BCC Minutes 04/08/2003 RApril 8, 2003
REGULAR MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2003
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
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 9:02 a.m. in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
Fred Coyle
Donna Fiala
Frank Halas
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Administrator
David C. Weigel, County Attorney
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
April 8, 2003
9:00 a.m.
Tom Henning, Chairman, District 3
Donna Fiala, Vice-Chair, District 1
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Fred W. Coyle, Commissioner, District 4
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM
MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER
WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE
AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 99-22 REQUIRES THAT ALL
LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS".
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO,
AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD
OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1
April 8, 2003
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5)
MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
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, TO THE PROVISION OF
CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Ted Sauter, North Naples United Methodist Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as amended. (Ex
Parte Disclosure provided by Commission members for summary agenda.)
B. March 11, 2003 - Regular Meeting
C. March 12, 2003 - LDC Workshop
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation to recognize April as National Fair Housing Month. To be
accepted by Mr. Orlando Lode, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development and Ms. Fiordaliza Bustamante, CDP Representative.
Be
Proclamation to honor The Veterans Corporation and the VET FastTrac
programs. To be accepted by David C. Clagett, Jr. Vice President,
Operations and Retired Charles R. Henry, Major General, U.S. Army,
President and CEO.
2
April 8, 2003
Proclamation supporting our troops and their families that are protecting our
Country. To be accepted by Jim Els.n, Veterans Council.
PRESENTATIONS
6. PUBLIC PETITIONS
ge
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by the Commission members. VA-2002-AR-3379, Aquatic
Architects, Inc., representing Kris and Jodi Anderson, requesting an after-
the-fact variance of 1.8 feet from the minimum rear yard accessory structure
setback of 10 feet to 8.2 feet for a screened enclosure addition to a single
family dwelling for property located at 349 Wimbledon Lane, further
described as Berkshire Lakes, Unit 1, Block B, Lot 39, in Section 32,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public Hearing for the 2002 Cycle of Growth Management Plan
Amendments.
Be
An ordinance amending Ordinance No. 99-76 relating to mandatory street
numbering of all structures and the establishing of a grid pattern for street
numbering; providing for statutory authorization; providing for findings of
fact; providing a statement of intent and purpose; providing for definitions;
providing for requirements for posting of official address number; providing
for specifications for posting official address number; providing for
application for new official address number; providing for compliance
relating to new construction or building repairs; providing for an amended
procedure for establishing a uniform grid numbering pattern for assignment
of addresses or change of address; providing for an amended procedure for
changing non-conforming addresses; providing for duly advertised public
hearings to rename a street; providing for monitoring of the naming of
streets, developments, buildings or subdivisions; providing amended
procedures for street naming; providing amended procedures for street
renaming; providing for public notification; providing for street signs on
private streets; providing an appeal procedure; providing for abrogation and
disclaimer of liability; providing for enforcement and penalties; providing
3
April 8, 2003
e
10.
for repeal of Collier County Ordinance 97-9; providing for conflict and
severability; providing for inclusion in Code of Laws and Ordinances; and
providing an effective date.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A. Appointment of members to the Environmental Advisory Council.
Be
Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local
Redevelopment Advisory Board by the Board of County Commissioners and
the CRA.
Ce
Appointment of members to the Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development
Agency by the Board of County Commissioners and the CRA.
De
Discussion regarding a proposed ordinance related to abandoned shopping
carts in Golden Gate Community. (Commissioner Henning)
te
Discussion for the purpose of clarifying the previous direction to staff
surrounding the Gulf Coast Skimmers sign. (Commissioner Henning)
Fe
Discussion regarding request from the State of Florida to donate all County
roads and bridges in the Southern Golden Gate Estates to the State.
(Commissioner Henning)
COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Ae
Provide information to the Board of County Commissioners on proposed
new provision under the Code for illuminated "open" signs and frontage
requirements for freestanding signs. (Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator,
Community Development)
Be
To present findings of a school zone speed review and request Board
direction to take affirmative action to bring school speed zones in Collier
County into compliance with state guidelines. (Norman Feder,
Administrator, Transportation)
Ce
This item continued from the March 257 2003 BCC Meeting.
Recommendation that the Board approve $206,000 in additional funding to
4
April 8, 2003
11.
augment current appropriations for consulting and legal services from
Carlton Fields under the existing continuing services contract for contingent
growth management services in support of the Checkbook Concurrency
LDC and GMP Amendments, Traffic Impact Vesting Process, Defense of
Challenges to the Notice of Intent by DCA to find the Rural Fringe
Amendments in compliance, and the work program for development of LDC
to implement the Final Order Amendments to the GMP. (Joseph K. Schmitt,
Administrator, Community Development)
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12.
13.
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
Ae
Recommendation to approve a budget amendment in the amount of $65,000
for outside counsel and professional services in support of Resolution No.
2002-428 expressing concerns regarding the acquisition of the Marco
Island/Marco Shores Utility System by the Florida Water Services
Authority.
OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
14.
15.
AIRPORT AUTHORITY
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.
............................................................................................................
Ae
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1)
Request that the Board of County Commissioners set a public hearing
date for June 24, 2003 for consideration of a Development of
Regional Impact Development Order for Petition DRI-2000-01,
Heritage Bay located in Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48
5
April 8, 2003
Be
2)
3)
4)
5)
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
Approval of the Satisfaction of Lien for Code Enforcement Board
Case No. 2002-001 styled Board of County Commissioners Collier
County, Florida vs. Rocco LacQuaniti regarding violation of Sections
2.7.6.1 and 2.7.6.5 of Ordinance No. 91-102, of the Collier County
Land Development Code, as amended.
Request to grant final acceptance of the roadway, drainage, water and
sewer improvements for the final plat of"Tiburon-the Norman Estates
at Pelican Marsh Unit Twenty Three".
Request to approve for recording the final plat of"Mediterra Phase
Three East, Unit One", and approval of the Standard Form
Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount
of the performance security.
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Southeast
Immokalee" and approval of the Standard Form Construction and
Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the
performance security.
6)
To approve a budget amendment of $60,000 for the expenditure of
monies from Fund 186 Immokalee Redevelopment for the payment of
the purchase, installation, and maintenance (for 5 years), of
streetlights by Lee County Electric Cooperative (LCEC).
7)
To approve a budget amendment for expenses related to moving the
Community Planning and Redevelopment section staff from the
Development Services Building to new offices located at 3050 North
Horseshoe Drive.
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
1)
Approve a budget amendm:nt to transfer the operating budget for
three positions from Transportation Operations and Transportation
Maintenance to the Alternative Transportation Modes Department in
the amount of $98,852.
6
April 8, 2003
2)
3)
Staff recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners
conditionally accept recorded easements and deeds for Whippoorwill
Lane; and approve an indenmification agreement; and accept
provision of cash escrow. All matters pertain to the land acquisition
and construction of a roadway on the property accepted by the County
for construction by private parties of Whippoorwill Lane.
Resolution to establish a "No Parking" zone along Capri Boulevard as
platted in Isles of Capri Subdivision, Plat Book 3, Pages 41, 46, 52
and 66; approximately six (6) signs will be needed at a cost of $100
each for a total of $600.
4)
S)
Approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $86,509.20 to Ajax
Paving Industries, Inc., for the Goodlette Frank Road project, from
Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road, Project No. 60134.
That the Board of County Commissioners approve the budget
amendment for the Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU for the
purpose of irrigation and landscape improvements to the medians on
St. Andrews Boulevard, Pebble Beach Boulevard and Forest Hills
Boulevard.
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Approve Florida Power and Light lump sum agreement to relocate 36
poles on Immokalee Road from Twin Eagles to Wilson Boulevard,
Project No. 60018. (Fiscal Impact $90,729)
Approve final change order and payment for Project #02-3366, SR 84,
Davis Boulevard Phase II, Project #60098, landscape renovation
reducing the contract amount to $672,357.98.
Ratify a deduct change order (No. 8) in the amount of $21,162.19 to
the K.E.R. Enterprises Inc. (DBA Armadillo Underground) contract
for the Wiggins Pass Outfall, Phase I Project, Project No. 51212.
Request Board approval for the landscape maintenance agreement
with Pinewood Commons Itomeowners Association, for the future
landscaping and maintenance on Airport Road and Pine Wood Circle.
Approve Change Order No. 3 to the Immokalee Road/I-75
Interchange construction contract in the amount of $190,621.29 which
7
April 8, 2003
11)
includes a portion of work to be paid for by Brentwood Land Partners,
LLC. (Project No. 66042A)
Request Board approval of a landscape maintenance agreement
between Collier County and Riviera Federation Association, Inc.
(RFA) for the maintenance of a portion of Charlemagne Boulevard at
no cost to Collier County with an estimated savings to the County of
about $2500.
12)
13)
14)
15)
Approve Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $48,397.28 to Ajax
Paving Industries Inc., for the Goodlette Frank Road project, from
Pine Ridge Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road, Project No. 60134.
Approve a resolution authorizing execution of a Florida Department
of Transportation Local Agency Program Agreement for the Rural
Safety Refuge project; providing an effective date.
Approve Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $6,157.30 to Better
Roads, Inc., for the Livingston Road project, Phase III, from Pine
Ridge Road to Immokalee Road, Project No. 62071, and authorize
release of WCI Communities in exchange for payment of
$297,791.50.
Approve a budget amendment recognizing carry forward amounts
from FY02 for the Bayshore Beautification MSTU Fund (160) in the
amount of $112,249.
Co
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
Approve request for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to
perform a dredging assessment of Goodland Canals.
2)
Approve a work order, under Contract #01-3271, Fixed Term
Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management
Projects, with Humiston and Moore Engineers, Inc., for the annual
monitoring of Hideaway Beach and T-groins, Project 90006, in the
amount of $87,492.
3)
Approval of Contract C-15374 with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) to participate in a 3-year statewide
8
April 8, 2003
surface water quality monitoring effort in the amount of $7,800
annually.
4)
Approve the corrected sources of $71,155 in funds for the utility
portion of the Construction Engineering and Inspection Services
change order for Goodlette-Frank Road (Pine Ridge Road to
Vanderbilt Beach Road) four and six lane improvements, Project
60134.
Reject Bid 03-3482 South County Water Reclamation Facility belt
filter press service platform additions.
6)
Approve Committee selection of six (6) firms for contract
negotiations related to RFP 03-3484 "Fixed Term Instrumentation and
Controls Engineering Services" for maximum annual fees of $500,000
per firm per year.
7)
Approve Change Order 2 to Work Order 61 for construction of the
western interconnect for ~vastewater collection systems, in the deduct
amount of $4,725.
8)
Affirm staff approval of Change Order 2 to Work Order UC-004 for
the relocation of water and sewer mains related to the Florida
Department of Transportation's widening of U.S. 41 from Barefoot
Williams Road to east of SR 951, in the amount of $13,124.
9)
Approve Metcalf and Eddy Work Order #ME-FT-03-01, and Work
Order #ME-FT-03-02 for the Emergency Response Plan required by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for
water system facilities at Collier County Project 70170 and approve
budget amendments.
10)
Approve Work Order No. UC-023 (Exhibit A) in the amount of
$535,600 for four pump station improvements to Kyle Construction
Inc., under Contract 02-3345 - annual contract for Underground
Utility Contracting Services, Project No. 73051.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
9
April 8, 2003
1)
2)
3)
4)
Award of RFP #03-3454, "Golden Gate Aquatic Facility Concession"
with anticipated revenue of $1800 for the remainder of FY03.
Approve the Senior Community Service Employment Host Agency
Agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement between
Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Workforce
Council of Southwest Florida, Inc.
Approve a Supplemental TDC Category "A" grant application,
budget amendment and tourism agreement amendment for
Lowdermilk Park Renovation, in the total amount of $150,000.
Approve a Resolution authorizing the submittal of a grant application
in the amount of $75,000 to the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission for the Florida Boating Improvement
Program.
E. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
2)
3)
Addition of vendors to supplement Contract #03-3426 "Quick Copy
Services" (estimated dollar amount $40,000).
Recommendation to reject Bid No. 03-3468 for pump and motor
repair.
Approve selection committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP 03-3462 "Fixed Term Professional Planning
Services for Right-of-Way Acquisition" (estimated dollar amount of
contract not to exceed $500,000 annually per firm).
4)
5)
6)
Approval of the Preferred Provider Payor Organization Agreement
portion of the Managed Care Agreement between Community Health
Partners and Collier County.
Request Board approval for public safety radio system expenses
associated with the reconstruction of two (2) FDOT radio towers that
the County currently leascs space on at total cost of $171,658.
Approval to opt-out of a formal managed care arrangement for
Workers' Compensation insurance pursuant to changes in the Florida
10
April 8, 2003
7)
8)
9)
Workers' Compensation Statutes, Chapter 440.
Approval to award Work Order #VC-02-06 under RFP #02-3349,
General Contractors Services, to Varian Construction Company for
the partial renovations of the 6th floor of the Courthouse for the Clerk
of Courts Criminal and Civil Departments in the sum of $156,800.
Request Board approval of a lease agreement between Collier County
and American Tower, L.P. at an annual cost of $24,768.
Report to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the sale
and transfer of items associated with the County Surplus Auction of
March 15, 2003, resulting in $285,637.25 in net revenues.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
2)
3)
To approve a budget amendment in the amount of $253,926 to
transfer funds from the landscaping and irrigation project to the U.S.
41 North Phase II Landscaping Project. (Pelican Bay Services)
Recommendation to establish a combined minimum net present value
savings target of 5% in antic ipation of a current refunding of the
Collier County Water-Sewcr District, Water and Sewer Refunding
Revenue Bonds, Series 1994A and Series 1994B.
Recommendation to extend the vacation accrual cap for Emergency
Management Department Director, Kenneth Pineau.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Ho
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
a)Commissioner Henning request for approval for payment to attend
Water Symposium 2003 as serving a valid public purpose.
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file for record with action as directed.
11
April 8, 2003
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
17.
K. COUNTY ATTORNEY
1)
Approve the Stipulated Final Judgment relative to the Fee Simple
Acquisition of Parcel 176 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Big
Corkscrew Island Fire District, et al, Immokalee Road, Project No.
60018.
2)
Approve the Stipulated Order of Dismissal as to Parcel 908 in the
lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Jessie M. Durden, et al, (Santa
Barbara Sewer Force Main Interconnect - Project 73132) at a cost of
$1,500.
3)
Approval of the Stipulated Order of Taking and Stipulated Final
Judgment relative to the Fee Simple Acquisition of Parcel 137 in the
lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Edward Stanley Sanditen, et al,
(Immokalee Phase II Project).
4)
Approve the Offer of Judgment relative to the Fee Simple Acquisition
of Parcel 110 in the lawsuit styled Collier County v. Northside
Construction Company, et al, Case No. 00-0136-CA (Pine Ridge
Road Project #60111).
5)
Recommendation that the Board ratify and authorize the County
Attorney's retention of expert witnesses and consultants for the
County in the lawsuit entitled Collier County v. Northside
Construction Company, et al, (Pine Ridge Road Project), exempt the
County Attorney from the purchasing policy if and to the extent the
purchasing policy is applicable, and authorize the Chairman to sign
any necessary retention documents.
6)
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve
and execute a corrective release of lien arising out of an order
imposing fine/lien in Code Enforcement Board Case entitled Board of
County Commissioners v. lVendall L. Kramer, Salvatore F. Angileri,
and Salvatore C. Grech.
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTI ON IS FOR ADVERTISED PUBLIC
HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA: 1) A
12
April 8, 2003
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®
SE-03-AR-377, an Ordinance amending Ordinance 02-07, the Richland
PUD to correct a scrivener's error in Section 6.4 - Development
Commitments, Transportation paragraph number 8 of the Richland PUD that
is located on the southwest comer of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and
Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
Be
VA-2002-AR-3418, Roland and Stella Ricard requesting an after-the-fact
variance of 1.5 feet from the minimum rear yard setback of 20 feet to 18.5
feet for a screened enclosure addition to a single family dwelling for
property located at 109 Bordeaux Circle, further described as Riviera Golf
Estates, Unit 2, Lot 489, in Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
Ce
Petition AVPLAT2003-AR3636 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the
County's and the Public's interest in two 10 foot wide drainage easements
located in Tract "P", according to the plat of"Tarpon Bay" as recorded in
Plat Book 36, pages 28 through 31, Public Records of Collier County,
Florida, and to accept a 10 foot wide relocation drainage easement on a
portion of Tract "P" of said "Tarpon Bay", located in Section 30, Township
48 South, Range 26 East.
0
VA-2002-AR-3381, David M. Corban, requesting an after-the-fact variance
of 16.5 feet from the required rear yard setback of 20 feet to 3.5 feet from
the property line for an existing house constructed over a drainage canal and
waterway easement for property located at 2832 Arbutus Street, Section 11,
'13
April 8, 2003
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-8383.
14
April 8, 2003
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the meeting to order of the
Board of Commissioners for Collier County, April 8th, 2003.
We will have the invocation by Reverend Michael Harper from
Naples Community Hospital. Followed by that, I would like a -- if
you would join in for a moment of silence for one of our community
leaders who passed recently, Sam Walborn. Sam has been active in
the community for a number of years. He's a former AARP member
and Golden Gate Kiwanian, and he's a lifelong Boy Scout. And Sam
will be truly missed.
And followed by the moment of silence, we will have the pledge
of allegiance. Reverend? Please stand.
REVEREND HARPER: Let us pray. Spirit of the living God,
fall fresh on our County Commissioners with wisdom and vision to
govern the affairs of Collier County.
Spirit of the living God, fall fresh on our nation with peace and
prosperity.
Spirit of the living God, fall fresh on our men and women in the
military with faith, courage and protection.
Spirit of the living God, fall fresh on all of us and bless us with
love, peace, happiness and health. Amen.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let us pray.
(Moment of silence.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Amen.
(Pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you and good morning.
Mr. Weigel, do we have any corrections, additions, deletions on
Page 2
April 8, 2003
today's agenda?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't believe so. I believe that the last agenda
change does reflect, yes, a continuation of 16(B)(2) to the 4-22
meeting. And that was the only additional comment I had, so
nothing further, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
County Manager Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, good morning, Mr. Chairman.
We have a little bit of a -- about a page and a half of additions
and continuances and withdrawals. With your indulgence, I'd like to
go through this list.
First is to add Item 4(D), which is a proclamation to endorse and
support the Collier County/City of Naples Underground Damage
Prevention Task Force in their efforts to protect underground
utilities. And that's at staffs request.
The next item is to add Item 6(A), which is the request by the
Naples Airport Authority to discuss support of the Stage 2 ban by
filing an amicus brief with the FAA. And it's FAA Docket No.
16-01-15 at the staffs request.
Next item is to withdraw Item 9(B), and that's an appointment of
members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment
Advisory Board by the Board of County Commissioners and the
CRA, and that's at staffs request.
Next item is to withdraw Item 9(D), and that's a discussion
regarding a proposed ordinance related to abandoned shopping carts
in the Golden Gate community. And that's at Commissioner
Henning's request.
The next item is to continue Item 10(B) to 5-13-03 at the BCC
meeting, and that's to present findings of a school zone speed review,
and request board direction to take affirmative action to bring school
speed zones in Collier County into compliance with state guidelines.
And that's at Commissioner Henning's request. And that was also
Page 3
April 8, 2003
requested by the school board.
Next item is to continue 16(B)(2) to the 22 April BCC meeting,
and that's staff's recommendation for the Board of County
Commissioners to conditionally accept recorded easements and deeds
for Whippoorwill Lane and approve an indemnification agreement,
and accept provision of cash escrow. All matters pertain to the land
acquisition and construction of a roadway on the property accepted
by the county for construction by private parties of the Whippoorwill
Lane, and that's at the petitioner's request.
And Commissioner, that's part of that master plan that the
Whippoorwill Lane folks brought to the board, oh, about six months
ago. And that was after staff direction almost two years ago in order
to come up with the master plan, so we're still working on that
process.
The next item is to move Item 16(C)(2) to 10(D), and that's
approve a work order under Contract 01-3271, fixed term
professional engineering services for Coastal Zone Management
Projects with Humiston and Moore Engineers, Inc., for the annual
monitoring of Hideaway Beach and T-groins. Project 90006, in the
amount of $87,492. And that's at Commissioner Coletta's request.
The next item is to move Item 16(D)(3) to Item 10(E), which is
approve a supplemental TDC category A grant application, budget
amendment and tourism agreement amendment for Lowdermilk Park
renovation, in the total amount of $150,000. And that's at
Commissioner Henning's request.
Next item is to move Item 16(E)(2) to 10(F), and that's a
recommendation to reject Bid No. 03-3468 for pump and motor
repairs. And that's -- it says staff request on this sheet, but
Commissioner Coletta had asked on Friday that this item be moved,
along with several other -- Commissioner Coletta asked on Friday,
along with several other commissioners, about this particular item,
Commissioner Coyle being one.
Page 4
April 8, 20O3
The next item is to withdraw Item 16(H)(1), Commissioner
Henning request to approve for payment to attend the Water
Symposium of 2003 as serving a valid public purpose. And that's at
Commissioner Henning's request.
Next item is to move Item 17(C) to 8(C), and that's a petition to
disclaim, renounce, vacate the county's and the public interest in two
1 O-foot wide drainage easements located in Tract P, according to the
plat of Tarpon Bay, as recorded in Plat Book 36, Page 28 through 31,
Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and to accept a 10-foot
wide relocation drainage easement in a portion of Tract P of said
Tarpon Bay, located in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26
East. And that's at Commissioner Halas' request.
And the next item is to move Item 17(D) to 8(D), and that's a
variance represented by David M. Colburn (sic), requesting an
after-the-fact variance of 16.5 feet from the required rear yard
setback of 20 feet to 3.5 feet from the property line of an existing
house construction over a drainage canal and waterway easement for
property located at 2832 Arbutus Street, Section 11, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. And that's at
Commissioner Coyle's request.
And there's a note, replacing change order Page No. 4 for Item
16(B)(10), and we should have all received that page. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Coletta, do you
have anything? Any changes, deletions or ex parte communication
on this summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, I have
none of the above. I just want one note to be made, that 16(A)(1), on
Heritage Bay and the DRI, we're setting the meeting for June 24th,
2003. We still have reservations on the transportation element, but
we'll deal with it at that point in time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Page 5
April 8, 2003
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Nothing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any ex partes either to
come forth at this time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
And I also have nothing. So with that, I'll entertain a motion to
approve today's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So moved.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- agenda, the --
MR. MUDD: Mr. Chairman, could--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- consent and summary.
MR. MUDD: -- I make one change? That 17(D) to 8(D), my
mistake. It should be 17(D) to 7(B). It's board of zoning appeals.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 7(B).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Say it once more, please?
MR. MUDD: 17(D), where it was going to 8(D) before? Cross
out 8(D), it's going to be 7(B).
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 7(E).
MR. MUDD: (B).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: B as in baker.
MR. MUDD: B as in bravo.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Gotcha.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, we're getting there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second by
Commissioner Halas to approve the -- today's agenda with the
amendments. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Page 6
April 8, 2003
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Motion carries 5-0.
Page 7
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
April 8, 2003
Add Item 4D: Proclamation to endorse and support the Collier County/City of
Naples Underground Damage Prevention Task Force in their efforts to protect
underground utilities. (Staff request.)
Add Item 6A: Request by the Naples Airport Authority to discuss support of the
Stage 2 ban by filing an amicus curaine brief with the FAA (FAA Docket No. 16-01-
15). (Staff request.)
Withdraw Item 9B: Appointment of members to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Local Redevelopment Advisory Board by the Board of County Commissioners and
the CRA. (Staff request.)
Withdraw Item 9D: Discussion regarding a proposed ordinance related to
abandoned shopping carts in Golden Gate Community. (Commissioner Henning.)
Continue Item 10B to 5113/03 BCC meetincl: To present findings of a school zone
speed review and request Board direction to take affirmative action to bring
school speed zones in Collier County into compliance with state guidelines.
(Commissioner Henning request.)
Continue 16(B)2 to 4122103 BCC meetinq: Staff recommendation that the Board of
County Commissioners conditionally accept recorded easements and deeds for
Whippoorwill Lane; and approve an indemnification agreement; and accept
provision of cash escrow. All matters pertain to the land acquisition and
construction of a roadway on the property accepted by the County for
construction by private parties of Whippoorwill Lane. (Petitioner request.)
Move Item 16(C)2 to 10D: Approve a work order under Contract #01-3271, Fixed
Term Professional Engineering Services for Coastal Zone Management Projects,
with Humiston and Moore Engineers, Inc., for the annual monitoring of Hideaway
Beach and t-groins, Project 90006, in the amount of $87,492. (Commissioner
Coletta request.)
Move Item 16(D)3 to 10E: Approve a supplemental TDC Category "A" grant
application, budget amendment and tourism agreement amendment for
Lowdermilk Park Renovation, in the total amount of $150,000. (Commissioner
Henning.)
Move Item 16(E)2 to 10F: Recommendation to reject Bid No. 03-3468 for pump and
motor repair. (Staff request.)
Withdraw Item 16(H)1: Commissioner Henning request for approval for payment
to attend Water Symposium 2003 as serving a valid public purpose.
(Commissioner Henning request.)
Move 17C to 8C: Petition AVPLAT2003-AR3636 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the County's and the Public's interest in two 10 foot wide drainage easements
located in Tract "P", according to the plat of "Tarpon Bay" as recorded in Plat
Book 36, pages 28 through 31, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and to
accept a 10 foot wide relocation drainage easement on a portion of Tract "P" of
said "Tarpon Bay", located in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
(Commissioner Halas request.)
Move 17D to 8D: VA-2002-AR-3381, David M. Corban, requesting an after-the-fact
variance of 16.5 feet from the required rear yard setback of 20 feet to 3.5 feet from
the property line for an existing house constructed over a drainage canal and
waterway easement for property located at 2832 Arbutus Street, Section 11,
Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Commissioner Coyle
request.)
Note: Replacing Change Order page #4 for Item 16(B)10
April 8, 2003
Item #2B
MINUTES OF MARCH 11, 2003 REGULAR MEETING-
APPROVED AS PRESENTED
Entertain a motion to accept the regular meeting minutes of
March 11, 2003.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta (sic), second by Commissioner Fiala. All in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Item #2C
MINUTES OF MARCH 12, 2003 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
(IJDC~ WORKSHOP MF, ETING-APPROVED AS PRESENTED
'03.
Entertain a motion to accept the LDC workshop for March 12,
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Page 8
April 8, 2003
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL, 2003, AS NATIONAL
FAIR HOI ISING MONTH-ADOPTED
We have no service awards today, so we'll go to proclamations.
The first proclamation -- I will read the proclamation, and this is to
recognize April as National Fair Housing Month, to be accepted by
Mr. Orlando Lorie, U.S. Department of Urban Housing (sic) and
Urban Development. And Mrs. -- Ms. Fiordaliza -- MR. LORIE: She's not here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you come up here, sir, stand
in front of the dais. Thank you. Any others? No others to join you,
so let me read this proclamation, sir. And thank you for being with
us. And if you would just face the audience. Thank you.
WHEREAS, 2001, Collier County became the entitlement
recipient of the federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development, HUD, under the Community Development
block grant, CDBG, program; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County certified that it will be --
affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and will work to
identify and remove impediments to fair housing choices; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County consolidated plan, one-year action
plan, for the year of 2003-2004 underlines -- outlines the fair housing
incentives (sic) and will be undertaken, with (sic) including
education and outreach campaign to further fair housing choices for
Collier County residents; and,
WHEREAS, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Fair Housing Act of 1968, is amended, prohibited -- the
discrimination in sale, rental and finance of dwelling based on race,
color, religion, sex or national origin, handicap or family (sic) status.
WHEREAS, the secretary of HUD has proclaimed April, 2003
Page 9
April 8, 2003
the National Fair Housing Month, and asked all CDBG entitlement
communities to join them in celebration of freedom of housing
choice and fair housing opportunities; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners of Collier County
feels that every American has the right to live where they choose
with dignity and without fear of discrimination, and actively supports
fair housing education outreach incentives.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, the month of April be
recognized as National Fair Housing Month in Collier County.
DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of April, 2003. Signed by
the Chair.
I'll make a motion to move this proclamation.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that is seconded by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
MR. LORIE: On behalf of the secretary --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: To the mike, so everybody can hear
you. Thank you.
MR. LORIE: On behalf of the secretary, I'm pleased to be here,
and I thank you. And I think after reading -- after listening to the
Commissioner, I am recannet (phonetic) very much to the
proclamation. So I think -- thank you, and HUD is committed to fair
housing and let's work together in the future. Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION HONORING THE VETERANS
Page 10
April 8, 2003
CORPORATION AND THE VET FASTTRAC PROGRAMS-
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation will be read by
Commissioner Halas, and this proclamation is to honor Veteran
Corporation and VET FastTrac Program, and accepted this (sic) we
have several gentlemen with us today. Would you please come up?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The two gentlemen would be
Charles R. Henry, retired major general of the U.S. Army, president
and CEO, and David C. Clagett, Jr., vice president of operations.
WHEREAS, Collier County has been a site for award-winning
FastTrac Planning, FastTrac New Venture Programs through Collier
County University of Florida Extension Service for seven years; and,
WHEREAS, FastTrac is funded by Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation, our country's largest and most prestigious
entrepreneurship education foundation; and,
WHEREAS, small business is the backbone of Collier County
economy and a major thrust of economic development; and,
WHEREAS, more than 300 individual businesses have
graduated from FastTrac programs offered by the University
Extension Department in Collier County; and,
WHEREAS, the Veteran Corporation has recognized the service
and importance of the veterans of Collier County; and,
WHEREAS, Veteran Corporation, in conjunction with the
Ewing Kauffman Foundation, through the Collier County Extension,
will graduate more than 90 veterans and veteran-owned business (sic)
from FastTrac on April 14th, 2003; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes
the value of entrepreneurship education, supports the Veterans
Corporation to bring FastTrac programs to Collier County veterans.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier
County Commission that on behalf of the citizens of Collier County,
Page 11
April 8, 2003
great appreciate, honor is owed to The Veterans Corporation and the
VET FastTrac Programs.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 8th day of April, 2003.
I move that we accept this proclamation. All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that move.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All those in favor?
Any opposed?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess not. Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I don't think we have any opposed.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, motion carried.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COLONEL CLAGETT: Unfortunately I need to start off with a
correction. Major General Charles Henry will be here next week.
He's much better looking than I am. He sent me as the advance guy.
I'm Colonel Dave Clagett, and this is Mike Hall, who will be talking
to you momentarily.
And before I even get started -- and first, thank you very much
for this. We're very honored by the proclamation.
Let me introduce Dr. Denise Planton (phonetic), University of
Florida Extension, and Ms. Beth Hagen, who also works as an
adjunct professor for the university and has been instrumental in the
FastTrac Program here in Collier County, as well as, quite frankly,
nationwide. And it's really through Beth, as we said, that we have
been able to establish this relationship.
To those of you who don't know, the National Veterans
Business Development Corporation was formed by an act of
Congress in ! 999. Although it was started in 1999, it was not funded
until October of 2001, so we've had about a year and a half. And I
have to say, that in that year and a half, we've tried to do an awful lot
of stuff, but probably the best thing that we've done is this FastTrac
program for veterans, and it's been done no better than here in
Page 12
April 8, 2003
Florida, in Collier County. It has been impressive to see the support
and the coordination, the effort here. When you look nationwide, it's
just unbelievably significant. It's tremendous. And we're very
honored by that.
Let me introduce Mr. Mike Hall, who is a current student, soon
to be graduate from this program. Mike?
MR. HALL: Thank you. I'd also like to extend our
appreciation for the proclamations today.
Basically I was asked to talk a little bit about the program. I've
worked for General Electric for about 18 years and moved down here
two years ago from the Midwest. I manage a group of engineers for
GE currently.
And we have decided, a group of engineers in our management,
that we are going to break away and start up our own company, and
that's basically how I got involved with the FastTrac Program.
I've spent four years in the 82nd Airborne way back when, and a
little bit of time with the reserve component. And I heard about the
FastTrac Program in the newspaper here in Naples, so I made some
phone calls and got on the website, signed up for the program, and it
was exactly what I was really needing. Basically it took me through a
process of creating a feasibility plan to take a look at whether this
business that I'm thinking about starting up is even feasible or not.
