All you
have to do, which I just did, is open up any of your PDA GPS maps,
and it will show you that right now at this very minute at Immokalee
and Goodlette-Frank, we're orange; and at Immokalee and 41, we're
red.
We have problems in that area today. Today we're off season.
We're not morning-hour rush, we're not afternoon-hour rush. When
you put that all together, it's going to show you that those of us who
live in that area have significant traffic issues today.
We already face a condition that puts ambulance rapid response
October 25, 2016
Page 148
time going in and out of NCH North at risk.
We heard earlier this road, Creekside Boulevard, was a condition
to be built for an earlier PUD. It was a condition for use for a later
PUD.
I just want to read a transcript from the last meeting we had in this
room with the Planning Commission. Mark Strain, the planning
commissioner and the chair said, and I quote, the area that Creekside
Boulevard is in right now on this plan is not utilized. It looks like
you've left it blank. Right now you are asking to have Creekside
Boulevard removed. Where Creekside Boulevard is in this plan shows
you are not occupying it with anything but grass. That's still what
today's map showed.
Mr. Bumpous from Arthrex on that date, on the 4th, responded to
the chair. He said, part of our discussion has been to create gathering
spaces in that area for communication and collaboration among
buildings and between buildings. Part of that area will have to stay
open and grass because of the utility easements that are currently
residing there. That's the end of the quote.
So the transcript said and the quotes -- or the discussion today
says this vacating that we're calling it now is going to be replaced by
grass. It would be unconscionable to even consider destroying one of
our precious few east/west public roads so that we can have a grass
park for a private company.
It's blatantly clear that the solution is to put a pedestrian bridge
over this area. It sounds like we already have those somewhere with
the architects. That's what we should be asking for.
I'm out of time. Please put yourselves in the position of a
neighbor in this community. Don't allow the Miamification with the
high-rises, and don't allow this crisis with traffic. Please request that
Arthrex and Barron Collier come back to you soon -- and I think they
can do it soon because they already have it -- with a win-win PUD that
October 25, 2016
Page 149
has pedestrian protection over an untouched Creekside Boulevard.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jim Johannsen. He'll be
followed by Diane Shanley.
JIM JOHANNSEN: Thank you, Commissioners. Actually,
Commissioner Fiala, I hope you listen to this even though you're
leaving, because I know you'll remember 10 years ago when I was in
front of you when the Naples Daily News PUD was approved, and it
had to do with the 18-wheelers, because the only road access to
Creekside PUD from Immokalee with a light is the intersection of
Arthrex Boulevard and Collier's Reserve Drive, which also happens to
be the only intersection for anybody wanting to head east from the
Publix shopping center all the way from Germain BMW to the seven
restaurants and the four banks and the Publix shopping center. So
that's a heavily-used intersection.
But the 18-wheelers that were required by the Naples Daily News
PUD 10 years ago in 2006 were required to use Creekside Boulevard.
Where are they going to go? They're not going to use this alternative
route. The movie that was shown, the 18-wheeler went through the
roundabout. It didn't go around the roundabout. And if that
18-wheeler comes off of Immokalee Road down Goodlette and then
crosses to where Creekside Boulevard exists today and goes to the
Naples Daily News and goes to the post office, they now have to turn
right, and they take two left-hand turns around a roundabout. You tell
me any 18-Wheeler driver who's going to do that. It's not going to
happen.
So it's going to force those 18-Wheelers out into that busy
intersection we're talking about. It's not -- this is not a win-win
situation.
We want Arthrex. We want them to have a good building. We
want their employees to be safe. But guess what, Immokalee Road
October 25, 2016
Page 150
counts. Creekside Boulevard counts.
How many roads between 41 and Goodlette-Frank exist that are
direct routes with traffic lights? The only ones north of Pine Ridge are
Vanderbilt, Creekside, Immokalee, then you go all the way to Bonita
Beach Road.
And if you go south of Pine Ridge, there are not very many either.
How can we -- how does the thousands of people who travel in North
Naples daily benefit by effectively closing off a road?
We need to keep Creekside Boulevard as-is. There are remedies,
there are alternatives for Arthrex to build the world-class headquarters
there and still allow Creekside to function as it has for 15 years.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Dianne Shanley. She'll be
followed by Karysia Demarest.
MS. SHANLEY: I cede my time. What I wanted to say has
mostly been said by others.
MR. MILLER: Okay. She waives then. Your next speaker is
Karysia Demarest. She'll be followed by Ross McIntosh. I think I'm
getting that right.
MS. DEMAREST: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Karysia Demarest. I'm a native Floridian, and my husband and I chose
to make Naples our home 21 years ago to raise our family.
I have no affiliation with Arthrex nor does my family have any
affiliation with Arthrex. I love this community, and that is why I'm
here.
I am in support of this, that you approve this amendment on
behalf of Arthrex. Arthrex is a true community partner. I think we
would be challenged to find another community partner that provides
the number of jobs that Arthrex has in this area, the amount of cash
and noncash donations that they put into our community through their
philanthropic efforts, the amount of volunteerism that they encourage
October 25, 2016
Page 151
their employees to be part of in this community. Not only that, they
support their employees to become leaders in this community.
Most notably, through the Leadership Collier Foundation, you
will usually see an Arthrex employee there with the support of their
employer, hopefully to be a leader in our community later on.
In addition, I learned recently in the last year or so some of the
things that Arthrex does that I did not know about. While listening to a
presentation by Mr. Schmieding, I learned that Arthrex flies in and
trains military doctors all at the cost of Arthrex. As a veteran of the
U.S. Military and married to a current U.S. Military member, I find
this very valuable.
As part of this project, they will expand that military education --
or that medical education that includes the military.
I urge you to vote yes for this amendment and, once again, I find
myself in the minority of the room, but it's never stopped me before.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Ross McIntosh. He'll be
followed by Robert D. Pritt.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you for your service.
MR. McINTOSH: Madam Chair, before I begin, I have a
procedural question for the chair. I'm registered to speak on both Items
9A and 9B. May I speak on them in sequentially at this time?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: If you can -- they're both the same subject,
really, so if you would just take your three minutes, that would be
good.
MR. McINTOSH: Thank you. I will go as quickly as I can. I
may pick up -- I may start at the end, in fact.
Relative to the Creekside right-of-way, staff -- an early
recommendation from staff became overwhelmed and transformed into
quite a different recommendation, but I'd like to read to you the
September recommendation by -- it was actually a plea by Collier
October 25, 2016
Page 152
County Transportation Planning Reviewer Michael Sawyer.
Mr. Sawyer asked the applicant to please consider an alternative
that leaves Creekside Boulevard near its existing location and
alignment with changes to the typical section to facilitate pedestrian
movements, multi-modal connections, smart streets that work as a
feature within the future campus environment.
Enhanced pedestrian crossing, lower speed limits, et cetera,
should be included at or (sic) strategic locations to facilitate the
movement between land uses north and south of Creekside Boulevard
and retain the functionality of this network link.
Please make every effort to incorporate design elements that
encourage free flow of traffic including, but not limited to, roundabout,
sweeps, et cetera. The layout must be to the greatest degree possible
free flowing to be considered meeting its current level of network link
effectiveness.
There was a time when staff was recommending what this group
is asking, and that is please find an alternative to the closing of that
right-of-way to the use by the general public. Clearly, it's an important
road to us, and we respectfully request that you not vacate it to the
benefit of Arthrex, to the exclusive benefit of Arthrex.
I'm going to ask Mr. Ochs to put two drawings on the map. Let's
start with -- let's start with the -- yes, the master -- that colored master
plan.
If you'll notice on this master plan, the Arthrex right-of-way, as
has been earlier discussed, appears to be a grass right-of-way. Let's
replace that then with the master plan from the PUD.
However, on the master plan PUD, which is the binding legal
document, it is not open green space. It's not shown as open space. It's
actually shown as part of two development parcels. It's been integrated
into two development parcels.
So is it green space or is it, as the PUD is asking, development
October 25, 2016
Page 153
space? And if it is development space and it's incorporated into Parcel
5, the southern boundary of Parcel 5 moves 64 feet closer to Pelican
Marsh and, consequently, the front yard setback, or the setback of the
building which is built on that property moves 75 feet closer -- 64 feet
closer.
So, please, consider this anomaly in the presentation relative to
the actual use of the right-of-way by the applicant.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. McINTOSH: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Robert Pritt. He'll be
followed by Jerry Thirion.
MR. PRITT: Madam Chair, my name is Robert Pritt, and also I
ask -- I had asked whether or not I could have additional time to speak.
I had made that request in writing and also orally to the chair. I
represent four neighborhoods. I have two experts that I would like to
have be able to speak and additional time also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you have any people in the audience
who would be ceding you their time?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: One lady.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, good. So do you need -- how
many?
MR. PRITT: I think I'd asked for seven minutes, but I'll settle for
five. I'll try to do it in less.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MILLER: If we could get one other speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yours and one other person raise your
hand. Yes. What is your name, sir?
MR. ROSOFF: Alan Rosoff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much, Alan. Okay.
You've got your five minutes.
MR. PRITT: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
October 25, 2016
Page 154
County Commission. My name is Robert Pritt. I'm here on behalf of
Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc.; Estates of Bay Colony Neighborhood
Association, Inc.; Collier's Reserve Association, Inc.; and the
Foundation at Pelican Marsh, Inc.
I have sent a -- I've sent my comments in anticipating I may not
have enough time even so. I sent those to all the board members, also
to Mr. Klatzkow, and also to Ray Bellows for inclusion in the records,
and I'll leave -- anything I leave unsaid, if I may, I'll put it in the -- give
it to the clerk for the record.
Some of the things have already been said. I thought I'd be called
first, but some of the things -- that's okay. Some of the things that I
would have said have already been said. But as you can guess, I
probably would look at this from a legal standpoint.
And in my memo to you -- and I'll skip to Page 3 out of 4 of my
memo -- there are three or four issues that I think are worth raising that
I would want to raise for the record.
One is spot zoning. Spot zoning is basing decisions upon who's
asking rather than what is being asked. There is a definition of that in
the law. Zoning for the specific benefit of one person or for a few
people. We think that this is a classic case of potential spot zoning.
Contract zoning is related to spot zoning, and we think that the
zoning analysis by the staff is -- has been based upon contract zoning.
Both of those are illegal. What contract am I talking about? I'm
talking about the contract in this particular case, which I think is first
impression, of state contract between Arthrex and the county, contracts
that we cannot see that are still protected from the public.
So how are we going to come in and be able to make decent
arguments for or against a contract that we haven't seen?
There's been a lot of talk about -- and we've heard this, including
from some of those representing the owner, that the deal is done, the
decisions have been made, we have the votes, and things like that. I
October 25, 2016
Page 155
sure hope that isn't the case because, otherwise, why are we here?
So we have two concerns: Spot zoning, contract zoning.
Due process; again, we don't know why this is being expedited.
Maybe there's good reason for it. We've been told by Mr. Bumpous
that it has to be expedited; therefore, this board has to hear it right
away, and -- but we have nothing to judge that by because we cannot
see the contract.
And then another issue -- and this is one that has not really been
brought up to you today too much, and that is piggybacking. These
proposed amendments are represented as being for the benefit of a
good cause, Arthrex -- and, by the way, none of my clients have said
anything negative about Arthrex itself that I know of -- and it's effect
on the economy of Collier County; however, a large portion of the
proposal does not include Arthrex but attempts to piggyback other
properties and intensities into this application.
Arthrex's attorney made an attempt at the Planning Commission
meeting to connect all the properties in the CPUD to Arthrex, but that's
just not so.
If Barron Collier -- and we understand that Barron Collier
interests, just for lack of a better term, are involved in the rest of the
CPUD application. If they could make a case of their own for
increasing development intensities, increasing building heights and
other needs that they have on their own properties, they can do that,
but they don't have to do that in the context of an expedited hearing
that we have here today.
That would be the sixth amendment -- if they did it that way, it
would be the sixth amendment to the PUD, so it's not like it hasn't been
done before.
In conclusion, I would ask for several things: One, Arthrex
building, Tract 5. Height; the Commission should either reject any
increase in height from 35 feet, which is what it is right now -- so
October 25, 2016
Page 156
three-and-a-half times is what they're asking for -- but either reject any
increase in height from 35 feet or, at the very least, limit the increase to
no higher than the tallest building height allowed in the area, which has
been represented to be 100 feet. The hospital was represented to the
Planning Commission to be 104 overall.
Secondly, design; any architectural plan should be subject to
public hearing either as part of this current zone or at a subsequent site
plan hearing. They have asked for -- first they asked for none of your
architectural standards to be applied, which means that the staff, the
same staff that was in favor of a 205-foot building, would be reviewing
the architect -- doing the architectural review.
They've amended it a little bit. You have some standards, but you
do not have a standard that you can count on that this building is going
to be the building that you've seen in the concept plan.
Creekside Boulevard, you've heard a lot about that. The
Commission should not allow it to be closed or rerouted.
Environmental has been taken care of, I think, and then the last thing is
the piggyback issue, and that is any increase in square footage,
development intensity, or traffic capacity allowance for the CPUD that
is not directly attributable to the Arthrex property on Tract 5 should be
rejected.
And I -- so I'll be glad to answer any questions if you have any.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I have some.
MR. PRITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: May I ask?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just one, but don't make it a real long one.
The only reason I say that is because we've got to go on a break
because our court reporter is having --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, let's go on a break, and I'll
ask after.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All right. That would be good.
October 25, 2016
Page 157
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I don't want to be restricted. I
mean, the whole purpose of a hearing is the ability to ask questions and
get information on the record. We have a petitioner, and we don't want
to deny their due process rights.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we still have a lot of people to listen
to before we start, and I hate to get into that. So right now we will call
for a 10-minute break for our court reporter; eleven minutes. We'll
make it back at 3:25.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. OCHS: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
We only have seven speakers left. We would like to listen to the
seven speakers, then the Commissioners will ask questions, and we'll
move along. I just wanted to let you know where we are.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chair, I just was handed an additional
slip. That is your prerogative whether --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, I think we're done with the slips.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Okay. Your next speaker is Bill Ebben, and he
will be followed by Jerry Thirion.
MR. EBBEN: I'm Bill Ebben. I've been here in Collier County
and lived here for the last 20 years. I attended both the informational
meeting on August 30th and the Planning Commission meeting, and I
made some statements then in general opposition to the plan as
submitted.
