The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 12/02/1997 RDecember 2, 1997 COI~0~R COUIWI'Y BOAI~ OF COUNTY t'~[ISS'rONERS AGENDA December 2, 1997 9:00 A.M. RE(~ TO ~ ~ }~0ARD ~ ~ W~ICH ARE NOT ON Tills AGE~DA NUST BE ~ IN WRITING ~ EXPLAI~ATION TO T~E C(XINT~ AI~I~7~A~ AT ~EAST 13 D~YS PRI~ TO TT[E DATE. OF T~E MEETII~G AND ~ ~ ~ UNDER °PUBLIC PETITIONS'. AI%~Y ~ M~O DECI~UES TO APPEAL A DI~IISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A ~ OF THE P~0(~DINC~ PERTAINING THERETO, AND ~ N~Y NEED TO ~ TI~T A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE EVIDENCE UP(~ ~CH TI~ ~ IS TO BE BASED. AI~ R~GI~ PUBLIC ~ WIL~ BE LIMITED TO FIVE (5) MII~YTES UNLE~ l~I~0~ F0~ ADDIT~0I~A~ TIME IS GRANTED BY ~ ASSISTED LISTEFI'iI~. DEVICES FOR TH~ HEARING II, PAIRED ARE AVAIIASI~ IN THE ~ CO~ISSI~' OFFICE. 12:00 K)(~ TO 1:00 P.~. 1. INVOCATIG~i Apprbved ~ud/ot'Adopr~dwith ch~ges - 5/0, ~ith the exception of Item el6A1 - 4/0 (Coss~ssicmer Mac'Kie abetained) 4. APPROVAL OF ~ 5. PItOClAI~TI0[~S ~ SE~/I~ ~ 1) Robert Tucker - Facilities Management Department- 20 years 2! Christine Hoopingarner - Public Works/Operations - 5 years Bernie Sullivan - Pollution Control - 5 years Pa~e I December 2, 1997 6. APPROVAL OF CLEKK'S ~ A. A~A~YSI$ OF~TO~ FO~CON~ING~IES. 7. PUBLIC PETITIONS Terrance L. Ke~ple representing Boy Scout Troop 274 request a waiver of special events fee. To be placed on the Consent A~en~a - 5/0 1) Petition C-97-6, Collier County Agricultural Fair & Exposition, Inc., requesting a ~ermft to conduct a carnival from January 9 through January 17, 1998, on the east side of C. R. 846 in Sec. 14, T48S, R27E. Carnfva! Permit 97-6 - A~roved with stf$~ulations 5/0 l) Adopt a Resolution to increase the speed limit on the segment of Logan/Santa Barbara Boulevard from C.R. 896 (Pine Ridge Road) south to the vicinity of Hunter Boulevard from 40 MPH to 45 MPM for both NoL'th ~olJ~d a~d South Bound Roadways. ~luti~ 97-448 - A~o~te~ $/0 2) Award the 'Airport Pulling Road median irrigation refurbishment' Bid 97-2740 to Horticultural Industries, Inc. A~rove~ in the amount of $65,170.7% - 5/0 C. PUBLIC 9. CO~H~T~ ATT(H~EY'S ~ORT 10. BOARD OF COONT~ A. ~.u~ointment of member to the Black Affairs Advisory Board. ~esolutiot~ 97-449 a$~x~tnt~u]g Rufus Watlon - Adcs~ted 5/0 Request for straw ballot regarding the Cleveland Clinic Page 2 December 2, 1997 (Cor~uissioner Constantine) Denied - 2/3 ~.C~mmlssicrners Berry, Mac'Kie and Hancock opposed) 11. OTHER ~IT[~'I(m;~. OFFIC~S To approve the purchase of additional voting machines for use in future 1998 elections. Rap.roved 5/0 PUBLIC ~ ~ ~ TOPICS PUBLIC ~J%R~ WILL BE KEARD IMMEDIATELY FOL~ STAFF ITF24S 12. ADVERTISED PUBLIC ~2Ul/NGS - BCC A. CO~I~ENSIV~ PLAN l) Petition SNR-97-1, Rich Henderlong of Kensington Golf & Country Club representing Anton Steiner of Kensington Park PUD requesting a street name change from High Street to Kensington High Street located in Kensington Park, Phase One, Phase ?wo, Phase Three A, and Phase Three B of the Kensington Park PUD, in Sec. 13, T49S, R25E. (Continued frem the meeting of 11/18/97) Res. 97-450 Adopt~ 5/0 13. BOARD OF ZOelINI3 Al:rI~ALs A. A~VERTISED PU~.IC HEARINGS STAFF' S ~CATIf~S 15. BOARD OF~ CO~SSIONERS' C~4MUNICATIONS Discussion resulting in reconsideration of Item #16AL, in order for Commissioner Mac'Kie to abstain. B. Update re dispute with former Commissioner Matthews. 16. COWSENTAG'EiqDA - All matters listedunder this item are considered tO be routine and action will be taken by one motion without separate discussion of each item. If d/scu~sion is desired by a member of the Boar4, that ite~(s) will be removed from the Consent A~e~da a~d¢onsidered separately. Approved and/or ach~ptedwith changes - 5/0, with the exception of Page 3 2) December 2, 1997 Item 116A1 - 4/0 (Co~m~iss[oner Mac'Kie abstained) CC~KTNIT"I DEVELO~ & ]~F/RC~NTAL SERVI~ Request to approve the final plat of °Pebblebrook Lakes' With stipulations az~d co~struction & Maintenance AGreement Approved 4/0 (C~.--lssfoner Mac'Kie abstained). Approval of Co~ercial Excavation Permit No. 59.620, Twin Eagles Golf and Country Club, located in Secs. 17 and 20, T48S, R27E, bounded on the north and east by land zoned estates, on the south by land zoned A-MHO and Estates, and on the west by land zoned A-MHd and A-HHO/C.U. (Bonita Bay East Golf Club) 3) Approval for recording the final plat of 'Winterview Court' 4) Approval of the final plat of 'Carlton Lakes, Unit No. 2' With stipulations an~C~tzuction & Maintenance AGreement 5) Approval for recording the final pla~ of Berkshire Pines, Phase One. With sti~ulations, Perfor~mmnce B~, a~d Construction & Maintenance Agreement B. PUBLIC WORKS 1) Approval of Bid 97-2732 for the award of safety equipment and supplies for the Wastewater Department. Award~ to Gral~er, Inc.; Fisher Safety & Safeco, Inc. 2) Approve the lowest quotation for mechanized side tri~ing roadside vegetation for the Road and Bridge Section in accordance with Bid 97-2685. Awarded to ~uck/wha~ Far~, Inc. 3) Approve a Work order for Professional Engineering services to Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. for Santa Barbara Boulevard from Golden Gate Parkway co Radio Road, Work Order No. ABB-FT98-2, Project No. 62081. In the Amount of $35,441 4) Approve Budget Amendment for previously authorized Change Order with Apac-Florida, Inc. for Vanderbilt Beach Road Four Laning Improvements (Bid No. 95-2438, CIE Project No. 023), including additional funds for turn lane construction pursuant to right- of-way acquisition Case No. 95-5071-CA-01-TB. In the Amount of $530,044 5) Approve Amendment No. 5 to Professional Ser";ices Agreement with Metcalf & Eddy for the NCRWTP 8-MGD Expansion Project 70859/70828. Pa~e 4 In the ~unt of $41,200 December 2, 1997 6) Approve Amendment No. One to Professional Services Agreement with Camp, Dresser, & McKee for the NCRWTP 8-MGD Expansion Project 70859/70828. In ~ Amount of $15,202 1) Approval of an Addendum to Lease between Collier County and Tract B, Inc. 2) Authorize a budget amendment and purchase of portable radios for Park Rangers. In the Amount of $34,290 Approval of a budget amendment transferring funds into the Facilities Management Cost Center for emergency flood repairs at the Courthouse. F. BOARD OF CCN3Drl~ C~[I~SIO~ZRS FILE ~ ~ IfITlt ACTION AS DIRECTED. 1) Rec(~mendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Tourism Agreement between Collier County and the City of Everglade~ City for Category B2 {Special Events) Funding for the Everglades National Park Advertising Campaign. I]~-IP.I]~ (~C~,%IF~ TO T~E BOARD'S~ ~ BE MADE TO 774-8383. Pa~e 5 AGENDd CHANG~Y BOARD OF COUNTY COMI~flS~VlOtVEI~' MEETIN(; DECI:2~B£R 2. 1997_ ADD: ITEM 10(B) - REQUEST STRAW BALLOT ON CLEVELAND CLINIC (COMMISSIONER COIgSTAN'rlNE). PERHIT FOP. CARNIVAL STATE OF FLORIDA : C~Y OF COLLIER: WHEREAS, Collier County Agriculture Fair and Exposition Inc. has mad~ applic~tion to the Board of County Co~ission~rs of Collier Coup, Florida, for a per, it to conduct a carnival or exhibition~ and MHEREAS, Collier County Agriculture Fair and Exposition [nc. has presented to the Board sufficient evidence that all criteria for the issuance of a permit to conduct a carnival or exhibition as set forth in Chapter ]0, Article II, ~musemencs and Entertainments, of the Collier County Co~e have been satisfied and that such carnival or exhibition will be conddcted according to lawful requirements and conditions; and WHEREA.g, said Collier County Agriculture Fair and ExFosition Inc. has requested a waiver oi the Carnival Fee, Surety Bond and Occupational Lic~ns). NO~, THEREFORE, THIS ?ERJ4IT I$ HEREBY GRANTED TO Collier County Agriculture Fair and Exposition Inc.: 1) To conduct a carnival or exhibition fro~ January through Jam~ary 17, 199~, in accordance with the ts£ms and conditions set forth in the petitioner's application 4~d all related documents, attached h~reto and incorporated by reference herein for the iollowing d~scribed property: Exhibit 2) The request for a waiver of the Surety Bond is hereby apprcved. WITNESS my hand ~s Chairman Gl said Board and Seal o~ said County, attested by · / ,,~ / . th~-'~le~k ol~'Co~r*.s in a~ for said County this . ~y of ~~<, 1997. I~OARD OF COtrNTY CO~MI~$IONERS: COLLAR COUNTY, FLORIDA: T(~HY ~ ~C~, Chairman / l..llll l! (c~cefafng ~J ecree), ~ r,*crtct~eo, ef cecer~: (cflca(~n( IJ.O ~fee ~re ec Ieee). f ~.. copy: P~ZTION~'S N~E: Collier County Agriculture,. ,, Fait and Exposition Inc. P~ZTION~'S ADDR~S3 751 3~ Ay. N.E. Naples, FL 34120 T~IiONE: 941-4 55-1444 PROP~Y ~'S N~: Co1~e~ ~0unty Board of ~County Co~ts~oners PROP~Y O~ER'S ADOR~S: 3301 East Tamiami Trail NaplesF FL 34103 ~ELEPHONE: 941-774-8383 LEOAL DES~I~:ON OF SU~E~ P~P~Ya see_atgached (2) County Manager CURRENT ZONING: pt~n ,, CURRENT USE: NATURE OF PETITION= Nine ¢9) daZ permit for annual Fair , . Januar~ 9-17~ 1998 TION, SE]I REVERSE SIDE.) (FOR EXPL,~;A- 3.a. /~,, 3.e. 1.) )(. 3.e.4) ~ ..... 3.0.7) ComlonCs · ' . ~ DATE REVIEWED by Board of County ComnJ~sioners: Approved: ._ Disapproved: Conditions o£ .%pproval: SIGNATURE OF COUNTY MANAGER THE COLLIER COUNTY AGRICULTURAL FAIR and EXPOSITION. INC. ~ Collier County Fair 751 39th Avenue N.E. Nails, FL 34120 (g41) 455-;~44 F~x: (g41) 455-670~ $Cp(~mlxT 30, log? Board OfColl~ Coumy Commissioners 3301 Easl Tamiami Trail Naplcs, FL 34103 Ancr~k:,~ Mr. Robert Mulhere Re:. Requesl For Coum7 Fair Permit Dear Mr. Multm, e. In accordance whh the provisions et'Collier Coumy Ordinance No. 75-1 I. ~s.e rcspec~l'uliy submit the followir~ informatk~ and exl~a'blts ~,imesslt~ to our compliance to Ihos,: ~cquirem.-nts and our evidences of such. in the form ora pe~hicm to obese lhe subjec~ permit. 2. Sketch d she showi~ basic kx:3tion ofa~thrifies 3. Board of Dirmors 4. Evidence of'public liabilieff imutance 5. ^cfivie/dem, irxlo~' 6. L~et ¢o~t'~mi~ rd'~se m'vk:e 7. L~e' t'or pdvate jel~ u~e ~. Le~er ,:a-u'inninl sma'h7 Item She'iff 9. L~et co~ emele~ serdces I0. I..erta' conf~t fir~ ~f~/ I I, Land lease ~ulhoriziflI use ofprope~y located on Highssay 846. North Gold~ Gate i 2. Stme P.~,~,il ! 3. T~x exempt shec~ B. Wai~s' of P, _a:mimm~ of~ r/~.l I u ~,~i l~ve in I~ i:a~t, bs:~m I~ Fair Association falls u~, t~ cla~if'~:a~m of* non-Ixc~ ~ !. Section I kem3.~,SumyBand 2. Sm,ion I iran 3.c. Non-r~fan~ble Fee 3. SecUre! isan3.d, Occupat~n~!.icense tn ~ of tt, e request, should any .,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,~'~n, ~ pleue do not hesitat~ to coquet me ~t 455-1444. Very Truly You~ Fair and Exposition, lac. TW;asw STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGPJCYJLTHP,.E & CONSUMER SERVICES TALLARA$~EE (~$0~ No. 1810 FAIR PERMIT September 2, 1997 Application and In~yment of fee in the amount of $275.00 having been made to the Florida Delnartment of Agricullure and Con~vner Services pursuant to Florida Statutes 616.15, for a penntt to conduct a public fair or exposition, and having been determined to be qualified by the Depatanent, thlt Fair Permit is hereby t~$utd to: Collier County Agricultural Fair and Exposition, inc. 751 $gth Avenue Northeast Naples, Florida 34120 to conduct a public fair or.txpot~n at: 751 $~th Avenue Northeast, Naples, Florida for tht da'ts of January 9, 199S through January 17, 1998. BOB CRA WFORD COMMI~IONER OF AGRICULTURE. 8 A TAX EXEHPTION CERTIFICATE Naving been shown proof that the Co~missioner of Agriculture has issued Fair Permit No. ]~J~ to Collier County _Agricultural Fair and £~?osition. Inc. Name ofF, ir As~:iation under Chapter 616, Florida Statutes, this TAX EXmMPTION C'Z~TIFICATm is hereby issued to.. ~ di~la N~meo;~ C~/ Su~ Zip This Certificate exempts said traveling show from payment of all Occupational bicenses while operating traveling shows, exhibitions, concessions and other mmisement enterprises as defined in Section 616.12, Florida Statutes, in connection with the fair conducted by the above named fair association at: ~ of P~f~ (S~c~ or ~ County Date of Issuance County Form 06o102 1NSTRUCT IONS: L~xecute in quadruplicate as follows: ~ite/Ap-pl ic~nt Yello~/?&x Collector Pink/Sheriff Gold/Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services Division of Marketing & Development S¢1 East Tenneasee Street Tallahassee, FI, :123oa 8,41 rio .-J ,,or_ 0180000 8,41 l co.,um. ', Co . c, o I~d ~uz~ I0 C~r 212, F~dda S~t~es I~ D~e ~~ Dine Cease 09/30/97 09/30/2002 2 ~ · 07- 0 ~9878- ~OC COLLIER COUNTY AGRICL'L, TURAL FAIR AND EXPOSITION.INC. 7SI 3gTH AVE NE NAIl)LES FL 33984-$4 !~0 Th~s Cer'ufc.lte ,$ DR-14 Non-transferable R. 03/97 Type of Organizaimn FAIR ASSOCIATION Ii Exempt From the Payment of Sales and Use TL~ on the Pu~cha=e or I. la=e cd Tangible Personal Proixrt'/. the Lease ~f Transient Rental AccommodalJorm or Rail Property. LH. Fuchs ExecutJv~ Director Collier County Govt. Complex Bldg. - J 3301 Tamlami Trail East, Naples. FL 34112 Telephone (AC 941) 774-4434 October 8, 1997 Ms. Audr~ COLLIER COUN'I~ FAIX BOARD 751 3~ A~N~ N~ ~ 34120 ~ ~ ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ for ~e i~ ~ Co~i~ C~n~ F~ F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ ~ ~ 8 1/4, S~i~ 5 (2). I ~k f~d m ~8 ~ ~ a ~ F~ ~ ~ ~ if i m ~ of ~y ~ ~si~, pl~ ~ ~. WE SUPPORT WE SPONSOR THE FLORIDA SHERIFFS YOUTH nANCHES A ~ I~ nee~ a~ ~rt~ boys an,', girls COLLIER COUNTY JR 0 E PUTT LEAGUE COLLIER COUNTY EXPLORER POST · 64 I N C P. O1/Od D.tr ,'oh, III ~ la Idldalfbt Plse# ad,d~ tr dssrm ,hdsdd be any c~knfo.'mado to flab otdieduf.. BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FH~ CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT August 27, 1997 1324(} lmmolr~c~ Ro~d Naples, Florida 34120 (94 !) (941) 455-1204 To The Collier Oounty Fair Board: This totter is to co~i~m that the Big C.,o~sc~ew Island Fke Control & Rescue Disffict will supply fire i~otection services for the 1998 Collier County Fair. All applicable fire codes will have to be erdorced and adhered to for the safety of all concerned. The amount of donation requested f~ personnel and equipment $100.00 per day. If I or my staff can be of any fu~J'~ assistance, please call (941) 455-1204. Frank O. Kovarik, Fire Chief SERVICE AGREEMENT 22~S 12 PO AP A~ PICKUP COLLIZR COt,,"A'TY/'Al'lt COL, FL ~41~ I~/~l. fi~,~L"qOS AS N'r~-F~I~Pl~q Ct,AA,~ ) ,z lis O0 22nd CO~T¥ AGRZCULTU~L AND EXPOSITION Collier County Fair JANUARY 9th - 17th, 1998 COLLIER CO~rY FAIR~RO~NDS Highway 846, North Golden Gate Naples, Florida idU~o02-g7 ]1:~1A 8]ue O~ass Sho~ Znc 813 247 4431 P.O! mEnDEL 8. KFILIFF INSURANCE P.O. BGX17122S 5ANANTONIO. TEXA~/1217 p10}825-7634 FAXGZlO)82~-TS36 8 A 1~ Certificate of 3Jn~uran£e This Certificate of Insurance neither affirmatively nor negatively ameno~,, extends or alters the coverage afforded by the policy0es) described hereon, and is issued as a matter of information and confers no rights upon the Holder. ge,~,c~ holaiqr I( I~e ICa~sI Inow~ ~ I)~ ~e CO~q~Gld~ tiSu,~e9 ~0 ,~s~,i(y fc~ I~y md:ate o~ fo~ fl,t~. ~c ~,ve such ~oI,ce. BLUE GRASS SHOWS, P.O. BOX -/$244 TAMPA FI, 336'/5 INC. ST PAUL SURPLUS LINE.c ST PAUL SURPLUS S 1,000,000 CSt, S19,000,000 £XC£SS q 1: Iii"il'l: 1~1'1(~ $20,000,000 CSL POUCY E.~PIRATION NUMBER DATE LCO5534536 6/13/98 ADDITIONAL INSURED: Collier County Fair Board Collier Coumty Government FOR TH£ DATES: 3anuary 7 - 17, 1998 THE COLLIER' COUNTY 'AGRICU and EXPOSITION, INC. 751 39th Avenue N.E. Naples, FL. 33954 (813) 455-1444 Ac;tv;t70eScrLptton List FAIR I. Blue Grass Short A. 2~ AtusetaGt Irons B. Concessions 1. Cotton Candy 2. Popcorn 3. Candy Apples C. Gates For Prizes IX. Display Booths A. ged Cross B. Hat Radio C. Hen;al Health. D. AulaaX Care £. Civt! Oe~ence F. H~ne £COnLniSLS G. Nilttary H. £oer~ency Medtcal SE;vices X. ~oneu's Club J. ~ettXul Zoo Ill. £xhtbits A. ASrX~.ulture S. Livestock - &H/FFA C. HorCtcuXture D. Arts K. Crafl ts f. Hobby G. Culinary Arts H. Caoutng J. Ornanental V. Concessions; Local Clubst Otsbnizattons & P£ofessionaX Groups A.Hot Dol$ I. Hatbutlers C. Sodas O. He.o Sendvich F. Cake G. Ice Crest R. Foretsn Foods I. Fruit E. Candy I' L%'~UC Y:C,'?,:.; } etetact~t I (stricmfnd fs¢iltty, C~ntcy Oev,te~c Olvtftfl ef ~tXtet due m~ poyoble la sdveflce em the d~tI et exe~ttom ef thts Leaee A~rt~esg by L~S~R. AfTI~L~ &. L[S$£['S Oefoult In Po)meet ~tvte ~ e~Ce~C e( tbs dec,red ~cerlCfen. ~r~elc, chose, or ~b ~Lch te o~rffe er de~ ~ ~Stln8 said reqqeoc far 41teritl~e, ~tC~ et ~eto, ~S~g tails to c~lete tie ~rk beth, score er c~ZeCe the p~eed Project o~ by L~S~'S the fr~ee~ pre, acc. CAse g~ dmK a~ vtChifl thirty (~0) ~7~ e~ c~e~nt ~ ekttlacton er ~SS[~ er it~ fucvre deffvtc. '. t,~t~ ef ~%s ~,e, ~ ~thh nhet7 (~) d.7. ther,.ft.t th, O~wd ~HW ~ ~S~ ~ ~ Ire de.fiuc.d In oatd ootic., LBSK'S ,~.. ~T~L~ &. ~ceo9 ,~ D~%..d the,e( ~k'¥d~"'~ttn.~nt 'el ~l.'~%"' ' ' IChiefs. P' · ;:~%t be I~Ject ~ th,tom M cMttJens of thio AlSee~at but chili" 8 A L~S[[ mhmll mmm~ m~ pray m21 ~cellf~ ~etm otd nc~ tost~ mhd%% · ddd~b &ZSSLE ssreel ts edke # ChSltel. er ciocelJatLmis of ~e toflriK.. p*.l~ MC to escted three (3) cefloecvctve %e~to. LgSSO~ My, et Lea ~t~, te~lMte thio Aire~enC deter thirty (30) days reLiCts notLc. frui.ee ~t~% Nth tin th re, tied ~a~ri~e bio ben p~tded to ~tk ~S~'S 4~ car, e~ sled Crees. These crees ire co be ~ed rot che ;ur;sees o~ research I~ C8~tHC4 t~l. Ajtemet slier eJMt~ (~) d47o vtL~tet NtLce to L~S~, ulel. th. defivit be cured vtthtl the Mc~ce pert~ (er ~ch CfM si Ss feasibly ce~tfed to recrtct ~h derauZt), Rw~tr. tbs ~cerre~e er on7 el the fellwtM ~eflt. oh~ p~litm of Art:cl. t2 herein: c~rter, or dioc~tt~stlfl o~ LESS~*S OpafatlOU. except provLded for l~ ArtSci, ~ of this ktSSt~ of ea~ r,~occ re, ired to be fu~ifhed to LtSS0~ ~rsuanc co c~ t,~, ,f t~i, to th event of the'Kcurrenc, of any of the ~0 Art~cZ, 12. ~t. be,ides ether rfihc, e~ foNdLe, Lt u? have. 7 .... ~ ' I ---~_ _ L....... [ I , -- I lrm, Il L~I] failed ce .rfe~ ~ch ekltfat~ ~thla cherty (~) ~7' (or ~ch ~TtC~ 14. ~y ~clc( ~fcb ~ er ~S~ ~y be re~Xred co ~ve ~ C~e hfldlq 0~ ~et ~M t.r ~od dmfe by fire er the e~e~nto beT~ ~S~'S cflcreZ .cepced. flT[~ IS. C~ct~ C~nee · d~ed ky say c~eceec o~C~rlc7 for say pvbHc er q~afX-~bXtc use Iffeflimd o~d paid up ce*sa~d dote o~ the dace La ~Lch ~S~'S f.O. 14rz 727 8 A 0~;~ ~r~met se token et c~emed w~%% be reduced aw of the dote e( ouch comdeMattou e~ date to ~htch L~:S~'~ Moire%iT ~mLred. ~tc~er As ,or%Ler. If the th4 O~med frt~s,s ~. Mt .vff~cSeut for the op(r.t~oo of if c~eoeeted b7 the tokioI aut~r%ty for sold re-ceemc~ctto,. Iww et cb Stere of flortde. ~S~t a~ ~S~ recolmizm t~t CeE%Let ~uty the Oraflaetrte flied UI~t DeveX~mt (fo~%%7 ~M .. ~erch Co,den ~te) lo aceerbece with devele~mt C~Ml~l ipp%tcob~e thereto. %t ia forint ~mce~tmed ~ht t~ petemt~sX always exlmtm tha~ the ~eveloper . . . .. .... ~,;.'. . ~ _ '~~~~% Oevel~mt '. : ..... ~',;;.; ~ ,.. :. +-~=..,~. rerer~ o~t,d fr~fs., ts lb/id to that provided to ' de~fS er ,Seocy ,ttuat,d I~ ~lliec ~nt7. ,~d ,c~ledsf, ~ ~Md frazee ,hall bo ch4 ,,1, respfl,tbtXtt7 ,~ co.t of ~S~ refro~ fr~ i~ ese ef t~ O~ffed ~r~seo ~fch ~id ~S~".btt Mt emit, er .tt~ to be cat,Ced, uy wilt. fl the ~ ,bXI ~t be weqgtrtd to Smash th, L~S~ ht ~e i~ted to. -list. ,IfctricLty. llSht and ~er. Hcdo,f utflCeoaKe. LiSZt shall Mt be req~tred to ~k4 dtteratf~no, re~ildioCs, replac~otf, chdflJel, addtttou.. /~r~muta T&' k~S[[ vttt ~C ~Mr a~ ~ebtednee4 stytos i rfshc te · cta~ e~ lift fl the O~tsed Premises er ~ the L~S~Z'S interest vo~er the after k~ledje thereof by ~SStt. short coaetttutu a mater~iX breach er tten r~ed ef recerd vtthtn .t~ty (~) days by Paytns er be~; saM. L~S[~ vt~ claim ti be ~led 4 ~ectce ef bflcmmt ~h~tflS ~5S~ partSef to receive Mticee ~er the ~ltce/ Lien ~. 8 10 AS TO TIg kf3~: ~ Of COq/IITT COF~G$$ iOW{3..S _ / .JO£ SU,~LA. SecretirT (CO&rOf.&TZ SEAL) AC3K I Cm. T1/t~L Z33~S IT lOX, I~C. ti ,ES. pIZOJ£CT r^~nnnou~s 8 A 1' 8 B 1 BOAR/) OF COUNTY COIVIMISSIONERS COL~I.F~J~O~ FLORIDA ~LUTION NO. 9'7- 448 RE~LUTION TO INCREA~ ~ SPEED LfMIT O~ LOGAN BOULEVARD FROM C.R. $96 (PI'NE RIDOE ROAD) SOUTH TO GREEN BOULEVARD AND ON SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD FROM GREEN BOULEVARD SOUTH TO THE VICINITY OF HUNTER BOULEVARD. WHEREAS, Se~-tien 316.189 Florida Statut~ and Collier County Ordinance No. 91-25 author~.e I~e Board of County Commissione~ Ia alter m' establish speed limits on roadways under its Wh'F. REAS, in accordance wi~ Section 316.189 Florida Statutes and Collier County Ordinance No. 91-25, a ~affg analysi~ h~s been performed on tbe subje~ ~tions of Logan Boulevard and gama Bar.fa i~ulev'~d; and WHEREAS, the naffg ana~ ind/cates that a speed limit increase to 45 mph ¢,a Logan Bock'yard from C.R. g96 south to Gr~e~ Bouk'v~d and o~ Santa Barbara Boulevard from Green Boulevard ~ to the vicinit}, of Hm-aer B4~lev'a.-d i~ reasonable and in conformity with recommended ~ pmmul~ ~ t~ Fk~da tX-pmmem orTm~0rtstion; sad WHEREAS, an approv~ 45 mph speed limit for Ihese ~ roadway segmen~ will provide for greater speed limit conti~uity on II~ ~ntiguom art~ial and ~ gr~'ater consistency in traffic flow. NOW, TttEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: A. Tbe speed limit on tbe subjegt sections of L0gsn ~ ~ Smta B~ Boulevard shall be ~ from ~0 mph to 45 mph be.~ed on promulgated engineering eritt'~a. B. The cootiguou~ ro'adway ~-gmenu ree. ommer~ded and Board approved for a designated 45 mph ~ limit art: 1. Logan Boulevsrd from C.R. g96 south to Green Boulevard for both direc~ion~ of navel, and 2. Santa B~'tmrn Bouleva~ ~ to the vicinity oftlunter Boulevard for both dir~.t~ons of Iraqi BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Transportation Services Department is hereby authorized and dir..~-ted to change exi~ing s/gn~ge to support the ~ re~olution. This resolution adored aRer motion. ~ and majority vote favoring same this ~.~ day of ~'-.~'dz~...', 1997. RESOLUTION NO. 97-44~ A RESO~ON APPOINTING RUFUS 15. WATSON TO THI~- BLACK AFF~ ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, Collier County adopted Ordinxnc¢ No. 91-38 creating thc Black Affairs Advi~y' Bo~xl and provider that the Adviaory Board thall consist ofsev¢ (7) m~nbers; and WHEREAS, Collier County Ordinan~ No. 91-'~7 amended Ordinance No. 91-38 by providing tim th~ Advi~3t Bomi ~mll cor~ of nine (9) memb~; and WHEREAS, there is currently a vacancy on this board; and WHEREAS, ~e Board of County Commissioners previously provided public notice ~oliciting application~ frum inter~f,~ parti~; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMM]SSION'ERS OF COLLIER COUN']'Y, FLORIDA, that Rufus H. Watson is hereby appointed to th~ Black Affairs Advign'y Botrd to fulfill the remainder of the vacant term, said term to ~,xpiru on June 25. 2001. This Reaolution adop~ ~ moron, gt, ond and majority vote. DATED: December 2, 1997 ATrEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Appmved aa~ form and County' A.u:,rnc-y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY~'. HAIqCOCK, ~iRMAN Imm & Ad~'rIS of Shy persc,~s) to be notified b~ Clerk's Office: ([.~f im'e I~ece needed, attKh Calma'ate d~t) 11iquntld Mlirlnl dstet__._J_.]_,/__4Js~.-/--J- I,Id ~- id~ertllei~t q:peerlr~l ]9 ~ before heert~. Jrr,~l~K~ Text% Clnc[ude I~t description S ¢c~ tocetlsA & Itle)% ~etft~n #~, SLC1[-97'-1. IlJch #~r[Cd'Ni If C~slnglon G~lf Ae ~t f~ Iw. fl W~tt~ t9 C~Y ~t~ ~f~e ~tttl~ to C~tv ~mr. T~ HKer'l Office uftt dlstrl~e c~l~: 12.0 1 ~ ..mu.., ¢~4.1.~ ST, TIPE TOTPL TIME 588F~18 12C 1 September 29, 1997 Ma. Judith Flanagan Naples Daily News 1075 Central Avenue Naples, Florida 34102 Re: Notice ~& Public Hearing to consider Petition SNR-97-1 Dear Judi: Please a~vertise the abov~ referenced notice one time on Friday, November 7, 1997 and send the Affidavit of Publication, in duplicate, together with charges involved to this office. Sincerely, Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk P.O. No. 704259 pO 8C~ S76G2d~O ,lYrlCl (Mt P~IBLIC I'~klll~J ON: 11/30 ~0 S~'ACI: S2.CX3Q INC# S$grmtw. of Arrl.,,t r/~)' /"~/~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, will hold a ~blic hearing on TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1997, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Ta~iami Trail, Naples, Florida. The meeting will begin at 9:00 A.M. The Board will consider Petition SNR-97-1, Richard Henderlong of Kensington Golf & Country Club, r~resentingAnton Steiner of Ke~sington Park PUD, requesting a street name change from High Street to Kensington High Street located in Kensington Park Phase One, Phase Two, Phase Three A and Phase Three B of the Kensington Park PUD, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, recorded in Plat Book 21, Pages 62-67, Plat Book 25, Pages 82-83 and Plat Book 26, Pages 51-52, of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida. All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the Board prior to the~ublic hearing. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the 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. BOARD OF COGNTY CO~'~ISSI~S COLLIE~COUNTY, FLORIDA TIMOTHY r.. HANCOCK, CHAIPJ4A~I DP~IGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: /s/Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk 12C 1 RESOLUTION NO. 97- RESOLUTION RENAMING HIGH STREET TO "KENSINGTON H,GH STREET", WHICH STREET IS LOCATED IN KENSINGTON PARK PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, PHASE ThrEE A AND PHASE THREE B OF-THE KENSINGTON PARK PUD SUBDIVISION, AND IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 49 SO{3TH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ~"~7{EP~, the Board of County CommissiOners is authorized pursuant to t~ of Chapter 336.05, Florida statutes, t~ name or rename streets and ~pt 'fo~:' certain state ' roads; .~nd~' . >.~ < W~E~, the Board of.County. Commissioners has.been requested to confirm ren'aming~of High Street tOKensington high Street. This street is in Section 13, Township '49 South,~ Range 25 EaSt/ Colliek County, , Kensington Park Phase One,"Phase Two, Phase Three A and Phase Three B of the Kensington Park PUD, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat ~''B6ok 21, Pages 62-67, Plat Book 25, Pages 82-83 and Plat Book 26, Pages 51- 52, of the Official Records of Coli~er County, Florida; ..... WHEREAS, thez~. appears to be no street in Collier County with this name .or any similar sounding name; and WHEP~, it is necessary for identification purposes to confirm the name of this street, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: The name of this street is hereby changed from High Street to Kensington High Street and is confirmed as such. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and noted upon the maps of the street and zoning atlases of Collier County, and notations made on the referenced Plat. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this ATTEST: day of , 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY CO~4ISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLEP/< BY: TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK, CHAIF~M3~¼ APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: · : MARJOR M. ASS I STANT. COUNTY .~,TTORNEY ~, ,,, NN)L~ 14t t)' Nevi lllpL~, fL 339(0 Afftdev~t ff P~bL~citlon N~L~ ktty I~ BOM~ Of COUNTY CCI'dqI~$ION~ BOX &1~16 NN'I.[S FL. Ii~FEI~iC~: 001230 ?T)/~9 575aae1S NOTICE M /~eL. lC M~ CNnt), ~f CotLtw ~ Ii m m'~ ~ttM ~ ~t~, tn Mid ~tttff ~, t~l~, ~ ~ ~ Mid mtt~ ~ ~ ~t ~flM ~ ~, M ~td PUli. ISHO 0~: 11/07 RESOLUTION NO. 97- 450 RESOLUTION RENAMING HIGH STREET TO "KENSINGTON HIGH STREET", WHICH STREET IS LOCATED IN KENSINGTON PARK PHASE ONE, PHASE TWO, PHASE THREE A AND PHASE THREE B OF THE KENSINGTON PARK PUD SUBDIVISION, AND IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners is authorized pursuant to authority of Chapter 336.05, Florida Statutes, to name or rename streets and roads, except for certain state roads; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has been reTuested to confirm the renaming of High Street to Kensington High Street. This street is located in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, Kensington Park Phase One, Phase Two, Phase Three A and Phase Three B of the Kensington Park PUD, according to the plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 21, Pages 62-67, Plat Book 25, Pages 82-83 and Plat Book 26, Pages 51- 52, of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida; WHEREAS, thc.e ]ppears to be no street in Collier County with this name or any similar sounding name; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for identification purposes to confirm the name of this street, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY CO~94ISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: The name of this street is hereby changed from High Street to Kensington High Street and is confirmed as such. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and noted upon the maps of the street and zoning atlases of Collier County, and notations made on the referenced Plat. This.Reso/ution adopted after motion, second and majority vote BOARD OF COUNTY cOMMISSIONERS *** 2253512 OR: 2367 PG: 2943 *** ~ lit 0]TIf2IM~ I3C0I~I of ~LI]I ~, ~ IZlt]lll it tl:tl~ ~ I. IM, ~ ~ ~ J,tt l.II CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO RECORDING OF PLAT RECITALS: I. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery ofthis Agreement, applied for the approval by. the Board ora certain platofa subdivision to be known as: Pebblebrooke Lakes. 2. Division 3.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code allow~ the Developer to construct the improvements required by ~ald subdivision tx-gulati~ prior to recording the t'mal plat. NOW rttEREFORF~ in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter .set forth. Developer and the Boat:! do hereby covenant and agree as follows: I. Developer will cause to be constnz'ted: the Required Improvements within 12 months bom the date of approval of said subdivision plat, said Improvements (water, se~er, drainage and roadway) hereinafter referred to as the required ~ 2. Developer herewith agrees to construct said Improvements prior to recording said subdivision plat and the Board of . .runty Commissioners shall not approve the plat for recording until said improvements have been completed. Upon completion of said improvements, the Developer shall tender its sulxlivision performance security in thc anmunt of $139,34S.20 which represents ten percent or the total contract cost to complcle construction. Upon receipt of said mbdlvt~on perforraance security by the Development Services Director. the Developer may request the Board of Co~'lty CommtlM~ to approve the ~ul:xllvision plat for recording and grant prelimlna~/approval of said plat. 4. The requtr~d im~rovementa dali not be considered complete until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished lo be reviewed a~d approved by the Development Services Director for compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 5. The Development Services Direclor shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the statement of ~ubstantial comple~ion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing ofhts preliminary approval of the improvements; or b) notify the Dotel~ in writing of his refusal to approv~ the improvements, therewith specifying those conditions which the developer must fulfill in order to obtain tho Director's approval of the improvements. However, in no eeent dali the [X-velopment Services Dir~or refusz prelhninary approval of the improvements if they are in fact comiructed and submtued for approval in -____,xordm~ with the requirements of this Agreement. 6. Tt, e Developer shall maintain all required improvements for a minimum period of one year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the one year maintenance period by the Developer has terminated, the Developer s/~all petition the Delopment Services Director to inspect the required improvements. The Development Services Director or his designee shall ~ the improvements and, if found to be still in compliancewith the Collier County Land Development Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Board shall release the ten percent subdivision performance security. The Developer's rcsponsibility for maintenance of the required improvements shall continoe unless or until the Board accepts maintenance respomtblltty for the County. 7. la the ev,..nt the Dk-vtloper al:all fntl 4x' flCl~CCt to ~lfill its obligntion ufldc'r this A~cemc'nt, u~m ccrtlfl¢~ion of such failure. ~ County Admin~eloe ri'my call upon the ~mbdlvidon sectary tn secure satisf:,ctc.')' compl~ton, rel~it and maintennx:t of the required tmprowmen~ The Board d~all have the right to con.~truct and maintain. {~ came to be conmucted and maintained, ptrnm~ lo public Idvertisemenl and receipt of acceptance of bith, the impro, emtn~ required hert~ The Developer, nl prindpal under the Jubdivision performance ~..curir,.'. Jhall be liable to p~y and to indemnify the Ben:d, upon completion of such construction, the final Iotai cost to ibc Board gx'rtof, b~ eot limited to, engtneerb~ le~ and contingent costs, together with any damages, either direct or cofl:lequem~l. ~tlich the Board may sustain off f,~ ofgle fa{lille of the Developer to fulfill all of the provisions of this A~'enent, 8. Ail of the tem~ covmam$ and conditions beton contained are and shall be biding upon the Dt'veloper and the req~t'tive suc___,~e~oe$ and usqpt, oflbe developer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the ~ and the Developer have catm. d this_Agreement to be cxeculed I'~' their dui)' · authofizedr~ivesthis..9'-" dayof~, 19 ~// . Pebbld;~x~ke Lakes Lt4, , a Florida Limited Parmership By:. Saundrv & Associates. Inc, By:. aUNt, MUNICIPAL AND OTHER PUBLIC OFFI ER ' ~~~ ~ .~5~e~ ' ~146c'KJ.e, PsMl& $. ~'.~01 ~zuatn_m! Trail ~Deoustbec 2, 1997 t WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 foem Is roe' use by afl! person s~-vins nt the ccmn~/, city. oe mhee local level of Iovcmmcnt on an appo~ted m' decsed board. commission, tmhorky, o~ cammkte~ I1 tpl~cs equslly (o meadxrs of 8dvbo~ sfld non-advlsm7 bodes ~ am lx~emcd · vaelfll coni'Hc~ of lflte~st under Sec~km 112.3143, Florida Statures. The rcqolremer~ of this taw tm I~e of Ihls particula~ form h hoe mqulmd 62' law, you am enc~uraled to use it Iff maki,,$ the dtsclosur~ scquirc~, by law. ~'lides under the I:; when faced with a meuure in which you have a conflict of ifltcre:st will ~ r.,¢atly dcpertdlflf wh~hcr you hokl an elective oF jppotnttve position. For this r~tson, please pay close attention to the irtstruc~lons on ~hZs form :l'or~ complcliflf the rc~crse side and filinl~ ibc form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPUANCE WITH SECTION tt2..X~43, FLORIDA STATUTES OFFICERS: : · ~: I~,on holdi.~ ¢le~l%'~ county, municipal, o~ hb s~lal prl~[c laln. ~h I~at offi~r aim is ~hlbic~ from kn~nllY ~tifl~ on · mcuure wi,ich tnur~ to the s~ o~ a pfl~ipal (other than · I~fl~flt alc~) ~ whom he {s ~ta{ncd. ~thcr case )~u should di~lo~ the ~nfli~: PRIOR TO THE ~E BEING TAK~ H polly stztinl co I~ zssemblf IBc nature or ~ur intcr~t in the m~u~'on which ~u are abstain~l ~mm ~in~ ~;d , W~ IN I~ DA~ A~R THE V~ ~~ ~ ~inl and ~in~ th~ form ~th the ~n r~n~hlc rot Kco~ing ~c minut~ of ~hc m~in~ who s~uid i~m~ ~hc fo~ in the minute. -.. )I,%'T ED OFFICERS: A person hoidin{ appoincivc coumy, municipal, or ¢xhcr local public office ~[UDT ABSTAIN from votinl~ on :~ mcns,rc wheel, r MU~IO his Special prlv~te lain. Each local officer also is prohibited fram k~owinlly votin~ on 3 mcasmc, which in.rcs to !StX~3I lain of I princlp~l (other than · ~ovcrnment alency) by whom he is retained. "~' holdins an appoincivc local office otherwise mm/pafllclpa~c in a r~aucr in which he has a conl'lic~ of ,ntcrcst. but mum: thc nature of Ihe co~mFlict before matinl an)' aucmpl to influence IBc dcclsion by omi oF wFiucn communication, whcthc by thc officeF or at his direction. IF YOU it, rTEND TO .%lAKE ANY ATTENIPT TO II~IFLUEN. CE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE ~IEETINO AT WHIC} ,THE VOTE WILL BE TAKEN: You should comlmlel¢ and file IBis form (before mnkin{~ any nucmp~ to influence the decision} wilh thc person responsible fc reCoFfllnf the minutes of the mcalnl, who wt~l inca~¢ IBc from ;n (he minutes. . IF YOU 1~4AKE NO ATTE~ ~PT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DI.SC3J~iON AT THE M~C~ a y~ ~ ~e I~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~'l ~ ~ ~tt~ ~ ~e ~ ~h I~ ~ r~sib~e for r~ng ~ ~ ~'~ or (he m~in~ who sh~ i~ ~(e t~ t~m ~ t~ mmm~ DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S IHT~REST Decem~c 2 · 19~97 In.cd to (h~ slxct~! ~ ot - . . Thc mczsurc bct'ore my ngcnc7 nnd ~h¢ n~(urc ot my intcrcsc i~t thc mczsurc is ~s tollows: Bogrd of Collier County Canmissioners Agenda lgem 18. A.1. Request to apt~rove ~he final plat of "Pebblebrook Lakes.". consultation with 'the County Attorney, Z abstained from 'voting on matter pursuant to Section 286.012, Florida Statutes, 'which provides - "no member of any state, county, or municipal governmental board,. ,r agency who is present'~t any meeting of' such body at which.an.6fficial 3n, rQling or other official act ts to be taken or adopted.~ney-abstai: !rom voting...except when, with respect to any such member, there is, or ap.rears be, a possible conflict of interest under the provisions'of S.112.311, 112.313, or S.112.3143. In such cases, said me~ber shall comply with the ilsclosure requirements of S.1'12.3143.- F~ D~cembec 2, 1997 ~ COH~i'ITUTEg ~RO(INI'~ FOR A ~ F, nc ,f ,~,,,, ,,..,.., · CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO RECORDING OF PLAT I. Developer h~ simultaneou~ with th~ delivery of ibis Agrecme~ applied for the ~pproval ~ ~ ~ of a certain platof a subdivision to be known ~$: C~rl~ I~kz$ Unit 2. 2. Division :;.2 of the Collier Coua~ L~nd D~el~ Code allows the Developer to coru~truct the impr~ r~luir~ by said $ubdi~ lr~ul~oe$ prior to recording the final plat. NOW ~FORF. in consid~,./~o~ of Ib~ fore~ prcmiscs ~ mutual covcnanm hereinafter sc~ forth, Developer sod ~ Boerd do hereby covdur~ m~l ~gree u follows: !. Dcvetoper will cruse ~o be consu'uc~l: the Required lmpro~ within 12 months from the d~e of spprov~l of hid mlxllvlsion pl~ said ~ (wnm', scw~, dr~'~age md roadw~') hcrch'u~cr 2. Developer herewith aglTes to eonsm~ said improvements prior to recording said subdivision plat ~d th~ Bo~'d of County Commissione~ ~1~11 no~ ~rprove th~ plat for recording until said improvements have been 3. Upon completion of s~ld improv~ntt, tha Developer shall tender its subdivision performance ~'urity in th~ ~ of $113~5 ,~lch represents ten percent of the total contract cost to complete comlm~on. Upon ~ of ~ld S~xJivJsJo0 J:~Ff'~ s~%'urity ~ r]~ Development Services Dirc~or, the D~,eloper ul~ ~ th~ Board of County Cornmlsaiooer~ to 81:~'ove the sulxllvision plat for recording and grant pr~llmitm? ~pproval of hid pl~. 4. T~ r~lutred impro~ sl~ll not be consider~ compile until a statement of substantial completion by Developer's en$1r~er ~lon~ with the final project r~corda h~v~ been famished to be review~ and approved 1~ th~ Development 8~vtc¢$ Di,,x~or for ~mpll~mce with the Collier CounW I.,~nd Development Code. 5. The lX-v¢lopm~ SoMce$ Ditzetor shall, within ~ixty (60) ~ of ~ryt of t~ ~t~t of b) ~ ~ ~I~ ~ ~ of~s ~ ~ ~e ~ t~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~& ~ ~1~ m~ Mfill in ~ m ~n ~ ~'s ~ of ~ ~vm~a. H~, ~ ~ ~ ~! ~ ~el~ ~ ~ ~ ~IMt~ ~ of ~ ~pmv~m~ if ~ ~ M f~ ~ ~ ~~ f~ ~vl b ~~ ~ ~ ~ui~ offs 6. The Developer stufll m~in~n ~11 r~quired improvements for a minim~n period of ooe year after ~limism~ ~ by fl~ lk'v~lol~em So, vic~ Di~-ctor. Alter the one year maintenance period by the F.m~oper has m'mimted, the Developer ~ll ix'litioo the Delopment Services Director to inspect the ~ .bnl~'OWm~l. T~ Dcvclopme~ S~yJces Din.%'Mr or his design~ ahali inspect the improvements and. if found to still in ¢omplt~th tbe Collier County M Development Code ss r~flected by final approval by the Board, I~ Board ~all r~less~ fl~ ten percent subdivision performancc sectwity. Thc Developer's rc~'ponsibility for ~ of I~ r~ltdr~ ~ts si~ll e~alinue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance r~pom:'bll~ for ~ c~. ?. In the event the Developer dali tail or neglect to fulfill iu obligation under this Agreement. upon eertitlcation of tach failure, the County Administrator may call upon Ihe ~ulxlivision ~ecurity to ,~.cure satisfactory, completimt, repair and maimmance of the required fm~ The Board shall have the Hght to construct and maintain, or came to be constrtgt~ and mafntalned, purstm~ to public advertisement and receipt of acceptance of btd~ the improvements required I'm'etm The Developer, aa wincipal under the ~ulxlivision performance security. shall be liable to pay and to imk, mnify the Boat'd, upon completion of such con,marion, the final total cost to the Board thereof, lam not limited to. engineefins, legal and conttngem costs, together with any damages, either direct or comequential, which the Board may sustain on accoum of the failure of the Developer to fulfill all of the provisions of this Agreement. $. Ali of the terms, covenants and cot~itions herein contained are and shall be biding upon the Developer and the respective succesg~ and assigns of the developer. IN WITNESS WHEKEOF. the Boar~., and the Develop~ have caused this .~,~g~'ment to be executed by their duly authorized representativea this ,....~.~. . day of .Z_t~,,C~. · .19 ,/_.__.. ~ _ $..~ J / '~ /~/ a Florida Limited Partnership !//.z /._ ? _. _ - ' ~ ' ~ Chn'~'-stop~fiL~O ~:laussen. President By:. uo^ o or cotmtv co.,.u, tSSlOSr_ ,,s COtU ep reo .pa//' / -~~ ' / - 16A 5 CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR RECORDING OF PLAT PRIOR TO SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENTS THIS CONSTRUCTION SUBDIVISION I~IPROVEMENTS 1997, between Berkshire C~pital, "Develope~, and the Board of hereinafter referred to as 'The Board". AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR entered into this ~.d day of-~j~e_,,...~,..~ . Inc.,a Florida Corporation, hereinafter referred to as County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, A. Developer has, simultaneously with the delivery ofthis Agreement, applied for the approval by the Board ora certain plat ora subdivision to be known as: Berkshire Pines, Phase One B. Division :3.2 ofthe Collier County I.~nd Development Code requires the Developer to post appropriate guarantees for the construction of'the improvements required by said subdivision regulations, said guarantees to be incorporated in a bonded agreement for the construction of the required improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, Developer and the Board do hereby covenant and agree as follows: I. Developer will cause to be constructed: Water, Sewer, Paving, Drairmge, Street Lighting and Landscaping within 36 months from the date ofapproval ofsaid subdivision plat, said improvements hereinafter referred to as the required improvements. 2. Developer herewith tenders its subdivision performance security (attached hereto M Exh'bit "A' and by reference made a parthereo0in the amount of :$128,416.68 which amount represents 10% of the total contract cost to complete construction plus 10C~ of the estimate cost of to complete the required improvements at the date of'this Agreement. 3. In the event or'default by the Developer or t'ailure of'the Developer to complete such improvements within the tlme required by the Land Development Code, Collier County, may call upon the subdivision performance security to insure satisfactory completion ot`the required improvements. 4. The required improvements shall not be considered con dlcte until a statement ofsubstanti~d completion by Developer's engineer along with the final project records have been furnished to be reviewed and approved by the Development Sen'ices Director for compliance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 5. The Development Services Director shall, within sixty (60)days of receipt of' the statement of taJbstantial completion, either: a) notify the Developer in writing of' his preliminary approval ot`the improvements; or b) notify the Developer in writing of his refusal to approve improvements, therewith speclrying those conditions which the Developer must fulfill in order to obtain the Director's approval or'the improvements. However, in no event shall the Development Services Director re,use preliminary approval of'the improvements it' they are in tact constructed and submitted for approval in accordance with the requirements ot` tJ~s Agreement. 6. The Developer shall maintain all required improvements for a minimum period of one year after preliminary approval by the Development Services Director. After the c.ne year maintenance period by the Developer has terminated, the Developer shall petition the Development Services Director to inspect the required improvements. The Development Services Director or his designee shall inspect the improvements and, iffound to be still in compliance with the Collier Counly Land Development Code as reflected by final approval by the Board, the Board shall release the remaining 10% of the subdivision performance security. The Developer's responsibility for maintenance of' the required improvements shall continue unless or until the Board accepts maintenance responsibility for and by the County. 7. Six (6) months after the execution of'this Agreement and once within every six (6) months thereafter the Developer may request the Development Services Director to reduce the dollar amount of the subdivision performance security on the basis ot` work complete, each request for a reduction in the dollar amount of the subdivision peffo~ security shall be accompanied by a statement of substantial completion by the Developers engineer together with the project records necessary for review by the Development Services Director. The Development Services Director may grant the request for a reduction in the amount of'the subdivision performance security for the improvements completed as of the date of'the request. 8. In the event the Developer shall trail or negiect to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, upon certification o£such t`ailure, the County Administrator may call upon the subdivision performance security to secure satist`actory completion, repair and maintenance o£ the required improvements. The Board shall have the right to construct and maintain, or cause to be constructed or maintained, pursuant to public advertisement and receipt and acceptance ofbid~, the improvements required herein. The Developer, as principal under the ~ubdiv~on perf~ ~curity, dudl be Ihble to p~y and to indemnify the Board, upon completioa ot'mc,~ construction, the final total cost to the Board thereof, including, but not limited to englneedng, legal and contingent costs, together with any damages, either direct or eonsequ~ which the Board may sustain on account ofthe failure oft..e Developer to fulfill all of the provisions of this Agreement. 9. An of the terms, covenants and conditions herein contained are and shall be bindtng upon the Devel~ and the respective successors and assigns of the Developer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board and the Developer have caused this Agrcement to be executed by thelr duly authorized representatives this e2-~day of' .~_/~.. :../.._ _ . 19..~'7. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in the presence of: Printed or typed name Collier County Attorney DEVELOPER Berkshire Capital, Inc. A Horida Corporation. Berkshire Capital, Inc. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA TimOthy . ~la~cock- Chaim~n~' 4 · 16A 5 8ewer Collection 1ffatfr DI.ttrlbution Drill=ge Plying Clemtng. Se~d and Mulch Total Sectlon 2 Cost Berkshlre Plnes, Phase One summary for Bond Reduction September, tg97 Total Contract % Comp. % 215,g74.~0 215,~74.50 100% tt6,352.00 116,352.00 100% 67,1 $S.00 67,1 $6.00 100% 308,888.00 258,788.28 84% s,t88.t8 2.,40o.00 2s% Berkshire Pines, Phase One Sewer Collection Seplember, 1997 Item 1 Manhole (0 - 6) 2 Manhole (6 - 8) 3 Manhole (8 - 10) 4 Manhole (10 - t 2) 5 Manhole (12 - 14) 6 Cleanout Assembly w/3M MaAer 7 6' PVC Sewer Lateral 8 8' PVC Sewer (0 - 6) 9 8- F,VC Sewer (8 - S) 10 8' PVC Sewer (8 - 10) 11 8' PVC Sewer (10 - t 2) 12 8'PVC Sewer (12 - 14) 13 8' PV¢ Force M' ', CL100 14 8' PVC Force Main CL200 15 10' PVC Effluent Main CL100 16 10' PVC Effluent Main CL200 17 8' Drop Conflict (4-45 Deg. Bends) 18 Al; Release Valve (Sewer & Effluent) 19 8' Bends 20 8'x 6' Wye 21 Hol Tap 22 Pump Station 23 TV Gravity Sewer (Prelim & Final) 1 Quantity Unit Price Total Contract % Comp. 10Each $ "9505 9.5 1'3.00 ' ' 100% 2 Each $ 1,150.00 $ 2,300.00 100% 1Each $ 1,250.005 1,250.00 100% 4 Each S 1,650.00 $ 6,600.00 100% 1Each $ 1,950.00 $ 1,950.00 100% 121 Each $ 85.00 $ 10,285.00 100% 3,480 L.F. $ 6.50 $ 22,620.00 100% 1.399 L.F. $ 9.50 $ 13.290.50 100% 762 L.F. $ 12.50 S 9,525.00 100% 510 LF. S 16.00 $ 8,160.00 100% 889 L.F. $ 13.50 $ 12.001.50 100% 450 L.F. $ 18.50 $ 7,425.00 100% 1.715 LF. $ 9.50 $ 16.292.50 100% 510 LF. $ 11.50 $ 5,865.00 100% 0 L.F. $ 12.00 $ 0.00 100% 0 L.F. $ 14.00 $ 0.00 100% 4 Each $ 850.00 $ 3,400.00 100% 4 Each $ 1250.00 S 5.000.00 100% 13 Each $ 175.00 $ 2.275.00 100% 121 Each $ 35.00 $ 4,235.00 100% 1 Each $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 100% 1 Each $ 50,000.00 $ 50.000.00 100% 2 Each S 10,000.00 $ 20,000.00 100% Total $ 215,974.50 Total Comp "' 9.5oo:0o" 2.3O0.00 1,250.00 6,600.00 1,950.O0 10,285.00 $ 22.620.00 $ 13,290.50 $ 9,525.00 $ 8,160.00 $ 12,001.50 $ 7,425.OO $ 16,292.50 $ 5.865.00 $ 0.00 S 0.00 $ 3,400.0O $ 5,000.00 $ 2,275.00 $ 4,235.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 215,974.50 Berkshlre Pines, Phase One Water Distrtb~ion Seplember, 1997 Item 1 6' PVC Water Main CL150 4,628 t 8' PVC Warm' Main CL200 376 2 10' PVCWa~erMain CL150 750 3 8' Gate Valve 12 4 6' 8efxts 30 $ 10' Be~ds 2 6 10'x8' Reduce¢ 1 7 4' PVC Condu~ (wf Magnetic Markers) 2,000 6 F'.~ Hydrant (Complete Assembly) 11 9 Fermanefll Bacterial Sa,~ple Point 3 10 (,' Temp. Constructio~ Backflow Assembly 1 11 Ho{ Tap (10' x r) 12 Air Release Valve 6 13 6' Temp. 81owoff Assembly w/G.V. 2 14 8' Cap 2 Total Quantity Unit Pdce u: s ~oJS~ s LF S tl.50 LF $ 13.50 Each S 525.00 Each $ 260.00 Each $ 300.00 Each $ 275.OO LF. $ 3.50 Each $ 1500.00 Each $ 635.00 Each $ 2000.00 Each $ 6000.00 Each $ 850.00 Each $ 950,OO Each $ 110.00 , .Total Co, ntract % Comp. 46,280.oo 100% 4,347.00 100% 10,125.00 100% 6,300.00 100% 7,800.00 100% 600.00 10o% 275.00 100% 7,000.00 100% 16,500.00 100% 1.905.00 100% 2,000.00 100% 6,000.00 100% 5,100.00 100% 1,900.00 100% 220.00 100% 116,352.00 Total Comp. $ 46,280.00 $ 4,347.00 $ 10.125.00 $ 6,3OO.OO $ 7,SOO.OO $ 600.00 $ 275.OO $ 7.000.00 $ 16.500.00 $ 1.905.00 $ 2.000.00 $ 6.0OO.O0 $ 5.100.00 $ 1.900.00 $ 220.00 $ 116,352.00 Berk~hire Pines, Phase One Seplember, 1997 Item 15' RCP 18" RCP 24" RCP 30' RCP 36' RCP 19'x30' ERCP Curb Inlets(P~ In F~ce Tops) Ditch BoSom In,et Type "¢' Type '"D" MRemd Ends lg"x30" 18" 24' Quantit~f Unit Price ..... Total % Comp. 134 LF. $ 15.00 $ 2,010.00 1,156 LF. $ 18.00 $ 20.80~ 00 100% 422 LF. $ 22.00 $ 22O LF. $ 30.00 $ 507 LF. $ :34.00 90 LF. $ 22.OO $ 17 F..m:h $ 875.00 S 4 Em:h $ 875.00 $ I Each $ 1,250.00 s 2 E;K:h $ 375.00 $ 3 Each $ 950.0O $ 2 Each $ 1,100.00 $ 2 Each $ 1,250.00 1 Each $ 1,350.00 $ Total ~ $ 9,284.0O 100% 6,600.00 100% 17,238.00 100% 1,980.00 100% 14,875.00 100% 3,500.00 1 1,250.00 1 ~ 750.OO 100% 2,850.0O 100% 2,200.00 100% 2,500.00 100% 1,350.00 100% 87,195.00 Total Comp 2,010.00 20,808.00 9.284.00 6,600.00 17,238.00 1,980.00 14,875.00 $ 1250.00 $ 7SO.GO S 2,850.00 $ 2,200.00 S 2,500.00 S 1,350.00 S 87,195.00 1 6A Berkshire Plnes, Phase One P~rvtng Sepiember, 1997 1 12' Stabilized Subgrade LBR40 19,050 S.Y. $ 2.10$ 40,005.00 100% $ 40,00500 6' Umerock LBR100 15,910 S.Y. $ 4.00$ 63,640.00 100% $ 63,640.00 2 $ 1.75' Asphalt (S - 1) 4 Z Valley Gutter 5 Type 'A' Curbing 6 4' Sidewalk 7 Traffic Signs 8 Street Name Signs 9 s~p~ 10 Hydrant Marke~ 11 Stop Signs & 24' Stop Bars 12 End of Phase Barricade 13 SUeetlights 14 Directional 15 F'~I (R/W & U.E.) 16 Tumlanes (Raa~.