And throughout that process we determined that yes, it is not only
feasible, but it's very doable.
So that's about 11 weeks worth of work. There was 20 people in
our class. And a couple of things the FastTrac Program really
provided was a facilitator that was just outstanding throughout the
whole process. He really brought a lot to the class, he kept us on
track.
And then in the class itself, there's a lot of experience in those
20 people that were in that class. A lot of ideas bounced around off
of each other and able to review what we were learning and the plans
Page 13
April 8, 2003
that we were trying to put in place. Many of the people were already
in business here in Collier County, and the rest of us are looking to
do start-up ventures.
So the business I'm looking to start up is a systems integration
business for factory automation. It's going to be a national company.
And I'm ready to move on to the next step, which is basically to
finish up the business plan and then go seek some funding. So that's
it.
Any questions? I'd like to invite you all to come out to the
graduation next Monday night, to be held up at the TIB blink
(phonetic) just up in north Bonita.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, thank you for being here with
US.
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING OUR TROOPS AND THEIR
FAMII.IES-ADOPTED
We've got a very important proclamation, this next one. I hope
that you're -- you stick around to see us move an important
proclamation read by Commissioner Coyle. And this proclamation is
to support our troops and their families that are protecting our
country.
And with us today is Jim Elson, from the Veterans Council.
Would you please come up. Gentlemen, why don't you all come up.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: How are you doing?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have some administrators. Jim?
We've got some -- if-- anybody with family and friends of troops
over in Iraq, please come forward. Great. We're all set?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We're all set?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, sir.
Page 14
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: WHEREAS, the United States and
its allies currently have more than one quarter of a million troops
actively engaging hostile forces within Iraq; and,
WHEREAS, these forces fielded by the United States represent
elements of every branch of service, including reserve units and
national guard units; and,
WHEREAS, these forces include men and women from the
State of Florida and Collier County; and,
WHEREAS, their courage and bravery should be saluted for
fighting to protect the freedom we enjoy in our daily lives; and,
WHEREAS, in recognizing and supporting our troops, we also
wish to share our support for the families of those serving our nation
during this time of conflict; and,
WHEREAS, the support of family, friends and community
positively impacts the morale of our soldiers, sailors and airmen who
defend our freedom.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that on behalf of the
citizens of Collier County, we offer our heartfelt appreciation and
support for the men and women who preserve and protect our nation.
Their sacrifice means our freedom.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 8th day of April, 2003, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Tom Henning,
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coletta and -- Commissioner Coyle. Second by Commissioner
Coletta to move this proclamation.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
(Unanimous votes of ayes.)
Page 15
April 8, 2003
5-0.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And nobody's opposing that. It's
And ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
MR. ELSON: As president of the Veterans Council, it's my
honor to accept this. And more importantly, to continue the
communication. We do have 13 veterans groups within the
organization, and I'll make sure that every one of the groups receives
a copy of the proclamation. But also, that we have a process -- or
we're in the process of creating an electronic communication with
Collier County residents that are on active duty serving, and I will be
transmitting a copy of this electronically to those people via their
e-mail.
I thank you very much for your support. And the troops of this
country of course thank you --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta.
MR. ELSON: -- for their support as well.
Excuse me?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, go ahead, I'm not going to
interrupt you, sir.
MR. ELSON: No, that's it.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to thank you, but
I also wanted to make a note of the fact that united we stand, that
seems to be the motto of the day and it has been for a while.
And I'd like to make a motion that we place a yellow ribbon in
the center of our dais, to stay there until our troops are out of harm's
way.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
second by Commissioner Fiala.
by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
There's a motion on the floor and a
All in favor of the motion, signify
Page 16
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Commissioner Coyle, do you have anything to add?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Nothing to add, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I just want to say that the troops and
the family members over there, I know that our county manager has a
son over there, they're in my prayers every day, and I hope they
return safely.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We're going to have another troop
rally this weekend, Sunday, right here in East Naples, and I'd like to
invite everybody out. I'm sure the word is going to get out. I think
it's from 10:00 to 2:00, I think, and it's going to be right here by the
government complex out front, from what I understand, anyway. I
haven't heard the final place, but I hope everybody watches the
newspaper, because we want to again get out there and support them,
just like they've been doing up on Pine Ridge Road. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas, do you have
anything?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. ELSON: Thank you. And God bless this country and all
who defend her. Thank you.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING THE COLLIER
COUNTY/CITY OF NAPLES UNDERGROUND DAMAGE
PREVF, NTION TASK FORCE-ADOPTF, D
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next proclamation to be delivered by
Commissioner Fiala is a proclamation for Collier County, Naples
underground damage prevention.
Page 17
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Len Davron (phonetic) and
anybody else that is with Len, please. Proclamation.
WHEREAS, each year in Florida, lives are endangered, money
and time are wasted and property is destroyed because people fail to
have underground facilities located before engaging in excavation or
demolition; and,
WHEREAS, Governor Jeb Bush recently issued a proclamation
endorsing the protection of underground utilities; and,
WHEREAS, the Sunshine State one-call center is the one-call
agency that notifies participating utility agencies of plans to engage
in excavation or demolition, and this underground protection system
is a free service to contractors, as well as homeowners digging in
their yard -- wow, that's pretty good -- and,
WHEREAS, Collier County and the City of Naples is
recognizing the Task Force as that group of utility providers that are
involved in protecting their underground facilities and the
community's infrastructure through education and enforcement; and,
WHEREAS, Collier County and the City of Naples advocate the
enforcement and compliance with Florida Statutes and local
ordinances with regard to protecting underground utilities; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Florida Statutes, anyone planning to do
any type of excavation or demolition should notify "Call Sunshine"
for personnel to be sent to mark the location of underground facilities
at no cost to the inquiring party.
NOW THEREFORE, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, endorse and support the
Collier County/City of Naples Underground Damage Prevention
Task Force in their efforts to protect underground utilities.
DONE AND ORDERED THIS 8th day of April, 2003, Tom
Henning, Chairman.
Motion to approve, Mr. Chairman.
Page 18
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Fiala,
second by Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
MR. DEVRON: With this proclamation and a like proclamation
from the City of Naples, this keeps Collier County and the City of
Naples in a leadership role in the State of Florida with this particular
situation that we've been dealing with for some years now.
Also along with it, we need to thank Sheriff Don Hunter and
then Chief of Police Kevin Rambosk for their interest in it. We
developed a training video that originated here in Collier County and
is shown throughout the State of Florida to other police officers to
educate them in how to handle these particular situations.
Remember, our first goal is training and to be proactive. We
don't want the damages to happen, but ultimately if they do, why --
and the person did not have a locator, did not follow the statute,
obviously there are enforcement issues to be dealt with at that
particular point in time.
I really thank the Board of Commissioners for their support, and
obviously we're going to continue a leadership role in the state.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks for bringing it to our
attention, Len.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION BY THE NAPLES AIRPORT AUTHORITY
REGARDING SUPPORT OF THE STAGE 2 BAN-TO BE
BROUGHT BACK ON APRIL 15, 2003, AS A SPECIAL
Page 19
April 8, 2003
MEETING
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item on the agenda is public
petitions, and today we have the Naples Airport manager, Ted
Soliday, asking to (sic) support of a Stage 2 ban for the airport. Mr. Soliday, thank you for being here today.
MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
commission. Appreciate the opportunity to be here. My name is Ted
Soliday, I'm the executive director of the City of Naples Airport
Authority. With me today is our counsel, Mr. Joseph McMackin.
He's with the firm of Bond, Schoeneck, King, and he is the counsel
for the board. And also a -- Commissioner West, who is
representative of the commission-- a representative of the board for
the legal issues and our noise issues.
We are here today to ask for your help. Previous boards of the
commission have complimented the authority and staff on the action
it has taken in noise to mitigate the noise at the airport and to stay
with our ban for Stage 2. Even the Naples Daily News has said some
good things about the airport and has indicated that we're doing the
right thing.
The FAA, in a 94-page document, has indicated that we're not.
This document is literally fraught with errors. It has many, many
challenges and problems with it. The Naples -- City of Naples
Airport Authority will stay the course. We have filed with a hearing
-- for a hearing. Our federal counsel has indicated that the most
important part of this hearing is for us to clear up the record, to let
them know what's in this document that is not correct. And that's a
lot.
Some of the mistakes relate directly to the county, as well as to
the city. We are asking that you direct your counsel to work with our
counsel, federal and local, and to intervene in this case. If not full
intervention, we would ask that you consider, and I'll make this brief,
Page 20
April 8, 2003
friend of the court briefing. We have our counsel here to explain that
a little bit.
We need to set the record straight. We need to make it clear to
the FAA that it is not just the little Naples -- City of Naples Airport
Authority, and that -- that they have to deal with. We are
approaching the city, as well as airports across the country, to be
involved in this case at this time.
I've asked Joe McMackin to help you just a little bit with the
legal aspects of the situation.
MR. McMACKIN: Good morning, Commissioners, Joe
McMackin. I'm the attorney for the City of Naples Airport
Authority.
The City of Naples Airport Authority has banned Stage 2 jets
from arriving or departing the airport. Stage 2 jets are older, noisier
jets. There are only a few left operating out of-- or operating in the
State of Florida or in the United States. But they are -- they account
for the majority of the noise complaints that the authority has
received in the past.
The history of noise control for Stage 2 jets began in 1991 with
the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, where Congress directed the
Federal Aeronautic Administration, known as the FAA, to phase out
Stage 2 jets over 75,000 pounds take-off weight by January 1st,
2001.
The City of Naples maximum take-off weight is 75,000 pounds.
So Congress directed the FAA to phase out these -- the bigger jets
that were in the Stage 2 category.
In November of 2000, the Naples Airport Authority adopted its
own Stage 2 jet ban on jets smaller than 75,000 pounds, and that ban
went into effect on January 1st, 2001, the same day that the FAA
phased out the over 75,000 pound jet, the Stage 2 jets.
Despite its own decision on the adequacy of the Naples Airport
Authority's Part 61 study -- and that Part 61 study is the study that
Page 21
April 8, 2003
the airport conducted, very expensive study, to describe the noise
shadow that these jets made, with the work from the FAA. As a
matter of fact, they had to redo it to answer additional questions that
the FAA had. And in October, they decided that what we had done
was correct. But then they filed an administrative proceeding within
the FAA to terminate our eligibility for grants. The airport authority,
which is not supported by any tax dollars, thrives and gets the capital
funding to improve the airport from FAA grants. The most recent
grant that they are considering is a grant to improve airport lighting.
The FAA is not telling us we cannot ban Stage 2 jets. What
they're saying is if we do, we're no longer eligible to receive federal
funding for airport improvements.
The FAA completed its investigation in April of 2002. And
almost a year later, on March 10th, 2003, they issued their decision.
And their decision was basically two findings: First, that the Stage 2
ban at the Naples Municipal Airport violated our grant assurances to
make APF, the Naples Airport, available for funding. Because what
we had done is made the airport unavailable for public use and made
an unreasonable discrimination against Stage 2 aircrafts.
And second, that the Naples Airport Authority's attempt to ban
Stage 2 aircraft is preempted by federal law. It's the old
constitutional issue that the highest law is federal law and,
unfortunately, the lowest law in this case is the law of the Naples
Municipal Airport. What they're saying is we cannot ban Stage 2
jets, because the FAA has not banned Stage 2 jets under 75,000
pounds.
We filed an appeal from this decision on March 31 st, and this
begins a fast-track hearing within the FAA. What we are asking is
that Collier County direct its attorney to file a motion to intervene in
the FAA proceedings prior to Monday, April 21st, only a few days
away.
What we want is to show that we have public support. Because
Page 22
April 8, 2003
the Naples Airport Authority receives no tax dollars, this is an
extremely expensive proceeding. This is a proceeding that is so
expensive the giant airports like Los Angeles and Chicago haven't
taken this cudgel, we have. The commissioners of the Airport
Authority have. And quite frankly, we don't know -- I don't know if
we can afford it.
What we would like is to get public support from the county that
they join us in wishing to continue the Stage 2 ban and also continue
the eligibility of the airport for federal grant monies. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners? Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I am very
much in favor of what the Airport Authority is doing. I commend
them for their tenacity in standing their ground on banning the Stage
2 jets, and I would very much like to support them.
My question is, can we make a determination before the
required date? Does this not have to come back to us on a regularly
scheduled agenda for final determination? And if it does, is there
some way we can help them in the interim?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, I think that's a question
for you.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you.
Yes, as you know, and Mr. Coyle is correct in his question, that
the typical procedure for the Board of County Commissioners on a
public petition is to potentially direct the matter come back to the
board for action. The next board -- regular board meeting is April
22nd.
Additionally, within the parameters of-- typical parameters of
public petition request and review at the time of request, such as
today, could be direction of staff to do something. But again, it's
usually linked with coming back to the board.
I'll expand a little further, if I may, to the question of support,
Page 23
April 8, 2003
however. The material that's been provided as background that the
board has received, that the county attorney has received, is succinct
and informational. The ability of the county attorney to file a motion
to intervene prior to 4-21, the motion itself is not particularly difficult
to create, although I would suggest that we would want to be looking
at the form and format and probably assistance of the counsel, its
assisting the Airport Authority in that regard, if we were to be given
direction from the board to go forward.
To intervene as a pure party must be contemplated very
carefully. To intervene for the purpose of filing an amicus brief,
which I think may be the actual request before you today, would,
unless I -- we should hear otherwise from the petitioners, would put
less onus, less requirement on the Board of County Commissioners
and the county attorney's staff, because we would be filing a brief,
but not subject to the issues and liabilities of full standing, if I can
paraphrase it that way, that the Airport Authority already has.
Mr. Soliday -- Mr. McMackin mentioned that their appeal is, to
use my term, formidable. They mentioned that we don't know if we
can afford it. I certainly would not want to advise the board that we
can assist from the legal standpoint to file documents that puts us in a
commission of having significant fiscal liability.
And I would like for Mr. McMackin and Mr. Soliday to
expound on that a little bit further to assist the board, as well as me,
in our discussions of county action.
MR. McMACKIN: We are not seeking any financial support
from the county, and we would be happy to assist the county attorney
in drafting a motion and drafting the breach. It's the expression of
support that we desire, not an expression of financial contribution.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wouldn't this still put us that -- if
we decided to back the Airport Authority, wouldn't this put us in that
realm, that if there was any suits, that we'd be liable for this?
Page 24
April 8, 2003
Because I'm concerned about the way that the measurements were
taken when you guys were doing the study with the airport. I think
you went with a 60DB limit, instead of the 65DB limit that's required
by the FAA. And so therefore I question -- I know that you have
your own noise sources, but I question the validity of the data that
was presented to the airport -- or to the FAA.
MR. SOLIDAY: The FAA requires by law that we use an
annualized noise contour using the LDN descriptor.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. SOLIDAY: It has been clear for a long time that 60, 55 --
the state of Oregon uses 55 LDN. The actual measure is only relative
to funding eligibility. The FAA funds above 65 automatically.
Below 65 they don't automatically fund.
The decision has been supported in both state and federal court
by summary judgment that what we have done using the 60 LDN is
the correct way.
But just to help you, Commissioner, the Authority used every
measure capable of being used to determine what the noise impacts
were and what was the best alternative to reduce that impact.
Unfortunately, the FAA, in establishing FARR Part 161, uses only
the annualized noise contour. If we used our seasonal noise contour,
not only would we have a 65 LDN, but we would have a substantial
impact, and not only would that -- we have that impact, but the Stage
2 reduction would have a sizeable impact on reducing that. Has had.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got one other question. Also,
isn't it the airport's authority to try to come up with means of quieting
the area, the surrounding area? And what measures have you taken
on that?
MR. SOLIDAY: We have, through four-- well, we've started
back in the 1970's, and we have a history of this that I would be very
happy to provide to you so you can study that history. All the way
back into the Seventies, going through the Eighties, we've done more
Page 25
April 8, 2003
Part 150's than -- Part 150 studies -- I'm sorry I'm using the
vernacular, but it's a study where you study all the other types of
methods to -- there is not one method that I know of in noise
reduction, either through flight path changes, by buying navigation
easements, by purchase of over two and a half million dollars worth
of land that this Authority has taken to try to mitigate the noise, as
well as working with the county. We've helped you in changing your
plan. In fact, we rewrote the county comprehensive plan, which you
all approved and changed. We've done the same thing twice now for
the city, and the city has modified and changed.
This Authority has been very aggressive in trying to mitigate
using other methods other than Part 161, which is the restriction.
And I'll point out again that in an active -- on a national basis,
the organization of the Airports Council International has indicated
to the FAA their support, and they will be intervening, we believe.
And they've indicated that we are poster people, if you will, for the
noise reduction process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Have you requested the
support also from the City of Marco and the City of Everglades?
MR. SOLIDAY: No, we hadn't thought about it. Maybe we
should. It's such a short time that I have personally been
concentrating on airports across the country. We need the FAA to
understand that this is a national issue.
And I'll point out in our five-page briefing -- I think you all have
a copy of it, if you don't, we'll get it to you -- that the FAA has gone
way beyond that which they have done in the past, and we believe
that that will then bring the airports, the larger airports, in to support
US.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And just I'd like to finish by saying
that I agree with Commissioner Coyle, I would like to support this
effort. If we can do that without having any legal ramifications, I
Page 26
April 8, 2003
would certainly support that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to take it down the line,
Commissioner.
Mr. Soliday, I support your plight. I think it's very noble. It's
looking at the community -- or the City of Naples and their request.
But I can tell you that we have our own airport issues, and with
their support, I would hope that the Airport Authority can help us out
with our issues with our own airports.
Commissioner Coyle is going to be the liaison for the Collier
County Airport Authority, and I'm sure our Mr. -- our county
manager can inform you of some of the things that you can assist us
with.
MR. SOLIDAY: We've already met with Colonel Mudd, and
I'm sure he would inform you that we have responded every time that
he has called. We're there to support. We are a public agency, just
here to help.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'd just like to clarify one
statement, and then I'd just like to respond to some of the concerns of
the other commissioners.
But Ted, when you're talking about the 65DB limit applying to
funding, I think it's important people understand that that is not grant
funding, it is funding for mitigation, noise mitigation efforts.
MR. SOLIDAY: FAA funding to us, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, that's right. So it's a different
kind of funding than we're talking about today. MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But the issue here is that this is a
landmark decision, and it's an important decision for all local airports
across the nation, but particularly in Collier County. It's an issue that
goes to the heart of whether or not a local Airport Authority really
Page 27
April 8, 2003
has the authority to operate its airport in the best interest of its
community.
Now, most of us understand how difficult it is and how
undesirable it is for the federal government to start managing our
lives here locally. And certainly the FAA, in my belief, has far
overstepped their bounds here. I think they are assuming far much --
far more authority than they're entitled to have with respect to this
issue.
And having followed this for what, Ted, maybe it's been seven
years or so, eight years, I can assure you that the Naples Airport has
studied this issue more thoroughly than probably anybody in the
nation, and they have spent hundreds of thousand of dollars on
consulting projects to make sure they got their facts right. And
although there were occasions when I thought they were moving too
slowly, they moved very deliberately and they I think have made the
right decisions here, and I think they're -- they are well within their
rights to assert their authority to ban Stage 2 jets.
But it also goes to the heart of the operation of our own airports
here. And I think it's an important decision and we really need to
support the Naples Airport Authority, because it's not just Naples
Airport Authority, it's all of the Collier County airports.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
Ted, I'd also like to weigh in by telling you that I'm supportive
of what you're trying to do. It takes real guts to be able to stand up to
a-- to the federal government, this particular degree. I mean, your
board is to be complimented, too. Most people would have folded
much earlier than this.
And I'd like to see the Collier County Commission come
forward. What's the date again that you have to have this by?
MR. SOLIDAY: The 21st of April is when you have to file that
you are going to be involved.
Page 28
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What I'm going to do is see if
we might be able to direct staff to bring this back to us on the 15th.
We have a workshop and we could announce it and advertise it as an
emergency meeting to deal with this situation. And I think we need
to do it if we're going to be proactive on this with you.
One, with a proclamation that we can do it at that point in time,
showing our support for the airport; and number two,
recommendations from staff what we can do to weigh in, per your
suggestions. And then we could advertise it, notice the public. I
think that would be a way to be able to meet all the needs out there.
We really can't come up with something definitive at this point in
time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before I go to Commissioner Halas,
Mr. Weigel, do you have anything to add?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, just a couple of comments.
If the board should determine to bring a matter back on April
15th, by virtue of the fact that that's seven days away, it would not
necessarily need to be called an emergency meeting but merely a
special meeting as an adjunct to the already scheduled matter that
you already have. And we can provide appropriate reasonable notice
under Sunshine Law, so that anyone who wishes to attend would
have the opportunity to afford themselves to attend and participate.
Additionally, you would have at that time, if you go forward
with the suggestion of Commissioner Coletta, a proclamation or a
resolution, possibly a resolution, as a policy statement may in fact
carry more punch, because that's typically what they're recognized
for. Either one would work.
Third is Commissioner Fiala asked about the cities of Marco
and --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Everglades.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- Everglades.
MR. WEIGEL: And pardon me, Everglades, excuse me.
Page 29
April 8, 2003
And I don't recall, I was taking some notes here, if we are
informed as to what the City of Naples is doing, which is distinct and
apart from the Airport Authority. Has the City of Naples been
approached? Have they taken a stand? Will they be providing a
similar function for you all?
MR. McMACKIN: Hopefully, Mr. Weigel, they will. We are
scheduled to appear as Item 14 before the next city council meeting
on April 16th.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Last comment I'll make is that in going
forward, even preparatory to the potential discussion of the board at a
special meeting on April 15th, by your direction or wink and a nod
today, our staff will of course need to become involved.
I'll also tell you that we won't merely be blind signatories to
anything, but it will require some research and questions, probing
questions that we have in regard to the record that's been created. In
any endeavor, and clearly this one, with not only the importance for
the party who's directly involved, but for the fact that we would be
signing off as an important representative of the community and local
government, county attorney office would be looking at this very
closely on behalf of the client, board and taxpayers.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess that was one of the
questions I was going to ask the petitioners there, in regards to
where's the stand with the City Council on this? The reason being,
we hate to get in the middle of a fight that we really don't know
where it's going to lead to. And we're kind of protected. We've got
our own airports that we have to worry about also.
So that's kind of where I stand on this thing. And I'm in favor of
free commerce, and I'm hoping that the Airport Authority will
understand this.
Page 30
April 8, 2003
There's got to be some underlying concerns here, because the
FAA will not give you the grant money, and it must be because of
something that I don't know about totally, I don't think the rest of us
commissioners realize that there's a reason why you're not getting
this grant money, other than the fact that you have this Stage 2 ban.
MR. SOLIDAY: I'll just point out that being first in the nation
sometimes has a tremendous toll, and exactly what we are right now,
first in the nation on taking on a federal law, a program and
established -- but they have approved our program. Unfortunately
they --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if they've approved it, why
haven't you got the money -- the grant?
MR. SOLIDAY: If you'd like to take some details, sir, I'll be
glad to cover that with you at any time and any length.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, I think we have a consensus
of supporting the Naples Airport Authority. If I'm wrong, I know
where Commissioner Halas is going, and he's going to get together
with Mr. Soliday for some more conversation. But I see some heads
nodding, with direction we're going to bring this back during our
workshop on April 15th; is that correct?
MR. WEIGEL: That's fine. If you'd like to provide a little more
formality here, how about a motion and approval to bring this matter
before the board at the special meeting for April 15th.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Coletta by (sic) bringing this back on the
April 15th workshop.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 31
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-1, Commissioner
Halas descending (sic). Thank you.
MR. SOLIDAY: Thank you all, and God bless America.
Item #7A
PETITION VA-2002-AR-3379, AQUATIC ARCHITECTS, INC.,
REPRESENTING KRIS AND JODI ANDERSON, REQUESTING
AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE OF 1.8 FEET FROM THE
MINIMUM REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK
OF 10 FEET TO 8.2 FEET FOR A SCREENED ENCLOSURE
ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 349 WIMBLEDON LANE-
CONT1NI IF.D TO MAY 13, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item is Board of Zoning
Appeals, 7(A). This item requires all participants to be sworn in and
ex parte communication provided by the commissioners. This is
VA-2002-AR-3379, Aqua (sic) Architects, Incorporated, represented
by Kris and Jodi -- representing Kris and Jodi Anderson, requesting
after-the-fact variance of 1.8 feet in the minimum yard accessory
structure setback of 10 feet to 8.2 for a screen enclosure, an addition
to the family dwelling.
Property located on 348 Wimbeldon Lane, further described as
Berkshire Lakes, Unit 1, Block B, Lot 39, Section 32, Township 49
South, Range 26 East, of Collier County, Florida.
Would you all -- any persons to participate, be sworn in by the
court reporter.
Page 32
April 8, 2003
(Speakers were duly swom.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners? Start with
Commissioner Coletta, any ex parte communication?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: None.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have none.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have none.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have no ex parte communication.
And here to start us off with this discussion is?
MR. DeRUNTZ: For the record, my name is Mike DeRuntz,
I'm principal planner in the current planning department.
The petitioner was noticed and I talked to him yesterday about
presenting his case for the commission this morning. Apparently
they're not here.
This single-family residence, as mentioned, is located in the
Berkshire subdivision. It's located off of Radio and Santa Barbara.
The location of their home is identified on the illustrator, on Lot 39.
It's on Wimbeldon. It's on this property. Backs up to the -- an
existing lake there in that subdivision.
Originally they applied for an application for this pool and --
pool enclosure. You can see the site plan for this application. On
this you can see that the property backs up to the lake. This is the
single-family residence. And the addition, 34 by 40 addition, is over
the pool area, and the area encroaching into the 1 O-foot setback.
In the -- this attachment would be identified as an accessory
structure with a minimum of 10 foot as a minimum rear setback
requirement.
This project was constructed. This aerial shows the addition.
The enclosure was built per plan. And the site, you can see that the
pool is in the proper location, and the enclosure is built to the plan
specification that was approved by the county.
Page 33
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, before you continue, is anybody
from Aqua (sic) Architectural here, or Mr. and Mrs. Anderson?
Commissioners, I'm a little bit offended by nobody on the other
side being here to -- asking for this after-the-fact variance. I don't
know what the other board is thinking. I'm thinking either continue
this or entertaining a motion after closing the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Agreed. If they're not even here to
speak for themselves or defend their issue.
MR. DeRUNTZ: If I can, if you would entertain the idea of
continuing this request? They were at the planning commission
meeting. They made a valid presentation. The planning commission
did, you know, move unanimously to approve this recommendation
for a variance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. And I'm glad they were at the
planning commission.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a question. The staff has
recommended against approving this variance because it doesn't --
there are no land-related hardships.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Yes, sir, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the problem appears to me
that the person who built the pool didn't build it in the right place, or
the enclosure and deck in the right place, or didn't provide the
appropriate setbacks.
My question really is to staff. At what point in time do we hold
the contractor responsible for correcting these things, rather than
continually grandfathering these kinds of errors in? How does the
staff feel about that? What are your recommendations concerning
this?
And then I agree with the continuance, if you'd like to do that.
Although my feeling is that on many occasions we have
representatives of petitioners here and we make decisions based upon
Page 34
April 8, 2003
presentations of the representatives, but this is a case where someone
is asking for special treatment, and it might be appropriate to hear
from them, but I'd still want to get my question answered from staff,
and then I'll get out of this discussion.
MR. DeRUNTZ: The -- if I may, the application was submitted
to the county based upon the site plan, and they have built it to the
requirements that was approved by the county. And I guess mistakes
can happen in reviewing plans, and -- but that's the limit of the
approval here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I just get Susan Murray to
address that issue very quickly, please?
MS. MURRAY: Hi, Susan Murray, current planning manager.
I'm not sure I'm going to answer your question directly other
than to tell you we do track the variance requests. And I believe at
the planning commission -- I don't think this applicant had ever been
before you or the planning commission requesting a variance. I think
this was just a mistake and a one-time occurrence to date.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A mistake by whom?
MS. MURRAY: Contractor, I believe. Is that correct, Mike?
Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: He should be liable.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, then we'll go
on to Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if we want to continue it,
I can go along with it, but I want to keep in mind the fact that they
have paid a fee. I think it's what, $2,000?
MR. DeRUNTZ: That's correct. It's an after-the-fact variance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And not only that, but we have
absolutely no neighbors that are complaining, and we have a
planning commission that's passed it. But if this commission would
like to continue it, I'll go along with them on it.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Halas?
Page 35
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have reservation on this thing.
Every time we have after-the-fact variances, somebody has got to be
held accountable for these. If it's the person that's doing the building,
it seems to me that they would take it upon themselves to make sure
that they're within the law in regards to where the property lines are
and where the setbacks are.
And I think we're getting to a point in this county that every
time somebody wants to make a mistake, or whether it's done
intentionally or done on purpose, we end up having to make that
decision of what we should do, is this person really forthright in
what's going on here.
And I'm to the point where -- that the liability of these mistakes
should lie on the people who are contracted to do the work. That's
why they got a license in Collier County. They have to realize what
the laws and regulations are.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
the public hearing?
I close the public hearing.
Any more questions before I close
What's the pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
denial on this request.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Commissioner Halas for denial.
I make a motion that we -- for
There's a motion on the floor by
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll second it for discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commission -- or County Attorney
David Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would suggest, having closed the public hearing, that the
person making the motion and second and the board entertainment of
a motion for denial place on the record the reason for denial of this.
You have had the opportunity to read, of course, the executive
summary.
Among other things, under the considerations it mentions that
Page 36
April 8, 2003
it's the screen enclosure and not the pool that is the violating element
of this setback issue. And the staff recommendation for denial might
be appropriate for you to add into your motion, even reading those
sentences or two to assist you with your finding, if you so agree.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Do you agree with --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- a finding of fact?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with what the attorney has
to say on this, that there's no specific land-related hardships, although
it's still the fact that this was a mistake that was made by the builder.
And therefore, I'd like to include that, you know, my denial that --
include this into the motion for my denial.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And do you want to incorporate into
your motion that staff has also recommended for denial?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I will also do that.
I'm a little concerned about making a judgment as to who is
responsible. But I would be very happy to second the motion that
specifies there are no land-related hardships and no special or
preexisting conditions that are related to the property, and it would
not be in harmony with the general intended purpose of the land
development code.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you.
I'm not going to be able to go along with this motion. If it fails,
I'll make one for a continuance.
I want to make a point here, the fact that we have numerous
times before approved the same scenario of events that came down.
Only in this case we don't have a high-priced lawyer out there and we
Page 37
April 8, 2003
may have a working person that couldn't afford to leave work, hoping
for the very best. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and
hope this motion fails so we can continue it and one more time be
able to hear it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, and we have a couple already
on the consent agenda that we've already approved with the consent
after-the-fact variances for the same thing, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, they're coming off the agenda.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: One is, but not the other.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The other is, too.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta, I think it's up
to the petitioner representing the people who own the land to be here.
I'm not sure if it's a high-priced lawyer, but Aqua Architectural I
thought should be here. But that's fine. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Coletta
raises a good point, and I think that's the reason that I'm voting
against this particular variance, and that is we should be consistent.
And it shouldn't make any difference whether it's a high-priced
lawyer and a big developer or a small property owner. If we're going
to enforce the zoning laws and enforce setbacks and reduce the mini
variances that continually come before us, we've got to start getting
serious about that and begin to treat these consistently, and that's the
reason that I'm voting against it.
MR. DeRUNTZ: Commissioners, I just wanted to make a point
that the contractor did build to what the plan identified, and so I don't
think that he was the only one that was at fault in this situation here.
The plans were approved by the county, and the plan did identify that
there was an encroachment into that 1 O-foot setback area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why did the county approve this
Page 38
April 8, 2003
then? Didn't they realize that there was a problem at the time?
MR. DeRUNTZ: During the planning commission presentation,
there was a representative from the building department there, and
they identified that on the plan that was approved and they had
stamped on the plans that there was a -- they had to meet the 1 O-foot
setback, but the plan clearly showed that it was encroaching into that
setback area. And I believe that as stated by the representative from
the building department, that it was just an oversight on their review
process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This might sound strange, but
thank God for the oversight. Because if it wasn't, we wouldn't have a
job and we wouldn't have a purpose here.