But today I'd just like to make a couple comments on what I've
heard. First, I've heard in the Arthrex -- we're all for Arthrex, by the
way. That isn't a question. They're going to build 160,000 square feet
in Ave Maria on one floor. I imagine that's 30 or 35 feet high. It's
funny to me that they require 122 feet height to build approximately
twice as many square feet. The new building is 341,000 square feet.
October 25, 2016
Page 158
Why can't 341,000 feet (sic) be built on less than a 122-foot building
on Tract 5 and the surrounding tracts that they control. That's the
building.
On the traffic, the county staff's traffic expert says that there's 64
peak trips on Creekside Boulevard per hour. I happened to be on
Creekside Boulevard and Creekside, what is now Arthrex Boulevard,
this morning, at 9:40. I waited 16 seconds for nine vehicles to go east
from 41 to Immokalee -- from 41 to Goodlette-Frank. So the notion
that there's only going to be 64 trips on that street is absolutely out of
question.
I also happen to be on Creekside Boulevard and Arthrex
Boulevard about 30 minutes three times a week and have done so for
the last 10 years; therefore, I've spent about 400 hours on those two
streets. I've never seen a dozen, let alone, quote, dozens and dozens of
people walk on Creekside -- on Arthrex Boulevard. I submit that can't
be the case.
One other point: The focus in the presentation is fixing and
easing, calming Goodlette going south from Immokalee and Creekside
Boulevard towards Vanderbilt. That isn't the problem. The problem is
coming north. Anybody who's coming north on Goodlette who wants
to go north of Immokalee on 41 has absolutely got something to think
about if they go to the corner of Immokalee, wait for that light, take a
left, fight through the light at Creekside Boulevard and Collier's
Reserve, and then fight to get in the right-hand lane to turn a right to go
up on Immokalee.
What they do is they take the left on Creekside Boulevard, go
right over past the Granada Shoppes, and take the right turn on
Immokalee and be gone. That's the only -- that's why Creekside
Boulevard is absolutely required.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
October 25, 2016
Page 159
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Jerry Thirion. He'll be
followed by Bill Morris.
MR. THIRION: Thank you, Commissioners. Good afternoon.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I'm Jerry Thirion,
T-h-i-r-i-o-n, and I represent Bay Colony Golf Club.
First of all, I want to talk about the building height. Ideally, we
would like 75 feet because that's the height of the Naples Daily News
building, but we also would go ahead and support the hundred-feet
building -- the hundred-foot building as long as it matches NCH. We'd
like it to match Naples Community Hospital.
A big thing with us and the residents in the Estates is the signage,
and I was told yesterday that there would be no illuminated signing on
the top, on the rooftop. So if that is still good and holds, then we're
happy with that. We understand there will be some signs but
particularly not illuminated on the top floor.
As far as the traffic, you know, that's an up-and-down. You
know, ideally, if we had some flyovers or some other way, you know,
that would be the best way. And I just have to take it that they've done
their homework and looked into other ways, but certainly flyaways
would take it away.
However, one problem that has been brought to my attention by
some of the residents is the fear that if the campus element is adopted,
that that could be the location for future buildings; that it's just a
campus for now but could turn into future tall buildings in the future.
Lastly, you know, we've heard the word "precedent," and we don't
want this to be precedent-setting by any means, but I wish there was
some way that attorneys or people involved on both sides could come
together so that we don't have a precedent-setting for tall buildings on
this PUD. We're just afraid that this could just be the start. So we
hope that that could be looked into.
Thank you.
October 25, 2016
Page 160
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Bill Morris. He'll be
followed by David Depew.
MR. MORRIS: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bill
Morris. I'm vice president with Morris Depew Associates. I'm a
professional engineer licensed in the state of Florida and have been
accepted as an expert in traffic engineering throughout the state in a
number of jurisdictions.
In summary, and since I have just a very short time to get through
a lot of information, the county -- the potential traffic added to the
roadway network, I believe, is substantially understated.
The changes to Creekside Boulevard are not reflected in the
traffic to remain in the surrounding roadways and have detrimental
impact on the level-of-service standards, and the absorption of 10
percent projects by principally the Naples Park neighborhood is
unreasonably optimistic. More traffic will be routed to North U.S. 41
and will also have a detrimental impact on level-of-service standards.
The basis of the applicant's study compares approved uses to the
proposed use which inherently understates the volume that will be
added to the surrounding roadways based on the fact that they are
being compared with existing and projected future background. That's
a long-winded way of saying that they're not looking at the difference
between what they are using to assess level of service accurately.
Using the same methodology in the applicant's Traffic Impact
Statement, we developed an accounting of the existing trips for the
development that's on site presently and determined that there's around
a 64 percent increase in the statement of trips that will be directed and
will be routed to the surrounding roadways.
What does this mean? Obviously, this is a demonstration that the
impacts will be -- or have been understated to this point.
The levels of service for these various links, once you start
looking at how they have been accounted for, you have on Immokalee
October 25, 2016
Page 161
Road from Goodlette-Frank to Airport-Pulling will reach 95 percent of
capacity; the Goodlette-Frank Road from Immokalee to Vanderbilt
will reach 98 percent capacity; and, as previously noted, U.S. 41 north
of Immokalee will be 94 percent of capacity.
When you route the traffic from Creekside Boulevard back to
Goodlette-Frank, that will, in my opinion, avoid the circuitous route
that is being proposed purchased the applicant's plan, those 64
peak-hour trips will then exceed the level-of-service standard for the
Goodlette-Frank link of a thousand vehicles per hour.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Morris.
MR. MORRIS: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is David Depew. He will be
followed by Mark Simmons.
MR. DEPEW: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
David Depew. I'm president of Morris Depew Associates. I'm a land
planner. I've been a member of the American Institute of Certified
Planners since 1983, and I'm here today in front of you in my capacity
as a planner.
Mr. Morris has told you that we think this is significantly
undercounting the amount of traffic that is going into the system as a
result of the proposed 200,000-square-foot addition to this particular
development.
I would submit to you that adding that much traffic into a
Transportation Concurrency Management Area is contrary to both the
letter and the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and that the addition of
this amount of traffic into this area is significantly problematic with the
Comprehensive Plan, not the least of which this particular connector,
Creekside Boulevard, is on your 2025 long-range financially feasible
plan as a two-lane collector that connects and serves as a reliever for
Immokalee Road between Goodlette-Frank and U.S. 41.
The reconfiguration of this particular roadway at this point, I
October 25, 2016
Page 162
believe, is contrary to the letter and the intent of the Comprehensive
Plan as regards to the establishment of this facility as a reliever facility,
and there is nothing I have observed about the concept plan that has
been presented to you and to the various forums by the applicant that
would suggest that the remaining -- the ability to leave this particular
roadway facility in this configuration is somehow problematic for their
plan. It can be done, and the rerouting of trips will simply increase the
amount of time and reduce the facility of this particular roadway as an
alternate reliever.
I would also tell you another question that I've got in regards to
the height and the compatibility of this particular facility with the
height -- there's been a lot of discussion about the analysis that we
presented to the Planning Commission. I've got those pictures here for
you. I'm going to run through them very quickly, but the idea isn't to
show you what you will see from 122 feet if you're standing on the
building. The idea is to show you what a122-foot building is going to
be observable from the surrounding development.
And we went ahead through the Google Earth LiDAR data and I
set up for these various views at these locations, which is the location
of the project, and did a look-around on these to show you that this
building is going to be visible from a variety of the neighborhoods in
the area.
And we pointed out some of the addresses of the neighborhoods
in this. And this is looking south. This is looking to the southwest.
Again, you can see the houses very clearly from this 122-foot level.
This is looking to the west, and you can see those towers over there. A
difference I would point out from Mr. Arnold's comments is that those
towers were in place and part of the plans when those folks moved into
those developments. This tower was not part of the plan when the
residents moved into this particular neighborhood.
This is looking to the northwest. This is looking to the north.
October 25, 2016
Page 163
Finally, that is to the northeast, and that is to the east. I would submit
to you that this has significant compatibility problems. It is contrary to
the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan.
And thank you very much for your kind attention.
MR. MILLER: Your next speaker is Mark Simmons. He'll be
followed by Jim Carter.
Mark Simmons?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: Jim Carter. And Jim Carter will be followed by
Peter M. Duggan.
MR. CARTER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Jim Carter. I've lived in Pelican Marsh for 14 years, the past president
of Pelican Marsh Foundation, currently a director. I'm a director and
officer of my own HOA in Water Crest.
To me the issue is community character, and the elephant in the
room is Arthrex. Community character has strict land use and
development codes. Currently in Collier County we have some of
those; architectural standards for retail and business, big box stores, we
have sign codes that are the toughest in the state of Florida, we have
median beautification standards that surpass none in this great state of
Florida.
What we don't have is office building heights in the Land
Development Code, and that's why you continue to see many requests
coming in front of you like the one that we're considering for Arthrex.
Creekside PUD, as you know, has 35 feet. The first variance was to 75
feet. That was supposed to be the end of it. We were assured there
would be nothing any higher, anything different ever built in that
community.
Now, Arthrex, who started at 220, is now to 120, whatever it ends
up being. Whatever you do here, you're setting a new standard, and
that standard is what's going to be the precedent. And every developer
October 25, 2016
Page 164
now has the same right to petition you for the same opportunity.
Hello, Fort Lauderdale, because that's exactly where we're going
if you don't develop a standard that draws the line somewhere on
building heights.
Creekside Boulevard, this is a public road that was paid for by the
taxpayers and maintained by the taxpayers of Collier County. The
person with -- the purpose of this was to lessen the traffic on U.S. 41
and Immokalee as a part of the Granada shopping center approval.
I was in your seat. I approved that, and never was the intent to
close that road. Rerouting this road affects thousands of residents in
the North Naples community area. And what makes Arthrex
employees more important than the rest of the residents of our area?
We love Arthrex. We think it's a great company. But what's the
priority here?
You've got solutions to it. A sky bridge or any other combination
would work to lessen this issue and make it a non-issue.
I think that you need to listen to this. And if you don't want to
listen to the people in this room, at least listen to Mark Strain, your
chairman of your Planning Commission, and also your Hearing
Officer; he said no to closing Creekside. He gets it; he understands.
He's been here and done this longer than anybody else in the room. So
listen to him, look at the options, and don't close this road.
The other issue that is in front of you is in regards to the preserve.
That's been moved to a different timetable, a different time, a different
hearing, but I believe with all my heart that that should have never
even been on the agenda. Why do you destroy quality preserves
because an organization couldn't do effective land planning?
Please remember this: Some of you are leaving this commission.
This is the last decision that you will make. Will it be for the
betterment of the community, or are you going to protect another
elephant in the room?
October 25, 2016
Page 165
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Madam Chairwoman, your final speaker on this
item is Peter M. Duggan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Peter Duggan?
(No response.)
MR. MILLER: He has left, and that concludes our speakers for
this item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you very much. We
have Commissioner Nance.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Forgot what you were going to ask about?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No. Actually, I haven't.
I will tell you that in my service as commissioner, I think this
application by Arthrex is probably the most important development
that I've seen in Collier County because of many impacts, some of
which have been talked about today and some of them haven't actually
been mentioned.
But, you know, I grew up in Fort Lauderdale. I lived in Fort
Lauderdale full time until 1970, and I have gone back there frequently
because my family lives in the lower east coast. And, respectfully, for
anybody to compare Collier County in any way to Fort Lauderdale
simply hasn't really been to Fort Lauderdale, because there is no direct
comparison and there never will be any direct comparison.
In my lifetime, spending time in Collier County from the time
that it had barely 40,000 residents until today when we have in excess
of 350,000 residents, each decade and each new development in
Collier County, whether it's been our finest ones like Pelican Bay and
Pelican Marsh or others, adjacent residents and current residents before
that have declared that those big developments were certainly going to
degrade Collier County, and the end of life as we knew it in Naples
October 25, 2016
Page 166
and Collier County was certainly coming to an end, and we were going
to have more traffic and noise and so on and so forth.
Certainly, that has not been the case. Why? Because we have
spent an awful lot of time on beautiful buffers, thoughtful roadways,
and thoughtful changes when the opportunities came up.
We have some of the most compatible neighborhoods in the
nation. We have some of the most exclusive neighborhoods in the
nation that don't have through traffic on their roads and, honestly,
many of those communities were built as community development
districts where those roads that are actually in gated communities are
actually public roads and should be through roads, but they're not.
They're not because we know that's what those people don't want to do,
and we've been very, very respectful on traffic for years.
Arthrex has impressed me in many ways. Not being a technical
expert in their field of expertise, I certainly can appreciate the
technology that they've led across the world. But what -- and I've said
this before, what truly makes Arthrex astonishing is the way that
they've conducted business, and when I say that, I mean the culture
that they've advanced for their employees, the engagement that they
have in our community, most of the time very quietly. And if you
don't look for it, you won't see it because they don't trumpet it very
loudly, but they are everywhere.
And the example that they set for businesses to come to Collier
County is extraordinary. It is not only the gold standard. I will tell
you they've set standard, not at the urging of the Collier County
Government, but by their own initiative, and they've consistently raised
the bar on their own initiative.
Together, with other institutions like Bascom Palmer, Arthrex
brings to our community the basis for the critical mass that you need
and what we've said we want in our community for wellness,
healthcare, medical technology, industries that we need and are
October 25, 2016
Page 167
compatible to our community, and industries that will help support our
tax base, because each generation that has -- each generation and each
cluster of communities that's been built and complained about those
that have come afterwards as an imposition are the citizens whose
impact fees paid to build the beautiful road network that we have and
businesses like Arthrex, keep our taxes low, and give us a chance to
keep our tax rate so wonderful despite the fact that we have an
extraordinary service level.
So I'm going to say, in sum total, I believe that their effort has
been thoughtful; I don't think it's incompatible. You know, many
times we have many, many towers adjacent to residential communities
all along the coast in signature communities, communities that are the
envy of the world, and somehow we seem to get hung up over any sort
of height in Collier County.
I think that's unrealistic, because all of you should know that
you're going to have to share this beautiful community with additional
residents that are going to continue to come here because it's one of the
signature communities in the world to live in.