~, Road) 12' Stab. Subgrade 10' Ltmeroc~ 2' Asphaa (S - 1) 5/8' Frlclion Course (FC - Fill In R/W 15,910 LF. $ 3.25 $ 51,707.50 50% $ 25,853.75 8,936 L.F. $ 4.50 $ 40,212.00 100% $ 40,212.00 699 LF. $ 7.50 $ 5,242.50 100% $ 5.242.50 3,270 L.F. $ 7,00 $ 22,89000 0% $ 0.00 17 Each $ 110.00 $ 1,870.O0 100% $ 1,870.00 4 Each $ 85.00 $ 340.00 100% S 340.00 200 LF. $ 0.30 $ 60.00 100% $ 6000 11 Each $ 12.00 $ 132.00 100% $ 132.00 4 Each $ 125.00 $ 500.00 100% $ 500.00 2 Each $ 225.00 $ 450.00 100% $ 450.00 38 Each $ 1,200.00 $ 45,600.00 100% $ 45,60000 4 Each $ 45.00 $ 180.00 100% $ 180.00 12000 C.Y. $ 2.10 $ 25,200.00 100% $ 25,200.00 570 S.Y. $ 2.10 $ 1,197.00 100% $ 1,197.00 480 S.Y. $ 7.00 $ 3.36000 100% $ 3.360.00 4~0 S.Y. $ 4.95 $ 2,37600 100% $ 2,376.00 4~0 SY. S 3.95 $ 1.89600 100% S 1.~96.00 320 C.Y. S 2.10 S 672.00 10' ', $ 672.00 ' ' ~," -- S 30G,8S$.00 S 258,78G.25 Total ~ 16A 5 Rem 4 Radio ~ Sod S~tp ($houtde0 Seed & Mulch Berkshire Pines, Phase One Cleadng, 84ted & Mufc~ Seplember, lgg7 Quanflt~ 2 Acres 1,140 S.Y. 2.10 A~res $ 66 $.Y. $ 0.02 Aa'es $ Total Unit Price $ 1,200.00 $ 1.80 2,178.00 1.80 2,178.00 Total 2,400.00 2,05? 00 $ 4,573.80 118.80 43.56 9,188.16 ~co,'ns. 1~% 0% 0% Total Corn $ 0.00 0.00 2,400.00 · Bond f CC !.3856 KNO~ALL~B¥~~: tlat Berkshire CaplLal, Inc, 5100 N. T~miami Trail ~105 -~ .... .~ Naples, FL 34103 Cumberland Casualty 4311 Il. Waters Ave. Tampa, Fl. 33611 Surety Company edda, ** 2~]~~ONOtt~OBLl(tA~jNi~h~l~twh=~Own~l~n~tl~fo~** One Ilundred Twenty ~ght ~ou~and. Four ~lundred Sixteen anti ~ Berkshtre Pines I ~ 1997 and this 20th day of November 1997 ~~Be r ksh I re . 16A5 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEE The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of Novem~, 1997 and this 201h day of November, 1997 by Joseph P. McCIoskey of Berkshire Capital, Inc. a Florida coq:rotation, on behaff of the corporation. He is personal~ known to me and did nol take an oath. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEE The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of November, 1997 and this 20th day of November 1997 by Robert H. Bond of Cumberland Casualty & SureP/Company, a Florida corporation, on behalf of the corportion. He is personally known to me and did not take an oath. Not~ry pUblic(/ CUMBERLAND CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY · ' TAMPA, F1.DRIDA PR~K~PAL Berkshire Capital, Inc. 5100 #. Tami_*~.i Trail I1Ob Naples, FL 16A5 EFFECT1VEDATENovember 12, 1997 34103 AMOUNT OF BC~D ~28' POWER No. CC- 15856 KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the Cumberland C~sualt)' -% Surety Company. a corporation duly organized under the ~ of ~ S~ o¢ FI~ ~vin$ iu ~i~l off~ in ~ C~ of T~pa. F~d~ pu~uam to ~hc following ~lution. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ of~ ss~ C~y ~ ~ 7~ ds~ of April. 1997, to wit: "R~ ~ t~ P~nt ofl~ C~p~y ~11 ~ve ~ m ~e. ~u~. a~ deliver a Power of Attorney constituting ~ An~-~-F~L ~h ~ fi~s. ~ co~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ fr~ fi~ ~ time. ~ it Fu~ R~ ~ t~ ~i~mm oft~ ~ ~ ~ S~I oft~ Com~ny may ~ af~x~ to any such Power of A~ ~ ~Y c~if~ mhting t~ ~ f~imi~. ~ a~ ~ ~m ~ ~t~ and c~if~d by facsimile signatu~ and f~i~ ~ s~ll ~ valid ~ ~g ~ t~ C~ ~ ~ f~ w~ ro~t m any ~nd or under,king to which it is a~h~." Cum~ ~Iw & Su~ Core,ny ~ ~ ~e. c~im~ ~ ~int ~ore J. Jedlkk l~er ~ P ~ S~le of. i~ ~ ~ [~[ s~(s~f~ wi~ fuU ~ SM a~ ~ c~f~ in i~ ~me. pl;ce ~d ~tead. ~o sign. ex,ute. ~ ~li~ oft~ C~y ~11 ~t ~c~ ~O mill~ ($2.~.~.~) ~ilm. A~ m bl~ Cum~ C~I~ & S~ C~y ~ ~ fully ~ m ~ ~e extenl as sf such ~nd or unde~ing w~ st~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ off~ of~ Cum~ C~ & Sur~ Comfy. ~ all ~e acts of ~id attorney(s) punu~l IN ~~ ~E~OF, t~ Cam~l~nd C~e~ & So~ Company hM tae~ Ih~e pr~ents lo ~ ~n~ by an o~r of t~ C~pany ~nd tis Cor~rate ~al to ~ h~elo ~x~. CUMBERLAND CASUALTY & SURETY' COMPA.%'Y STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGll) On thb 7th day of April, A.D. I~Jq, before me personally tame Edward J. Edenll~l IV, to me known, who beinl by me duly sworn did dbpo~ end say; that he re, Met in the County of llilhborough, State of Florida; fhat he is Pre~ident of the Cum- berlaml Cmualty & Surety Company, the corporation dtacrtbed h~ and which executed the above instrument: that he knows the ~,al ofuM corporation; that the seal atoned to the ~ I~trumenta ia s~eh corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of DIrector~ of said corporation and Ih-t he signed hh name, thereto by like order. My Oommastoo Exp~e~ Aug. STATE OF FLORIDA ) ~o. CC ~r227e COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH) L the ueder~ed, Set'retm'y of the Cumberland C~semlIT & Surety Company, a Florida Corporation. DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foreloing and attached POWER OF ATTORNEY remains In full force. Signed and Sealed at the City of Tampa. Dated the 12th day of November 1997 Date: To: From: Re: December 2, 1997 Micah Massaquoi, Project Manager Office of Capital Projects Management gllie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Work Order 9ABB-FT98-02 Enclosed please find two original documents as referenced above, Agenda Item 916B3, approved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 2, 1997. I am keeping one original for our records and am forwarding a copy of the work order to the Finance Department. If you should have any questions, please contact me at: (8406). Thank you. Enclosure .. v,'oR < OR, .R # ^ -rr9s.0z 1 6 B- 3 Agreement for Fixed Term Professional Engineering Services Dated September Z6, 1995 {Contract This Work Order is for professional engineerin! services for work known as Santa Barbara Boulevard Prclimlq~rv Entmcerint Study Project, To orovidc a study that will inv~.sliltat~ thc issuers 0;loci·ted with lhe six la·ing of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Golden G~?f¢ P/atkwl~y 19 Radio Road. The work ss specified in the proposal dated Se2tembcr 16, 1997. which is attached hereto -',nd made · part of this Work Order. In accord·ncc with thc Terms and Conditions of the Agreement referenced above, Work Order #ABB-FT9$-02 is assigned to Ag·oil, Barber & Brundage. Inc. Scone of Wor~; Task I: Enzinecring Services Task2: Surveying Services Schedule of WgFk: Complete work within i00 calendar days from receipt of the Notice to Proceed authorizing start of work. Compensation; In accordance with Article Five of Ihc Agreement, thc County ,viii compensate the Firm ~n accord·ncc with thc negoliated Iomp sum amount indicated in the schedule below (if · task is time and material, so indic·lc and use the established hourly rate(s) as enumerated in Schedule 'A" of the Agreement). Task I: Engsncering Services Task 2: Surveying Services $34,210.00 (lump sum) $ J,2~.l.O0 (Ii,ne & material) TOTAL FEE $35,441.00 Any change within monet·fy ·ulhority of this Work Order made subsequent to final department approval will be considered an additional service and charged according to Schedule 'A' cf the A~recmenl. ~. Mic~'K. Mass~.E., PMP Director, OCPM A~ES~; ' '.. · 4~.;.Apptoved as ~o Form and · Allistanl County Attorney Company (Corporate Secretary) By; Daniel W. Brundage, Pri~ipal in ~ar~y: Type Name and Tiile ~ si~nalure / : Date BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County, Florida By: T'in',othy ~3/ll~nc~el~, AIC?, Chairman Wi'ness Signatur;/~ ARBER & ~n~.~RUND~ E. .~ptcmber 16, 1997 Mt. Micah Mas~aquoi Collier County Office of Capital Projects Management Collier County Government Complex 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Bldg. D Naples, Florida 34112 RE: Santa Barbara Boulevard from Radio Road to Golden Gate Par~vay ABB PN 7605/X001 Dear Micah: At your request, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., is pleased to submit this proposal to render professional services for providing a study that will investigate the issues associated with the six (6) laning of Santa Barbara Boulevard from Radio Road to Golden Gate Parkway. Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, lnc, hereinafter referred to as ABB, proposes to provide Collier County Office of Capital Projects Management, hereinafter referred to as Client, the follov,~ing professior, al services: 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. Engineering Services A.I. Based upon the plans for the existing four (4) lane roadway, ABB will develop a typical section study to investigate the issues associated with widening the existing roadway to a six (6) lane section. Specific items to be addressed in the typical section study are as follows: /a.) Investigation or,he use oran Urban Section versus a Rural Section. bo) Analysis to detcrmine compatibility of a six (6) lane section with thc existing bridges over the Golden Gate Canal and 1-75. A structural evaluation of the two bridges relative to the addition of two lanes of traffic will be made. A copy of the construction plans for each of the bridges will be required. Jenkins and Charland will be used as structural subconsultants for this portion of the study. c.) Alignment studies to determine the impacts of various locations of future lanes. Main Offg~: 7400 T.tmi-,.'m Trail N., .~d:¢ 200. N.q~i~ lqori~ 33903 · (941) 597-$111 · FAX: (941) 566-220:5 Lee Gauntyt 1625 Hen&? Sr., Suite 101, Fo~t M.vcr,g Florida 33901 · (941) $34-I173 · FA.'(: (9411 334.1175 Mr. lvlicah Massaquoi September 16, 1997 Page 2 h.2. A.3. AG4. A.6. 168-3 d.) Analysis of the impact of the various typical section and alignment options on right-of-way requirements. A brief analysis of the existing roadway drainage system will be made to determine the impacts that the proposed six (6) laning project will have on it. A review of the water management requirements of the South Florida Water Management District will be made to determine if modification of the existing water management system is necessary for permit purposes. Traffic planning and signalization issues will be studied with the following specific issues being addressed: a.) Investigate the warrants ora traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard. and Recreation Lane/Prince Andrew Boulevard. A northbound stopping distance analysis will also be performed for this intersection due to its proximity to the 1-75 bridge, b.) Investigate the warrants of a traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Devonshire Boulevard. c.) Investigate and make recommendations regarding the intersection configurations of Santa Barbara Boulevard with Radio Road, Devon.shim Boulevard, Recreation Lane/Prince Andrew Boulevard, snd Oolden Gate Parkway. A study of the impacts of the six (6) laning project on existing and proposed utilities will be performed to determine if relocations and/or special utility coordination is required. Rough preliminary estimates of probable costs will be developed in order to compare the various alternative typical sections and other design alternatives that will be developed throughout the course of ~e study. Conclusions and recommendations will be presented in the study report regarding the issues presented in items A.I through A.5 in order to assist the Collier County OCPM staffin making informed decisions wSth regards to the proposed six (6) laning of Santa Barbara Boulevard. Deliverables. Five (5) copies of the Study Report will be provided :o the County staff. O8-265YT.PRO 16B-3 ' Mr. Micah Massaquoi September 16, 1997 Page 3 B. Surveying Services B.I. In the event as-built plans for the four (4) laning of Santa Barbara Boulevard are not available, it may be necessary to survey the existing roadway to determine the dimensions of the typical section and various sections relating to the existing bridges and associated embankment. All efforts will be made to obtain the required information from existing plans however, in their absence, this work is proposed to be performed on a time and materials basis. 2. ADDY ;Or/AL SERVICF~ AND EXTRA WORK Services not specifically included in Section 1. Scope of Services will be performed as additional services on an hourly basis, plus reimbursable expenses in accordance with the Rate Schedule enclosed with this Agreement. Services and fees provided in this Agreement are based upon governmental rules, regulations and policies in effect at the time of execution of this Agreement. Should changes take effect during the period services are being performed and result in additional ABB work requirements, this Agreement will be modified by approval of thc parties. In addition, ABB will perform additional services beyond the work described within this Agreement as requested and authorized by the Client. When such work can be identified in advance, ABB will prov/de a reasonable estimate for such work and written authorization obtained. 3. FEES AND COMPENSATION Ao Engineering Services. Compensation for work performed under Section A. !. shall be based on a fixed fee amount of Thirty.four Thousand Two Hundred Ten Dollars ($34,210.00). Bo Surveying Services. Compensation for work performed under Section B. 1. shall be completed on an hourly basis, plus reimbursable expenses. Our budget estimate for the work is One Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-one Dollars (S 1,231.00). Billing for services and reimbursable expenses will be submitted on a monthly basis. All invoices are due and payable upon receipt. Invoices not paid within thirty. (30) days shall accng interest at a rate of 1.5% per month fi.om the due date until paid. Ifpayment is not received within forty-five (45) days fi.om date of invoice, work will stop until the total unpaid balance bas been received. The project schedule and schedule of deliverables will be subject to the Client's timely payments of fees. In the event it is necessary for the Consultant to employ an attorney to collect sums due under this Agreement, Client shall be responsible for all costs incurred, including Consultam's reasonable attorney fees. 08-265Y7.PRO 168-3 Mr. Micah Massaquoi September 16, 1997 Page 4 4. TIME OF PERFORMANCE ABB will start services promptly upon receipt of one executed copy of this Agreement and will complete our work within I00 calendar days. :5. OUTSIDE SERVICES Outside services not specifically included in this Agreement are as follows: B. (2. D. E. F. '3co:ethnical Engineering Environmental (wetland/wildlife) Services and Permitting Materials Testings Hazardous Waste Assessments Legei Services Services not specifically described in Sec. I of this Agreement 6. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLIENT ABB's performance under this Agreement is contingent upon the Client or others designated by the Client providing ABB with: Ao All documents, information relating to special or extraordinary considerations, existing permits, plans, maps, deeds, easements, abs.tracts, surveys, topography or other information in the client's possession relating to the project. 7. PROVISIONS AND CONDITIONS Ao Acceptance Period. This proposal is effective for a period of sixty (60) days from the date shown. If not accepted in writing within this period, the Consultant reserves the fight to modify any portion thereof or withdraw the proposal in its entire. Bo Ownership of Docurnents. All documents, including original drawings, notes, data and report originals are and shall remain the property of the Consultant as an instrument of service. If so requested in writing, the Client will be provided reproducible drawings and other documents in consideration of which the Client agrees to use them without alternation solely in connection with the project. Termination and Liability. This Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by either party upon seven (7) days written notice. In the event of termination, Client shall be bound to pay Consultant for all services rendered to 05-265Y7.PIf. O Mr. Micah Massaquoi September 16, 1997 Page 5 the effective date of termination, all reimbursable expenses and collection and/or legal fee~. Neither the Consultant or Consultant's subcontractors shall be jointly, severally or individually liable to the owner in excess of the compensation to be paid pursuant to this Agreement. D. Disclaimer. The pm'ties acknowledge that the work to be performed by the Consultant nereander is preliminary and general in nature. All findings, analysis and recommendations made by the Consultant will be based on facts actually discovered and in this regard, the Consultant does not guarantee that it will or can discover all facts and circumstances which are applicable to the propew/or the potential use, development, or disposition thereof. The paaies further acknowledge that through the passage of time changing governmental policies, procedures and regulations concerning the development can affect the ultimate and permissible uses and development ofthe property and no pa.,'ty can assure the outcome of governmental decisions or the cost of obtaining approvals or of developing the property. We hope that this Agreement satisfactorily responds to your request. If the Agreement is acceptable, one original copy, signed by a duly authorized representative of the Client, should be returned and will ~erve ~ our authorization to proceed. By signing below, the undersigned hereby represents and wan'ants that they have full authority to contract on the Client's behalf for the services and fees proposed herein. Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, .GNOLI,'B,ARkB,~ EI%~ BRUNDAGE, INC. el W>Bnmdage, P:E. / President (./ Collier County OCPM ,Authorized Signature and Title Date 0~-2g~7.PRO 16B- RATE SCHEDULE- EFFEgTIVE SEIXI'EMBER I, 1997 P, ggistoxxi Engine,.-r/Prlnc|pal S 110.00 Hr. Sr. P,g~-d Engineer S 89.00 Hr. R~st~-rexl E.ng[neet S 79.00 Hr. Sr. Design Engineer $ 68.00 Hr. ENsign En$in~'r $ 58.00 Hr. Sr. Transportm ~n Engineer $ 84.00 Hr. Technician $ 37.00 Hr. Pl~nnlng Director $ 100.00 Hr. Adminis~rative PI,nner $100.00 Hr. C. xrt]fied Planno' S 84.00 tlr. Project Planner/Urban Designer $ 6g.00 Hr. Project Manager $ 75.00 Hr. Projec! Manager (P.L.S.) $ ! 00.00 Hr. Project Manager (P.E.) $ 100.00 Hr. Sr. Project M~nagnr (P.E.) $105.00 Hr. Rggistercd Surw-yor/Principal $ 93.00 Hr. Sr. Registered Survc'yor $ 84.00 Hr. Registered Survoyor $ 74.00 Hr. Technician I S 42.00 Hr. Technician II $ 47.00 Hr. T~chnicizn III $ 52.00 Hr. Technician IV S 5g.00 Hr. Two Man Survey Cr~w $ 74.00 Hr. Thr~ Man Surw-,/Crew S g4.00 Hr. Four Man Survey Crew $ ! 00.00 Hr. Fiw Man Survey Crew $ I i 0.00 Hr. D~|gn Draf~man $ 47.00 Hr. Draftsman $ 37.00 Hr. Courier $ 20.00 Fir. Clerical ! $ 32.00 H~. Clerical I[ $ 37.00 Hr. Blueprints 24 x 36 $ 1.50 Ea. Blt.,q)rints 36 x 48 $ 2.50 Myl~r S~|a 24 x 36 $ 15.00 Mylar S,:pia 36 x45 $ :20.00 Ea. Cople~ $-I/2 x I I $ .05 Ea. Copies $-1/2 x 14 $ .07 Ea. Copies !1 x 17 $ .10 Ea. Aerial T~rg~ 6' $ 7.00 Ea. Agrial Tm'get 12' Ground $ 14.00 Em. Aerial Tm'get 12' Road $ 21.00 Ea. Mil~$e $ .31 Mi. 4-',Vlx~[ Mil~$e $ .50 Mi. ~ Eogin~xr/Exper~ Witness $200.00 Hr. C.g~fied Plmmer~ Wire,ss $200.00 Hr. P,~ Survc'yor~.xix~ wimcss S2oo.oo Hr. Manager/Expert W'aness $200.00 Hr. ~ Og'pm ?400 T~framl Tn,1 N., ~ 200, .~zpics, ~ 3410'~ · (94 !) S97.3111 · FA.v~ (941 ) ~N$-2203 L4~ Com~ty~ 162S Hcndry Sc., Suite 10~, Fort ),~y~rl, Flork{~ 33901 · (94%) 334-1173 · FAX: (94~) 37.5-1 ~75 Date To: From: Re: December 3, 1997 Pete Schalt, Project Manager Office of Capital Projects Management Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk Mxnutes & Records Department Amendment No. 5 to Professional Services Agreement with Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant 8 MGD Expansion Enclosed please find seven original documents as referenced above, Agenda Item 916B5, a$~roved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 2, 1997. I am keeping one original for our records and am forwarding one original agreement to the Finance Department. If you should have any questions, please contact me at: (8406). Thank you. Enclosure NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT 8 MGD EXPANSION AMENDMENT NO. :$ TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT 5 This Amendment #5 to the Agreement dated April 1 I, 1995 (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is made and entered into this o7'~/ day of '~.-t.t..,,~J~.~.._... , 19_~ ? , by and between the Board of County Commissioner~ for Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida and Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (hereinafter referred to as the "OWNE"R"} and Met. calf & Eddy, Inc., a Delaware corporation, authorized to do business in t~ State of Florida, whose new business address is 3740 Executive Way, Miramar, Florida aa0is (hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT"). WITNE$$ETH WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT currently have a valid professional services agreement for thc provision of professional services for the NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT S MGD EXPANSION (hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"), said services more fully described in said AGREEMENT; and WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT agree some modifications to the services being contemplated under said AGREEMENT are necessarT, and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT rt'presenl$ that he has the expertise and the type of professional services that will be required for completion of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and provisions contained herein, parties agree as follows: ARTICLE ONE 16B 5 I.I CONSULTANT shall provide to OWNER professional engineering services in ali phases of ~he pmjc~ ~) w~ch tl~s Amendm~t ~lics. 1.2 CONSULTANT shall provide professional s=n4c=s in addition to those as outlined in said AGREEMENT ~ noted in Schedul= A of thi~ Amendment, as attached hereto. ARTICLE TWO 2.1 OWNER agrees to comper~ate CONSULTANT /'or serviccs rendered hereunder as pre~m'b~ in Schedule B, entitled "Schedule of Fees For Services - Basis for Compensation", as outlined in m~id AGREEMENT with the modificatiorm to Attachments A and C to said AGREEMENT which are attached hereto ~nd made a part hereof. 3.1 ARTICLE THREE The ~chedule for ~aid Project, shall be as shown in the revised Schedule C as attached her~o. NOv 1~36 P~GE. 00~ '97' 168 5: 4.1 "f'm A~,.EI~SOD~, u ~ ~ ~ f~ ~n.H ~or~ and~ COUNTY October 13, 199'/ Mr. Pem' Sc. halt Collier County Government OITr. e of Capital Projects Management 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building D Naple~, FL 33962 . rCr IoF - RECEIVED OCT 22 1997 Re: NC.'RWTP 8-MGD Reverse Osm~is Exparmion Project Proposal for Engineering ServL~__ Dur~ Project Re-Bid Dear Mr. Sehalt: Melcalf & Eddy has eompleml om' estim~ of It~e eng~ coats associated with the re- bklding of the referenced project. We propose to complet~ the work usociated with the re- bidding of the project on a time and ~ basis for the not-to-exceed price of forty-one I~ousand two hundred dollars ($41,200.00'). Plea~ find attached a detailed listing of proposal cost basis and a detailed scope of work. We r~quest your wriuen au~a:a'ization to preceed with ~ services. We n'ust the aforemetlfioned ~ provides yoo ~ ~ fequtred documentation to process this request. Please let me know ifyo~ have any add~ r~,ds regarding this item. Very truly yo~trs, METCALF & EDDY, INC. Vice-Preskk, nt Nick Cooper (M&E-') Jormhan Hasson (M&E} TEL '-,,'~J~44~l'JT?ZO F4~, ~4-4,9'J-5100 ! Mr. Pete Schah Collier County OCPM October 13. 1997 Page I~dlq~l n,]lq , ~ .' ../~ RATE. PER IIR SUBTOTAL $123.00 SI,107.O0 E;'d3~-r.,~ V P~oJE~ Id~EX 44 S I Z~.oo, SS,412.00 E:2KI~'_~K I!1 I~IAT~;~~II~AL ' 124 ~17.00 S10,78t00 ga°hq z~..q n tt,r~c,,a/flq,~ i-~ tnar~r^-no~ ~o4 ST~.Oo s~.too.oo bn.~-~ut w mbu~u~ ' ' . 4s s,s~.oo $99. OO I SUH(X~qTJt,~t~.S Tun~ & A4am. b] ~6.0~.00 TOTAL S.Jm,2SI.00 ~P~..ND TOTAl, S4 i 301 TLMJE a M, ATItlMAL (.V~lJ'l' $41 5 The Nor& RggJosmf Walgt Tn:mmem Plato (NRW'T~ was originally dc~gned with a capacity of 12 MGD or fifdsbed membrane ~ watcr with prm'isiom for an 8 MGD cxpamioe o~ rcvcnc osmosis (RO) finished ~'. As pitt of the plant's RO expanlimt, additloml e~ wUl be ~ lo the existing plant. Tbt initial bid I~ of ~ projo:l pmdon:d a ~ of bids th! dtl~s did nm conform to ~ bid rcq~ o~ had ccnain historical factows d~qualiltyin[ thc bidders. Bascd on lhcsc rcsults. Colli~ Count7 has decided to t~-bid thc cot~ portion of the project To complete the rcquircmcnts otr the new bid plmse., Collic~ County has rcquestcd M&E Io prm'kle ad~ bidding services. M,I:E will provide cagineenng services drain8 the re-bid ptutsc to asmst Collier County in succc~a'fuU7 bidding the ~ portion of the project. The detailed scope !i_~_,~_ Ix:iow wiU be complctcd undcr this task: Mr. Pete Schalt Collier County (3CPM October ! 3, 1997 Page 3 M&E will ~ the OWNER in securing, evaluating, and awarding bids for consarucaion services. Specific assmance is defined in thc following items: a) Incorporate change~ to the in$1rmnentat~ and electrical design per direclion by. thc OWNER or thc OWNER's relm:SCntativc prior to issuance oftlx: re-bid addenda. b) Provide imerpmation and clarif~tion ofComrac~ Docun'~.nts during re-bid process. ProvHc supplemental addelxia lo modi~, the Contract Documents as required during thc re-bid process. c) Coordinate re-bid process ~ilh Collier County Purchasing Dcparlmc'nl including publiotion of bid d) Distn'bttte Contract Doclmlen~ to proq)ecti~ biddell and maintain records of Contract Document e) Attend pre-bid meeting and proje~ walk4ltro~lJl. Assisl in clarification ofbiddcrs' questions during f) A~lst OWNER In evaluation of blds ~ g) Prk~ to I~e contrac~r no~:e-to-precl:a~ prepare and issue twelve (12) copies ora conformed set of Contract Doimment$ that will tndlads file modif~ltion$ made to the Contract Documents by. Addenda Time and Mat~'ials - ~11200 OO 168 5' 888 8 88 8 ~ 88~ 8 8~ ~ 8 888 8 88 8 8 .Ii PRGE .00Z 16 5 168 Date: To: From: Re: December 2, 1997 Pete Schalt, Project Manager Office of Capital Projects Management Ellie Hoffman, Deputy Clerk Minutes & Records Department Amendment No. i to Professional Services Agreement with Camp Dresser McKee, Inc. for the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant 8 MGD Expansion Enclosed please find six original documents as referenced above, Agenda Item #16B6, a~roved by the Board of County Commissioners on December 2, 1997. I am keeping one original for our records and am forwarding one original agreement to the Finance Department. If you should have any questions, please contact me at: (8406). Thank you. Enclosure NORTH COUN'FY REGIONAL WATER TREATMNT PLANT $ MGD EXPANSION CONSTRUC'I'ION ENGINEERING AND INSPE'CTION SERVICES AMENDMENT NO. I TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Amendment #1 to the Agreement dated blay 20, 1997 (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") is made and entered into this f~,a' day of ,~/')--,'c.,.,..~._ ,19 '~/,/by and between the Board of County Commissioners for Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida and Governing Board of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (hereinafter referred to as the "OWNER") and Camp Dresser bleKee, Inc., a l~,lassachnsettes corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, whose new business address is 269 Airport Road South, Naples, Florida 34104 (hereinafter referred to as the "CONSULTANT"). WITNE$SETH WHEREAS, OWNER anti CONSULTANT currently have a valid professional services agreement for the provision of professional services for the NORTII COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT S MGD EXPANSION CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION SERVICES (hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT"), said services more fully described in said AGREEMENT; and WHEREAS, OWNER and CONSULTANT agree some modifications to the services being contemplated under said AGREEMENT are necessary; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT represents that he has the expertise and the type of professional servie.~ that will be required for completion of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and provisions contained herein, parties agree as follows: ~ 16B o , ARTICLE ONE 1.1 CONSULTANT shall provide {o OWNER professional engineering -,nd inspection services in all phases of the project to which this Amendment applies. 1.2 CONSULTANT shall provide professional services in addition to those as outlined in said AGREEME'NT as noted in Schedule A ofthis Amendment, as attached hereto. ARTICLE TWO. 2.1 OWNER agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for services rendered hereunder as prescribed in Schedule B, entitled "Schedule of Fees For Basic Services, as outlined in said AGREEMENT with the modifications to Attachment C to said AGREEMENT which is attached hereto and made a pan hereof. ARTICLE THREE 3.1 The schedule for said Project, shall be as shown in the revised Schedule C as attar, bed hereto. 16B 4.1 The AOP, L~, as smendcd, shah remafn tn 1~II force and effect IN WH'NE3S WHEREOF, ~1~ psrtf= hereto have execut~ this Amendment to Profes~:rnal gcrvices A~eeme~ for the NORTH COUNT~ REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT MOD ~XI'AN~ON ~C'I'ION ~'N'~G AN]) INSFEC'I'ION SERVICES the day A~: (As to BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO~ FOR COI. X.IER COt.rbrl'Y, FLORIDA, A POLITICAL ~B'D~~ OF THE STATE Olt FLORIDA AND A3 EX-OFFICld'THE ""'-:. C, OVERNINO BOARD OF TEE .¢6L).m~ --.. :'.-..: .. COU'NTY WATER-SEWER DISi'RICT.. - . · :. Richard Moore,, P.E., Vice President (COl~O~ SEAL) Crimp ~ & M~,e I~ 16B 6'. · " .... 16, 1997 Mr. Pcu: Sc. halt, PMP Offic~ of Ca~tal Projects Manag~ncnt Colli~ County C, ovc'mment Cen~ 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962 Rc; North County Regional Water Tr~tment Plant 8 MGD Expansion Proposed Revision to Con.striation Engirieering and lnspec~on Professional Services Agnmm~t for Rcbiddi~g Services A~ is our proposed scope of scrvi~ Md budget for revisions to Phase A.4 of o~ Agr~,n~'nt to inclu~ r~'rviccs for rebldding th~ project. A bre~tkdown of the estimated cos~ of setvi~ is included in the nllached Revision to Sch~ule B - Attachment C. The cost for the addition~] ~-'rvices, in ~ time m~d materials not to exceed amount of $15,202.00, includes a deduction of $2,510.00 for the amount remaining under o~ existing Agreement Phas~ A.4. TI~ pmposexl basis ofcompemsation is lame and rna~ls not to exceed $15,202..00 Ifyou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, CAMP DRESSF.~ & McKEE INC. Richard D. Moor~. P.E. Vic~ Prt:sidem A. Sobol~vski, CDM S. Y,,t~oll, CDM REVISION TO SCHEDULE A SCOPE OF SERVICES A.4- ~.~I]IDDING SERy'ICES 16B 6 A.4.1 - A.4.2 - A.4.3 - Assist the Or..'NER in obtaining bids for the construction work to be performed. Distribute plans and specifications, and keep a detailed record o fall parties receiving copies. The DESIGN CONSULTANT ',,,'ill also distribute plans and specifications. Assist in responding to written Requests For Interpretation (RFIs) of the contract documents by prospective bidders, including the review of any addenda, as may be necessary. Organize and conduct pre-bid conference. Prepare minutes and distribute to all parties. A.4.4 - Attend bid opening, analyze bids received, and recommend contract award to the lowest responsible bidder. Review and evaluate qualifications of CON-TRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, and SUPPLIERS for the two apparent lowest bidders. A,4.$ - Prepare and transmit documents for contract execution. Conforming of drawings and specifications to incorporate addenda shall be performed by the DESIGN CONSULTANT. Camp Drrm~r & McKee 168 6~ 1997 ~99~ 1999 T~SK/DESCRIPTION S O N O d" F M A!M J' d A SiO N D d F MJA!M ~J d ADVERTtSEMEHT I [] WTP, WELLS. AND PIPELINE OPEN BIDS ,d I~ PREPARE CO.TRACT Il[] ~SUSSTANTIAL COMPl.£TIOm OELIVER WATER TO SYSTEI~. dP Fr,IAL COMPLETION [] [] END OF PROJECT 4 J, NORTH RE¢3IONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT Cama'Dmmt~J(ee SCHEDULE TO COMPLETION ~*~1 AMENDMENT NO.1 FOR REBIDDIN(3 Schedule C 16C .1. ADDENDUM TO LEASE TI'tiS ADDENDUM i~ mad~ ~d enter~ into thi~ ,,,:~"~'day of ~, 199'/. by and ~ TRAC~I' B, INC~ I Floc~ CorlX~a~ ~er referred to as 'Lessor" and whose address is C/O BarTon CollJcr Comma'c~, Inc., 2640 C~den C, at~ Pirkww, #115. Naples, FL 34105, Grid COLLIER COUNTY, a poilflcaJ sdxllv~on ofthe Slat~ of FL, whose nddress la 3301 Easl Tnmiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, hercir, nf~ ~ 1o as "Lessee". WHEREAS the ~ hero entered into a Lestse Agreement d~ed April g, 1997. covering ccrtatn Ix~crty commoMy known Is Unt1:318 ~ the s~q~pin8 ce~tc~ building known ~ the Mission Plaza, S99 S. Collia l~:,dcvard, Marm Idand, FIo~da (approximately 1,081 square rc~), ~d NOW, THERE3:ORE. for f, cx~ valuable, ~d sufficient c~nsid~'~tion, thc receipt and sufficiency of which IJ hcrcby acknctwledix:d, the imrlJes as3'ee that such Lease Agreement shall be and is hereby amcnded a~d modlfkd as foflm~. Lessee he~cby exercises it's ol~ion lc) mend the Lense tmn for ~n additional two (2) months. or throu[h February 2g, 199~. 'T~ere will be no ndjustmem lo the bose rent dm'lng the option Should Ler4ee requite III Id~itioll~ mon~ or' through March 3 I, 1998, it rnu,'l give Lessor slxly (60) days pctot wfltlal IIotke. There will be no sdJuslment Io thc bnsc rent during this cia' ~ ed condiiloa of hid ~ Alrcemc~ ed of any previous modifications rem~n in fidl f~,-~ ed cfi'cci. The provisions oftMs Addnxbm shall bind and inure to ~ benefit of the p~ics hereto their IN WITNESS WHEP. F.X~. II~ ~ have e:m~_.~ this AckScndu~ to Le3se as of the day and y~ar ftm above ~ '::: DI/Z~(tT. E. BROCK, Clerk : ~' i ' '*"/ · --' / /- -- ... -., ...... '"~'APl;Z'oved.hs.to forsl and H~eidt - - A~hton, Assistan[ Conn~y A~torney /~~rporaoon 1 · TINOTHY/{.. HANCOCK. Chairnan BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANF~U$ CORRF~PONDENCE DECEMBER 2, 1997 FOR BOARD ACTION: 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE 7OR RECORD WITH ACI'ION AS DIRECTED: Code EDforcement Board North - minute~ of September 30, 1997. Referred to BCC. B. Lil:n'ary Advisor~ Boaxd- mlm_~_~ ofSeptemb~ 24, 1997. R.~ferred to BCC. Collier County Planning Commi~on - rnimste~ of September Ig and October 2, 1997 and agenda for November 6, 1997. Referred to BCC. De Ma~co Isl~xl Beach Renouris~ment Advisory Committee - minutes of October 1, September I0, 1997 and agenda for November 5, 1997. Referred to BCC. The Be~ch Reno ' ' Commits, agenda for November 6, 1997. Referred to BCC. Fe Historical/Archaeological Preservation Board minut~ of October 24, 1997 and agenda for November 14, I997. Referred to BCC. Environmemal Policy Technical Advisory Board - agendn for November I 0, 1997. Referred to BCC. Pelican Bay MSTBU Advisor/Committee ag~da for October 3 I, 1997. Referred to BCC. I. Library Advisory Board minutes of Sune 24, 1997. Referred to BCC. County Government Productivity Committee - minutes of September 17, 1997. Referred to BCC. Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority - minutes of the September 22, 1997. Refened to BCC. Le Environmental Advisory Boaxd - minutes of October 1, 1997 and agenda for November 5, 1997. Referred to BCC. -- AGE .9,A HO BEC 0 2 1997 Pg'- { :__.l Bm 16G Letter from Liz ~ Chief, Bur~u of Admlnlstretive Code to Dwight Brock acknowledgin$ hi~ letter of October 17, 1997 m~l ccrtified copy of Colli~r County Ordinarge/t97-49, filed October 20,1997. Referred to BCC. Letter dated October 28, 1997 from Guy Carlton to Robert Milligan, Comptroller of Florida, enclosing Constitutional Officers Financial Report for 96-97 form DBF-AA-405, Combined StaIement of Position Form DBF-AA-402 and Fund Group From DBF-AA-403, lk'v~ and Expeaditures/Expenses. Referred to BCC. Letter dated October 27, 1997 from Abe Skinner r~ference attached Collier County Property Appraise~' Annual Reports for year ended S~tember 30, 1997. Referred to BCC. Letter dated November 17, 1997 ~erom Guy Carlton refer~ce distribution of Current Ad Valorem Tax arid Non-Ad Valorem Assessment to the Board of County Commission, a~r Tax Collector's commission. Referred to BCC. DEC 0 2 t997 Misc. Cortes: Oate: ~ Item# 168 .,.cock RECEIVED Co~stantlAe~ ~c'~, OCT 2 ~ ~97 ~d . Se~t~er 30, 1997 aerr~ of Count~ c~lsslone~s CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD NORT]{ SeDtember 30, 1997 ~pi~: Met on this date aC 8:30 a.m. in REGU'~%R SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Mireya Louviere Celia Deifik Charles Andrews George Ponte Jim Allen Richard McCormick Fred Mueller Clifford Flegal Rich Yovanovich, Attorney to Code Enforcement Board Maria Cruz, Co<~e Enforcement Specialist binda Sullivan, Code Enforcement Director Page i 16G 1' I:Mce= sepcend:~r 30, 1~7 2. 3. 4. A. ~ vi. BLmce Nc)od J/A IrE3L'T ~ E~TE Oc~obo~ 23, lj97 CED Ho. C2~ ~o. 97-027 CEB No. 97-028 10MZOWWZ/J ASSC~,T.J. TTC~, 22/C. CEB No. ~?-030 CEB ~o. 97-004 · CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: The September 30th, 1997 Collier County Code Enforcement Board North code board is now in session, and if I could please proceed with a roll call to my left. MR. FLEGAL: Cliff Flegal. MR. ALLEN: Jim Allen. MR. McCORMICK: Rich McCormick. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Mireya Louviere. MR. MUELLER: Fred Mueller. MR. PONTE: George PonCe. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. MS. DEIFIK: Celia Deifik. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: And I'm happy to report that our full board is here in spite of the weather, and we can certainly -- we certainly do appreciate our alternate coming, but it looks like we -- we have a full board, right? MR. FLEGAL: Yes. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Thank you, sir. So, our alternate will not be participating. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of August 28, 19977 Are there any changes to it? MR. PONTE: I'll make a motion Co approve. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. We have a motion. Do I have a second? MR. MU£LLER: I will second that motion. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor, signify by saying aye. And a word to the court reporter, if we start talking too fast or if there are two of us, Just please be sure and stop us, okay. 'We have -- we have -- I've been asked do add something to our agenda this morning from Mister -- MR. McCORMICK: Yeah, I want to add to the agenda that - and I'm so, so sor_-y to do this, but I Chink =his is going to be my last meeting, so we need to elect, I think, a new vice chairman. Unfortunately, to some degree, I'm going to be moving to Lee County, so I won't be able to continue on the board. CHAIRPERSON DOUVIERE: We are very -- MR. McCORMICK: So, we can do that now or under new business. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: How about we leave it to new business, to the end of the agenda, bow's that? MR. McCORmICK: That's fine. CHAIRPERSON DOUVIERE: We're very sorry to see you go, and if everyone could please give me $10 towards Rick's party, because -- just puc $10 up. We are really going Co miss you. MR. ALLEN: Just charge it to the county. CHAIRPERSON DOUVIERE: Just charge it to the county. Okay. Do we have any other changes to our agenda? MS. CRUZ: Yes, Madam Chairman, for the record, my name is Maria Cruz, code enforcement specialist. Under Item 4, public hearings, Item C, we would like to remove that item from the agenda and continue it for 30 days. Page 2 166 1, HS. SULL~AN: KR. A~DREWS: ~S. SULLIVAN: ~. ANDREWS: to b~ cancelled? for a change. HR. HEDRICH: CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: That's Item 4-C, BCC versus Gary Batcher, CEB Number 97-028. MS. CRUZ: That's correct. CHAIRP~ON LOUVIERE: And why are you -- are we continuing this for 30 days? MS. CRUZ: Staff is working with the respondent toward a compliance, and we are pretty close to compliance at this time. If you would like to hear from staff's point of view, I'll be more than glad to call Mr. Dave Hedrich to the stand, and he can explain better to this board. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Does the board wish to listen to staff in what they are doing or are we prepared to just grant the 30 day continuance? HR. PONTE: I'd like to hear what the staff is doing. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. HR. ANDREWS: Another thing I'd like to -- when did you get the call on this or information that it was going to be continued? This is a different one. I beg your pardon? This is a different case, I believe. No, I mean, when was this decided that it was going I mean, it hasn't been decided yet, but they asked Right. If I may be allowed, my name is Dave Hedrich, investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. Last Friday, we learned of the permit that had been submitted to the county for the auproval of the motor home at the site in question, and right now, we are Just waiting for the county to review the permit application and either approve or deny. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Any questions of staff? I'd like to make a motion that we continue Item 4-C, BCC versus Gary Batcher, CEB Number 97-028 -- do you want 30 days or do you want until our next meeting? MS. SULLIVAN= I think next meeting would be more efficient. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: -- to our next meeting. Do I have a second? MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: All in favor, signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. MS. CRUZ: Madam Chairman. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes. MS. CRUZ: Can we stop for a second. I need to switch two name plates, please. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Two name plates. MS. CRUZ: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. THE COURT REPORTER: Are you going to totally confuse me? HR. McCORMICK: Makes it more fun for you. MR. ALLEN: For the record, that was Fred Mueller that asked for the county to pay for Mister -- Page 3 CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Are we having fun yet? Is staff now prepared to present Item 4-A, BCC versus John K. Long, CEB Number 97-007? MR. YOVANOVICH: Maa~_~ Chairman, can we get a motion to approve the agenda as revised? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Of course. Thank you so much. We have a motion -- MS. DEIFIK: Second. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE= -- and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. And I believe now we are prepared to listen to Item 4-A. MS. CRUZ: Item 4-A, BCC versus John K. Long, Case CEB Number 97-007. Mr. Long is the owner of record of the property located at 125 Second Street Northeast, Naples, Florida. It's more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 14, Tract 34, north 75 feet of the south 180 feet. Mr. Long has been notified via certified mail, posting of the notice, publication of the notice of hearing and the notice of violation, and we have not been able to locate Mr. Long at this time. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. Does our attorney have any issues regarding proper notice before I start to listen to -- we star= to listen to this case? MR. YOVANOVICH: We are going to put in the record the evidence that you published notice and published -- the notice of violation and the notice of hearing. MS. CRUZ: We can do that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the notice of violation gave them adequate time'to -- I Just need staff to state for the record that the notice of violation gave the~ adequate time to get into compliance prior to the advertising of the notice of violation. MR. ANDREWS: Isn't this the one that was advertised in the ~aper, put in the Daily News? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is =he one we decided we had to advertise in the paper because we could never find the person. MR. ANDREWS: It's all cut and dried then, really. MR. YOVANOVICH: I Just want to make sure the statutory provisions are complied with, because when you do a notice of violation, you must give an adequate opportunity to cure the violation, and then you can bring the notice of hearing to enforce an action before the code enforcement board. So, staff Just needs to tell me -- I haven't seen any of the documents. I'm just asking staff to tell me that. MS. SULLIVAN: This case has been going on for a couple of years HR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. I'm Just telling you -- MS. STJLLIVAN: -- so, he's had adequate time to comply. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Okay. So, for the record, staff appeared -- staff has stated that the client has been prol>erly -- the client, sorry -- the defendant has been properly served, and he has had ample time to cure this violation. Okay. Page 4 16G i If we could please proceed. If you could please identify yourself for the record, again, sir. MR. HEDRICH: My name is David Hedrich. I'm an investigator with Collier County Code Enforcement. CHAIRPERSON LO~VZERE: Okay. If you could please be sworn in. (Mr. David Hedrich was sworn). CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Thank you. MS. CRUZ: Madam Chairman, I prepared a package, and I'd like to mark this package Composite Exhibit A and introduce this package into evidence, please. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Okay. I make a motion we accept CEB Number 97-007 packet as Composite Exhibit A and be accepted into the record. Do Z have a second? MR. ANDREWS~ I second. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: We have a motion and a second. THE COURT R~I~)RTER: Who seconded? CHAIRPERSON IX)UVIERE: Mr. Allen. MR. ANDREWS: Charlie Andrews. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Charlie Andrews, I'm sorry. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Yes, it is you. Okay. Mr. Hedrich. MR. HEDRICH: Good morning, everyone. On April 4th, 1996, I began an investigation due to a registered complaint with our office about a ~welling at 125 Second Street Northeast that had bean left vacated and unsecured. Since then, we have attempted, of course, to notify the owner through various methods as described, and ever since that date, we have been unable to contact the owner. We have been u~able to secure the premiles and have had the violation remaining since the initial investigation. CHAIRPERSON ~OUViERE= A~d could you tell us real quick -- I did read my agenda, but the violation consists of? MR. HEDRICH: The violation consists of the house at the site being unsecured. All windows and doors have been broken or removed or broken iuto, broken down. The house remains totally wide open and accessible. CHAIRPERSON bOUVIERE: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you have personally observed these violations? MR. HEDRICH: Oh, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRPERSON bOUVIERE: Are there -- is there any concern for public health and welfare regarding this -- MR. HEDRICH: There are -- CHAIRPERSON LOL~ZIERE: -- ~welling, this unsecured -- MR. HEDRICH: There are great concerns in the neighborhood due to the fact, since the windows have been broken, all the broken glass re~nains inside and outside the house. The sheriff's department has been notified. They try to keep all individuals away whenever they possibly can. Both the department and myself have encountered individuals at the site upon different inspections, and our aim is to Page 5 get the premises secured so no one may enter upon the dwelling. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Ail right. And when you mean secure, could you be more specific? Do you intend to board up the dwelling? HR. HEDRICH: That would be probably the best recommendation I could have, to have the dwelling boarded up, all doors all windows, any entry point. , CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Do we have any comments or questions from any other board members at this time? HR. PONTE: Yeah, one, HadamChairman. What -- given that the property Ks then boarded up and we can't locate ~Ir. Long -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Uh-huh. HR. PONTE: -- what then is the next step in proceeding to try to find him or put a lien on the entire property or what is the next step? CHAIRP£RSONLOUVIERE: Well, at this time, not only can we make a motion, and please s=op me if I'm incorrect, our attorney, we can make a mo=ion that we ask -- we allow -- or we suggest our staff goes ahead and boards ~p the dwelling. In addition to that, we can fine Hr. Long that he is in viola=ion and start assessing him fines, and upon his not paying the fines, then we can lien the property; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct, and you can -- and the local governing body, which is the county, can then go out, if you find that it is a threat to the public -- CHAIRPERSON bOUVIERE: We could take the dwelling down. HR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they can go out and correct the violation. That too, would be a lien against the property. If it is a -- and I'll read you the exact language -- a serious threat to the public heal=h, safety and welfare, if =hat finding is made. 'CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: If you could please read that to us okay. . Oh, HR. YOVAROVICH: That was it. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: That's what I used. I kno~ that it's going to cost money to get on the site and to board up th/s property, so I think it's very important that we come up with some sort of figure so that we can also -- and please correct me if I'm incorrect -- if I'm not right -- to go ahead and be able to lien the property for the amount that it's going to cost staff to ~o out there and board the property. MS. SULLIVAN: The way -- the way we do that, Madam Chairman, is we bid out. We have a list of contractors. We bid it out and then we do ~he work, and then we lien =he property automatically. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay, great. Are we prepared to make a motion? HR. YOVANOVICH: Before we close =he public hearing, can I just have staff's Exhibit B be the two notices that were published in the paper added to the record as Exhibit MS. CRUZ: That's correct. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I make a motion that we accept the two mo=ions -- the two notices that were published in the paper as Composite Exhibit B. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. Page 6 · 16G 1 CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Do I have a second? MS. DEIFIK: I'll second. MR. PONTE: Second. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: We have a motion and two seconds. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MS. CRUZ: This Composite Exhibit B consists of two pages. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Two pages, thank you. Can we now close -- MS. DEIFIK: I -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Go ahead, Celia. MS. DEIFIK: i make a motion that we fine the owner $50 a day unless and until he takes steps to secure the property. HR. ANDREWS: I'll second :he motion, but I'd like :o see $250, $250 a day. HR. PONTE: Before. going ahead, I have a question, more a ma::er of personal information. MR. HEDRICH: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: If it's impossible to find Mr. Long over all =his period of rime and all :hat we've done, when we impose or if we impose a fine, is :he fine :hen applicable :o his estate? Mr. Long may no= MS. DEIFIK: I: becomes a lien against :he land. He can': sell it or mortgage i: wi:hour paying it. HR. PONTE: Mr. ~ong may no: be alive. CHAIRPERSON IX)UVIERE: It continues. It follows through in his estate, and he -- eventually, the county can ask for the property to be sold in order to satisfy :ha: lien. HR. PONTE: Okay. Thank you. 'MR. MUELLER: Madam Ch~i~, I have a question. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, Fred. HR. MUELLER: It's been the concern of this board proper notification and every effort to find these people. In this case, Mr. L~ng has an address up in For:Myers. CHAIRPERSON DOUVI~: Correct. MR. MUELLERc And have we requested any assistance from Lee County authorities in checking his address up :here, and is :ha= appropriate? MR. HEDRICH: If I may. MR. MUELLER: Yes. MR. HEDRICH: We did send notice to :he ForU Myers address as well. From there, I learned of an Orlando address from which he had rata:ed Fort Myers and, excuse me, and then onto Orlando; even secured a phone number where he was at Orlando and had uince moved on from there to whereabouts unknown. So, you really have gone :he las: mile on :his MR. MUELLER: case? MR. HEDRICH: MR. MUELt.