And I -- the only thing I would suggest is when there are these
oversights, let's stand forward and admit them early on, possibly in
the summary agenda. It'd make our job a lot easier and we don't have
to go through this total thing and try to drag it out. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Any more discussion
before I call the motion?
I'm going to call for a vote. All in favor of the vote, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
THE COURT REPORTER: Who are the opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed or for?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll take care of that, thank you,
Commissioner Halas.
Commissioner Halas and Commissioner Coyle was in favor of
Page 39
April 8, 2003
the motion. Commissioner Fiala, myself and Commissioner Coletta
was opposed to the motion, so the motion fails.
Commissioner Coletta, would you like to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I would. And due to the
fact that we do have some dissension here, I'm not going to move for
approval but for a continuance.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: And I'll second that motion.
Any other further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the
motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you.
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, and that is continued to what
date certain?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Two weeks? Is that -- I'm sorry, two
meetings.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Two meetings from now. And
I kind of hope that staff will take the time to reach out and touch the
petitioner.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2003-138 REGARDING PETITION VA-2002-AR-
3381, DAVID M. CORBAN, REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-
FACT VARIANCE OF 16.5 FEET FROM THE REQUIRED REAR
YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET TO 3.5 FEET FROM THE
PROPERTY LINE FOR AN EXISTING HOUSE CONSTRUCTED
OVER A DRAINAGE CANAL AND WATERWAY EASEMENT
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2832 ARBUTUS STREET-
ADOPTED
Page 40
April 8, 2003
Okay, next item is Item 8(A).
MR. MUDD: No, Commissioner, it's 17(D) is item 7(B). It was
a change.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. This is formerly on our
summary agenda. It's a plat of 2003-AR3636 Tarpon Bay, and
Commissioner Halas asked to move this from the summary agenda.9
I'm sorry --
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, this is old item-- if I could just
interject for a second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please do.
MR. MUDD: A little confusion, probably my fault.
It's Item 17(D), which is moved to 7(B). It's a variance,
2002-AR3381, David M. Corban, requesting an after-the-fact
variance of 16.5 feet from the required rear yard setback of 20 feet
3.5 feet from the property line for an existing house constructed over
a drainage canal and waterway easement for property located at 2832
Arbutus Street, Section 11, Township 30 (sic) South, in Collier
County, Florida.
And this was at Commissioner Coyle's request. And this
requires folks to be sworn in, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes, all participants please rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll ask again for ex parte
communication by the Board of Commissioners on this item.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have any ex par --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, no, none.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have none.
Page 41
April 8, 2003
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have none.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll ask Commissioner Fiala when
she comes back.
We have the petitioner. Please state your name for the record,
please.
MR. CORBAN: Good morning. My name is David Corban. I
reside at this residence, 2832 Arbutus Street. I'm also an architect
with Architectural Network in the City of Naples.
I guess after-the-fact with this project is a little bit confusing.
And it sounds like a 16.5 foot variance is a big screw-up, but it's
really not. This residence has been here on the tax roll since 1968,
and it's been continuously occupied from that time until now as a
single-family residence.
It's located, as Mr. Henning said, in a drainage canal that's off of
Haldeman Creek on the eastern border of the Land Yacht Harbor. I
purchased the house about three years ago. Doing my due diligence, I
had communications with county planners, and in my own research
found Section 1.8.10.4 of the LDC, which allows existing
nonconforming single-family structures to be altered, added to or
rebuilt, based on approval by city council and planning commission,
as long as the criteria for the -- for the -- for variance are met.
There's eight criteria. And also, as long as the nonconformity is not
increased.
When I bought the house, I'd hoped to be able to renovate it and
add to it as it is, but subsequent investigations and living with the
residence during the last three years, I feel like that's going to be
financially impracticable. The house is -- the pilings are not in good
shape, the house is very substandard to-- in accordance with current
codes, especially hurricane codes. A lot of the hurricane straps are
rusted through. The ceilings are low, there's no insulation in the
walls, goes on and on.
Page 42
April 8, 2003
So what I'm looking for is the ability to rebuild the home anew
without increasing the nonconformity.
I've worked with staff, Mr. Reischl, throughout the entire
process, and what I'm looking to do has had staff approval, and I'm
looking for your approval today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, did you talk to
anybody on this item?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, I didn't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
Questions by the commissioners for the petitioner?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, I have questions of the staff.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: Did you want me to put my statement on the
record before your question? I just wanted to state that there is no
impact on the growth management plan. The planning commission
recommended approval by a vote of 9-0. I had three neighbors come
and look at the file and none of them offered any objections. And we
recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: None of my questions pertain to
any of that, okay? I'm still dealing with the issue of consistency.
We discussed a few weeks back a land development code
change that would restrict the ability to utilize the calculation of-- or
utilize wetlands in the calculation of density. And the objective at
that point in time was to assure that no structures were developed that
would have increased density as a result of wetlands, or build over
the wetlands, okay?
Now, my question is, how does that proposed land development
change -- or how is it impacted by this action?
MR. REISCHL: And I wasn't at that board meeting, but from
my understanding of what occurred, those would be for waters that
are considered waters of the state or federal waterways. This is
Page 43
April 8, 2003
property that's owned by Mr. Corban, it is submerged, but because
it's dredged property, the state does not consider it waters of the state.
Therefore, I believe that's the difference between those two.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The next question applies
to our regulations concerning the rebuilding of a structure, a
nonconforming structure. And it was my understanding that the code
requires that if an existing nonconforming structure is going to be
rebuilt, that it must be rebuilt to existing standards. Is that true or
not?
MR. REISCHL: That's true. And that's why he's seeking this
variance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- now, the elevation
and the footprint will not change, is that essentially correct?
MR. REISCHL: That's the current footprint and this is the
proposed, the lighter blue being decking on that. So the footprint is
not changing. I believe in some cases it's being reduced on the -- I
believe on the north side. So there's no increase in encroachment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. What is the zoning
on this property?
MR. REISCHL: It's RMF6, residential multi-family six, which
does allows single-family homes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So it is multi-family?
MR. REISCHL: Well, it's a catchall zoning district that allows
single-family, duplex and multi-family. And on this size lot, it
allows a single-family home.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As Commissioner Coyle brought
up, I believe that anytime that -- since this is an old structure, that
anytime that we do any refurbishing or rebuilding, that we have to
meet existing codes, and I think that's the area that we should -- the
course that we should follow here.
Page 44
April 8, 2003
MR. REISCHL: If I could comment on that?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
MR. REISCHL: The code allows 20 percent reconstruction per
year. And Mr. Corban could do that if he decided to request a
variance so he could do it. Instead of doing 20 percent per year over
the course of years, he could do it over a shorter time and finish the
refurbish, reconstruction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any other questions? Commissioner
Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I thought there was a maximum of
50 percent reconstruction.
MR. REISCHL: I'll check on that. It sticks in my mind it's 20,
but I'm saying it off the top of my head.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand 20 percent per
year, but I understood there was a 50 percent max. And once you
exceeded the 50 percent max --
MR. REISCHL: Of the -- okay, of the dollar value, yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, the dollar value. That it
was considered a rebuilt rather than -- and you could not -- you had
to bring it up to existing code.
My final question is with respect to the FEMA elevation. What
is the current FEMA elevation?
MR. CORBAN: The current FEMA elevation is right at nine,
which is what this area is. That's so it's legal -- it's legal per FEMA
right now. I propose to raise it about two feet, because right now you
really can't walk up under the home.
Just a continuation, the -- without being able to build over the
water, and the property I think would be fairly unusable. It's a very
small site. It's only 65 feet wide with a 10-foot utility easement on
one side.
The house -- the property seems to me that it was always
intended that this would be a house. There's three rows of columns
Page 45
April 8, 2003
running down the middle that are only six feet apart, so I don't
believe it was ever intended to be a boathouse and then transferred to
a home, because if it was a boathouse, you'd have more room,
because I can't even get my 13-foot Whaler in between those
columns.
So the house was built legally, you know, prior to 1968. It's
been continuously occupied as a single-family residence.
The LDC does allow for nonconforming homes that meet the
requirements set forth in a variance to be rebuilt in their conforming
location. I feel that I've met the eight criteria. Staff agrees with me,
as does the planning commission. And again, the house was the first
one in the neighborhood. The houses on the north, south, east and
west were all built after this home was in its location.
And just to -- this is just a water level site plan. As you can see,
the drainage canal is in this location here. And there's a map of this
area in the planning department in the City of Naples that shows -- I
think it's from the early 1960's -- that shows the canals of the Land
Yacht Harbor in place, it shows this canal in place, but it doesn't
show this indention here. So it's my feeling that this was made and
the seawall was put in place, you know, really for the intention of
locating the structure where it is.
So I'm looking to use the property as it was really designed to be
used by going through a variance process that allows it to be done, so
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You just stated that the elevation
of this present home is at nine feet and you plan to raise it two feet?
MR. CORBAN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that means you're going to
destroy the whole structure and then put new pilings in to bring it up
to two feet. So--
MR. CORBAN: That's what--
Page 46
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- basically what you're going to
do is tear the whole thing down. You're not really refurbishing this
thing, you're starting right from scratch.
MR. CORBAN: Yes. Like I said, my intention at the beginning
was to be able to refurbish it, but in subsequent investigations, the
pilings are not in good shape, hurricane straps are rotted through.
But my variance petition has always reflected that I'm looking to
rebuild the structure anew.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how long have you lived at
this residence?
MR. CORBAN: I've lived there almost three years now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Almost three years.
MR. CORBAN: Now, I will be functionally-- actually, in
reality and functionally reducing the nonconformity with a new
home. I'm going to put in two rows of pilings rather than the three,
so I'll reduce the number of pilings in the water by a third. I'll be
putting in concrete pilings, rather than the PT pilings, which as we
know now is environmentally not a good thing.
The living area of the house will actually be set back an
additional six feet from the setback from where it is now. So it will
be a functional reduction in nonconformity.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Final question. I'm not trying to
cause you any trouble, I'm --
MR. CORBAN: Oh, I understand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- just trying to deal with
consistencies and the way we interpret these things.
So my final question is to staff. Unlike the other variance we
just considered and continued, this is a variance that you think is
supportable?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That it will reduce the
Page 47
April 8, 2003
nonconformance.
MR. REISCHL: Reduce the existing nonconformance.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Existing nonconformance.
So you're recommending that this particular variance meets all
the requirements?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. And rarely does a variance meet the
land-related hardship requirement, and in this case that was my
finding.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, seeing no further questions,
I'm going to close the public hearing for consideration on this item.
So the public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Coyle, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'll make a motion to
approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Coyle to approve, second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further
discussion?
Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. The only reason I'm going
to oppose that is because of the land development codes. The way
they're written at the present time is if there's any changes in a
structure, then we're supposed to conform to present codes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas is the
descending (sic) vote. Thank you.
Let's take a five-minute break for the court reporter.
Page 48
April 8, 2003
(Brief recess.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would you please take your seats.
Item #8A
RESOLUTION 2003-139 TRANSMITTING AMENDMENTS FOR
THE 2002 CYCLE OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO
DCA-ADOPTFD
Next item, County Manager, is formerly 17(D). Are we going
to advertised public --
MR. MUDD: No, sir. It's -- we did 17(D), and it was voted 4-1
and Commissioner Halas voted against.
The next item is Item 8(A) and that's the public hearing for 2002
cycle of growth management plan amendment. And Mr. David
Weeks and Stan Litsinger will present. They will present each item
individually and get an individual vote by the commission on each
one, and then at the final end have an overall vote for transmittal.
MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners, I'm David
Weeks of your comprehensive planning staff. I appreciate the
comments of the county manager.
I do need to make a few other comments, both introductory in
nature, to kind of explain briefly the process that we're going through
today, and also to get a couple things that need to be on the public
record.
First of all, these are growth management plan amendments, not
rezone petitions. However, the parameters that are established in the
growth management plan are what you will use at subsequent dates
to judge rezone petitions; that is, the identified land uses, thresholds
of square footages, development standards, et cetera, that might be
approved in a given petition to add to our comprehensive plan, or
those thresholds that you will then be limited to in dealing with a
Page 49
April 8, 2003
rezone petition at a subsequent date.
You are not mandated to approve the maximum thresholds at the
rezoning stage. For example, if you had a petition today asking for a
comprehensive planning amendment that established a half million
square footage maximum, when it comes time to the rezone petition
for that given piece of property, if you so determine through your
deliberations at that rezone hearing that a half a million square foot
was too much, you don't have to approve that. I want to make that
clear. But you are establishing threshold; you are establishing in
some cases maximum levels of intensity and development standards.
Secondly, to point out that this is not the adoption hearing.
These types of petitions have a two-step process. Today is the
transmittal. You could think of these as preliminary approval
hearings.
Your actions today, if you so choose to transmit these petitions,
will be to send them to the Florida Department of Community Affairs
and other state and regional agencies for their review. They will then
provide the county with what's called an ORC Report, Objections,
Recommendations and Comments. That is their preliminary review
where they identify any issues that they see pertaining to these
comprehensive plan amendments in regards to compliance with state
statutes.
And then later, probably in August or September, you will be
holding your adoption hearings on these where you take your final
action and then an amendment could go back to those various
agencies for their final determination, if these amendments are in
compliance with state statutes or not.
These are legislative actions, there's no need for you to disclose
ex parte communications or for staff or others to be sworn in today.
One that is required by state statute is a sign-up sheet. It's a
legal size document, and there's two of these out on the table in the
hallway. This is an opportunity for anyone, any citizen or other
Page 50
April 8, 2003
interested party, to sign up so that once the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, after the adoption hearings, do issue their formal
determination that the amendments that eventually get adopted are in
compliance or not in compliance with state statutes, that that notice
can be provided to the persons that sign up on this sheet. And again,
that's a statutory requirement.
I would also like to point out that due to the changes in the legal
advertising that staff has undertaken at the direction of the planning
commission, the scope of review of these amendments is much more
narrow than has been in the past. For example, some of these
amendments pertain to the future land use element. That does not
mean the entire future land use element is open for discussion today.
There is not the opportunity for a person to come up to you and ask
for some type of change to the future land use settlement. In my
example that has no bearing, no relationship to the amendments that
in fact have been advertised and are in your executive summary
packet.
Just a few more things briefly. The schedule is late, that you
may or may not be aware of. Generally speaking, at this time we
would be holding adoption hearings, not transmittal. But we were
delayed in part, a large part, because of the staff workload dealing
with the rural fringe and eastern lands comprehensive plan
amendments, and also, your allowance of a late submittal for this
cycle, which is included in this batch of amendments.
The binders that we have provided you outside of the executive
summary packet, we do request that you would leave those in your
office after the hearing today, and staff could pick those up
tomorrow. We will reuse those to send them to those various state
agencies.
If I can jump over to the executive summary, because of the
format that we have where we have a total of 10 petitions, but it's all
within one executive summary, as the County Manager has
Page 51
April 8, 2003
mentioned, various staff members will come forward to give the
presentation for those various amendments and then your individual
vote on those.
As far as the fiscal impact goes, there's one thing I'd like to
point out, that for the private amendments, our opinion is there are no
fiscal impacts for these. For the county initiated amendments -- and
by the way, of the 10 amendments today, four are privately initiated
and six are county initiated. The fiscal impact for the
county-initiated amendments will be the staff time necessary to
amend the land development code to implement some of those
comprehensive plan amendments.
The one fiscal impact note that is in your executive summary
that might have jumped out at you has to do with the changes to
population methodology that are proposed, both in our future land
use element and capital improvements element.
In staff's opinion, this will not result in any impacts to public --
any fiscal impact in regards to public facility demands. However, we
don't want to make a blanket statement that it will not. Let me give
you an example, though, of what I think the minor change that we're
talking about is.
If you look at the population projections under the existing
methodology versus the proposed, in the year 2010, which is actually
outside of our five-year capital improvement plan window, the
difference is, with these new projections recommended by staff and
planning commission, an 11,000 person increase. And I don't believe
that that is going to affect the planning for roads, the planning for
water treatment plants, sewer plants and other types of capital
facilities.
If we look much farther out in the future, yes, that population
discrepancy is much greater. But again, that is outside of our capital
improvement planning window.
As far as environmental issues for all of these petitions before
Page 52
April 8, 2003
you today, no particular issues have been identified relative to
protected species, soils, groundwater resources, et cetera. A
reminder, though, that again, in implementing these comprehensive
plan amendments, if approved, during the rezone stage and other
subsequent development orders, certain provisions of the land
development code and other environmental protection regulations
will kick in, more detail review will occur, and if they are determined
to be environmental impacts, that will be addressed at that time,
including by, as applicable, state and federal agency reviews.
Historical and archeological impact, none of these amendments
are within areas of probability. The EAC does not review these type
of comprehensive plan amendments; therefore, they have no
recommendation. And the planning commission recommendation
will be given to you, along with staff's recommendation, as we walk
through each of the individual 10 petitions before you today.
And with that, Commissioners, I believe I've completed the
introductory remarks. The first petition, if you so choose -- well,
actually, there are a couple more things.
We are aware of the change of procedure that occurred a few
weeks or perhaps months ago now, where we know the petitioner
goes first. So our presentations will be brief on the private sector
petitions. On the public sector that is initiated by the county, we are
the petitioner, so we will need to give that presentation.
I'm sure you've looked through the executive summary, these
amendments, and some of these you can see are I'll call somewhat
nebulous. They don't seem to be very substantial in their changes.
We will leave it to your discretion as to how much of a presentation
you want us to give. Most particularly Items No. 6, 2002-6 and
2002-7.
No. 6 is the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Review. Primarily
the amendments are proposed as a result of the restudy committee
that you have appointed. No. 7 is to the future land use element.
Page 53
April 8, 2003
Both of those have a lot of pieces.
There are a lot of individual amendments within that single
petition. And the planning commission took the approach,
particularly on No. 7, of staff, you use your discretion to present to
us those items that you think are substantial. We offer the
opportunity, if you don't want us to stand here and just start walking
through all those amendments, if you want us to just stand here, you
pick out the ones that you have a concern about and ask us. And
again, your discretion as to how you want us to handle that. We want
to be as brief as possible, yet give you the necessary information to
make your decisions.
And with that, Commissioners, if you're ready, we can start with
the first petition.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weeks, before we --
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- continue, is there any questions by
Commissioners on the procedures that Mr. Weeks set forth?
We do have three public speakers. We don't know which item
they want to speak at. And Ms. Filson will walk over to her -- where
she has the petitions, and we'll ask the -- whether it's just general or
what. Mr.--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, the three registered speakers --
for the record, Rich Yovanovich -- is myself, Ron Nino, all for -- and
Reed Jarvey, all for the first, 2002-1.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, thank you.
We're ready to continue, Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: Again, sir, your procedure would call for the
petitioner to go first. The first four we're going to come to are the
private amendments.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Again, for the record, Rich
Yovanovich.
Page 54
April 8, 2003
I, along with Karen Bishop, Ron Nino and Reed Jarvey,
represent the McMullins in this petition. This is a petition involving
approximately ! 9 acres at the northeast quadrant of Rattlesnake
Hammock and County Road 951. It is immediately adjacent to an
activity center, and essentially it's between an activity center and the
Sports Park.
So what we're proposing is a transition from the retail activity
center to the Sports Park, which includes a shooting range and a lot
of rather loud activities. What we're proposing is a -- I use the term
business park, but I don't mean it in the sense of what our
comprehensive plan means. I tried to describe it as what is occurring
on Horseshoe Drive where you have contractors and a credit union
and county offices all related to the support of the construction
industry.
We met with staff and we understand that staff does not want
another standard office park development in this area. The original
proposal came across as a -- very much an industrial type of
proposal.
In a meeting with planning commissioners prior to the planning
commission, the feedback we got was we thought that it was too
industrial. So we made -- we went back and made some
clarifications to the original submittal to -- in an attempt to clarify
that we were not a general office park but we were not an industrial
park.
So the uses in the language we proposed to staff were intended
to clarify that we were going to be a -- and again, I use the term
business park, but patterned after the type of park that is developed
by Horseshoe Drive.
The planning commission liked that, those changes. They did
require that between the adoption hearing -- I'm sorry, the transmittal
hearing and the adoption hearing, that we provide some additional
data and analysis to support the need for those types of uses in that
Page 55
April 8, 2003
area. Staff was concerned about the data and analysis that was
originally presented did not necessarily support the clarifications we
made, so we have agreed to go back and do some -- provide some
additional data and analysis between now and the adoption hearing.
One area of disagreement we had with staff is the original
proposal included very specific square footages associated with the
types of uses. We recommended that there be an overall limitation,
and in this proposal it's 185,000 square feet on roughly 19 acres, and
that at the PUD stage we would discuss the specifics of allocation
amongst the various uses as far as square footage.
My sense from the planning commission was that they preferred
that the comprehensive plan amendments be more general, including
the overall maximum permitted square footage, but leave the
specifics for the PUD zoning at the time we come back with the PUD
zoning, which is -- you know, it's a change from what has evolved
because it's typically or more recently the comp. plan amendment,
private amendments have been more akin to I'll call PUD rezones at
the comp. plan stage.
I agree with the philosophy of being more general in the
comprehensive plan and deal with the specifics at the PUD rezone.
So what we suggested, and the planning commission agreed, was to
take out the specific allocation as to how much square footage today
is going to be indoor self-storage, how much is going to be these
offices and how much is going to be warehouses and deal with that at
the PUD stage.
So with that, Mr. Nino is here to address any issues you may
have, Mr. Jarvey's here to address any issues you may have related to
their areas of expertise, if you have any questions. Otherwise, we
would hope that you'll go with the planning commission's
recommendation. And we will provide additional information to
staff as directed by your planning commission between now and the
adoption hearing as far as a little bit more market analysis to support
Page 56
April 8, 2003
the changes we made in response to the concern that we were too
industrial and needed to clarify that we were more of a business park
type of development.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any questions by the
members of the board for the petitioner?
I have one. Is there any single-family units or any dwelling
units proposed?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, the proposal is to transition from the
activity center, have non-residential uses between the activity center
and the Sports Park.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the zoning today?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right now it's a holding category of ag,
which would mean under--
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- your comprehensive plan all we're
eligible for would be residential. We don't think residential's an
appropriate use between those two users, and that's why we've come
in with this proposed subdistrict.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The current zoning is holding as
ag., right? If we rezone this, when does it become eligible for
additional tax assessment?
MR. YOVANOVICH: At the rezone.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: At the rezone. We need to have
that as quickly as possible.
MS. FILSON: No problem.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Hey, I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would say that I like the idea of
having less specificity here, because in the past it seems what we've
been doing is approving growth management plan amendments
specifically tailored to PUD's, and it looks very much like the same
thing. And I'm glad to see us getting away from that. And you
Page 57
April 8, 2003
understand, of course, that the maximum allowed of 185,000 is not a
guarantee, that you don't necessarily get that many?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I said that to the planning commission
and I'll reaffirm that here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: One of the things that I'm
concerned about, and I'm looking at leaving a large buffer zone,
because I think we're going to run into some problems with the
Sports Park in regards to noise. We're already getting some
complaints in regards to the shooting range out there. The shooting
range, the Sports Park was there long before development was there,
and I want to make sure that we can address these issues upfront
before we get involved. You know, it's like the old deal about well,
the airport was here first and now people have crowded around it. So
we're going to run into the same deal with the Sports Park. I realize
we have limited activities out there, but there's always the shooting
range and everything else that's going on out there, and the Sports
Park was there a lot longer than development. And so we've got to
come up with -- so that we're compatible, we can live together as
neighbors out there, and that's one of my big concerns.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Commissioner Halas, we will be
able to deal with -- assuming that the comp. plan amendment is
adopted, we will be able to deal with that through the PUD process to
address every issue you raised. As we told you, we know who was
there first, and we can deal with that through disclosures and
appropriate buffers and setbacks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta and then
Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think that's an excellent point
and I'm glad you brought it up. I kind of hope that when you get to
the point you're signing deeds over to people or renters that are
Page 58
April 8, 2003
coming in that it's a declaration that's in there that you recognize the
traditional uses, of Florida Sports Park as being there before the new
use that's going to be taking place. And I kind of hope we can keep
carrying this forward to everything else that's going to take place
around there, because there's a big squeeze being put on for, what do
you want to call it, outdoor traditional uses that our residents have
enjoyed for generations, and we need to protect it any way we can.
And I appreciate you coming forward with that, Commissioner
Halas.
The one thing I'd like to have you elaborate just a little bit on
about the mitigation that's going to take place. You're talking about
some wetlands there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ms. Bishop, do you want to join us
today?
MR. YOVANOVICH: She just -- we are going through the
process right now with the Corps and the District, and we will deal
with mitigation through the mitigation bank to address some of the
mitigation issues related to development on that property. Is this microphone on?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not very well.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, it's hard to tell whether you can
hear me or not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It doesn't make any difference.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have a question of staff--
and I'm sorry, Rich, I'm just joking with you. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know, I know.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I just have a question to' staff
about this, and it's -- it relates to the issue raised by Commissioner
Halas and Commissioner Coletta.
There are -- there's residential zoning to the north of this
particular plot of land. And some of those people are already
Page 59
April 8, 2003
complaining about the noise from the shooting range. And in this
particular change, it appears that the staff is recommending that a lot
of the other property in the area be retained as residential. And I
don't understand the logic there. I'd like to understand it, or am I
misinterpreting it?
My bottom line point is that building residential units creates
more density and more traffic; whereas, in many cases additional
retail commercial is required further east to service the people who
are in fact living out there. So just -- I don't want to belabor this
point because it's slightly outside this particular petition, but can you
address that for me?
MR. WEEKS: In the context that we're only looking at this
petition. So staff actually agrees with you. In our analysis of this
petition and also another one, No. 5 later on your agenda, we did
look at this corridor, this urban residential fringe, that one-mile strip
on the east side of Collier Boulevard where this property and again
the later one that's located, and our conclusion is that if we look back
at 1989 when the present future land use element was adopted, we
identified this area as a transition area from the higher densities on
the west side of Collier Boulevard at roughly four units per acre
eligible to the one unit per five acres beyond this one-mile strip to the
east. We believe there was a validity at that time for having that
transition.
But what is actually being approved within this corridor, net
densities -- not gross, the gross is still capped at one-and-a-half units
per acre residential -- but the net densities, because of the amount of
environmentally sensitive lands on a lot of these properties in cases is
extremely high. All the way up to, I think we saw one close to 16
units per acre.
Also, the intensity of uses, the Sports Park itself existing, of
course, activity center uses being approved, primarily commercial,
and also the First Assembly of God, I think it is, ministries campus
Page 60
April 8, 2003
and those types of uses that are being allowed in there, the intensity
and the net densities are telling us that this really isn't the same
animal that we looked at back in 1989. And we do generally support
the notion of either increased densities or some changes in the
intensity of use that is allowed.
You're probably also aware that a hospital, a new hospital is
proposed right in this area, very close to this site, and again, the other
petition later.
So our conclusion is I think the same as yours, Commissioners.
We see this is a changing area, a transmissioning area. Not
necessarily to the extent that we need to come back and just across
the board increase the residential density from the one-and-a-half
units per acre, but we certainly recognize change conditions, and
that's part of the reason that we are supportive of the general concept
of this petition, as well as the one later on your agenda that increases
residential density for affordable housing.
But back to my very beginning comment, as you I think
acknowledged, this is a single petition and that's all we can address
today.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, Commissioner Fiala, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you very much. You've
brought up so many points that I was going to mention, so I'll just
include in this that in this particular area, with the homeless shelter
there and along with the shooting range, both ranges, and the Sports
Park, I feel that this would probably be a good buffer zone to buffer
it from residential. I think that might help to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I forgot what I was going to say
here. I'll be back in a second here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You're in my world.
Page 61
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I would like to make a
motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think that what we're going to do is
take a general --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I remember what my question
was.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- motion under all these items. Ms.
Student?
MS. STUDENT: We had -- for the record, Marjorie Student,
assistant county attorney.
I had discussed this with staff, and because these are separate
petitions, we concluded that a motion per each petition would be
acceptable --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. STUDENT: -- and appropriate.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
MS. STUDENT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I remember what my question
was. One of those senior moments, I guess.
Looking at the impacts as far as traffic out in this area, in the
information given to us there is a possibility of a Home Depot, a
Lowe's or something of this nature that could be built in this area.
And of course we've already got some commercial in that particular
area. Can staff give us some idea of what we're looking at, the
potential for traffic impact at the comer of Rattlesnake Hammock
and 951 ?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I can make some general
comments. I'm certainly not a transportation expert, but I think
you're making reference to something that planning staff wrote in the
summaries and that pertained to the proposed additional uses that the
petitioner --
Page 62
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
MR. WEEKS: -- raised at the planning commission, and that
was one of our concerns is both the type of use and then the public
facility impact, such as transportation.
And as Rich -- Mr. Yovanovich has put on the record, the
planning commission's recommendation was you need to come back
with data and analysis to, number one, show that there's an additional
need for these types of uses that you're asking for. And I would take
your comment to mean, and I think it's appropriate, that the petitioner
likewise would need to provide additional public facility impact
analysis as well, most particularly transportation. From our
perspective, they are adding land uses from what they originally
submitted, and so they need to provide some additional information
to address those concerns.
The other comment I wanted to make, and I'll let Don Scott
speak, if he wishes, you recently changed your capital improvements
elements, Policy 1.2.2, and that is the policy that deals with what is a
significant impact, and how and when do we measure that. And the
threshold is dealing with an impacted roadway. If a roadway has not
been identified as impacted, then that threshold of three percent of
impact is not applicable. And I believe I'm correct in saying that
there are no impacted roadways within this radius of this project. But
I'll defer to Don, if he has something further.
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning.
We would address that as they come forward with the specific
data traffic analysis, but I will say that we do have a lot of
improvements in that area also with Rattlesnake widening, County
Road 951 and Santa Barbara Extension, which we've dealt with and
will be dealing with in the next couple of weeks, too, so there's the
opposite side to that in this area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coletta, I'm
Page 63
April 8, 2003
sorry, I didn't recognize your motion. Would you restate it?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's okay. I know everybody
had something to go with it. I'll restate the motion. I'd like to make a
motion for approval to move this on for transmittal.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second. Any further
discussion?
MR. WEEKS: Just clarification. Would that be per the
planning commission's recommendation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye. Opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 4-0, Commissioner
Coyle absent.
Next item?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, it's CP-2002-3, Robert Duane of
Hole Montes, representing Bill and Mary Grant of the Naples
Gateway Land Trust, requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan to expand the existing Pine Ridge Mixed Use
Subdistrict by three acres and to modify the allowed uses by adding
80,000 square feet of retail and office uses as allowed in the C-3
zoning district, and removing additional (sic) uses for property
located at NE quadrant Pine Ridge Road/Livingston Road
intersection in Section 7. The coordinator is Glenn Heath.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Duane, I have two questions.
The -- this is within the Golden Gate Estates Master Plan the
committee make (sic) recommendations for this project and also will
there be any connections to Sable Ridge Road, I think it is?
MR. DUANE: Robert Duane, for the record, from Hole Montes
Page 64
April 8, 2003
and Associates. There'll be no connections to Livingston Woods
Lane, and the Golden Gate Master Plan committee did review this
and forwarded it on to the planning commission with a
recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MR. DUANE: You're welcome.
I'll try to be brief this morning. I have with me this morning
Clay Brooker from the law firm of Young, Vanassenderp, Varnadoe
and Anderson. I also have Chuck Mohlke from the firm of Fraser
and Mohlke, who provided some of the data and analysis to support
the need for commercial uses at this location. I also have Ted Triesh
(phonetic) with me from the Metro Group to address any
transportation issues that you may have.
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Pine
Ridge and Livingston Road. The existing subdistrict currently
comprises about 13 acres, and we are adding about three-and-a-half
acres, which is this piece at the corner outlined in yellow, into the
subdistrict.
The request is for 80,000 square feet of retail or office use on
the western 10 acres, which will comprise the area I just outlined in
yellow to you.
The uses that we're requesting are C-3 uses in the Collier
County Land Development Code. The existing uses of the area
outlined in yellow is single-family, as permitted by the Golden Gate
Master Plan. And the seven acres just to the east of that are currently
allowed conditional uses in the subdistrict.