So that said, I'm going to make an enthusiastic motion to approve
Item 9A, 9B, and 11C.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Now, does that mean by vacating
the -- excuse me --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Creekside.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- the preserve, right?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No. The preserve's off the table.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's right. Okay. That will not be --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, the preserve's off the table --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I meant by vacating it.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- to modify Creekside to produce
October 25, 2016
Page 168
to -- put in the roundabouts as discussed.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That was the one. Okay, fine.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Very good. Just wanted to
make sure I knew what the motion was, and Commissioner Hiller
seconded it.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. I have some questions of
staff, please.
Deviation 3 is off the table, so I'm not sure -- would this be Mike
Bosi? So what can -- what we're approving -- you know, we've heard
some comments, and I'm responding to the comments. We are
approving what to the east of Goodlette?
MR. BOSI: To the east of Goodlette there is a number of
different of the medical-related land uses that will be available for
development within the quarter mile of the hospital, but the -- with the
-- with the preserve language being removed, that deviation, they'll no
longer be seeking -- they'll no longer be seeking to impact that
preserve as the proposal had originally indicated.
And the area that we're speaking about is -- this preserve area will
remain intact, and a number of those medical land uses that were
sought with the additional square footage would be eligible within that
quarter mile of the hospital as well.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Which the hotel would -- still is
on the table; is that correct?
MR. BOSI: The hotel is a use that's already currently provided by
for the individual PUD.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank
you.
Now, to, I think, Ms. Scott. We've heard testimony from the folks
-- I think their traffic engineer that's been hired by the neighborhoods --
October 25, 2016
Page 169
that there would be a 64 percent increase in traffic. And they indicated
that, you know, it's going to be a fairly soon -- the word is not soon,
but we're going to know pretty soon that there is a big mistake because
of the amount of traffic on the roads.
What is the accountability of the petitioner right now if indeed
our numbers are wrong and their numbers are right and there's
tremendous traffic and bottle jam. What safeguards do we have to
protect our interests in -- and I know very well it's our sincere interest
to keep traffic flowing in Collier County.
MS. SCOTT: Yes. Once again, Trinity Scott, for the record.
As we discussed earlier, when they come in for their actual Site
Development Plan, they will have to relook at their Traffic Impact
Statement, and they will get into those very specific operational
analyses to look at all of those major intersections within their area of
significant impact. And they will be -- have to identify areas of
mitigation. We are looking at alternative mitigation with the
Goodlette-Frank Road improvement, and so if their mitigation would
exceed the amount of the Goodlette-Frank Road improvement, the
developer would be required to pay the difference to the county to be
able to do other improvements within the area.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And so what improvements? I
mean, we're talking about sequencing lights? I mean, I believe that
Immokalee is constricted in terms of width, is that correct -- of
expanding the width of it; is that correct?
MS. SCOTT: Yes. In our Growth Management Plan, typically
we don't go to eight lanes on a roadway. Once you add that, the
cost-benefit, the increased capacity that you get really gets diminished
once you start going beyond six lanes.
It would look at alternative roadways. Veterans Memorial
Boulevard has been talked about for several years. So we want to start
looking at some of those broader range alternative roadways to
October 25, 2016
Page 170
Immokalee Road, improvements to Vanderbilt Beach Road,
intersection improvements. Of course, it could also mean intelligent
transportation systems as well, which would be the lighting sequences,
et cetera.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Okay.
So, basically, the numbers -- and I heard this at a NIM meeting,
and I just want to be very, very clear and put it on the record, if you
would.
You determine the traffic on these roads by peak season. I mean,
you're not measuring it in August or September. You're measuring it
in the peak season, correct?
MS. SCOTT: We look at our roadway system from a p.m.
peak-hour perspective, so that's when we were talking about the 64
trips previously that was brought up. That is in the p.m. peak hour.
And with regard to how we adjust seasonally, I'm actually going to
turn it over to Tom so he can give a more detailed response about our
peak season factors.
MR. ROSS: In the county's Growth Management Plan, it
recognizes the fact that it would be an undue burden on the citizens
and on the taxpayers to design all facilities to meet the highest peaks of
the year, the actual peak.
So the Growth Management Plan rings out the months of
February and March out of those and, based on the remaining traffic,
takes the highest peaks of the remaining 10 months and applies that as
a factor so that it maintains factors for the remainder of the year. And
depending upon when the counts are taken, it adjusts those counts to
reflect peak season conditions, excluding the months of February and
March.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Hiller?
October 25, 2016
Page 171
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Several things. The first is, Mr.
Pritt, the attorney who represents a number of the surrounding
homeowner’s associations, made two comments. One, that this was an
example of spot zoning, and another this was an example of contract
zoning, and he defined spot zoning as zoning, essentially, arbitrarily
and capriciously benefiting a single property owner in a manner in
which no other property would be benefited. Nothing could be further
from the truth. I don't agree with your definition legally. I looked it
up, and it isn't what you say.
And, secondly, with the evidence that's presented here at this
hearing, it is obvious that there is nothing arbitrary and capricious in
this board's decision making with respect to any sort of approval or
denial with respect to this petitioner. So I really take exception to what
you said.
The second thing you said was that this is contract zoning, and
you made reference to which contract? And how is that contract part
of this approval, and how does that become contract zoning? You
made allegations which are unfounded, and then you concluded that
it's all illegal.
And I'm very concerned about those statements, and I have to say
I can't accept them on the record as you've presented them, and you've
represented no evidence in support of either allegation.
The next point of concern to me is the presentation by the Depew
firm regarding their claim that the petitioner's application is
inconsistent with the Growth Management Plan and that, further, the
impacts presented by the petitioner's experts with respect to the traffic
if the road were to be closed are understated.
They didn't demonstrate how, in any manner, the petitioner's
application is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There was no
evidence presented on the record. They said it's simply inconsistent.
Well, they didn't give any testimony or explain what that
October 25, 2016
Page 172
inconsistency is. In fact, to the contrary we have staff's presentation
that it is clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the
Future Land Use Element of our plan, and we have the petitioner's own
presentation to the same.
And then with respect to the impacts being understated, well, let's,
for argument's sake, assume that the calculations Mr. Depew and his
firm have made are, in fact, correct, which we don't have evidence of it
because we have not had the opportunity to review how they came up
with their calculations, they still show, by way of their charts, without
any question that the level of service that is established for the
intersections in question are all maintained and that they are not over
100 percent; that they still are under 100 percent.
And so even if they make a determination that the impacts are
more than what the petitioner's experts have determined and what staff
has reviewed and has concluded is a correct determination, it's clear
that the level-of-service standard, if this road were closed, will not be
compromised based on both the opposition's expert, the petitioner's
expert, and staff's review of the petitioner's expert's presentation.
I do have one concern, and I agree with Mr. Thirion, and I do
agree with you that there should not be any illuminated sign on that
building, and there shouldn't be anything that would shine into the, you
know, people who are within view of the building if they are even in
view of the building.
And based on the photographs presented by the petitioner, that
does not seem to be the case. Based on the photographs presented by
the experts for the associations, that also doesn't seem to be the case.
But if, in fact, there is a possibility that it would be viewable, I would
say that we should make as part of our motion a condition that there
should be no illuminated signs that face the, you know, Bay Colony
and Pelican Marsh communities to ensure that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner, I don't know why
October 25, 2016
Page 173
anybody would want to put a sign on that side of the building. Who
are they advertising to?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Look at all the potential clients
they have.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I understand. They're going to be
using these fixtures coming up. A good many of them will be there
with me getting our knees replaced, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm just saying, yeah.
So, you know, the last thing I want to address is a concern that
was raised by one gentleman, and I forget his name. He spoke very
well. And he addressed his concern that the first time he heard of this
petition was when the neighborhood information meeting was
advertised and that he felt that the election, you know, should -- the
election in August should have addressed this issue and that somehow
this decision should be deferred to the next board.
Two points: The first is the process by which the Board has
allowed this petitioner to come forward is in full conformance with
state statute and absolutely nothing was done with respect to this
petition coming forward in the manner in which it has that is contrary
to state statute or inconsistent with respect to any other petitioner.
With respect to deferring the decision, Commissioner Henning
properly stated this morning, we don't stop doing business just because
there was an election or because someone else is going to be sitting in
my seat or Commissioner Henning's seat or Commissioner Nance's
seat.
This petition was scheduled to be heard today. No one knew at
the time when the decision was made what the outcome of the election
would be. We're listening to the evidence on the record. We know
what the law is, and we have to -- you know, we have to vote fairly in
accordance with that.
So I don't see any evidence that was brought forward on the
October 25, 2016
Page 174
record that rises to the level of a valid rebuttal to the petitioner's
evidence that would allow me to make a determination based on fact,
governed by the law to deny this petitioner his request, and that's why I
second your motion --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- Mr. Nance -- or Commissioner
Nance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I support the land-use
amendment; however, Creekside PUD was created with a collector
road to lessen the impacts -- the transportation impacts on Immokalee
Road. Since then we've developed a Transportation Congestion
Management Area for Immokalee Road.
And, Nick, I think that was in 2002, 2003?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 2002.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2002?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: What triggered that? Was it the hospital
over there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. I think in the urban area you
recognized that it wouldn't make sense to go link by link in certain
areas, that because of the compact density that was there, you looked at
a regional perspective.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Because of existing compact
density in the area since -- in 2002.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commercial/residential, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know, rerouting
traffic from Creekside is going to be more of an impact on Immokalee
Road, and I can't support that. I think there's some alternatives that
Arthrex could do such as a pedestrian bridge over it. So I have to vote
no on the motion because of closing Creekside.
October 25, 2016
Page 175
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry. I was just -- I noticed all the
lights are back on, so I was just trying to make sure that I get a fair
accounting. So it's Commissioner Taylor, then Nance, then Hiller,
okay.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
I've had the opportunity over the past year and a half to speak
with Arthrex and specifically Reinhold Schmieding regarding his
vision, what his company is doing, what he wants to do. I can tell you
that he is rooted in Collier County, but he is a very pragmatic man.
He's a very successful businessman, and he operates at warp speed
because that's the demands of what he does. That's his industry.
He didn't make the top 100, Fortune 100 companies because he
likes to sit and maybe take walks on the beach. That's not what he
does.
His vision -- and I think it's a very interesting vision -- is to create
products but also to educate, and when I think of his business and what
he's trying to do, it's almost the University of Arthrex. He brings
doctors in here not to show what he's doing but to educate them for this
cutting-edge technology that he is in the forefront of. It is an amazing
business, and it's ours.
The reason he wants to close Creekside is he's creating -- he is
creating a university campus. And, yes, we don't have anything -- no
crystal balls. We do not know -- I cannot say today that there will
never be another building on that land, but that's not what we're here to
(sic).
We either take the petitioner and decide on what's in front of us,
or we don't. And I can tell you from my experience in conversation
with Arthrex over this past year and a half, I believe that this is what he
wants to do. This is not a ploy to have land to develop. He wants a
university campus. He wants that -- excuse me -- that blue zone kind
of life.
October 25, 2016
Page 176
And I see people walking in that all the time, and I'm amazed at it.
You know, I come down here from the north about 35 years ago. You
never walk in the summer. I see people walking there all the time, in
their golf carts, riding bikes. And it is -- it is -- to me, to watch this
company change and to grow is such a gift to our community.
Roundabouts are -- you know, not only is Arthrex on the forefront
of change, but our community is. In the state of Florida, we have again
and again -- the City of Naples is doing it. It's all over Florida. It's
roundabouts to keep traffic moving, to reduce accidents, and they have
proven in the middle of the state with these huge companies that ship
produce and who are so resistant to putting roundabouts on these roads
that these semis travel on, they were so resistant. They said, no, we
can't do this, but the accidents were horrific.
I think I remember when -- on the MPO, I think it was almost two
fatalities a week sometimes with these huge, huge transports and the
collisions of cars; it was horrible.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean at lights?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, no. They didn't have lights,
or they had stop signs.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: There's no intersection.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Just traditional intersections. And
so what they did was they -- Florida Department of Transportation
actually constructed a roundabout on the grounds of a big factory in
the parking lot and had semis go around it.
Now, if anybody want to see this film, I can get it for you,
because it's there. And then the testimony later of these manufacturing
folks, these heads of these huge, huge firms were -- we love it. It
works. And semis are using it. Not all roundabouts are created equal,
and they're all designed differently, but they work. But it's change. It's
not what we're use to, and it's very difficult to accept it.
But I've been very fortunate, and I've been very fortunate to learn
October 25, 2016
Page 177
about this, and I do accept it because it is our future. I understand
precedent setting. I understand your concerns, but I don't think this is
precedent-setting in terms of anything but embracing the future, not
necessarily because it's 104 feet instead of 75 feet, but because we are
starting to diversify our economy with a company that says they're
going to do something, but it's a company.
If you want to see the portfolio of Arthrex, it's up there off
Creekside Boulevard. Look at it. Green space is incorporated within
the buildings and around the buildings. His designs of the buildings
are complementary. It's an amazing experience, and they're ours.
So I hope, sir, that you might consider my remarks about
Creekside.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I'm very supportive of
Arthrex expansion. I'm very supportive of the zoning request. I am
not supporting closing a road or detouring it so the general public is
less likely to use it.
A perfect example is Kings Way of (sic) Foxfire, that whole issue
in the '90s. You know, that's -- when you take away people's means of
travel, lessen it more and more, you're going to get more congestion at
our major intersections. And I think there's an alternative here, and I
think the alternative is, if it's pedestrian walkways, that's the campus
style. They have one at FSW -- or at the University in Fort Myers on
Ben Hill Griffin Road. You've got a walkway over Ben Hill Griffin
Road.
I think that's an alternative instead of closing down a road. That's
my only objection is changing the traffic patterns in that area. You
will -- you will fill it -- you will feel it.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Point of order, Madam Chair. I
wonder if it's important, rather than -- as you said, you voted for some
of the issues on the -- if we could follow what the Planning
Commission did, and they broke it down into parts, and they voted
October 25, 2016
Page 178
individually on the four issues, which happens to do with, I believe, the
Creekside.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're saying separate the
motions between --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- 9A, C and 11 -- 9A, 9B.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Before we do that, since there's a
motion on the table, can we finish the discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. Let me just finish two --
just two things I wanted just to add. There has been some pushback
about why does Arthrex need a hotel? They don't need a hotel. We've
got plenty of hotels.