We're here largely this morning because of change conditions in
the area. One includes the widening of Pine Ridge Road from four to
six lanes. Secondly, the extension of Livingston Road, an arterial
roadway north of the subject property, and also based upon prior
approvals that this and the previous board granted on this corner for
the creation of a new subdistrict, as well as the same subdistrict on
Page 65
April 8, 2003
the south side of Pine Ridge Road. And zoning subsequently has
been put in place for the Baldridge (phonetic) PUD, which permits
similar uses and intensities as the subject property.
As you can see from the aerial, the location of the project is well
suited for commercial uses, and they extend all the way up to 1-75 on
the north side of Pine Ridge Road. I've incorporated some language
into the text of the element, after working with some planning
commission members, that the C-3 uses are not entitlements and
they're subject to further evaluation at the time of rezoning approval.
And that concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, my question is, is it says
and removing conditional uses for property located dah, dah, dah.
When we're saying remove it, it means, in other words, you want it to
go to permitted uses; is that correct?
MR. DUANE: We're deleting the existing subdistrict today,
which is this area right in here is allowed conditional uses, and we're
deleting those uses from the subdistrict and we're adding retail and
office uses in place of those and the single-family use that's allowed
at the comer of the intersection.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Answer your question? Great.
Seeing no further questions, Mr. Heath?
MR. HEATH: For the record, I'm Glenn Heath with
comprehensive planning staff. On your--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Visualizer.
MR. HEATH: -- visualizer, excuse me, the parcels are -- that
are involved in this petition are marked in the upper left-hand comer
of the image. The three parcels marked PUD represent the existing
subdistrict, and the parcel marked E in the hatchings there, they're the
proposed additional parcel.
Page 66
April 8, 2003
When we were reviewing this proposal from Mr. Duane, we
realized that there were a lot of problems with the way the existing
subdistrict was represented in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It
was represented differently on the future land use map than in the
text. In the text it was represented as both a subdistrict and a district,
the Pine Ridge Road mixed use subdistrict did not have its own
heading in the plan as it currently stands, so we had to make all those
changes in order to forward this, and thus the amendment that you
see in front of you, the amendment language you see in front of you
is sort of a combination of the petitioner's request and staff's request.
Other than that, I would just add that the planning commission
recommended transmittal of this with the changes that Mr. Duane
noted.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I realize that we have
to deal with this later at zoning, but I'm very concerned and I would
like to charge transportation staff to make sure that whatever we do,
this roadway can accommodate whatever is going to be going in
there. It's so congested as it is. And my main concern is what's
going to be placed in there to not put too much of a burden on the
roadway.
MR. HEATH: Well, it's an issue for that whole intersection,
because the -- in addition to Mr. -- the property that Mr. Duane is
representing, the property directly across Pine Ridge Road from him
is already zoned commercial, and the property directly across
Livingston Road from him is already zoned commercial. So it's
going to be basically a commercial intersection in the future.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So we're looking at this
intersection of Pine Ridge and Livingston Road, we're looking at
each of these roadways are going to be six lanes eventually?
MR. HEATH: I'd have to defer to Mr. Scott on that.
Page 67
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Pine Ridge Road is six lanes,
Livingston Road is six lanes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's going to be six lanes also?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: They're both six now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, any further questions?
Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion for approval to
transmit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion on the floor for approval to
transmit to DCA by Commissioner Coletta. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And a second by Commissioner
Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
MR. HEATH: I need clarification.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Hang on just a minute.
MR. HEATH: I need a clarification, that includes the planning
commission recommendation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And that's included into the
second. I'll call the motion. All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to say that the planning
commission's recommendations weigh heavily I think on all of us --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- as we --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- approach these separate issues.
Page 68
April 8, 2003
MR. MUDD: The next petition, Mr. Chairman, is CP2002-4.
That's Mr. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, and
Anthony Pires, Jr. of Woodward, Pires and Lombardo, representing
Bryan Paul, et al, requesting a text amendment to the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan to modify the rural settlement area district to
clarify vested uses, density and intensity, and to clarify an increase in
the development density and intensity as allowed for property located
on the east side of Immokalee Road, County Road 846, on the north
side of Randall Boulevard and bisected by Oil Well Road, County
Road 858, and commonly known as Orangetree PUD. And Mr. Weeks is the staff coordinator.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't mean to interrupt, but
are those coordinates correct?
MR. MUDD: I'm reading straight out of the petition, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Immokalee Road doesn't run
east and west? I'm a little bit confused.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's out there anyway, so --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, I'm sure that -- you
know, I just don't want to send something out that's incorrect and find
out that the whole thing was rejected at the state level.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we'll take a look at it, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, if we could, just make
sure that the language of the geographic description is absolutely
correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It turns north at that point.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, the language states on the east
side of Immokalee Road at Orangetree at that point -- Immokalee
Road at that point is running north/south.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, that's when it makes the
bend, okay.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All right, Mr. Pires.
Page 69
April 8, 2003
MR. PIRES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission,
Anthony Pires, Jr., with Wayne Arnold from Q. Grady Minor &
Associates, and Mr. Paul is also here today.
And as outlined in the staff report, the purpose of this particular
application was to add text to specifically state and clarify types of
uses presently allowed in the district at their appropriate -- despite
the -- and with the non-urban designation to also bring the language
up to date, to remove the text stating the area is removed from
support in services and facilities as in fact there are support in
services and facilities, and to remove text that discourages the
addition of dwelling units beyond those that are vested and which are
allowed by the existing Orangetree PUD.
And we went through the process, too, the staff had some
additional comments and suggestions and recommendations that the
settlement area, the settlement district, would not -- would be -- any
expansion beyond the geographic boundaries of the existing sections
would be prohibited.
And the other staff recommendations that were proposed we
have no difficulty with and in fact support the staff's recommended
language.
The planning commission heard this and unanimously
recommended its approval. We have, and Mr. Paul has met with the
members of the Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan Restudy
Committee. We advised them that we were filing an independent
application, because we were not sure how as to how long it would
take for their process to be completed for their recommendations as
to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
We believe we have received and continue to receive
broad-based community support, and I believe even Commissioner
Mark Strain at the planning commission meeting indicated that he
felt that the consensus of the community was supportive of this
particular petition and application, and we would request that this
Page 70
April 8, 2003
board transmit this to the Department of Community Affairs with the
recommended language as unanimously recommended by the
planning commission.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I guess we'll find out if Mr. Strain
was correct during the neighborhood meetings.
MR. PIRES: That's correct, yes, we will.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Possibly --
MR. PIRES: As a matter of fact, we are meeting with the civic
association next week.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may comment?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please, Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, I want to tell you, if
there was ever an example of a developer that works with the
community, Bryan Paul should get the trophy for it. This man has
showed up for everything, he has talked to everyone, he is totally in
sync with everything that's taken place out there, from the civic
association, the Golden Gate Master Plan, he showed up at the recent
meeting that we held out there at Orangetree for the Rural Service
Days and went to great detail explaining to people exactly what he
was contemplating for that area. He's worked very closely with staff
at all times, too. And I'll tell you, it's very refreshing to find
someone of this character that's willing to go so far to make
something work. You know, he's not leaving something out of the
mix.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, it sounds like we've got an
applicant for the Citizen of the Year.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think so.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Any other questions for the
petitioner?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a question of staff.
Anytime somebody starts talking about increasing density and
Page 71
April 8, 2003
intensity, it gets my attention. Can you very briefly tell us the
implications of this.9
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. This amendment in and of itself does
not increase the density or intensity of land use, but it clearly sets the
stage for that to occur.
One of the things we've done in this petition, staffs
recommendation, is to put back into the comprehensive plan what the
Orangetree area is vested for. That's the 2,100 dwelling units and the
22 acres of commercial. That is the -- that vesting from the DRI
statutes. So if and when a future petitioner, be it this petitioner or
some of the other interests out in the Orangetree area, come forward
to increase the number of dwelling units beyond the 2,100 or add
commercial beyond those 22 acres, each one of those petitions will
be reviewed under the DRI statutes to see if they cross that threshold.
If they do, then of course they'll have to go through that additional
process. If they don't, they will not. It would simply be the normal
rezone process that would come before you.
Again, this doesn't increase the density or intensity, but it makes
it very clear to any reader of the language that such is allowed and
the process would be simply filing for a PUD amendment or rezoning
of the property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what is staffs logic for
supporting it?
MR. WEEKS: The Orangetree area, in our opinion, has
changed significantly. The Golden Gate Estates area around it is
developing at a very rapid rate, has been for years, and that
development is moving farther east.
One of the benefits of the Orangetree community, in our
opinion, is the opportunity from the standpoint of support uses; the
opportunity to have some additional commercial institutional type
issues, schools, which you may be aware of an additional school is
going out there. Types of uses that will support not only the
Page 72
April 8, 2003
Orangetree community itself but the surrounding Estates area. We
see it as kind of a hole in the donut, and to limit it to the uses that are
vested there now just don't make sense to us. We recognize that
agricultural uses on roughly half of that piece of property in the long
term probably are not viable, probably do not make sense. Kind of
ties in with the rural fringe amendments that kind of surround this
area also with -- provide some opportunities for support uses, both
for those developments and the Estates. This kind of fits in with that
overall pattern.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can staff tell us what the present
density per acre out there is?
MR. MUDD: Very quickly, sir.
MR. WEEKS: About one and one-third units per acre. The
total land area is about 2,800 acres, and they're approved for 2,100
dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do you anticipate? Do
you think that we're going to change the density per acre out there
eventually?
MR. WEEKS: I couldn't even hazard a guess, sir. It's going to
depend on the individual rezone petitions that come forward.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have any kind of a feel,
what kind of a buffer that you will have if you -- if they decide to
want to increase density?
MR. WEEKS: Case by case, as you review the rezone petitions
as to what type of landscape buffers, setback areas that would be
proposed to protect the surrounding Estates area, as well as other
areas approved for development internal to the Orangetree PUD.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So staff at this time does not really
have a feeling of where they're going to go with density out in this
particular area; is that what you're saying?
Page 73
April 8, 2003
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. The most I would hazard a guess
to say is -- within the urban designated area, four units per acre is our
eligible base density, given they're at 1.1 and 1/3 now. Looking at
the amount of land area that is yet to be developed, because they've
already got the significant amount, half or more is already allocated
for residential: The golf course, a lot of the development that's there
now plus some additional that's yet to be built. The schools, the
government facilities, the future utilities that will be out there, that
the county will eventually be taking over the existing facility and
proposes to expand. All of that is eating up land area that is available
for future rezones, taking it off the table.
So that's why -- the guess I would make is no more than four
units per acre, as you see in the urbanized area, and I'd be a little bit
surprised if it went that high, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, I think it just would -- it
behooves staff to figure out, you know, where we're going here so we
have a big plan down the road and not doing this piecemeal, that we
have the whole general plan of what's happening. I would--
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I would -- Jim Mudd, for the
record.
What I would say to David's estimate of 1.3 per acre was based
on every bit of usable land. If you take a look at -- there's a big -- a
lake complex that sits there at Orangetree that absorbs a lot of land,
there's a 96-acre lake that Mr. Paul owns that you're not going to
build anything on. The county's talking to Mr. Paul about buying
214 acres for a new utility plant for water and sewer to do not only
Orangetree, to take over their plant, which is basically -- the area's
outgrown that plant. And to supply the corridor north of it in area A,
and some along Immokalee Road and Heritage Bay, whatnot.
When you take a look at that, plus the golf course, I would say
you're probably two and a half, three per acre on that process.
And I will also say, as these SDP's start processing through our
Page 74
April 8, 2003
planning division in community development-- in fact, I will tell
you, until we come to grips with some kind of utility issue out there,
the staff is not going to support an SDP or a zoning in there to
increase the process, because right now they're asking for an 18
percent increase to the utility right now to the residents so that they
can expand the existing plant, the Orangetree utility. And there's
some significant issues out there that need to be settled before we go
any further in this particular action in the growth management plan.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, the thing that interests me
most I believe is bringing services out to that area, which I think will
relieve some of the strain on our roads, and so I do like that aspect of
this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I think you're correct,
Commissioner Fiala, and I know that Commissioner Coletta's been
watching this issue as it's been moving forward. So I'll entertain a
motion at this time.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Motion to approve, with planning
commission's recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Coletta. All in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Next item is?
MR. MUDD: Commissioners, next petition is CP2002-5,
Robert J. Mulhere of RWA, Inc., representing Brian Mansour of the
Woodfield Builders, LLC, requesting a text amendment to the FLUE
to allow affordable housing density bonus of up to eight dwelling
units per acre, but limited to dwelling unit ownership, to be
applicable to 55 acres in the urban residential fringe subdistrict,
Page 75
April 8, 2003
located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, which is County Road
951, approximately six-tenths of a mile south of
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Secti°n 23.
The coordinator is Jean Jourdan, and Mr. Mulhere will be the
petitioner's presenter.
MR. CASEY: Good morning. Obviously I'm not Bob Mulhere,
I'm Larry Casey, I'm with Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe and
Anderson, counsel for the applicant. And Mr. Mulhere is with me
today and he will make the main presentation about this plan
amendment, but I wanted to introduce Mr. Mansour, Brian Mansour
with Woodfield Builders, who is the applicant. Also with us today is
Ron Tallone of David Plummer & Associates.
My only purpose is to just very briefly take a minute or two just
to refresh your memory as to exactly hoW we got here today with this
plan amendment. And in doing so I would remind you last
September ! 0th, that's six months or more ago now, my partner
Bruce Anderson was here as part of the public petition segment of
your agenda to request permission for a late filing of an amendment
to the plan for this 55-acre parcel on the east side of 951.
In preparing for this in Bruce's absence, I went back and looked
at the minutes of the meeting. I found, first of all, that it was
unanimously recommended or allowed to go forward by this
Commission. And I noted it in the comments, there were several
factors that I thought were noteworthy that are still present about this
amendment which caused you I think perhaps to encourage moving
forward with it as part of the request.
First of all, it is for specifically workforce housing. Obviously
the county has a need for that. It's in the staff report. That need is
there. There's a comprehensive plan, a growth management plan
requirement, or at least goal. I won't say requirement, but it is a goal
of the county to provide up to 500 units of workforce or affordable
housing per year.
Page 76
April 8, 2003
This does that in good order. It also would change and allow
the same density bonus that's currently available on the west side of
95 ! and apply it to the east. And during your consideration of this
last November, there was some concern that if we just opened up the
entire urban residential fringe district, this kind of an amendment that
other workforce housing proposals wouldn't have to come back to
you. And so this is a very specific application of the density bonus.
It only applies and is site specific to the 55 acres that is the subject of
this plan amendment.
And that was one of the factors I think that encouraged the
Commission back in September to move forward so that other
proposals for workforce housing in this subdistrict would have to
again come before you and have a chance to review that.
So those were the points that I deduced from the minutes as to
why you voted unanimously to allow this to go forward, and that's
why we're here today.
On a personal note, I would just point out that I did serve at the
county's -- as an appointed member of the workforce housing
advisory committee, which you all met with, with their nice
workshop last Friday. I was in the audience. And certainly I think
one of the things you wanted staff to move forward, or authorized
them to move forward with and bring back to you, were plan
amendments and land development code amendments that would
encourage and facilitate the providing of workforce housing, rather
than some sort of onerous provision that would, you know, make
mandatory requirements. This is exactly that. This is where your
plan, if amended, will facilitate and enable us to provide, and that's
the private sector, to provide workforce housing. That's what this is
all about.
And with that, I'll turn it over to Bob, who will explain the --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Before you leave the podium, sir,
Commissioner Coyle, maybe Commissioner Fiala has a question for
Page 77
April 8, 2003
yOU.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Really, my question is for our
attorney.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But it might be appropriate if I ask
it now, because it does pertain to the petition itself.
During our workshop (sic) housing discussion, there was some
indication that some of the workforce housing that is being
constructed is being purchased by people who do not necessarily fall
into the income categories that we have defined for workforce
housing.
Now, this particular petition requires that 30 percent, at least 30
percent of the dwelling units be sold to buyers earning 80 percent or
less of Collier County's median income.
Now, the question I have is can we provide restrictions that a
certain percentage be allocable to those who earn 50 percent of the
median income?
MS. STUDENT: I have not -- I may defer to Mr. White on that
point, because I have not been working with the workforce housing
task force. And if he is in the audience, I will defer to him on that.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: He is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whether he has an answer is a
different question.
MR. MULHERE: Could I just add, while he's walking up,
Commissioner Coyle, that -- in the next step of his process when we
come in for a rezone, we also must submit an affordable housing
density bonus agreement.
MS. STUDENT: Right, that's--
MR. MULHERE: And that is the instrument that can be
tailored or structured to this particular project. As you indicated, it
reads 80 percent or less. There would be no pre collusion -- not
being a lawyer and Patrick's coming up -- for you to make some
Page 78
April 8, 2003
further stipulations as part of the affordable housing density bonus
agreement.
I did want to let you know that we did meet with Cormack
Giblin, and it was his recommendation, because of the requirement
for fee simple ownership, that we limit that at 30 percent of the
project. So I just wanted to add that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Your name for the record, sir?
MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry, for the record, Bob Mulhere.
MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney Patrick White.
If I understand the question, it is whether the board would be
able to suggest and approve a change to the proposal that would
change the percentage of I guess it's from 30 to 50 percent that would
have to be at the 80 percent income.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, it's just the opposite. To
change -- or to provide some provision of those people who are
making less money, that is, 50 percent of the --
MR. WHITE: To change the 80 percent to 50 percent.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Perhaps, as an example. I don't
need to change it today, but I just need to understand it before we
make a decision on this particular petition.
MR. WHITE: I don't believe that would make it inconsistent
with any other comprehensive plan provision, but I don't know how
that would affect the potential financing and what kind of funding
streams they were going to look at, what programs they'd qualify for,
et cetera. But I believe that you do have the authority to do so.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: All right. And have you thought
of that at all, Bob?
MR. MULHERE: I don't think we've had any specific
considerations. I'm sure that my client, who knows more about what
the impacts, the cost implications of reducing that number are and the
market considerations.
We did, though, specifically, as I said, meet with the housing
Page 79
April 8, 2003
staff, and their recommendation, that's where that 80 percent and 30
percent number came from. We did not develop those. Those came
from your staff.
No objection to between now and adoption meeting with them
and certainly making some considerations.
My client indicates that it would be -- it would not be palatable
to go down to 50 percent.
MR. WHITE: And Commissioner, Commissioners overall, I
think you'll recall that part of the discussion that we started with on
last Friday with regards to what is workforce housing, I think the
number was pegged right around 80 percent. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, that's--
MR. WHITE: So dropping it down to 50 may put these folks
more into what the workforce housing committee might consider to
be affordable, as opposed to more the range of 80 percent for
workforce.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'm really just concerned
that we have the authority to put certain restrictions on this if we're
going to grant a density. And the objective is to make sure that the
homes are purchased by people who fall into those income
categories. And that places a responsibility on you of assuring that
they fall into those income categories. And if we can do that and is
agreement we can do that, then I don't have any problem proceeding
with it.
MR. MULHERE: And Commissioner Coyle, that will be a
function of that affordable housing density bonus agreement that will
come forward with the rezone. As I indicated, we'd be happy to get
with the housing staff again to -- you know, I thought they were
going to be here, but perhaps they could be here at your adoption
hearing, so if there are any further questions, that can be clarified.
MR. WHITE: If it's helpful, Commissioner, I can tell you that I
review those and help prepare those density bonus agreements, and it
Page 80
April 8, 2003
will certainly be a component of it, if that's what the board wants.
And we can bring it to your attention, rather than putting out the
consent agenda for that item, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would prefer to do that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. In continuing
Commissioner Coyle's request, one of the things that we note is this
is going to be located very near to the hospital, the proposed hospital
going up in that area. And again, you know how I keep pounding
away at relieving the stress on the roads, and this is another
advantage to doing that, if these houses are priced so that it can
accommodate the nurses and the technicians and the workforce that
will be within that hospital. It will certainly reduce the strain on our
roads, so I'm happy that you would possibly look into this.
MR. MULHERE: Commissioner Fiala, thank you for that. I
didn't really get a chance to make any kind of a presentation. I know
you have a busy schedule.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you're giving it then -- as
long as you're talking about location, also show me where Divosta
will be located.
MR. MULHERE: Okay, the -- this is U.S. 41 here and 951
heading north, and these three sections here are the Winding Cypress
PUD. And the northern portion of that will be housing, will be the
Divosta portion.
But the subject property is right here, which is almost directly
across from the Lely Cultural Drive. And it is south of the portion --
this red square represents your commercial activity center. In fact,
the project that you dealt with a little bit earlier is just on the north
side of that, the first comprehensive plan petition that you dealt with.
And the Sports Park is right in here. And we are several thousand
feet south of that.
Page 81
April 8, 2003
And from everything that I read in the paper-- I certainly don't
know the specific location, but from what I've read the hospital
location would be in this general vicinity, or perhaps in this general
vicinity, but very close to this proposed location.
I think that location, the fact that it's on the roadways that are
not deficient and will be improved and that it is also in close
proximity to Lely Cultural Drive make this an appropriate location
for increasing the density.
And as David Weeks indicated to you earlier, the affordable
housing density bonus has traditionally been -- not traditionally, has
been limited to the urban area west of 951, and has not been a
provision that was permitted within the urban residential fringe. But
many things have changed, not the least of which has been the
adoption of the rural fringe amendments and the eastern lands
amendments. And as you can see, there is a Belle Meade NRPA that
runs pretty much the length of 951 where the urban residential fringe
-- you know, adjacent to the urban residential fringe, providing a
very significant undevelopable, as time goes on, or minimally
developable buffer.
So -- and in addition, much of this urban residential fringe has
already been approved or already been developed. Sam Reno
(phonetic) here, Forest Glen here, First Assembly of God. And then
down here you've got the three sections that are Winding Cypress.
And my point is that by opening this up -- although this is
limited to a site specific location, but somebody else down the road
could also come in on another location and ask for the same thing --
there still are very limited applications, and so our opportunities for
these types of applications are fairly limited. It is a good location for
the affordable housing or workforce housing density bonus.
And the one last comment that I would have is that the planning
commission did unanimously recommend approval, but they limited,
or requested, or attached a stipulation to limit the density to instead
Page 82
April 8, 2003
of a bonus of up to eight units per acre, a bonus of up to six units per
acre.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And just continuing my
thoughts on this before I call on any of the other commissioners,
were also this is something I've been stressing all along is locating
near to places of employment. So you've got the elementary school
right down the street from it, as well as the college, and then right
down on the comer practically of 951 and 41 you have two Manatee
schools, plus you've got the hospital going in. I mean, it's an ideal
location, in my opinion, for any kind of workforce housing. These
people can live closer and take the strain off our road system again.
Any other commissioners? Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make a motion for approval
with the staff-- with the recommendations from the planning
commission to be included.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, I have a motion from
Commissioner Coletta, a second from Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I have a question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just need a clarification. We're
specifically modifying our growth management plan to say that 30
percent of the homes available here -- or 30 percent of these homes
will be available to people who make 80 percent or less of Collier
County's median income. Now what happens to the other 70
percent?
MR. MULHERE: Those may be sold at market rate. And
hence the ability to sell those other ones at market rate that allows
you to be able to afford to sell the 30 percent at the reduced rate.
And again, those numbers came directly from the housing staff
as the recommendation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but I don't have to accept
Page 83
April 8, 2003
those.
MR. MULHERE: No, I understand that. I understand that,
Commissioner.
Unfortunately, I think it would probably be appropriate to have
had the staff here and maybe that they can be here at adoption again,
since this is just transmittal, so that they could give you some better
rationale as to why -- I think the fact is that if you -- if you're doing a
rental project, the costs are considerably less and so that number
could be a little bit higher. But if you're doing it fee simple, that's
why you have a 30 percent recommendation, because the costs are
higher.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand.
About how many units are you planning? Or did you have some
ballpark number?
MR. MULHERE: Yes, we do. And let me just step to the -- the
site actually contains about 17 acres of wetlands, and it's a 55-acre
site. There's also an FP&L easement that runs somewhat down the
center. Limits our ability to utilize that property.
We think, based on preliminary environmental assessments, that
we can -- we'll have to preserve about 11 acres of those 16, 17 acres,
and we'll be able to mitigate, because some of those are exotic
infested on site.
Given that, the target density is about seven to seven and a half
units per acre, with a base density being 1.5 and asking for a bonus of
six. We'll know a little bit better in the next few months. It could be
a little lower. It is intended to be mixed use, multi-family,
condominium and single-family.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So seven-- roughly seven units
per acre. What is the total?
MR. MULHERE: It's in around 400. And I have that written
down, I can check for you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 400 units, not 400 acres.
Page 84
April 8, 2003
MR. MULHERE: No, units.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, 400.
So we're going to get maybe 120 of the workforce housing
units?
MR. MULHERE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Right. Okay, okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just to clarify the motion and
the second that are on the floor, was that for the six units per acre
recommended, or additional density bonus?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any further discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Next item?
MR. MUDD: Next item, Commissioners, is petition
CPSP-2002-6, petition requesting amendments to the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan text and future land use map and map series,
primarily as a result of the recommendations of the Golden Gate
Master Plan Restudy Committee, to include: Establishing the new
commercial western estates infill subdistrict at the southwest comer
of Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach Road intersection;
expansion of the neighborhood center designation at the Wilson
Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard intersection, so as to include all
four quadrants; the creation of two new neighborhood center
designations, one at the Everglades Boulevard/Golden Gate
Boulevard intersection, all four quadrants, and one at the Everglades
Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection, southerly two quadrants;
text revisions to the conditional use subdistrict; text revisions
regarding commercial uses, including creation of a new goal and
Page 85
April 8, 2003
objective; and text revisions for format consistency, correction of
prior errors and omissions, and the like.
And Mr. Glenn Heath will be the presenter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Heath, before you continue, this
is the Golden Gate Master Plan Advisory Board's recommendation.
Is there any questions from the board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm ready to make a motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No questions. But I just want
to tell Glenn that the work he's put into this has been outstanding, and
it's very much appreciated, not only by the study group but also by
the residents out there. And I know he's had some rough times in the
beginning getting past some of the hurdles, but they've done some
amazing things and I -- I don't know how much you want to hear on
it, but when the time does come, I'll make a motion. I'll --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ready to make --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- make a motion at this time?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's pertaining to --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm sorry, my second would
include the staff recommendations, CCP recommendations for
changes as presented in the executive summary.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I was on the way of doing
that when you made your second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I also would like to add, I really
enjoy, Mr. Heath, your executive summaries, they flow very well and
they're very easy to read, so thank you.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries.
Page 86
April 8, 2003
MR. HEATH: And you can look forward to another set in the
fall, probably.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right, good.
MR. MUDD: The next petition is CPSP-2002-7. It's a petition
requesting amendments to the future land use element and future land
use map and map series to include: Text revisions to Policy 4.6 to
correlate with the land development code amendments pertaining to
access management plan provisions; text revision to Policy 4.8 to add
methodology for preparing population estimates and projections as
relates to the capital improvement element; text revisions to the
office and infill commercial subdistrict for clarity and to reflect past
application and interpretation by staff and the Board of County
Commissioners; text revisions to the PUD neighborhood village
center, business park and research and technology park subdistricts to
add clarity of intent regarding development thresholds; text revisions
to the density rating system to explain and clarify density
calculations; revisions to the wellhead protection areas map to reflect
recent hydrological modeling changes in well-field use and addition
of new wells; and text and future land use map revisions for format
consistency, internal plan consistency, correction of prior errors and
omissions, and the like.
David Weeks will be our presenter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Mr. Weeks, this is just some
housekeeping that we need to take care of?. MR. WEEKS: Much of it is.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any question by the board
members?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seeing none, entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second the motion of staffs
recommendations, planning commission recommendations.
Page 87
April 8, 2003
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you Mr. Weeks.
Next item?
MR. MUDD: Next item is Petition CPSP-2002-8, petition
requesting a text amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan
land use designation description section to correct the title of the
recreational/tourist district.
The presenter will be David Weeks.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion, and I will second that
motion for staffs recommendations, planning commission
recommendations.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. MUDD: The next petition is CPSP-2002-9, petition
requesting text amendments to the Goals, Objectives and Policies of
the potable water sub-element of the public facilities elements, most
notably to modify some level of service standards; requesting new
water district boundary and potable water service area maps; new
potable water treatment and transmission facilities map and new table
of capital improvements projects; and requesting an update to the
entire support document. And it will be presented by Mr. Weeks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I will make a motion to accept.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second it.
Page 88
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle. Any discussion,
questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. MUDD: The next petition is CPSP-2002-10, petition
requesting text amendments to the Goals, Objectives, Policies of the
sanitary sewer sub-element of the public facilities element, most
notably to modify some level of service standards; requesting new
sewer district boundary and sewer service area maps; new north and
south sewer service area and facilities maps; and new table of capital
improvement projects; and requesting an update to the entire support
document.
And Mr. Weeks will be the presenter.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we accept that,
with staff's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor for
acceptance.
MR. WEEKS: Could I ask the motion maker to change that to
planning commission recommendation, please?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, rec --
MR. WEEKS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And there's a second by
Commissioner Coyle. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying
aye.
Opposed?
Page 89
April 8, 2003
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Motion carries 5-0.
Next item?
MR. MUDD: The next petition is CPSP-2002-11, petition
requesting a text amendment to the capital improvement element,
Policy 1.1.2, to modify population methodology for capital facilities
planning, and to policy 1.1.5 to adjust service -- level of service
standards for water and sewer facilities, to correlate with changes
proposed to the potable water and sanitary sewer sub-elements.
And Mr. Weeks is our presenter.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
this --
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
I make a motion that we accept
Second.
-- along with the
recommendations from planning commission.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Fiala. Questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick clarification. It
doesn't appear that the CCPC made a modification, but under the
recommendation there are two or three modifications that perhaps the
staff has made? Could you clarify those for me?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. I believe you're referring to the
executive summary?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We were talking about the
clarification of automobile parking lot, changes to the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan, future land use map, not to add land use
designations for properties outside the GGAMP boundaries. You
would want us to incorporate those into the motion?
Page 90
April 8, 2003
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. An oversight on my part,
Commissioners. That actually goes back to Petition No. 6 -- 3 and 6.
By incorporating staff and planning commission recommendations,
you have covered those --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: -- when you voted on those. Thank you, though.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, there's a motion and a second
on the floor. All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That ends --
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
for making that clarification.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
Thank you, Commissioner Coyle,
No problem.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That ends our GMPA submittals.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. You're going to have to make a motion
for overall transmittal.
Commissioner, one thing that Norman brought up, and it's one
that we all probably need to acknowledge, you know when we talked
about development and zoning to this growth management plan on
the east side of 951 in that area, and Bob Mulhere had that -- you
know, with the hospital and the affordable housing and things like
that, they're going to have to run some kind of an access road on that
east side, with minimal bridging over that canal, in order to get to
951. So as we go forward -- and that process is just something that
we need to keep in mind as we go forward on all of those elements.
Because each one of those would not have their own access out to
951, or you'll bring that particular road to a screeching halt, even
though we're going to increase it to a six-lane.
Page 91
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
MR. MUDD: We need an overall motion for transmittal, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So moved.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle made a motion
to submit the packet up to DCA for the ORC report, second by
Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries 5-0.
Commissioners, we I think at this time should consider whether
taking a break for lunch. We're at Item 9 now. And a few things that
we need--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: 8(B).
MR. MUDD: We're at 8(B), sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, 8(B). And we added some
items on the agenda. I would imagine we should be done by around
between 2:00 and 3:00, but it's the pleasure of the board whether we
want to take a lunch break.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
and be back at 1:00.
(Recess was taken.)
I'd prefer a lunch break.
Me, too.
Me, too.
Great. All right, let's take our recess
Item #8B
ORDINANCE 2003-14 AMENDING ORDINANCE 99-76,
Page 92
April 8, 2003
RELATING TO MANDATORY STREET NUMBERING OF ALL
STRUCTURES AND THE ESTABLISHING OF A GRID
PATTERN FOR STREET NUMBERING-ADOPTED WITH
CHANGF, S
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Call the Board of Commissioners'
meeting back in session. Where we ended up, left off, is item--
MR. MUDD: 8(B).
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- 8 -- 8(B).
MR. MUDD: And this is an ordinance amending ordinance
99-76 relating to the mandatory street numbering of all structures and
establishing of a grid pattern for street numbering, and it goes on for
close to a paragraph, but it has everything to do with the street
naming, street numbering ordinance. Bleu?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to ask a quick
question, and then depending upon the answer, I'll be happy to make
a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, we have a speaker.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We do?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes. But go ahead and ask your
question.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. The legal staff has made a
recommendation concerning the adding of certain language about --
wrong question.
Phase-in period. Do we have a period of time to permit people
to come into compliance before we start citing them for failing to
have the addresses?
MR. WALLACE: I don't know of any provision for that.
We've duly advertised this. This was continued from the March 1 lth
meeting, and no one has contacted staff to my knowledge with
concerns about that. And normally, once this is adopted, signed off,
Page 93
April 8, 2003
and goes to Tallahassee, then it becomes effective, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So -- and we can start
ticketing people immediately thereafter?
MR. WALLACE: Well, there's a notification process, and that's
one of the things in here that it provides for is the notification
process. If there's 10 or more addresses in a certain neighborhood
that have to be changed-- that brings back the Santiago Way
problem -- we're going to have a neighborhood meeting, an
informational meeting, explain to everybody, bring out the dispatcher
folks, people from the sheriff's department, EMS, and explain the
problems and why we're doing what we're doing.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, thanks. You've answered
my question.
MR. MUDD: So Commissioner, after approval, it basically
goes, and we send this up to the state, it takes about 10 days before
they come back and stamp it, and then it would be effective.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Would you please call the
public speaker.
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have one speaker, Peter
Goodin.
MR. GOODIN: Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Peter
Goodin. I live on 20th Avenue Northwest off Oaks Boulevard.
Our neighborhood's in the process of petitioning the county to
change the names of the numbered streets off Oaks Boulevard. And
I'm here to report as a foot soldier might to headquarters what's
happening on the street.
Specific interest is the changing of the requirement from 50
percent plus one to 60 percent plus one of the owners of properties
abutting the street whose name is to be changed.
Now, you're aware that a petition process is not like a voting
process. Abstention in voting doesn't count against a measure, but
abstention in a petition process counts as a negative vote, so does an
Page 94
April 8, 2003
inability to locate an owner of a property abutting.
I just want to bring to your attention some numbers from my
street, just as an example, and then you'll do as you deem proper.
There are 34 residences on the street that I live on, on 20th
Northwest, and of those my guess is that only one or two are
seasonal. The rest of them are full-time county residents.
County records also shows six addressed vacant lots on my
street. Those are -- they already have addresses and the tax bills are
being sent to addresses in Okinawa, France, Germany, as well as
plenty of local addresses.
There are also in the county records nine unaddressed vacant
lots. And when you look to properties abutting the street, that is
properties that are addressed on another street, in this case Oaks
Boulevard, but are adjacent to 20th, you pick up a few more. Those
aren't subject to a change of address, but they are part of the pool
from which you must get 50 percent plus one currently.
The total number of eligible signers for this petition, according
to the county records, is 54. Sixty percent of 54 is 33. So 60 percent
would be a requirement for virtual unanimity among residents on my
street.
I'm not saying that an owner of a vacant lot shouldn't have a say
on how the street is called, but perhaps there's some way to limit the
pool of petitioners to those who are addressed. I'm not sure why
unaddressed properties and abutting properties are included.
In our neighborhood properties are held by investment trusts,
banks, the county, the school board, land speculators. It's not
impossible but certainly difficult to bring a petition to each and every
person on the county tax records.
With respect, I believe that 50 percent is sufficient to indicate
the wishes of the neighbors, and certainly in a case where 51 percent
of residents approved and 49 didn't, I would-- I would feel sorry that
the margin of victory was so slim, but you would still be ruling in
Page 95
April 8, 2003
favor of the minority to side with that 49 percent.
Believe me, I think that the current number is sufficient to deter
any frivolous changing of street names. At least if they didn't think
of it, it would certainly come to mind when they were in the process.
It's quite a demanding process that's already required by ordinance
99-76.
I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So Peter, what you're asking is, is to
the democracy, and the majority rules, keep it -- keep it at 50 percent
plus one?
MR. GOODIN: I prefer to see it at 50 percent plus one. Thank
yOU.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
Mr. Wallace, can you give us some explanation why we're
changing?
MR. WALLACE: I -- I would have to defer to Ms. Jarrell of the
addressing element. I was not present during the workshop that this
was discussed.
MS. JARRELL: My name's Peggy Jarrell. I'm administrative
supervisor for the addressing department. That 60 percent plus one
was decided upon by the planning department. They're the ones that
take the petition before the board. That also gives the opportunity on
some streets where there isn't residential -- residents living on that
street, that people with vacant property have more of a -- have a
say-so as far as determining that street name.
A lot of times the people that live there want the street changed
more than the people that don't live there. It was just a number that
they felt so that streets wouldn't get changed as often, because it is a
problem with 911 criteria as far as getting emergency response to
these streets when streets are changed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My perspective, I would think that
the neighbors that live there would have more of a vested interest
Page 96
April 8, 2003
than the lot owners that don't live there. MS. JARRELL: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I'm not sure if we're doing the
right thing by asking for this super majority petition. And if they
don't respond to it, does that count as a no vote?
MS. JARRELL: That counts toward your percentage.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
So what we are doing is increasing the notification by holding a
public or neighborhood meeting on the proposed changes similar that
we do with land use items.
MS. JARRELL: Well, the street that this gentleman's talking
about is something that the residents themselves are wanting to
change. It's not something that the county's wanting to change.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. JARRELL: So they're the ones on that street that are
wanting the street names to be changed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct, but this is -- they have to
provide -- they have to abide by this new process that we're about to
adopt, is that correct, if they want their street name changed?
MS. JARRELL: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
And so any -- anybody, after this is adopted, will have to have a
neighborhood meeting inviting their neighbors out through
notification, and we hope that they show up to be informed, and then
we send out a survey and we hope that they respond to the survey.
MS. JARRELL: The notification process for residents that we
would instigate is something that the county would instigate as far as
getting a street name changed because of a problem with emergency
or the addresses need to be changed because they're not in sequence
for emergency response.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Uh-huh.
MS. JARRELL: The street name resolution is strictly by the
Page 97
April 8, 2003
homeowners themselve -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MS. JARRELL: -- who put this together.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And they have to have a --
MS. JARRELL: They have to have neighborhood meetings, et
cetera.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- neighborhood meeting.
MS. JARRELL: And then submit it to the county.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I was misinformed by
community development then, because I thought that the community
development liaison would come out and hold a neighborhood
meeting, so thank you for correcting that.
Any other further questions?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just one. I think the gentleman
has raised some good points with respect to the percentages. I would
be happy to support 50 percent plus one in determining the street
name changes primarily because it has to come before us anyway.
And if we feel that there's something wrong, we'll have a chance to
hear from the public. And we -- it is not mandatory that we accept
that vote --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- if we think that there are other
considerations.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, yes. And the people
living there are going to -- if they're the ones that decide to change it,
they're the ones that are going to have to incur the costs of having
every -- all of their address labels and so forth changed, whereas, the
people that do not live there have vacant lots and never respond,
don't really have much of anything to change anyway because it isn't
their permanent address. I agree with the 50 percent plus one.
Page 98
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I just wanted to hear
from the county attorney on this, if we're able to add that to the
motion at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, if I can help you on --
MR. WEIGEL: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- our packet agenda 13, page 13,
and it would be the ordinance B -- no, I'm sorry. B(1) --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: B.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- B.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: B(1)B.
MR. WEIGEL: Right. The question is, do you wish to remain
at 50 percent plus one? No problem whatsoever. You can make that
change on the floor as part of your motion if you wish and go
forward accordingly.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I make my motion then?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, please do.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I move that we approve the
recommendation of the staff for this ordinance change with the
exception that we modify the petition requirements to 50 percent plus
one.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Wallace.
MR. WALLACE: I have a -- we have identified a scrivener's
error that -- I need to read something into the record before the board
votes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let me just recognize the
motion by Commissioner Coyle with the amendment, and second by
Commissioner Fiala.
Page 99
April 8, 2003
Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Would you please state it?
MR. WALLACE: On page ! 1 of your packet of the item 8(B),
page 11 of that packet, top of the page it should read, the
administrative official shall conduct at least one neighborhood
informational meeting in addition to the above written notice
requirements. This meeting shall be held 30 days prior to the, and
then it picks up with what you have, change of address notice being
mailed. That was omitted from the agenda packet, however, this did
have the right verbiage in it when it went to the clerk to be
advertised.
There's one other on the same page, the last paragraph on that
page 11, the first line, the first sentence, the last word should be
meeting following informational, so it reads, the administrative
official shall conduct at least one neighborhood informational
meeting. Your packet has meeting. The one that went to the clerk
did not. I just wanted to make that clear. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: While we're adding, I notice that
on page 10 at the top, I mentioned this to our county manager
yesterday, but it says, Maine Avenue in Immokalee, but that's --
Main would be M-A-I-N rather than the state of Maine, and I don't
know if it's called avenue or street. We've always called it Main
Street, but I thought you might want to make sure that that's
corrected as well.
MR. WALLACE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. No further discussion, I call
the motion.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
Page 100
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. WALLACE:
Opposed?
Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
Item #8C
RESOLUTION 2003-140 REGARDING PETITION AVPLAT2003-
AR3636 TO DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE
COUNTY'S AND THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN TWO 10 FOOT
WIDE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS LOCATED IN TRACT "P",
ACCORDING TO THFi PIJAT OF "TARPON FIAY"-ADOPTF. D
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to 8(C), which is a
moved item which used to be 17(C), and that's a petition
AVPLAT2003-AR3636 to disclaim, denounce and vacate the
county's and the public's interest in two 1 O-foot wide drainage
easements located in tract P according to the plat of Tarpon Bay as
recorded in Plat Book 36, page 28 through 31, public records of
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas pulled this, and
if I could just ask him, do we have any questions at this time?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. In the -- in reading the
-- this, they were going to get rid of the two drainage areas, but then
if you look on page 19, it basically points out the site where the
drainage is going to be, and I'm concerned that -- where is this water
going to go because you're so close to 1-75 and the surrounding areas,
and how is this going to affect the drainage in the surrounding areas.
MR. KUCK: For the record, Tom Kuck, engineering director.
Mike Delate, representing the engineering firm, Grady Minor, is
Page 101
April 8, 2003
here, and I believe he'll be able to address the drainage and the
substitutions for-- on the easements along with the new easement
and the piping.
MR. DELATE: For the record, it's Mike Delate with Grady
Minor Engineering. I'll post the site map up here.
The existing drainage easements occur in Tarpon Bay, which is
a single-family, multi-family community located in the Malibu Lake
PUD. It has a master storm water management system consisting of
a series of lakes and inlets connected.
The developer originally had two-unit buildings in this area
where the easement's going to be vacated and decided to go with
four-unit buildings instead and reconfigured the units, but it left the
same unit count.
One of the buildings was going to go over these two drainage
easements. And in vacating, the easement allowed us to place the
building there. Those drainage easements were connected to the
master storm water system, which goes into this large 20-acre lake
located off 1-75. It's a permitted master storm water system that does
not discharge towards 75 but discharges towards the -- I believe it's
called the Oaks Boulevard Canal. It goes out along 1-75. But none of
the system external to the project will be affected by this easement
vacation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Because this wasn't spelled
out here in the information that was presented to us in the agenda,
and so I was concerned if we got rid of these drainage easements,
what was going to happen and how was the water -- where was --
how was the water going to be flowing, and which way was it going
to be going because there was nothing in here as far as the canal
went.
MR. DELATE: Sure. Essentially the water's going to end up in
the same place it was before, we're just moving a drainage pipe about
30, 40 feet.
Page 102
April 8, 2003
item
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any further questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No speakers. Entertain a motion?
Make a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we approve this
on the agenda.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And I'll second the motion.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2003-141 REAPPOINTING JOHN CARLSON
AND MICHAEL V. SORRELL AND APPOINTING WILLIAM W.
HUGHES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL-
ADOPTED
That brings to us 9, correct?
MR. MUDD: 9(E), Commissioner, that's appoint members to
the Environmental Advisory Council.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the wish -- pleasure of the
board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'll make a motion we appoint the
three applicants for the three vacant positions, and consisting of two
Page 103
April 8, 2003
reappointments. Is any waiver necessary for the --
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- term?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. John Carlson has served two terms, so
you'll need to waive that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then my motion would
include a request for waiver.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0. Item 9(C).
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2003-142 REAPPOINTING IRA J. MALAMUT,
JERRY HUBBART, AL NEUMAN, JOHN KIRCHNER, H.B.
STARLING, JR. AND FLOYD CREWS AND APPOINTING RICK
TORRES AND SGT. JAMES MANSBERGER TO THE
IMMOKALEE ENTERPRISE ZONE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY-
ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to make a motion to
accept all with Sergeant James Mansbury -- berger the law
enforcement ex -- enforcement officer to fill the vacant position.
Page 104
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I second that motion.
MS. FILSON: Is that to appoint all eight members in your
motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: To appoint all the members
with -- that -- Mr. Sergeant James Mansberger to be the -- to fill in
the vacant position.
MS. FILSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
it.
That takes care of all people on
MS. FILSON: Yes, all eight members.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. There's a motion on the floor
by Commissioner Coletta, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Any opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #9E
DIRECTION REGARDING THE GULF COAST SKIMMERS
SIGN BEING MORE APPEALING WITHIN SURROUNDING
AREA AT PARK ENTRANCE, CODE VIOLATIONS
REGARDING SIGN AT AIRPORT-PULLING AND US 41 AND
ISSUES CONCERNING THE SIGN THAT NEED TO BE
RESOLVED AT A FUTURE MEETING WHEN INTERESTED
PARTIFS CAN ATTFND-DISCIISSFD
Page 105
April 8, 2003
Next item is?
MR. MUDD: 9(E) (sic), Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: 9(D) is --
MR. MUDD: Discussion for the purpose of clarifying the
previous direction to staff surrounding the Gulf Coast Skimmer sign.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And actually I'd like to change that
to an update of the progress that's being made on this issue that was
heard before the Board of Commissioners late last year.
MR. DIZNNUCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Dunnuck, public services administrator.
There's two items that require to be updated on this one. I'll
handle the first and handle (sic) the second one over to Joe Schmitt.
But the first direction from the Board of County Commissioners was
to look at incorporating the Sugden Community Park or Sugden
Regional Park sign with the Sugden or with the Gulf Coast
Skimmers' sign that was indicated off the Walgreen's parcel. And I
have the two pictures here.
And we've been working with Mr. Gursoy over the past couple
weeks to do just that. And the question has come up, frankly, from
an aesthetic standpoint. Mr. Gursoy's proposal has integrated where
you move up the Sugden sign a little bit higher, and then you just add
this sign onto the bottom there.
The only question really with regard to that is the aesthetic
pleasing. You have different colors and contrasts, and whether we
want to go a second option, which would be to look at actually
integrating the two signs together for purposes of the wood being
together and the colors and so forth.
It's kind of as much -- the pleasure of the board. There's nothing
that would require as part of the Land Development Code with
respect to the signage, and if we did go the second round, it would be
my proposal from a staff perspective that we looked at doing a 50/50
Page 106
April 8, 2003
cost share as part of that project.
There is some actual language in the lease agreement with the
Gulf Coast Skimmers that indicates that the county is to provide
signage for the Skimmers at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Outer
Drive.
And from that standpoint, I'll step away and answer any
questions that you may have, and Mr. Gursoy's here as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this sign meet the current
new standards of the sign ordinances in Collier County?
MR. DUNNUCK: The sign would. The sign as proposed
would, and the sign -- the second option would as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. My perspective, I would like
to see some kind of uniformity between these two signs at the park,
and also recognizing that Gulf Coast Skimmers, we are a partner in
what they're doing out there for the kids, so -- my perspective.
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I kind of lost what you're
looking for, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, that the two signs, the Sugden
Regional Park and the Gulf Coast Skimmers' sign, kind of
commingle or they're similar in --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: This is the proposal?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right -- in colors and schemes and
so on and so forth, so it kind of flows together.
MR. DUNNUCK: Right. Just for the board's clarification, this
is the sign as proposed by Mr. Gursoy. Presently this part right here
would stay the white, teal and magenta color, and this part would be
the green and beige. I think what Commissioner Henning is talking
about is mixing it all into the green and beige and to have it
consistent.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
Page 107
April 8, 2003
That's -- we're done with that item about the one sign, but we
have some other signs --
MR. DUNNUCK: There's only one thing I -- you know, I'd
invite Mr. Gursoy up, you know, because we've been kind of dealing
with this out in the hallway. If Mr. Gursoy wants to go on the record
and say he agrees to a 50/50 cost share in doing so, would you be
agreeable to that.9
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Gursoy, please --
MR. GURSOY: John Gursoy, for the record, president and
founder of the Gulf Coast Skimmers Water Ski Show.
Mr. Dunnuck had indicated that the agreement that the county
would provide and pay for the sign there on 41, if that-- we're
willing to participate in that if that helps bring the sign into more of
an appealing sign from the traditional aluminum sign that we have
right now, so --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that -- Mr. Dunnuck, that
answers your question about the 50/50 cost sharing?
MR. DUNNUCK: Right, right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. DUNNUCK: We would share the 50 percent cost of that
sign to make it more appealing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you.
MR. GURSOY: And just for the record, too, I did talk to the
Sugden family in regard to that sign, and they have given their
approval and they will put that in writing that the two signs come
together, because that sign was a gift from Mrs. Sugden to Mr.
Sugden for his birthday.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I see. Okay.
MR. DUNNUCK: That's it. I'll turn it over to Mr. Schmitt at
this time.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator of
community development, environmental services.
Page 108
April 8, 2003
The other sign in question has to do with the property located at
the comer of Airport-Pulling and U.S. 41, or the East Trail, and
commonly known as the Blockbuster kind of plot, but it's really
DOT.
The issue there is the sign that is up is not in compliance, is in
violation of the code as reported to this board approximately six
months ago. What Mr. Gursoy has attempted to do is to have an
element of the county pick up that property working through Florida
DOT because that property is owned by Florida DOT.
Mr. Feder, the transportation administrator, has agreed, from a
transportation perspective to take ownership of that property, but that
still does not solve the problem for the sign. The sign will still need
a variance. The sign will still need to be properly permitted, meaning
that it will have to be engineered and constructed by an appropriate
sign distributor or manufacturer and properly permitted, but it also
will have to be -- receive a variance if, in fact, that is that location of
the sign as an off-premise sign because the sign is -- in fact, it will
need two -- a variance -- two variances for that sign because of the
location and that it's not within a thousand feet of the property that is
-- it is identified for the applicant. So he's probably what, about
probably five miles or so, four and a half miles from the Sugden Park
location. One mile? Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah. I didn't think it was that far.
MR. SCHMITT: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: But the -- Commissioners, I had the
privilege to talk to representative Mike Davis from District 101. Part
of that issue that-- the ongoing issue with the Skimmers. I talked to
him last week in Tallahassee. And I know from what Mr. Gursoy is
saying that Senator Saunders wants to weigh into the signage issue,
but they're -- both of those gentlemen are in session, and I hope that
we can hold off on any actions on this sign until those -- both
gentlemen can come down at a further Board of Commissioners
Page 109
April 8, 2003
meeting to go deal with this issue. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. I have no problem with
holding off. I don't know what this means, but I do know that we
were talking about putting the museum on the top of it to give us a
reason for our presence to be there and be involved, and I kind of
hope that we're going to stay with the involvement of the museum in
connection with the ski show, too, so that we have both things and
gives them more of a reason for us to be involved than for the
purpose that we're going forward on it.
But that's the only comment I've got. If you'd like to wait and if
it's not going to raise any problems for the Gulf Coast Skimmers,
your time's my time, or the other way around.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got a problem here in regards
to how we've been emphasizing the importance of the sign ordinance
and now we're looking -- the county's looking for -- basically this is a
sign that's going to be involved with the county, and so now we're
looking for a variance on this old sign issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I'm not sure if we're looking
for a variance. And I think that through the discussion of our
representatives, there might have to be a variance by the Gulf Coast
Skimmers for this remote location. But I know that Senator Saunders
has a lot of history on the Sugden Park and the Gulf Coast Skimmers.
MR. SCHMITT: And I want to correct the record,
Commissioner. The sign variance would be for both the location of
the sign, meaning the distance criteria, and for the size of the sign. So
it's -- those are the two variances that would be required.
One of the things Mr. Gursoy and I spoke about, was this
identified as a public purpose. Now, if we pursue that route, it would
be a much smaller sign, and I believe Mr. Gursoy wants a post,
which would be a small directional sign, and that's something that if
Page 110
April 8, 2003
this board deemed it was a public purpose to put a -- the county to
put a sign on that piece of property as a directional sign, but it may
only just say Sugden Park one mile or something to that effect. It
wouldn't advertise the Skimmers' show.
And in regard to the combination with the museum or any other
type of sign, again, even our perspective, the county would probably
have to pursue some kind of a variance for an off-premise sign for
the -- if we were to advertise the museum from that location as well.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. I just feel that we need
historical perspective, and also Mr. Davis has actually assisted in the
rewrite of LDC 2.5.
MR. SCHMITT: Well, that's the other option, we could rewrite
the code for an off-premise sign.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I mean, just -- I think there's a
lot of interpretation by the participation of that rewrite. And I don't
think anybody was here at that time, including a lot of our
administrators except for Leo Ochs, so it would be nice to get some
historical perspective on the sign issue, 2.5.
Do you need any motion, county manager, or just simple
direction?
MR. MUDD: You say -- direction from the board, at least three
nods that you're telling me to delay the code enforcement action on
the one sign that's outside of the -- pretty much the entranceway.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's my -- that's what my wish is
to do.
MR. MUDD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Is there any nods over here?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You got three nods.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And that means they're going to
change the one sign at the entrance right away, right?
Page 111
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. We're going to change that, and
we're going to delay the enforcement of the off-premises sign until
we can get Representative Davis and Senator Saunders to this
particular-- and we'll coordinate with their office when they're
available to come in front of this board and talk about some past
history.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I -- is that what it was for, past
history; is that what you wanted them for? I know that they don't
have anything to do with local codes or anything.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, no, ma'am, they don't. It's just
that Senator Saunders was a county commissioner at the time that the
Skimmers, or thereafter, was formed and Sugden Regional Park.
He's very much involved in that whole thing, and Representative
Davis is -- has some, probably some information on the Land
Development Code.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay, good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Just help -- trying to help up make
good decisions.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
Item #9F
DIRECTION TO WAIT FOR LETTER/REQUEST FROM DEP
FOR ANY TYPE OF DONATION REGARDING STATE OF
FLORIDA'S REQUEST TO DONATE ALL COUNTY ROADS
AND BRIDGES IN THE SOUTHERN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
TO THF. STATFJ-DISCIISSFD
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And speaking about signs, we're on
item 10(A)? No?
MR. MUDD: No, we're in 9(F), Commissioner, and that's to
Page 112
April 8, 2003
discuss -- a discussion regarding a request from the State of Florida
to donate all county roads and bridges in the southern Golden Gate
Estates to the state.
And you wanted to talk about that, but I -- this morning prior to
the meeting, I went over our 30 -- 29 or 31 January meeting that we
had a workshop where the south Golden Gate Estates was discussed
with the South Florida Water Management District giving the board a
presentation during the workshop.
And at the very end of that particular discussion as I was
communicating with the board -- because we had talked about, what
are we going to do with the roads, and they were talking about, they
needed 270 miles of road, and we talked about over 200 miles of that
belonging to the county along with some 25 to 30 bridges.
And we ended that discussion with a statement by me to the
board that the South Florida Water Management District project
manager and the corps of engineers rep at the time would come back
to the county with a -- with an offer, an appraised offer for our roads
and bridges to the south Golden Gate Estates, and that's basically
how we left that meeting.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. And it is -- FDEP, last week
when the county manager and the county attorney and myself met,
they alluded to, they sent a letter to the chair of last year, the Board
of Commissioners.
Our staff has researched files extensively throughout --
throughout Collier County, with all the administration buildings,
transportation, county attorney's office, county manager's office,
county commissioners. We can't find any correspondence; therefore,
I sent an email up to FDEP and this particular person asking for --
requests for the letter that they supposedly set -- sent to us and
alluding to -- for us to give up the roads or asking to gift the roads to
them. Still haven't found it. So I -- I don't know if we need to take
any action on this.
Page 113
April 8, 2003
MR. MUDD: Not only did -- we didn't find it, but that
workshop that we had with the South Florida Water Management
District giving us the presentation was almost a month later -- the
month after they supposedly sent the letter to us, and during that
discussion, no letter was talked about by the South Florida Water
Management District to the board nor did I have any record of it
sitting at that workshop.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just one other comment,
too, because I would have been the recipient of that letter, which I
can assure you, if I ever received it, that would be marked in the
memories of my mind, being how I feel about the roads out there in
the south block.
One of the things, too, is that Lisa Douglas from the
environmental protection agency out of Fort Myers called me also
after that whole thing started, and she was all excited for the simple
fact, she couldn't understand why the state never sent her a copy of
the letter they supposedly sent us.
So it's -- further down the road it looks like this letter never
existed, and I don't know if they can even provide us a copy of it. It's
one of those things I think maybe they delegated to somebody to do,
put it on a sheet, direction sheet, and never got done. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us, unless there's some
other direction the board wants to give us --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I may. I'm sorry.
Go ahead, Commissioner Coyle, I didn't mean to jump in front
of you.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, it would be good, I
think, to get some indication from the board whether or not we would
even entertain donating those roads and bridges to the state.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: I'd much further (sic) wait to see if
Page 114
April 8, 2003
there is even a request. This request might not even be official.
Maybe it's just one person in DEP --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- that is asking, and it's not their
supervisor or higher-up wishes. So Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm more than willing to wait,
but there's quite a few factors that we're always going to have to
weigh on this. One, it belongs to the county -- the county roads
belong to the county residents, and that's -- and we can't ever lose
sight of that. We paid for them with tax money, we maintained them
with our tax money. They're also the one way that we've been able
to access that beautiful resource out there.
My concern is -- and forestry was supposed to get with me
several times and they failed to do it yet, and I was even promised
when I was in Tallahassee they'd be meeting with me to discuss their
future plans over which roads would be removed and what roads
would be left open for access.
My concern and the concerns of many people that use that area
and traditional uses that they've been using for generations is that
we're just going to end up with a great big vast wilderness that would
be totally inaccessible. We need to have a certain amount of roads in
there to be able to get back there to be able to recreate in times -- in
ways that we've done for generations, that includes everything from
Boy Scouts to YMCA, right on through.
I hope that we keep this at all times forward as we go forward
through this process, that the very thought that they would just come
forward and think we're going to give this up without just
compensation is ludicrous. I don't -- I'm sure if they were in our
position, they wouldn't -- they would not -- they would act
accordingly like we're going to act.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Well, Commissioner, I'm hoping
Page 115
April 8, 2003
when we get towards the end of this, that we can set up a dialogue
with state agencies concerning Golden Gate and some of the things
that the state agencies want to do here in Collier County.
So, with that-
Item #10A
DIRECTION TO REVISE LANGUAGE REGARDING
PROPOSED NEW PROVISION UNDER THE CODE FOR
ILLUMINATED "OPEN" SIGNS AND FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS AND BRING
BACK TO THF, I~DC MEF, TING ON MAY 21_ 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item 10(A),
which is to provide information to the Board of County
Commissioners on proposed new provisions under the code for
illuminated open signs and frontage requirements for free-standing
signs, and Joe Schmitt will be our presenter. Oh, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Michelle Arnold.
MR. MUDD: Michelle Arnold will be our presenter.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Michelle, before you start, can I ask
you a question? Can we just eliminate some of this language and just
have a size requirement, open signs, and just say lighted signs instead
of all this heavy-handed language?
MS. ARNOLD: For the record, Michelle Arnold, code
enforcement director. We're -- this language is what is being
proposed in the LDC that's coming up to you in the next couple
weeks. We can do whatever the desire of the board is.
I think some of that language is in there so that we don't have,
you know, very large signs and then have any confusion with respect
to what a neon sign is or what is permitted.
Page 116
April 8, 2003
I do have some examples, and it was included in your executive
summary of what sign -- the sizes could look like. I'm sure you-all
are familiar with the ATM--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Where's my copy?
MS. ARNOLD: -- signs in town, but these are similar in size
and cost to the exposed neon signs that are currently displayed in
many of the businesses in town. But this is an example of, you
know, what the composition of these illuminated open signs could
look like.
We're open to the board's recommendation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, Commissioner Coletta wants to
say something.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much,
Commissioner Henning.
I just want to, one more time, poll the commission to see if
there's any changes on using neon open signs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think it's an acceptable practice. I
don't have any problem with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So do I.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You need four.
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COMMISSIONER
COLETTA: Well, we still got --
FIALA: Open neon signs?
HALAS: Open neon signs?
FIALA: Is that okay with you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not really, no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Not really, no.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's two, not really, nos.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. So we are where we are.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You can't say I didn't try.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Are we allowed to ask why?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure, you're allowed to ask.
Page 117
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I mean, if it's an open neon sign
that we see now regularly in establishments, why would you not like
them? I just-- I'm curious.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Myself, I think that open neon
signs detract from what we're trying to accomplish with all the rest of
the sign ordinances that we've addressed. And I think the
amendments that we're making here are going to address all the -- all
the other areas that were able to come up with open signs instead of
having the open neon sign.
We've got -- we've got the ability to have an incandescent,
florescent, halogen or light emitting dials. And I feel that that's the
area that we should probably go in.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Did that answer your
question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Answers my question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Please continue.
MS. ARNOLD: This is just an informational item. There is, I
just wanted to point out, a concern from the county attorney's office
that the way the language or the regulation is worded that we should,
instead of specifying what the sign says, indicate the operational
status at the time rather than specifying open and/or closed. I just
want to point that out for the record.
But as I mentioned, this particular proposal will be coming
before you on May 21st and June 18th.
As another informational item --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle wants to come
in.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. With respect to that
change, Michelle, I'm not sure that change gets us where we want to
go because it says one illuminated sign indicating only the
operational status at that time may be installed inside. That
Page 118
April 8, 2003
essentially means you can have one that says open and one that says
closed, which means you've got it 24 hours a day. And the first part
of this thing says you can only have it during the hours the business
is--
MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- actually open to the public. So
when we're saying that you can have one sign indicating the
operational status, the operational status could be open, it could be
closed.
MS. ARNOLD: Closed, exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So which one are you going to
use?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, if we were to incorporate the assistant
county attorney's language, we would have to then modify the
paragraph further to clarify that, so you would have potentially a
24-hour --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: He's sitting there shaking his head
at both of us, so why don't we let him try to tell us why we're wrong.
MR. WHITE: Assistant county attorney, Patrick White, and I'm
not going to tell anyone they're wrong. All I'm going to point out is
that factually there are other operational statuses besides open that a
particular type of business may choose to use as its indication.
For example, one that we're all very familiar with, the word
vacancy. And that, I think, is an operational status that is a message
that someone may choose to use as an illuminated sign for the
purpose of letting folks know that they are open for that kind of
business, that they're -- they have a vacancy or any other idea that
folks may choose to express.
The difficulty we have here is that we are right at the very edge
of legally being able to determine what the message of a sign is.
Now, once you cross that line, I think that there's a great risk that the
regulation could be challenged successfully.
Page 119
April 8, 2OO3
And what we're trying to do is merely indicate, without telling
people what the message is, just providing what the operational status
of the business is. And I think as you've indicated, without any
further change to the regulation -- because the only time that you're
entitled to have your operational status sign illuminated is when
you're actually open for business.
Now, in addition to the regulation, there's also the logical
circumstance that if folks were only allowed one sign, it doesn't seem
logical that they would ever want to have, as their choice for that
illuminated sign, the word closed. That seems to me to be somewhat
counterintuitive, and I think that once we get to the reality of
applying this provision, folks will choose that operational status
while they're open which lets their customers know that they're
available for business, and I think the problem will cure itself.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Does that mean that a for rent sign
is also occupational, or is a status sign just as a vacant sign is an
indication of operational status.9
MR. WHITE: In my opinion that wouldn't be one because it is
not a business establishment, because that is a premises that is for
rent, and it's different than the operational status of an existing
business or establishment.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we can have a vacancy sign at
a motel. We can't have a for rent sign in an apartment building?