Arthrex is unique. Arthrex can never put doctors in any lodging
that says resort. They're not allowed to. They will lose certification.
There's a technical term, but they don't do it.
They've had huge challenges about bringing in doctors and trying
to house them. And the problem has been not only the lack of hotels
that are fairly close to Arthrex that say resort, but the second issue, of
course, is the cost, because they're -- you know, they're definitely
limited by that.
They do need a hotel. I've also heard some criticism that the
county government is just doing what Arthrex wants. Well, if anybody
thinks that, then please pay attention to what the staff said about the
preserve, and it was unanimous. It was the staff that came out, the
county staff at the Planning Commission meeting saying we do not
agree to you taking this preserve, we do not want it, and we will not
sign off on it, and our Planning Commission was unanimous in that.
And to Arthrex' credit they listened, and they changed, and they
changed not right away, but they changed. And I think that says so
much for a working relationship going forward.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner.
October 25, 2016
Page 179
Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes. I just wanted to come back
and add to what Commissioner Taylor just said and address -- you
know, Commissioner Henning has made clear his concerns, but I
wanted to add on to it a little bit.
As existing, Creekside business park is a business park that's got
straight roads and stop-sign intersections on it. Time after time after
time over the last three years, Secretary Billy Hattaway of District 1
and communications that we've had with Secretary of FDOT Brusott
(phonetic) out of Tallahassee has told us the value of using
roundabouts as both traffic-calming devices and devices to maintain
through flow.
I think the redesign of that road has the ability to take out those
stop-sign trans -- intersects that, with the full buildout of Creekside,
would certainly result -- and particularly if the use is what everybody
says it's going to be -- would result in more accidents.
I think the roundabouts are going to produce flow-through of
traffic that may well move more traffic safer across that road and,
furthermore, it's going to cut down on the noise of any trucks that
happen to be there, because semi trucks will not have to come to a
complete stop. You're not going to see loaded vehicles starting from a
standing stop. If you're worried about noise, those roundabouts let
them glide exactly through.
Commissioner Taylor was referencing to evaluation and use by
the produce industry in the center part of the state where the citrus
industry was one of the greatest objectors to roundabouts, and they
have been turned into the greatest supporters of roundabouts. They
absolutely love them. It cuts down on accidents, it lets them keep
moving, it reduces wear and tear on their trucks. Absolutely, semi
trucks can go through roundabouts. There are thousands and thousands
of them daily in the state of Florida in the center part of it where you
October 25, 2016
Page 180
might not commonly see them.
So I think that a thoughtful redesign of Creekside Boulevard in
there might be a little bit different than what's been depicted. You
might smooth it out a little bit, but I think those roundabouts could
actually move traffic through there better and with more safety. So I
just wanted to add that. And Commissioner Taylor kind of jumped the
issue with me, but good for her.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
I want to address the impact of closing the road on Immokalee.
The issue with Creekside is about alleviating stress at the intersection.
And if you have traffic going north on 41 and they want to get onto
Immokalee, the way the design is being proposed, they would be able
to bypass the intersection, use Creekside, and then go down or
whatever -- I don't know what -- how -- I guess that's Arthrex
Boulevard, and then get onto Immokalee.
If their intent was to cut across and go to Goodlette -- and I'm not
sure why anyone on the northbound lane would suddenly want to, like,
go across and then go back south down Goodlette -- to divert and go a
very short distance down Immokalee to then turn down Goodlette
would have a minimal adverse, if any adverse impact, on traffic on
Immokalee.
Southbound traffic -- so, again, the positive is the way the design
is being contemplated by closing the road, you are still allowing for
alleviating traffic at the intersection which is always the issue, and
creating this bypass.
So closing the road has no adverse impact on the volume of traffic
at the intersection. In fact, it has a positive impact by allowing the
bypass and allowing a reduction.
Conversely, if you're driving south on 41 and you're going
towards Creekside Boulevard, I'm not sure why you would turn down
October 25, 2016
Page 181
Creekside and go to Goodlette as opposed to turning down Immokalee
and going to Goodlette, because the distance is so short, and it's not
going to create, you know, such a burden on Immokalee for that very
short distance to do -- if you are heading south to do a turn and go east
for that -- for, literally -- I mean, what is the distance? It's very, very
short. What's the distance? Can someone answer? How much? A
mile. So basically one mile to get to Goodlette if you want to travel
south on Goodlette as opposed to south on 41 because you think there's
too much traffic on 41.
So, again, I don't see this material adverse impact. You're talking
about extremely short distances. And to the extent northbound traffic
is able to bypass the intersection and to the extent that southbound
traffic that would like to travel down Goodlette as an alternative, wants
to do so, the impact on Immokalee is for a very, very short stretch. I
just don't see the adverse consequence.
You know, to give you an example, if we're concerned
cut-through -- you know, about creating these arteries going east/west
to alleviate traffic on these major corridors, then I would submit to you
we have a problem with Pelican Marsh. Pelican Marsh currently has a
public road which goes from 41 to Airport-Pulling; is that correct?
And it is blocked off by gates, and those gates are blocking the
public's ability to cut through that road, and it is a public road. So we
have allowed what is a public road to be blocked to the public. I mean,
I actually think what we've done is probably illegal.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's that have to do with this?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It has everything because, again,
this petition is legally proposing and showing the impact of closing this
road and showing that there is no adverse impact and, yet, we've got a
road which, you know, based on this same argument, serves the same
purpose that has been blocked. Now, I'm not advocating we take that
gate away -- and maybe we should revisit it and make sure that the
October 25, 2016
Page 182
manner in which that gate is there is proper. And I don't think it
should be open unless there ever is a need. And I'm not sure there ever
would be a need, but there is a parallel.
And, again, I don't see the adverse impact. And I'm very sensitive
to that. And I'm like -- and I feel very strongly, you know, that the
issue that Commissioner Henning raised is a very important one,
which is why I was very interested in the expert testimony that was
brought back by the various homeowner’s associations.
I don't believe that based on the evidence we can deny, because
the evidence presented by the expert shows that the level of service
doesn't go over 100 percent. So we don't have evidence to support --
we don't have expert evidence to support a denial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning. Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So I would -- I mean, I would like
to say that I -- I would be very -- I would be concerned about the legal
implications of denying it given that we don't have any support for it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh. Well, first of all, Pelican
Marsh, you can go there to the gate and say, I want to get to Airport
Road or I want to get to U.S. 41. They cannot deny you. The CDD
knows that who manages the gates. But, anyway, that has nothing to
do with the petition and, quite frankly, with the comments in here. I'm
wondering if I downloaded the wrong agenda because my agenda says
to vacate a portion of Creekside Boulevard, and I'm hearing a creation
of roundabouts to get the traffic from Goodlette Road to U.S. 41 or
vice versa.
You know, it is a Transportation Congested Management Area
for a reason. It's because it has too much traffic on it now, all right.
That means it has failed. It has failed its’ capacity.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, it hasn't.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No?
October 25, 2016
Page 183
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Absolutely not.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. It's not a congestion. It's a
concurrency management area, congestion concurrency management
area.
What it's saying is you should never look at one link to make your
decision. It's actually kind of the opposite. It's basically saying, you
look at the whole system knowing that traffic will reroute itself based
on the least path -- direct path.
So you look at all links north and south. You calculate capacity
for all of them, and if it works, then you're allowed to approve a project
with alternative mitigation.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You're -- right. And staff has
said that; however, when you take out the one link, Creekside
Boulevard --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It doesn't fail, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, okay. I haven't said anything just
because I didn't want to interrupt anybody else.
I just -- I'll ask one simple question, and didn't I understand that
it's 40 seconds to go instead of -- when you take that out, it's 40
seconds? And that's not very much time to waste. Actually, if you
have to slow down, that's a good thing, too; less accidents. So I didn't
see a problem there. But maybe -- I don't know, I'm all for causing less
accidents and, you know, just taking it easy.
Anyway, I've got a motion on the floor and a second. Do we have
any other comments from any other commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: This has to be a 4-1 vote if it's going to
pass. If it's a 3-2, it does not pass. Everybody understand that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So all in favor, signify by saying.
October 25, 2016
Page 184
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is a 5-0 then. Thank you. Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: Could we just get one minor issue --
MR. OCHS: Sure.
MR. KLATZKOW: One minor issue. There was a
hold-harmless agreement, because we never did get the notice of
objection from the post office. Your executive summary noted that
saying that we retained a portion of the right-of-way. There's no need
to do that because Arthrex has been good enough to give us a
hold-harmless agreement, and that will be going to the chair along with
the rest of the documents.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: We don't need it. It's just for the
record, right?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I believe that we forgot No. 7. So do
we have any public speakers?
MR. MILLER: No, ma'am. We have no registered speakers for
public comment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Why don't we just take a 10-minute
break while we clear the room here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a good suggestion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Five-minute.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Five-minute.
October 25, 2016
Page 185
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Five-minute break till we clear the room.
(A brief recess was had.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Will everybody take their seats, please.
Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Madam Chair, you have a live mic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. OCHS: That takes us to --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So, Mr. County Attorney, what next for
us?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: County Manager.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, County Manager.
Item #11F
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED COLLIER
COUNTY STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES
FOR 2017 AND ADOPT ATTACHED RESOLUTIONS:
RESOLUTION 2016-236: URGING THE STATE LEGISLATURE
TO ALLOCATE FUNDING FOR COUNTY CONSERVATION
LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
PURSUANT TO AMENDMENT NO. 1 – ADOPTED;
RESOLUTION 2016-237: SUPPORTING RECURRING FUNDING
FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA’S INSTITUTE OF FOOD
AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES SWFL RESEARCH AND
EDUCATION CENTER – ADOPTED;
RESOLUTION 2016-238: SUPPORTING RECURRING FUNDING
FOR FSU’S COLLEGE OF MEDICINE – IMMOKALEE HEALTH
EDUCATION SITE – ADOPTED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am.
We're moving on to Item 11F, which was previously Item 16F5,
October 25, 2016
Page 186
and that is a recommendation to approve the proposed Collier County
state and federal legislative priorities for 2017 and adopt the related
attached resolutions.
Commissioner Taylor had moved this from the consent agenda
for discussion on the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes. And the one issue with the
Conservancy -- and they presented to us at our workshop -- that I'd like
to see added to our legislative priorities is a recommendation to
suspend all oil fracking, matrix acidizing, et cetera, et cetera, and --
until we study it. And it was -- I don't think it's very different. This is
the Conservancy recommendation. There's a time frame in here. I
don't know if it needs to be three years or six months, but I do think
that we need -- we need to move this forward and have this as one of
our recommendations, and that's why I brought this forward to add it
to, so...
MR. KLATZKOW: Commissioner, excuse me. As a point of
clarification, are you suggesting that Collier County advance this
through a -- through our delegation or just support legislation if it's
proposed? Because I don't know if there's a bill sponsor now for this
or not one.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I think -- I'm hearing rumors that
there are -- there are several bills, but I don't know that for a fact. You
know, I'll take what I can get with my -- with my colleagues here, but I
do think this is a very, very important thing for Collier County,
however it goes.
I mean, why would we not study the impact of fracking on our
particular geology? You know, why not? So that's why I brought it
forward, to see if I can get support.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't know who was first here. I know
that --
MR. OCHS: Commissioners, I'm so sorry, Madam Chair. Again,
October 25, 2016
Page 187
just to remind the Board on this agenda item, based on your workshop,
we did add to the agenda under issues to monitor this whole issue of
fracking, but it's just a monitor at this point as it exists.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Right. Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning, were you
the first one?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. You know, why don't we
-- one of our priorities be to request that the legislators fund the study
of acidized (sic) stimulation and see the affects on -- in the state of
Florida?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I would agree to that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I mean.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It's really to make this -- more
than monitoring. It's really to take some kind of -- this is important to
us. We need to know -- we need to study it so that we understand it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I mean, our expert says
that it's okay. They -- prior to you becoming a county commissioner,
our expert says that it has no effect on the drinking water; however,
since this is a statewide issue, you need to take the emotions out of it --
okay, and I know there's a lot of emotions tied to this -- and base
decisions upon facts.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Science.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think that's -- science and
facts, and I think that will give the legislators -- I hope I didn't offend
anybody by saying "emotional decisions." And, you know, they can
make an informed decision. It just -- remove the -- remove the
monitoring of it, and just request of them to fund the study of it.
So I'll make that a motion.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And not suspend what is going on
right now in terms of any kind of fracking?
October 25, 2016
Page 188
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, again, our expert says it
has no effect on it, but that's a -- I think there already is a moratorium
on it, right?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's what I thought.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No.
MR. OCHS: No. It was --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That was proposed under the
Richter bill last year, but that Richter bill failed, so I'm kind of picking
it up in a very downhome way from us, how to support that concept
and get that study, but suspend what we're doing right now, any kind
of action until we have that study. And whether it's three years or six
months or two months, I don't know. It just needs to be a study.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I agree. I can support
requesting the legislators to fund the study.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Hiller, you're next.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
That's very different than saying that all activities should be
suspended for three years while this study is being conducted, because
that has the effect of a moratorium, and the problem is, the legislation
right now has to be refined to better define what exactly is being
prohibited, because the definition of fracking hasn't been clearly
established.
And so I don't believe that we, legally, can say, okay, we're going
to suspend everything or that we will -- or that it is our intent to
suspend everything for three years while a study is being conducted.
I was under the impression -- and correct me if I'm mistaken --
that -- well, first of all, we know that within Collier County, for
example, Collier Resources has voluntarily stated that they have no
intention of doing it, so there's no concern from that standpoint.
But I thought that legislature was, in fact, engaging in a study. I
October 25, 2016
Page 189
can't remember now -- we met with the secretary -- I thought that -- but
I thought that there was a separate -- wasn't there -- Brandon, can you
refresh my recollection, because we spoke to --
MR. REED: Hi, Brandon Reed --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- the new secretary of DEP just
when he came on board, and it was my understanding that they were
engaging in a study. But where was that study going? And I don't
know if it was -- how that was directed.
MR. REED: My understanding is that the legislation that Senator
Richter was putting forward did work with DEP and would have
funded a study, and there would have been a moratorium until that
study was presented back to the legislature and, unfortunately, as
Commissioner Taylor said, that failed this year, or this past session.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And did anything in the alternative
pass to address the definition of fracking and --
MR. REED: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- any study by DEP?