MR. WHITE: I believe that would be correct under the way
that the provision is proposed to be approved. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you have what type of
business it is.9 In other words --
MR. SCHMITT: Other provisions allow for rent signs.
MR. WHITE: Yeah. There are other regulations that address
those matters, but typically they aren't illuminated.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. White, you were saying there's
Page 120
April 8, 2003
other regulations to permit--
MR. WHITE: For rent signs.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- what Commissioner Coyle is
saying?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In other words, we can have two
signs then is what you're saying?
MR. WHITE: The for rent and for sale signs typically are not
illuminated signs. That's the difference.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, but we can have like two
signs, is that what we're driving at here? You have an open sign and
then a sign to advertise the business? Is that what you're saying?
MR. WHITE: So long as only one of them is illuminated and
talks about the operational status, then the answer would be yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Like you can have ABC Liquors and
then an open sign, if that's your question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's my question.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
MR. WHITE: As long as the ABC sign is not illuminated in the
way that's contemplated by this regulation.
This one is creating essentially a very limited exemption from
the sign code for a particular type of illuminated sign that talks only
about the operational status of a business or establishment, and it
limits it essentially to the idea of commercial retail. That's pretty
much, you know, the scope of it. It isn't the only zoning, but it is the
idea that everyone that came forward at our workshop talked to you
about their business or establishment, and that's what we're looking
to do is be able to, as tightly as possible, create a regulation that
gives the relief that the board had directed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. So in other words, they could
use this one sign to indicate they're open, and at the same time tell
Page 121
April 8, 2003
you, say barber there, right. I mean -- MR. WHITE: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- they had their lighted sign on
that said barber?
MR. WHITE: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No?
MR. WHITE: Not under this provision. They'd have to have a
permit for that sign. This -- this is a sign that's exempt from permit.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. White, if I may suggest, during
the Land Development Code hearings, if we can get our sign
specialist, Mike Vignari (phonetic), here -- MR. WHITE: Sure.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- for any questions. I know -- I can
see where this addressed the concerns of the board earlier at a
workshop where we gave direction. It hits it on the nail where I see
it, but there's other questions that we need to get answered, and I
think that we can get that through the public hearings. MR. WHITE: I agree with that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, at the last meeting or so you
asked us, what things would we be coming back to the board on as
far as the sign ordinance is concerned so that, you know, we didn't
jerk around the community if something was in the works for a
change.
And what we've basically supplied to you today on this status of
the business request is we're going to come back to the board, and
you will make a decision in June to allow an illuminated sign, may it
be open or vacant or whatever it is, by a certain dimension in the
window of that particular business so that people driving by can see
that the premises is open.
And if the sign is dark and so are all the lights in the place,
people can assume that it's closed, or it's not vacant.
So that part's going to come back, and then Michelle is going to
Page 122
April 8, 2003
talk another piece about the frontage of the business and something
we might want to consider.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And we've got two chances to get
this the way the community wants it. MR. WHITE: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have a first hearing at Land
Development Code and the second hearing.
MR. WHITE: Plus you're going to have the input and
recommendation from the CCPC.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
MR. WHITE: I think the critical thing to just keep in mind as
we move forward from today is this is a provision that exempts these
types of signs from permitting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. WHITE: That's the portion of the code where it's found.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WHITE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's exactly what you want, except
for you want the neon open signs and there's not enough votes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, I understand that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm still lost on the -- they said it is
a sign whether they say open or vacant, well, why can't it say barber?
And I don't mean to use barber. I mean, it doesn't make any
difference what it says, you know, but fax or--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Fiala or Coyle or whatever?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. But so they can use open or
vacant but they couldn't use fax or barber?
MS. ARNOLD: Well, the direction that I recall you-all giving
us at the workshop was to come back with an open sign, so that's
what we were coming back with. If you-all wanted us to just say one
sign, which is something that is possible when we're doing this
Page 123
April 8, 2003
amendment cycle, just one sign, one illuminated sign, whatever it
says is what it says as long as it meets the size criteria, you could do
that.
MR. MUDD: Cold Bud. It could say cold Bud.
MS. ARNOLD: Yes. It could say Mudd.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: From my understanding, that
one sign could be confined to that small little area that goes in the
window. So in other words, you couldn't get too carried away with
the verbiage. I mean, other than the word open, I don't know what
you'd be able to fit on this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: You'd be surprised.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, why don't we continue, and
then we can have some further in-depth discussion at the Land
Development Code hearings.
MS. Arnold: Okay. And we will have -- invite Mike Vignari at
those hearings so if there are any other, you know, questions related
to the sign code, you'll have that expertise here.
The other thing that I'm here to give you an update on is, there
was a request to consider provisions for the frontage of a business.
Right now the current sign code limits businesses that are allowed to
have pole signs or ground signs to those that are 150 foot -- have 150
foot of frontage or when you're on a comer lot, a combined of 220
feet of frontage.
What is being-- what's included in your executive summary is
an additional provision for the variance for those properties between
100 feet and 149.9 feet of frontage, and then it would also limit the
size.
This is something that hasn't been worked through the county
attorney's office or some of the other staff, just internally with the
staff specialist. And I have been talking at this meeting with Susan
Murray, the planning manager with your planning department, and
Page 124
April 8, 2003
she's indicating that we do have a provision for all of the regulations
for a variance.
So if somebody were to request a variance and show that there
is hardship currently, they could do that. They could come before
you-all and say, you know, for whatever reasons exist, I believe that I
should be exempted from this particular requirement, so that
provision exists right now.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And with that, I believe that we
should remove the word variance by the Board of Commissioners
and you guys handle it. We got more issues -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- more pressing issues to deal with,
and you guys deal with that administratively or by your staff.
MS. ARNOLD: Okay. So you're saying based on the language
that we have here, we would have an administrative process between
100 and 149?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, that's my wishes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Correct, yes.
MR. MUDD: And set the -- and set the sign face criteria, the
square footage that it's got there so the staff knows the boundaries in
which they can make that determination, and at the same time if
there's a business that's been disadvantaged because of the width of
the frontage, they Wouldn't have to go through that variance cost at
the same time, which can be hard on a small business.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right, yes.
MS. ARNOLD: And just for your feedback, I don't know if
you-all are in agreement with the proposed language with respect to
the size and, you know, meeting all the other setback requirements.
It's similar to what we currently have.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct. And does it say anything
about more than one tenant? What would we do if we had more than
one tenant in a building? And while you're looking for that, I really
Page 125
April 8, 2003
like the idea that it has the addressing on it. MS. ARNOLD: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely. Good point.
MS. ARNOLD: If there is more than one tenant, I think-- they
would possibly fall under -- are you talking about more like a shop --
because it falls under shopping center, which would be multiple
tenancies, and also it affects office complexes, which would be
multiple tenancies. It just distinguishes between those various types
of businesses, so it would address a multi-tenant occupancy.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, would it be-- would it
address a multi-tenant occupancy in an area of a-- let's say if you
had something like JC (sic), you know, Road, JC Road where you'd
have one building and possibly two businesses occupying that same
building, and it would be less -- it would be on a hundred foot lot.
MS. ARNOLD: It says -- I would say that it would include
business parks and industrial parks. So yes, if it's in J&C, an
industrial park, and it has two occupancies, they meet these size -- or
frontage criteria then they would be --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what, would they share the
sign then basically, is that what --
MS. ARNOLD: I would think so, yeah.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. ARNOLD: You'd have one sign --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You wouldn't have two separate
signs?
MS. ARNOLD: -- for both businesses.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me clarify that a little bit. It
seems to me that what we're saying is, if we have a multi-tenant
facility, that a pole sign or ground sign would contain the name of
Page 126
April 8, 2003
that particular center but there could also be directory signs which
list each of the tenants in that center, so that we can have both signs
if I understand the code correctly.
MS. ARNOLD: The directory signs would apply if you meet
certain square footage criteria and tenancy criteria --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MS. ARNOLD: -- because the code's been revised to say you
have to have at least eight to get a directory sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It says here, the directory sign
shall contain a minimum of four and a maximum of eight.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that would be a shopping
center, I think, right?
MS. ARNOLD: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or any other kind of business, you
know, business center or something like that.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Well, I think it's the pleasure of the
board to allow these mom and pops to let the world know that they're
there. So if that doesn't catch what the commissioners want, if you
help us out when this comes forward, we would appreciate it. MS. ARNOLD: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I guess where I'm coming from,
let's say you had -- just so we're -- got the clarification here. Say you
have a business on JC (sic) Boulevard, there's two people there, and
you have a monument sign, so the monument sign has got to be of a
certain proportion or size, and we're going to put a monument sign,
my understanding now, in the code for someone that has a hundred
foot of frontage; is that correct?
MS. Arnold: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So then if we have one
monument sign, we have two businesses in that area, we have the
capabilities of, within that monument sign, of advertising two
Page 127
April 8, 2003
separate businesses, is that correct, along with the -- along with the
address?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think so. I don't think that's
what this says.
MS. ARNOLD: Two businesses on the one sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, on the -- on the mount of the
monument sign, if that's what the people so desire. Is that where
we're going with this?
MS. ARNOLD: That's my reading of this.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Just so that the mom and
pop proprietor, if they're sharing a business, that they both can
advertise on that same sign without any -- any problems where they
only come up with one sign and one person on there or one business.
MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman?
MR. SCHMITT: I just -- go ahead, because I need to explain
this so the commissioners have an understanding where we're going
with this.
MR. WHITE: If I may. What I've learned in the two plus years
that I've been working with this particular sign code is that out of all
the provisions in the entire sign code, you have found the heart, the
Gordian knot, the most problematic provision that exists in our sign
code. This is the one that your staff has the most difficult time
applying to various requests for permits.
As you'd heard, our office hasn't had an opportunity to comment
on it, either with respect to the notion about variances being
administrative -- certainly that's an option, but we'd have to ask you
to make sure there's sufficient criteria.
Secondly, with respect to the other provisions that are in here,
you have proposed in the next cycle -- I'm not sure if it's the next or
the third cycle this year -- a major rewrite of division 2.5, the sign
code. And what I would respectfully suggest is that what we do is
we attempt to comprehensively and holistically look at the sign code
Page 128
April 8, 2003
so that we can come back to you with a rational set of regulations
which make sense when you look at them in total.
If there's a burning desire today to amend some particular aspect
of this particular provision, then I think we might be able to get it in
this round, but I have to caution you that I think we've probably gone
-- the train has gone far enough from the station in this round, this
cycle of amendments in terms of the entities that have already looked
at it, the CC -- excuse me, DSAC, EAC, that we may be too far along
in order to actually pick up this provision and try to fix it on the fly.
In particular when it is, as I've indicated, one of the most
problematic. I'm concerned about unintended consequences. And I
would just caution that we take the time to do it right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. White, how about if-- excuse
me. How about if I get together with you and tell you what the
consequences are by the sign code and actually show you out in the
community where it is a problem?
MR. WHITE: One of the things where I've consistently seen the
problem is in that lot width, and we've worked in particular with
some of the PUDs to resolve this. And in particular the one PUD
where Mr. Shommy's (phonetic) business is located, we resolved an
issue there.
But if you've got specific examples, that will help us by defining
the problem to know what the solution ought to be CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great.
MR. WHITE: If it's something that is so imminent that we have
to do it in the cycle, then I think maybe we could try. But I caution
you that I think that you might be a little too far down the road.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll see you tomorrow.
MR. WHITE: Certainly we could do it the next one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm sorry. Mr. Schmitt.
MR. SCHMITT: For the record, again, Joe Schmitt,
administrator of community development, environmental services.
Page 129
April 8, 2003
The purpose for bringing this to the board's attention, this was a
discussion in regards to the frontage, and I had this discussion with
one of the commissioners in regards to the impact that this has in the
community. It is not our intent to bring this back during this current
cycle. We're looking at bringing this back in the next cycle, because
this has not even gone through the Development Services Advisory
Council, and, in fact, it's not even part of the agenda for the Planning
Commission, which meets on the 9th, because we just put this
together. So we wouldn't even be able to bring this back until the
next LDC cycle.
But just to make -- to clarify to the board, the criteria in this
county has been 150 feet probably since the early '80's, and this is
changing it to 100 feet. Now, it is going to allow for a smaller sign,
but that's where we get in this impact about sign pollution, if you
want to use the word, where now instead of 150 feet, it's 100 feet,
and there are certainly applications where this is fitting. I know of
one in particular. But that is why we wrote it as a variance, meaning
coming before the board.
And I'm not asking for the board to vote on this today, but I
want to make sure that with your guidance, if we come back with this
with something that's administrative, again -- and then it pretty much
becomes a matter of fact.
And in that regard, then we're dealing with a sign -- a monument
sign or a pole sign or ground sign, if you want to call it, every
hundred feet, we begin to get into this encroachment activity of signs
encroaching on other signs. That's -- but why 150 feet? I can't
answer that. It's been 150 feet probably for -- well, probably almost
20, 25 years, and now we're going to -- if it's going to be
administrative, we're going to 100 feet, it's going to be almost
routine.
And in that regard, we're going to be dealing with other issues
about a sign being placed in front of other signs or encroaching or
Page 130
April 8, 2003
that type of thing, and that's something I think we owe you to come
back and evaluate if, in fact, this is going to be something
administrative that we owe you an analysis of the impact. And we
probably need to be more definitive on how this is applied, if it's
going to be administrative rather than through a variance.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Let me just explain to the
commissioners. The problem that already exists out there is that we
have a lot of businesses that have put signs out there because they
thought it was part of the building permit -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or they have just put signs out
there. And these are not the Walgreen's or the Eckerds -- MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- or the corporate companies. These
are the mom and pops in there, and I think that we should provide for
them tools that they can advertise to compete against big business.
Mom and pops are the ones that support our community.
And I'll get off my soapbox and hand it over to Commissioner
Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I guess the point is that, yes,
we've had in the Land Development Code for many years 150 feet,
but yet we still have -- we have to address the fact that there are
businesses out there that only have 100-foot frontage, and so why
shouldn't they be allowed to put some type of a sign for advertising if
they've been allowed to build on a lot that's 100 foot?
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, they are allowed, and they can
use a wall sign, which is the typical answer. What this was trying to
deal with was, in some instances, you may have an adver -- an
establishment that may be back off the road, that may be behind
another establishment or--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Trees.
MR. SCHMITT: -- business, and this allows that unique
Page 131
April 8, 2003
situation where they can put up a pole sign or a monument sign 10
feet from the road or -- from right-of-way where they can do a --
where they can advertise. And that's why we wrote it as a variance,
because there would be certain unique criteria that would have to be
established.
If it's administrative, then it's going to become somewhat a
matter of fact, and then, of course, that will be -- the standard will
then be 100 feet throughout the county, and I just want to make sure
the commissioners understand that's where we're going with this
based on your current direction, and certainly we're comfortable with
that if that's the direction you want us to go.
But the wall sign would be -- is appropriate for something less
than ! 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I agree with you.
There was a situation or a couple of situations that I went out to
see where there were fairly new businesses, and these new
businesses, in order to get a CO, they had to have so much
landscaping put in place along with trees, and when they put the sign
up on the building, the landscaping would hide the sand -- or would
hide the sign to the point where they -- it was no longer usable on the
building.
So what they need to do -- because of our new codes for
landscaping, we need to come up and make sure that we do have
provisions in the Land Development Code whereby, with all the
landscaping and everything else, these people can still put a sign that
is viewable and also has the street number on it.
MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, yes, and we identified that at
the workshop.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And that's something we're working on,
because we need to integrate the land -- the landscaping plan with the
signage plan.
Page 132
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: And that's something we need to do, and we
recognize that. We had several examples where landscaping
obscured the sign.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. That's what I was trying to
address.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala, Commissioner
Coletta, then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a comment. And I admire
your sensitivity, by the way, to the small businessmen. They're the
backbone of our community.
What I wanted to add was maybe because -- maybe 150 was
norm back in the '80's, but it's good that we're not doing same old,
same old, because now we're trying to tighten our community, we
don't have much land left, we're offering people smaller spaces to
live on in order to create a more compact business community, and
so we have to adjust our signage requirements to those --
MR. SCHMITT: And that's fine.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
MR. SCHMITT: And 100 foot is fine. I just want to make sure
you're aware of that, that's all. That's what I wanted-- all I wanted to
do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Boy, what a web we weave
here. You know, we start off with something that's pretty simple, we
complicate it like crazy, then we start to feel sorry for the poor
businessman out there, which I do, so we try to come back with other
methods.
But my concems are, have we moved so far into the process that
a number of people who acted quickly to correct any kind of-- any
types of violations they may have had, may have missed an
opportunity by us doing this now. Is that what we're doing?
Page 133
April 8, 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what Joe just told you -- because
150 feet has been the standard since 1982.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. MUDD: So those signs less than 150 feet that have been
out there, monument, have been illegal since 1982. It had nothing to
do with the new sign ordinance that you put in. MR. SCHMITT: Right.
MR. MUDD: All Joe's trying to do in this particular case -- and
it was brought to his attention by the chairman, is the fact that we've
got businesses out there that are back someplace else and nobody can
see that they're back there except they've got a little, you know, Eat
at Joe's sign by the driveway and you don't -- you know, eat at Joe's
where? You can't find it. You don't know that it exists, and it's
behind some place, and he wants to give them the opportunity to let
that be known in the front.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. And with
Commissioner Henning's idea that we allow staff to be able to make
this variance call on their own, would that answer it in something we
can handle in this cycle what we're doing right now?
MR. SCHMITT: I think legally we may have a problem with
that cycle, because we just put this together -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. SCHMITT: We just put this together last week after my
discussion with the chairman about probably three weeks ago, and
that staff had been working on this. It hasn't even gone through the
county attorney's office yet. We wanted to get this in front of you.
MR. MUDD: One of the reasons --
MR. SCHMITT: But could we do it? We could probably throw
this in front of the Planning Commission on -- tomorrow night and
say, here's another one -- we have 41, make this 42 amendments, I
guess. Go ahead.
MS. ARNOLD: My only comment is, we're coming up with
Page 134
April 8, 2003
great ideas as we speak right now, and we haven't given this proposal
an opportunity to be worked through all of the various avenues, so
we can -- we can bring it -- surely bring it back in the next cycle, and
that way we can get the, you know, recommendations from all the
county attorneys and all of the other experts that are out there. I
think that would be something that would be preferable.
In the interim, we can -- if you're consider-- if you're concerned
about some of the existing businesses out there, we can reshift our
priorities in terms of the enforcement side of it, and we wouldn't
necessarily be looking at this at this point knowing that this is
coming in the works.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's the county manager's call.
But whatever he does, I agree with.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sure that was a suggestion.
MR. MUDD: Thanks, Michelle.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle, please.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: My turn? Okay, thank you.
I think there are a couple of things that need to be clarified here.
Number one is, we, this commission, did not develop this sign
ordinance, okay? And it's very important for us to understand that,
because some other people sat here and went through a very long and
arduous task with a lot of public input from experts who know what
it takes to create quality communities, and they made this decision in
-- well, three years ago, and that's how this -- this sign ordinance got
here.
Now, we are -- we are getting involved in the middle of it and
trying to make decisions without having the benefit of the overall
intent of this sign ordinance. We haven't had those same kinds of
urban planning experts come in and tell us what they think makes a
quality community based upon their experience, so we have to be
careful about what we start doing with this particular sign ordinance.
We have to look at it very carefully.
Page 135
April 8, 2003
But finally, the important thing is that, as I recall it, this item is
on the agenda because we wanted the public to know -- MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that we were planning on
addressing some of these issues. We did not expect a final proposal,
at least I didn't expect a final proposal, because you hadn't had time
to really staff it. So this -- the purpose of this is to let the public
know that we are listening to their concern with respect to open signs
indicating the operational status of their business, and number two,
we're concerned about the small businesses that don't have enough
frontage or are somehow concealed by other big businesses. We
need to give them a way of advertising.
There is one final item that hasn't been mentioned, and that's
barber signs. Now, it's my understanding, despite all the outcry, that
barber signs are permitted.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Barber poles are permitted.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: They have been from the very
beginning.
MR. SCHMITT: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so there is no problem there.
But I just wanted to make -- make it absolutely clear for the public
that what we're trying to do is deal with some of the public concerns,
and this is an indication of how we're planning on doing it. And I
presume we'll have it completed sometime. And in the meantime,
hopefully we'll exercise good judgment about enforcement of some
of these things.
MR. SCHMITT: If I could ask the board's indulgence, at least
on the second one, if it's going to be administrative, and I think what
we need to do is work with the county attorney's office and tie this to
some kind of criteria that's associated with the parcel, if it's a unique
Page 136
April 8, 2003
lot or something else that is compelling that would authorize this, and
so it -- otherwise I think the standard will then become a hundred feet
throughout the county. And if that's what the board wishes, then we
can certainly move in that direction.
But I think what we're trying to do here, and based on the
chairman's note to me -- and I know the situation, and it's truly one
that needs to be -- is a compelling need. The business that is looking
for at least assistance in this, I think, somehow we need to tie it to
that criteria that would allow for that type of business to do what it is
doing right now but do it legally.
And I would ask, at least from that perspective, I don't think we
would do due diligence to bring this back during -- during -- to the
board by June. Unfortunately we only do -- well, we're going to do
three cycles this year. It will have to go in the next cycle. Normally
we only do two LDC cycles a year, but we have a -- we have three
scheduled this year, so we'll put it in the next cycle.
And we have some other sign ordinances and changes that we
need to talk about, the landscaping is one of those, and the others that
were brought up during the workshop, and we'll be dealing with
those. Our intent here was just, the first cycle, to bring this one
concerning the status of the business, and that one will be in the LDC
cycle.
MR. MUDD: And the reason, Commissioner, I had Joe put the
thing on the business width, or the frontage, was the fact that a
commissioner had asked, and I wanted to make sure, since all the
other commissioners didn't have an opportunity, to make sure that
we've got direction from at least three in order to proceed with that.
So I wanted to make sure that it was brought to your attention that
we're moving out in that prospect and it's board directed.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So I ask my fellow commissioners,
do we have staff move forward with these proposed amendments?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yep.
Page 137
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think you got a unanimous.
MR. MUDD: Oh, great.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. Thank you.
Item #10C
ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO AUGMENT CURRENT
APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONSULTING AND LEGAL
SERVICES FROM CARI~TON FIELDS UNDER THE EXISTING
CONTINUING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR CONTINGENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT SERVICES-CONTINUED TO APRIL
22. 2003 MF. FJTING
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN
MR. MUDD:
Commissioner, that brings us to item 10(C).
HENNING: Is this the one that --
And we--
HENNING: -- we want to possibly continue?
Yes, sir. I'd ask the board to make a motion to
continue this item at staff's request. We still have some funding
issues to work out with the clerk on this particular item.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. Okay. And I'll make that
motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second that motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
discussion? Questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
Okay. No discussion? Any
All in favor of the motion, signify by
Aye.
Page 138
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Mr. Schmitt, thank you for all your help on that previous item.
Appreciate it.
Item #10D
WORK ORDER WITH HUMISTON AND MOORE ENGINEERS,
INC. REGARDING ANNUAL MONITORING OF HIDEAWAY
BEACH AND T-GROINS UNDER CONTRACT #01-3271, FIXED
TERM PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS IN THE
AMOIJNT OF $87,492-APPROVF, D
MR. MUDD: This brings us to item 10(D), Commissioner,
which is -- used to be the item on the consent agenda, 16(C)2, which
has to do with the Hideaway -- the Hideaway Beach monitoring
contract.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And Commissioner Coletta asked
that this be put on the regular agenda.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right. I think because of all
the controversy that's taken place at this point in time about beach
access that it wouldn't hurt to hear this out. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. HOVELL: Good afternoon. For the record, my name's
Ron Hovell with public utilities engineering department.
Just to take a few minutes to go over some of the background of
Hideaway Beach, as shown on the diagram that I put on the viewer
Page 139
April 8, 2003
there, every year that the -- every year since the temporary T-Groins
were put in in 1997, we've trucked sand onto the --
MR. WEIGEL: Excuse me, Ron, I would ask you to stop a
minute. We've lost our quorum. MR. HOVELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You might want to call a break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We'll call a five-minute
break.
MR. WEIGEL: You have no ability to call a break right now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay. Then we won't. We'll
just sit here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We'll just sit here and wait for
our quorum to show up.
How about if we appoint Mr. Mitchell as a commissioner for a
few minutes?
Poor timing.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We've got a quorum. Here comes
one. We have a quorum.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: At your pleasure. You can
either start or call a break.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure. Move forward, please.
MR. HOVELL: Okay. Again, since we installed the temporary
T-Groins on Hideaway Beach in about 1997, as shown in the
diagram, each of these arrows represents another year's worth of
trucking sand onto Hideaway Beach. So every year -- every winter
since those T-Groins have been installed, we've had to place some
additional sand on Hideaway Beach.
The permits that allowed us to build those temporary T-Groins
requires that we perform both annual monitoring, and it's actually
every six months, but do one annual report. So in last year's budget
we did -- we had a similar item, and the monitoring was done in
April and November, and in about the January time frame, January of
Page 140
April 8, 2003
this year, we received last year's annual monitoring report.
The work order that was originally in today's consent agenda is
to do a similar thing, to perform the annual monitoring surveys both
in May and again in October, October/November time frame, and
then to, again, publish an annual report as required by the permit.
Just in case there were any questions about some of the other
things going on with Hideaway, because I know this has come up a
number of times, trying to keep all the various pieces straight, two
years -- approximately two years ago through the tourist
development grant cycle, a budget was approved to both renourish
Hideaway Beach and to replace the temporary T-Groins.
And within the last month or so you approved a budget
amendments to allow us to complete the design and permitting phase
of that project. The construction costs will be coming forward in this
summer's cycle for consideration.
There was also, two years ago, a project approved to improve
the access to Hideaway Beach, and that one -- the recent action on
that one was that back in January we had applied for the permit, and
then more recently we sent a letter withdrawing the permit while we
give some consideration to some potential redesign.
And then, again, two years ago we approved the annual
monitoring report for the last cycle. And then in this year's budget,
about a year ago, another grant application was approved for a
hundred thousand dollars to cover the funding of this monitoring
action.
Some of the options that we had listed just as potential options,
again, this -- this monitoring is required under the FDEP permit
issued to Collier County that allowed for the construction of the
temporary T-Groins. Failure to complete the required monitoring
could potentially result in fines to the county.
Another option would be to remove the temporary T-Groins in
advance of the larger renourishment project, however, we feel that
Page 141
April 8, 2003
this would probably accelerate erosion in the area.
And, therefore, it was a unanimous recommendation from the
Coastal Advisory Committee, the Tourist Development Council and
staff to authorize the public utilities administrator to execute the
work order.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'm going to make a motion to
approve. And the reason I'm going to do that, because I know the
CAC is coming forward with some of our concern is -- about beach
access and how we expend some of these tourist tax funds.
But until we have that, I think that we need to move forward
with what we have been doing in the past.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER FIALA:
And I'll second.
I'd like to second it if I may --
Oh, sure.
--just because it's a requirement
that we do this, and we're meeting our obligation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for the opportunity
to speak.
I'm not going to argue. I just wanted to get this up in front of us
one more time. We're talking tourist tax dollars that are going for a
beach that's inaccessible to the average person.
I agree with you, we're going to deal with this later. I'm meeting
with Mike Mignosa and Bill Moss tomorrow for lunch to discuss
some of these issues.
I'm getting a tremendous amount of phone calls, of all places,
from Marco Island, asking that the beach access be restored. And I
just want to make that known to this commission, there's a strong
public interest out there on what could be done to enhance beach
access.
And I know we're going forward in the right direction, and I'm
going to vote with the majority on this, and I thank you very much
Page 142
April 8, 2003
for this opportunity to bring it up, and I want to thank Brace
Anderson for coming so far away to be here today not knowing what
to expect. I'm sure we're going to be seeing each other quite a bit
over this particular issue.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Ms. Filson?
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, I have two speakers. They both
waived.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to the next --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We're going to vote on this.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We haven't voted.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you for waiving. You could wave on the way out, too, if
you wish.
Item #10E
SUPPLEMENTAL TDC CATEGORY "A" GRANT
APPLICATION, BUDGET AMENDMENT AND TOURISM
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT FOR LOWDERMILK PARK
RENOVATION 1N THE AMOUNT OF $150,000-CONTINUED TO
APRIIJ 22:2003
Page 143
April 8, 2003
MR. MUDD: The next item is number 10(E), and that used to
be item 16(B)3, and that had to do with a Lowdermilk Park
renovation.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: The reason I asked to pull this is, at
the TDC meeting I wanted the engineering report so I could see that
-- what their recommendations were, and I haven't had a chance to do
that. I voted for it at that time knowing that I'll get an opportunity to
get that, and I just haven't seen it yet.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is John Dunnuck, public services administrator. We
invited Mr. Lykins from the City of Naples community services
director here to. possibly answer any questions and follow up on your
request.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Mr. Likens, was (sic) you at
the Tourist Development Council meeting?
MR. LIKENS: For the record, Dave Likens, community
services director, City of Naples. I'm afraid I was not at that
meeting, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Would you mind if we
continue this until I can look at the report?
MR. LIKENS: That would be fine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
with that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Make a motion to continue this item
till our April 22nd meeting.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion and a second.
Motion by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
Okay. Anybody else have a problem
Page 144
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
Thank you.
Any opposed?
Motion carries, 5-0.
Item #1 OF
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT BID #03-3468 FOR PUMP
AND MOTOR REPAIR-MOTION TO REJECT DENIAL WITH
CONTRACT TO COME BACK-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: That brings us to item number 10(F), which is old
16(E)2, which is reject a bid proposal for -- or bid selection for pump
and motor repair.
MR. CARNELL: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board. For the record, Steve Carnell, your purchasing general
services director.
The item before you is, as the county manager read the title, to
reject bids received against bid 03-3468. This is a contract for the
repair of various pumps and motors. It's used -- time and material
agreement that is used by different county departments on an
as-needed basis.
Under this bid invitation we asked each bidder to provide two
elements of pricing. One was a series of labor rates that they would
charge for different services under different conditions that they
would provide to us, again, on an as-needed basis, and then secondly,
as part of performing those repairs, obviously the vendor needs to
furnish parts, and we set up a pricing structure for parts based on a
Page 145
April 8, 2003
markup in which we asked the bidders to commit to a fixed
percentage of markup. So we have fixed hourly rates and we have a
fixed markup applied to the parts that are sold to us for the repair.
This bid was issued, the invitation was issued in December, and
we received -- opened the bids in January.
Within the -- we received seven bids. Each bidder submitted
pricing information in the columns and categories I was describing.
Subsequent to the opening, one of the bidders contacted our staff and
pointed out that the markup percentage that was asked for for each
bidder to tender an offer on was listed in the bid but that the
published formula that we announced in the bid of how we were
going to determine the order of the bidders so that we could take this
price discount item and combine it with the hourly rates to come up
with a formula to determine the order of the bidders, basically who
was the lowest bid, they noted that the reference to the actual
discount was missing from our published award formula.
And when we began to look at the bid results, the bidder who
pointed this out to us under one method would be the lower bid --
would be the lowest priced bidder, and under a different method
you'd have another outcome with another bidder being the apparent
low.
So the staff looked at this, we talked to the county attorney's
office, and after some deliberation have made a recommendation to
you this date that we reject the bids and that we do this process again
with the clarification provided in the documentation and language as
to what the clear formula for award is. So with that I -- any questions?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Entertain a motion?
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a number of questions here.
Who was the bidder who is challenging the outcome?
MR. CARNELL: Well, there's been no formal challenge,
Page 146
April 8, 2003
particularly as a rejection of bids is not protestable per se, but we've
had two bidders involved that have had contact with our office. One
was Mader. Mader was the one who I referenced a moment ago who
brought question to the language in the formula. And then we've had
subsequent contact from Naples Armature, who I believe is desirous
of having the board move forward with the award. And needless to
way, one would be the winner under one scenario, one would be --
the other would be the winner under the other scenario.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, you used the same
procurement procedure for the procurement last year that you used
for this year.9
MR. CARNELL: That's correct, two years ago.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two years ago. And Mader
Electric bid on both of those.