MR. REED: No, ma'am.
MR. OCHS: No.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, nothing? Okay.
Well, I think what's requested here is not something that we can
adopt by way of a legislative priority. It is just, I think, overly, overly
broad. I do agree a study is necessary, and I think what should be
studied and how it should be studied and, you know, when that study
should be concluded is something that we should develop, you know,
as we talk to the legislators. I mean, I personally would like to see a
study done much faster than three years. I mean, I'd like the answer as
quickly as possibly.
MR. REED: Well -- and as your professional staff, that is a
sound recommendation that you're advancing, because we don't know
the dynamics of where the legislation will be this session. There are
October 25, 2016
Page 190
many rumors out there that their -- Senator Richter, since he will not be
there to take the torch any longer, who will advance it and do it as well
as he attempted to do so with getting it through the legislature.
But, again, it's difficult to tow that line. So my recommendation
would be to follow just that; keep it as an issue to monitor. We can
beef up the language if that would complement what your intention is,
Commissioner Taylor, to just say that we're in support of monitoring
the legislation that would publicly fund the study of the impacts of
fracking --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I think that's --
MR. REED: -- in the state of Florida. We could easily
incorporate that.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And there is nothing to preclude
the Conservancy, which is a lobby organization, from lobbying the
specifics of, you know, what they've put forth here, but I don't believe
that we should be lobbying whatever their very narrow position is. I
think we need to do exactly what you say.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What do you mean by narrow
position?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: They specifically want, like, the
three-year study for, you know, like, these issues. And I'm saying, I
would personally like to see a study that's funded by the state that's
much faster than three years. I mean, I would like to know as quickly
as possible because I feel that if -- you know, we could find out within
the course of a year that it's no good then, you know, let's get it done.
If it's okay, then we shouldn't be denying people the right to do what
they have the right to do because the study is taking forever. I just
think this is a --
MR. REED: Even with legislation --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: And, you know, like I say, to
suspend all oil well stimulation while they're conducting a three-year
October 25, 2016
Page 191
study, no. I mean, if in a year we determine that it shouldn't be done,
then based on whatever the statutory definition of fracking is, it should
stop now or, conversely, if it's okay, let it advance.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Well, I'm sorry to say I'm very
grumpy on this issue, and the reason I'm very grumpy on this issue is
the legislation that Senator Richter had was to do primarily what's
being requested institute a moratorium and do a study. And we were
very close to having the State of Florida pass that. I think it was
narrowly defeated. I think it was very close.
But we have a problem. The problem is that this is a Collier
County problem only. No other county has any skin in this game.
There's no reason for any other county to support a legislative budget
request to give us money to do a study that only benefits Collier
County. That was one of the problems with the bill to begin with.
That's why Senator Richter constantly commented to us that the
political cost of moving that bill forward was so very high, because
every county was hitting him up for a favor to get him to support it.
And, of course, this was a wonderful thing. You know, I thought
we had as good a bill as we could possibly get, and I actually begged
everybody not kill the good in pursuit of the perfect. But, no, they
wouldn't support it. And who was one of the main factors in defeating
the bill? The Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
So I think it's pretty ridiculous and absolutely outrageous that they
come in now and ask for something that they worked so hard to defeat.
And then in the Naples Florida Weekly they write an op-ed that
complains that the bottom line is we're just as much at risk today as we
were in 2013. Well, look in the mirror, Conservancy. Who is the one
that did that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm going to make a
motion to approve this agenda item.
October 25, 2016
Page 192
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Okay. I mean --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second it?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. As it is?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Sir, I'm very, very upset about this.
It's ridiculous to have this request come back after what we went
through.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: My birthday's past. Is this a
birthday present to me again or no?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, with his motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, no. The motion is a
recommendation to approve Collier County state and federal
legislative priorities for 2017, adopted the attachment.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Oh, okay. I'll withdraw my
second.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I will second it. I can't support this
amendment.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know, Commissioner
Nance was right on. The Conservancy did everything it can to defeat
the legislation to protect the groundwater.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And it was so close, you know.
And it was -- no. Was it perfect? Absolutely not, but at least it would
have given us a chance. Now we have a freshman class of legislative
people that are great people, but they're not going to get this across the
line. And I can tell you, all the legislators that supported Senator
Richter that got beat up over this thing, I'm not sure they're not going
to come back to the party. I'm sure they're not coming back.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have some speakers, some registered
speakers also.
MR. MILLER: Yes, ma'am. We originally had four people sign
October 25, 2016
Page 193
up, but Jaime Duran and Pamela Duran had to leave. I just wanted to
call their names because they did register. You have two speakers left;
Amber Crooks, and she'll be followed by Dona Knapp.
MS. CROOKS: Good afternoon. I'm Amber Crooks on behalf of
the Conservancy of Southwest Florida and over 6,000 members.
Thanks for allowing us to speak on this.
We appreciate that the inland oil drilling is on the proposed list as
an issue to monitor. As you know, this issue is very important to the
Conservancy and many of your Collier County constituents.
These newer extraction techniques, hydraulic and acid fracturing,
as well as matrix acidizing, are riskier than conventional oil extraction
using far more freshwater, numerous toxic chemicals, and they have
not been studied to determine their potential impacts on Florida's
unique hydrology and geology.
Thus, the Conservancy is calling on our legislators to
immediately suspend these activities and to conduct a thorough and
independent study of their effects. We would like to respectfully
request that the county elevate this issue to its issues of major
importance category, as was done in last year's priorities.
We would also recommend that the language here in the memo be
revised to include all forms of unconventional well stimulation -- that
was one of the major issues last year with the bill -- because it only
addresses high-pressure techniques. A simple word replacement in the
description would achieve that.
This is a new, fresh legislative session and an opportunity for the
county to actively advocate on this issue, not just wait and see.
It is critical that the county actively engage in this issue as to
ensure that no legislation is put forward that would infringe upon your
local home-rule rights. Compatibility factors such as light, noise,
traffic, and adjacent land use are not considered in the state oil and gas
regulatory processes.
October 25, 2016
Page 194
Additionally, there are other issues that the Conservancy brought
up in your workshop that are also important issues to the county and
your citizens. I just briefly wanted to mention a few of those: Number
one is the issue of reclaimed water. We want to make sure that we
encourage its use while also maintaining appropriate safeguards; two is
state water -- a stormwater rule standards, rather, and they need to be
updated for a number of years. So we're hoping for rural development;
the third is to support Senator Negron's plan for Everglades restoration;
and fourth having to do with Florida Forever.
Full funding is necessary, and it complements the Amendment 1
resolution that is also part of this agenda item. All of these issues
impact sensitive lands and waters in the county, something that is tied
invariably to our quality of life and our economy. Thus, we hope that
you will not only elevate the oil drilling issue but also add these other
critical topics to your priority list as well.
Thank you.
MR. MILLER: Your final speaker on this item is Dona Knapp.
MS. KNAPP: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for
listening to us.
I am against, not oil drilling, but I am against the pumping of
chemicals down through our aquifer because I just don't trust the
integrity of the oil companies demonstrated by Dan A. Hughes -- and
when they illegally pumped chemicals, cancer-causing chemicals only
20 minutes from where I live in the Corkscrew Swamp watershed, and
I think there should be more studies done on this.
The geology in Florida is unique. Nowhere else do we have such
porous limestone, and things travel. You know, it's just madness to
pump chemicals down into our water source when so much is at stake,
our health. Not only that, but we have more and more people moving
to Florida, and fracking takes vast amounts of water, billions of gallons
per frack, and I wonder where is the water going to come from.
October 25, 2016
Page 195
We have thousands of people moving to Florida every day, so
that's a big concern of mine, that we don't run out of water. And
although it might seem not so important right now, it seems like we
have a lot of water, but the more people that move here, the more that
there will be -- more water will be used.
And we're a state of tourism. We're not a state of fracking. I
mean, there's plenty of other states, North Dakota for instance, that do
this kind of procedure, but I don't think it's a good thing to have here.
So I thank you for your time. I ask you to please consider the
future generations that come after us. We're borrowing that from our
future generations, from our grandchildren. And I would like to leave
a legacy of good, clean water and air for my grandchildren to breathe.
So thank you very much, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Thank you.
MR. MILLER: That was all our speakers for that, yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Now we have a motion on the
floor and a second to approve as is: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That is a 5-0, then. Thank you.
Moving on?
Item #12B
October 25, 2016
Page 196
RECOMMENDATION TO REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO
ADVERTISE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION AN
AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NO. 2010-29, THE COLLIER
COUNTY PUBLIC PARKS AND BEACH ACCESS PARKING
ORDINANCE, TO CLARIFY ITS INTENT AS IT RELATES TO
PARK AND BEACH USERS WHO ALSO WISH TO VISIT
NEARBY SHOPPING AND RESTAURANTS AS PART OF THE
OVERALL RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT
BEACH OR PARK – APPROVED
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. We'll move on now to Item 12B,
which was previously Item 16K8, and that was moved to the County
Attorney regular agenda at Commissioner Taylor's request. This is a
recommendation for authorization to advertise for a future board
meeting, an amendment to Ordinance 2010-29 known as the Collier
County Public Parks and Beach Access Parking Ordinance.
Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. For the public, I put the proposed
ordinance on the overhead. I believe that conforms to your discussion
of a prior meeting and recommendation that you direct me to advertise
it for future hearing.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second. And the ordinance --
the amendment is, it allows you, if you use the parking lot, to go to the
beach. Oh, by the way, let me go get some sunscreen across the street.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: You would think it would be intuitively
obvious, but there were people who were taking a different view of it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Interpretation.
MR. KLATZKOW: Less stricter constructed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's all it does is --
October 25, 2016
Page 197
MR. KLATZKOW: It doesn't change anything.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or if I --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: One word, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. If I want to go to --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Solely to primarily.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- a store next door and buy a
12-pack of beer to take to the beach, as long as it's not in bottles --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, as long as you're going to the beach,
not coming back from the beach to your car; that's probably --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, the ordinance doesn't say
that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good thing is if you're walking around in
a bathing suit, you're probably at the beach anyway.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I was worried about Commissioner
Henning and his ice cream cone since our last meeting. I'm glad we
brought this forward.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I have a motion to approve and a
second. Any further discussion?
MR. MILLER: Yeah. We have public speakers, Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you?
MR. MILLER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, was that your
button on now to speak?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, that's all it was.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. MILLER: Your first speaker is Kathleen Robbins.
MR. NAEGELE: Gone for the day.
MR. MILLER: She's not here. Jim Hoppensteadt, it looks like, is
gone.
Brian Cross?
(No response.)
October 25, 2016
Page 198
MR. MILLER: It look like Mr. Naegele's smarter than I am. Bob
Naegele, your only registered speaker.
MR. NAEGELE: Never. No, I just want to -- a point of
information. What -- does this mean that an ordinance will come up to
clarify these things later? You'll post it, and then there will be
discussion on it, public discussion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. This is the ordinance that's
being advertised, and we'll vote to approve the ordinance at the next
board meeting.
MR. NAEGELE: And tell me what -- it seemed to me the
problem with the variance this morning that was denied was that they
were trying to use public -- or parking spaces in a public --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, that's not what they're doing.
That wasn't --
MR. NAEGELE: To qualify for the restaurant expansion?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, they didn't. What they have is
traffic from the beach. As it turns out, some of the people that use the
beach park in the parking garage. And so the way this ordinance was
written, staff incorrectly interpreted it to mean that, as a consequence,
those people who go to the beach are not allowed to cross the street
and eat in that facility.
MR. NAEGELE: The thing that I'm concerned about is that when
the -- when the deal was cut between WCI and the successor, the
foundation, between the Ritz and the county, 2003, there were deed
restrictions.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Deed restriction doesn't go to this
issue. The deed restriction goes strictly to the type of facility that can
be built on that land, so a public beach access facility and accessory
buildings can be built on that site as opposed to a nightclub on that site.
It doesn't say that only -- that only people who are going to use the
beach and never go beyond that destination can be serviced by a
October 25, 2016
Page 199
building on that property. There's no deed restriction that provides for
that.
MR. NAEGELE: But it's -- the public parking remains. There
will not be a private portion --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No --
MR. NAEGELE: -- in the public -- in the public --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- and there was no request for a
private portion of the public parking. That was a false statement made
by Tony Pires in the hearing. It was never requested as part of the
variance, it wasn't considered as part of the variance, and it was a
misstatement by him on the record.
MR. NAEGELE: All right. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We're coming down the home
stretch.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
MR. OCHS: Did you vote? I don't think you voted.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, no. Okay. So any further comment?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can we vote on it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We are going to right now.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I just wanted to put this up
because I think it was very important to understand it and put it on the
record.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, I think that was very wise of
you.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Thank you.
October 25, 2016
Page 200
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me hear it again.
All in favor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
Yes, and I'm an aye also, 5-0.
MR. OCHS: Thank you, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, Leo, you just eliminated a lot
of work for Code Enforcement that you haven't been doing.
MR. OCHS: Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's called waiving your own laws.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Let all the children out of the jail
now.
Item #15
STAFF AND COMMISSIONER GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
MR. OCHS: Yes; yes, ma'am.
All right. Fifteen, staff and commission general communications.
Nothing from the County Manager this afternoon, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. County Attorney?
MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing from the County Attorney.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, it's been a long day.
Commissioner Taylor?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Two things. In a conversation
with our County Attorney yesterday, I posed the question of how do
we know who the participants are in an LLC if the LLC is doing
business with the county, and his response was ask them. And if
October 25, 2016
Page 201
they're not going to come forward, then don't do business with them.
Well, it appears that we, as well as the City of Naples, are doing
business with LLCs where we really don't know who these participants
are, and that needs to be changed. And I don't know how we do it.
How do we know that -- I mean, how do we know that I'm not
investing in an LLC and I'm, you know, agreeing to things that are
going to benefit me financially? It's a disaster. We have to change
this.
Now, I don't know if this is a local thing or if this is a state
provision, but somehow I think it needs to be addressed.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, that reminds me of a
dog that I was going to name Ask Him. And I came very close to, but,
you know, majority rules, so I didn't name him Ask Him.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Is that all you have to comment
on?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: He's serious.
So I don't know, sir, where we go with this, but it's troubling to
me.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. My understanding, we do that on the
land-use items. We get the principals involved to disclose. You can
do that on your contracts as well if that's going to be board policy. I
think it's a good policy because this way you don't inadvertently vote
on something you might have a conflict of interest on.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think it's a great idea. I really agree.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, we've addressed this in the
past, and I had the same concern going way back, and we -- there is a
requirement for full disclosure, who the owners are.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So let's -- how do we move that forward
then?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: How do we move that forward?
October 25, 2016
Page 202
I'm going to bow to the professionals here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I mean, we've got three -- I haven't heard
from you, but --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I support it.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Just make it a requirement of the
Land Development Code that all petitions --
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I think it is. I'm just saying that there
are other things I don't know that, perhaps, in the world of procurement
that we don't really get into that detail, but I'll leave that to the County
Manager. It's going to impact his agency.
MR. OCHS: If that's the will of the Board, we can certainly
modify our procurement procedures to make sure that we obtain the
names of any LLC that we're contracting with.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, I think it's -- I think it's
critical.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For contracting?
MR. OCHS: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: For contracting?
MR. OCHS: Well, that's the discussion, ma'am. I think it's
already done for land use. The question is if there's -- I think that's
what Commissioner Taylor was asking.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: About procurement?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, yeah. I mean, how do we --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Because before we were talking
about land use. Are we talking --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Well, land use, procurement,
wherever an LLC appears trying to do business with the county, I think
it's incumbent upon us to know who we're doing business with and for
the taxpayers to understand that nobody is getting that -- in staff or in
the commission are getting a financial reward from doing business
October 25, 2016
Page 203
with the county. So it's full disclosure.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, shouldn't we look --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're talking about transparency.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, yeah, but shouldn't we --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Transparency. That's the word,
ma'am. That's the word.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah. But shouldn't the same --
the standard that applies to state procurement and federal procurement
should apply to us with respect to that issue? So whatever, you know,
federal disclosure requirements are should be just incorporated in ours,
and then it makes it very simple, because they're obviously facing the
same, you know --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But maybe --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- issues.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe they don't want to -- maybe they
don't want to be transparent and maybe we do. So I like the idea even
if federal doesn't do it because, let's face it, things are different in
Washington than here. I think we should. I really agree with that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Good, good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Who knows, one of us might be part of an
LLC, and nobody would even know.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, so -- not that we are but, you
know -- my heavens, if I had that and two nickels --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just say that if one of us
was -- owned a company that was offering services to the county and
then voted on it, I mean, obviously that would be a conflict, and we all
know what the laws are regarding ourselves.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Exactly, but we don't -- but the LLC
doesn't divulge who is on there. That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yeah, but we have an affirmative
October 25, 2016
Page 204
duty to disclose if we have an interest.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. How many people -- I think
everybody sitting here is certainly legal, you know. I don't -- but you
know, you never can tell what's going to be coming down the barrel.
And not only that, I just think it's a great idea just for the sake of
transparency, nothing else.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Well, what would be very
interesting is, not from the standpoint of us being involved, but what if
staff is putting forward a company.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. You can tell.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Or like, let's say someone from the
Clerk's Office --
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- trying to do a deal with us and
trying to get away with something illegal.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Haven't we had enough
grumpiness?
MR. OCHS: I'll be happy to --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You started it, sir.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oh, no, I didn't.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's just confessed.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. So I have --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we should then give the County
Attorney direction.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Attorney direction.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's the County Manager that --
MR. OCHS: Yeah, I make the procurement procedure, so I'll
make sure that gets incorporated into our procurement procedures.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. Thank you.
MR. OCHS: Sure.
October 25, 2016
Page 205
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right. And then second one is
another -- not so grumpy one, but an itchy one, as I do think we need
to provide notice to surrounding areas of a -- I can't even read my
writing -- a relief from parking, administrative parking rejection -- I
can't read my writing -- APRs. I do think we need to notice it. If we're
doing things administratively -- and case in point is the Beach Box.
But I'm sure there's other times. And as we're growing and becoming
more intense and parking becomes more of a premium, which it will
because of who we are in more urban areas, I think we need to provide
notice.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Just notice everybody in a half a
mile --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Yeah, whatever that is, just notice
it --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No. I think you just put a notice by
putting it on our county website and have, you know, APR filed as a
county posting, and people can go there and look whenever they want.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioners, I think if you want to
bring that with some back staff analysis --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Okay. That's perfect.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- because I think there are a lot of
things that are administrative that, if you start providing public notice,
they become not administrative. Maybe you'd want to send them to an
officer potentially.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: All right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So let's do the analysis and bring send
it back because there are --
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I'd be happy for that, but I didn't
want to let it slide.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I'd give a nod to that.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: And I am done.
October 25, 2016
Page 206
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Nance?
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yes, thank you. I have got three
very brief things. I provided to you -- it says Homer Helter obituary,
but Mr. Helter's obituary did not include discussion of his memorial
service because it has taken some time to arrange it.
So there in yellow you can see that they're going to have one at
the Faith Lutheran Church and, graciously, the Hilton of Naples on
Tamiami Trail North is going to hold a reception and has underwritten
the cost --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Oh, that's really nice.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: -- of that reception for Diana in
honor of Homer. So those of you that want to go by and see that, this
is the information. And it's, sadly, not as easily available as you might
guess because it has been some time. So I just wanted to let you know
about that, because he passed away on October 2nd.
The second thing is, we had an opportunity to have a visit to
Collier County from Senator Bill Nelson. It was on Saturday. I think
we got very late notice of that, but I think our staff, led by Mr. Durham
and Brandon over there, put things together really quickly and give an
opportunity for our economic development staff at our accelerator and
our airport staff to meet with the senator, answer some questions for
him about those two things in addition to answering questions about
the newly designated Promise Zone, which he and his wife were very,
very interested in.
He came, flew into Immokalee airport with his own personal
plane on a mission. He was going to a private wedding in Ave Maria,
but we had a chance to spend two hours with him. The senator was
very interested, very gracious, and I will say, in my opinion, staff just
did an outstanding job of putting together short, brief but very
compelling presentations to the senator in a couple of hours, and he
certainly got his money's worth out of Collier County.
October 25, 2016
Page 207
So what a nice job and a shout out to all the staff members that
worked so hard for that.
MR. OCHS: Well, thank you for being there, too, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, I really --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: It was a wonderful thing. And I
can't think of a better guy to have in support of that, because actually
Mrs. Nelson has a very -- a high level of personal interest. I think we
learned that, and I think that's very important for us to know.
But, finally, you know, with November the 15th being our last
meeting, I'd like to see if --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Is it November 15th? Is that what
has been decided?
MR. OCHS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Yeah, November 15th.
I would like to see if there's three nods from the commissioners
here today to have staff just give a very brief status report on the status
of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park just so we know where we
are with engineering and permitting and things of that nature.
I mean, we had a -- kind of a related item here on the consent
agenda where we talked about the -- you know, we gained an option to
get some fill that, you know, within two years it could be very, very
valuable on our lake project, but I don't know where the lake is.
So if you could just put together a short, couple-minute
presentation with maybe some supporting docs, I would take that as a
great courtesy and appreciate it very much. That's a very important
project to District 5 and to me and I know to other people on the Board
here who've been steadfast supporters of that regional park for the kids.
MR. OCHS: My pleasure.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So other than that, my thanks to
everybody. I'm surprised we're done, but here we are.
MR. OCHS: You have a very skillful chair. She runs a tight
October 25, 2016
Page 208
meeting.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I know. She wields a mean gavel
there.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, boy. This was a tough one.
I had a couple things. One of them I had a great thing I wanted to
mention to everybody, and I told somebody I was going to mention it
right at the end of this meeting. That was about four days ago. It is
gone from my head. I've been so involved in this meeting, and I didn't
write it down because I was never going to forget it. So it will have to
wait till next time.
Talking about your comments before about advising people, I had
mentioned to you a while back about when we're sending out
notifications of something, especially something that could be
objectionable, whether it be a gas station in their backyard or, you
know, something along that line, that we ought to give them -- and we
give them now 500 feet, right? But if they're located at the other side
of the street, then all of a sudden it doesn't reach them anymore, or the
other side of a field, you know, then they never hear about it.
I wanted -- I had mentioned it before about maybe going to a
thousand feet, maybe so we can make sure that we notify people of
something coming up so -- because people then say, well, I never
noticed -- I was never noticed about the NIM, and they didn't know to
come. So I thought I would like you to look into that at the same time.
That would be just wonderful.
And thank you for bearing with me. I'm sorry I couldn't get it to
run any smoother today, but I did the best I could.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You did a great job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: You did a great job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Good. Have a nice weekend,
everybody. I will see you next week.
October 25, 2016
Page 209
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Can I say something?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, you can. You get to wind it up at the
end.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Awesome. I like to be the closer.
Thank you for providing the information on crashes at the
intersection of State Road 29 and County Road 29. It's outrageous. I
cannot believe the history of deaths at that intersection. And I did see
those flashing lights when I was there, and I know they weren't there
before. It is completely inadequate because on Columbus Day when I
was at that intersection with those lights flashing, I witnessed a fatality.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which one was that? I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: The intersection of State Road 29
and County Road 29, 41.
So it is absolutely critical that we get a full light at that
intersection and that we figure out what to do with the vegetation so
that if there is any vegetation that impedes the sightline, that we get it
appropriately cleared. There was some discussion of that. I can't
evaluate what vegetation is improper. You need to go out there and
look at it. What do we need to do to get a light?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that's a DOT road, so I
think --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Right. No, it's the intersection of a
DOT road and a county road.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: However, it's a DOT road. So what I
asked David to do is bring this up with Chris, the regional director, and
maybe have a presentation at the MPO, the appropriate time, because
you'd have the district secretary there, he could kind of give you a --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I need --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Wasn't that brought up at the MPO
meeting last month?
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: It was, yes.
October 25, 2016
Page 210
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not enough. I think what we
need to do is, as a board, make a formal request to the Department of
Transportation, send them the numbers and, you know, copy the
Sheriff, copy the Florida Highway Patrol and say, look, I mean, this is
a matter of life and death. This is a matter of high urgency. This is not
a matter of political debate. If ever there was an action that has to be
taken to promote the public safety, it's this one.
So I cannot, in good conscience, sit here, having witnessed what I
witnessed, knowing full well that the flashing lights didn't save a life. I
can't sit here and allow that to go without action today.
And I think what we need to do is -- I would ask that you draft a
letter for the chair that formally makes that request, attach the
information, notice the sheriff, notice FHP, and tell them, you know,
it's not an option.
I mean, we have the -- did they ever remove the lights at the
intersection, you know, where Germain Honda is where we know
they're not going to do those -- they're not going to put up lights? It's
on U.S. 41 north of Immokalee in front of Germain. The lights are
there.
We have capital invested in those lights. They could be relocated
to that intersection. Those lights are not going to be activated. There
are no warrants to justify it. There are no incidents to justify it. You
could remove those lights and move them to that location and save the
money at least in terms of the material, since we already have it and all
you have is a labor cost.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ma'am, I might suggest, the letter to
DOT would be -- I think it would better served to ask them to do a
presentation to you about what they've done, what they plan to do. Just
asking for a light, they're going to --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: No, no. We know -- they've
already done that. That's what precipitated their decision to put the
October 25, 2016
Page 211
flashing lights there. If they want to come back and respond to us and
say, well, we want to do a presentation to justify the lights, then my
response to them is, well, you've got blood on your hands today
because we had a death on Columbus Day at that intersection.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Commissioner Hiller, let me add
something I think that would be meaningful to your discussion, maybe
help us move this forward.
I actually did a site visit to the intersection this Wednesday past,
and the reason I did it is because I had an introductory meeting with
our new superintendent of the Big Cypress National Preserve, Tammy
Whittington, who I believe would be a significant partner for us to
meet with and discuss this issue before we talk to FDOT because the
land -- I believe that three out of the four corners are owned by the
national preserve. The only one I'm not sure about is the northwest
corner. I think that's in the national preserve, but I'm not sure.
And what I did was I went around, and I looked at the sightlines
to see what it would take to open up those sightlines a little bit where
one car could see another, because the biggest problem is a car coming
south on State Road 29 is going through a tunnel of foliage, and
nobody on County Road -- on U.S. 41 East can see them arriving, nor
can they see traffic coming from either direction.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: If you had a light --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: So that would -- so what would
happen was --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- it would solve that.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: But I think it's appropriate, ma'am,
to open up some of that foliage so people start to look around.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: You know, it's kind of a lonesome
road, particularly if you're out there dusk or dawn and there's any fog
or anything. Open that up a little bit, and I think Superintendent
October 25, 2016
Page 212
Whittington can certainly help us get -- you know, help us get some
consideration on getting some of those sightlines improved since
people are getting killed.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It's not enough.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: And maybe she could encourage
FDOT to do something because she's killing -- you know, they're
killing people on her unit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: One is a federal highway, so she works
for the federal government. She should have some at the --
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Some pull.
(Multiple speakers speaking.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: So why don't you just -- again, I
don't want to wait, okay. We, literally, just had another death, right?
So let's do what Commissioner Nance says, get that woman involved,
get her to join with us in that letter, make it a joint letter from us and
her and, you know, she can state that she'll cooperate in whatever way
she can to help by, you know, doing whatever necessary trimming
would help, but there is no question that trimming alone is not the
solution, and a flashing light doesn't work because we had a death. So
let's just get it done. You know, that's our responsibility.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll write the letter.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Our priority as commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let's also check with the FDOT, because
we brought it up at the joint regional meeting --
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Yep.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and they were going to check on it also.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let's get that letter out, and let's
make it a top priority and put the burden on them. And, you know, if
there's another death, then the blood is on their hands. And I'm serious
about it.
October 25, 2016
Page 213
Leo, what's up with the Cubs? Like, what is wrong with you?
MR. OCHS: I'm a Sox fan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me just say something.
MR. MILLER: I'm a Cubs fan.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: It took six years --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not over yet.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- I just want you to know.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: No way. You're a Sox fan?
MR. OCHS: Southside Sox fan.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Now the truth comes out.
MR. OCHS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: All working people are Sox fans.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Unbelievable.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: That's really amazing.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: I didn't know that. I thought he
was a Cubs fan.