MR. CARNELL: I'm not certain if they bid two years ago.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm certain.
MR. CARNELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. They bid on both of those,
and they had no question about the formula from the first bid
whatsoever.
MR. CARNELL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now they bid this year, and the
same evaluation criteria is used, and they are confused by it.
Let me -- let me give you a different scenario. Mader Electric's
percentage of markup over cost for parts was the highest of any
bidder for either year, 2001 or 2002. But in response to this year's
bid, they increased their markup of cost 40 percent from their bid last
year. Now, that put them anywhere from three -- from two and a half
to three times higher than any other bidder.
Now, you know, I've been involved in bids like this long enough
to know that if you think you can make up your money on some
markup that's not going to be included in the evaluation process and
Page 147
April 8, 2003
bid a low hourly rate for the repair, that you might get the contract
and then make all your money off the repair parts markup.
And I can see why they might have thought that this would not
be considered in the bid, but it's not realistic in view of the fact they
bid under the same criteria the year before. So what I see here is a --
is an expression of concern by a bidder who lost. And to cancel the
bid to the lowest cost bidder and put this thing out to bid again is
fundamentally unfair, in my opinion.
Because this was a sealed bid process, now everybody knows
what the bids are. Now, you put it oot again and guess what's going
to happen? The prices are likely to change dramatically next time,
which there's nothing wrong with that. But it's fundamentally unfair
to the people who won the contract in the first place.
So I -- I would oppose doing this because there's nothing wrong
with the way it was done. You did it right, and you did it consistently
two years in a row. And if-- I think it's a stretch to find that
somebody will say one year that, yeah, he understood it and I've
submitted my bid, the next year they don't understand it.
And particularly with the tremendous increase in percentage
markup over cost for parts, it's very difficult for me to understand.
This year they've got a 35 percent increase in markup. Most of
the others have anywhere from 10 to 15 or 10 to 18 percent increase
in markup. But I do oppose scrapping this procurement.
If you want to do it differently next year, I think that's fine, you
know, if you'd like to do it that way. But I think it's fundamentally
unfair to someone who has submitted a sealed bid and they've won
the competition, and now that award is going to be taken away from
them because some other bidder says they were confused.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. A question. The same --
when we had this bidded before, maybe it was two years ago, did we
have a problem then too?
Page 148
April 8, 2003
MR. CARNELL: We had one but with a completely different
issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But it was the same parties?
MR. CARNELL: The issue two years ago, for the benefit of the
full board, was that one of the bidders showed up prior to the bid
opening but did not physically submit their bid until after the bid
opening had commenced.
And the board -- at the time the staff recommended the board
waive it as a minor irregularity, accept the bid, which was the
apparent low, and the board, I think, erring on the side of, I think,
clean public perception, if you will, elected not to do that and elected
not to accept that bidder's offer, and so award was made to another
contractor.
The bidder who tendered that offer after the bid opening
commenced is the apparent low bidder here if you use the formula
the way it was intended, which I believe is where Commissioner
Coyle is headed.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Do we have any speakers?
MS. FILSON: Two.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you want to call them up?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Boy, I'd be happy to. Call the
first speaker, please.
Commissioner Halas can call the next one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker we have is Janet Blumert. He
wants to go first?
MS. BLUMERT: Oh, go ahead, I'm sorry.
MR. MADER: Jeremy Mader, I'm with Mader Electric Motors.
A few points I wanted to mention, you touched on a lot of them.
To clarify your earlier question about how someone could bid
this time -- and we did bid it the -- whenever it was, two years ago as
well. It wasn't a matter that we didn't understand the bid and didn't
Page 149
April 8, 2003
come back and contest the bid. We did. It was an error on my part.
By the time I got back with purchasing, it was -- I think the allotment
of time is two days after the bid has been awarded to file a written
protest. And by the time I had gotten back with her, it was well past
the two day point. That's why we didn't protest the bid when it was
awarded, I think it was two years ago.
As you said, it was basically an error of-- between reading the
-- what -- for the bid to be awarded the way it read, it would be
awarded to us. According to your executive summary that you guys
all have copies of, basically what it tells you is -- and I do have a
copy here.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I think we can read that, sir.
MR. MADER: Is that after -- after the bids were received on
January 22nd, the bidder contended to staff that there was deficiency
in the formula, so on and so forth. That was after the -- as it was
worded on your executive summary. That was after the bids were
received.
According to page 5, section 26 of the bid, I quote, if the bidder
should be of the opinion that the meaning of any part, which would
be the formula -- any part of the bidding document is doubtful,
obscure, or contains errors or omissions, he should report such
opinion to the purchasing director before the bid opening date.
I had a question on this myself. I contacted Lynn Wood, who
was the purchasing director on this, the week of January 13th. The
bid was to be on opened January 22nd. I posed this question to her,
and her answer to me was, it's going to be awarded the way it reads.
You're taking the hours, plus the estimated parts in the formula -- and
you're not -- my question was, are you taking the hours and the parts
like it reads or the hours, the parts, and the percentage that you asked
for, but you don't have it in the formula for award of bid. She told
me the -- excuse me -- the percentage was not going to be taken into
the -- taken into account in the award of the bid.
Page 150
April 8, 2003
If you read it, according to that formula, according to the way it
says, according to the way Ms. Wood explained it to me, we would
be the low bid on this.
I believe it is Naples Armature that is coming in -- and I guess
they haven't filed a formal protest yet, but as he said, if you read the
bid the way that apparently he intended it to read, then they would be
the low bid, which I can understand.
But my argument is, as you said earlier, just because someone
didn't get the bid and they're not happy with the results, I mean, it
clearly states in there that if you have such a problem, that you're
supposed to handle that prior to the bid opening.
Now that the bids have been opened, I mean, everybody knows
everybody's bids. And as you said, the prices are going to change. I
mean, things -- then you start getting into a situation there with that,
and that's -- you know, that's a concern to me as -- I'm sure as you
said, that would be a concern people -- everybody would know what
everybody bid.
I was reviewing this yesterday, and there's another part on the
bid that I have listed on here. I believe it was on page 4 that says, the
bid shall not be opened or exposed -- or any part of the bid shall not
be opened or exposed, and obviously the bids have all been opened
and exposed.
So to go out for rebid on this, it goes directly against what two
parts of your bid have written in there.
Really, that's the only argument I have on it. I mean, there's -- I
went round and round with this with Ms. Wood before and after, and
-- she's the purchasing director I was speaking to -- and I helped her
with some of the verbiage beforehand, and this is kind of still the best
way she came up with to do it, so that's how they bid the thing.
Basically, I mean, if a person buys -- say they buy a part for a
hundred dollars, mark it up -- I think their bid is 12 and a half
percent, you pay 112.50 for it. I buy in bulk, I buy in quantity. We
Page 151
April 8, 2003
buy from a lot of the same vendors. All of our vendors assure us that
because of the quantity that we do, we get the best pricing. If they
buy that part for a hundred bucks, they sell it to you for 112.50. I
buy it for 75 bucks, I sell it to you for $102, regard -- so the
percentage is kind of irrelevant unless you make everyone buy from
one vendor at one price.
But I mean, to get a vendor to do that -- we all buy from so
many different vendors for different parts, and the percentage is
irrelevant anyway. But regardless of the percent being irrelevant, I
mean, it-- like I said, it clearly states in there the award will be based
on this. And if you have a problem with it, contact them beforehand,
which I did. My question was answered.
As far as I know, they weren't -- they didn't contact them
beforehand. And now that it's after the fact, they want to con --
which, like I said, it's after the fact, and that's not what the bid says.
The bid says, if you want to do it, you have to do it beforehand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sir, I have a question for you.
MR. MADER: All right.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You stated you helped write the bid?
MR. MADER: I didn't help write it. Ms. Wood asked me for
some -- obviously I didn't write anything on it. But she asked me for
some input. Because I had this problem with her the last time this
bid came around, like I said, a couple years ago, so she asked me my
opinion, hey, how do you do this?
What I do is, we have contracts of a similar nature -- we have
contracts with Sarasota County, Manatee County, City of Punta
Gorda, City of Naples, to do this same exact type of work, and so I
brought her copies of their contracts so that she could kind of see
what-- how they're worded.
She wanted to see how other counties are doing it basically, so I
brought those down to her, made copies of her (sic), and let her have
a look at them.
Page 152
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And you represent Mader Electric,
right?
MR. MADER: Mader Electric, yes, sir. Jeremy Mader is my
name.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next speaker?
MS. FILSON: Your next speaker is Janet Blumert. Did I say
that right?
MS. BLUMERT: Good afternoon, Commissioners. First about
what Mr. Mader had just said, I believe that the reason that the
purchasing department asked for three variables was because it is
impossible to calculate a lower bidder without having these three
variables.
Excuse me. I'm very nervous.
And when Mr. Carnell said that the bid could be calculated one
way with one winner and another way with another, I believe that's --
that's not correct. If-- you have to figure in the percentage markup
before you can calculate any lowest bidder.
The other issue was when Mr. Mader said that he buys in bulk
and gets a very good price, I believe that's why purchasing put a
fixed amount in there. That was assuming we were all purchasing at
the same price. So his 3 5 percent markup would clearly put him out
of the bidding process, or the contention.
And I feel that even if purchasing had left out this bid formula
and had just used it for their owner internal purposes, they could
have successfully counted -- or calculated low bidder, and that's
pretty much all I have to say. Everything else has been said.
The numbers are out there. I believe it's unfair to have to go
back and bid again. Everyone's seen the numbers. You know, we
have great respect for this. It is a very highly competitive process.
And I think the bidders shouldn't run the bidding process.
Page 153
April 8, 2003
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. I guess I would have to
ask the clerk. I have a concern about voting to approve this -- this
bid, being that our staff is telling us not to approve it and going out
there and rebid.
I must say -- ma'am, you can come back up.
MS. BLUMERT: I'm sorry. There's one thing I left out
concerning that. I believe that a rebid would yield exactly the same
results.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. BLUMERT: It would just -- the same three numbers would
be given by the parties, probably the same seven parties. It's just
however they were interpreted.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MS. BLUMERT: Which we all -- which purchasing already has
that. They can already calculate this.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right. But we also want to do
everything legally --
MS. BLUMERT: I understand.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- correct, too. And I -- and I think
it's possible that one of the bidders met with one or two of the
commissioners, and that's my fear about taking action on this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before -- before this bid?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: No, after the bid.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, well--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What would be the problem
with that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I think it states within the
criteria that you're not supposed to contact any of the commissioners
or -- I'm not sure the exact wording -- wordage, Steve.
MS. CARNELL: There is. There is a provision in the bid
Page 154
April 8, 2003
invitation in which we advise the bidders that the Board of County
Commissioners do not want to be lobbied individually regarding
matters before them -- with regard to bid awards before them. The
intent in the process of our policy is that bidders raise process -- raise
issues publicly or through the protest procedure when that's
applicable.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. This is not a debate over
an award process. This has nothing to do with the award process.
This has everything to do with ruling on your recommendation that
we void the bid process. And I don't know of any other way to get
the necessary data and background than to talk with the people who
bid on it.
So, quite frankly, I did talk with the lady who just spoke, and I
see nothing wrong with that. That was not an effort to influence the
award of the contract. It was an effort to make sure that I understood
the circumstances.
This -- we are not talking about a bid award contract here.
We're talking about whether or not we should void one and whether
or not we think it's appropriate to void a contract selection, and I
don't think it's appropriate to void it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, in essence, if we don't void it,
aren't we awarding it?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. It's already been awarded.
It's -- the contract --
MR. CARNELL: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: The decision has been made. I
mean, you made a selection of some kind, and then because
somebody came in and talked to you about it and made you
concerned about the process, you then decided, we'll send it to the
county commissioners and see -- get them to void the whole thing.
So the point is, if you left us out of this process, you would have
Page 155
April 8, 2003
already reached a conclusion on the bid, right, if this hadn't come up?
MR. CARNELL: The conclusion that we reached was that we
needed to rebid it as the best choice here so that we could clear the
playing field and there would be no confusion or perception
regarding what the requirements were.
If I could, let me see if I can help you-all a little more. This is a
little bit fuzzy. We got to -- let's work it through together, because I
understand, Commissioner Coyle, exactly what you're saying, and I
think it has a lot of validity, and I don't mean to suggest that rejection
is an easy solution or that we arrived at it flippantly. And let's work
through this, see what the board wants to do.
The argument-- when we first discovered this issue that Mr.
Mader had brought to my staff member, we looked at the language,
and in a strict, literal reading, he is correct in the sense that the place
where it describes the formula for award, it doesn't reference that
we're going to use the discount in the calculation. That -- I'm sorry,
not the discount, the markup.
All right. The -- nonetheless, if we go back to some things that
have been alluded to, you are correct, Commissioner Coyle and
Commissioner Coletta, in referencing the fact that our prior practice
in this area was to factor in the markup into the formula, and that
clearly was the intent. And I can make an argument on behalf of that
position in the sense that when we solicited the pricing, we solicited
the hourly rates and we solicited the markup.
Now, one of the things we can say to abed (sic) what
Commissioner Coyle is saying here is that when we ask for that
markup, that means something. That's relevant. It's in play. So it is
reasonable for the owner to evaluate that in some manner.
And in this case we did not literally in the right narrow place
say exactly that we were going to include the discount in there.
What we did was, we had an estimate for parts based on cost, and we
should have said, plus the markup. But all we did was omit that
Page 156
April 8, 2003
phrase.
Now, the argument in favor of going forward with the award
would be that, well, come on, guys, we've had this previous practice,
our intent was clear, there's an implied value and message and
meaning to that discount being there. If that's there, it means
something, all right. That's the argument. Those are some of the
thoughts that would line up with what I believe Commissioner Coyle
is saying, and I think you ought to take that very seriously.
Now, the other side of this issue is that we did have, two years
ago, an issue with Naples Armature, which at the time your staff
recommended on behalf of them. We were recommending award to
Naples Armature. And in that case, again, different set of facts,
different issue.
But in my judgment, I, frankly, was getting concerned that this
would be the second time around, the second cycle in a row where
we had some abnormality, and I was, frankly, concerned about some
aspersion being cast here if we just went forward with award to one
or the other.
It was a minor mistake, in my opinion, that occurred, but
nonetheless in this instance, I was recommending basically the safer
higher ground.
And there's another reason why, and I -- again, I was looking at
the county's interest, not necessarily the inconvenience to the vendor,
or perhaps even the unfairness for a moment. I don't want to totally
discount that.
But my point of view was, we had seven bidders. As the
woman from Naples Armature correctly stated, this is a highly
competitive contract. I do not believe the rebidding of this contract
will drive people away. I think we'll get a similar response. Maybe a
couple of the higher priced folks may drop out, I don't know. But I
think you'll have, when it's done, a competitive process again with
comparable pricing. I don't think the county will be diminished in
Page 157
April 8, 2003
terms of the follow-up pricing response. And I was looking at this as
an opportunity to clean the slate.
Now, I will make one other statement, again, and, perhaps, what
Commissioner Coyle advocated here is, I can say to Mr. Mader, you
know, where were you prior to the bid opening in terms of a
formality? Now, he made the statement that he talked to Lynn Wood
on my staff, and Lynn told him we were not going to evaluate the
discount. That doesn't make sense. I doubt that Ms. Wood said that.
And I'm not -- there may have been a misunderstanding. I'm not
accusing Mr. Mader of anything improper here. It may have been
nothing more than a misunderstanding. But that discount was there
to be applied in the award.
And we could say to Mr. Mader, the onus was on you to put this
in writing to the purchasing director, which is what the policy -- the
procedure the bid invitation calls for to flush out the issue. So if the
board wants to go that way, there is some -- there are grounds to do
that.
My thought to you was that I believe the interest of the county
can be served through a rebidding process. We're actually positioned
to take bids this week again with the board's okay on this and to be
back to the board the end of this month, first meeting in May. The
current contract doesn't expire till June 4th, so we have some time
here to get the bidding process redone and resubmitted.
I hope that's helpful to you at this point, and the staff will follow
your direction.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Earlier I asked Jim Mitchell to weigh
in on this from the clerk of courts, get the perspective of the clerks.
MR. MITCHELL: First of all, let me -- let me start off by
saying, our intent in sitting up here is not to fill your shoes. This is a
decision that you guys have to make.
And secondly, we do not fill the role of your legal counsel.
But in our role what we would do is look to your policy and ask
Page 158
April 8, 2003
the question, did the bid comply with your policy and are the actions
that staff is asking you to take in compliance with your policy. And I
think if you look to the actual bid -- correct me if I'm wrong, Steve --
but there's probably a provision in there that the county reserves the
right to reject all bids. So this is purely a decision that this board has
to make.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: And the action that Mr. Camell is asking
you to take is in compliance with your policy and it's in compliance
with your bid documents. I mean, that's going to be our-- you know,
that's as far as we can go on this one.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's fine. That's great.
Commissioner Halas, and then Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If we decide --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Then Commissioner Fiala, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If we decide to reject this bid,
what are you going to do to, obviously, clean the language up so that
there is no gray areas?
MR. CARNELL: Well, we're going to make the one straight
clarification that I mentioned with regard to the reference to the
markup in the formula.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And has this been an ongoing
problem in the past also?
MR. CARNELL: No.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Thank you.
I think this has been a very healthy discussion. I know it's not
comfortable. There are certain boundaries here that we weren't too
sure of, where we should be with it. I normally would never talk to
anybody about something that's going to take place. But in this
particular case when it's going to be on the agenda, I recognize the
Page 159
April 8, 2003
right of that person to be able to come on their own recognizance and
talk to the commissioners.
I do find one thing that I want to make sure we don't have a
misunderstanding with in the future, and I understand how it
happened now, is, I believe that you were told not to come, that you
wouldn't be allowed to speak or present your case or something at
one point? But that's been cleared up since then? I'm sure we won't
have that problem in the future.
I guess my question would to be Mr. Weigel, everything that
we're doing at this point in time and what we're looking at with all
these options, are we within legal bounds?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, you are. And Mr. Mitchell, on behalf of
the clerk, was very correct in reciting and getting affirmation from
Steve that, in fact, the staff can make a recommendation to you. The
board has the ability under its own policy, the purchasing policy, to
reject any and all bids. So you would have, really, all flexibility
here.
The executive summary has a staff recommendation to reject all
bids so the process could be done anew.
That's the -- that's the request of staff, but that doesn't mean that
you're merely limited to that, although I think Mr. Coyle's point is a
good one, is that -- in the sense that you're not being asked to select
today, and you don't have to select today. But you must bear in mind
that if you don't reject all the bids, a selection will be upon you, if not
today, at another meeting, concerning the bids that were tendered in
this particular process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. I always like to take
your recommendation from staff, and I appreciate that you are trying
to protect us.
In taking it one step further, if I were a bidder and now I knew
what everybody was bidding, when I came back, of course, I would
Page 160
April 8, 2003
offer a far more competitive bid rather than just the thing I submitted
before. Now would that lead us into some kind of legal problems?
MR. CARNELL: No, no.
MR. WEIGEL: The answer is no.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: What's the pleasure of the board?
I'm sorry, Commissioner Coyle. You're not correct (sic)?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I would just like to say,
Steve, I think you did it right, okay? And I wouldn't support the
voiding of this particular contract. I would recommend -- I'll make a
motion -- I don't know if there's enough support -- but I'll make a
motion that we -- we do not void this contract -- CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or void this procurement
process.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion on the floor. Is
there a second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll second that for sake of
discussion.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't want -- I just did interrupt the
motion. But what I'd say is, if this motion should pass, then it would
appear that the direction to staff is to bring back an agenda item at
the next board meeting with these bids for your consideration and a
recommendation of staff based upon the discussions and
determinations made today. Just to throw that out.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Great. So there's a motion on the
floor, and there's a second. Is there any further discussion? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: All in favor of the motion, signify by
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
Page 161
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
The motion carries 3-0 (sic) -- 3-2, with Commissioner Henning
and Commissioner Halas dissenting. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Just a quick comment, Mr.
Chairman.
Steve, one of the things I'd like to ask at least you consider, is
that on things like this when you're talking about hourly rates, I
mean, bidder A could take 10 hours to do the job, bidder B could
take four hours to do the job, and so you can see how they can get a
big difference in cost to the government.
The City of Naples does have a schedule for their motors and
pumps and things of that nature, and people bid on things like
replacing them, overhauling them, whatever, and so there's a fixed
rate for that so that everybody is sort of on equal ground. If you can,
if the number of motors and things are not so extensive here, it would
be a good thing to at least consider. But I'd just throw that out for
comment.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Our -- I know we're on the
downstroke of our meeting, but I know I have to ask our court
reporter how she's doing, since she's in motherhood, whether we
should-- need to take a five-minute break.
We're going to take a break. Okay. Five minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Would everybody take their seats,
please.
Item #11
Page 162
April 8, 2003
PI JBI~IC COMMENTS ON GENERAIJ TOPICS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, we're now on 12(A), and it's
under county attorney's report and it's --
MS. FILSON: Public comments, sir.
MR. MUDD: You're right. I wrote over that, I'm sorry.
We have public comments, excuse me.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do we have any public speakers?
MS. FILSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have one, Marilou
Carrigan.
MS. CARRIGAN: Good afternoon, Commissioner Henning,
President (sic), Commissioners Coletta, Coyle, Fiala, and Halas. I'm
here to petition for the owners of the taxable property located in
Baker Carroll Point Community requesting that the boundaries of the
Vanderbilt Beach beautification MSTU be redefined to exclude all of
Baker Carroll Point.
The reasoning supporting this request is stated in the petition I
submitted to you and summarized below.
Baker Carroll Point is located at the northwest sector of the
MSTU. It consists of about 40 acres, 10 buildings, and
approximately 700 condo units.
The community is unique in that our gated property has no
frontage on any road that can benefit from MSTU projects. It is
estimated that the properties contributed through an ad valorem tax
assessment approximately 70,000 in the 2002 tax year.
It has recently been confirmed by Mr. Richard Lydon, chair of
the VBB MSTU Advisory Committee, that none of the tax funds
appropriated from this levy can be expended for projects within our
property boundaries because we are a private, gated community.
We have our own system of streets and street lighting and
maintain our own landscaping without taxpayers' support; therefore,
Page 163
April 8, 2O03
we are placed the unprecedented circumstance of being taxed for a
service we cannot receive.
It has been stated that we would indirectly benefit from the
improved ambiance of expanded sidewalks, lighting, and
landscaping, perhaps, even underground utility lines of adjoining
neighborhoods.
With all due respect, that makes no more sense than paying a
tax for fire protection but having the firefighting or EMS service
undeliverable to our community.
Examine every line item in our respective property tax bills, and
we do or can directly benefit from each tax except from the
Vanderbilt Beach beautification MSTU.
We believe it is only fair and equitable for the boundaries
defined in Collier County statute 2001-043 be re-drawn excluding
Baker Carroll Point. Imposition of a tax from which we are, by
statute, precluded from benefit is in direct contradiction with the
fundamental principles of our nation's taxation concept.
It is most sincerely our wish that this matter be addressed and
resolved on the merits of the reasoning we have set forth and the
express wishes of the property owners.
None of us had any voice in the formation of this taxing unit.
There was no notification that it had occurred until a mailing was
received this March announcing the Vanderbilt Beach beautification
MSTU Advisory Committee meeting on March 19th. At least one
vacancy on the committee has been filled without any notice nor
invitation to participate in the process.
We further request to be advised of a date when this matter will
be addressed as an agenda item on a forthcoming Collier County
Board of Commissioners scheduled meeting.
This is respectfully submitted by the presidents of Vanderbilts I,
tower-- excuse me -- Vanderbilt Towers I, II, and III, the president
of Surf Colony I, II and III, the presidents of Gulf Breeze I and II,
Page 164
April 8, 2003
and the president of Bay Point I and II, all the buildings that are on
Baker Carroll Point.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask you a question.9 You
said that your property does not border or any particular roads; is that
correct?
MS. CARRIGAN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How do you get out of your
property?
MS. CARRIGAN: We exit onto --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: 111 Avenue or Gulfshore Drive; is
that correct?
MS. CARRIGAN: Onto Gulfshore, yes. Well, we have a small
property -- our gate is back farther, set back.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you tell me how much of an
impact this has been to your taxes?
MS. CARRIGAN: My tax especially?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MS. CARRIGAN: I'm not sure of that. Mr. Lydon told me it
was only $48, but according my tax bill, it was well over $250.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Ma'am, do you have a copy of your
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Tax?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- what do they call that--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Trim notice?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Trim notice, thank you.
MS. CARRIGAN: Excuse me?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have a copy of your trim
notice that you -- that you get from the property appraiser?
MS. CARRIGAN: No. I don't have anything with me. All I
came today with -- I'm the messenger delivering this petition. That's
all. I didn't come to argue it or really to get into anything.
Page 165
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I understand.
Okay. I just -- I need some help to make a decision whether to
give staff direction to bring this on a future agenda, that's all. That's
why I was asking.
Pleasure of the board?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: This is being offered under public
comments, but it's actually a petition. Can we consider a petition
under public comments and take action on it?
MR. WEIGEL: You can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: If you wish.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Seeing no further discussion,
I want to thank you for being here with us today.
MS. CARRIGAN: Shall I give you these now?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure. I could deliver that.
MS. CARRIGAN: There's a signed petition there.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I'll give it to the commissioners.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Next item?
Item #12A
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $65,000 FOR
OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IN
SUPPORT OF RESOLUTION #2003-428, REGARDING THE
ACQUISITION OF THE MARCO ISLAND/MARCO SHORES
UTILITY SYSTEM BY THE FLORIDA WATER SERVICES-
APPROVED
MR. WEIGEL: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I believe the
next item is 12(A) under county attorney. It's the item that refers to
Page 166
April 8, 2003
request for approval of some additional funding for Mr. Mike
Twomey and Susan Fox, whose efforts have been on behalf of
Collier County and their interests regarding and relating to the
Florida Water Services issues that have been before the legislature, in
the courts and before the Public Services Commission.
I don't know if have you any particular question in regard to
what we have before you today. The 65,000 that is in the agenda for
today, approximately half of that would be required for the
expenditures of billing that we've received from about November 1st
to now for Mr. Twomey.
And I would like to add to the record, if you will, here was a
copy of an article from the Naples Daily News dated March 24th.
It's in regard to Marco's legal counsel costs, and it mentions in regard
to Florida Water Services, if I may, rising legal fees resulting from
Marco's tenuous relationship with Florida Water Services has already
cost the city $489,122; $48,477 in 2001, $130,572 in 2002 and
$310,073 since October 1st.
This 65,000, which we hope would wrap this up as far as county
involvement, is less than a third of what Marco has done, and we
certainly have, up to this point, carried the ball and won the day on
behalf of Marco and Collier County and other communities similarly
situated.
So if you have any questions, I'd certainly respond.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I have a question. So we're saying
that the services have already been provided?
MR. WEIGEL: About half of this would be required for
services. We -- unfortunately I was putting together this -- putting
together this executive summary and wanted to come up with a
realistic figure, and we didn't have a bill for a period of time for Mr.
Twomey, but it did come in, and that with -- that bill is in the 28,000
range, I think, right now for services since October.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. What other work that -- needs
Page 167
April 8, 2003
to be performed?
MR. WEIGEL: There's still an appeal in the Court of Appeals.
Mr. Twomey was authorized just a few board meetings ago to act as
lobbyist on behalf of this as well, and we still have some work in the
public service commission.
Again, it's diminishing at this point and, perhaps, will diminish
quickly, but we're just looking to follow through.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Any other questions?
(No response.)
Entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'd like to make a motion to
approve, please.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: There's a motion by Commissioner
Fiala, second by Commissioner Halas to approve this item.
All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN HENNING:
MR. WEIGEL:
Any opposed?
Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
Item #15
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS - DISCUSSION REGARDING
PORKCHOP AT HARRISON ROAD AND PALM DRIVE, TO BE
FIROI IGHT BACK
Page 168
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Mr. Weigel, do you have any words
of wisdom before -- the close of our deliberation?
MR. WEIGEL: So much to say and so little desire to say it.
No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: County manager, Jim Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Sir, I have two items. First item-- the first item
is a -- basically is an attorney's item, and we didn't talk about it last
time, and we're working through that process right now, and it has to
do with a -- with a letter that was received by you from the clerk
requesting an attorney's opinion by the 14th of April, and the county
attorney has been talking with the clerk's office, and he's working
with Joe Schmitt, and they're working through that process.
So I think to basically answer the letter on that particular item, I
think we're working through that with them without having to go
through the formal process; is that correct, Jim?
MR. MITCHELL: Yeah, absolutely. We met with Joe Schmitt
yesterday along with the county attorney's office, and that is going to
meet the 14th deadline that was outlined in that particular memo
from the clerk.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. Anything else?
MR. MUDD: The next -- the next item is one of a report nature
where the chair and the county attorney and the county manager went
up to Tallahassee to talk to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection on that list of seven items.
We were -- we were successful to provide our replies to them
with notebooks. The commissioner was quite eloquent in letting the
staff know up there that we don't appreciate -- we don't appreciate
their lack of communication as an emergency for the Board of
County Commissioners.
And we have received four items that they still would like us to
request with the governor that they gave us at the meeting, and they
also put us on a scavenger hunt looking for a December letter that
Page 169
April 8, 2003
they supposedly sent us that was already talked about at the dais
during this discussion.
We are in the process of replying to those four questions again
and sending a letter off to hopefully resolve any miscommunications
that we've had with them, which we can't find, and we're doing pretty
good. And two commissioners have gone and talked to --
Commissioner Coletta a week prior, and then Commissioner Henning
on that trip.
So as it stands right now, we have a tentative date to visit the
governor and his board of trustees on the 28th of May.
Sir, would you like to add anything more to that comment?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I was a little disappointed that
we cannot communicate, we need to bring this up in front of the
governor, which I'm sure he has better things to do besides dealing
with this day-to-day business. And I hope the outcome is that the
governor and the cabinet members tell DEP, say, hey, go down to
Collier County and have a dialogue and straighten out this -- these
issues that we're concerned about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can I ask a question? Have you
given us, or are you going to give us a list of items that they have
asked us to respond to?
MR. MUDD: The next four questions?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. We're going to do that here within the
next week.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: And get you the request for information and
whatever backup they gave us and give you the backup that we've
got --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Can you give me the list of
questions initially, then I'll wait for you to get the backup. I'd just
like to know--
Page 170
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: We have the backup of their
questions, and I could forward that on to the commissioners as --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good, good.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I better not do that. I better let
the county manager do that.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner? Commissioner? Mr. Chairman,
I'll get that form.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have anything else?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir. I have one other -- one other request,
and this is a -- this is a memo dated 10 March, we just didn't get to it
before this date, from Commissioner Henning to me, and it has to do
with Harrison Road and Palm Drive intersection.
And if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll read the letter to the -- to the
rest of the board members, because he's asking for an action that was
board direction, and I need to make sure that the board is in
agreement with it.
Due to the proposed expansion of the Collier County
Government Complex, there was a public petition by several
residents of the Glades Country Club Development. They protested
the increase of traffic through their community on Palm Drive.
Due to their concerns, the commissioners directed transportation
staff to install a pork chop mechanism at the intersection of Palm
Drive and Harrison Road to redirect traffic or, rather, discourage it
from using Palm Drive.
Attached, please find a letter from Mr. Rodney Roberts, a
resident of the Glades -- and Commissioner Henning summarizes that
in his remarks. He complains of the increase of traffic due to the
installation of the flex stakes as the traffic simply right turns onto
Palm, drives to the nearest available opening, and makes a U-turn to
continue along Palm in the direction of Glades Boulevard. This is
one of many letters we have received regarding this traffic situation.
Page 171
April 8, 2003
Upon my own inspection, I have seen the damage done to the
Glades property, or rather the county right-of-way where vehicles are
leaving the roadway in their attempt to make a U-tum on Palm Drive.
Also there are many complaints from employees regarding this
intersection as well. This is truly inconvenient for anyone trying to
leave the government complex and head north on Palm Drive.