MR. OCHS: Hey, look, if the Red Sox could win, anybody can
win.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Let me ask you something. Have I
told you today how much I love you? I just want to know. Okay.
Well, let me just say, if I haven't, let me just say, I adore you, baby.
Oh, my God.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: I think we should dispatch a
delegation with some goats to offer to go up to Chicago and purge the
curse out of there. We might -- you know, since they got the
opportunity now and we got the goats, it might be worth some money
for us to look into it. They might be willing to pay a substantial bounty
on curse removal.
MR. OCHS: We want them all gone.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: We started this -- we started the
afternoon by our chairman complimenting the attorney on his choice of
October 25, 2016
Page 214
tie, but I think all eyes need to go to the back to look what Dr. George
is wearing, a yellow tie and a white jacket. He looks like Miami
Beach.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Miami Vice.
MR. OCHS: It's quite dapper. Quite dapper, indeed, back there.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I look forward to the day that Greg
Stanley wears a tie.
COMMISSIONER TAYLOR: Ain't gonna happen.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: I'm like -- maybe one day at the
Beach Box --
MR. OCHS: Halloween's coming up.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: -- sitting at Table 67. Okay.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Oops.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Okay. So I covered State Road 29,
I covered the Cubs.
Happy Halloween. Have a really great holiday. I hope you all
dress up and be what you've always wanted to be.
COMMISSIONER NANCE: Except a clown, right?
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Except a clown, yeah. Because
Halloween's a good thing. I love it. What are you going as?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And with that, folks, meeting is
adjourned.
COMMISSIONER HILLER: Thank you.
**** Commissioner Taylor moved, seconded by Commissioner
Nance and carried unanimously that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted ****
Item #16A1
AWARDING CONTRACT #16-6617 IN A TOTAL AMOUNT OF
October 25, 2016
Page 215
$662,496 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE
RANDALL BOULEVARD AND OIL WELL CORRIDOR STUDY
TO CH2MHILL – TO DEFINE THE MOST APPROPRIATE
CORRIDOR FOR MULTI-LANE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED TO
FACILITATE EAST-WEST TRAVEL
Item #16A2
AWARDING RFP NO. 16-6610 “ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE VENDORS” AND AUTHORIZE
THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH EIGHT
VENDORS: HANNULA LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION,
INC., FLORIDA LAND MAINTENANCE D/B/A COMMERCIAL
LAND MAINTENANCE, GROUND ZERO LANDSCAPING
SERVICES INC., CARIBBEAN LAWN & GARDEN OF SW
NAPLES FL INC., SCOTT LOWERY LANDSCAPING, INC.,
SIGNATURE TREE CARE, LLC, THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT
CO., AND STAHLMAN-ENGLAND IRRIGATION, INC. – TO
MAINTAIN 102 MILES OF MEDIAN LANDSCAPING AND
IRRIGATION ON COUNTY ROADS
Item #16A3
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
RIVERSTONE PLAT 6, PARCEL F, PL20140001215, AND TO
AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL
AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE
DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT – LOCATED NORTH OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD ALONG THE PROPOSED LOGAN BLVD
October 25, 2016
Page 216
Item #16A4
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR THE
ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, PHASE E
AND G2, PL20150000684, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED
AGENT – LOCATED NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD ALONG
COLLIER BLVD
Item #16A5
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF THE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES, PHASES
G1 AND R3, PL20150000179, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE
FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
DESIGNATED AGENT – LOCATED NORTH OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD ALONG COLLIER BLVD
Item #16A6
FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER FACILITIES FOR
COASTAL BEVERAGE WAREHOUSE AND MAINTENANCE
FACILITY, PL20150000688, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE
COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE
UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY (UPS) AND FINAL
October 25, 2016
Page 217
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,996.23
TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
DESIGNATED AGENT – LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF
INDUSTRIAL BLVD AND RADIO ROAD
Item #16A7
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
ISLES OF COLLIER PRESERVE, (PHASE 1) SUB-PHASE 3,
PL20130002517, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER,
OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT –
FINAL INSPECTION ON AUGUST 25, 2016 FOUND THE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A8
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF POTABLE WATER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR ISLES OF
COLLIER PRESERVE, (PHASE 1) SUB-PHASES 1 AND 2,
PL20130001825, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY MANAGER,
OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL OBLIGATION
BOND, AND UTILITIES PERFORMANCE SECURITY BOND IN
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $19,486.18 TO THE PROJECT
ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED AGENT –
FINAL INSPECTION ON AUGUST 25, 2016 FOUND THE
FACILITIES TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCEPTABLE
Item #16A9
October 25, 2016
Page 218
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
QUARRY, PHASE 7, PL20150001157, AND TO AUTHORIZE
THE COUNTY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE
THE FINAL OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF
$4,000 TO THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER’S
DESIGNATED AGENT – LOCATED ON WEATHERED STONE
DRIVE, NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
Item #16A10
FINAL ACCEPTANCE AND UNCONDITIONAL CONVEYANCE
OF POTABLE WATER AND SEWER UTILITY FACILITIES FOR
CANOPY, PL20140000042, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY
MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO RELEASE THE FINAL
OBLIGATION BOND IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $4,000 TO
THE PROJECT ENGINEER OR DEVELOPER’S DESIGNATED
AGENT – LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD
BETWEEN TREE FARM ROAD AND DANBURY BLVD
Item #16A11
CLERK OF COURTS TO RELEASE A CASH BOND IN THE
AMOUNT OF $2,000 TO THE APPLICANT, SWF
DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC WHICH WAS POSTED AS A
DEVELOPMENT GUARANTY FOR AN EARLY WORK
AUTHORIZATION (EWA) (PL20150002901) FOR WORK
ASSOCIATED WITH THE BIZPARK, SITE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (SDP) – LOCATED OFF OF OLD 41, JUST SOUTH OF
BONITA BEACH ROAD
October 25, 2016
Page 219
Item #16A12
A WAIVER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GUIDELINES SET
FORTH IN THE ADVANCE STREET NAME GUIDELINES
POLICY AND RESOLUTION NO. 2012-114 FOR PLACEMENT
OF ADVANCE STREET NAME GUIDE SIGNS ALONG
AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AT THE APPROACHES TO
HAWKS RIDGE DRIVE
Item #16A13
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF DEL WEBB NAPLES
PARCEL 204, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL201600001451)
APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION
AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY – THE
DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE
OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A14
AN EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH ARROWHEAD
RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD PHASE ONE (AR-3771) AND
ARROWHEAD RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD PHASE TWO
(AR-3974) – AN EXTENSION THROUGH JUNE 24, 2017 FOR
PHASE ONE AND OCTOBER 14, 2017 FOR PHASE TWO
Item #16A15
October 25, 2016
Page 220
RECORDING THE MINOR FINAL PLAT OF ANGEL’S
SUBDIVISION, APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160000116 –
LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF FRANGIPANI AVE AND 20TH
ST SE IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
Item #16A16
RESOLUTION 2016-219: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PRIVATE
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE
FINAL PLAT OF RIVERSTONE – PLAT 3 APPLICATION
NUMBER 20120001441 WITH ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED,
AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE
SECURITY, AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAT DEDICATIONS
Item #16A17
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CORAL HARBOR PHASE 1,
(APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001134) APPROVAL OF THE
STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE
PERFORMANCE SECURITY – DEVELOPER MUST RECEIVE A
CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PRIOR TO
THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN FINAL
APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A18
RESOLUTION 2016-220: FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE
PRIVATE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE FINAL PLAT OF QUARRY PHASE 1 APPLICATION
October 25, 2016
Page 221
NUMBER AR-6468, WITH THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS BEING PRIVATELY MAINTAINED,
ACCEPTANCE OF PLAT DEDICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
THE RELEASE OF THE MAINTENANCE SECURITY
Item #16A19
AN EXTENSION FOR COMPLETION OF SUBDIVISION
IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ARROWHEAD
RESERVE AT LAKE TRAFFORD – BLOCK ‘C’ (AR-10335)
SUBDIVISION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10.02.05 C.2 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE –
EXTENDING THE COMPLETION DATE TO JANUARY 23, 2018
Item #16A20
RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF CORAL HARBOR PHASE
II, (APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160001577) APPROVAL OF
THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY – DEVELOPER
MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ADEQUATE PUBLIC
FACILITIES PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION
PLAN FINAL APPROVAL LETTER
Item #16A21
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH AN
ACCRUED VALUE OF $132,800.78 FOR PAYMENT OF
$2,550.78 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. BERNARD
October 25, 2016
Page 222
LOSCHING, EST., CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO.
CEPM20140022483 RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
13102 POND APPLE DRIVE W, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA –
REGARDING A VACANT UNSECURED DWELLING WITH
VIOLATIONS FOR POOL WATER, ROOF DAMAGE AND
CEILING DAMAGE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON
SEPTEMBER 8, 2016
Item #16A22
RELEASE OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT LIEN WITH A
COMBINED ACCRUED VALUE OF $18,128.16 FOR PAYMENT
OF $4,000 IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION ENTITLED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. BLACK RIVER
ROCK, CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE NO.
CESD20140018277, RELATING TO PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6665 COLLIER BOULEVARD, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA –
VIOLATIONS FOR AN UNDEVELOPED PARCEL WHICH HAD
BEEN CLEARED OF VEGETATION AND THE PLACEMENT
OF 54 LOADS OF FILL DIRT/ROCK WITHOUT PERMITS,
BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE ON FEBRUARY 2, 2015
Item #16A23
THE “HITS TRIATHLON SERIES” (HORSE SHOWS IN THE
SUN) EVENT TO TAKE PLACE IN COLLIER COUNTY ON
JANUARY 7TH & 8TH, 2017, INCLUDING EVENING HOURS
Item #16A24
AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 16-6598, “FIXED TERM
October 25, 2016
Page 223
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES” TO THE
FOLLOWING SIX FIRMS: MICHAEL A. MCGEE, LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT, P.A. D/B/A MCGEE & ASSOCIATES; GOETZ +
STROPES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.; JOHNSON
ENGINEERING; WINDHAM STUDIO, INC.; Q. GRADY MINOR;
AND URBAN GREEN STUDIO, PLLC
Item #16A25
A BUDGET AMENDMENT TOTALING $269,600 FROM FUND
(112) RESERVES AND APPROPRIATING THESE DOLLARS
WITHIN THE FOLLOWING FUND (112) PROJECTS TO
CONTINUE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEDIAN CAPITAL
LANDSCAPE PROGRAM: CR951 - FIDDLER’S CREEK TO
MAINSAIL DRIVE (PROJECT NO. 60149) FOR PERMIT FEES;
IMMOKALEE ROAD - CR951 TO WILSON BLVD. (PROJECT
NO. 60018); COLLIER BLVD. - US 41 TO MARINO CIRCLE
(PROJECT NO. 60001); AND SANTA BARBARA - DAVIS
BLVD. TO BRIDGE NO. 030206NB, 030205SB AT I-75
(PROJECT NO. 62018) FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN SERVICES
Item #16A26
RESOLUTION 2016-221: REQUESTING THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCELERATE
FUNDING FOR STATE ROAD 82 ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Item #16A27
AN OPTION AGREEMENT FOR EXCAVATION MATERIAL
October 25, 2016
Page 224
BETWEEN RP ORANGE BLOSSOM OWNER, LLC., AND
COLLIER COUNTY TO PROVIDE AN OPTION TO PURCHASE
EXCAVATED FILL FOR USE ON COUNTY PROJECTS. (A
COMPANION TO ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH PUDA ITEM
#17B) – FILL TO BE USED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL PARK IN GOLDEN
GATE ESTATES AREA
Item #16A28
RESOLUTION 2016-222: DECLARING A FUTURE PUBLIC
HEARING TO CONSIDER VACATING A PORTION OF THE
EAST END OF MAINSAIL DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BEING A
PART OF MARCO SHORES UNIT ONE, PLAT BOOK 14, PAGE
33 OF PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (VAC- PL20160000379)
Item #16A29
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #16-6624 “CONCRETE:
SIDEWALKS, CURBS, FLOORS AND OTHER APPLICATIONS”
TO HERITAGE BUILDERS, LLC D/B/A HERITAGE UTILITIES;
WAIVING MINOR IRREGULARITIES OF BID SUBMISSION
DOCUMENTS; AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
SIGN THE CONTRACT
Item #16B1
CHANGE ORDER #4 TO EXTEND CONTRACT #13-6012 WITH
RWA CONSULTANTS, INC., FOR AN ADDITIONAL 552 DAYS;
October 25, 2016
Page 225
INCREASE THE CONTRACT AMOUNT BY $70,650.00; AND
AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE CHANGE
ORDER TO PERMIT THE COMPLETION OF THE THOMASSON
DRIVE/HAMILTON HARBOR STREETSCAPE DESIGN
PROJECT IN ORDER TO PROMOTE SAFER VEHICULAR AND
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC MOVEMENT – AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16C1
AWARDING INVITATION TO BID #16-6542 FOR PURCHASE
AND DELIVERY OF CARTRIDGE FILTERS FOR NORTH AND
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANTS
TO TRI-DIM FILTER CORPORATION – TO PRE-FILTER RAW
WATER PRIOR TO THE REVERSE OSMOSIS AND
MEMBRANE SOFTENING TREATMENT PROCESSES
Item #16D1
A COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES
VETERINARIAN LICENSING AGREEMENT WHICH ALLOWS
VETERINARIANS AND AUTHORIZED AGENTS TO SELL
COLLIER COUNTY PET LICENSES, COLLECT FEES, AND
RELEVANT SURCHARGES ESTABLISHED BY RESOLUTION
2016-125
Item #16D2
FIRST AMENDMENT TO STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH COMMUNITY ASSISTED AND SUPPORTIVE LIVING,
October 25, 2016
Page 226
INC. D/B/A RENAISSANCE MANOR, TO INCREASE FISCAL
YEAR 2015-2016 FUNDING TO $300,000 AND TO CLARIFY OR
UPDATE PROGRAM INFORMATION – ADDRESSING THE
RISING COST OF RENTAL ACQUISITION AND ALLOWING
CASL TO PURCHASE TWO PROPERTIES WITH TWO
SEPARATE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
Item #16D3
FIRST AMENDMENT TO STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
WITH COMMUNITY ASSISTED AND SUPPORTED LIVING,
INC. TO DECREASE TOTAL AWARD AMOUNT, REVISE
REQUIRED SPENDING REQUIREMENTS AND TO UPDATE
COUNTY STAFF CONTACTS
Item #16D4 – Moved to Item #11E (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16D5
THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE
DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER TO EXTEND
THE TERM, MODIFY GRANT STAFFING, AND ADJUST THE
GRANT AND MATCH BUDGET – EXTENDING THE
CONTRACT TERM UNTIL JUNE 30, 2017
Item #16D6
AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DAVID LAWRENCE MENTAL
HEALTH CENTER TO GOVERN THE ALLOCATION OF THE
STATE MANDATED MATCH FOR FY 17 IN THE AMOUNT OF
October 25, 2016
Page 227
$1,649,400 – PROVIDING ADULT AND CHILDREN’S MENTAL
HEALTH AND ADULT SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES TO
COLLIER COUNTY CITIZENS
Item #16D7
THE FY16-17 CONTRACT WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR THE OPERATION OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF $1,419,500 AND ALSO TO APPROVE AN ADDENDUM TO
THE CONTRACT TO ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL $249,220
TO FILL A FUNDING GAP DUE TO STATE NON-FUNDING OF
THE ACHA MEDICAID MATCH PROGRAMS AND
AUTHORIZES NECESSARY BUDGET AMENDMENTS
Item #16D8
TWO MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
BOARD, INC. FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE 21ST CENTURY
COMMUNITY LEARNING CENTERS SWIMMING SKILLS
AND DROWNING PREVENTION "MIRACLE PLUS 1" AND
"MIRACLE PLUS 2" PROGRAMS – CAMPS WILL BE HELD
MARCH 13-16, APRIL 29, JUNE 5-8 AND JUNE 12-15, 2017
Item #16D9
RESOLUTION 2016-223: A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE
FRIENDS OF MARCO ISLAND FLOTILLA 9-5, INC., TO
RECOGNIZE A FRIEND’S DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
$51,000, AND APPROVE THE NECESSARY BUDGET
October 25, 2016
Page 228
AMENDMENT FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF
A NEW MODULAR UNIT AT CAXAMBAS COMMUNITY
PARK FOR THE USE OF FRIENDS TO PROVIDE BOATER
SAFETY EDUCATION TO COUNTY RESIDENTS AND
VISITORS – LOCATED AT 905 COLLIER COURT
Item #16D10
AN AGREEMENT WITH COLLIER COUNTY CHILD
ADVOCACY COUNCIL, INC. TO PROVIDE FOR MANDATED
SERVICES IDENTIFIED UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE 39.304(5)
FOR FY 16/17 (FISCAL IMPACT $80,000) – FOR INITIAL
FORENSIC PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS AND MEDICAL
CONSULTATION SERVICES FOR ALLEGEDLY ABUSED,
NEGLECTED OR ABANDONED CHILDREN
Item #16D11
A VICTIMS ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION (VAO) AFTER-THE-
FACT GRANT APPLICATION FOR A 3-YEAR FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE
REINVESTMENT GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,042,505.66 –
THE PARTICIPATING AGENCIES ARE COLLIER COUNTY,
DAVID LAWRENCE CENTER, SHERIFF’S OFFICE AND NAMI
Item #16D12
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE
FRIENDS OF COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY, INC. TO
CLARIFY THE OPERATING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
October 25, 2016
Page 229
COLLIER COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY AND FRIENDS
Item #16D13
RESOLUTION 2016-224: UPDATING THE COLLIER COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE
Item #16D14
RESOLUTION 2016-225: RELATING TO GIFT OR PURCHASE
OF BUS STOP EASEMENTS THAT EXEMPTS A PURCHASE IN
THE AMOUNT UP TO $100,000 FROM THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN EXTERNAL APPRAISAL
Item #16E1
AWARDING RFP #16-6613, PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
BROKERAGE SERVICES TO INSURANCE AND RISK
MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. (IRMS) – EFFECTIVE
JANUARY 1, 2017
Item #16E2
RESOLUTION 2016-226: AUTHORIZING CANCELLATION OF
2016 TAXES UPON FEE-SIMPLE INTEREST IN LAND THAT
COLLIER COUNTY ACQUIRED BY SPECIAL WARRANTY
DEED FOR CONSERVATION COLLIER WITHOUT
MONETARY COMPENSATION (ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC
SERVICES DEPARTMENT) – TAX ID #39951760004
Item #16E3
October 25, 2016
Page 230
AN ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT FROM SCHLUMBERGER
WATER SERVICES USA, INC. TO PB WATER SERVICES USA,
INC. AS IT RELATES TO CONTRACT #13-6164
“PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARCHITECT AND
ENGINEERING” FOR WELLFIELD STUDY, PLANNING
AND/OR DESIGN (WEL) – THE ACQUISTION OF
SCHLUMBERGER TOOK PLACE ON AUGUST 1, 2016
Item #16E4
RESOLUTION 2016-227: REMOVING UNCOLLECTIBLE
ACCOUNT RECEIVABLES IN THE AMOUNT OF $313.05
FROM FINANCIAL RECORDS OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES
DIVISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2006-
252 AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE THE
RESOLUTION
Item #16E5
A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH NORTH COLLIER FIRE
DISTRICT FOR EMS DIVISION'S CONTINUED USE OF
STATION 48 AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $10,740, EFFECTIVE
OCTOBER 1, 2016 – LOCATED ON NORTH LIVINGSTON RD
Item #16E6
WAIVING COMPETITION AND AUTHORIZE SINGLE-SOURCE
PURCHASES FOR CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION PIPELINE
INSPECTION VEHICLES, SOFTWARE, SUPPLIES AND PARTS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD’S PRIOR APPROVAL
TO STANDARDIZE THESE PURCHASES WITH COMMUNITY
October 25, 2016
Page 231
UTILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. (CUES) –
VEHICLES ASSIST IN THE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COUNTY’S SEWER SYSTEM
Item #16E7
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS PREPARED BY PROCUREMENT
SERVICES DIVISION FOR CHANGE ORDERS, SURPLUS
PROPERTY AND OTHER ITEMS AS IDENTIFIED – CHANGE
ORDERS COVERING THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2016 AND SURPLUS REPORTS
SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 THROUGH OCTOBER 4, 2016
Item #16F1
THE PROPOSED FY2017 ACTION PLAN FOR LEO E. OCHS,
JR., COUNTY MANAGER – AS DETAILED IN THE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Item #16F2
AMENDMENT #1 TO TOURISM CATEGORY “B” CONTRACT
#16-7008 BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND SPIRIT
PROMOTIONS FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE OPERATING
EXPENSES FOR THE 2017 US OPEN PICKLEBALL
CHAMPIONSHIPS IN THE AMOUNT OF $60,000 AND MAKE A
FINDING THAT THESE EXPENDITURE PROMOTES TOURISM
– ELIMINATES THE COST OF PORTABLE BLEACHER
RENTAL AND OFFSITE PARKING RENTAL AND ADDS IN
THEIR PLACE THE COST OF EMT’S AND PROFESSIONAL
TRAINERS FOR THE EVENT PARTICIPANTS
October 25, 2016
Page 232
Item #16F3
TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAX CATEGORY “B” FUNDING TO
SUPPORT THE SENIOR SOFTBALL USA WINTER
NATIONALS UP TO $6,500 AND MAKE A FINDING THAT
THESE EXPENDITURES PROMOTE TOURISM – TAKING
PLACE NOVEMBER 1-6, 2016 AT THE NORTH COLLIER
REGIONAL PARK
Item #16F4
RESOLUTION 2016-228: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
GRANTS, DONATIONS, CONTRIBUTIONS OR INSURANCE
PROCEEDS) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED
BUDGET
Item #16F5 – Moved to Item #11F (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16J1
AWARDING RFP #16-6684, ARBITRAGE COMPLIANCE
SERVICES FOR COLLIER COUNTY TO PFM ASSET
MANAGEMENT, LLC IN AN ESTIMATED MAXIMUM
ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $25,000 – PROVIDING SERVICES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ARBITRAGE REBATE REQUIREMENTS
Item #16J2
SPECIAL INTERIM REPORTS FOR APPROVAL AS DETAILED
IN SECTION 2C OF THE AGREED-UPON ORDER DATED JULY
16, 2015 BY JUDGE JAMES R. SHENKO IN THE MANNER
October 25, 2016
Page 233
REQUESTED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED IN ITEM 16.I) AND THAT PRIOR
TO PAYMENT, THE BOARD APPROVES THESE
EXPENDITURES WITH A FINDING THAT SAID
EXPENDITURES SERVE A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE AND
AUTHORIZES THE CLERK TO MAKE DISBURSEMENT
Item #16J3
RECORDING IN THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE CHECK NUMBER (OR OTHER
PAYMENT METHOD), AMOUNT, PAYEE, AND PURPOSE FOR
WHICH THE REFERENCED DISBURSEMENTS WERE DRAWN
FOR THE PERIODS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 29 TO OCTOBER
12, 2016 PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE 136.06
Item #16J4 – Deny Payables Report (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
PROVIDING TO THE BOARD A “PAYABLES REPORT” FOR
THE PERIOD ENDING OCTOBER 19, 2016 PURSUANT TO THE
BOARD’S REQUEST
Item #16K1
RESOLUTION 2016-229: APPOINTTING RENEE HANSON AND
ERNST BRETZMANN TO THE GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY
CENTER ADVISORY BOARD, TO VACANT SEATS TO TERMS
EXPIRING DECEMBER 31, 2017
Item #16K2
October 25, 2016
Page 234
RESOLUTION 2016-230: REAPPOINTTING SUZANNE CHAPIN
AND HOLLY AMODEO TO THE RADIO ROAD EAST OF
SANTA BARBARA BLVD. ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TO
FOUR YEARS TERMS EXPIRING ON OCTOBER 27, 2020
Item #16K3
RESOLUTION 2016-231: APPOINTTING W. JAMES KLUG III
TO THE PUBLIC TRANSIT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TO A
TERM EXPIRING MARCH 22, 2020
Item #16K4 – Moved to Item #12C (Per Commissioner Fiala during
Agenda Changes)
Item #16K5
A PROPOSED JOINT MOTION FOR STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF TAKING IN THE AMOUNT OF
$50,109.29 IN TOTAL COMPENSATION, INCLUDING
OUTSTANDING AD VALOREM TAXES, FOR THE TAKING OF
PARCEL 311FEE IN THE PENDING EMINENT DOMAIN CASE
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JOSEPH BARTOSZEK, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 16-CA-1200, REQUIRED FOR EXPANSION OF
GOLDEN GATE BLVD. FROM 20TH STREET EAST TO EAST
OF EVERGLADES BLVD., PROJECT NO. 60145. (FISCAL
IMPACT: $50,109.29) – FOR APPROXIMATELY 1.14 ACRES ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE BLVD. E/FOLIO
#39394640008
Item #16K6
October 25, 2016
Page 235
AN OFFER OF JUDGMENT TO RESPONDENT, GULF VIEW
TOWNHOMES, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $200,101 FOR THE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 145DAME IN THE PENDING
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. APRIL CHAPPELL,
ET AL., CASE NO. 10-3932-CA, LELY AREA STORMWATER
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (LASIP) NO. 51101. (FISCAL
IMPACT: $124,101 EXCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES
CALCULATED ACCORDING TO THE STATUTORY BENEFIT
FORMULA IF THE OFFER IS ACCEPTED, PLUS EXPERT
WITNESS FEES AS MAY BE AWARDED BY THE COURT)
Item #16K7
AN AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES
FOR THE RETENTION AGREEMENT WITH WOODS
WEIDENMILLER MICHETTI RUDNICK & GALBRAITH, PLLC
– EXTENDING THE TERM FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO (2)
YEAR TERM, WITH THREE (3) ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR
RENEWAL TERMS AND REFLECTING THE NEW NAME OF
THE FIRM
Item #16K8 – Moved to Item #12B (Per Agenda Change Sheet)
Item #16K9
A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE IN
THE LAWSUIT STYLED MAYRA MOYA V. COLLIER
COUNTY (CASE NO. 15-CA-000590), NOW PENDING IN THE
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FOR $40,000 –
RELATING TO AN ALLEGED ELECTRICAL SHOCK THAT
October 25, 2016
Page 236
OCCURRED TO THE PLAINTIFF WHILE PARTICIPATING IN
AN EXERCISE GROUP AT IMMOKALEE COMMUNITY PARK
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2016-30: AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
WHICH IS THE COLLIER COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT
FEE ORDINANCE, TO PROVIDE FOR AN AMENDMENT TO
SECTION 74-401 TO ALLOW IMPACT FEE DEFERRALS FOR
ALL OWNER-OCCUPIED DWELLING UNITS TO INCLUDE
AUTOMATIC SUBORDINATION TO THE OWNER’S FIRST
MORTGAGE
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2016-31: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 04-74,
THE ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO ALLOW OFFSITE REMOVAL OF
EXCESS MATERIAL ASSOCIATED WITH EXCAVATION
PERMITS AND AMEND THE MASTER PLAN TO CHANGE
LANDSCAPE BUFFERS TO CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE REQUIREMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE
NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF OIL WELL ROAD (C.R. 858)
APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE EAST OF IMMOKALEE ROAD
(C.R. 846) IN SECTIONS 13, 14 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 27 EAST, AND SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH
RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING
OF 616+/- ACRES [PUDA-PL20160000787] (COMPANION TO
AGENDA ITEM #16A27)
October 25, 2016
Page 237
Item #17C
RESOLUTION 2016-232: AMENDMENTS (APPROPRIATING
CARRY FORWARD, TRANSFERS AND SUPPLEMENTAL
REVENUE) TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 ADOPTED
BUDGET
October 25, 2016
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:19 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
taLppni, 14,
DONNA F1ALA, CHAIRMAN
ATTvk .
DWIGHT EVOCK, CLERK
6 c
VA '. ;yam:
Atte si„asha i rman's
', igti` 'e only.
These minutes approved by the Board on tom' 3 b , as
presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL
SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND
NOTARY PUBLIC
Page 238