The egress at the intersection of the government complex and
U.S. 41 East at any time of the day, especially at five when most
employees are leaving is deplorable and dangerous. We have simply
added to this already dangerous situation by taking away one egress
from the county facility and forcing more vehicles to use this exit.
It is my opinion that the traffic on Palm Drive previous to the
flex stakes installation did not warrant this course of action.
Currently we, the commissioners, are receiving hundreds of
letters in regards to the pro -- regards to the proposed north/south
corridor and how the closing of Foxfire has affected the community
negatively.
This action has similarly affected vehicular traffic as we are
forcing it onto the already congested arterial roadways.
We have gone against all that we practice and all that we preach
by closing off a secondary arterial road and forcing the traffic to a
major arterial road. We should absolutely rethink this matter.
I am requesting that you direct the transportation department to
remove the flex stakes at once and return the intersection to its
previous state. We need to undo the hypocritical situation we have
done in this matter.
Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate being
apprised of any action taken on this matter for my information and
files.
And I was doing fine until, I am requesting that you direct the
transportation department. The board-- the board voted to install the
flex stakes. If the board directs me to take the flex stakes out, I'll
Page 172
April 8, 2003
take the flex stakes out, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who is this from?
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: From me.
MR. MUDD: This is from Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Tom.
MR. MUDD: So that's the last bit of communication. I just
need some direction.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. It's in your district. How
do you feel about it?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I've had --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You're darned if you do,
darned if you don't, right, Donna?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's about where I am. I know
that I've heard opinions both ways, and I'd love to hear what the other
commissioners have to say about it.
Let me add though, while we're talking about this, what I am
concerned with is, coming up soon we're going to start the
construction of the parking garage and so forth. I am worried about
all of the construction traffic traveling up and down Palm Drive.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioners, we need to improve
the intersections at Davis and Airport Road. We need to improve all
the egress and ingress that our local government generates here at the
complex. And I guess the debate is, is where do we -- where do we
get those funds?
And I don't want to put a hardship on the Glades community,
but we have created, by those actions, we did -- have created some
other problems, so I guess we need to discuss that at a future meeting
of-- on a side issue that, how can we make these intersection
improvements so we can get the traffic to flow a little bit better and
when can we do it and where does -- where does (sic) the funds come
from, but the flex stakes is causing a huge problem of what I see, so
it's the pleasure of the other commissioners.
Page 173
April 8, 2003
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is the flex stakes causing the
problem for the community more so than it is for the employees?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Well, I received some
correspondence from the Glades community saying that it is causing
other problems such as degradation of the median, unsafe U-Tums.
These people are trying to get around to the -- wherever they're
heading, you know, in East Naples or wherever.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Coming out of the complex here,
you're talking about, right?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Causing it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just have one observation, and
that is that we -- we made that decision in a public hearing, and the
people from Glades were represented, at least part of them, and I
would be reluctant to change it unless we advertised it and had those
people come back in and have a private discussion concern -- I mean
public discussion concerning it, because there was sort of an implied
contract there. It was packaged with the approval of all this other
development in the government complex, and those people were
concerned about all the traffic --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- coming through their area, and
we made a commitment to them to do something about that. And I'd
be very reluctant to change it without having some public input in an
advertised meeting concerning it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I can agree with that direction, and
maybe we can show what improvements that we're going to do as far
as this D RI.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I think that not only the
people here that work on this campus, but everybody that comes --
Page 174
April 8, 2003
ingress and egresses this campus, whether they're visiting here or not,
we need to look at the overall picture here, and hopefully we can get
transportation here -- there's nobody here at the present time -- to
really give a serious look at this so that we address those issues by
the citizens of Glades, and I think that's -- we need to make sure that
we are good neighbors. That's the gist of the thing.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Do you have sufficient direction on
my memo to you, bring it back?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: We'll bring it -- I'd like to bring it back when we
do the PUD for the-- for this--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Complex.
MR. MUDD: -- for this complex, and then it will probably be
an appropriate time to talk about that issue again.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: When is that?
MR. MUDD: We're working on it right now. So,
Commissioner, I'd tell you it will probably be -- we're about a year
out from that. We can bring it back in two weeks, if you want. I can
post it and advertise it for the Glades folks.
Hey, we have a workshop. Leo just reminded me. We have a
workshop on the government center, okay, and we're going to talk
about the master plan during that process, and I think that would be
an ample opportunity if we put information out to the Glades folks to
let them know that we'll talk about that and we'll get some further
direction by the board.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Transportation --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's on our calendar somewhere.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I might suggest a time certain
for that element of it so that we don't have to have them wait all day
long for it.
Page 175
April 8, 2003
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I think it would -- yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Let's go down the line,
commissioners' comments, then we could always go back to county
manager.
Commissioner Coletta, do you have anything?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just wanted to express my
sincere appreciation to staff and my fellow commissioners for the
help with the District 5 workshop that we had in Immokalee. It was
very well received. I've heard nothing but positive comments from
the people that attended it. And I'm looking very much forward to
your workshops.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Unlike the county attorney, I have
so little to say but a burning desire to say it.
I attended a City of Naples workshop just recently, and I was
asked what the county is doing about solving the red tide problem,
and I explained that we didn't have research labs and that there were
a lot of federal, state, university and private foundations who are
doing a lot of research in that area.
But a couple of people encouraged me to at least ask the county
commission if you would like to fund a research facility to solve the
red tide problem, and I said, okay, I'll ask you, so now I'm asking
you, okay?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: My perspective is, I'm not sure if the
scientists do know what --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right, they don't.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- what the problem is, and it's a
much bigger picture than here in Collier County. It's all the way up
the coast, I believe on both sides, but mainly on this side because of
the lay of the water--
MR. MUDD: And this side goes past Tampa --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Right.
Page 176
April 8, 2003
MR. MUDD: -- okay, depending on--
CHAIRMAN HENNING: And that's probably something that
we probably ought to ask our legislation and/or our representatives in
Congress. And I'll definitely support a letter for the commissioner of
the district of the City of Naples of-- bringing back a request for
funding from either one of those sources.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. I really think -- I've also
been approached by constituents in my area in regards to the red tide,
and I think this problem is a lot bigger than the resources that this
county has. And I think we need to have either federal or state
resources, and hopefully we can bring this to the attention of the
people in Tallahassee so that we can make a study. Because I think
this is -- it seems to be getting worse over the years, unless we're just
in a cycle here. Maybe it has something to do with E1 Nino, who
knows.
CHAIRMAN HENN1NG: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I think that's a great idea to
approach our state legislators and have them bring that to their
attention as well as the Feds, because right now they're taking our
money and we're going to have a tough budget as it is. As they take
money out of Collier County, I don't think we have any extra. We'll
let them pay for that.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Possibly we might be able to
get the university involved in this with their research centers and the
professors that are there, give it to them as an objective to go and
then give us direction what to carry to the state legislative body.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's an -- that's a great idea.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. That was my
recommendation to the group at the time. The marine research
facility is several years away yet, but I think that is the perfect group
Page 177
April 8, 2003
to take a look at this. And I should point out that red tide is not a
Florida problem. It is a worldwide problem. It has occurred in just
about every ocean I've visited, and that's been most of them.
So as one lady has informed me who worked in the area of the
Red Sea, that's why the Red Sea is called the Red Sea is because of
the red tide. So it is a problem that I've seen just about everywhere.
And I know that lots of people are working on it, and I wouldn't
want to presume that we're going to solve this mystery of the
universe, and -- but I do think that we could ask that marine research
facility if they would like to take that on as a project.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I agree.
Do you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No, nothing more from me, thank
yOU.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say that it was a
pleasure to be out there in Commissioner Coletta's area, and they
have a lot of nice people out there, and it was a very enjoyable
evening, and I appreciated going out there. It was a long drive out
there and a long drive back, but it was well worth it. Thank you for
the invite.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Thank you, Commissioner
Coletta, for that workshop. And while I'm at it, I'll plug the next one
coming up, which is mine, April 17th, at-- it's for the entire East
Naples community. Anybody who's interested, or anybody else, it
doesn't have to only be East Naples, and it's going to be at East
Naples Community Park on Thomasson Drive, Thomasson Road, and
I'd love to invite everybody out to that.
Secondly, I was talking about a troops rally this weekend and I
was saying that one would be here. I'm sorry. The date has been
Page 178
April 8, 2003
changed just since we've been in our session from this morning till
this afternoon.
On Sunday, for all who are interested, they're still going to hold
the rally over there on U.S. 41 out by Pine Ridge Road where they've
been getting bigger and bigger crowds every week. They want to
continue that practice, so they're going to have one here in East
Naples on Saturday between two and four at the comer of Airport
Road and U.S. 41. So I wanted people to know that.
And lastly, a personal plug, kind of personal. My Kiwanis Club
on Marco is going to be doing a fund raiser for the Pace Center for
Girls in Immokalee this Thursday, and if anybody is interested either
in buying tickets for the luncheon or buying tickets for a little
donation that they're doing, please see me. They're only 10 bucks for
the donation.
Thank you very much, and I appreciate this opportunity to tell
you about all these things.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you. And what time is your
workshop on --
MR. MUDD: Starts at seven.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Seven p.m.?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, seven p.m., yeah.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Oh, I'm sorry. Your town hall
meeting is at April --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: April 17th, at -- from seven to nine.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay, great.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You can't pay off commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, you can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not for 10 dollars.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: I got a couple items.
The -- one item that I -- was on our agenda is talk about
shopping cart ordinance. I can tell you I need to do a little bit more
work on that before I bring it back, but it is a problem in the Golden
Page 179
April 8, 2003
Gate City area along with Bayshore -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: -- about these abandoned shopping
carts. And Commissioner Halas, I'm not sure if you have any in your
area with shopping carts, but--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: In an old littered area down in
Naples South, remember?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We had one sitting there for two
months, and I just had a call on that as well, and we've had a few
problems in East Naples.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm glad you're tackling that.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I hope we can find a solution for
that. I think that --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Yeah, me too. I can tell you that
from years past, I personally went out there and picked up a lot of
shopping carts and delivered it back to the proper owner. And it was
a community project with the participation of the shop owners.
Well, years ago they decided not to participate, and -- but they
were still getting their carts delivered because it was such an
important item as far as the aesthetics of the community. But
anyways, I'm not going to belabor that point.
The next item is, the fire department has -- wants to address the
Board of Commissioners on traffic calming devices. And we -- we
kind of mixed up -- got things mixed up. We didn't get them on this
week's agenda, so I didn't request it for the next meeting, but in the
meantime that -- I hope that we can delay any traffic calming until
we have the input of the fire districts. Is that possible?
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 180
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Because the letter was actually
written early March, and it wasn't able to get on our March 24th --
25th agenda because of time constraints.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Can I comment on that?
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Sure.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you. In Lely Golf Estates --
CHAIRMAN HENNING: It's for you.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Oh, for the Pace girls. Thank you very
much.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: You're welcome.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Tom will get you
his 10 dollars later.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lely Golf Estates or Lely Country
Club over there on Forest Hills Boulevard, I guess, have been going
through the process and they decide -- they felt that they could ask
their own people for the money, and they're going to come up
shooting to put the traffic devices in, and I guess that's in process. I
would hope, being that they've gone that far, that that won't be
stopped. That's on Forest Hills Boulevard. CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, I don't know where it sits as far as
building and the permitting out and where the collection went or
anything else. I'll check on it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I got one other item, and that's in
regards to engine braking, and there's still some more information
coming in in regards to -- and engine braking again is the Jake brake
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Jake brake.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- issue, okay? And there is -- we
are compiling some more information, and probably bring that back
to the board at a later date.
Page 181
April 8, 2003
CHAIRMAN HENNING: That's coming -- it's on the agenda
for the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: So you better do your homework.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're working on it.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Okay. The county manager had an
answer about-- the workshop on the government facility is? MR. MUDD: Twenty-ninth of April, sir.
CHAIRMAN HENNING: Twenty-ninth of April, okay.
No further business, we are adjourned.
*****Commissioner Coletta moved, seconded by Commissioner
Halas and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted:*****
Item #16Al
PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR JUNE 24, 2003 FOR
CONSIDERATION OF A DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
IMPACT DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR PETITION DRI-2000-01,
HFRITAGE BAY
Item #16A2
SATISFACTION OF LIEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
CASE NO. 2002-001 STYLED BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA VS. ROCCO
LACQUANITI REGARDING VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 2.7.6.1
AND 2.7.6.5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 91-102, OF THE COLLIER
COl JNTY I~AND DEVEIJOPMENT CODE
Item #16A3
Page 182
April 8, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-133 GRANTING FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF
THE ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "TIBURON-THE
NORMAN ESTATES AT PELICAN MARSH UNIT TWENTY
THRF, F,"
Item #16A4
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "MEDITERRA PHASE THREE
EAST, UNIT ONE", AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD
FORM CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
AND APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SF, CI IRITY-WITH STIPI libATIONS
Item #16A5
RECORD THE FINAL PLAT OF "SOUTHEAST IMMOKALEE"
AND APPROVAL OF THE STANDARD FORM
CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND
APPROVAL OF THE AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE
SECI JRITY-WITH STIPI JI~ATIONS
Item # 16A6
BUDGET AMENDMENT OF $60,000 FOR THE EXPENDITURE
OF MONIES FROM FUND 186 IMMOKALEE
REDEVELOPMENT FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE,
INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE (FOR 5 YEARS), OF
STREETLIGHTS BY LEE COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
Item #16A7
Page 183
April 8, 2003
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR EXPENSES RELATED TO
MOVING THE COMMUNITY PLANNING AND
REDEVELOPMENT SECTION STAFF FROM THE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING TO NEW OFFICES
I,OCATED AT 3050 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
Item # 16B 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER THE OPERATING
BUDGET FOR THREE POSITIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION
OPERATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION MAINTENANCE TO
THE ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES
DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOIINT OF $98,852
Item #16B2-Continued to April 22, 2003
CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE OF RECORDED EASEMENTS
AND DEEDS FOR WHIPPOORWILL LANE; APPROVAL OF AN
INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT; AND ACCEPTANCE OF
CASH EgCROW
Item #16B3
RESOLUTION 2003-134 ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING"
ZONE ALONG CAPRI BOULEVARD AS PLATTED IN ISLES OF
CAPRI SUBDIVISION; APPROXIMATELY SIX (6) SIGNS WILL
BE NEEDED AT A COST OF $100 EACH FOR A TOTAL OF
$600
Item #16B4
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 IN THE AMOUNT OF $86,509.20 TO
AJAX PAVING INDUSTRIES, INC., FOR THE GOODLETTE
Page 184
April 8, 2003
FRANK ROAD PROJECT, FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO
VANDERBII,T BEACH ROAD; PROJECT NO. 60134
Item #16B5
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE LELY GOLF ESTATES
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU FOR THE PURPOSE OF IRRIGATION
AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MEDIANS ON
ST. ANDREWS BOULEVARD, PEBBLE BEACH BOULEVARD
AND FOREST HIIJJS BOIII~EVARD
Item #16B6
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT LUMP SUM AGREEMENT TO
RELOCATE 36 POLES ON IMMOKALEE ROAD FROM TWIN
EAGLES TO WILSON BOULEVARD, PROJECT NO. 60018.
(FISCAIJ IMPACT $907729)
Item #16B7
FINAL CHANGE ORDER #4 FOR PROJECT #02-3366, SR 84,
DAVIS BOULEVARD PHASE II, PROJECT #60098, FOR
LANDSCAPE RENOVATION, REDUCING THE CONTRACT BY
$19,682.77 FOR A REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT
$672~357.98-WITH HANNIH~A I~ANDSCAPING
Item #16B8
RATIFY A DEDUCT CHANGE ORDER (NO. 8) IN THE
AMOUNT OF $21,162.19 TO THE K.E.R. ENTERPRISES INC.
(DBA ARMADILLO UNDERGROUND) CONTRACT FOR THE
WIGGINS PASS OUTFALL, PHASE I PROJECT, PROJECT NO.
51212-REDUCING THE CURRENT CONTRACT AMOUNT TO
$885.156.97
Page 185
April 8, 2003
Item # 16B9
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
PINEWOOD COMMONS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, FOR
THE FUTURE LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE ON
AIRPORT ROAD AND PINE WOOD CIRCIJE
Item # 16B 10
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 TO THE IMMOKALEE ROAD/I-75
INTERCHANGE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $190,621.29 WHICH INCLUDES A PORTION OF
WORK TO BE PAID FOR BY BRENTWOOD LAND PARTNERS,
IJ,C. (PROJECT NO_ 66042A)
Item #16B 11
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND RIVIERA FEDERATION
ASSOCIATION, iNC. (RFA) FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF A
PORTION OF CHARLEMAGNE BOULEVARD AT NO COST TO
COLLIER COUNTY WITH AN ESTIMATED SAViNGS TO THE
COl INTY OF AlqOl IT $2500
Item # 16B 12
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,397.28 TO
AJAX PAViNG INDUSTRIES iNC., FOR THE GOODLETTE
FRANK ROAD PROJECT, FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO
VANDFRFIII,T PlF, ACH ROAD: PROJECT NC). 60134
Item # 16B 13
Page 186
April 8, 2003
RESOLUTION 2003-135 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LOCAL
AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT FOR THE RURAL SAFETY
RF, FI IGF, PROJFJCT
Item # 16B 14
CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,157.30 TO
BETTER ROADS, INC., FOR THE LIVINGSTON ROAD
PROJECT, PHASE III, FROM PINE RIDGE ROAD TO
IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 62071, RELEASE OF WCI
COMMUNITIES IN EXCHANGE FOR PAYMENT OF
$2977791 _50
Item # 16B 15
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING CARRY FORWARD
AMOUNTS FROM FY02 FOR THE BAYSHORE
BEAUTIFICATION MSTU FUND (160) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$11 2~249
Item # 16C 1
REQUEST FOR THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
(USACE) TO PERFORM A DREDGING ASSESSMENT OF
GOODI,AND CANAI,S
Item # 16C2-Moved to Item gl OD
Item #16C3
CONTRACT C-15374 WITH THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (SFWMD) TO PARTICIPATE IN A
3-YEAR STATEWIDE SURFACE WATER QUALITY
Page 187
April 8, 2003
MONITORING EFFORT IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,800
A NNI 1A I Jl ,Y
Item #16C4
CORRECTED SOURCES OF $71,155 IN FUNDS FOR THE
UTILITY PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
AND INSPECTION SERVICES BY PBS&J, INC., CHANGE
ORDER FOR GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD (PINE RIDGE ROAD
TO VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD) FOUR AND SIX LANE
IMPROVEMENTS~ PROJECT 60134
Item #16C5
REJECT BID 03-3482 SOUTH COUNTY WATER
RECLAMATION FACILITY BELT FILTER PRESS SERVICE
PIJATFORM ADDITIONS
Item #16C6
COMMITTEE SELECTION OF SIX (6) FIRMS FOR CONTRACT
NEGOTIATIONS RELATED TO RFP 03-3484 "FIXED TERM
INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS ENGINEERING
SERVICES" FOR MAXIMUM ANNUAL FEES OF $500,000 PER
FIRM PER YEAR-CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE, INC.;CAROLLO
ENGINEERS;MCKIM & CREED;Q.GRADY MINOR &
ASSOC.;RKS CONSI II,T1NG F, NG1NF, ERS, INC. AND WESTIN
Item #16C7
CHANGE ORDER 2 TO WORK ORDER 61 FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTERN INTERCONNECT FOR
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS, IN THE DEDUCT
Page 188
April 8, 2003
AMOUNT OF $4,725-TO MITCHELL AND STARK
CONSTRI ICTION COMPANY, 1NC.
Item #16C8
CHANGE ORDER 2 TO WORK ORDER UC-004 FOR THE
RELOCATION OF WATER AND SEWER MAINS RELATED TO
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION'S
WIDENING OF U.S. 41 FROM BAREFOOT WILLIAMS ROAD
TO EAST OF SR 951, IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,124-TO
MITCHF, IJ, AND STARK CONSTRI ICTION COMPANY, INC.
Item #16C9
METCALF AND EDDY WORK ORDER #ME-FT-03-01, AND
WORK ORDER #ME-FT-03-02 IN THE AMOUNT OF $90,385
FOR THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN REQUIRED BY THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(USEPA) FOR WATER SYSTEM FACILITIES AT COLLIER
COUNTY, PROJECT 70170 AND APPROVE BUDGET
AMENDMF, NTS
Item # 16C 10
WORK ORDER NO. UC-023 (EXHIBIT A) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$535,600 FOR FOUR PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS TO
KYLE CONSTRUCTION INC., UNDER CONTRACT 02-3345 -
ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITY
CONTRACTING SERVICES, PROJECT NO. 73051
Item # 16D 1
AWARD OF RFP #03-3454, "GOLDEN GATE AQUATIC
FACILITY CONCESSION" WITH ANTICIPATED REVENUE OF
Page 189
April 8, 2003
$1800 FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY03-TO THAT'S AMORE IN
N APOI,I: INC.
Item # 16D2
THE SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICE EMPLOYMENT HOST
AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH THE WORKFORCE COUNCIL
OF SOl ITHWF, ST FI,ORIDA: INC
Item #16D3-Moved to Item #10E
Item # 16D4
RESOLUTION 2003-136 AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF
A GRANT APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000 TO
THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
COMMISSION FOR THE FLORIDA BOATING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
Item # 16E 1
ADDITION OF VENDORS TO SUPPLEMENT CONTRACT #03-
3426 "QUICK COPY SERVICES" (ESTIMATED DOLLAR
AMOUNT $40,000)-MIDWEST REPROGRAPHICS AND COLOR
TF, C
Item #16E2-Moved to Item #1 OF
Item # 16E3
SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF FIRMS FOR
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 03-3462 "FIXED TERM
PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACQUISITION" (ESTIMATED DOLLAR AMOUNT OF
Page 190
April 8, 2003
CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $500,000 ANNUALLY PER
FIRM)-TBE GROUP; RWA CONSULTING; COASTAL
ENGINEERING; GEORGE F. YOUNG, INC. AND Q. GRADY
MINOR
Item #16E4
PREFERRED PROVIDER PAYOR ORGANIZATION
AGREEMENT PORTION OF THE MANAGED CARE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMMUNITY HEALTH PARTNERS
AND COI,IJER COl INTY
Item #16E5
PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM EXPENSES ASSOCIATED
WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF TWO (2) FDOT RADIO
TOWERS THAT THE COUNTY CURRENTLY LEASES SPACE
ON AT TOTAL COST OF $171,658-GOFF COMMUNICATIONS
TO REMOVE EQUIPMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. TO INSTALL REPLACEMENT
EOI IIPMENT AT THE MII.ES ClTY TOWER
Item #16E6
OPT-OUT OF A FORMAL MANAGED CARE ARRANGEMENT
FOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE PURSUANT
TO CHANGES IN THE FLORIDA WORKERS' COMPENSATION
STATUTES, CHAPTER 440-WITH WORKCARE PROGRAM
ADMINISTERED BY COMMI INITY HEAI,TH PARTNERS
Item #16E7
AWARD WORK ORDER #VC-02-06 UNDER RFP #02-3349,
GENERAL CONTRACTORS SERVICES, TO VARIAN
Page 191
April 8, 2003
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE PARTIAL
RENOVATIONS OF THE 6TM FLOOR OF THE COURTHOUSE
FOR THE CLERK OF COURTS CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
DEPARTMENTS 1N THE SlIM OF $156~800
Item #16E8
LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLLIER COUNTY AND
AMERICAN TOWER, L.P. AT AN ANNUAL COST OF $24,768-
FOR TOWER RENTAl.
Item #16E9
REPORT CONCERNING THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF
ITEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE COUNTY SURPLUS
AUCTION OF MARCH 15, 2003, RESULTING IN $285,637.25 IN
NET REVENI IES
Item # 16F 1
BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $253,926 TO
TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE LANDSCAPING AND
IRRIGATION PROJECT TO THE U.S. 41 NORTH PHASE II
I.ANDSCAPING PROJECT. (PEI.ICAN BAY SERVICF. S)
Item #16F2
ESTABLISH A COMBINED MINIMUM NET PRESENT VALUE
SAVINGS TARGET OF 5% IN ANTICIPATION OF A CURRENT
REFUNDING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER
DISTRICT, WATER AND SEWER REFUNDING REVENUE
BONDS; SERIES 1994A AND SF. RIES 1 99413
Page 192
April 8, 2003
Item #16F3
EXTEND THE VACATION ACCRUAL CAP FOR EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, KENNETH
PINEAU-FROM 440 TO 520 HOURS, RETROACTIVE TO
JANUARY 1, 2003 AND CONTINUING THROUGH HIS
RETIREMENT DATE OF IIINE 30~ 2003
Item # 16H 1-Withdrawn
COMMISSIONER HENNING REQUEST FOR APPROVAL FOR
PAYMENT TO ATTEND WATER SYMPOSIUM 2003 AS
SERVING A VALID PUBLIC PURPOSE-TO BE HELD MAY 1,
2003, AT THE RITZ-CARLTON TIBURON GOLF RESORT AND
MAY 2, 2003, AT THE INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE, IN THE
AMOI INT OF $195.00
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE-FILED AND/OR
REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 193
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
April 8, 2003
FOR BOARD ACTION:
1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED:
Clerk of Courts: Submitted for public record, pursuant to Florida Statutes,
Chapter 136.06(1), the disbursements for the Board of County Commissioners for
the period:
1. Disbursements for March 1, 2003 through March 7, 2003
2. Disbursements for March 8, 2003 through March 14, 2003
Districts:
Fiddler's Creek Community Development District - Minutes of January
22, 2003 and District Map; Minutes of October 23, 2002 and Unaudited
Financial Statements dates September 30, 2002; Minutes of January 22,
2003 and Unaudited Financial Statements dated December 31, 2002.
Audit FY 2002 and Management Letter.
Mediterra South Community Development District - Minutes of October
23, 2003 and Unaudited Financial Statements dated September 30, 2002.
o
Collier Mosquito Control District - District Maps and Public Facilities
Report.
Naples Heritage Community Development District - Minutes of Meeting
dated October 14, 2002; Unauadited Financial Statements dated
September 30, 2002 and Unaudited Financial Statements dated December
31, 2002.
Pelican Marsh Community Devleopment District - Audit FY02 and
Management letter.
Cedar Hammock Community Development District - Minutes of
November 18, 2002 Meeting and unaudited Financial Statements dated
October 31, 2002.
East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District - Audit FY02 and
Management Letter.
Devil's Garden Water Control District - Audit FY02 and Management
Letter
H:Data/Format
C. Minutes:
Forest Lakes MSTU Advisory Committee - Agenda for March 7, 2003;
Minutes of February 14, 2003, Agenda for March 28, 2003, Minutes of
March 7, 2003
DSAC Advisory Committee - Agenda for March 5, 2003; Minutes of
February 5, 2003.
o
Collier County Planning Commission Advisory Committee - Agenda for
March 6, 2003; Minutes of February 6, 2003. Agenda for March 20, 2003;
Minutes of March 6, 2003
4. Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board - Minutes of January 30, 2003.
o
Bayshore Beautification MSTU - Minutes of February 12, 2003; Agenda
for March 12, 2003; Minutes of February 12, 2003.
Environmental Advisory Council - Agenda for March 5, 2003; Minutes of
February 5, 2003.
Workforce Housing Advisory Committee - Agenda for February 26,
2003.
Productivity Committee - Minutes of January 15, 2003; Minutes of
January 15, 2003.
Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee - Minutes of February 27,
2003. Agenda for March 6, 2003, Minutes of February 6, 2003.
10.
Livingston Road Phase II Beautification MSTU - Minutes of February 5,
2003; Agenda for February 5, 2003.
11.
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for March 19, 2003;
Minutes of February 19, 2003.
12.
Collier County CDBG - Citizen Advisory Task Force - Agenda for
December 12, 2002; Minutes of December 12, 2002; Agenda for March
20, 2003, Minutes of March 20, 2003
13. Isles of Capri Fire/Rescue Advisory Board - February 6, 2003
14. Collier County Airport Authority - Minutes of February 10, 2002
15.
Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee - Agenda for
March 20, 2003; Minutes of February 27, 2003.
16.
Historical Archaeological Preservation Board- Agenda for March 19,
2003, Minutes of February 19, 2003.
H:Data/Format
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes of September 12, 02; October 10,
02; November 14, 02; December 12, 02; January 9, 03; February 1, 02,
February 22, 02 and March 1, 02.
Collier County Contractor's Licensing Board - Agenda for March 18,
2003
Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board -
Agenda for March 12, 2003.
Radio Road Beautification MSTU - Agenda for March 18, 2003; Minutes
of February 18, 2003.
Immokalee Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee - Notes for
February 19, 2003, Agenda for March 19, 2003.
Collier County Airport Authority - Agenda for March 10, 2003; Minutes
of February 10, 2002.
H:Data/Format
April 8, 2003
Item #16K1
STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE
SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 176 IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE
DISTRICT, ET AL, IMMOKALEE ROAD, PROJECT NO. 60018-
STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $17,804.37 INTO THE
COl IRT REGISTRY
Item # 16K2
STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO PARCEL 908 IN
THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER COUNTY V. JESSIE M.
DURDEN, ETAL, (SANTA BARBARA SEWER FORCE MAIN
INTERCONNECT- PROJECT 73132) AT A COST OF $1,500-TO
MARC OATES~ ESQ
Item #16K3
STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING AND STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION
OF PARCEL 137 IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. ED WARD STANLEY SANDITEN, ETAL,
(IMMOKALEE PHASE II PROJECT)-STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE
SI JM OF $4,500 INTO THE REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Item # 16K4
OFFER OF JUDGMENT RELATIVE TO THE FEE SIMPLE
ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 110 IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. NORTHSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
ET AL, CASE NO. 00-0136-CA (PINE RIDGE ROAD PROJECT
#60111)-STAFF TO DEPOSIT THE SUM OF $357,800 INTO THE
REGISTRY OF THE COl IRT
Page 194
April 8, 2003
Item # 16K5
RATIFY AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S
RETENTION OF EXPERT WITNESSES AND CONSULTANTS
FOR THE COUNTY IN THE LAWSUIT ENTITLED COLLIER
COUNTY V. NORTHSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ETAL,
(PINE RIDGE ROAD PROJECT), EXEMPT THE COUNTY
ATTORNEY FROM THE PURCHASING POLICY IF AND TO
THE EXTENT THE PURCHASING POLICY IS APPLICABLE,
AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN ANY
NECFJSSARY RETENTION DOCI IMENTS
Item #16K6
EXECUTE A CORRECTIVE RELEASE OF LIEN ARISING OUT
OF AN ORDER IMPOSING FINE/LIEN IN CODE
ENFORCEMENT BOARD CASE ENTITLED BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS V. WENDALL L. KRAMER,
S,4LV. dTORE F. ,4NGH, ERI', ,4ND S,4LV,4TORE C GRECH
Item #17A
ORDINANCE 2003-13 RE: SE-03-AR-3777, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING ORDINANCE 02-07, THE RICHLAND PUD TO
CORRECT A SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN SECTION 6.4 -
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS, TRANSPORTATION
PARAGRAPH NUMBER 8 OF THE RICHLAND PUD THAT IS
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD (CR. 846) AND COIJ,IF, R BOIII~EVARD (C.R. 951)
Page 195
April 8, 2003
Item # 17B
RESOLUTION 2003-137 RE: VA-2002-AR-3418, ROLAND AND
STELLA RICARD REQUESTING AN AFTER-THE-FACT
VARIANCE OF 1.5 FEET FROM THE MINIMUM REAR YARD
SETBACK OF 20 FEET TO 18.5 FEET FOR A SCREENED
ENCLOSURE ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 109 BORDEAUX CIRCLE,
FIIRTHFR DFJSCRIBF. D AS RIVIERA GOIJF ESTATES_ IINIT 2
Item #17C-Moved to Item #8C
Item #17D-Moved to Item #7B
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:40 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZON1NG APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
' T6~7I H~NN~HAIRMAN
ATTEST'
DWIGHT E'~'BROCK,. CLERK
slii~t~'s ~11~.
Page 196
April 8, 2003
These minutes ap~6~ed by the Board on -~,~,/~
as presented ,---'/' or as corrected'
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM
Page 197