~: MR. HEDRICH: I have tried, sir. Thank you. Thank you. MS. SULLIVAN: Madam Chair, if I may, if :he purpose of this is if it's a hazard is :o board it up, we've done a case like th~.s Page 7 16G- before, and what we did was we gave the owner 15 days in which to secure the property, and then if he didn't do it, the county could go ahead and secure the property. Now, I don't know how that interacts with fines. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I really have no problem at all voting on dwelling (sic) the property up today. I think this case has gone on for a long time. I think we have served proper notice. I also agree with our investigator. I don't think this should be open to the public. We have broken glass there, and I think that we do have a health and welfare issue, and in that light, I will -- before we even start fining Mr. Long, I would like to make a motion that we direct staff to board up this dwelling. MR. YOVANOVICH: Wait. Before we get -- go that far, we still need to deal with finding a violation, and as part of the order, that's where you would -- you would include -- if you find a violation, then you would include in the order that there's -- first, you need to find a violation. You need to find that it is a serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Once -- if that is what you find. Then you can craft your order for whatever fine or whatever, you know, remedial action you want to include. CHAIRP~TRSON LOUVIERE: And I thought we would do an order that would have two issues; one is to dwell (sic) up the property and the other one is to start to fine Mr. Long. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and you can craft that in the order section of however you want to do that. MS. DEIFIK: We don't have to give him a period of time to come into compliance? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not if it is, you know, a serious threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public. That's why you need to include that in any findings if that is what this board finds, and before we go much further, do you-all have a copy of the sample finding of fact in your book? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, yes, we do. MR. YOVANOVICM: If we can start following this form to get everything -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I really like it when you do it. MR. YOVANO~IC~: I know. I know you do, and I'm happy to continue to do that as long as we get the gist of this into the order. MS. DEIFIK: Rich, can I look at that. I don't seem to have a copy -- oh, wait, maybe I do. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: It's right before 97-007. MS. DEIFIK: Is this the same thing? MR. YOVANOVICI{: No, it is the same format, correct. ~. DBIFIK: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: There should be one right in front of your book. MS. DEIFIK: No, there isn't. MR. ANDREWS: The last page. HS. DEIFIK: Maria, I'd be happy to do it if you want me to. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Great. I hate doing them. Go ahead. MS. DEIFIK: All right. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: So, first, do we -- can we just make a Page 8 motion chat we find him or do you want us to read? MR. YOVANOVICH: If -- if we follow this format, you'll include everything that I need you to include in your findings of fact, conclusions of law and order, and you won't miss anything, I promise. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Go ahead, Celia. MS. DEIFIK: I make a motion that the board find as follows: first of all, that Mr. Long has been given appropriate notice, that he is in violation, t_hat the continuing situation on the premises constitutes a serious threat to health and welfare of the people of the -- of Collier County, and that it is, therefore, necessary that the coLulty take appropriate action to board up and secure the property, that Mr. Long be fined $250 a day for each day that the violation continues, and further -- and Mr. Yovanovich, you need to assist me here. Do we need to come back -- will the county need tO come back to the board once they ascertain how much it has actually cost them? MR. YOVANOVICH: They would come back, and they would ask you to order -- MS. DEIFIK: That we reserve Jurisdiction, so to speak, or we reserve Jurisdiction to add to the fine the actual costs of securing the premises. We would ask our counsel to include the legal description of the property and the findings of fact and to include the specific sections that are mentioned in the description of violation, which we all have in front of us, and that based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, that this be implemented and said corrections take place immediately. MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: We have a motion, and I believe we had a second. Did you listen to the motion? Do you have any -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I've got it clear. I understand what she said. CHAIRPERSON L~UVIERE: You're clear, okay, great. HR. YOVANOVICH= She covered everything I needed her to cover. CHAIRPERSON I~UVIERE= All right. So, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. MR. ANDREWS: Great. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Are wu prepared to listen to Item 97 -- I'm so lost today. ~'m sorry. I've been in court for two days listening to a trial, and my mind is just not here. Please bear with me -- 97-027? MS. CRUZ: Yes, ma'am, we are. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Which is case -- which is Gary L. Custard versus the Board of County Commissioners. MS. CRUZ: Mr. Gary L. Custard, Case Number 97-027 -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. ~S. CRUZ: -- is the owner of record of the property located at 3S -- excuse me, 3935 24th Avenue Southeast, Naples, Florida, more particularly described as Golden Gate Estates, Unit 86 and the west 180 ~eet of Tract 98. Mr. Custard is brought before this board today for allegedly Page 9 16G 1" violating Ordinance 91-102, the Land Development Code, Section 2.7.6, Paragraphs I and 5 for improvement of property to include a structure, right-of-way crossing without first obtaining the proper Collier County building permits. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: How long has this -- the first time you observed this violation was March 10, 1997; is that correct? MS. CRUZ: Correct. Madam Chairman, I believe Mr. Custard is present. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I'd like to hear from staff first. Do you have any photographs that are a little better than these that are in the packet, and do you want to make a motion to accept this as Composite Exhibit A? MS. CRUZ: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Okay. I make a motion we accept the packet that is part of our agenda as Composite Exhibit A. MR. McCORMICK: Second. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Do you want to ask the defendant if he has any opposition to us accepting the exhibits? Sir, are you the owner of record of this property? MR. CUSTARD: Yes, I am. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Why don't you come up to the microphone and identify yourself and be sworn in. If you could please identify yourself for the record, sir. MR. CUSTARD: My name is Gary Custard. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Thank you. Do you want to swear the defendant in? (Mr. Gary Custard was sworn}. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Did you have any opposition for us acce~ting this as Composite Exhibit A? For the record, show, please, that Mr. Custard has no opposition. Thank you. I Just couldn't Cell very well from what was in the packet. ~$. SULLIVAN: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSO~ hOUVIERE: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: Our d~gital cameras are on order, and we should have them in about a week, and we should have nice pictures from then on. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Great. Thanks a lot. So, he built the structure that is reflected in the photographs, in addition, the -- it's a slight -- you're referencing a right-of-way crossing, but it's like a bridge almost, a small bridge? MR. HEDRICH: That's correct. CHAIRFERSON LOUVI~: Have you been in contact with the property owner regarding this matter? MR. HEDRICH: Ye~, we've had several meetings together. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Sir, do you want to share anything with us &~ to why you constructed these things without a permit? MR. CUSTARD: Yeah, it will take me about a minute. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: It will take you a minute, okay. MR. CUSTARD: I bought that property two years ago, and I cleared it. There was remnants of an old cabin, and keep in mind, this is off Page 10 · 16G 1 of Desoto Boulevard, far out in the colony, and I, basically, got carried away fixing it up, and it's been there for a long time is my understanding. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Did you say there was an existing -- what was on i~? HR. CUSTARD: There was an existing ramshackle building. I talked with the game warden in that area. He was aware of the building, and some other people were aware of it, so I didn't get any permits for anything, and I Just got carried away. I do plan on building out there. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Do you have electricity to this site? HR. CUSTARD: No, there were two problems after I purchased the property. I found out about the Brazilians and the berry, they have to come out, and the electricity is one mile away. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Very costly to bring it to your site. HR. CUSTARD: Very costly, and I'm one year behind schedule because of an accident. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Do you have water and sewer? HR. CUSTARD: No. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Obviously, you have -- you use a pump for water? You have drilled a pump for water? You have a pump? You drilled a well for water? HR. CUSTARD: No, there's no well. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: No well, okay. What about sewer, do you have a septic tank? HR. CUSTARD: No, it's not a -- £t's not a structure to live in. CHAIRPERSON LI3I/VIERE: Okay. What do you have there if it's used? 'HR. CUSTARD: I'm using It for storage, actually, all my tools, and I'm in between -- I'm in between -- I'm just now selling the house, and I've got -- I'm a Journeyman carpenter in real life, and all my tools are there. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: In real life. HR. CUSTARD: In real life. It's been a year that I haven't worked, so -- ~S. DEIFIK: Do -- do you plan to take this down or what are your plans to get rid of the violation? HR. CUSTARD: Well, what I would like to do is, if I could get a little time, I would like some time -- I want to build a primary residence in the front of the property. This cabin is located about, I would say, 400 feet along a canal back from the road, so it's not visible to anybody, and it's substantial enough that I think it would pass all the codes structural for an outbuilding, I'm hoping, and -- but I'd like to get about March 1st -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Oh, yes, of course. HR. CUSTARD: -- if ~hat's l~ossible, and at the time I ge= a per~i~, a building permit for a home -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I'm sorry, but I'm -- you said you have -- you have something that -- a storage shed, but I also see a small -- a dwelling here that looks like a house. It has windows. It has doors. Page 11 16G MR. CUSTARD: Yeah, it's 15 by 23 feet. MS. DEIFIK: Do you have any information that you would be able to get a permit that would encomDass everything that's on the property? What -- what inquiryhave you made? MR. CUSTARD: I've got the fence permit, the exotic removal permit. I'm in the process of taking the bridge out and putting the right-of-way drainage in, so -- MS. DEIFIK: When do you think you will have the right-of-way back to the state 'that it should be in? MR. CUSTARD: The right-of-way, in a few weeks. MS. DEIFIK: That includes cleaning out the swale? MR. CUSTARD: Yeah, that's done. MR. ALLEN: Chairman. CHAIRPERSON LOUVI~: Yes. MR. ALLEN: I have a question of Mr. Hedrich. CHAIRPERSON LOUVI~: Of course. MR. ALLEN: In your opinion, Mr. Hedrich, can an after-the-fact building permit be obtained? You've seen the structure. Do you understand how it's put together? MR. HEDRICH: I've seen it. I've observed it from practically all sides, top, bottom. The only thing I haven't been able to do is actually get inside for an inspection. I've peered into it. It's -- it's questionable without knowing the engineering specs associated with it. I did have one meeting with Mr. Custard and Bob Lord, who does work over at the building department, trying to determine what would be best, how we could go about getting this legally permitted, and there were some suggestions made, but there are no guaranties given. 'MR. ALLEN: I'll ask Mr. Custard the same question. Are you prepared to apply for an after-the-fact building permit? MR. CUSTARD: Yes, sir. MR. ALLEN: Okay. MR. CUSTARD: The str~cture is log -- log walls, and I have an architect, an engineer trying to put together the structural information so that it would pass code. MS. DEIFIKI Have you talked to anybody at building permits to determine whether or not this is something that can be reasonably accomplished and what the time frame might be, that they might be able to give you an absolute answer? MR. CUSTARD: I think Mr. Hedrich can answer that. MR. HEDRICH: I'm sorry. Please, again. MR. CUSTARD: I have -- yes, to answer the question, I have talked to engineering and -- Okay. I thought you said you had a private MS. DEIFIK: engineer? MR. CUSTARD: MS. DEIFIK: MS. DEIFIK: Well, an architect. And who is the architect? A guy named Dillon, Mr. Dillon. Have you talked to anybody at the permit department about getting an after-the-fact permit? MR. CUSTARD: Yes. Page 12 16G 1 MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Mr. Hedrich, what is the time frame within which he should be able to reasonably obtain an after-the-fact permit if he's ever going to get one? MR. HEDRICH: Once the paperwork is submitted, it will probably take about a 30 day period at the most on the outside to determine if it would be acceptable or not. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. Mr. Custard says that he has cleared the right-of-way. Have you observed that? }lave you had an opportunity to go out there and -- MR. HEDRICH: The one thing I have observed is the obstruction in the right-of-way, not the bridge itself but the other litter and debris has been removed. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: And that's all fine. I'm very happy that Mr. Custard is here and he's saying he's going to go out and get a permit after the fact. I don't have a problem with that, okay. I think that's wonderful,~ but i think the bottom line is that Mr. Custard went out there, and he cleared his site, and he put uD two buildings, he put up a bridge, and he didn't take the time to go out and get a permit, and that's kind of like the issue here. You know, I am a little -- I don't mind giving you the time to go get the building -- but I think you violated the code, and you need to pay a fine. That's my first inclination, sir, okay. We cannot -- geez, because if we said -- if we continued to do this, then anyone can get out there and put up any structure they want. They can, you know, clear the site any way they want, and then they can come back to us, and then after the fact, go get permits. That's not how things are done. That's why we have the ~nd Development Cbde, and that's why we have developmental services, and we have like what, I don't know:, a few hundred ~eople there or something. Okay. So, this violation has been going on since March, and you've been talking -- did you ever get to talk to Mr. Custard about the fact that, sir, you're building out here without a permit? MR. HEDRICM: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: Was any further building done after those conversations ? MR. HEDRICH: No, no further progress has been made ac the s~te as far as adding on to the remaining violation. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Custard, you said that it's going to be very ex~ensive to get electricity or water or anything out there. So, are you going to be able to surmount those obstacles in order to build a residence? MR. CUSTARD: Yes. MR. HEDRICH: If I could add one thing. I noted Mr. Custard as saying that he had tried to sell the property at one point, and X heve had several phone calls to my office from folks who say they are attempting to purchase the property un=il they became fully aware of the violation. I'm Just curious if -- is it your intention to go ahead and sell or get it permitted and try to -- MR. CUSTARD: It's off the market. MR. HEDRICH: It's off the market now? Page 13 16G CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: How much time do you think you're going to need to get your permits? MR. CUSTARD: Can I get 120 days, until like March 1st? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: One hundred twenty days? MR. CUSTARD: Yeah. I don't think it will take that long, but I hope by the 1st of January, I ca~ get a -- what I'd like to do is get a bu{lding permit for a primary residence and then be able to keep the structure as an outbuilding and, you know, go through the permitting and engineering and everything. Is that reasonable? CHAIRPERSON LOUVI£RE: Any comments? MR. PONTE: I have a question for Mr. Medrich. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. PONTE: A permit was requested, am I correct, for an extension to November, and that was not granted; is that correct? MR. HEDRICH: Yes, there was a meeting in which he requested an extension of the case before we turned it over to the CEB until November 1st. MR. PONTE: And that was not granted. MR. HEDRICH: No, sir. MR. PONTE: Now, we are asking for an extension to March, to get a permit in March; is that correct? MR. HEDRIC~: That's what I understand. MR. CUSTARD: Yes, sir. MR. PONTE: It seems to me that the real focus of this case here is the question, whether or not there was a violation and building went on without permitting, and that's what we ought to be focused on, not the future plans. The real -- the violation here is the property was improved, and that's prohibited without proper permitting. 'CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I'm of the same conclusion. That's the issue here, and if he wants to -- after we find -- I am of the opinion that, you know, we find Mr. Custard in violation of Section 2.7.6, Paragraphs I and 5 of Ordinance 91-102 of the Collier County Land Development Code to improve the property, to -- you know, to improve the pro£~erty without the proper permits, then after that, if Mr. Custard wants to go down to development services and get a permit, that's wonderful. MS. DEIFIK: So, what you're saying is that you want to impose a fine until he either removes the buildings or obtains a permit, whichever occurs first? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, ma'am. MR. YOVANOVICH: Before we start talking about what I believe is a motion, I'm not sure if it is or it isn't, we need to make sure staff is done with their presentation and the respondent has had his opportunity to present everythin~ he want to present. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: That's fine. Staff? MR. HEDRICH: Nothing further at this time. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. I have a question from Mr. Allen. MR. ALLEN: This is just a comment in general. Where Mr. Custard is, okay, it's not quite as sim~le as walking in and Dulling an after-the-fact ~ermit. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I didn't think so. ~ Page 14 16G 1 MR. ALLEN: It's not chat easy. By virtue chat he has -- does not have a primary residence on this site, okay, the accessory buildings are not allowed by co~e. So, typically, on the after-the-fact permit, you walk in, and you puc your prints together and your plans together, and you pull an after-the-fact l)ermit which will take a 30 to 60 day process. Just by reason that he doesn't have a primary structure, he's going to have to go in with a set of building plans, okay, to pull a primary building permit, which mean~ septic evaluation, the whole shooting match. So, I'm not trying Co be lenient or hard. I'm trying to make ic so the beard understands, ic's not as simple as walking in and walking out and paying a fine. He's going to have to go for a primary residence, okay, get Chose plans approved, and then go for an after-the-fact CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: And I can certainly understand this issue, but Chis is the second Case that I have listened to that's like chis. We have people out in the Estates that are building without coming in and getting ~ermits. They are out there clearing land without getting l~ermits, and this is the second case. I listened to one last month, and I'm listening to another one this month. MR. PONTE: In this case, they're also building -- a bridge was built -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yeah. MR. PONTE: -- which could be a hazard in itself. Someone crossing a bridge or attem~)ting to cross a bridge with or without a vehicle and the bridge is hoc stressed for it -- it's more than just the building. It's the bridge. It's the clearing of the roadway. CHAIRPERSON hOUVIERE: For all we know, he has wetlands out chert. He's hOC going to be able to even build this stuff. MR. CUSTARD: It's not wetlands, the property itself. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Custard, did you have anything you want to say in your defense? MR. CUSTARD: I'm not sure -- I thought I would get -- I made a mistake in doing Chis, and I was looking for some help today co gec myself legal, and short of that, I'll remove the structure, I guess, if the fine is going co be substantial. Just give me some time, I'll remove the structure and start fresh. I don't want to do that, but -- MS. DEIFIK: There's actually two structures, I think, chat would need to be removed. MR. CUSTARD: Yeah, but I'll remove them. I need -- i need about -- I need some time. I'm physically not able to get out there right now but -- CHAIRPERSON bOUVIERE: Couldn't the 345 square feet structure Chat he has, couldn't Chat be considered a primary residence? MR. HEDRIC6: It does not meet the minimum square footage -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: The minimum square footage. MR. HEDRIC~: -- required for a primary residence. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: What is the minimum square footage out in the Estates? MR. HEDRICH: Ap~roximaCely 1,100 square feet. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Eleven hundred square feet. That's what I Page 15 16G 1' was thinking. Okay, I'm open to suggestions since I seem to be the one that's leaning -- any comments? Any other suggestions from the board? MR. ALLEN: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Go ahead, Jimmy. MR. ALLEN: I'd like to give Mr. Custard 90 days, to the 1st of January, to obtain a building permit, okay. MR. CUSTARD: · For primary structure, sir? MR. ALLEN: F~r primary structure. MR. CUSTARD: Okay. MR. ALLEN: And in addition to that, have an after-the-fact permit -- if you have your primary permit done by January 1st, the fine for the after-the-fact permit should also be paid to the building department by January 1st, and if that's not done, I would suggest we pUt a fine of $100 on the property or give you the option to remove the structures. MR. PONTE: Wouldn't that be remove the structures within a specified amount of time? HR. ALLEN: That' s fine. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I want to up that fine. I want -- I want Mr. Custard to be very motivated to get the permits -- MR. CUSTARD: Well, X am. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: -- because I -- you know, I think you're going to -- I think when you get out to get the permits for this site, you're going to encounter quite a -- you know, some -- for one thing, you're going to have to take your 345 square feet, and you're going to have to add enough to have -- the main structure have the required square footage of 1,100. That's the first thing you're going to have to' db. Then if you want to live out there, you're going to have electric. You're going to have to get a septic tank. You're going to have to get a well. You've got a lot of stuff going on on this site. HR. CUSTARD: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: Madam Chairman, may I inquire of staff? Mow much of a problem is it out in the Estates with -- as Ms. bouviere says, we've seen a couple of instances of these where people are proceeding to build without bothering to check with any authorities or pull any permits. MR. HEDRICH: If I may, I've been working the Estates area for several years now, and I encounter dozens of these cases a year. I'd say the average 75, 80 percent of them stop work at the time and either remove or obtain the permits. MS. DEIFIK: And does staff have a recommendation in this regard with regard to this case? MR. HEDRICH: The motion that Mr. Allen has made does se~m suitable to us at this time. MS. DEIFIK: Is that going to deter others sufficiently from attempting to -- I mean, I appreciate Mr. Custard's candidness. I =~ink he's been very up-front with us, but is the kind of motion that Hr. Allen has designed going to deter others sufficiently from trying to go throw something up and saying, oh, well, we'll get it rubber- stamped later? Page 16 l 5 iT; I }iR. HEDRICH: We feel if the fine set is substantial, plus the fact I'm becoming very unpopular out there due to this problem, we feel it would be sufficient, yes. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. So, the fine that Mr. Allen suggested was $100 a day, right, a~d I wanted to raise that to $200 a day to motivate him to get ~hese permits. So, if Hr. Allen is willing to modify his motion in that manner, I don't have a problem seconding it, seconding the motion. liS. DEIFIK: And Kr. Allen, could you also add to your motion, and I think you intended this, that if -- that he either have all of the permits in place by January i or have both of the buildings completely removed and the right-of-way completely cleared and anything else that was listed on the notice of violation completely corrected? MR. PONTE: MR. ALLEN: MR. PONTE: MR. ALLEN: right. Within 60 days? He'll never make it in 60. Tear it down in 60 days? I'd like to keep iC all on January 1st if that's all CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: That's fine. HS. DEIFIK: That's fine with me. KR. ALLEN: Or we can say, all permits have to be issued by January 1st. MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. ALLEN: After-the-fact permit fines paid to the Collier County building deparr~nent by January 1st. All other issues in the affidavit and violations that are listed in our packet here be corrected by January 1st. 'MR. PONTE: Yes. MR. CUSTARD: Will this fine -- will this fine start -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: And the fine will start if you do not complete what Hr. Allen -- you have to get the permits. HR. CUSTARD: By January 1st. CHAIRPERSON IX)UVIERE: If you don't get the permits by January 1st, then the fines are to start from that dace forth. MS. DEIFIK: Unless you move the buildings. MR. CUSTAJtD: Okay. So -- okay, I ~ulderstand that. That's more ~han fair. I'm happy with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, you will stipulate to the order of the board and stipulate to the violation of the various sections? MR. CUSTAJ~D: I'll be in compliance by January 1st or the structures will be removed because -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: /=nd what you are saying -- what the attorney is asking you is that you are in agreament that you are in violation of these sections -- MR. CUSTAP. D: Oh, yeah, I am in violation. CHAIRPERSON IX)UVIERE: -- Section 2.7.6 of the Land Development Code? MR. CUSTA/~D: Yes. MR. PONTE: Mr. Allen, what I wanted to ask you to consider adding -- Page 17 CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Oh, boy. MR. PONTE: -- was that if the permits were not in place by january 1st and then the structures were to be removed, that he be given 60 days to remove the structures, that there be some time limit placed on -- MS. DEIFIK: No. MR. PONTE: -- on removal of the structures. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: He'll know prior to January 1st how it's going. He'll know if he's going to get a permit, and if not, he'll know he has to take the buildings down. He'll know. When he's at developmental services, he'll start to get very distinct feelings on whether or not he can obtain those permits by that date. So, I don't think he needs the additional time. MR. McCORMICK: For clarification, Mr. Allen's motion stated he had to either get the permits or tear it down by January 1st. MR. PONTE: Oh, I see. Okay. All right. That's good. MR. HEDRICH: In order to have that permit in hand by January 1st, the paperwork would have to be submitted by no later than December 1st to make sure it all goes through. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: He has time. MR. HEDRICH: Correct. MR. CUSTARD: Could we get Just 30 more days because that's really pushing it? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: No. I am -- no, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: So when I reduce this to writing, was the fine $1007 Is that what I -- it's gone up to 200? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Two hundred. MS. DEIFIK: But that doesn't start until January 1. 'MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, I u~derstand that. I Just wanted to know what the number was since a couple of them were bandied around. MR. ANDREWS: Is there a motion and a second? MR. ALLEN: F~. C~stard is going to know within 30 days -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Right. MR. ALLEN: -- what your fate is going to be. MS. DEIFIK: I think we need Jim to restate it as a complete motion and then let's get a second and vote on it. MR. ALLEN: I don't know if I'm smart enough to do that. MS. DEIFIK: I know that you're smart enough. MR. ANDREWS: Come on, wake up. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: And the reason -- and you might think that I'm being very difficult, but the reason is, is I want you to get in there, and I want you to start working on this. You're going to start hitting the holidays. I want you to get very motivated, and that you know what you're up against right off, okay? MR. CUSTARD: Okay. MR. ALLEN: Why don't I restate this in a nutshell, would be that all the violations that are shown in our packet CEB 97-027 shall be =~medied by January 1st, that a fine of $200 a day will start after January 1st if the new building permit is not obtained and the after-the-fact building permit has not been obtained and a fine for the after-the-fact building permit has to be paid to the Collier Page 18 16G 1 ~Ro ALLEN: ~R. MUEL&ER B'~. F&£GAL MRo ALLEN: happens o MR. B~ELLER County building department, and that if the permits are not obtained by January 1st, the existing structures and all other violations must be removed by january 1st, 1998. Anybody else have any comments on that -- MS. DEIFIK: Or at that point -- CHAIRPERSON L~DUVIERE = Or -- MS. DEIFIK= -- a fine of $200 a day will be imposed. CHAIRPERSON ~E1EE: -- two hundred dollars. MR. ALLEN: Correct, or begi~ing January 2nd, a fine of $200 a day shall be assessed to the pro~er~y. MR. MUELLER: Jim, a po~/~t of clarification, please. January 1st comes and he has all of his a$~ropriate building permits from the county and the two buildings and the bridge is still there, there are still violations, but he has the building permits to correct them, what is the position of staff at that point? I feel like we have the $200 a day penalty running. I beg your pardon? If he has all the permits. If the permits are intact, this goes away; nothing Even though the violations exist as of January 1st? MR. McCORMICK: It won't be a violation when he has a building permit. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: The violation stops and ceases because now he has -- he has been issued building permits after the fact is what they're trying to say. MS. DEIFIK: And they may very well require him to take the bridge down anyway. I mean, the point is he has to be in complete compliance either with the permits or correct the violation, and the county staff may very well permit his buildings but make him take the bridge down. MR. ANDREWS: I second Jim's motion. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Yovanovich, since your office has to draft this motion, do you have any further questions of clarification, because you -- your office drafts it, and I have to put my name on it, so are you clear? MR. YOVANOVIC~: I'm clear. Basically, the motion is he obtains all required permits, pays all required fees by January 1, 1998 or removes the structures, and if he doesn't do either or, it's $200 a day commencing January 2nd. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Excellent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I get At right, Mr. Allen? MR. ALLEN: Yes. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: We have a motion and a second. Ail in favor, signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. You have till January 1st. MS. DEIFIK: Good luck, Mr. Custard. MR. CUSTARD: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: You're welcome. MR. ANDREWS: Good luck. Page 19 16G CHAIRPERSON LOUVIEKE: Thank Jimmy. MR. CUSTARD: Thank you, Jimmy. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: We have -- are we prepared to listen to the next item, Case Number 97-028, or is that the one that we continued? MR. ALLEN: That ' s the one -- that' s extended. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: That was the one that was extended. Thank you. : I'm really out of it today. Okay. So, we are now going to listen to Item 4-D, Whispering Pines, Inc. and Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc., Case Number CEB Number 97-030. MS. CRUZ: Yes, Madam ~nairman, Case Number -- BCC versus Whispering Pines, Inc. and Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc., Case Number 97-030, it's allegedly in violation of exotic pest plants not removed during each phase of construction from the park and preserve areas, and a maintenance program and plan not implemented to prevent re-invasion of the site by exotic plants. The owner of record of this property is Whispering Pines, Inc. and Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc. This property is located in Imperial Golf Estates, Phase 5, Tracts B and C of Naples, Florida. Please let the record show that the representatives for Whispering Pines, Inc. are present. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. Thank you. Would you like -- would you like us to accept the packet as Composite Exhibit A? MS. CRUZ: Yes, ma'am. 'CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I make a motion we accept the packet CEB Number 97-030 as Composite Exhibit A. MS. CRUZ: I'd like to request the respondent if there's no objection to a~mitting this exhibit into evidence. MS. DEIFIK: Why don't we have the respondent come up? Who's the representative of the respondent? MS. CRUZ: We have three members. MR. OEHLERS: I'm the representative of Imperial Golf Estates. The representative for Whispering Pines I don't believe is here. MS. DEIFIK: All right. Sir, would you like to come forward? MR. OEHLERS: Certainly, love to. MS. DEIFIK: And could you state your name for the record. MR. OEHLERS: My name is Herbert Oehlers. I'm president of Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association. THE COURT REPORTER: And your last name? MR. OEHLERS: Oehlers, O-E-H-L-E-R-S- CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Could you please be sworn in. MR. OEHLERS: Pardon? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Could you swear him in? (Mr. Herbert Oehlers was sworn). MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Povlitz, are you here for one of the parties? MR. POVLITZ: Not on this parti.~lar matter. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: He is here for Mr. Wood. Page 20 16G 1 MS. DEIFIK: Oh, I see. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: See, he's sitting next to Mr. Wood. MS. DEIFIK: Oh, I see. CHAIRPERSON I~)~~: So, he is later. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, let's clarify the record that Whispering Pines, Inc. is not represented. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Is not represented? MR. YOVANOVIC~.: They are not here as far as I know. MR. OEHLERS: That' s correct. MS. CRUZ: That' s correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's ]us= Lmperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc. which is represented by Kr. Oehlers. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: And this case is against Whispering Pines, Inc. and Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc.? MS. CRUZ: That's correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we Just clarify for the record whether or not Whispering Pines, Inc. received the notice of the violation? MS. CRUZ: Yes, sir, I do have a certified green card in my possession from -- I cannot determine the signature, but it was addressed to Whispering Pines, Inc., attention to Lloyd G. Sheehan. MR. YOVANOVICH: When was it received? MS. CRUZ: It was r~ceived on 9/18/97. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So, you'll introduce that into the record ~ust at -- put it in the file? MS. CRUZ: I can. I'd like to request to admit -- to introduce into evidence a one page Exhibit B. CHAIRPERSON DOUVIERE: We have -- all right, that proper notice was served to Whispering Pines, Inc., correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct, and then you can proceed against both parties once we've established that proper notice has been given to Whispering Pines, Inc. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. I make a motion we accept Composite Exhibit B, that proper notice was served to Whispering Pines, Inc. Do I have a second? MR. ANDREWS: Second. CHAIRPERSON DOUVIERE: All in favor, signify by saying aye. Sir, you are here representing I~perial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc., and prior to us accepting the packet as Composite Exhibit A, have you had an opportunity to review this packet? MR. OEHLERS= Yes, I have. I did not take the time to cr~ to go through and make a package for the b~ard to review because the issues are not that cut and dried and to go ~hrough it would have probably been a bigger packet than you have if I tried to explain the whole situation. One thing I'd like to clarify with Whispering Pines, Mr. Sheehan had called me and I told -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Before we start to listen to your case, sir, I have =o get -- I have to make sure that you have no opposition to accepting this packet, CEB Number 97-030, as part of our e~sibits in this case. Page 21 MR. OEHLERS: I certainly accept it as part of the exhibit. I don'= agree with all parts of it. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. MR. OEHLERS: There are a few things in there that need clarification. In basis, they are correct, but there are certain things that are not quite the way they were. MS. DEIFIK: You'll have an opportunity to explain those to us. MR. OEHLERS: :Yes. MS. DEIFIK: But right now, as far as the county letting us see this, do you oppose the county letting us see this? MR. OEHLERS: No, i have no objection, no, fine. CHAIRPE~SONLOUVIERE: Okay. So, then, I'll make a motion that we accept this packet, CEB 97-030 -- MS. DEIFIK: As the county's exhibit. CHAIRPERSON L~KPFI~: -- as the county's Exhibit A. Do I have a motion -- you have no problem with it? MR. OEHLERS: I have no problem with it. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: A~dwe understand you're going to have some discussion regarding what is contained in this packet. MR. OEHLERS: Yes, I am, yes. MR. ANDREWS: I second. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Okay. It passes unanimously. Can we Just please star= -- and we'll give you -- you'll have your opportunity, sir. If we can Just get from Ms. Polen just an overall discussion of what you constitute as a violation and then you can -- we'll hear from you, bow's that? 'Do you want to -- could you please identify yourself for the record? MS. POLEN: ~y name is Kimberly Polen. I'm a Collier County code enforcement investigator. CHAIRPER~ONLOUVIERE: Okay. Do you want to swear her in? (Ns. Kimberly Polen was sworn). MS. PO~N: On January 3rd of 1996, the initial investigation was conducted by Investigator Nike Kirby. The investigation revealed Nelaleuca and Brazilian Pepper in Tracts C, B and A. On January 5th of 1996, the noti:e of violation and stipulation was mailed certified mail to registered agent and officers of Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc. On February 5th of 1996, Investigator Kirby had a conversation with the registered agent, horen ~aine who stated at the time, attempts to have the -- have developer perform the work was being done. It was also stated that bids had been obtained to complete work on February 29th if developer would fail to perform same. On February 15th of 1997, a reinspection was conducted resulting in violations r~ining. At the time, a chronological summary was prepared for the county manager's office and a two month extension was granted. On April 12th of 1996, a reinspection was conducted. Violations remained. Another notice of violation and stipulation was mailed to Page 22 16G I the developer, at the time, Mr. Lloyd gheehan, of Whispering Pines, Inc. This notice requested compliance by April 23rd of 1996. On April 23rd, 1996, the reinspecticn was conducted and the violations remained. January 16th of 1997, reinspection was conducted. Prohibited exotic plants observed in Tracts B and C were still there. On Septem_her 12th of 1997, I attempted to contact the homeowners' association initially, resulting unsuccessfully, and I left a message. On the 15th of September of 1997, i reinspected the site for comDliance resulting in the violation still remaining. On September 22nd, I was able to arrange a site visit with Herb Oehlers, the president of the Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, and Loren haine, the registered agent, to review the on-site conditions. I found the majority of the exotic plants had been removed from Tracts A, B and C, and also, some of the regrowth that had occurred after the majority of the plants had been removed had been~oisoned. There are still regrowth on much of Tracts B and C, and so, therefore, the violation still remains. That's complete. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Does staff need some time to discuss this? MS. POLEN: No, we are complete. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: You're complete. Could you please tell me what the total acreage of this site is? We are talking about different phases, if I am correct, and tell us what the phasing -- what's proposed for this subject site. MS. POLEN: Okay. The phases of construction were done all at one time when the infrastructure was put in, and Tracts A, B and C equate to a$~roximately five, not even quite five acres, say 4.5. CHAIRPERSON ~DUVIERE: So, we are looking at a total of five acres? MS. POLEN: Correct, together. CHAIRPERSON LO~IERE: But the ordinance that dictates how this site is going to be developed said that as they went ahead and developed different phases of it, they weze supposed to clear the exotics, but then they didn't really follow =heir phasing plan, and they Just went ahead and developed the whole five acres; am I -- is that correct? MS. POLEN: The co~on areas were part of the initial phase of development, and they should have been removed initially with the infrastructure im~rovements, correct. CHAIRPERSON bOUVIERE: So, we are just looking at =hen =he common areas. MS. PeLIoN: Correct. CHAIRPERSON LO{TVIEKE: Sir, I'm sorry. I was being totally -- there was so much going on. Could you please state your name one more time? M~. OEHLERS: My name is Herb Oehlers. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Okay. Do you have any%hing you would like to add, Mr. Oehlers? ~. McCORMICK: Could we go ahead and ask some questions of Klm? Page 23 16G 1. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Do you have some questions of Klm, okay? Just one second, sir. MR. McCORMICK.- Kim, let me ask you a question about the time line. The original infrastructure for this was built when? MS. POLEN-. I do not have that information at this time. HR. McCORMICK: Was it -- were exotics cleared from the common area during that initial construction phase? MS. POLEN: I: am not able to answer that. The investigator prior to me -- I only have limited information in my file, and so I cannot answer that. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: So -- but the location and address where a violation exists, you're referencing it as Tracts B and C. Are we to assume that Tracts B and C are considered common areas? MS. POLE~= Yes, they are. CHAIRPERSON l~Yu%~I~.· So, we have two tracts that are considered con, non areas ? MS. POLEN: Uh-huh. MR. McCORMICK: Did I hear you say some exotic removal has taken place since this notice of violation was issued? MS. POLEN: Yes. MR. McCORMICK: When did that occur? MS. POLEN: I would state -- maybe you should ask the president that. I went out, an~ I noticed a lot of work had been done on that September 15th visit, and there was some regrowth, and that's why we are not -- MR. McCORMICK: There's enough regrowth for this -- MS. POLEN: Yes. MR. McCOKHICK: -- to still come -- MS. POLEN: Right. MR. McCORMICK: -- before us? MS. POLEN: But they had removed the majority of the material from ~he site. MS. DEIFIK: Ms. Polen, have you had any conversations with Mr. Sheehan or any other representative of the developer? MS. POLEN: No, I haven't, but Mr. Sheehan did stipulate to the violation. MS. SULLIVAN: If you look on Page 12 in your packet, we wanted to point out for the record -- MS. DEIFIK: But I'm interested in any conversations concerning removing ~he violation. MS. POSEN: No, I have not had any with the -- Mr. Sheehan. MR. PONTE: Do you know who did -- Ms. Polen, who removed or partially corrected the violation? I mean, was it Whispering Pines or funds from Imperial Golf Estates. MS. POLEN: You'll have to address that possibly to the homeowners' association. Maybe they can give you that information. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: At this time, if -- we were asking questions of Ms. Polen. Then we'll go ahead and ask questions of Mr. Oehlers. MS. POLEN: I do not kn~w that, who totally funded. I mean, I've been given some ideas that, yes, they did put money forward, but I Page 24 16G i don't know where initially that money came from. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Any other questions of Ms. Polen at this time? Okay. We'll ask now -- we'll hear from Mr. Oehlers, and then don't go away because I'm sure we'll have more ~]estions. MR. OEHLERS: No, keep her here. I'd like to go back and just briefly give you a little history. This is why I say, I don't want to get into a lot of details of this because it's more involved than what appears on the surface. The reason probably Mr. Sheehan isn't here and Whispering Pines being represented, he called me last week, and we have, in the meantime of the original complaints and notices of violation, made an agreement with Mr. Sheehan because we had some leverage with him for him to give us some money to proceed with this work, which we did. That's the understanding. We have taken all of the -- we cut all of the exotics out of these areas. The treatment of the regrowth is in progress and it was when Ms. Polen went to the site, and we are continuing this and would anticipate completing this, we thought, within 30 days, but with the rains coming down now, we would like 60 day~ or the end of November to complete this, and we would contact her at that time or prior to that when t~a evidence of, because as you know in spring, it takes about two weeks to really see the effect of it, and we have a considerable area in the back of this site that requires an extensive use of spray treatment, and we are doing it with O our personnel rather than hiring contractors because we find contractors are rather remiss. They'll hit things here and there and forget it. 'So, we are doing a very conscientious job at doing this. This is our home and our area, and we are going to take care of it, but to digress for a moment and go back to the beginning, I'd like to give you a little history on this because it bothers me considerably. Back in late 1993, South Florida Water Management came in here because part of this area is a preserve area. It's a cypress preserve which encompasses about four acres. They went after Whispering Pines as he was the record holder and also signed the agreement with South Florida Water Management for the development of this site. In -- they sent him a notice of violation in February of '94. In February of · 95, he was sent a notice for fines and penalties for noncompliance of removal. Shortly after the conversation, Louise Boss (phonetic), who was enforcement section of west -- South Florida Water Management in West Palm Beach, indicated they were vigorously preparing action. A conversation later with Ms. Boss indicated Mr. Sheehan had met with her office and indicated t]Jat they did not have the money to do it, and that they were -- basically, had no funds and the matter has been tabled. Obviously, the attorneys for South Florida Water M~nagement found out tha~ Whispering Pines has no assets and no money, and therefore, didn't pursue it any further and left the project. At that time, I became concerned about the association's position Oin light of this action and contacted Commissioner Tom (sic) Hancock Page 25 for an opinion from the county attorney as to a responsibility for removal -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Did you mean -- did you mean Tim Hancock? MR. OEHLERS: Pardon? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Tim Hancock? MR. OEHLERS: I contacted Tim, yes -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIER£: Okay. MR. OEHLERS: .-- and had him -- because I wanted an opinion from the county attorney -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. MR. OEHLERS: -- as to the responsibility of the removal of these exotics from all the common and preserve areas, and this phase five is the fifth phase of Imperial Golf Estates, and I wanted it in accordance with the 1987 development ordinance which you have copies of in your files. The development ordinance says he, as part of the infrastructure, was to -- and with the development and completion of the infrastructure, he was to remove these before development occurred. This wasn't done. The county accepted his infrastructure and accepted it leaving all of the exotics in there, and people started to build. The county code people issued permits. People built homes in there and removed the exotics from their home sites, which they are required to do by the ordinance -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I understand. MR. OEHLERS: -- but the other exotics were never touched, and the developer never touched them. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. MR. OEHLERS: Now, I got this opinion from the county attorney's office from a ~rjorie Stuart (sicl who is the assistant attorney over there. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: MarJorie Student. MR. OEHLERS: Student, I'm sorry, Student. CHAIRPERSON LOUVI£RE: Yes, sir. I'm only saying that because the court reporter, she can take down the right name. MR. OEHLERS: MarJorie Student. Well, I'm old, and I can't see good. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: That's fine, sir. I'm going to get old and I won't be able to see. MR. OEHLERS: And she noted in this -- that she had contacted Mr. Kirby -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. MR. OEHLERS: -- regarding the conditions out there. Well, in the meantime, Mr. Kirby sent us a violation and notice on January 5th because of her contacting Mr. Kirby on January the 3rd that there was a condition that existed out of there, and the notice was sent to us, which should have really gone to Whispering Pines because her determination was it was Whispering Pines' responsibility. So, we started, and, of course, acknowledged the notice of violation because it was sent to us and went through things like starting to get bids and stuff to protect our interests and the fact that we didn't want to be in court and pay fines and so forth. In the meantime, we've gone to Kirby and back and forth, and Page 26 16G finally, admitted :ha: it was Whispering Pines' responsibility, supposedly, but we were still on the notice of violation. On May the 20th, we sent a letter confirming the notice sent to Whispering Pines and stating we assume that we have no longer responsibili~y in this project. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Right. MR. OEHLERS: And on the 218: of Hay, Mr. Kirby sta:ed the case would be referred to the CEB. This is the 21st of May 1996, which I talked to Mike and said, great, we are getting a hearing~ we'll definitely decide :hen by code enforcement how :hey are going to proceed from :his point. This is a year and a half ago. This is our meeting. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. Our board -- our board -- MR. OEHLERS: I realize -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVT.~E: -- and I would like to apologize, but our board is very backed up. MR. OEHLERS: I realize :ha:. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. HR. OEHLERS: And I a~preciate =ha= situation, and I appreciate the fac= that you have two boards now to expedite :his. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. MR. OEHLERS: I appreciate that, but the things that continued on from that come not from our neglect of not doing this or Whispering Pines, in a sense, but we never go= a meeting, and =his would have been the meeting, although we have another situation =hat derived in =he meantime. We had some leverage on Whispering Pines. Whispering Pines, who had no money, supposedly0 we had a mortgage on a piece of property of his to do certain things within our community which was signed by him at the time when we took over -- phase five was taken into =he firs= four phases of the development. They're -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I do not mean to ~nterrupt you, but I have, as you know, our agenda is very full, and we have other people that are waiting here. MR. OEHLERS: Okay, but -- okay. I'm just ge=ting =o the point that we got the money from him. Now, when he called me, I said I'm coming =o =he hearing and say -- we are going =o say that we have the responsibility now because you've funded =his with an agreement between us internally. So, that's probably =he reason he didn't see any necessity to show up at =his hearing. The thing =hat I'm requesting today is =hat we ge= -- I was going to say 30 days. I wan= 60 days more to clear out the new grow=h, =o spray =hem and have =hem reinspected by Ms. Polen, and we fully expect =o comply wi:h all the requirements of the county. I'm disappointed =he thing about =his. I'm disappointed that =he county in =he 1987 ordinance never followed through on anything, and I'm disappointed %ha= =here are still only two inspectors in =he environmental d~arT~nen= which I complained to =he commissioners' m~eting las= year =ha= =here w~re only two inspectors on this -- in 40 square miles of this county. CHAIRP~SON LOUVIERE: The wonderful thing about America is =hat Page 27 you can get u~, sir, and express your views, so please feel free to go to any county commissioner meeting and express your views -- MR. OEHLERS: I do. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: -- and tell them that you would like to see more environmentalists out there. MR. OEHLERS: I have done that before. CKAIRPERSONLOUVIERE: That's one item. The other it.em, before we start to talk about resolving this issue, is that I wou?.d like to clarify that South Florida Water Marlagement is an agency that we -- this board has no jurisdiction over MR. OEKLERS: I realize that. I know that. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: -- a~d whatever items -- whatever issues you have with South Florida Water Management, your association is going to have to deal with -- MR. OEHLERS: Oh, I know that. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: -- on a separate basis. MR. OEh'LERS: I'm aware of that. I'm not saying that. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I Just wanted -- MR. OEHLERS: I Just did that for history where we started. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I didunderstand your -- contrary to p~pular belief, I did understand -- although it's complicated, I did understand your whole entire dilmm~a, I~t today, I can only be concerned with this one section. MR. OEHLERS: And that's the issue we are here for. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: That's the issue. MR. OEHLERS: That's right. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I cannot -- I cannot -- just by addressing this: i cannot not help you with South Florida Water Management, although I urge you to continue because it sounds like you're doing a great Job, okay. Does anyone from the board have any questions at this time? MR. ANDREWS: I think he's doing a good job with the people that he has to deal with. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: So, what you're asking for is you're asking for 60 days to -- MR. OEHLERS: I'm asking ~ntil November 30th, the end of November, which is roughly 60 days, to November 30th, on or before, we will have them all sprayed and reinspected to the satisfaction of the environmental deparr_ment. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. I think that's wonderful, and you have already started removal. F/~. OEHLERS: Oh, yes, yes, and -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: To me -- MR. OEHLERS: -- I think Ms. Polen will attest to that that we have started -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: She attested to that. MR. OEHLERS: -- and where we have done it, the job, I think, has b~en pretty good. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: So, because you have started and I see that you are very diligently pursuing this, I'm going to make a motion Page 28 16G 1 t~hat we grant you un:il November 30~h, 1998~ is that right? MR. OEHLERS: Ninety-seven. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE= Nineteen ninety-seven° I'm sorry, i'm of it today. November 30th, 1997 to complete exotic removals of this -- of phase five. It's phase five -- actually, I'm not going to reference it as a phase. I'm going to call it tracts B and C. MR. OEHLERS: Well, we have done more t~han B and C in :here. We've done all ~he common areas, parks and preserve areas in phase five. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: That's wonderful. So, let's ]us: say we give you until November 30, 1997 to complete :he exo:ic removal. MR. ANDREWS: I second. MS. DEIFIK: What would be the fine at the end of that time if compliance is not resulting? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIEPE: Would you like to make a motion on the fine, Celia, a suggestion? MS. DEIFIK: One hundred dollars a day. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I have no problems with :ha:. I'm modifying my motion that if you do not complete your exo:ic removal by November 30, 1997, that :hen you will be fined $100 a day, and the reason we have to do this as a board is we need :o :rea: everyone the sa~e, okay. ~R. ANDREWS: ! second. MR. YOVANOVIC~{: Before you go a little fur:her -- CHAIRPERSON X~K~rIERE: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- if I could just clarify a couple of things. Is it correct that the associa:ion is stipulating to :he viola:ion and stipulating to the board's order? ' - MR. ANDREWS: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And also, X heard him say that it is your position that Whispering Pines is no longer responsible for cleaning this up. MR. OEHLERS: I think if we wen: into a court of law, that would be the case, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, I lust wan: to clarify this record -- MS. DEIFIK: This board has the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm trying to figure out whet. her :his board -- what we're talking about -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: He is trying to make sure :hat we have the authority to set this order forth, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: Me, right. I just wanC to make sure that we're CHAIRPERSON Z~)UVIERE: I see where you're going with MR. YOVANOVICH: -- we are dealing with two differen: entities -- CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Two differen: entities. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and I wa~t to know which one this order is ~e~ling with. This order is only dealing wi:h -- CHR/RPERSON ~OUVIERE: I see what you're doing. MR. YORrANOVXCH: -- the homeowners' association. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Yes. MS. DEIFIK: That's not my intent. Page 29 16G 1 HR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. That's what I'm trying to figure out, what is the intent? Are we also finding Whispering Pines in violation? MS. DEIFIK: As far as I'm concerned, they are a respondent in this action, and they're jointly and severally liable with the homeowners' association. If the homeowners' association chooses to carry the ball because of some agreement between them and Whispering PAnes, that's wonderful, but if compliance does not result by November 1, I intend them both to be liable for the fine. HR. YOVANOVICH: And that's fine. I just wanted to get on the record that at least the homeowners' association is stipulating to the violation, is stipulating to the fine and stipulating to everything. The -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: And we have no problem with that because a: t. he beginning, we agreed that Whispering Pines, Inc. had received proper notice. HR. YOVANOVIClt: Correct, and I just wanted to know if the order I fashion-- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes, sir. HR. YOVANOVICH: -- needs to address both entities, and I want to make sure I address them both correctly. CHAIRPERSON IX)UVIERE: Both entities. Okay. Hr. Nueller, do you have any comments or questions? HR. HUELLER: Not after that discussion, no. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: No, thank you. Hr. McCormick? HR. McCORMICK: Can I Just ask for one point of clarification in that matter. Who is the owner of the property? Did county staff dete~mine that, who owns the property? MS. POLEN: The owner of the property? CHAIRPERSON IXTu'~IERE: Whi£pering Pines, Inc. and Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, Inc. HR. OEHLERS: The property is owned by the Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association at this time. MR. McCORMICK: All right. I just wanted to clear that. HR. OEHLERS: It was taken over from Whispering Pines in 1992. MR. McCORMICK: Okay. MS. DEIFIK: Then a -- HR. McCORHICK: The only other thing I wanted to ask was does county staff have any final comments or were you going to make a recommendation? MS. POLEN: Part of the order to correct does include a maintenance plan which will result in just some language that I'm sure the homeowners can provide me, and that's the only small detail when I go out to inspect that I would expect to have to close the case out. MS. DEIFIK: I think we need to include that. HR. YOVANOVICH: Can that be included int.D whoever made the mo=ion's motion and the stipulation that you will also provide a maintenance plan -- HR. OEHLERS: Satisfactory to the -- HR. YOVANOVICH: County staff. Page 30 MR. OEHLERS: Yep, fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that accepted to be added to the motion? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I made -- I modify the motion to, that in addition to removing the exotic, you will provide an MOT -- not an MOT, but a maintenance -- a maintenance -- I'm sorry -- a maintenance plan, okay, so that the exotics are kept up and that Ms. Polen will auprove it. Do you have a~.y opposition to that? MR. ANDREWS: I so modify ~t second. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Do you have any opposition to that? MR. OEHLERS: No, I realize that is within the county. That's part of the regulations. I understand that. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Yovanovich, and maybe staff can answer this, if Whispering Pines does not have any record interest in these tracts, why were they named as a respondent; because of the county's previous ordinance or because of the Southwest Florida Water Management ordinance? MS. POLE~: They do have records -- I believe their agreement for the homeowners to have the responsibility of removing exotic plants is a private agreement with them, but in the public record, it's in your packet, that Wh£spering Pines is responsible for the exotic plant removal. MS. DEIFIK: Okay. MR. OEHLERS: And they still are responsible as far as South Florida Water Management is concerned because we refused to sign off lat the time. They wanted us to take it over at the time it equalled out, but -- MS. DEIFIK: That's this collateral security mortgage. -MS. POLEN: Correct, yeah, it's all in there. MS. DEIFIK: Great. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Any other comments or questions? I did not want to get into that issue because I have no problems with Whispering Pines, Inc. and Imperial Golf Estates Homeowners' Association, because I see there are other issues there as far as acceptance and other issues that this board really has no jurisdiction and no need to discuss. So, I have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. Yeah. Okay. Sir, thank you very much for coming. MR. OEHLERS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Keep up the good work. MR. McCORMICK: DO you want to take a short break? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Please. Can we be adjourned until ten o'clock? (Small break was held). CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Everyone is here, so we are back in session for the Collier County North board, and we are now prepared to listen to Item 6-A under old business which is BCC versus Bruce Wood, request for imposition of fines, CEB Number 97-004, and do we have Mr. Wood or a representative of Mr. Wood here? MS. SULLIVAN: Maim Chair, if I may, this is on the agenda to Page 31 166 1 impose fines. However, Mr. wood is represented by counsel, and he would like to address the board. I will also tell you that on Friday afternoon, I received a fax from this gentleman plus a draft of the stipulation. I have copies for the board if you'd like to look at those. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Does counsel have any opposition to the board looking at these items? Please identify yourself for the record, sir. : MR. POVLITZ: Good morning. William Povlitz appearing on behalf of Bruce Wood. No, I have no opposition. As a matter of fact, I think it would greatly facilitate today's proceedings if the board had the op~ort~ity to review my fax of September 26th as well as the stipulation I prepared. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Thank you, sir. Please bear with us. Since this was just handed to us, we are going to need to take the time to review it, and these are two page faxes, so one, two, three, four. These are two page faxes, and you have plenty there. Those are extras, yes. Although you have a stipulation before the board, we are just really here -- are you asking for an extension at this time, is khat what you are doing, sir? Is that what your stipulation -- MR. POVLITZ: No, the stipulation is to -- an attempt to conclude this matter once and for all, so -- as cost effectively as we can for the board. I don't think that this enforcement proceeding in this matter are in either party's best interest. I don't believe it's cost effective for the county. I don't believe it's cost effective for Mr. Wood, and this is -- 'MS. DEIFIK: Why not? MR. POVLITZ: It's not cost effective for Mr. Wood because he's paying counsel and losing time. MS. DEIFIK: Forget Mr. Wood for the moment. Why is it not cost effective for the county? MR. P(~;LITZ: It's not cost effective for the county because of the dollar fine per day and the cost to have the investigators go out, and I'm not aware of any violations that have gone on. That's why i don't think i%'s cost effective. I think the investigator's time -- I'm certainly not telling you what's appropriate for your investigators, but I don't -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Well -- MS. DEIFIK: But the county's objective is not to make money. The county's objective is to obtain compliance. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Not only that, I also have an issue with your item number one of your stipulation, Mr. Wood, as respondent, is granted an extension of the previous agreement whereby up to four persons are allowed to reside at 5800 Houchin Street until Midnight, blah-blah-blah, we never -- we, this board, has never agreed that that aq~reement that Mr. Wood had previously with Collier County staff was ~rnl3 a binding agreement. That was never decided upon, and really, that's not really what this board, we felt, was here for. We were here to find if we had a violation, and I think we did that, and I Page 32 think today, we are just here to fine F~. Wood because he did not comply with the violation and did not meet our order. MR. POVLITZ: What I -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: -- some of the items in your stipulatien already are -- we are starting off on the wrong foot. MR. POVLITZ: No, we are starting off with viewpoint and point of view. What I proposed originally in my fax was an adjournment so that the stipulation or communications could go on between the staff, board and myself to see if we could agree on a stipulation, but based on the time constraints, I was retained last Thursday, contacted counsel last Thursday and prepared this, and here I am today. So, based on those time constraints, I said, why don't we try and eliminate this from coming periodically before this board? Why can't we, as a sound business approach, address it and say, look, there's a real issue of compliance, noncompliance, of whether the validity, as you said, Madam Chair, of the representations are agreements of staff people over the years, the reliance on those, why do we have to go to circuit court or not go to circuit court or for a dollar a day fine, have investors -- investigators out there trying to determine compliance, good faith and reasonable efforts. I said, maybe we can, with one fell swoop, put this matter to rest. With the development that's occurring out in, especially, northern Collier County, near Mr. Wood's area with the industrial parks and all this, it's real clear to me that certainly this board, as well as the citizens of Collier County, would like the entire area to be in full compliance with everything, and we are modernizing, and we are im~roving our standards all the time. So we put in a phased in elimination of any residency, either exceptions or variances or tolerances by this board, and what we've simply said is, why don't we end this and give us a four year hiatus effective that day regardless of any other agreements, regardless of any reliance, regardless of what -- bow's he been operating this since 1978, we'll end it. We'll totally end it. We'll voluntarily stop having anybody there without going to court, without inspections, without costs, and the county -- we will be in full compliance, so that was a proposal. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. I appreciate your proposal, but -- MS. DEIFIK: That's not what this says. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: -- the stipulation here, if this board agrees to this, I am making a lot of -- I'm going over my line, okay. I'm agreeing that the previous agreement is valid, okay. I ara agreeing that it's okay for him to continue his illegal use of an industrially zoned -- or is it -- industrially zoned property in a residential manner. So, I'm agreeing by this stipulation to a lot of things that I, as a chairman of this board, do not feel I can do so. Do you follow what I'm saying? ]4I{. P(Y4LITZ: I -- I understand what you're saying, but as Ms. Deifik just said, apparently, there's some objection to the wording of the stipulation. An interesting question would be, conceptually, we can work out the language so that this board and ~%r. Wood are not Ocompromised, but -- Page 33 C~AIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: I'll tell you what -- I'll tell you -- MR. POVLITZ: -- conceptually, is this something that the board might want to entertain in terms of if we can agree on the language dotm the road, and we can have 30 days or whatever is appropriate to work that out with counsel or the board so the board is satisfied, but conceptually, is the board receptive to the concept of, let's save the county some money, let's bring everybody into compliance, and le~'s do it without having inspectors wasting their time or further -- why go to court when we are here to work -- (IHAIR~SON LOUVIERE: I'm listening to what you're saying. I'm listening to what you're saying. This stipulation, as chairman of this board, I can tell you that I will not sign it. I'm making some agreements here that I do not agree with, and I know my -- our attorney is going to advise me in the same manner; am I correct, Mr. Yovanovich? MR. YOVANOVICM: Well, this board found that a violation of the county ordinances existed. You cannot agree, unless you're going to change your original findings to say that the violation didn't, in fact, occur. This board doesn't have the power to -- CKAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- continue to allow a violation to occur. You found a violation. You can't agree there's no longer a violation. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVI ERE: Exactly. MR. YOVANOVIC~: That's not within this board's -- MS. DEIFIK: wouldn't Mr. Povlitz have to negotiate with the county? MR. YOVANOVIC~: Wel 1, he -- MS. D£IFIK: I mean, if he were attempting to negotiate with anyofle, it would seem to me that we are just not the right -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Right, and I don't have a problem to what he was proposing. ! think that if he wants to negotiate, this is really -- you have handed this to us like we just saw it or it was Just faxed to us. I, aS a board member and as a chairman, cannot sign this. You need to sit down with staff and resolve this matter. Right now, what we are b~re to listen to is we are here to impose fines because your client was found in violation, and this is what the order says. So, that's what's before this board. If -- afterwards or if you -- you know, you want to get together with staff, that's wondorful, I encourage it, and maybe you and staff can come to some agreement that can be brought to this board, and that we all have time to listen to and read, a.nd then we can proceed. Do you understand what I'm saying? MR. POVLITZ: Absolutely, and I just responded as quick as I could, but that's why -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Oh, I know. MR. POVLITZ: -- that's why this particular paragraph says, let's ~c~.~ourn ~_his meeting Chat we are having right now and see if we can work Chis out. MS. DEIFIK: Bill, can I make two points? MR. POVLITZ: Certainly. MS. DEIFIK: Number one, I understand you were just brought in Page 34 16G ]. recently, but Mr. wood has been fnvo'.ved in this matter with the county for, I don't know, 12, 15, 16 years -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Right. MS. DEIFIK: -- and I think we were incredibly lenient with him previously, but if I were you, I would carefully look at Paragraph ~/mber 2, because Paragraph Number 2 has a loophole you can drive a truck through. It says no one will be allowed to reside at 5800 Houchin Street except the property owner, caretakers, tenants and/or designated employees. Well, I can designate all of my children, relatives and neighbors as my employees, and we can have 50 people living there. MR. POVLITZ: This, quite frankly, was my first draft in reference to the section cited in there, which are the exceptions for the caretaker. I notice that the ordinance keeps it in the singular as opposed to the plural, and I didn't know whether we could have ~art-time people or not part-time people or what was involved. Again, I'm relying on -- the attempt was, let's adjourn it, let's show the good faith to end it, and then -- since it's not adjourned, then go forward with whatever fine is issued. MS. DEIFIK: Well, I just want to say that one of the reasons that I believe -- and I know some of the people that were on the board are not here now and some are -- I think that it was the intent of the board previously in entering this order to essentially do exactly what you're asking for now a year later, which was, okay, Mr. Wood, we u~derstand your points, maybe you have some points, we are going to }give you a window of time to get this situation cleaned up and not burden you unduly in the interim. Now, here we are, almost a year later and not only has he not done it, but he's saying I have no intehtion of doing it -- CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIEPLE: I need more time. MS. DEIFIK; -- and want you to, you know -- CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: I am amazed that he has -- it's i~dustrially zoned land, right because I don't have my original packet, and ~ha~ he is -- ? MR. MUELLER~ Yes, it is. · CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: -- and that he is renting it. I mean, that to me -- we have a shortage of industrial land in Collier County. He should use it what it is zoned for. Do you see wha= I'm saying? MR. POVLIT~: I understand that land should be put to its best use, yes. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Highest and best use. I like that term. MS. DEIFIK: Basically, we feel, Mr. Povlitz, like we have given Mr. Wood a hand, and he has taken the arm, the shoulder. MR. ANDREWS: That's right. MR. POVLITZ: Well, assuming that there was that feeling, that's why I also built in an elimination date, period, end of discussion, so that there wasn't a question of compliance, not compliance, a dollar a ~ay fine or not, but a total elimination of a headache from the county's ~oint of view. MS. DEIFIK: A lot of people will bend over backwards, but Mr. Wood, he's just taking advantage of us. Page 35 16G CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes. Ms. Sullivan, do you have anything you would like to add at chis time? MS. SULLIVAN: I would just like to state thac staff's position on this, as far as staff is concerned, the board has given Mr. Wood an order. He's not in compliance with the order, and I don't see any point in entertaining anything else in this case. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Okay. So, therefore, we are here -- you're asking us to impose the fine of which is a ridiculously low fine. MS. SULLIVAN: Are you ready? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes. MS. SULLIVAN: One hundred eighteen dollars. CHAIRPERSON IX)UVIERE: One hundred eighteen dollars. MR. ANDREWS: I'd like to shoot the guy Chac made thac figure, tO0. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: I make a motion we shoot the guy that made the motion. It's ac a dollar. Anybody second it? MR. ANDREWS: I second it. MR. ALLEN: Since I'm the guy thac made the motion, I'd been double shot. CHAIRPERSON bOUVIERE: We have a motion and a second. MR. ALLEN: Okay. If you-all are willing to bring this into compliance, okay, let's make it work for everybody. Let's make it October 30ch, 30 days from today. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I make a motion chat we have -- that your client owes the county $118.00. That's what we are here to listen to. ' If, when you leave here, you want to go talk to staff about ocher issues, you go ahead and you do so. I strongly recommend it, buc right now, that's not what we are here MR. McCORMICK: Let me ask a question. CHAIRPERSON DOUVIERE: Go ahead, Mr. McCormick. MR. McCORMICK: I mean, this so-called fine is going to continue to run as long as he's not in compliance, right? MS. DEIFIK: Right. MS. SULLIVAN: That's correct. MR. McCORMICK: So, we are Just establishing the go ahead and -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: That's right. MR. ~cCORMICK: -- impose that 118 -- MS. SULLIVAN: We just don't like to let these things run too long in case they change hands. Periodically, we will come back. MR. PONTE: Is there -- MR. McCORMICK: So, there's still the marginal incentive to come into compliance or this will just go on forever. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: And ever and ever and ever, as long as I'm alive. I'm yotmg and in good health, I chink. No, as long as county staff is here. MR. PONTE: Excuse me. Is there not a mechanism for penalizing noncompliance to a fine or just let it go on forever and every? MR. ALLEN: That was my point initially is thaC ic is in Page 3 6 16G I Ononcompliance. We all agree it's in noncompliance, but in my heart, I believe that Mr. wood had a valid deal, okay, with the county, okay, and has had a valid deal with the county for 25 years. That's my whole intent of this deal is that -- this came up two years ago or whatever. He's been letting people live in this place, and he reduced his number of tenants from eight or twelve or whatever it was back to four way back when. Now, if he did have a valid agreement with the county -- it may not be valid with the county, but in his opinion, it was valid, and I believe that the man has some rights, okay, that we are stepping on, and I don't personally care if it runs for a dollar forever. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. I think that -- MR. ALLEN: However, if you-all want to bring this into compliance, okay, bring it up now. Let's don't play the four year window. KR. PONTE: It seems that in not paying the fine that was levied, that in light of the fact that the board has made every effort to be understanding of Mr. Wood's position, that his not paying the fine is ridiculing and demeaning the authority of this board, and to -- MR. POVLITZ: Madam Chair -- MR. PONTE: -- continue the fine and just accept the late payment of the fine without further penalty, is there a mechanism for penalizing for late payment? MR. POVLITZ: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yes. MR. POVLITZ: In responding to Mr. Ponte, there is no late payment, Mr. Ponte. We were just placed on notice of a fine, and the fine hasn't even been established yet. 'If there's a fine imposed, we mean no disrespect to this board or any member on this board or the county staff. If there is a fine i~posed, we'll be prepared to pay that fine, okay, but no fine has been proposed. A fine has been recom~ended -- or a violation has been cited allegedly establishing, as counsel has represented, $118 is what is sought, but it's not lake $118 was due 30, 60 or 90 days ago. MR. POITTE: It was a dollar a day. ~. POVLITZ: I understand. I'd be happy to write a check to =he county for a year in advance just to show good faith, but -- I don't mean any disrespect that way. If we are going to proceed with the $118, then from our point of view, we would object and say that it can't be $118 only because it's a dollar a day for every day of noncompliance. By Mr. Mazzone's own affidavit, he was only out there at that property on August 27th, 1997. So, his best representation would be that if he found a violation on August 27th, 1997, hu has one day's worth of violation. He can't testify that there was a violation the next day. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: I am amazed that you are before this board arguing that because we have charged your client a dollar a day, that that is too much. MR. POVLITZ: I didn't argue that. I just said -- what I said iwas a matter of proof. I'm not disputing the dollar a day fine. I Page 37 appreciate and thank this board for the courtesy and the tolerance that they've expressed to Mr. Wood. I particularly am grateful to Mr. Allen. I think he more amiably than I have today has presented Mr. Wood's position with respect to that Mr. Wood had an ongoing situation with the county for over 20 years, and he relied on those representations. I'm here in a good faith effort -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I'm not going to listen to that anymore. That is your case, sir. If you present that case somewhere else -- if you agree -- if you think your agreement is valid with Collier County, then you take it to court -- you take it to the courts, and you argue tha=, and you go ahead and spend your client's money. You do that, sir. You have that right, but right now, we are going to listen to the fact that your client did not meet our order and he was fined a dollar a day. MR. POVLITZ: And we agree with that. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Do I have any other comments? MS. SULLIVAN: We have some procedural matters. I guess staff needs to enter the affidavit of noncompliance into the record as evidence, please. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. Do I have a motion? MS. DEIFIK: So moved. MR. PONTE: I second that motion. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. YOVANOVICH: Madam Chairman, I don't know if this is the right time to interject or not, but I figure -- 'CHAIRPERSON bOUVI~: Pleale do so. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- I'd better do it now before we get too much further down the road. I think I'd be remiss in not reminding the board that in addition to the fine, the cost -- the local governing body if they prevail, which they already did, is ent£tled under Section 162.07 to recover all costs incurred in prosecuting the case -- MS. DEIFIK: Thank you. I was going to ask you that. MR. YOVANOVIC~: -- before the board, and such costs may be included in any lien, if there is any lien imposed, upon Mr. Wood. So, I Just want to point that out that this board has the discretion to include that, and you may want -- I don't know if Linda has that number for you right now. She may want to come back to you and figure out what that amount is and ask you to include that in the lien. MS. DEIFIK: Mr. Yovanovich, another issue that we addressed in another hearing quite some time ago is -- and I don't want to tell staff how to do their job, but I would respectfully inquire whether they would, as part of their case, call Mr. Wood as a witness at this time. Can we do that? MR. YOVANOVICH: You can ask him to testify as well as, I believe, Mr. Mazzone has some testimony he wants to give you regarding Page 38 · 16G 1 MS. DEIFIK: I think -- and I'll rely on Mr. Yovanovich, I'd like to see a full presentation of evidence here so that we -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Well, if we are going to go and get into that, let's hear from Mr. Mazzone then. MS. DEIFIK: I'd like to hear from Mr. Wood first. CHAIRPERSON X2DUVIERE: Okay. Are you going to run this meeting or am I going to run this meeting? MS. DEIFIK: Fine. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Thank you. Mr. Mazzone. (Mr. Dennis Mazzone was sworn). MR. MAZZONE: For the record, my name is Dennis Mazzone. I'm an investigator for Collier County's code enforcement department. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Thank you. I guess we have to hear it all over again. MR. YOVANOVICI{: You don't have to hear anything about the violation. You Just need to hear about his testimony to go out and look at the property to show =hat the violation has continued. We are not retrying whether there was a violation or not. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Thank you. We have already -- exactly, we have listened to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's been done. He just needs to prove that the violation continued. MR. MAZZONE: On August 27th, I went out to the property in question and obtained a signed entry consent form from a Ms. Pines who identified herself as being Mr. Wood's manager for the facility. Ms. Pines, after signing the entry consent form, opened the doors to Units 2 and 3, and I photographed the interiors to confirm through her conversation and my on-site observation that they were being occupied by tenants that have lived there for a considerable time. Ms. Pines stated that Unit Number 1 was occupied by a Mr. John Black, B-L-A-C-K. Unit 2 was occupied by a Mr. Alex Jhon, J-H-O-N. Unit Number 3 was occupied by a Mr. Andre Sutryn, S-U-T-R-Y-N, and Unit 6 is occupied by a Mr. Paul Grass, G-R-A-S-S, and when asked of Ms. Pines, she stated that none of the occupants were employed by Mr. Wood. CKAIRPERSON DOUVIERE: Thank you. So, the violation continues. MS. SULLIVAN: I have the photographs of 8/27 if the board is interested. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Has the -- has the attorney seen them? MS. SULLIVAN: No. CF~kIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Could you please show it to him, make sure he has no opposition to us looking at them. MR. MAZZONE: If I may continue. On -- we don't go there daily, of course, because it is time consuming and very costly to our department. Then a~ain, prior to this meeting, on September 25th, I wen= to the -- ~ tried contacting the same manager. There was no response. went to =he site physically to see if she was on the premises. I couldn't find this person or anybody that would be -- would have the ability or the wherefore all to show me the interiors of these units. Page 39 16( 1 I left a message, a phone message with a Mr. Greg Patterson for a return call. Mr. Patterson is, I believe, the answering service for Mr. Wood. I tried to contact Mr. Wood himself through the service with no success that particular day, but on September 29th, I received a morning phone call from Mr. Wood, who had returned my call, and he r_hen informed me that he had obtained this attorney and that the attorney had faxed what you have before you as a proposal to our director. : CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. I would like the record to show that Mr. William Povlitz reviewed the photographs and had no opposition to this board looking at chem. So, we have heard from staff that the violation continues. MR. ANDREWS: And will continue. CKAIRPERSON LOUVIEKE: And will continue. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I may, Mr. Mazzone0 you said you went out there on -- what was the last date you went out there? MR. MAZZONE: The last date that I went out with no success of entry was on 9/25. MR. YOVANOVICH: What's -- let me rephrase that. What's the last date that you went out there and were able to confirm the find, so we can tell the board how many days we are asking for. MR. HAZZONE: Right, that was August 27th. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that would be how many days? MS. CRUZ: One hundred eighteen. MR. MAZZONE: One hundred eighteen days. MR. YOVANOVICM: Okay. So, that's what we are asking for, through August 27th; is that right? MS. CRUZ: That' s correct. -CHAIRPERSON ~DUVIERE: Okay. I make a motion that we impose fines of $118, correct? MS. CRUZ: Correct. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIZP. E: Okay, against Mr. Wood. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you wan= to give Mr. Povlitz an opportunity to ask any questions of Mr. Mazzone? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIER~-: If you have any questions -- MR. POVLITZ: We have no questions for Mr. Mazzone. We have no dispute with the board's imposition of the fine. The only dispute we have, which you, Madam Chair, have indicated is for another forian if we go there is with whether there is actually a violation. CHAIRPERSON IXIUVIKRE: And I understand that, sir. MR. POVLITZ: But we do not dispute the fine -- CHAIRPERSON IXTdVIERE: And I cannot -- MR. POVLITZ: -- or the findings as of August 27th and would be ha~py to Day that. CHAIRPERSON I~D~VI~: And I as chairman of this board -- and ~hi~ board does not have the authority to listen to this case, to look at this agreement, to rule on it, to -- I don't have it, so it would be wasting your client's time, your time and our time to listen to all that. That is -- that is a trial or that is a case that needs to be heard in another forum. Page 40 166 1 HR. POVLITZ: Well, hopefully, with the guidance from -- we received here today, we'll find ~he appropriate folks and maybe we can resolve ~his. C~.TP. PERSON LOUVIERE: I encourage you, sir, that upon termination of this section of ~he hearing, that you get together with s~aff, and Mr. Wood and Collier County reach an agreement? HR. POVLITZ: I can assure ~his board that I would be thrilled to death =o do Just that. C~IRP~tSON LOUVXERE: Me too. MR. POVLITZ: I would ask the board's indulgence. I don't know ~he timetable regardin~ the payment of fines. I can represent to the board, I have Just finished recently representing Mr. Wood in a divorce pr¢~eeding, and I would ask for a= least 30 days to pay the fi~e only because ~he board should be aware. HR. WOOD: We'll pay the fine right now. HR. POVLITZ: Fine, we'll pay the fine. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. That's fine. We had a motion, and we had a second -- did we have a second? MS. DEIFIK: Did the motion include cost of this hearing? Whose motion -- HR. ALLEN: Who made the motion to include staff costs? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Please speak up. HR. ALLEN: I was going to say if you want to amend your motion to include staff costs. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Okay. So, we have staff we have seasons from ~he board that would like the motion to ~ amended to include staff's costs regarding ~his case. So, if staff, if you could please get all the figures together and add that figure to the $118, I will'amend my motion in ~ha~ manner. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. Zf I may Just for the record, it's staff's responsibility to inspect these properties the day before the hearing or the day of =he hearing, if possible. I would Just like to note ~hat Mr. Mazzone left a message yesterday to try to get entry to the property, and =hen when I talked to Mr. wood's attorney, he was to ask Mr. Wood if we could have entry to the property. So, that's why we didn' t go in yesterday. MS. DEIFIK.' Doss Hr. Wood have an obligation to provide entry? CHAIRPERSON LOUVI~: She Just said that, yes. MS. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry? Well, yes, but you know, if entry is denied, then we have to try to find another way to get in. CHAI~ LOOVIERE: Okay. Well -- MR. POVLITZ: Madam Chair, if I m/ght, with respect to entry, as I scar=ed to say before Mr. Wood interrupted me, Mr. Wood has just, Just finished a very traumatic divorce, and he has been ordered off Chat property and has been off that property since June 14th, 1997. It wasn't until September 14ch when I was able to get him back on the pro, er=y, and because of ongoing domestic violence and other injunctions an~ other allegations that are going on, which have all been dismissed, which have all been dismissed as unfounded, it was not ~until iasc Thursday afternoon that Hr. Wood was bac]'.' on that property. Page 41 I6G So, we are not ignoring the dictates of this board or the requests of the inspectors. As soon as I got notice and he was back on that property last Thursday, the same morning is when I contacted counsel and got involved in this ca£e. So, please understand, there's no disrespect of this board or the reasonable request of the inspectors. Mr. Wood has not been on that property as a matter of law. Court injunction kept him off, and those have since been dismissed as unfounded. CHAIRPERSON L&~JVIERE: We want to thank you for bringing that to o~r attention, and it appears ,hat that issue has been resolved, and now anytime one of our inspectors calls Mr. Wood, he will be -- he will be given permission to look at the property. MR. POVLITZ: Absolute cooperation with any reasonable request for inspection, certainly. CHAIRPERSON LOUVI~: I encourage your client to do so. Okay. So, we have a motion, and we had a second. Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Could we have that stipulation included -- provide -- so this board knows what's going on, provided with a roster of who's living there? MR. POVLITZ: I'm not familiar with the various privacy acts that might be involved in this. In an effort to expedite this, Hr. Wood would be prepared to ~ve you a check for the $118, whatever the costs are that are reasonable, and if we are going to pay six months in a~vance and then we'll meet with the county people and hopefully end this, but we are prepared to, in good faith, pay the fine in advance so you don't have to come out. We are going to have negotiations immediatelv implemented with whatever county people are appropriate to try ~nd resolve this. MS. SULLl%~AN: I think the -- I appreciate what he's offering, ~ut I think the only mechanism we have is we go back periodically, gain entry to the property, see if the violation remains and come back and impose whatever fines -- CHAIRPERS0~ LOUVIERE: I have no problem with that. So, we had -- the motion was that we would fine Hr. Wood the $118 plus costs that -- staff would come in with that figure; in addition, Hr. Wood is to give us entry to his site anytime one of the officers contacts him for inspection purposes. MS. SULLIVAN: Correct, and you know, in order to be efficient, the county will do this periodically. However, if Hr. wood brings it into compliance, all he needs to do is call us, we will go out and make sure it's in compliance and stop his fines at that time. CHAIRPERSON bOrg,ERE: That sounds fair enough. MR. ANDREWS: CmA I ask -- what's wrong with accepting the $180 (sic), whatever it is? Now, that brings him up to date but the fine still goes on. I mean, why are we refusing this? CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: No, we are not. MS. SULLIVAN: If you're refusing fines paid in advance, I think yon're trying to accept fines for violations that haven't occurred yet. CHAIRPERSON r~OUVIER~: I am not -- I am not going to accept fines Page 42 in advance, right. MR. ANDREWS: This is not in advance. The 180 (sic) isn't advanced. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE .- No. MS. SULLIVAN: No, the 118 isn't. I thought you were talking about accepting fines in advance. MR. ANDREWS: No, I'm talking about this. Why not accept this and go from there because it's going to continue anyway. MS. SULLIVAN: That's what we were doing, I believe. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Yeah, he can pay -- he can pay the fines anytime he wants of $118, and then if you guys don't have the figure of the additional costs, then whenever that's assessed, he can come and pay it, right? MS. SULLIVAN: Right. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I had a -- I made a motion. Do I have a second? MR. PONTE: Second. MR. MUE~,L£R: I'll second the motion. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: We have two seconds. MR. PONTE: I'll second it. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: All in favor, signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. See ya. MR. POVLITZ: Thank you very much. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: You're very welcome, sir. I believe one -- we have one, very unhappy for me, because I really enjoyed having Mr. McCormick sit next to me. He was a good vice-chair, and I was hoping one day to leave this chair, this horrid chair and pass that on. 'MR. McCORmICK: You wish. CHAIRPERSON L~%P~IERE: This hot seat, but it appears that he is going to be moving to Fort Myers, and I wish him -- because I think he's going to be my friend -- the best of luck. I know he'll do very well, and so we have to choose a new vice-chair for this board. MR. McCORmICK: Thanks. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Really, I'm going to miss you. MR. McCORmICK: Thanks. CMAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: You always remind me -- MR. McCORMICK: I enjoyed working with you and the other members of the board and staff. I enjoyed it. If you'll indulge me, I'll make a nomination to nominate Celia for vice-chair. MS. DEIFIK: I a~reciate that very much, Rich, but my term is going to be up in February, and I had contemplated renewing, but I've acce~ted some other positions in public service, and I'm not sure I'd be able to meet this commitnent also, so I thank you for your nomination, but I think that perhaps it might be more prudent tc nominate someone else. MR. ANDREWS: I'd like to make a motion we think about Jim. He's been here before, and he knows how to handle the thing, and I know what he's going to say, but -- CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Didn't you say -- didn't you say you're Page 43 kind of old? MS. DEIFIK: And Jimmy would be fun, too. MR. ANDREWS: I'm pleading with him at this point. MR. McCOR~4ICK: Me' s in shock. MR. ANDREWS.. Anyway, I make a motion, and we'll go from there. MR. PONTE: I'd like to join Charles in that motion. I think that your exDerience, breadth of it and your ability to have some insight is a great~ addition, and I'd like very much to see you be vice-chair. MR. ALLEN: I a~reciate both the nominations and the nail in m~ coffin, Charlie, earlier, but I've been the vice-chair and the chair. I think I'd like to step and let somebody else have the opportunity. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: And I'd -- so, therefore, since we have these two people and they decided against it, I'd like to nominate Mr. Mueller as the vice-chair. MS. DEIFIK: I second that nomination. CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: We have a motion and a second. All in favor, signify by saying aye. It passes unanimously. MR. MUELLER: Thank you very much, and I -- CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: You didn't say no, did you? MR. MUELL~: Thank you very much, and I accept with the ttnderstanding that it's going to be a learning process. CKAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: It always ic, sir. I learn everyday. MR. PONTE: Thanks, Jim, thanks. CHAIRPERSON b0UVIERE: Also, I'd like for staff to help me out and tell me when my tenure is up as the chair, because I don't know when I got elected, when my year is up so that we can have elections. MR. ANDREWS: February, isn't it? 'MS. CRUZ: Sue Filson will send you a notice, but I can check that out when I get back to the office. CHAIRPERSON DOUVIERE: Oh, I'll be notified that my services are no longer required? MS. EULLI'~AN: And givezi a chance to reapply. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: I hope it happens soon before somebody shoots me or something. MR. PONTE: One other question for staff, when is the next meeting? MS. CRUZ: October 23rd. MR. PONTE: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON bOUVIERE: October 23rd. Are there any other comments from the board members at this time? Also, since we have a position open, I guess, you know -- and I heard we are being telavised today. I urge all the citizens to apply for this board. This is your board. You can make a difference, so please send in your resumes, and hopefully, what we'll do is we'll take one of our alternate board members, and he will move into Mr. HcCormick' s ~osition. MR. ALLEN.. Hadam Chairman, would Mr. -- would Cliff be automatically moved into the position? CHAIRPERSON ~OUVIERE: Right, that's what I'm assuming, and then we will still need another alternate to fill his position, and that's Page 44 16G ~why I was urging everyone. MR. YOVANOVICH: Madam Chairman, that needs to be checked and verified through Sue Filson's office who can tell you what the procedures are. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Right. MS. SULLIVAN.. Yes, and I would suggest that anybody that would like to apply to the board should direct their questions there as well. CHAIRPERSON L~UVIERE: To Sue Filson, she is in the Board of Cotmty Commissioners' office, and Sue loves to answer any and all of your questions, so be sure and call her up. Any other business; no? MR. MUELLER: Yes, Madam Chairman. Linda, I think you said that we are going to get a digital camera. We could have real pictures. MS. SULLIVAN: My staff is getting a digital camera and color printer so you're going to have clear pictures in your packets in color. MR. MUELLER: That's going to be a huge improvement. MS. SULLIVAN: X can' t wait. MR. MUELLER: Also, in reading some of these exhibits, documentation here, there°s some that are totally illegible. I can't read tham anyway. Why does that occur? MS. SULLIVAN: Because we have -- MR. ANDREWS: This one is terrible. MR. MUELLER: That' s what I'm referring to. MR. ANDREWS: Today's is terrible. MR. HUELLER: Page 10 of 97-028. 'MS. SULLIVAN: That's simply mecha~ical problems we had with our printer, and sometimes the original Just isn't clear either. I think we are also getting a new printer, but we'll make every effort to try to make this as clear as we can. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: We are aware of your staff -- of your budget constraints, and so -- and when you do get funds, you try to use it to get another inspector and things of that nature. MS. SULLIVAN: We'll try =o make them as legible as we can with what we have. CHAIRPERSON LOUVIERE: Goody, goody. Thank you so much. So, we have no further business, we are adjourned. MR. ANDP~'WS: I second it. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourT, ed by order of the Chair at 10:50 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD NORTH "~R~'~ ~VIERE, CHAIRPERSON Page 45 Naples, Florid~ September 24,1997 #~cock Kmc'Kle ~/ / 16G li LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD met on this date in regular seasion at 2:00 p.m. in the Main Library with thc following members CHAIR: Syd Mellinger Doris Lewis ALSO PRESENT: lolm W. Iones, Librm'y Director Frank CulleR, President, Friends of the Library Misc. Corres:.'r/Oo,~.r__ Gina Edwards, Reporter, Naples Daily News ' Marilyn Matthes, Head or'central Services 0~te: __/;2//-7-/~ 7 Luz Pictri, Sr. Secret ~'y -- APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mrs. Meilinger asked for comments or corrections to thc minutes of June There being none, Mrs. Lewis moved, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried unanimously, that the minutes be approved as submitted. REPORTS OF OFFICERS - None COMMUNICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mrs. Mcllinger reported that the Marco Island Woman's Club is underwriting thc whole cost ofthc gazebo. Mr. Jones reported that construction is pretty much on schedule and that no changes have been made. In reference to the Regional Library planning, Mr. Jones reported that the County is still looking for a site closer to the intersection of the original site. Mr. Jones stated that the County Administrator was in favor of a site around the Pine Ridge area, close to 1-75. The County, Mr. Jones continued, would like to have a site selected by the end of December. The Board reziewed all the names submitted for Employee of the Month for Septemb~. ARer some consideration, Mrs. Mcllinger entertained a motion to select the Employee of the Month. Mrs. Lewis moved, seconded by Mrs. Williams and carried unanimously to select Dottle Voegeli as Employee of the Month for Mrs. Mcllinger thanked Mr. Jones for the memorandum he sent ail the Board Members dealing with the Intemet which had helped them a great deal in dealing 16G with this issue. After some discussion on the matter, Mrs. Mellinger, on behalfof the LAB, instructed the Library Staffto proccM with the implementation of text based Intemet for the public. She further suggested that staffset up some type of form by each computer where patrons can v, xite in their name~, addresses and comments. In reference to the Revision of the Behavior Code Policy, Mrs. Manhes reported that the County Attorney had suggested some changes, mainly grammatical in nature. He had also suggested deleting an item under Behavior Rules which was too vague. Revised copies were distributed at the meeting. Mrs. Mellinger had asked Doris Lewis to look into the possibility of having police patrol the Library grounds, ~ially after school when the Library has more problems with middle school kids misbehaving. To that effect, Mrs. Lewis met with the Az$istant Principal from Gulfview M.S., with police officers from the County and the City of Naples, Pamela Moore, Children's Librarian and Marilyn Matthes. The group discussed the problem. The Assistant Principal was very receptive to the problem~ the Library is experiencing with skaters and rollerbladcrs after school. The officers cited a statute which says that the schools are responsible for kids until they reach home. Some suggestions were recommended. One was to change the location of the public phone and the other was to put up signs that say rollerblader~ and skaters not allowed. Mrs. Matthes was asked to send a follow-vp letter. At Mrs. Mellinger request, the meeting dates for February and blarch, 1998 were changed to Febraary igth and March ISth, respectively. Mrs. Matthes reported that the ALA Conference in San Francisco offered a lot of interesting programs which the Library ~aff tried to cover as much as possible. Some of the most interesting were the ones dealing with the lntemet access and with the computer rystem's Security. Mrs. Matthes reported that the Library staffhad reviewed the Fines and Fees Schedule and did no: recommend any changes at this time. NEW BUSINESS - None GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS - None DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Jones reported that the staffis working very hard getting everything ready for the 'Festival of the Humanities" which will take place Ma'eh 2 - 6, 1998. Ail the events nave been confirmed, tickets, posters and flyers have been printed. He 16G continued that the FYg$ budget is still intact. Included in the new budget request is a new van and an additional regula' full-time driver. REPORT OF THE FRIENDS Mr. Frank Cullen, the new President of the Friends, who had also served as President in the past, reported that a new slate ofofficers had been elected for the new fiscal year ~lm'ting in October. The By-laws had been amended to change their fiscal year to the one followed by the County, October to September. He continued by saying that at the present time, the Friends me involved in two active fund raising projects. He alto stated that the Friends have had very good luck in getting major donors and that plaques have been updated to that effect. He stated that dues and notices are now going out on a quarterly basis. A total of 14 films will be shown this season, they will be shown on Wednesday~. A new member ofthe newsletter staffis Ms. Lacey King. he announced. Mr. Cullen also stated that the Friends income last year totaled I;214,750. Lastly, Mr. Cullen reminded all that the 40~ Anniversary Dinner will take place on November 7,1998 at the Kensington Country Club. There being no further busine~ to cotne before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Mellinger declared the meeting adjourned. Time: 3:00 p.m. AGENDA ocl 3 o 1 6 G 1 't Board of County Co~issioner.~ COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEM3ER 6, 1997 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, EAST NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE:ANY PERSON WHO DECIDED 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 EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BF-;ORE THE CC'PC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE MATERIAI~ WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 18, 1997 and October 2, 1997 4. PLANNING COIVJVIISSION ABSENCES: 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Ao Bo Co liancock Comstantln,~ Petinon No. PSP-97-14, Mark Morton of Johnson En~neeting, Inc., representing Ocean B~loard ~~ IL ~l ~~ ~~ ~t ~ f~ C~ksi~ Co~e P~k W~t - Umt 1, ~ ~ ~e ~ s~ of~~ ~ (C~ ~6) at ~l~e-F~ Ro~ {C.~ ~51), m S~on 27. T~ 48 ~ ~ 25 ~ (~ B~ Mi~) (~ntmucd ~om ~to~ 16, 1997) P~ No. BD-~-21. Mil~ L. ~fn~ t~S Wil~ Cr~ re~s~g a 13 f~t ~t d~k ~ m aH~ f~ a 33 f~t ~t ~k ~ ~t I~ f~ f~ ~ l~a~ at 132 Wil~e~ Cay, ~ ~ ~ ~t 22, P~f-~-~l~ ~ Ca~) P~ H, T~ D. (C~d~toc St~ M~y} P~ No. BD-~-22, Mi~ L. ~ofle~ r~$ Gene F. ~I~ re~es~g a 10 f~t ~at d~k ~ m ~f~ a ~0 f~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ for ~ I~a~2Uc7+~ Cove, ~ 1 Coptes lo: Do Ho Jo ~.tback of 10 ft~ to 8 fetq lot a double frontage (through) lot Ioeated at 4459 Robin Avenue. further descnlx, d as Lot I I. Block C. Flamingo Estates. in Section !. Township 50 South, Range 25 East. Collier Cmmty. ~ (Coordinator:. Fred Reimch.') Petition No. V.97-12, Alfn~d W. French ofAlfred £reuch & Associates, Inc., representing Se·crest Counuy Da), School. reClUeS~ing a 6 foot ~ ;'~o,-~i the 30 foot maximum height allowed in thc 'E' Estates zoning ~ lo 36 feet. fem' proptq~ located cas1 of County Barn Road on Davis Boulevard (S.R. 84). in Section 8. Township 50 South, Range 26 East. {Co<,dinatoc. Ray Bellow~) Peution No. FUD-90-32(I), R. Bruce Andes:m, Esquire, of Young, vartAssenderp & Varnadoe. P.A., representing Ashley Scm~k:e Station, hx:., requesting a rezone fi'om 'PUD' to 'RMF-12 to 'PUD' Planned Unit Development known s~ "Addey's Service Station-Golden Gate" for the puqmose of adding Lot 19 to the ~ of ~ project; eliminating all service station repair us~; eliminating the fn~dou~ly authcrrizcd thud ser~ke repair bay and converting ~e two existing ~,rvice bay~ into a small t'a.,*t food restaurant; and ~ eli·marion of the potential lot two dwelling units and associated density on Lot 19, for propt-r~ located in Section 27, Tree··ship 49 Sou~ Range 26 East, Collier Couuty, Florida, coat·ting of I ·ere, more or less. (Coo~ Ray Bellows) Petition No. R,97-6, Domimc' k $. Amico. Sr,, P,E., rcpresentmg 3227 South Horseshoe Limited, requesting a rezone from 'T' to "C-5' lot propet~ located in Collie' Park of Cormuerce (East Naples Indusu'ial Park) near I~e ~ comet of South Horseshoe Drive and Airpo,.Pulling Road (C.R. 31) in Se:tion 35, Township 49 South, R,~{e 25 East, Col]itt Cmmty, Florida, consisting of .5'/ac~e. (Coordinator. Ron Nino) Pennon No. PUD,82-6(3). C, ramte DevelopmeuL LC., requesfmg an amendment to the Sabal Lake PUD. Ordinance Nurnb~ 82-41, ,, amended, tot lhe purpose of modifying Section 4.5 pertaining to setbacks and ill particular le1~taliou betwe~ ~ luxl accessory swucuu'es, for properly located on Radio Road (C,R. 856) q:~,oxumte{y '/i mi{e easl of S~ta Barbara Boulevard, in Section a. Township 50 South, Range 26 Eas~ (coonima~. Roe Nino) Petioon No. PUD-96-I I (2). Katemm Bishop of PMS, Inc., ol' Naples, representing Pelican Strand, Lld.. ~'t'questing a PUD lo FUD Plat·ed Unil Development having the effect of a~r~nding the Pelican Strand PUD for '.he pmTx:~ of addh~ a commmlicatiou ~owet as ~ authorized lznd ,.~c. and amending the Master Plan for properly located ou the mmrthwes! corner of later·tare Highway '/5 and Ira·ok·lee Road (C,R- 846). in ~ I $tud 19. Township 48 South. Range 26 East, Collie~ County, Florida, corgi·ting of 5'/4.569 acres · me o~ less. (cootd~soc Rou Nino) Petitio~ No. CU-9"/-23. Oeoflt'ey O. Put·e, tepreseul~$ Failh Conmmmty Church. requesting Conditional Ule '1" ofd'e "E" Estat~l ~nil~ d{stri~t for · cbutclL for property located at 22''~ Avenue N.W. and Oakes Boulevard, in ~ 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County. Florida, consisting of 4.99 act,. (coordmator: Rou Nino) Petition No. CT-97-4, Bruce Anderson & Robert Du~e re~g Manuel Pen·, M.D. requesting · small ~:ale amendment Io include 2..3 acres in Pine Ridge Road/I-75 Intt-n:hange ActiWty Center located on the southe~t c. orn~ of Nap· Way and Pme Rkige ~ (Coordinator. Lee Lay'ne) (Continued to November 20. 1997) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 1 1. ADJOURN ! I/6/97 CCPC AGENDA/md 2 16G September 18, 1997 : COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION NAPLES, FLORIDA, SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commiss'i~m in an~ for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this ~ate at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Michael A. Davis Richard Nelson Russell A. Budd Michael J. Bruet Fred Thomas Donald J. York Edward J. Oates Michael Pedone Gary Wrage ALSO PRESENT: MarJorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Robert Mulhere, Current Planning Manager Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING CONfMISSION WILL MEET AT S:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER IS, 1997 IN THE BOARD OF CO~ COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COLrNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, EAST NAPLES, FLORIDA: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDED TO APPEAL A DECISION OF TH]S BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING PERT~G THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATI~ RECORD OF THE PROCEED~GS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES TI-IE TESTIMONY AND EVID~ UI~N WHI~ THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CC'PC WR.L BECOM]E A PERMANI~ PART OF THE RECORD. ~E MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOn. 2. 3. 4. 6. 7. ADDENDA TO TH~ AGE2qDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES: ~~O CO~ON ~CE~: BCC RI~ORT REPORT a,s ~ n~,mssls~us md .... ,mx,rt (o~.c) ,ut,n,h~ by tt~ D~,nmt of & 10. II. Do ~ No. I'UD~-I 1, ~ L. Vamea~ ~ of You~, ~ & Vm~., and AlUm ~k~ of WIlson, mtmsci~ k~aml ou tl~ mst md ~ sidm of ~ Frank ~ (C_R. 8~1), ~maediamly aomh of Immolmim i~oad (C~. 846% ia Sec~im 27, To~mlatp 48 ~ Ra~c 2~ ea~,~ of 10&4 acm. 0I~~ DISCUSSION O~ ADDB2~IDA 9,.l&.~ CCPC AOEN~A/md 2 16G 1 September 18, 1997 ~ DAVIS: I'll call this meeting of the Collier County Plannin~; Commission to order and begin by calling the roll. Mr. Nelson? COMMISSIONER NELSON: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Budd? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CHAI~ DAVIS: Mr. Bruet? (No response). CHAI~M~N DAVIS: Mr. Thomas? COMMISSIONER THOK~S: Here. CHAII~M~N DAVIS: Mr. Davis; here. Mr. York? COMMISSIONER YORK: Here. CHAI~M~N DAVIS: Mr. Oates? COMMISSIONER OATES: Here. CHAI~M~N DAVIS: Mr. Pedone and Mr. Wrage, I think, had told us before that ~hey weren't going to be here. A~denda to the agenda; we have one agenda item that I believe we need to continue, Item D, Which is PUD-97-11. It's my understanding that we have a quorum problem. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: ~ow many people ere going to be abstaining from that? ' COMMISSIONER OATES: I am. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Oates and Mr. Budd which only leaves four, and I might -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I vote that we continue it to -- do you want to do a time certain? C~AIP~ DAVIS: How about if we move it to our first item at our nex~ meeting? MR. MULHERE: That would be good. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I move that we move it to our first item at ~he nex~ meeting. CHAIRM~N DAVIS: Okay. A mot£on -- COMMISSIONER THOM&S: Fred Thomas. C(H~MISSIONER OATES: ~xcuse me, ~arJorie, but can Russell and I vote on continuing it? MS. STUDENT: Yeah, ~.hat -- I don't think that's any problem. It's only the substance that's a problem. COMMISSIONER YORK: Any people in ~he audience here for that? CHAXI~%~ DAVIS: I don't see any of the -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I th/nk ~hey anticipated that was a problem. CHAI~M~N DAVIS: Yeah, it ' s my understan~/ng that they did antici~ate that it was a problem. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, under addenda, may I put a discussion under n~ business for LDC? CHAIKMAN DAVIS: All right. Under new business, LDC, I'll make a note of that. MR. OATES: :~re we going to vote on the motion? Page 2 September 18, !997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously. So, Ite~ D, Petition PUD-97-11, which, for the audience, was Barton Collier. Partnership~ requesting a rezone~to a .PUD, planned u~.it development, to be known as Creekside Commerce Center. That's been continued to our first meeting in October, October 2nd. Any other addenda to the agenda? A~roval of the minutes, we had none. Planning commission absences. COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I'll be absent for the second meeting in October. I'll be on vacation. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: As will I, although I won't be with Mr. York. COFAMISSI~ THOMAS: ~ It looks like I'm going to be absent all meetings after November. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: But you have an excuse. COMMISSIONF-~ YORK: You' re excused. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: BCC report, anything of significance there, Mr. Mulhere? MR. MULHERE: No, sir, not that I can recall. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Under chairman's report, Mr. Thomas just mentioned that he's going to be missing some meetings after this one, and the reason is, is Mr. Thomas is going to be leaving our company, and'Mr. Thomas` ~- ~! begin~my seventh year on this board next month, and Mr. Thomas was sitting here when I arrived. I think it was back wSen I -- before I had gray hair. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But you have to understand =hat Mr. Oates is the one that trained me. COMMISSIONER OATHS: Then I left for awhile. MR. MULHER~: One point with regard to that, just to -- I did prepare a memorandum for Sue Filson, administrative assistant to the board, indicating that the planning commission did not choose to make an~ r.eccm~nenda~io~ on the~can~idates, and I'm not sure exactly when she's got that scheduled for the board, but th~ ordinance, I believe, was revised to read that you serve until a new aI~pointee has been ~_-~e. I don't kn~w exactly when that is going to occur, but I'll certainly keeg you informed as to when that date is. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: She told me that it is scheduled for next Tuesday, the 23rd, and that there's one qualified candidate because -- COMMISSI~ THOMAS: And we've got a very qualified candidate in the form of Russell Priddy, which will bring back some experience and talent to the board. C~AIRI4AI~DAVIS: Weli, the point~ ..... =he ~oint .o~_my bringing this up is on behalf of this board, Fred, I want to thank you for all your years of dedicated service. It's been a pleasure for me to serve with you. You've taught me a lot. CO~MISSIONER THOMAS: No, don' t try that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And look forward to your continued work in the co.~unity. Page 3 September 18, 1997 COMMISSIO~ 0ATES: .I second that. CHAIKMAN DAVIS:~ With that, we'll get to -- with that, we'll get rework. Our first ~etition is PSP-97-8. I would ask all those present here today to sl~eak on this ~etition to please rise and raise right hand so the court reporter may swear you in; all two of you. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN DAVIS= Mr. Nine. MR. NINe: The l)etition -- Ran Nine, for the record. The l~etition that's before you asks the planning commission for itl a~roval of a subdivision master plan for a six lot subdivision in the industrial area of Seward Avenue and Shirle~ Street and Yahl Street. This l~rticular ~rcel of land would be accessed by an extension south of Seward Avenue, but nevertheless, an extension of ~he existing Houchin Street, which runs north and south, and as you can see, it creates six industrial ~arcels of land. There's only one substitution to a design requirement that the ~etitioner is requesting and staff is not ou~osed to, the waiver of sf~alks on Houchin Street which will be a dead-end street, and given the fact that's a~ in~ustrfal area, we usually don't associate si~ewalks with that kind of an ~nvironment. Staff recommends all, reval as described in the resolution that is contafned wfthin your agenda ~ackage. - CHAIrmAN DAVIS: Questions of staff? Petitioner? MR. NADEAU: Con~nissfoners, good morning. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, McAnly Engineering & Design, representing the ~etitioner, 5590 Shirley Street Land Trust. Not really much I can add to Mr. Nino's presentation; six lots, 4.31 acres. I'd be ha~y to answer any questions. C~AI~AN DAVIS= Questions of the petitioner? Seeing none, is there anyone else that wants to speak on this ~etition? Close the ~ublic hearing. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I move that we -- COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve PSP-97-8. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Second. CHAIKMA/q DAVIS: Motion of a~roval by Mr. Oates; seconded by Mr. Thomas. Discussion? All those i~ favor, signifyby saying aye. (No response). CHAII~fAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER SATES: Dwight, do you want your stuff? MR. NADEAU: Yeah, sure. C(H~4ISSI~TH~: Oh, you want your stuff? 14R. HADEAU: You can have it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Before we go on, I had given each of you a package that at the top says Laurel Necomis (phonetic) Community Plan. One of the seminars I attended at the APA conference just recentl~was Page 4 September 18, 1997 to do with community planning, and these were some handouts that they were kind enouCn to give me some extra copies of. If you look through them, you'll see how co.~,unity planning works. It's a prett~F neat concept, and I thought something that you-all might enjoy r~ding about. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: You also need -- and I probably need the one to say this. Even though I have been fighting those architectural standards being in Immokalee, I think the staff needs=o be very proud of themselves for the statewide recognition they've gotten for their standards. CHAI~%N DAVIS: At that conference, at the luncheon on Friday, staff, along with Co~uissioner Hancock, accepted an award from the APA for those architectural standards and their development, also presented at what I understood to be a very well attended workshop for the other conm~nities around Florida about our architectural standards that were very well received. So, yes, the staff we see here received a great deal of recognition from their ~eers, so, way to go, folks. MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER YORK: is that the appropriate time for bringing that u~? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, under new business, we're going to talk . about the LDC. So, I think we can talk about that then. COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. Question, on the item that was continued, will we be issued new packages or should we retain these, Bob? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'm sure, as usual, we'll get a new packet. MR. NINO= How long is it continued for? COMMISSI~n~ YORK: Until the next meeting. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Until the next meeting. MR. NINO: You'll probably get -- you'll get a new package. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: On the item we continued, Mr. Mulhere -- MR. ~: Yeah. Well, actually, there are some revisions that we are still working on, so we'll send out a new package. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Very good. Petition Number PUD-97-9, once again, anyone here today that may ~ak on this p~tition, please rise, raise your right hand so that you may be sworn by the court re~orter. COMMISSIONER TH0~AS: A~ybody that wants to speak on this, you need Co raise your right hand. {The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino, for the record. PUD-97-9 would have you rezone 156 acres of land that's now zoned agricultural on the west side of 951 immediately south of the Naples National Golf Estates project. That land is within the urban boundary, therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that an owner of land wi=bin the urban boundary designated urban/residential would eventually be seeking approval to a residential develol~nent. 16G · September 18, 1997 COM24ISSIONER OATES: I second that. CHAIKM~N DAVIS= With that, we'll get to -- with that, we'll get to work. Our first petition is PSP-97-8. I would ask all those pres~= here to~ay to speak on this petition to please rise and raise your right hand so the court re~orter may swear you in; all two of you. (The s~:~e, akers were svorn). CHAI~ DAVIS: Mr. Nfno. MR. NINO: The petition -- Ron Nino, for the record. The petition that's before you asks the planning commission for its a~r~val of a sub~ivision master plan for a six lot subdivision in the industrial area of Seward Avenue and Shirley Street and Yahl Street. This ~articular parcel of land wouldbe accessed by an axe--ion south of Seward Avenue, but nevertheless, an extension of ~he ex/sting Houchin Street, which runs north and south, and as you can lee, it creates six in~ustrial ~arcels of land. There's only one substitution to a design requirement that the ~4titioner is requesting and staff is not ou~osed to, the waiver of sidewalks on Houchin Street which will be a dead-end street, and given the fact that's an i~dustrial area, we usually don't associate sidewalks with that kind of an environment. Staff recommends a~roval as described in the resolution that is containedwithin your age~2a ~ackage. - CIH~I~ DAVIS: Questions of staff? Petitioner? MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good morning. For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau, McAnly Engineering & Design, representing the petitioner, 5590 Shirley Street Lan~ Trust. Not really much I can add to Mr. Nino's presentation; six lots, 4.31 acres. I'd be hap~y to answer any questions. CHAIKM~N DAVIS: Questions of the petitioner? Seeing none, is there anyone else that wants to speak on this petition? Close the ~ublic hearing. CXXeMISSIONERT~OH~S: I move ~hat we -- COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chair~an, I move we approve PSP-97-8. COMMISSIONER THOKAS: Second. CHAI~M~/q DAVIS: Motion of a~roval by Mr. Oates; seconded by Mr. Thomas. Discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. o~os~? (No response). CHAL~M~H DAVIS: It carries unanimously. COMMISSIONE~ OATES: Dwight, do you want your stuff? MR. N~DEAU: Yeah, sure. COflMISSI~THOM~S: Oh, you want your stuff? MR. ~: You can have it. CHAIKM~N DAVIS: Before we go on, I had given each of you a package that at the top says Laurel Necomis (phonetic) Community Plan. One of the sea~Lnars I attended at the APA conference just recent~was Page 4 September 18, 1997 to do with community planning, and these were some handouts that they were kind enough to give me some extra copies of. If you look through them, you'll see how community planning works. It's a pretty neat concept, and I thought something that you-all might enjoy about. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: You also need -- and T probably need the one to say this. Even though I have been fighting those architectural standards being in I~m,okalee, I think the staff needs be very proud of themselves for the statewide recognition they've gotten for their standards. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: At that conference, at the luncheon on Friday, staff, along with Commissioner Hancock, accepted an award from the APA for those architectural standards and their development, also presented at what I understood to be a very well attended workshop for the other communities around Florida about our architectural standards that were very well received. So, yes, the staff we see here received a great deal of recognition from their peers, so, way to go, folks. MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER YORK: is that the appropriate time for bringing that up? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, under new business, we're going to talk _ about the LDC. So, I think we can talk about that then. COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. Question, on the item that was continued, will we be issued new packages or should we retain these, Bob? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'm sure, as usual, we'll get a new packet. MR. NINO: How long is it continued for? COMMISSIONER YORK: Until the next meeting. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Until the next meeting. MR. NINO: You'll probably get -- you'll get a new package. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: On the item we continued, Mr. Mulhere -- MR. ~: Yeah. Well, actually, there are some revisions that we are still working on, so we'll send out a new package. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Very good. Petition Number PUD-97-9, once again, anyone here today that may speak on this petition, please rise, raise your right hand so that you may be sworn by the court reporter. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Anybody that wants to speak on this, you need to raise your right hand. (The speakers were sworn). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nino? MR. NINO: Yes, Ron Nino, for the record. PUD-97-9 would have you rezone 156 acres of land that's now zoned agricultural on the west side of 951 immediately south of the Naples National Golf Estates project. That land is within the urban boundary, therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that an owner of land within the urban boundary designated urban/residential would eventually be seeking approval to a residential development. Page 5 September 18, 1997 This development is different -- I think we've never had one of this nature -- different not only in the sense that the density is so low -- the request is for 28 single family houses. It's not a mixed residential development. It is one housing structure type -- single family houses on 156 acres, and what makes it kind of interesting is that each lot that they are creating will be surrounded by an area of open space, kind of interesting, it's different. The density is low. Reviewing this PUD for consistency with related elements of the Growth Management Plan reveal~ that it would not be inconsistent with any applicable element of the Growth Management Plan. The traffic generation is minimal. It minimally impacts 951. It will have sewer and water. Sewer and water is not a problem. As I indicated, the open space requirement and consel-vation elements are more than -- more than consistent. The PUD has been reviewed by Ms. Student and has been signed off. We are satisfied with all of the development standards that are in the PUD. All of the development commitments requested by staff are within the PUD. It's been reco~,=,~ended for approval by the EAB subject to stipulations which are included in the PUD that's before you. We recommend -- we -- we recommend your approval of the PUD as represented. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of staff? Petitioner? MR. ASHER: For the record, my name is John Asher. I'm with Coastal Engineering, and we're representing the petitioner. Mr. Nino explained it fairly well. MR. NINO: Could I interrupt, John? I'm sorry, but I did forget one issue, and it's a very important issue, and it's an issue on which we don't have closure yet. MR. ASHER: I thought you were going to leave that out. MR. NINO: You thought I was going to forget it. The Collier County Traffic Ways Element contains a traffic ways master plan, and that master plan provides for an arterial street across the south end of this petition that would run from 951 to County Barn Road. When the Naples Heritage PUD was approved, a rese~vation was made for that road. Because it is within a -- because it's an element within the traffic ways plan, staff is required to advise you that a rese~;ation needs to be made for that right-of-way. So, to the extent -- so, to the extent that the plan doesn't reflect that, it would have to be amended to provide the right-of-way. In this case, we recommend the reservation of 60 feet, assuming that, as the next prcperty is -- comes before us, we would ask for 60 feet from that property as well. That really doesn't affect that design to that extent, but Mr. Asher is going to tell you that he has a problem with it. COMMISSIONER YORK: Question. MR. NINO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Ron. Page 6 September 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: In my mind -- are my eyes off, is that parcel sitting kind of cockeyed on the grid? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There's a fold in the paper. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That doesn't look like that over heT~. MR. NINO: You mean, does it run -- MR. ASHER: That's the way the section lines run. MR. NINO: The sectic., lines are not due east -- due east and west. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, that 951 -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Caddy wampus. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. Wait a minute. So that right-of-way is going to come caddy wampus up there too or are you going to have to cut -- cut the back corner off more? MR. NINO: No, our recommendation is that the right-of-way reservation is 100 feet of Naples Heritage. Our recommendation in the staff report, but I had forgotten about it temporarily, would have that reservation narrowing down. In other words, it would -- it would be a curvature in there and it would narrow it down to 60 feet and then another 60 feet on the south side. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. York? MR. NINO: We didn't feel it was fair to ask for the entire 100 feet from this developer. Normally -- normally, you kind of split the right-of-way requirements between property owners. COMMISSIONER YORK: Ron, is this between -- is this property due south of the Naples National Golf Course? MR. NINO: Naples National Golf Course, yes. COMMISSIONER YORK: Where -- which side is the -- is the -- MR. NINO: On the south side. COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. So, it would not be between -- MR. NINO: It would not be between the golf club, that's right. COMMISSIONER YORK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of staff? Now we'll get back to the petitioner. MR. ASh-ER: Well, in general, I'll be happy to answer any questions you have on the overall project, but to cut to the chase and get to the specifics of this road, we heard about ~his fairly late in the process, and the first thing I did was figure out where this is coming from, and as Ron mentioned, it's in the Growth Management Plan, but I wanted to check further to see, you know, where is this based from. Well, there was the 2020 needs assessment report, and that was based on a build out population of five hundred twenty some thousand people and on the 2020 plan, it showed that road being necessary. Then the report was re-evaluated with a slightly lower build out population, somewhere in the range of 400,000, and the road, I think, went from a four lane to a two lane, the one in question that we are talking about, but right now, I think there's also talk of actually lowering the build out density somewhere to the mid three bunds, ed range, 300,000 range, and my point would be, number one, that this would -- this road would probably disappear on that plan, but more Page 7 September 18, 1997 importantly, there's also a plan, it's called the 2020 financially feasible highway network. This road does not show up on that plan. So, the needs assessment -- i called David Plummer & Associates and asked them to explain this to me, and I talked with ton Tm/on, and he basically explained that the first report, the needs ass~nent, it represents a needed network if costs were not an issue, but tM financially feasible plan, basically, is the affordable highway network given current revenue forecasts. So, the Petitioner's point is that if this road isn't feasihlte financially, then why should we be reserving something today for k t? COMMISSIONER T}{O~%S: I want to ask staff a question. You'v~ got the golf club on top, you've got the Heritage Place there, and you've got this property. This property could have a density of four units an acre, right? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And they choose -- MR. NINO: Three -- three units. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Three units an acre, and they choose to have one unit for every five acres. So, that would seriously reduce the traffic impacts from that particular location. MR. NINO: Correct. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Are there ~ny plans to take tbat road that you're talking about, to have it flush out the density on the east side of 9517 MR. NINO: The road -- the requirement of the road is not -- it is not density related to this particular property. The road is an assessment by our transportation people that it's part of the highway network, the overall highway network for Collier County -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I understand that. MR. NINO: -- and therefore -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: i understand that, but I'm -- I know a little bit about this area because I travel down there, and I can't imagine that they're going to bring a road from Golden Gate Estates, like maybe from Everglades Boulevard, at that particular location all the way across. FiR. NINO: It's not intended to. It stops at 951. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Now, if it stops at 951, I'm having a problem. Since h~'s coming in for such a low density, the Heritage has got a low density, why would there maybe even be a need for that road? MR. NINO: I guess -- and I don't mean to be critical, but it really doesn't matter if you have a problem or not with it. The traffic ways plan requires us to make -- to guarantee to prese~e the integrity of those rights-of-way, and if there -- if it turns out that they are not required, then this developer will not be affected by a rese~;ation of 60 feet, and -- but it's our responsibility and your responsibility to preserve the integrity of planned rights-of-way as you deal with petitions that come be_fore you. So, Mr. Asher's concern really goes away -- if what Mr. Asher says is correct, it's not financially feasible~ and in the year 2015, Page 8 September 18, 1997 that is, in fact, the case, then the reservation will not be an impediment to them. As a matter of fact, they could probably come back to the legislative body at that particular time and as~ that it be vacated. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Given what the petitioner says, Mr. Nino, there seems to be some fogginess about this; that the one plan ycu"~e talking about, it does show it, and he's saying that elsewhere, it see~s not to, that between now and the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, that maybe that could be resolved so that they could -- MR. NINO: That's a possibility, yes. However, the plan that Mr. Asher refers to is not a legal part of the Growth Management Plan. It's the maps that are in the Growth Management Plan that count. They are the legal documents. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: %Th-huh. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Where does this map come from? MR. ASH]ER: That's the long range plan update, I believe. That's the financially feasible. MR. NINO: Financially -- that -- that is not the same map. COMMISSIONER YORK: This is not the Growth Management Plan's? MR. NINO: No. COMMISSIONER YORK: But we have no choice. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can I ask you one question? MR. ASHER: Certainly. - COMMISSIONER THOMAS: If you do that reservation, would thst affect that site plan in any way? MR. ASHER: Yeah. Wherein the road turns down to the south, that would affect it, and it would also -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait, point to where you're talking about. MR. ASHER: In this area here where the road turns down to the south, that would affect it. The configuration fox this is based totally on the environmental permitting. We have both the South Florida ERP and the Army Corps dredge and fill permits for the property. That's why we can show you so much detail, that we didn't go in until we knew they were in hand, and part of the problem is that we are preparing the final construction plans right now, and if we submit to the county with this reservation, they're actually going to require a dedication of the right-of-way, at least that's been the case in the past. I know when Naples Heritage had to come in, they had to -- on the plat, they had to dedicate that as a right-of-way at that point. So, that's why we are against this hypothetical reservation, not knowing that it's ever going to be needed. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What flexibility do we have, Ms. Student? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: None. MR. ASHER: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What flexibility do we have, Ms. Student? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We are being told, Ms. Student, that it's in the Growth Management Plan, and there -- and I think the message there is, is, therefore, our hands are tied. At the same time, the petitioner is bringing up some other issues that seem to cloud that a bit. Page 9 September 18, !997 (Commissioner Bruet is now attending meeting). MS. STUDENT: Well, I can tell you -- you know, this issue has just come up to me, and I thought our staff -- and I'm going To need some enlightenment, I think, from Mr. Nino. Is this in the pla: ar -- MR. NINO: Yes, it is. MS. STUDENT: Okay, because the development order needs to be consistent, you know, with what's in our comprehensive plan. MR. NINO: But more importantly, as I pointed out, it's a reservation. If, in the real world, we don't need that right-of-way, it's not -- COMMISSIONER T~OMAS: I understand what you're saying. MR. NINO: -- other than -- other than it's going to impact his design, but very minimal it's going to impact the design. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But the fact of the matter is, from -- it's in the reservation. The regulations state, but right now, if he's going to go out to try to build this within the next nine months, he cannot do this, then he's got to go back and do the environmental permitting over, correct? MR. AS~R: Correct. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm just saying, these little twitches and these little things just -- MR. NINO: Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: One other point, you indicated that you were only taking half of the necessary right-of-way; is that correct? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Is there a possibility to take none from the petitioner, since he's building 28 homes on a property that could support 450 homes and to take, as you plan, the whole, if, in fact, it's needed, the whole one hundred and some feet from the next petitioner south of it? MR. NINO: Well, it creates -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: It shouldn't be necessary. MR. NINO: It would create a greater offset because the aliqrunent -- the aliqnment -- the dedication -- the aliqnment of the dedication, if it's established by Naples Heritage, would have the en[ire 120 feet coming from this property. We would be disturbing the alignment to a greater extent than our -- than staff's recommending. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, like a slight meander? .~R. NINO: Yes. COMMISSION-ER THOMAS: A slight meander which is conducive to low density communities. C~AIRMAN DAVIS: What I hear -- what I hear staff saying to us, because it's in the plan, our hands are tied, but by the same token, there's -- and the petitioner pointed out, this, apparently, is something relatively new. There's going to be a time lag between what we do here today and the time before it goes before the BCC which provides the opportunity for some of these issues to be sorted out and, I think, probably a clearer picture given to the Board of County Commissioners before they take action on it. So, just an observation. COMMISSIONER OATES: According to this, it says that it's b~ Page 10 September 18, 1997 set for the September 18th BCC meeting, which, obviously, im not correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, they have -- MR. ASHER: I think it's October 14th. CHAIRMAN 0ATES: Is it? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, there -- MR. NINO: That's incorrect. Thanks. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, there's plenty of time for some of these issues to be sorted out before then. MR. ASHER: Yeah. I don't understand the need -- if the current plan only calls out for a two lane roadway, why do we need 60 foot on our side and 60 foot on the other. One hundred twenty foot right-of-way will support, basically, six lanes. I don't know if that's current with all the water management requirements, but at least a divided four lane. So, I don't see where we need the 60 feet that Mr. Nino is mentioning, and we haven't talked on the environmental issues. We had to go through it. The chances of a road being permitted through there are little to none, in my opinion, at least in today's climate. If you can -- Naples National has preserved -- the Naples National Golf Course stops development right here. This is all a wetland slew. As you can see, we were required to do the same thing. The chances of crossing that with a road through here are not real likely. I mean, who knows what could happen in 2020, but the environmentalists are very happy with the fact that they've preset;ed a corridor like this as well as the other areas up in Naples Heritage that they've made them retain, so -- environmentally, that road is not very likely. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Could I ask the petitioner, how much of a right-of-way, how much footage could you dedicate without having to go back? MR. ASHER: I think -- I believe we've got a 30 foot buffer in this location here, but again, if -- yeah, that would not require us to go back. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Thirty feet would not? ~{R. ASh'ER: I believe so, yes. COMMISSIONER NELSON: So, that might be a good compromise, take 30 feet from the petitioner. MR. NINO: It's not -- excuse me. A road would have to have an additional buffer between it and the next road reservation. COMMISSIONER YORK: I don't see we have much choice, but -- if it's --- you know, it's part of the Growth Management Plan. MR. ASHER: We would be happy to give the property farther to the east to allow the realignment of the road to swing down and go through the adjoining property. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can we hear from ~nybody else? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of the petitioner, and dces the petitioner have anything to add? MR. ASh'ER: No, just if there's any comments raised from the audience, if I need to respond. Page 11 16G September 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Certainly, and sir, if you would like to speak, come up to the microphone. If you would, please identify yourself for the record. MR. SAVAGE: Hi, I'm Steve Savage. I'm the co-trustee of the parcel directly north of this piece of land, and my chief concern is that at this point -- COMMISSIONER OATES: Excuse me, but I thought Naples National w-as north. MR. SAVAGE: I'm sorry. I'm south. I beg your pardon. I'm at the bottom. My chief concern is that I would like to see the roadway right-of-way of 120 feet maintained because as of right now, I haven't decided whether I want to develop it myself or sell it for development, and I haven't decided what the highest or best use for the property is, and at this point, I don't know that I would be too happy with any compromise that's going to take away what's previously planned by the county for the road reservation. I'm very, very concerned about that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Savage. Anyone else to speak on this petition? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'd like to make a motion that we reco,,u~end approval to the county commissioners of PUD-97-9 with a stipulation - that the road -- right-of-way road reservation should be only 30 feet on this south boundary of this property. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. ThomAs, seconded by Mr. Nelson. Mr. Nino, what -- what does the plan require; 120 feet? MR. NINO: One hundred twenty foot right-of-way somewhere within that alignment. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But my reco~endation is to the county commission to consider the 30 foot -- MR. NINO: .I heard you, yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: -- when they can do the review and get do~a~ to the facts that there only needs to be a two lane road and consider the fact that this is a very low density kind of property. The only thing that road conserves is that traffic coming south and down that corridor. With the wetland kind of concerns back there, I don't think the road will ever get built, but just to protect ourselves in case we need a two lane road, we've got that. COMMISSIONER YORK: The problem that I have, if you need a four lane road and you approve this as is and it goes to a four lane road, then you're taking property rights from another -- COMMISSIO~ OATES: ~_nother individual. COM/~ISSION~R YORK: -- individual. It ought to be equal. COMMISSIONER OATES: Yes, I agree with that. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: How much -- how much land do you need for a four lane road; 60 for the right-of-way, right? MR. NINO: Commissioner, that's not the issue. The issue is the Growth Management Plan calls for an arterial right-of-way. Arterial Page 12 September 18, 1997 right-of-ways are defined as only being satisfied by a 120 foot right-of-way. Whether that ends up being a two lane or a four lane highway has really no impact or has no relationship to the a~ount of right-of-way that we have to ask for today for reservation. T~ assumption is that it may be six laned, maybe, you don't know. ~ don't know if it's going to be two laned or six laned. COMMISSIONER YORK: lanes. COMMISSIONER OATES: Ridge. COMMISSIONER YORK: When I moved here, Pine Ridge was only two When I moved here, there wasn't any Pine There; rest my case. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Let me think. It was sand with a lot of depressions. COMMISSIONER 0ATES: I'm not just talking about the road, I'm talking about the whole subdivision. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Oh, yeah. Any other discussion on the motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Aye. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Aye. CHAIRMA/{ DAVIS: Opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER YORK: Aye. COMMISSIONER OATES: Aye. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Let's see, it fails four to three. THE REPORTER: Can I have a count on that? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, the people that were for the motion were Mr. Nelson, Bruet and Thomas with the other four in opposition. Is there a new motion? COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I would move we submit PUD-97-9 to the Board of -- the Board of County Commissioners with the reco~,~Lendation of approval based upon the -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Subject to the Growth Management Plan. COMMISSIONER OATES: -- subject to the Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: In other words, with staff's stipulations? COMMISSIONER OATES: Right. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Budd. Could we add to that motion or maybe just a side bar, if you will, that this -- and I'm sure this issue is going to come up before the board, but to make it clearer, it's one we wrestled with and it isn't -- maybe something is broken here. COMMISSIONER OATES: Yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I want you to phrase that so maybe I can support the motion. What are we going to say about this? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You know, I'd be willing to bet you that Mr. Nino and Mr. Mulhere will convey our concern very well for us. COMMISSIONER YORK: With a recommendation that the future Page 13 16G 1' September 18, 1997 development of that road be studied. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. MR. MULHERE: Probably Mr. Asher will help us convey it, too. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I wouldn't -- and I think Mr. Sa~ge, too. COMMISSIONER ~IOMAS: I wouldn't feel this strongly, bu~ I know what he's uoing to have to go through now to r~:onfigure that from an environmental standpoint. We are sitting up here talking, and he might not be able to get that many units that he's got there right now on that property. COMMISSIONER YORK: But the flip side of that, Mr. Thomas, is that you can't take the rights away from another property owner. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm not saying take the rights. I don't think the road is ever going to go through there. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Any more discussion on the motion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That motion carries unanimously. That brings us to our final agenda item, which is the reco~L=,endation to forward the EAR based amendments and -- MR. LiTSINGER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. For the record -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is our plan to take these in order? - MR. LITSINGER: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I would ask of staff, if there are any that are -- the real easy ones that -- MS. LAYNE: That's the order. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is that pretty much the order you've got them in, because I see a lot of staff people sitting here that would probably like to get back to their offices? Is that the -- so that pretty much will take care of it? MR. LITSINGER: It should. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. LITSINGER: For the record, Stan Litsinger of the planning department. This agenda item is the adoption public hearing -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Excuse me. Ms. Student, do we need to swear everybody in the room? MS. STUDENT: No. This is legislative. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. That's on the record. Excuse me. MR. LITSINGER: Mr. Chairman, this is the adoption public hearing for the 1997 comprehensive plan amendments which also incorporate those amendments as recommended and directed by the seven year evaluation and appraisal report on the comprehensive plan. For your reference, I would note that the proposed amendments were transmitted at a transmittal public hearing on April 18th of 1997. We received the Department of Co~Lunication Affairs' objections, recommendations and comments report on July 6th of 1997. What we will be presenting today is the staff's proposed responses specifically to the objections raised by the Department of Community Affairs as potential findings that would relate -- result in Page 14 September 18, 1997 a finding of not in compliance for various elements of the comp. plan. We can tell you that we met with senior staff of the Department of Co~unity Affairs on August 18th and 19th of 1997, and the responses and recommendations that you will be hearing today are a direct result of those negotiations, which are, of course, hOC binding on the Department of Community Affairs, but which we feel will ~ a long way towards resolving the issues which had been raised to the proposed amendments. What we would propose today is to have relevant staff present each element and that you take a straw vote on each element prior to your final vote and recommendations on the entire package for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners on October 28th of this year, ~nd if you have no questions on the General process, we would begin with the first elements on your list. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: I have a comment. I think because we have separate ordinances, it's my understanding that we should take a vote, not a straw vote, but an official vote on each element because we have separate ordinances to adopt each element. So, in case we have a compliance problem, at least our whole plan won't be out the window for awhile. CHAI~4AN DAVIS: The first two, I notice there's no ORC comments. MR. LITSINGER: I was Going to cover those very quickly for you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And to the audience, I would say that as we deal with each element, we are going to want to provide an opportunity for input from the public. MR. LITSINGER: For the record, Stan Litsinger, again, comprehensive planning. On recreation and open space, just to note, there were no objections, comments, et cetera on the proposed recreation and open space element as you've previously reviewed and transmitted as directed by the Board of County Commissioners. Also, in the capital improvement element, there were no objections, reco~,~,endations or comments on the proposed element as it is a financially feasible plan and maintains concurrency in all facilities under adopted levels of service. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I would ask the public if there'n anyone here today that wanted to speak on either the recreation and open space element or the capital improvement element. MR. LITSINGER: If not, we'd ask for a motion and vote on each element. COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move we, I Guess approve -- do we approve or -- CHAI~ DAVIS: Approve for transmittal. COMMISSIONER OATES: -- approve for transmittal recreation and open space -- MS. STUDENT: It's approve for adoption. COMMISSIONER OATES: -- adoption of the recreation and open space element. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Second. Page 15 September 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Thomas. Discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve for adoption the capital in~orovement element. COMMISSIONER YORK: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr York Discussion? ' · Ail those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. MR. LITSINGER: Lee Layne will now present intergovernmental. MS. LAYNE: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, my name is Lee Layne. I'm going to be covering the intergovernmental coordination element. DCA had, basically, one comment or one objection to the intergovernmental coordination element, and that was the portion regarding the school sites. Basically, they are saying that the interlocal agreement nor the policies in the plan provide for any criteria for a location of schools. They're recommending that we revise the existing policy or add another policy, and we are recommending that the ICE or intergovernmental coordination stay the same and add some new provisions within the Future Land Use Element. Under the ag. rule designation, it's on Page 2 of your staff report, saying that the school shall be subject to the general education facilities report which the school board has to submit annually, that it must be compatible with adjacent land uses and not be located in any state or federal wetlands, and also, to add the s~.%e language in the conservation designation. There was only one other -- which was a comment which we are not required to act on, but because they were dates, we're recommending that in Policies 1.2.1 and 1.3 that we delete those dates and do a continuing effort on those, and I believe we do have a con~ent on the intergovernmental. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of staff? Okay, speaker? MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich with Roetzel & Andress, repres2nting the school board. Basically, it's our position that the interlocal agreement between the school board and the county addresses where school sites will be. However, we recognize that DCA has some concerns, and we would just like to modify very slightly staff's recommended language. The first bullet statement in both the conservation and agricultural designations is fine with us. The second bullet statement regarding the site must be compatible with adjacent land uses, we think that's been addressed in the Page 16 September 18, 1997 interlocal agreement. There's all kinds of buffering requirements in there. We talked to Lee Layne, and we feel confident that bet. w~en now and October 28th, we can come up with language that will satisfAz a~ Department of Community Affairs but modify that language slightly, a~.~ finally, the last bullet statement, we would just revise it to say that the site shall be subject to all applicable state and'federal wetland regulations. So, it's essentially what staff has proposed but a little clearer. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wb.y would you want to change it, then? MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: The last bullet. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, the last one, I just think it's a little clearer with the language we are saying, subject to all applicable state and federal regulations. We are subject to those anyway. COMMISSIONER YORK: Does staff have a problem with that? MS. LAYNE: No. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Who ultimately makes the decision on a school site; the school board or the county? MR. YOVANOVICH: The way -- well, the interlocal agreement makes it a coordinated effort. We will submit to the county where we propose to put school sites annually. That's what the interlocal - agreement -- we will do that, and we will tell you where they are going to be, and you have an opportunity to review that. The county has an opportunity. COMMISSIONER BRUET: The school board has the ultimate -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, and ultimately is responsible for, you know, where they think the best place for a school is, and there are state administrative codes and regulations that talk about the size of school sites. I mean, it's detailed in the state statute. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But so, the intent of what you're saying is, as long as it's compatible to all federal and state regulations, they could be built in the wetland -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Just like any other development as long as you comply with -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: -- as opposed -- okay, so, that's a significant difference. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. You know, they say we can't get in the wetlands at all, I mean, that's just -- that's just not what the law says. MS. LAYNE: And the only change -- you asked the question, the annual -- the facilities report that they have to submit shows future school locations. If that is different, if they come up with a school site that is not within that, then the board can take -- the county commission can take action on that. The school board would not overrule then. So, the board would have to approve that site at that point. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And as it relates to compatibility with adjacent land uses, it's my understanding that today there's more cooperat~ion Page 17 September 18, 1997 between the school board and the county as far as site planning goes as it relates to the compatibility issue, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and we -- we went through a painstaking process to make sure ~hat everybody was happy about where we wLll locate schools and compatibility. That's been -- MS. STUDENT: The only comment that I would make is DCA has us repeatedly when we refer to outside document~, that that document can be amended, and by virtue of the plan just referring to the document alone with the other sununary of what the salient criteria or whatever might be in that document, that you have a plan that can amend itself without going through the process, and that would be my only comment about, well, that's covered in the interlocal and that that interlocal could be changed without going through a comp. plan amendment, and DCA may still, you know, take us to task, and I think the thing we have to remember here, while we want to acco~m~odate the concerns of the school board, we are the one that flips the bill for the defense of this plan, and we are at a point now where it will go directly to administrative hearing. If DCA has a problem with any of these things, there's no more chances to fix it. So, that would be my only concern. MR. YOVANOVICH: And we are asking that between now and the 28th of October that we can all agree on language that will make everybody happy. MS. LAYNE: I -- I think we can work out some compatibility language without referring to the interlocal agreement or the LDC. I think we can work out some language within there. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, the only real substantive change is we will allow in those areas if it's in accordance with state and federal regulation? MR. YOVAN0VICH: Absolutely, and we will work on the compatibility bullet statement. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions? Anyone else to speak on the -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Intergovernmental. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- intergovernmental coordination element? Seeing none, motion? COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recommend adoption of the intergovernmental coordination element as amended as Mr. Yovanovich ~nd Ms. Layne have agreed on the changes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Discussion? Ail those in favor, sigr. ify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. Public facilities element, you're going to do the overview? MS. CACCHIONE: No. For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione of your long-range planning staff. There are two amendments in the water element and two amendments Page 18 September 18, 1997 in the sewer element. We have received objections from the Department of Community Affairs on those amendments. What we are suggesting to the planning co~ission today is that we do not adopt those changes, that we leave the language exactly as it appeared in our cozr~rehensive plan, and that we come back to you in the next cycle startirr~ January and prepare language which deals with water and sewer o~tside the urban area as well a~; clustering provisions in one whole package that we can present to the Department of Community Affairs. So, what we are asking you today is not to include those as amendments to our plan in both the water and sewer, and there's policies in each. Policies 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 in the sewer element ~d Policies 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 in the water element. MS. STUDENT: If I could just comment -- I think that's a -- lust from a legal perspective, I think that's a wise move on the part of staff. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there anyone here today to speak on it, on this item? If so, please come forward to the microphone. So, basically, Barbara, you're saying just leave things as they are -- MS. CACCHfONE: Uh-huh CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- and then there will be some time for any new language. MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. We feel that if we bring it all together es one whole package, it will make much more sense and -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's how we can deal with like the Twin Eagles kind of situation. MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct, although the Twin Eagles project was determined to be in compliance with our existing plan. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Ail right. Ms. Payton. MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton, Florida Wildlife Federation. I'm passing out a statement which is similar to the statement that we submitted to DCA and other state agencies that reviewed our proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan, and we raised various questions about this particular proposal, and many of our objections were incorporated into the ORC report that came back, and we support staff's reco~,~endation and hope that you will follow it, that to not take action on these proposed amendments and allow staff to work on looking at various issues about where we should and shouldn't have these package plants, are there certain areas that it would be effective to put them in, is it consistent. There are a variety of issues that were not addressed when this amendment was proposed, and it needs to be looked at closely, and we appreciate staff's recommendation and hope that you will take it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Any other speakers? Mr. Thomas? CO~SSIONER THOMAS: Yeah, I would make a motion that we delete from consideration as a change the water element and the sewer element covering sections -- Policies 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 in both elements. C~AIRMAN DAVIS: We could probably, on this, just do a straw vote Page 19 September 18, 1997 until we make the motion on the entire element, right, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: No, I would prefer that we take official action on it, and I just want to understand for clarification that nothim~ is being changed then in this element, Ms. Cacchione, or just the e!e~ent is changed with the exception of those two remaining the same? MS. LAYNE: Ms. Layne, for the record. The element is being changed because we did have other changes within there. It's only 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 that we are recommending to stay as it is in the existing plan and approve all the others. MS. STUDENT: In that case, I would need a motion for each sub-element. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Well, I did it in one, but I'll do it for two of them then, okay. I recommend -- I make a motion that we do not make any changes to -- in the water element to 1.5.1 or 1.5.2. COMMISSIONER YORK: Second. COMMISSIONER OATES: Shouldn't we be adopting these excluding those changes, isn't that the way -- MS. STUDENT: It would be adopting -- it would be adopting the element excluding the amendments to those two. COM~4ISSIONER YORK: Right, excluding those two items. MS. STUDENT: The sub-element, I should say. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, the motion should be to adopt the - sub-element -- COMMISSIONER OATES: Recommend for adoption. COMMISSIONER YORK: With no changes to Policies 1.5.1. and 1.5.2. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's fine for me. That's works. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. So, that's Mr. Thomas' motion. COMMISSIONER YORK: I second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It was seconded by Mr. York. Discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would like to make the same motion as it relates to the sewer element. COMMISSIONER YORK: I'll second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr York on the sewer sub-element. ' Discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. That -- does that bring us tc natural groundwater sub-element? MR. GIBSON: It does indeed. Gail Gibson, Collier County pollution control. The DCA comments on this sub-element dealt with vague language, no aim, intent, effect, which is very common through some of the ~tber Page 20 September 18, 1997 elements that you'll deal with. The committees that worked on this suggested that we go through and look at a continuation. DCA decided that the continuation language was not specific enough, so we went back and looked at substituting, instead of the continuation language, some date~, some specifics as to revised, for example, in Objective 1.1, revise as necessary. As we evaluate this, implement ordinances that include regulation of land use activities, instead of having some vague, vaguer references to those ordinances. So, all in all, what we have done is to input language that can be measurable, has some aim and has some intent. There's no change to the intent of what was originally submitted. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of staff? Anyone from the public to speak on this sub-element? Motion? COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend for adoption nation -- pardon me -- the natural groundwater sub-element subject -- based upon the staff reco~m~endation. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMA/; DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Bruet. All thoae in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. (Commissioner Thomas stepped out and did not vote on that motion). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Solid waste sub-element, Mr. Russell. MR. RUSSELL: Good morning, gentlemen. For the record, David Russell, solid waste depar~nent. In the solid waste sub-element, there were a couple minor exceptions made; one under three different policies where assurance of public awareness and participation was referenced. They wanted something specific on how that would be accomplished. So, we added language that would require all issues to be addressed in advertised public meetings. They were satisfied with that addition of language. Additionally, a definition of permittable capacity was added to definitions in the sub-element given that we wanted recognition in a landfill siting where you would identify the need for acreage needed for buffer, zone, support facilities, so on and so forth. Bottom line being that the total acreage of the site is not available for capacity. Only a portion of that area is available for capacity. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Russell, when you talked about in here the -- reasonably be expected to be permitted by DEP, so in other words, it could include an increase in height whatever -- MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: What they might reasonably permit. MR. RUSSELL: In the past, we had used a fixed formula for the amount of acreage that would be committed to actual capacity, and what we have now is basically -- has to be an engineer's efforts on a specific site to get more specific about the capacity of a giv~ site. Page 21 September 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, there's really a truer picture of what sort of capacity and life we have with our landfill? MR. RUSSELL: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I see. Questions of staff? Anyone to speak on the solid waste sub-element from the Seeing none, a motion? COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend adoption the solid waste sub-element as amended by staff. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. York, seconded by Mr. Thomas. Discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Russell. Drainage sub-element. MR. LITSINGER: Stan Litsinger, comprehensive planning section again. I'm going to present the drainage sub-element recommendations to you due to the longstanding administrative dispute, I should say, we've had with the Department of Community Affairs which was just _ recently resolved. As a little background information, we had amended the drainage element in 1993 to remove capital projects and funding that were not needed to maintain the adopted level of service after a long legislative process of consideration of funding alternatives for capital improvements in the drainage system by the Board of County Co~,~ssioners. Due to what we, the county staff, both legal and technical, felt was a misunderstanding of our comprehensive plan language, the Department of Coh~unity Affairs had found that their amendment in 1993 was not in compliance with their own adopted policies and the requirements of Chapter 163 and 9J-5, and that we were not taking the necessary improvements course to maintain our adopted level of service. To make a long story short, we had a four year process pending an administrative hearing with the Department of Community Affairs on the disputed language, and the element was in a state of not in compliance for about four years as we attempted to negotiate a settlement with the Department of Community Affairu. Very recently, about two months ago, they dropped their objection and issued a notice of intent and found the amendment of 1993 in compliance, which brings us to the nature of this year's ORC objections. Oddly enough, the objections as drafted probably by new staff at DCA are along the same lines. The issue having to do with the dispute of whether or not we do, in fact, have existing drainage facility deficiencies relative to -- and do we need to correct existing deficiencies. Our position remains the same in that the level of sez-~ice standards identified in the original Master Plan done i~ 1990 Page 22 September 18, 1997 were recommendations and had no obligation by the Board of County Commissioners to be adopted, which they chose not to follow, and their adopted level of service standards are, in fact, being maintained through an upgraded maintenance system and program of our existing canal structures. To go back to our meetings with the senior staff at DCA, which, of course, has changed since 1993, in August, we believe we were able to resolve the issues but we have no guaranties, and our recommended responses to each of the objections has to do with primarily providing more specificity as to proposed actions relative to annual examination of capital projects through the annual update and inventory process and more specific delineation of studies and projects in the capital improvement element and in the drainage element relative to presenting those options when studies are complete in the various basins to the voters for possible capital improvements. That's a general outline of the nature of the proposed responses. If you have any technical questions on any of the specific policies, I may be able to answer them, and if not, we have drainage staff available. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questlons of staff? You're off the hook, I guess. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this sub-element? Seeing none -- COM~4ISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman -- COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Bruet. COMMISSIONER OATES: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Fir. Chairman, I recommend we approve drainage sub-element of the amended Growth Management Plan. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Reco~,~end for adoption, right? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Adoption, excuse me. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And that was seconded by Mr. Oates? COMMISSIONER OATES: Sure. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion by Mr. Bruet, seconded by Mr. Oates. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). MR. LITSINGER: CHAIRMAN DAVIS: MR. LITSINGER: CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Chairman -- It carries -- Excuse me. I didn't mean to interrupt. It carries unanimously. Yes, Mr. Litsinger. MR. LITSINGER: At this time, it would probably be appropriate to take a motion and vote for recommendation of adoption of the entire public facilities element. COMMISSIONER YORK: So moved. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. York to recommend adoption Page 23 September 18, 1997 the public facilities element, seconded by Mr. Thomas. Discussion? Ail those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. Conservation and coastal management element. Mr. Lorenz. MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record, Bill Lorenz, natural resources director. DCA had potential objections for roughly between 25 to 30, in that order, changes in the conservation and coastal management element. As it's been stated in the past, a number of them, of the objections were to better define an aim or intent of the proposed objectives and policies. What staff endeavored to do afte~ discussing this with DCA was to add wording that would further clarify the aim and the intent -- be a little more specific and, of course, not to change any of the wording cha~ge the intention of the board's policy. So, all of the changes · ~'t reflect any change in substance. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MR. LORENZ: The element -- I know Ken Pineau is here also to answer questions for emergency management if you have some question~ on the first couple of objections, and staff from pollution control is also available for questions within their department. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. CO~{ISSIONER THOMAS: Can you explain the color coding on that map? CHAI~ DAVIS: Mr. Pineau? MR. PINEAU: This map -- actually, we had to redefine the coastal high hazard area. The current version of the coastal high hazard area includes that area in green and light blue, which cuts through some subdivisions and streets, and it's very easy -- it's very difficult -- it's not in compliance, actually, with Rule 9J-5 at the present time. We had to redefine the coastal high hazard area to include that -- actually, the category one hurricane evacuation zone which essentially is the entire area south of U.S. 41, even though some of that area is included in the category two storm surge vulnerability zones, and virtually the entire area to the west of Airport Road all the way up to the south of Poinciana Village. Naples Park is another significant area. The 500 block of Naples Park, for example, there's just -- about one-tenth of that landmass is within the category one storm surge zone, and we had to include the entire 500 block as well as Marco Island. The Highlands of ~rco Island is now included in the coastal high hazard area. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: ~at does the yellow band and the red band define? MR. PINEAU: Well, the yellow band is the cat~gory three vulnerability zone, and the darker red is a category four-five. O~% Page 24 September 18, 1997 there in Immokalee, you're outside of the storm surge zone. It actually extends up about to the 0rangetree area. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Pineau, in your expert opinion then, we should all go stay at Fred's house? MR. PINEAU: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That' s why I bought there. COMMISSIONER YORK: Only in a category fiwu. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That' s why I'm there. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Fair enough. Questions of Mr. Pineau? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: If I'm lucky, I'll have beachfront property if we ever get a good one. CHAIRF2%N DAVIS: Mr. Lorenz, anything else? MR. LORENZ: No. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there anyone here to speak today. Mr. Simonik? MR. SIMONIK: Good morninG, commissioners. Michael Simonik from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida on behalf of all of our members and our board of directors. In the conservation coastal element, we have some general objections with what's been done with the proposed amendments in that some of the dates have been deleted and some of the words have been changed that really gave the policies and objectives meanings -- meaning like the word shall to should, and the dates are in particular, and you're just doing a continuing effort on somethin~ and not actually having an ending date, and that just gives us an incentive not to do anything. Some of the responses that I've seen on the objections and recommendations to this element have been wording just to clarify the wording that has already been given rather than saying something substantive about the program or the ordinance or the policy, and it doesn't reflect any change in substance, as Bill said, the response. That language may satisfy DCA in clarifying the intent and the aim and the measurable results of the policies and objectives, but it doesn't satisfy the Conservancy that we are adequately protecting the natural resources which is the original objection of the DCA. We believe that there should be substantive -- substantive ~uidelines and criteria established for some of these ordinances and the dates put back in so that we actually have incentive to do things like the natural resource protection areas, and words instead of using should, should shall be shall, so that we actually work on some of these things, and we know that the commission has cut the budget for the natural resources deparrm~ent and, therefore, don't have the professional staff there to do the work, but at the same time, their priorities have been changed as well so that what staff is left are working on different things other than what we think is important to adequately protect the natural resources in Collier County. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Simonik, do you have some specifics or some language where you would -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Look on Page 11. Page 25 September 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- recommend that we make those changes? MR. SIMONIK: In proposed objective 1.3, we would recommend that a date be put back in and identification of natural resource areas that can be designated in the future, and I forget right n~w ~hat date it is, but EPTAB, the Environmental Policy Technical Advisor~3 ~oard, picked a date, and we are satisfied with that date that they pi~k~d. I didn't have it in front of me, so -- I think it was -- Bilk, do you remember what date that was -- but it's fro~ the EPTAB letter given to you. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What section are you saying now? MR. LORENZ: This would be on Pages 8 and 9. The proposed language is on Page 9. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: ,Hr. Lorenz, maybe we can ask you to respond to Mr. Simonik's concerns about date certain and should and shall. MR. LORENZ: Well, I'm comfortable with the recommendation that staff has made given the policy direction that the board has given us, and so we are trying to develop these recommendations along with the policy direction -- prior policy direction by the Board of County Commissioners and to also try to bring the plan in compliance with DCA. So, I'm comfortable with the wording that we've proposed. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: In response to the policy set forth bl; the Board of County Commissioners? _ MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Help me understand. On Page 11 -- MR. LORENZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: -- under Item H, proposed Policy 6.1.8, okay, that recommendation, is that the recommendation of DCA where it says, revise the proposed policy to replace the term should with shall? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's what DCA says? MR. LORENZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Down on the bottom, after the response, it says, because of this uncertainty, the county does not agree to include the shall language. MR. LORENZ: That's correct. So, we are not -- we are not recommending any change to that particular language. The rationale for that, to go on, is that staff has taken a look at some incentives for habitat protection, and we are very interested in looking at those incentives, but we've also found some problems in crafting something that is going to be workable. I don't want to tie the county's hands with the shall language when I know that we've run into some problems. So, I thinks it's a laudable direction to move in, but I'm comfortable with the language should, not shall. Plus, we also -- the other point, I think, is that when we come to habitat protection, we do have minimum standards for habitat protection. The -- the objective that's going beyond this is trying to get beyond our minimum standards, and these minimum standards, to my knowledge, have been accepted by DCA as sufficient within OUT plan. Page 26 September 18, 1997 So, I don't want to go beyond the minimum with a shall requirement. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That -- what's going to cause DCA to change their mind? MR. LORENZ: Well, these are potential objections, also. Ne don't know for sure that this is going to bring the plan out of compliance. So, the purpose of the ORC report or the staff respon~ is to provide that justification. I can't give you a guarantee that DCA is going to accept it or not, but I can tell you that my recommendation is that we do not use the shall language. I will try to advocate that position as much as we can with DCA. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Lorenz, bring me up to date. You and I sat in the same room and worked a long time on natural resource protectic~ areas. Where are we as a county today with those? MR. LORENZ: The board has adopted a process by which EPTAB is identified in the process of proposing to the board areas for consideration as NRPAs. That process is in existence. The board has adopted one NRPA. That's the Clam Bay natural resources protection area. In the budget deliberations two years ago, the board -- the natural resources department did receive a budget cut, and part of the implications of that was to delay any additional work on additional NRPAs, and the board understood that and said that they were satisfied at this particular point with the adoption of the Clam Bay as the N~PA program. So, given that particular direction from the board, I think the language that we have in -- the proposed language in the Growth Management Plan is appropriate because it does not preclude us from doing something. It still allows us or at least it still allows the NRPA program to continue in the Growth Management Plan but according to the process that the board has adopted -- and I don't want to take away the discretion from the board to decide not to adopt an NRPA in the future if they so desire. C~AIRMAN DAVIS: And the habitat protection ordinance is similarly affected? MR. LORENZ: That's correct, and that's the lanquage that Mr. Thomas indicated -- talked about, the should and the shall language. We would like to be able to develop additional standards, but again, we need to recognize that those are standards going beyond the minimum that are required. The board has allowed that to exist in the plan. By June of 1998, we are to look at those standards, and we are going to try to, as much as possible, incorporate incentives in that particular approach, but again, I'm recoa~]%ending that we do not use the shall language to bind our hands when it's going beyond the minimum requirements that I understand that we were at. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But you're comfortable with doing it in the wetland section? MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's correct, because that's basically a state mandate. The state, law pree~ts the counties to have any differences. So, we can certainly agree to that shall language there. COMMISSIONER YORK: Question of money. Page 27 September 18, 1997 MR. LORENZ: Right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We are not the ones with the purse strinqs. MR. SIMONIK: My last comment is that we understand that DCA may be satisfied with the responses, but we are not satisfied wir_h them, and we may take that up with DCA from here. So, it may all go ~h~ough county commission -- it may be found to be in compliance, but we ~y object to that to DCA and the state. CHAIRMAM DAVIS: And make your pleas to the ones that do have tP~ purse strings. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. MR. SIMONIK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Simonik. Anyone else to speak on this element? Motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I reco~Lend that we approve for adoption the conservation coastal management element of the Growth Management Plan as amended by staff. COMMISSIONER OATES: Second. CHAIRM?~N DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Bruet, seconded by Mr. Oates, for the conservation coastal management element. Discussion? Ail those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? _ (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. Transportation element. MR. JONES: Good morning, commissioners. Gavin Jones from the metropolitan planning organization. I believe you have the memo, our response memo to DCA. The most substantive changes in response to their comments would be in the accommodation of the three sub-elements; traffic, mass transit and aviation into one element now called the transportation element. We've added some maps showing operating levels of service, pathway facilities and evacuation routes. There's an incorporation by reference to the comprehensive pathway plan and to the three county airport master plans. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: In the pathway's plan, did you deal with that ad we talked about earlier? MR. JONES: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Apparently, the pathway's plan came up earlier about a road that goes from 951 to eventually -- COMMISSIONER YORK: County Barn. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- County Barn. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Say it right, a road to nowhere. Go on. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No, I didn't say that. I'm sorry. Just a comment. Any questions of staff? Anyone here to speak on this element today? Seeing none -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I move we recommend adoption of Page 28 September 18, 1997 the transportation element as amended by staff. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Discussion? Ail those in favor, signify by saying aye. It carries unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Housing element. MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, co~Lissioners. For the record, I'm Greg Mihalic, director of housing and urban improvement, and I must say that this element is a little bit different than the other ones you've been looking at, because this is an all new, rewritten element, not just an evaluation of the present element. It's also a little bit different because it's the only element in the state where we have two municipalities who have gotten together, and this is a joint element between the City of Naples and Collier County, and at the present time, no other place in the state is doing this. I think this is part of the reason why we had 25 potential objections to our -- to our element, and we responded to those. We met with DCA, and we responded to them to try to quantify and get the aims and objectives more clear for DCA, and we believe that what we've developed will be acceptable to them, but there are no guaranties, and again, if we did a cookie cutter plan, if we weren't at the cutting- edge, obviously, life would be a lot easier, but we think that this better reflects the needs of Collier County in housing, both in ownership as well as in rental housing throughout the county, including the City of Naples. I'd be willing to answer any questions you may have on their potential objectives -- objections and how we responded. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I've got two questions. MR. MIHALIC: Yeah. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: We received -- I've got two copies of this element. One -- I'm trying to figure out which one is the newest one. This fs the one I got that's attached to a September 5 memo from Lee Layne. Then I got another one that was in our package. What's the difference between the two? MS. L?~Y~E: The one with the memo. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: The one with the memo, okay. Then we need to look on Page 3 -- MR. MIHALIC: Okay. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: -- down under Policy 2.2, a significant player in affordable housing is left off? Somewhere between Chamber of Commerce a~d Economic Council should be the Collier County Housing Authority. MR. MIHALIC: We certainly will make that addition, Mr. Thomas. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Going back to our discussion some months back on this, the idea -- the very good co~non sense approach of incorporating both the City of Naples and the county into this still makes a lot of sense, and while it may be a longer winding road than the other straight road you talked about, good for you. Page 29 September 18, 1997 COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Greg. MR. MIHALIC: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: The goal of 750 units per year, how does that compare or stack up as to where we are today or in the ~.~t couple of years historically? MR. MIHALIC: We've met at least 500 units a year in the la~ couple of years. Our quantification methods are getting better. We now will get a better handle on non-single family new construction that meets the low and moderate income range. So, I believe we will be able to meet that 750 unit per year goal. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Would -.- would the intent in the future be, if, in fact, you're successful with this, to incorporate the City of Marco Island into the plan? MR. MIHALIC: Absolutely. I look forward to discussing the issue of assisting Marco Island with their affordable housing needs. I think they would be very interested in talking to me about that. COMMISSIONER OATES: Where are they going to build? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anyone in the audience today that wants to speak on the housing element? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Ed, on stilts in the backwaters. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Seeing none; a motion? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I move that we approve for adoption the housing element. - COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Discussion? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. MR. MIHALIC: Thank you, Commissioner. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Immokalee Area Master Plan, Ms. Preston. MS. PRESTON: Good morning. For the record, Deborah Preston, comprehensive planning session. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Is this the language in the one I got earlier for the Lake Trafford thing? MS. LAYNE: (Nods head). MS. PRESTON: Ms. Layne has handed out to you some language change, the creation of the new commercial district that was brought up by the planning commission at your September 4th meeting. First off, I'd like to go over the DCA comments. DCA had comments on two new policies, two new -- one new objective and one revised objective, and most of their comments were on clarifications to make the policies more measurable. Staff is reco~ending revising one of the policies in both of the objectives cited. The other new policy that DCA had comments on, Policy 3.2.2, staff is recommending deleting the policy altogether. This deletion will not change the intent of Objective 3.2 which deals with implementing the Immokalee housing study. DCA also had requested that we change our support documentation Page 30 16G t September 18, 1997 to include ,population estimates for 2005 and 2010, and that has been done. , If. you have any questions about DCA's comments, I can ~-~ress them at'this time. If not, I'll print the future land use n%T~D ckm~nge and the new district. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions? Please proceed. MS. PRESTON: ns you might recall, there's a property o~er has the Lake Trafford Marina. His intent is to develop that area f~ eco-tourism and be allowed to have some transient lodging on that. the current time, that property is under the low residential district of the plan, and we would like to propose this change, which is called recreation and tourist district, which is to expand on the uses of the environment but preserving the environment at the same time and allow for low intense commercial uses such as small retail and a restaurant facility. I'll 9o over to the map now and show you the area. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: This is in response to our request a meeting or two ago, right? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Right. MS. PRESTON: That's correct, at your September 4th meeting. The property we are looking at is approximately 240 acres. Like I mentioned before, it's all under the residential land use district at the current time. There are four property owners that would be affected by this change. One is the county for the park that they have out there. The other is Lake Trafford Marina's owners. There is one single family residential development there that is owned by one individual on a five acre tract, and then the rest is under Rex Properties, and staff has included all of his property because that individual has also come to us and said that he's interested in developing also another recreation type eco-tourism type development there. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That puts us in a situation where we're better reflecting what's going on and what we think will go on in the future. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But not only that, you know, as we diversify income base in the Immokalee community, eco-tourism becomes a critical need. We're talking about high end, low density eco-tourism, and these would be compatible to both. So, this is something we need to do very quickly. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MS. PRESTON: If you have any other questions, if not, staff is reco~ending that you adopt this element with the proposed map change and the addition of the new commercial district. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Questions of staff? Anyone here today to speak on the Immokalee Area Master Plan? Motion? COMMISSIO~ THOMAS: I move that we approve for adoption the Iam%okalee Area Master Plan amendments plus the amendments to the future land use map. COMMISSIONER OATES: Second. Page 31 September 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Oa=es. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Ms. Layne. COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I think we all received a letter from Mr. -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Spagna? COMMISSIONER OATES: Dr. Spagna, but he doesn't seem to be here. COMMISSIONER YORK: There he is. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, he is. MS. LAYNE: Lee Layne, for the record. The basic objection that the state had to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and it's no surprise, was goal two. They basically objected to all of the proposed goals and policies, stating that we're providing for a lesser degree of protection than what was proposed previously with the DNR rules and the property o~ers having to go to the state. They are saying retain the existing policies and objectives or revise the proposed. Our response to the first, stating that that area establishes the area of critical state concern, we took those recommendations off, and that is true that we did because the majority of Golden Gate Estates, South Golden Gate Estates is not in the area of critical state concern. There are a couple of units on the east portion and a couple on the south, so we changed the language j'ust to put back in those units that are actually in the ACSC should be subject to those regulations and not all of southern Golden Gate Estates. Policies 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 where we were directing a state agency to do something, they basically are saying that we cannot direct a state agency to do something, so we have changed the language on that that we shall monitor the department of -- DEP on completing the purchase of the southern Golden Gate Estates. Two three one, DEP did submit a work plan. So, we are stating based on that work plan, that we will monitor the dates that they proposed in that work plan, and then, again, on 2.3.2, coordinate with DEP on the work plan with their measurable goals to complete the land acquisition submitted by DEP in May of 1997. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, measurable goals is a two-way street? MS. LAYNE: Yes. And then Policy 2.3.3, deleting its entirety since the work plan has been submitted. What -- if you remember what that was, we are stating that if they did not submit the work plan, that we would just wipe out all of this goal completely. They did submit the work plan, so we have revised the objectives and policies based on that. Also, again, as in Immokalee, we are adding the population requirements for 2005 and 2010. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All right. That takes care of everything from a staff perspective. MS. LAYNE: Yes. Page 32 September 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there anyone here today that would like to speak on the Golden Gate Master Plan? MR. SPAGNA: I believe I would, Mr. Chairman. My name ~_s Ne_mo Spagna. I'm here to represent the owners of the property locau~d on the southwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and 951, and I sent you~/-I letters in advance so that y0u-all would know w.hat my subject ..matter consisted of. So, I guess my main purp..ose is to Go over that with you and explain it in case you have any questions, and then I do P~ve a request to make on behalf of the property owners. They are here. Some of them are here, anyway. I have a map that -- if any of you do not have a copy of the letter which I sent you, I'll be happy -- I brought some extra copies along. I'll be happy to share them with you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think everyone has a copy of Neno's letters. MR. SPAGNA: This property consists of approximately 16.27 acres. The bulk of it is located in the southwest quadrant of the interchange -- of the intersection. They do also own a small parcel of approximately two and a half acres which is located between the VFW Lodge hall and the property which is immediately contiguous with Pine Ridge Road. You may remember some time ago, this subject property south of it was rezoned to commercial use, leaving their property in between the VFW and the commercial property. At that time, I believe it was suggested that the staff review that particular parcel of land to determine what the best use of it would be. Our primary concern today and the subject that centers around my presentation is the property on the southwest corner of that property, and there are approximately eleven acres there, I believe, in total. It's a parcel of land that blends itself very ably to the development of a commercial activity center of some type in which the planning commission, the board and the property owner have the opportunity of developing it into a commercial use which can be beneficial to everyone concerned, inzluding the adjacent property owners, the neighborhood and the use of the land itself. It would appear to me that certainly it would be a missed opportunity to not develop this into a PUD type of commercial activity at some immediate future date and to permit it to be cut up and developed into strip zoning and a, perhaps, incompatible mixture of several uses. So, our presentation today consists of what we would like to request as the future development of this property, and that the future land use plan be amended accordingly to where it would open the door to such a development. Primarily what that would consist of would be the development of approximately 11.14 acres of land into some type of commercial use, perhaps in the category of a C-2, 3, something in there. Also, as part of the development of that land into a commercial use, the property owners also own the adjacent property to the north and to the south, and they would be very amenable toward setting those two parcels aside as open space and retaining the existing natal Page 33 lOO September 18, 1997 vegetation on it. As part of that protection to the surrounding lot owners, they are asking that those two sites be used to allow for the required setbacks that would be necessary for the commercial use of that property. I think some of this land would be recommended for use for commercial use anyway regardless of our presentation, but we f~x that it would be a benefit to everyone to have a parcel of land on whh~ the county and the property owner could work to~.~ther to come up w/th the control of the access, the vehicular travel, the ingress and egress, the landscaping, the off-street parking and drainage and everything that goes into a dcsirable type of unified co~ercial use of a property. So, at this time, we are requesting that the planning commissic~ recommend to the board that that property be designated on the futur~ land use plan for commercial use, that the lots that I have shown here on the west and on the south be designated for open space left in its natural condition subject to the stipulations which I have set forth in my letter, and that the property owner would be very willing to sit down with the staff and have further discussions to make sure that that goal and objective can be met. As I mentioned earlier, we do have some of the property owners here of that property, and I'm sure they would be happy to answer any questions that you might have, as well as myself. I would like to say that the property owners are longtime owners of property in Collier County. This particular parcel of land goes back to -- I have worked on it since 1982. I have been before the planning commission and before the board many times in the past. This is pretty much the goal and objective that has been set ever since that time for the development of this land. So, they are not absentee property owners, but they are -- I would consider them as people of local interests who want to do the best thing for the county as well as for the proper land use and development of that property. So with that, I believe I have explained our petition, and I think I have gone through the contents of the letter, and I would be here and happy to answer any questions that you-all might have. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions of Dr. Spagna? Ms. Layne, could you give us a perspective of this intersection, what it is, and then a response to Dr. Spagna's presentation? MS. LAYNE: Basically, this intersection is where Pine Ridge meets 951, Pine Ridge Road Extension, and then it crosses over and becomes White Boulevard. Originally, this -- under the existing plan before we made any changes, if you remember, we had like a little half circle on the west side of 951, and this was one of the two neighborhood commercial centers that the board agreed to leave in when they deleted all of the neighborhood centers in Golden Gate Estates several years ago. Staff felt that the semicircle was a little hard to determine where the commercial should be. It cut off portions of property, so we recommended going into the rectangular shape. We did recommend approval and what was transmitted and wha% you Page 34 September 18, 1997 heard back in April, Parcel 109 was just the top red piece, and then Parcels 111 and 112, we did recommend at that time that they go into the neighborhood commercial center. That put, basically, ten acres on the north and ten acres on the south, and then the neighborhoDd subdistrict, if you remember, we took that up -- previously, it ~ms limited to five acres' development. Now we made it ten acres. So ~ou can't take the whole 20 acres and make it all commercial. There's ~en acres of it, and then you have the buffer, similar to how G's is there at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. Staff feels that what we had recommended previously should be ample for this intersection. We already show almost 15 acres above what is needed for this study area adding the additional 5 acres that Dr. Spagna -- or 2.7 plus the buffer area which brings it, basically, up to 5 would add almost 20 acres above what is needed in this study area. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Mr. Thomas? COM/~ISSIONER THOMAS: Question, because I've always been concerned about this whole Golden Gate development, okay. I think it's White Boulevard that comes out on 951 that is -- that creates the jog in Santa Barbara. Is that White Boulevard that comes all the way through or is that Green Boulevard? MS. LAYNE: That's Green. COMMISSIONER YORK: Green. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. Looking at Green east or west, going east across 951 out, Golden Gate -- MS. LAYNE: Green only runs from 951 west. CHAI~4AN DAVIS: You're thinking -- Pine Ridge Road -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Green only runs from 951 west, that's right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Correct. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: A line at Green Boulevard going to the east, just visualize that line, and then that would be like a south boundary of the area I'm going to talk about right now, and then the Golden Gate Park -- what is it, Golden Gate Boulevard -- CHAIR~5%N DAVIS: Boulevard. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: -- on the north going out to, say, Desoto Boulevard, what percentage of build out are we, can anybody tell me? What percentage? Are we at 10 percent, 20 percent build out? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We would ask staff to make a calculated guess. MS. CACCHIONE: Not very much. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Just hazard a guess. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Since -- since three of my employees have built homes in the area you've just described -- and they tell me that a lot of homes are being built out there. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But my point is, it's not half built out, I don't think, 50 percent built out. C~%IRMAN DAVIS: Oh, no. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, and the only places for commercial now that can be an easy road to them would be the corner of Green Page 35 1' September 18, 1997 Boulevard and -- and 951. It would be the G's location, and it would be up on 846. MS. LAYNE: Which there is the Randall Commercial Center is located in that -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's what I'm talking about, okay. That's not going to handle all that traffic, al2 that -- when this gets built out. It's just not going to handle all that when it gets built out. MS. LAYNE: We understand that, Mr. Thomas, and if you remember at that time, staff, and I believe the planning commission at that time, recommended leaving those on as possible future, but the board directed, and they have been very adamant within that that these be the only two locations besides the Randall Commercial Center, and if you remember, the planning commission back then also recommended that they be future. The board directed that they come out. So, we are only responding to board's direction. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm just telling you, it used to be that when you come from Immokalee, you could shoot down Everglades Boulevard, come in on Golden Gate Parkway and not run into any problem, make the turn at the stop sign and get on 951 and come down. Now, you have to go through almost two light changes with a light at that intersection for getting people out. If we don't make some room -- - MS. LAYNE: Come down 846 and come down 951, it's quicker. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's what I do -- that's what I do now because I can see the traffic lined up coming out of -- people trying to get into work and what have you. We can't seem to stop the residential development, okay. We need to make opportunities for some commercial development because it will be a real nightmare for just 20 percent of the families on their way home forgetting to get that milk at a convenience store, trying to get back out and get it later on. MS. LAYNE: I don't think staff has any argument with what you're saying. We are going by board direction. I think the board intent was that if that area builds up, if someone wants to come in with a Golden Gate Master Plan amendment at that point, it can be looked at, and then if the board wants to reco~=,,end adding a neighborhood center in a certain location, then it can be done. At this point, they're saying no. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Why can't we expand this one now? MS. LAYNE: We are expanding it. We did except for the lower portion that he's talking about. We have added -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Is that one parcel down at the bottom not included? MS. LAYNE: The green parcel and the northern half of that. We added 109, 111 and 112. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What parcel is that in? What parcel is not in? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Point -- point out for us what we are talking about today, what's left. MR. SPAGNA: Actually, the part that's not in there -- 111 a~}- Page 3 6 18G 1' September 18, 1997 112 is in there presently, and 113 would not be in which would be this one. COMMISSIONER YORK: That's -- MR. SPAGNA: This portion -- COMMISSIONER YORK: The top piece? MR. SPAGNA: -- of 113 -- COMMISSIONER YORK: The top piece? MR. SPAGNA: -- plus the portion that -- COMMISSIONER THOF~S: And all of the top? COMMISSIONER YORK: And that piece at the top? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MR. SPAGNA: The only problem with that is that they are only allowing ten acres in that quadrant, and if they use this parcel up here, well, then it takes away from this parcel down here and -- MS. LAYNE: Well, they can -- Doctor, they cannot use the whole ten acres up there; only 50 percent of each one -- a property owner can use a portion, so they would be limited to five acres' development on the south side. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: IFnat about the acreage they lost on the east side of that intersection which you can't do anything with? MS. LAYNE: Acreage who lost, Mr. Thomas? COMMISSI0~R THOMAS: Usually when we talk about a neighborhood center, we go four quadrants around an intersection. MS. LAYNE: That never was in. The east side was never in; only the west side of 951, and basically, that was because of the canal. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: But by the same token, because -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm saying -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'm kind of at the same place Mr. Thomas is here, because I think you probably remember firsthand our concern about the deletion of those neighborhood centers on out east of 951 -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- knowing as that area developed that people needed to get bread and milk and those sorts of things. So, if those are gone, then it makes all the more sense in the world to me that we should be looking at all four corners of this intersection because a lot of people -- I've sat at that traffic light in the morning, there's a ton of people back in there now east of 951, and for them -- it goes beyond what Dr. Spagna has brought to us, that for them to have to cross 951 to go on down to the center -- shopping center at the Vineyards or make a left and go on down for the commercial that's in Golden Gate City itself just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. MR. SPAGNA: Do I -- are there any further questions or do I have a chance to kind of wrap up maybe and s~,arize or -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, you do. HR. SPAGNA: -- everyone else -- well, I guess I'd like to summarize it this way. I think we all believe in good planning, and I think there's some things in looking at the future development of a city or of an urban area that are best to do and there are certain things that I think are best to avoid or that good planning dictates. Page 37 16G September 18, 1997 I shouldn't say I. I don't want to put this on a personal basis, but here we have the opportunity to take a parcel of land, a sizable piece of land that you can do things with and make sense out of. We all know the smaller the parcel of land, the less flexibility yen have in the development of it. Here we have a parcel of land that's enough to have some meaningful development on it. We have the opportunity to look ahead, to control the way th~ parcel of land is developed, to control ingress and egress for the vehicles, the pedestrians, everyone concerned, and we have a chance of setting aside buffer areas that will protect it from the surrounding area which we are always fighting for. Just about every major case that comes up here, we have to fight to get adequate protection from the activities that go on in the surrounding area, and it just seems to me that we have a package deal here that's fit and made for the intelligent development of an area of the county which is needed very badly, and I think for us to argue over numbers, a few acres here or a few acres there, I think loses sight of the fact that we are engaged in a planning process here that overshadows other things such as acreage at intersections and numbers and things of that sort. So. I guess my big plea here is that -- let's not -- let's not let an opportunity to get some good development, which is badly needed out in the Golden Gate Estates area, let's not let us pass it up, and let's let the staff and the county get together ~d work with the - property owners so we can develop that into something that is not only pleasing but that is convenient and safety and safe to all the people that have to be a part of the future use of that area, and I guess that's as much of my plea to save this parcel from being misused as it is to try to get the future land use plan amended so that we can go ahead with the future development of that property. So, I think that pretty much summarized why I have taken the time to be here this morning and to, you know, discuss this with you as I have many times in the future (sic) and probably will continue to do so as time goes on. So, please make whatever necessary amendments that are needed in the future land use plan so we can all sit down and develop this into a project that we all will be proud of, and I thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Dr. Spagna. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, when did the board last review the neighborhood centers? What year? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: About four years ago. MR. SPAGNA: How long ago was this? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That they took them out? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, when they took them out. MS. LAYNE: It's when I was still on the county commission. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: It was four years ago, wasn't it? MS. LAYNE: it was about -- no, it was about three years ago and then, of course, as part of -- ' COMMISSIONER BRUET: So, the growth has occurred over the three years? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think we've got some additional speakers. On Page 38 September 18, 1997 this element, if there are any additional speakers that -- whose comments would relate to what we are working with right now, please come forward. MR. VOLPE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. For the record, mH name is Michael Volpe. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Good to see you again. MR. VOLPE: How are you, Mr. Thomas. I have -- if I may, hand out a letter. I'm here this morning representing Mr. and Mrs. Hy Bershad and All American Homes of Southwest Florida. These property owners own property located at the northeast corner and the southeast corner respectively of the major intersection of C.R. 951, Pine Ridge Road and White Boulevard. As Ms. Layne indicated, in the master -- the Golden Gate Master Plan, the future land use map, this neighborhood center subdistrict is designated only on the west side of 951 and it consists currently of ten acres of commercial with the balance of 20 acres being available for either single family residential development or conditional uses. The reason stated in your Growth Management Plan as to why the properties on the east side were not included within this neighborhood center subdistrict is the presence of the 50 foot canal and the future expansion of 951. That's the only reason that we've been able to determine as to why the northeast and southeast quadrants were not included within this neighborhood center subdistrict. - We are here this morning, first, to identify -- I think the statement was made that currently there is an excess of commercial properties within the study area, and that's -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Was that the statement? MS. LAYNE: Yes, sir, in study area one, yes. MR. VOLPE: Yes. Study area one is actually west of 951, but in study areas two, three and four, which are east of 951, there is a deficiency through the year 2000. So, you're right, Mr. Thomas, that as the area has grown there, there is currently projected a deficiency of approximately, I believe it's 15 acres in the study areas again that are east of 951. The fact that -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Are you saying there's only a deficiency of 15 acres projected in the year two -- two what, 2020? MR. VOLPE: Two thousand. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Two thousand? MR. VOLPE: Two thousand. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Only 15 acres? MR. VOLPE: That's correct. MS. LAYNE: No, I don't think you've seen the revised that you have in your packets. Study area two, by the year 2010, there will be a deficiency of 32 acres. There will be an overage of 12 acres in study area three, and a deficiency of five acres in study area four. So, that would come out to approximately a 25 acre deficiency over study areas two, three and four -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Now, study area -- Page 39 September 18, 1997 MS. LAYNE: -- but if you take the 14, it basically leaves a deficiency of 13 acres for that whole area. HR. VOLPE: You're correct. In my letter, I've identifie~ that there will be -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Now, study area three, is that the one u~ near Randall? MS. LAYNE: Study area three is basically that area east of Everglades surrounding Orar. getree and around Randall, yes, and we show that area will be 12 acres over in study area three by the year 2010, will have an overage of commercial in study area three. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's only because of the undeveloped area that's part of the Orangetree development? MS. LAYNE: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's because of the undeveloped area, undeveloped -- MS. LAYNE: We did not, no. COMMISSIONER T~IOMAS: -- co~,ercial area in the Orangetree area. MS. LAYNE: Orangetree was not included in these calculations. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, how can you have an overage? MS. LAYNE: Based on what is needed, you're going to have a -- we are stating what the -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: There' s no commercial out there. I'm trying to -- MS. LAYNE: There's an existing 32 acres of commercial in study area three. HR. VOLPE: The only other neighborhood center subdistrict within the Golden Gate Estates area east of 951 is at Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, and that, I believe, Ms. Layne, is only five acres. MS. LAYN~: At present, it's five acres, yes. HR. VOLPE: Five acres. COMMISSIONER THOF~S: And -- and that -- and that doesn't have any room for expansion, if I remember correctly, when we approved -- MS. LAYNE: No, they cannot expand at this point. They've met the maximum. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And the other three quadrants were locked out. MS. LAYNE: Right, the board took those out. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Excuse me. I'm going to come back to you. HR. VOLPE: Sure. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm having a little problem. Back in the study area three, are they taking into consideration the Randall development and the Orangetree commercial development to detemnine that you haven't got a need in the rest of three? MS. LAYNE: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. Now that makes sense. Go on. MR. VOLPE: As I've indicated, this is, of course, a major intersection, which under your Growth Management Plan is one of the siting criteria for the neighborhood center subdistricts. P~ge 4 0 September 18, 1997 Again, the only reason that we've been able to determine as to why the node did not include the properties on the east side was the presence of the canal on 951 and future expansion. Interestingly enough, in the Growth Management Plan, access where you are ~a]king about infill co~L~lercial within the Golden Gate Estates area, ~T~i~ commercial does not allow for access from 951. So, it seems to me illogical to say that the reason why we don't include the properties on the east of 951 is because of the presence of the canal because, obviously, access will not come across the canal but rather will come from White Boulevard. MS. LAYNE: Mr. Volpe, to respond to that, the reasoning being for that was not that you would fill in the canal and come across; it's that the canal was a logical breaking point, and then you were starting into -- you would have a north/south street and then you're getting into the Estates area and start intruding in that, and that is the reason why; not that they would cross the canal and fill it, but that this was a logical breaking point for that area. MR. VOLPE: I didn't understand that, Ms. Layne, but the other point -- and Mr. Bother is here from a planning perspective as to the reason for our request that you amend the future land use map to include the northeast and southeast, is that if you look at this being a major intersection, from a safety perspective, by designating these two quadrants, it will avoid the residents within the Golden Gate Estates area from hawing to cross the major intersection. Also, 39th Street runs north and south, and it is a major collector for people who are within the Golden Gate Estates area who would have to travel from the Estates to reach White Boulevard. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Is that the one that runs just on the other side of the canal? MR. VOLPE: Yes, ~. Thomas, that's correct. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. ~R. VOLPE: In this instance, we are not requesting that you increase the number of commercial acres allowed within this current subdistrict. We are simply asking for the opportunity to allow for any one of these four quadrants to be given consideration for future commercial development. Under your Growth Management Plan, it doesn't quarantee anyone that simply because it's designated as commercial, that it will, in fact, develop as commercial. It just says, given the criteria that are set forth, that you will be given the opportunity. Our recfuest simply is that for these property owners within the northeast and southeast quadrant, that they be included within the neighborhood center subdistrict and that they be given an equal opportunity to have their property considered for commercial and for conditional use development. What that will mean is that in each one of the quadrants, there be an opportunity of not more than five acres being developed for conditional uses. There's 20 acres allowed currently within the existing node. We are asking that that 20 acres be allowed to be used in any one of the four quadrants but that there be a cap, that no more Page 41 16G September 18, 1997 than five acres in any one of the nodes would be developed for a conditional use, and as it relates to commercial it would be exactly the same thing. ' I think, Ms. Layne, you said that you can't aggregate more ~han five acres of commercial in any one quadrant. MS. LAYNE: There would be a maximum based on the existing language on the west side, but no more than ten acres could be commercial. MR. VOLPE: So, you could have one of those corners completely developed -- MS. LAYNX: But no more than 50 percent by a single property owner. So, basically, it would be limited to five acres on the northwest quadrant and five acres on the southwest. MR. VOLPE: And simply what we are asking is that that ten acres -- that the properties on the east side also be considered for the opportunity, and essentially, it would be -- it gives more flexibility to the board. It may be more appropriate that the commercial development should occur at the northeast quadrant than it would at the southwest quadrant. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Question. Why are we limited -- on these kinds of intersections, were we always limited to the 20 acres on the quadrant? MS. LAYNE: No. Originally, that was limited to five acres on- the west side and with a maximum of 50 percent developed co~,~,~ercial. So, it was two and a half. When we recommended including those additional parcels, we raised the maximum ten acres that could be within the activity center with a maximum of -- excuse me, 20 acres within the activity center and a maximum of ten acres of that could be commercial. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: How is it designated at Vanderbilt and 9517 MS. LAYNE: Now, that -- Vanderbilt and 951 is not an activity center. . COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What is that? MS. LAYNE: Is that in the Estates? This is Vanderbilt and 951. The northwest and northeast are within the Future Land Use Element, and they are urban residential The southwest and southeast -- · COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm sorry, 951 and 846 that's the one that I wanted. ' MS. LAYNE: That's Immokalee Road and 9517 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. MS. LAYN~: That's not within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. So, there's no other commercial possibilities except for that and the one out at Randall? MS. LAYNE: And the area that's in -- along Golden Gate City. COMMIS$IONF~R THOMAS: South -- MS. LAYN~: Yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: South of White -- down toward Green Boulevard? MS. LAYNE: Correct, and the Orangetree subdivision. Page 42 Sept~m%ber 18, 1997 MR. VOLPE: And Ms. Layne, south of White Boulevard, what's the next thorough -- next road that cuts across 951 and travels east into Golden Gate Estates to the south? MS. LAYNE: The name of the -- I'm not sure, Mr. Volpe. MR. VOLPE: Is there one? I'm not sure that there -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait a minute. You're saying south of -- MS. LAYNE: There are several roads south of White Boulevard-that go east into the Estates. I'm -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait a minute. Wait a minute. You're talking about south of Pine Ridge Road, what's the first road that goes across the canal, across the canal all the way down below Golden Gate Boulevard -- Parkway. MS. LAYNE: Okay. That isn't what I understood your -- the only one I know going across the canal is 25th, but then it kind of T's, and then you have to go up to Golden Gate Parkway. MR. VOLPE: Right, but that's much further to the south, and that's my point. In terms of -- the majority of the residents, it would appear, are accessing 951 using White Boulevard or to the north, Golden Gate Boulevard. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Most of them are coming out Golden Gate, and then some have begun to come out the other one. MR. VOLPE: Right, and our clients own through to Weber Boulevard, which is the street immediately to the east, which, of _ course, will allow for the other site criteria in terms of transitional and buffering. If there are any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Mr. Botner is here and can address issues from a planning perspective. MR. BOTNER: Good morning. For the reccrd, George Botner. I'm working with ownership on the east side of 951 for about six months now, attempting to develop an opportunity for parity, if nothing else, as it relates to the neighborhood commercial activities that could surround that particular intersection, and, basically, it's one of those situations where we are back to the future. The idea about neighborhood centers was always a good one. It provided il~uediate convenient shopping to those residing within the local neighborhood. The issue of the canal when that was brought up a couple of years ago was interesting from the standpoint of the canal operating as a physical, quote/unquote, logical barrier, but we are looking more at the functional access opportunities to the neighbors in the region. The other issue, of course, is the more we aggregate commercial space, the larger the commercial facilities will become. For example, the it_-~ that you heard immediately before ours, should you allow an eleven acre piece of co~ercial property to exist at that location, a normal single level shopping center type of development which develops out at about a point two two FAR could provide for a shopping center the size of the Hitching Post Shopping Center, an over 100,000 square foot facility, and what we were interested in is to preserve the character and integrity of the Golden Gate Estates area and breakup Page 43 September 18, 1997 those commercial activity areas into manageable sizes that fit the concept of the community of Golden Gate Estates. The other thing, as Mr. Volpe mentioned, we were conce, rned about loading up unnecessary trips through the intersection for essentially access to neighborhood commercial uses and just to make this ~x~~y what those neighborhood centers were always enwisioned to be, convenience stores, you know, places where you d~dn't have to drive several miles to get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk, and that's what the intent is here. The diagram that you see on the wall over here represents an equal distribution, two and a half acres per quadrant, and that's basically all of the commercial that we would propose be allowed to occur at that particular neighborhood center, but that it be equally, distantly distributed for the ease of access of the local patrons. The other very interesting thing that sort of comes out of this, our activities with the focus groups h~s been focused on the development of neighborhood commercial, that there should be opportunities for people to drive less than a mile to purchase the supplies and sundries that they need without having to go to a major activity center, and to spread out neighborhood centers seemed to be very consistent with what the community at large was saying through, you know, that whole period of 18 months of surveys. So, we think this is the right time to bring back the notion o~ a neighborhood center at this location and would like to see that it be supported with your recommendation as an amendment to the current language that would be forwarded on. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Mr. Botner, you just amaze me sometimes. We have a real -- I have a real concern, and I've had this concern, you know, when you were on the planning commission. I've had this concern for a long, long time. Golden Gate, and hopefully the message will get to our county coJ~u,,issioners, is like an adolescent child getting ready to blossom out, getting ready to just grow, okay, and you can't always ask the child what the child wants, because you ask the residents out there, we don't want, we don't want, we don't want, but there's no way to stop the residential growth. There's over ten miles from this intersection to the Randall Boulevard, to the Orangetree location, okay. It does not make logical sense to me or from any kind of a planning standpoint -- I agree with you. What I've been trying to say for a long time, that section of Golden Gate Parkway and Wilson Boulevard, Golden Gate Parkway and Everglades Boulevard -- MS. LAYNE: Golden Gate Boulevard, not Parkway. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I mean Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades, Golden Gate Bou!evard and Wilson, all those we had in the plan that were wiped out, okay. I disagree with you, I think that, yes, we need to have 20 acres of commercial allotted to that intersection. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Ten; you said 20. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I said I think we should have 20 acres of cou~ercial allotted to that intersection, and as we do another Page 44 September 18, 1997 intersection, it can be apportioned anywhere around that intersection that needs to be apportioned, because I'm going to tell you, you are going to also need a Winn Dixie or an Eckerds drugstore somewhere along there so that people that fill up those areas back th.~re, those two and a quarter lots, when that get's built out to half of z~t it could be or three quarters of what it could be, it's going to %~e ~ zoo just going to go grocery shopping on Saturday merning or whenever y~u do it. It just doesn't make any logical sense. No fire stations, ju~ no services, and that big area out there and people are fighting it, but we need to have the foresight to make sense and make it make sense and make it make it right, and I've been fighting this since I've bee~ o'n this -- you know, since they came up with the land use plan before, and I understand the county co~issioners are fighting it, but I think they are responding to what they are hearing from the existing residents that would like to cut off any development at all, but ~ince you can't stop the residential, we need to acco~odate it and plan for it, and that intersection should be a 20 acre, and that's the recon~.endation I'm going to make, that to be a 20 acre commercial node kind of thing that can be used equitably or some kind of way around that node. }~. BOTNER: Well, the only, I guess, reaction to that would be that as long as it's equally distributed amongst the four quadrants- rather than the old ~i.dea that the canal represented, you know, an artificial kind of b~rrier, because as Mr. Volpe referenced in his remarks, we are already guided by the fact that we are going to have to access off the side streets, not off of 951. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: No, no, I agree with you that we need to consider that on both sides, and whatever development comes in, if they come in and say that we need to shift a little bit on the east side of the road so we can put a Winn Dixie there or a Publix, you understand, I have no problem with that, but I say we need to plan that whole intersection to be that kind of a location because there are very few other locations you can do that out there. MR. BOTNER: Well, but you move up a notch. You move from neighborhood center to con=~unity center in scale, and that's a whole other kettle of fish. MS. LAYNE: Which is what this would make that, Mr. Thomas. Right now, not including the additional portion that Dr. SDagna had spoken of adding, the one that we had not recommended previously, there's about 16 acres on the west side that has already been transmitted and recommended for approval, so you're talking about adding additional, so you're looking at more than 20 acres, which would make it more than a neighborhood commercial center. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. York. COMMISSIONER YORK: I think -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What happens when it becomes more than a neighborhood commercial center? What's the next level? ~at's the total impact of the next level? MS. LAYNE: Within Golden Gate, you do not have that. The Page 45 September 18, 1997 neighborhood commercial is your highest commercial at this point in the Estates. Then you're looking at activity centers at this point. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. York. COMMISSIONER YORK: I think the real point here is that we ha~ neighborhood activity center that's maximized out at ten acres, and it's a question, if you divide this up equally on the four quadrants, what are you going to put there; a fast food st.)re and a gas station, maybe. To have any kind of real development, you need some extra acreage, and it doesn't make sense to me to divide it up equally. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Tell -- Ms. Layne, tell me what a neighborhood center is? What sort of uses would we expect to see in a neighborhood center? MS. LAYNE: You're looking at low intensity, transitional, usually C-1, 2 or 3 as your small scale shopping and personal needs, small grocery store, not a supermarket, a small little drugstore, maybe a gas station, similar to what you see at G's. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Convenience store, gas station combination? MS. LAYNE: Small beauty shop, something like a little dry cleaning store for people to pick up dry cleaning. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So -- and our plan provides for what we consider to be an appropriate amount of acreage for the neighborhood center threshold -- - MS. LAYNE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- which is ten acres. Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: The only other point I'd like to make is that while it's true that access to, you know, sites if it's divided on all four corners is easier, it's not necessarily more convenient for the customer, because, you know, it's unlikely that competing stores are going to sit on all of those, and then you end up going to one corner, and what you want to do is some of it there, and some -- you get back in your car and drive over to the next one across the inCersection, and you're Just running around between all of them rather than concentrating it on, you know, one or two corners. I think it's much more convenient for the customer over the long run to have it more concentrated. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: You know, I'm not worried about which way it is and how it is. I'm just worried about the volume, the amount, and I think we need to have more because ten acres does not make sense to me. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Botner, do you have anything to add? MR. BOTheR: No, I don't. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thanks. Very quickly, Dr. Spaqna. COMMISSIONER OATES: Very. COMMISSIONER YORK: Very. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You got more than your allotted time. MR. SPAGNA: Well, I guess what I would like to go back to im Page 46 September 18, 1997 this matter of acreage. I mean, to me, I think it's a big mistake to be putting numbers on this land. We did it on all the major intersections, the interstates. When they started, they started out with five acres on each quadrant. It went to ten acres, and we can see how they've developed. Lc~kinc3 back on it, it was a mistake. The acreage should be set according-to t_he way the best land use is for around those interchanges. I think we have given you an ideal plan for how these corner~ should be developed. I personally have no problem, if the board ~nts to put a business across the street, that's fine with us, but let'~ get away from the numbers. We have presented a compact plan that you can use for any of those corners, but let's get away from the numbers. Look at the best use of the land and then designate the areas that should be set aside for the future commercial uses. Thank you. CHAIRF~%N DAVIS: Thank you. Anyone else to speak on the Golden Gate Master Plan? MS. LAYNE: Mr. Davis, just to comment on that, the reason why the numbers are particularly in this is because if you don't, like, for example, on the west side, it's 20 acres, that means the whole west side could be 20 acres. The intent was to have a portion of it co,Lm,ercial with a buffer of transitional conditional uses between that and the residences that could be to the north, west or south. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, am I -- maybe i'm misunderstanding something here, but if -- if we went with a neighborhood center at this intersection, not thinking about where it is, by saying neighborhood center, we impose a ten acre restriction upon ourselves. MS. LAYNE: Under the existing. The maximum that could be commercial is ten acres, yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Just half of the overall, the other half being used for transitional? MS. LAYNE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, in other words, there's 20 acres; 10 commercial, 10 transitional? MS. LAYNE: Right. The board has the option if they want to increase that percentage, k~t the way it's written, it's 20 acres and then 10 co~L~ercial. CHAI~ DAVIS: And that applies to a neighborhood center only in the Golden Gate Master Plan or a neighborhood center by definition? MS. LAYNE: Just neighborhood center within the Golden Gate Master Plan. That's the only one that we have a neighborhood center in at this point. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And is this the only one? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Don't we have neighborhood centers in Immokalee? M~. LAYNE: There's -- it's a different -- COMMISSIONER T~OMAS: Same definition? MS. LAYNE: No, it's different in the Immokalee Master Plan. CI{AIRMAN DAVIS: Where -- Page 47 6G'1 ,f September 18, 1997 MS. LAYNE: These were written specifically for definitions based on Golden Gate. The two that you have are now on the west side of 951 and Pine Ridge Road and the northeast corner of Wilson Boule-(ard and Golden Gate Boulevard, and then you have the Randall commercf.~l center district. That's totally separate. CHAIRMA~ DAVIS: And that' s different? MS. LAY1TE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And the second -- other middle one you ment.Laned is G's. MS. LAYNE: Yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That' s Wilson Boulevard. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Which is restricted to five acres? MS. LAYNE: Right, what they have there now, right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. No one else to speak on the Golden Gate Master Plan? Is there a motion on the Golden Gate Master Plan? Mr. Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would like to make a motion that we approve the Golden Gate Master Plan with the understanding that at the intersection of Pine Ridge, White and 951, there be a 20 acre activity =nter. MS. LAYNE: Which is what it already is. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Which is what it already is. MS. LAYNE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Maybe - - COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait a minute. MS. LAYNE: Plus or minus. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I've got a problem. I've got a problem then. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Maybe you need to -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I've got a problem. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- explain a little bit more of what you want to see, whether it involves four corners and acreage on corners and those sorts of things, Fred. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I want to give the flexibility, depending on what kind of developers come in, to treat that whole intersection, whether it's the east side or the west side of the intersection, and provide room for some decent commercial properties, and maybe what I want to say is, not that it be a neighborhood center but -- with only 10 acres of commercial, but a neighborhood center with 20 acres of commercial, potential. Maybe that's what I want to say. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Make that motion that way. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, let me see if I understand your motion. Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I' 11 say it again. My motion is that at the intersection of Pine Ridge, White Boulevard and 951, there be a neighborhood center which allows for 20 acres of co:m~,ercial J.n that quadrant. COMMISSIONER BUDD: What are your thoughts on distribution? Page 48 !6G September 18, 1997 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Anywhere -- anything that's feasible around that -- that thing, because you might come in -- the north -- the southwest corner wants to do some residential kind of thing, and that means it Gives you more -- more work to work around the other ~w~ corners. That way you can put in a larger thing that has a -- ~ supermarket in it if -- if -- if the planning comes in that way. It can be flexibly distributed just like we do activity centers. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Driven by the market. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yeah, driven by the market. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second to his motion. MS. LAYNE: So, you're talking about adding the land area that Dr. Spaqna requested, the additional parcel plus the buffering, and then you're talking about adding -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I want to use the same logic that we do for activity centers. We don't -- MS. LAYNE: There is no logic in that. MS. CACCHIONE: We have a new logic. MS. LAYNE: We have a new logic. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We'll disregard that comment. I think when we Get to the FLUE, we'll probably get more involved in that. MS. LAYNE: Right, because activity centers are not based on quadrants. They are defined areas, so there is no -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But when we originally defined them and had them on quadrants before we made the change -- MS. LAYNE: You had 40 acre quadrants. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yeah, it's the same kind of a concept I'm trying to Get to do without trying to figure out what's on these corners now and what have you. I want the flexibility there for 20 acres of commercial around that intersection. COMMISSIONER OATES: East and west. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: East and west, north and south. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. That motion was made by Mr. Thomas. It was seconded by Mr. Bruet. Discussion on the motion? So, in other words, 20 acres of commercial and 20 acres of transitional use? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I didn't say anything about transitional use. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: My concern is this, there doesn't need to be a supermarket there. It needs to be neighborhood uses, and that's why I asked about the neighborhood uses, because from my point of view, the neighborhood uses are important, and I think there should be the ability to use all four corners. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: All I'm looking at is this, sir, all I'm looking at is this, the nearest supermarket to that location, if I know the area well, is down on Golden Gate Parkway and Sunshine Boulevard. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Currently existing, that's correct. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Currently existing, and I don't know Of any Page 49 September 18, 1997 places along there where it's a potential for that kind of growth, but the other place there is -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There is. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: -- is out on Randall. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No. Halfway between the existing -- oh., i~'s even closer than that. There used to be, where Sunshine Ace Haraw~e was -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Sunshine Ace Hardware, okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- it used to be a grocery store. It no longer is. The closest one is the Winn Dixie on Golden Gate Parkway, but in the Sunshine -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Shopping center? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- PUD at 951 and Green -- MS. LAYNE: Green, right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- it's large enough to include a supermarket, which puts a supermarket potential site within, I'm guessing, about two miles of the intersection we are talking about. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Right. Now, that's one, and then the other one is on the other side in Orangetree. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right, or if you go west, it's at Vineyards, the existing Publix store. COMMISSIONER THO}~S: That's a long way to go grocery shopping. It's a long way to go grocery shopping. - CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Before we vote -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Do you know how hard it's going to be to push your shopping cart that far? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: If we -- if we have 20 acres of commercial at this intersection, we are talking about it being -- still being -- and still calling it a neighborhood center, then that restricts the uses? MS. LAYN~: Well, I don't think your uses would change. You're just upping the acreage of what would be allowed on this commercial center. It would still be limited -- if you're saying it can be -- commercial is limited to 10 acres -- or 20 acres -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Twenty acres, yeah. MS. LAYNE: -- and no more than one project can still use the 50 percent -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Right. MS. LAYNE: -- so, you're saying ten -- you've already got on the northwest, there's three, almost four acres approved for commercial already on the northwest quadrant. So, it would have to be -- you know, you can put any amount of land and say it's limited -- you can put 100 acres in there within the center and say it's a maximum of 20 acres, and then it's going to be first come, first served -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Right. MS. LAYNE: -- which is part of the problem that we had before. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's my intent. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is everyone ready to'vote then? No more questions? Mr. Nelson? COMMISSIONER NELSON: Just one before we vote so that I fully Page 50 September 18, 1997 understand everything, and I've heard the comments. I wonder if Lee Layne would give us her feelings about the pros and cons of this motion if passed. MS. LAYNE: I think staff is recommending that it stays as it presently is on the west side of 951 which -- with those parcels Lhat we had recommended in the transmittal stage, that there not be any ~ the east side. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Because of the canal as such a natural barrier? MS. LAYNE: As a natural barrier, and you're getting more into -- you see, you've got Weber, basically, as a frontage road. Nine fifty-one is a heavily traveled road. People are used to traffic being there. Putting commercial that's -- you've got 951. You've got a canal, and then you've got Weber, and then you start putting co~m,ercial with an area that's always been considered truly for residences. It's never been considered in there before. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Based on that, I tend to agree with that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Opposed? - Aye. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER YORK: Aye. COMMISSIONER OATES: Aye. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm for it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Misters Thomas, Bruet and Budd in favor of the motion. The remainder in opposition, correct? COMMISSIONER YORK: Correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there a new motion? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait a minute. Before you go on to a new motion, remember, when I first came here and up until just recently, i never in the world would have thought that Pine Ridge Road would have gone across the canal. I rest my case. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there a new motion? COMMISSIONER YORK: I would move that we recommend the adoption of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as proposed by staff. COMMISSIONER OATES: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Discussion on that motion? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: It's just too restricted. You know, you'll beat me down, but I'm not going to vote for -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There's -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: There's nothing else I can say if I can't get you-all to see -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. York -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: -- what the problem is going to be five years from to~ay. Page 51 September 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- so, in other words, you're convinced we are okay with it being on the west side of 951. COMMISSIONER YORK: At this point. I've seen nothing to change my mind. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And you don't even want to expand it 'to ~ry a larger thing on the southwest corner? COMMISSIONER YORK: No. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nino's -- or Neno Spagna's presentation. Okay. That is the motion. All those in favor of that motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER OATES: Aye. COMMISSIO~ YORK: Aye. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Opposed? Aye. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Aye. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Aye. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That motion failed four to three. Misters Nelson, Oates and York in favor of the motion. The remainder in opposition. MS. STUDENT: Just for the record, we need five votes to -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Oh, thanks. MS. STUDENT: -- whichever. COMMISSIONER OATES: We may never get there. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, that's under the special act voting requirements, we need five votes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Let me express my concerns. After the discussion today, i think there needs to be ample acreage at all four corners in our -- in the Golden Gate Master Plan. It needs to certainly be restricted to the neighborhood uses as discussed because, to me, that's all that is necessary there, and there needs to be the 50 percent rule so that there is some -- the buffering of transitional uses. That's my concern. COMMISSIONER ~{OMAS: Okay. My original motion would have allowed for that. COMMISSION~,R BUDD: And that's wy question. I share the same ideas, Mr. Davis. What didn't you like about what Mr. Thomas said, because that's where I'm trying to go. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: My original motion would have allowed just that to happen. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Because it didn't have the transitional aspect to it. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. So, the 50 percent transition is what you were missing -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Well, see, with the 50 percent transition, you can't put any more commercial on that node because of the a~ount Page 52 September 18, 1997 of land that's being used up on the west side already. MS. LAYITE: There's only three acres being used on the west side at present, the northwest corner. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But don't we have something that's already approved? MS. LAYNE: No, it's within the neighborhood conu~ercial center,. Mr. Thomas. What you transmitted in April were the -- let me see if ~ can add that up real quickly here, 8.85, approximately 9 -- almost 18 acres to be within the commercial -- neighborhood commercial center of which 10 acres of that could be commercial. What Dr. Spagna was asking is to add an additional 2, 5, 7 -- almost 8 acres of which approximately 5 of that would be buffer areas, and then Mr. Volpe and Mr. Botner asked for an additional on the northeast and south -- or southeast. The 20 acres total right now, presently, only 3.86 acres have been approved for commercial. So, that would leave an additional approximately 15, 16 acres that could be used for commercial on the other three quadrant spaces. COMMISSIONER YORK: Well, am I not correct that within two miles of this, there's an adequate commercial development property within two miles? MS. LAYNE: Within one -- - COMMISSIONER THOMAS: It's two miles south of this. MS. LAYNE: One mile. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: It's two miles south of this -- MS. LAYNE: One mile south. COMMISSIONER YORK: Two miles north or south or east and west? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: No, no, no. The reason why it's important, Mr. York, is, it's two miles further removed from the need. MS. LAYNE: One mile south. Green Boulevard. is one mile south. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is it, okay. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: It's further removed from the need. We really -- if I had my druthers to go back and revisit the situation ~;erglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, but we can't do that now, so we've got to make some allowances here. CHAI~ DAVIS: That's the next item. No, it isn't. Well, is there anyone that would like to tender a motion? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'll bring -- now that you understand the real problem, I'll bring my motion back to the floor; that allows for 20 acres around that activity -- around that node. COMMISSIONER BI/DD: Yeah, but Mr. Davis, I don't think you're seeing the transitional you're looking for. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No. Ms. Layne -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What about 15 acres around that node? That allows five acres of transition. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You're talking about at each node, at each corner -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm not locking -- Page 53 16'a 1. SeptemDer 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- or total? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: -- just let the market drive where it gets -- end up looking. That's total. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And how many total acres do we have now? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Three, she said. MS. LAYNE: Presently, we have approximately -- if you include the acreage that Dr. Spagna was looking at, that would be approximately, counting the buffer area, it would be over 20 acres designated within the center. That doesn't mean that that could all be commercial. If you use the same language, which I don't think Mr. Thomas is talking about changing, so if you're looking at 20 there and possibly five on the northeast and five on the southeast, so you're looking at -- that could be a 30 acre total acreage of which 20 acres could be commercial and limited to 50 percent of each single property owner, if that's the way I'm understanding what he's saying. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That even sounds better to me than what I said. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. That's the motion. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Budd. So I don't confuse the court reporter further, why don't we just come right down the line with this. Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Actually, could you restate the motion? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Ms. Layne, you said -- did a tremendous job. MS. LAYNE: The motion that I understand Mr. Thomas to have made, that there would be commercial on all four quadrants, the existing that was transmitted plus the additional that Dr. Spagna asked to be included on the southwest corner and then the parcels that Mr. Volpe and Mr. Botner brought up on the northeast and southwest -- or southeast, which they have not given us any acreage total on that, but within that total four quadrants, a maximum of 20 acres could be developed as coh=,,ercial, still keeping the 50 percent rule in for a single development, and the rest could be used for the conditional uses. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: In other words, we are saying -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thirty acres -- we have a 30 acre node now. MS. LAYNE: More or less. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Could have. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, could have a commercial node. MS. LAYNE: Not all commercial. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: No, only 20 acres commercial. I understand. I'm not being greedy. MS. LAYNE: The balance conditional or the Estates. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, now we are ready to vote. Any more discussion? Mr. Nelson. Page 54 ]bb September 18, 1997 COMMISSIONER NELSON: I vote for it; aye. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Bruet. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. COMMISSiO~ THOMAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER YORK: No. COMMISSIONER OATES: Yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you, gentlemen, very much. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That passes six to one, and now -- okay, that was on the Golden Gate Master Plan, which brings us to the Future Land Use Element, and we're going to take about a five minute break. (Small break was held). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We'll call the meeting back to order, and that brings us down to the Future Land Use Element, and -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind you that I have to leave by noon. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. We'll still have a quorum. I think we've got a lot of people here, I think, to talk about particular activity centers. Is there the rest of it that we maybe get knocked out of the way? MS. CACCHIONE: I think we'll get there pretty quickly. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: For the record, my name is Barbara Cacchione of the comprehensive planning session. The first item is a revision that the -- and this is all based on the objections, recommendations and comments report of the DCA. The first objection was in regard to a table they wanted us to insert in the support document regarding acreage and general range of intensity and density. We've done that and included it in the support document. Objective two in the subsequent policies, objective three in the subsequent policies have all been revised. The comment from DCA on these ~olicies was that we did not provide measurability. We did not specifically identify the aim and intent of the policy, and what we have done is try to rework the language to accommodate those concerns, and that takes us all the way through objective two and objective three and the policies, and that brings us all the way to Page 7 of the ORC re~ort. On Page 7, there were two issues that the department asked us to address. One is whenever we have a mixed use categor, y ~uch as an activity center or a busines~ park which allows for mixture of uses, including commercial or industrial or residential, that we provide thresholds on how much of each ty~e that will be in each of these mixed use districts. That is not so~ething that we have done in the ~ast, and we have tried to put that into the language here before you, and we'll go over that more s~ecifically. The second issue is, for each of these mixed use districts, the department would also like us to provide a threshold for how much of that district can be accommodated in the entire urban area. Page 55 15G 1' September 18, 1997 So, that's what we are going to be talking about over the next two pages here. The first district that we dealt with was the -- well, maybe what we'll do is just start on Page 8 and go over those changes, t~hat we tried to do in the urban designation is identify how much ~f ~. urban area is available out of the entire county for development, and it is less than 10 percent. We also tried to define how much of each district in terms of acreage is composed within the urban area. So, we've tried to identify the thresholds for each subdistrict within urban area, and that goes through the urban mixed use, the urban residential, urban coastal fringe and urban residential fringe. The PUD neighborhood village district, we were unable to come up with a threshold in the comp. plan because that is really based on how many dwelling units and how much demand is created, how much commercial they get. Fifteen is the maximum, and those thresholds we will be placing in the Land Development Code, and we state right here at the end that within one year, we will be back with that Land Development Code amendment. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Does that commercial include other governmental type unit -- I mean, other kinds of services? MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, those have a lot of flexibility in terms of where those services can be located that are governmental. They are not restricted to be in a commercial zone at all. - COMMISSIONER THOMAS: In other words, it doesn't come under the 15 acre cap? MS. CACCHIONE: No. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. Thank you. MS. CACCHIONE: The next district is the business park district. In here, we've provided a threshold of commercial uses as well as a threshold for the industrial type uses, and we've tried to define what those commercial type uses are, and you'll see that change in Item B -- or, I'm sorry, Item D. Also, we've allowed hotel -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: D? MS. CACCHIONE: Item C, I'm sorry. We've also allowed hotels and motels at a density of 26 units per acre within a business park as a complimentary use. The last item is Item J on Page 10, and we have identified approximately 500 acres of business park within the urban area as being what we see as the near term need. This is something that we'll have to evaluate over time as development occurs. The justification that we used to the Department of Community Affairs for this number is an industrial study done in '94 which said, about in the year 2020, we might have a need for about 600 acres in the coastal area of industrial type development. So, we might need some additional acreage at that point in time. Also, as justification, we have used the economic diversification plan that the Board of County Commissioners has adopted where we are trying to encourage business parks and highway jogs. With that, we'll go on to the office and infill district. The main change here is, again, to add an acreage component in ter~s of Page 56 ltG 1 September 18, 1997 how many acres in the urban area can be accommodated in this district, and we've identified approximately 230 acres that would be eligible, so we picked 250 acres which would seem to accommodate all of the parcels we've identified. There is one change that was an oversight by staff that we wou~-.d like to present to you now. Basically, there iu language in the co~,,~ercial under criteria which this district is patterned after that says you can't piggyback these districts, that you can't locate one C-1-T district after another after another. That language was not put into this district. It was an oversight. It is in our current district, and we would like to put it in this district as well. So, the language would read, the C-1-T zoning uses pursuant to this subsection shall only apply one time to serve as a transitional use and will not be permitted to expand adjacent to other C-1-T zoning. The only exception is that that was approved under zoning re-evaluation. The next district is the neighborhood commercial district. The board transmitted language that was different than I ttuink what the planning commission had recommended. The way the language was transmitted, it allows for a ten acre neighborhood co-~ercial district within a half a mile of another neighborhood commercial district. So, essentially, this language, in our opinion, is extremely broad. It allows commercial pretty much every half acre along an arterial and - collector. Staff does not recommend this district to you, did not recommend it to you originally and -- however, if you do decide that you want to Go forward with some neighborhood commercial district, we have provided language for you here. Now, the reason we are not recommending this district to you is because we have expanded other commercial opportunities in the plan. We've looked at the activity centers, defined those specifically. We have expanded the office infill district and broadened that to take into account smaller parcels along arterials and collectors, and we have also expanded the PUD commercial. So, if you're Going to have neighborhood commercial, it works best when it's designed well within a planned unit development. So, because all these districts have been expanded is the main reason we are not recommending this neighborhood co~ercial district to you. We did work with it the whole time it was up in DCA. We've looked at it. We tried to craft a land development code district, and it was like fitting a square peg in a rotmd hole. Neighborhood co.~,~ercial just Generally isn't situated on your arterials and collectors and at intersections. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can I ask a question? None of this applies to the Golden Gate Master Plan area or the Immokalee Master Plan area? MS. CACC~IONE: That's correct. CO~ISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. MS. CACC~IONE: The next district is the traditional neighborhood design district, and we've placed a maximum of 15 acres in the neighborhood, traditional neighborhood design district, and that, again, was to try to meet that comment about providing tkresholds. The next deals with activity centers, and what we tried to d~ i~- Page 57 September 18, 1997 rework some of the verbiage to make it a little bit clearer. We have identified on Page 13 all those activity centers listed starting with number one, six and going on through number twenty. Those ac~i~ity centers are specifically defined and mapped in your maps. We ~a~ said in those activity centers where most of them are 80 percent developed for commercial uses already that we felt that the percentag~ of use should be 100 percent commercial, 100 percent residential, 100 percent community facilities, that any property would have the ability to request any of those three types of uses in these activity centers. The next five activity centers, two, three, five, seven and fourteen, we recommended that they be master planned activity centers, that the property owner must own 51 percent of the property in that activity center, and that they come in for a unified plan of development, and that would be the way these would work. We've also provided certain thresholds of use at each of these activity centers. On activity center number two, which is I~,,okalee Road and 41, again, that has a very large percentage of commercial already approved. In that case, we recommended that that activity center have the ability to go to 100 percent commercial, 100 percent residential, 100 percent community facilities, but they would have to provide a master plan to do that. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: This is activity center two, you said? - MS. CACCHIONE: Activity center two on Immokalee Road and U.S. 41. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm looking on Page 14, it says, activity centers two and five have approximately -- oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I misread it. MS. CACCHIONE: Activity center three and activity center seven are both on 951. The first one is on Immokalee Road and 951. That's activity center three. Activity center is Rattlesnake Hammock and 951, and for both of those, we're recommending 20 acres per quadrant, 80 acres total for each of those activity centers. C0~k~ISSIONER YORK: Is that substantially less than the others? MS. CACCHIONE: That is half of what the other activity centers are. COMMISSIONER YORK: What was the reasoning behind that? MS. CACCHIONE: Those are on the edge of the urban area. The one on Rattlesnake Hammock has two quadrants that don't have very good access. They're in the urban residential fringe. Density is limited to one and a half units per acre, and it is also very constrained by wetlands in that area as well. The activity center number five, we also recommended that that particular intersection, which is approximately 80 percent developed as commercial, also be permitted to develop as 100 percent commercial, 100 percent residential, 100 percent community facilities so that it -- it can have any mix of those uses that's -- that it deems appropriate as we look at it through the rezone process. The final one is number fourteen, and that is on Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette Road, and in that particular case, we are Page 58 i6G 1 September 18, 1997 reco~iending that there be 40 acres in that activity center available for commercial. There's approximately 20 acres zoned there tod~y. COMMISSIONER OATES: Is that all the bigger Coastland i~? MS. CACCHIONE: Coastland is, I think, about 90 acres. K~ vas 70 acres before the expansion. It's directly across the street. T%"~ where Jungle Larry's is. They have a C-3 strip along the front that is about 13 acres. I think you'll hear some discussion on these different activity centers. We have discussed this with agents of property owners, and I think there is some modification we would look at on these acreages, but I'll allow those agents to go through that. CI{AIRMAN DAVIS: So, we are including all the lands of that activity center including the city's lands or are we just talking about our county lands? MS. CACCHIONE: Just the county. It's only half of an activity center. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: The next is interchange activity center subdistrict, and again, there, we allowed 100 percent commercial at those interchange activity centers. In the urban industrial district, we, again, provided the threshold of how much acreage is in that category, and that's about- 2,200 acres. In the agricultural rural designation on the top of Page 16, there's an oversight there. We transmitted something that should not have been transmitted, and it starts on the third line, fourth line, it says, also, provision of new centralized water and sewer systems, whether public or private facilities, are prohibited except for preexisting agreements made prior to the adoption of this plan. That should not have been there. It should not have been transmitted that way, and that was an oversight on our part. Again, just to follow through, the agricultural districts, again, we have provided maximum acreages for the rural co~,=,~ercial district, rural industrial, rural settlement area. Now, that brings us all the way through this whole issue of thresholds and districts, and I don't know if that's something -- the rest of the items are minor in nature. If you %?ant to stop now and maybe go through public co~,ent on that part or if you'd like -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That gets us to the individual activity centers and the acreage? MS. CACCHIONE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's fine. Go back to neighborhood centers. If I understand w~t you said correctly, you had trouble working with what the Board of County Commissioners transmitted. MS. CACCHIONE: That' s correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The round peg in the square hole or vice versa. MS. CACCHIONE: Either way. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The -- so, you're advocating that we jus~ not do that, using the other zoning that you spoke about to kind of see~re the Page 59 z o'b I September 18, 1997 same purpose? MS. CACCHIONE: And that has been our recommendation to you, to the planning commission and to the board all the way through. The board did put this neighborhood commercial center in here, and cb~a~es were made right on the spot at that moment in time, and I don't kn~' that we were able to explain at the staff level what the ramificatioL~ of some of those changes were, and we are able to do that now and wi~. be advising the board of that. If the board still and the planning commission still want to recommend a neighborhood commercial subdistrict be added, we have provided on Page 11 what staff would recommend to you in terms of language. We still feel that this district is not needed and really isn't very workable. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And if I remember, the board's thought was, is that this would be okay to do, but there would be some increased requirements for landscaping and some things like that to make it more compatible with the residential setting that it would be developed in. MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct, and the language pretty much stays in there that says we'll develop a Land Development Code amendment in a district which has all those design standards, landscaping standards, et cetera, in there. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The uses in this category would be as we heard about in the Golden Gate Master Plan, the traditional neighborhood - type uses. MS. CACCHIONE: Basically C-1 through C-3, and it does permit supermarkets, but on ten acres, you're going to get a smaller supermarket like the Publix at Kings Lake, and I've -- you know, I've heard various things, that they don't build those things anymore or 'hey tend to build the bigger stores and not the smaller ones. I :nk it's all based on, if there's a need, they'll build whatever ~..ey feel the rooftops justify. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Sure, okay. Ail right. So, I guess we are to a point where we've worked our way up to the activity centers, but -- and I think a lot of people here are here today to address activity center issues, but if there are -- we've also covered some other categories up to the activity centers. Is there anyone that wants to speak on any of those categories? MR. NADEAU: Yes, if I may. For the record, Dwight Nadeau, McAnly Engineering and Design. This refers to Policy 3.lB. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Do you have a page number? MR. NADEAU: Yes, Page 5. I hope it corresponds to your package. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We'll soon find out. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What's the subject? MR. NADEAU: It's the preservation of 25 percent of native vegetation. It's in the Conservation Coastal Management Element. It's also in the Land Development Code. Are you in the right place, 3.lB? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh-huh. MR. NADEAU: I would propose for clarity purposes inserting the Page 60 September 18, 1997 words viable, comma, naturally occurring native vegetation, so it would be the same as in the Conservation Coastal Management Element. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, preservation at 25 percent of viab!e -- MR. NADEAU: Naturally occurring native vegetation. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And it's a consistency issue with the LDC? MR. NADEAU: With both the Conservation Coastal Management Element -- MS. STb~ENT: As wel 1. CT{AIRMAN DAVIS: Oh, okay. MR. NADEAU: It just allows -- MS. CACC~IONE: Staff has no problem with that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Good. MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you for your observation. MR. STUART: Good afternoon. For the record, GreG Stuart representing John Pulling, Jr. I would like to -- COURT REPORTER: Could you spell your last name? MR. STUART: S-T-U-A-R-T -- and I would like to speak on the coa~ercial business -- the neighborhood coa~Lercial subdistrict. Last spring, both the LPA and the Board of County Co~uissioners voted to transmit the new neighborhood commercial policy for state view and eventual comprehensive plan adoption. Now, both the board and your agency recognized that the county's comp. plan failed to prohibit -- failed to plan for small scale and appropriately located small businesses -- small business services and appropriately scaled retail uses. This past summer, the state reviewed the new policy that was transmitted, and the state didn't object to the inclusion of the neighborhood commercial subdistrict. They didn't object to it in any way, shape, matter or form. In fact, the only direct reference to that new subdistrict is Item 9 on Page 25 where the state recommended that the county actually map such subdistricts. Now, staff is presenting final policy language that radically departs from what was transmitted, what was discussed in front of you-all last spring. From an analysis of the staff's language, one has to conclude that it effectively Guts the concept of -- I agree with Barbara, they have been consistent in recommending denial of this type of use. My point is, if you-all want to Go forward and deny it, don't even put the staff's language in, because again, it does Gut it. ' For example, based upon the language, if you have, let's say, a quarter acre of vacant yet commercially zoned property within a mile of a possible site for this, then the site can't be developed as a neighborhood subdistrict. So, again, the location of standards is just way too high. Now, if the LPA does desire to recommend a meaningful approach that balances the market with regulatory considerations, then I would suggest that the language in front of you, the alternative language will do the trick. ' Now, again, staff has been very consistent about not leaving Page 61 Septe~ber 18, 1997 or about believing that this is not warranted, but I strongly disagree. I believe that the county needs to distinguish between retail uses and office uses. I believe that the county should promote small and well designed neighborhood centers. In fact, the county's own land use consultant recogni~e_~ that we've been discussing for the past half year, quoting from the February '97 Fraser & Mohlke Collier County Comprehensive Land Commercial Market Study on Roman Numeral II, Page 2, further -- and I'll quote, further, the development of a local neighborhood center is an essentially unaddressed element of the land use plan. So the question really is, is there a need for adopting a meaningful policy, and I submit to you, yes. Again, even the county's consultant stated that it was an unaddressed need. The need is valid now. It's going to be valid in the future. With that said, does the alternative lanquage in front of you open up unwarranted areas for commercial uses; no, it doesn't. One needs only to acknowledge the limitations and restrictions that are outlined on Page 2. These restrictions, both procedural and substantive, will prevent unwarranted expansion of co~mnercial land use. With that said, is there a compelling need for this policy? Again, I car~ only restate that the county's own consultant stated that neighborhood centers is unaddressed. The need is there. _ Locally owned offices, businesses, personal services and alike do not fit in community oriented and regionally oriented activity centers. They cannot be expected to be internalized within a PUD. I mean, market reality basically dictates against that, and in most cases, they need a larger economy of scale within the context of development. They need a larger economy of scale which basically is not available through the new and approved commercial infill. The county needs this type of policy. I mean, for example, one only has to look at the intersection of County Barn Road and Davis Road or my client's property, which is at Orange Blossom and Airport, what other reasonable uses can these sites sustain; not residential. So, again, there's definitely a market -- a need for this type of subdistrict. Basically, how does it work? Okay. If you have a site between five and ten acres, if it adjoins a residential neighborhood, an existing residential neighborhocd, if it meets the locational standards, the design standards that are outlined in that alternative language that eventually will be implemented through the LDC, then you have to go through a future land use map amendment process. Then you have to rezone the property as a planned unit development. Certainly, from a procedural aspect, there's plenty of protection to prevent unwarranted co~mLercial expansion within the county's land use areas. So, to conclude, I urge you to recommend to the board the alternative language in front of you. It's meaningful. There's a lot of protection. It's good. It spells out specific design and locational criteria. At the very minimum, you need to delete staff's Paragraph Band Page 62 16G 1 September 18, 1997 replace it in its entirety with the alternative language in Paragraph B. Certainly, I'm available to address any of your questions or concerns. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions of Mr. Stuart? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I would like to know what staff's rea=tion is. out? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, please; staff? COMMISSIONER OATES: Doesn't she recommend taking the whole ~ng MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, we did. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But she put the language in in case we wanted to deal with it. MS. CACCHIONE: In case you decide that this is a district you would like to see in the county developed, then we have suggested language. The big distinction between the language that's proposed by the agent for the property on Airport-Pulling and Orange Blossom Road and the language that staff has suggested to you is that it's on the intersection of any road, local road, any type of road, and an arterial and collector. So, it's the intersection not of two collectors, not of two arterials, but any type of road and an arterial and collector. That's one distinction. The second distinction is that it allows this type of center to occur within a half of a mile of any activity center. So, we are looking at -- that is the only spacing criteria you have in here, or from another neighborhood commercial district which we don't have any except in the Estates which isn't under this. So, basically what it does is it allows this type of activity within a half a mile of an activity center, does not take into account any existing zoned commercial, which is there to serve the needs right now, and that, to me, is where it falls apart. It seems that you need to consider what's on the ground, what's approved and what's zoned. In this particular case, on Orange Blossom and Airport, you're looking at a major activity center within eight-tenths of a mile to the north, which is the Pelican Marsh- Pelican Strand area, as well as one that is currently in for a site plan for a Publix on that southeast corner in the Vineyards site. You're looking at two million square feet further to the south already at Airport-Pulling Road that's already approved and most of it constructed. By the office infill language, it allows for some additional properties adjacent to Walden Oak to come in and request to you for a co,=,ercial where the current driving range is, and that is just up the street from this parcel. So, that's where it falls apart. When you don't take into account the zoning that's already on the ground that serves some of those same needs that this project should serve, that's where there's an issue, and we really feel that it would be better if you look at it within a planned unit development; where providing that within a PUD, you ca~ have this neighborhood commercial, and that it makes a Page 63 September 18, 1997 more sense to plan it within an entire project rather than take five or ten acres and plop it down at an intersection of an arterial or collector roadway, and what it also doesn't take into account is we have 2,000 acres approved in activity centers, but we also have 2,$~0 acres outside of activity centers that is on the ground, and of our cou~,,ercial zoning today, only 50 percent of it is developed, think those factors weigh heavy on whether this district should be approved and is why "B' is very important, staff's language where you take into account what is already there and zoned, because that has every right to develop, and I think that's -- that's basically our position. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: When you -- when you talk about the locational requirement of whether it be one mile or one-half mile, is that from the boundary of one to the boundary of the other or center to center or -- MS. CACCHIONE: I don't believe we specify, and I don't think there's a great concern if we do it from the boundary or the center. We can do it from either, but we do think that you have to take into account what's there when you're approving something new. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Given the shape of some activity centers, you know, that would make a difference. MS. CACCHIONE: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay? Any other questions of staff on that? - MR. STUART: May I just respond to a few points? Certainly, the arterial collector intersection criteria, I believe the original language that you-all reviewed last spring included arterial collector intersection language. Certainly, we don't have a problem with putting that back in; no problem whatsoever. With regard to the spacing criteria, yes, Barbar8 is correct about the half mile, but then again, you have to look at that from the context of the policy. You have to enjoin a neighborhood. It's limited to one quadrant, that way you avoid the mini activity center phenomena that I think some of you discussed last spring, and there are other performance standards that, again, help limit this, and I don't have my notes from last spring, but I think when they were looking at that -- when staff was looking at it originally, the figure of 60 or 80 acres was floated with regard to how much acres or how many possible acres this could affect with regard to a possibility of having a neighborhood subdistrict. So, again, I just don't think it's going to open up the floodgates. I think with the language and the processes, it's a nominal -- it's really a nominal subdistrict in terms of impact, but yet, it will address legitimate concerns for, and again, I use the Davis/County Barn Road as one example, my client's property as another example. I mean, these properties, it's not reasonable to expect a commercial infill or to internalize a commercial within a large PUD. i just don't think that's where the market really is. If you're an entrepreneur ~ith a travel agency, perhaps, you would not want to be located within a PUD. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Stuart, I notice in your proposal, the same Page 64 September 18, 1997 question I just asked Barbara, you talk about to the center -- MR. STUART: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- of an existing activity center or existing neighborhood commercial subdistrict. What's your rationale o~ center versus boundary or -- MR. STUART: Because of the -- this was a fluid process in of defining how your activity centers are going to be structured. I was under the impression, still am, that the activity centers are actually going to mapped, getting away from the, you know, the 40 acre box. So, by doing it from the center, it eliminates the asymmetry and creates a -- more of a level playing field. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: And I also think that it would not meet the -- your client's property would not meet that criteria if it wasn't from the center of that intersection to the north. MR. STUART: The Vanderbilt activity center? MS. CACCHIONE: Right. MR. STUART: No, it will -- MS. CACCHIONE: If it wasn't -- if it's from the edge, it's less than a half mile. MR. STUART: The Vanderbilt? MS. CACCHIONE: Right. MR. STUART: Okay, but not to the south. - CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: If you could just pause a moment. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: For the records, my name is Bruce Anderson. I'd also like to echo Mr. Stuart's co~ents. The purpose of this hearing, this transmittal stage is to do refinements and respond to objections and reco~m~endations and commemts that DCA has made. They did not object to this provision. They left it alone. They found plenty of other things to nitpick about, but they didn't object to this, and I think this is an example of staff did not like this proposal in the first instance. This planning commission blessed it over the objections of the staff. The county commission approved it over the objections of the staff, and -- and this is just another bite at the auple, and I think you ought to stick with what was approved in the first instance. Yes, there are opportunities for commercial infill, but there are properties which will not meet that requirement that are located along arterial and collector roadways, that because of the way things have developed, the property doesn't have enough depth to develop for residential purposes. I specifically would refer you to the H.M. Buckley property which is across the street from Mr. Pulling's. That property has for years been next to the county's dog pound, and it also backs up to a residential neighborhood, but the property is not deep enough to Page 65 September 18, 1997 provide adequate buffering from the traffic noise from Airport Road to develop as residential, and it will not otherwise meet the criteria for commercial infill either, and without this opportunity in tJme plan to at least come in and seek a zoning, they are really not left ~itb any use of the property other than, you know, if a church wants in, and we know how that causes people to turn out and object to that. So, I would just urge you to reaffirm what you did initially when you a~roved this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Ms. Cacchione, I got the impression from your remarks that DCA had a lot of problems with this, and we've had two speakers say that -- not that they loved it, but they didn't have a lot of problems with it. MS. CACCHIONE: As you recall, when I made my presentation, I said that this has come up under the threshold issue. We didn't provide a threshold for this, so that isn't part of the ORC report, but what I did tell you at that time is that the board had come up with some things, and we did not have a chance to respond to what the ramifications of those district changes were, because if you look at the language that's in the plan that was transmitted to DCA, it allows these districts every half mile -- I'm sorry, every half mile on the arterial and collector. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. - MS. CACCHIONE: So, every -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: ~d DCA objected to that? MS. CACCHIONE: No, no, and if you prefer, what we can do, and to make Mr. Anderson more comfortab'£e, we can put this under number three in the staff report where it's .additional changes. The reason it came up is because we had to look at it in the context of the threshold, and we did not provide a threshold in here again because when you can allow it every half mile, I mean, there's no way to tell how much of this type of use is appropriate or you could see. CHAI~ DAVIS: So, DCA did object under threshold? MS. CACCHIONE: Under thresholds for all the districts, right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: In general or this specifically? MS. CACCHIONE: In general for all the subdistricts that are mixed uses, and this contains an ability to do residential. So -- but if it is deemed more appropriate, staff will be happy to put it under number three and put it under additional changes as well, and we can just say we didn't do thresholds on this, put our recommendation in there to clarify that so there's no misinterpretation at all. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any more speakers on the neighborhood commercial aspect we've been discussing? Since we've already gotten this far with it, we might as well go ahead and deal with it. What are everyone's thoughts up here? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I think there's a need for this. Initially, I thought Barbara was correct, but once we heard the gentlemen speak, I think there is some need for it. COMMISSIONER YORK: I agree with that. Page 66 16G 1-' September 18, 1997 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Which language do you prefer; the one that staff brought in or -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: No, I think what Mr. Stuart has written and what Mr. Anderson had addressed is more appropriate; the h~]~ mule. You can measure that whatever staff wants -- whichever way s~ff v, ants to go on the half mile. Whether it's on the perimeter or to the center of the site is something that needs to be discussed. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Are you saying then to pretty much leave it t/ne way it was before? MS. CACCHIONE: No, that wasn't the way it was before. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Right. MS. CACCHIONE: That wasn't how it was transmitted. So, this is different than that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. So -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: I would -- I would take, again, what the handout is would seem appropriate. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. So, you're advocating the handout. Mr. Nelson? COMMISSIONER NELSON: And I tend to agree with staff. I don't think that it's needed at all, and if I did include it, it would be as staff rewrote it. COMMISSIONER BRUET: But if there are properties that aren't -- COMMISSIONER YORK: But there are. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- of proper dimensions, let's say, to fit buffers in, to fit wetlands in, to fit green space in, I think the property owner still should have the right to be able to do something with it, and -- MS. CACCHIONE: And they do -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- it seems to me that he's somewhat precluded here if -- I'm taking info~a~tion -- MS. CACCHIONE: But what you've got here is two property owners on either side of the street. So, only one quadrant is going to get this anyhow. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah. MS. CACCHIONE: So, it doesn't solve the problems -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: I s~ill like the concept. How you apply it is up to you. MS. CACCHIONE: I understand, but it doesn't solve both of these problems. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. It's the opportunity to provide it, and then I guess the chips fall to the ground where they fall. MS. CACC~IONE: Well, you'll still have that same situation where you're dealing with parcels that are going to be either aggregated with larger parcels, which there are vacant parcels on Airport Road side which would be aggregated, especially if the animal control facility goes away. You've got the public youth district, which is a district for governmental services. You've got all these central services. You have conditional uses. You have churches. We constantly have churches coming in looking for sites. They can't find any appropriate sites because they get denied when they go into Page 67 September 18, 1997 residential communities. So -- and you have ACLFs. You also have for infill zoning, you're allowed to go from three to six units per acre for a multi-family scenario, which we've seen on other ten acre parcels like on Vanderbilt Beach Road with Marker Lake Vill~ tha~ you saw a couple of weeks ago. So, I think this is not just an isolated example. We have r~ to look at all these small parcels. We've done a very thorough job o~ looking at it. We think the office infill will accommodate a lot of those concerns. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other comments on this subject? COMMISSIONER 0ATES: Should we resolve this matter -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think we need to -- because this has come up, we need to take like a straw vote, and I would tend to go pretty much along with what Mr. Bruet had to say, but one thing that I spotted, and it's the locational part. It strikes me that if it's going to be the half mile, it should be from -- ?OMMISSIONER THOMAS: The property line. f.~IRMAN DAVIS: -- edge to edge so that there is a half mile between them. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah. I haven't -- I'm not familiar with anything that's measured any different than that within these codes, right? I mean, it's always property line to property line. MS. CACCHIONE: I think we would agree with that as a more appropriate measure. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah, because -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There's other situations you'd never -- you'd never know that they are separated. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah. MS. CACCHIONE: What my staff just pointed out to me that I neglected to think about wa~ the way we reconfigured the activity centers, they are not the squares anymore. So, you could be within a half a mile of a property boundary, and I think that would be a more appropriate wording. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Utilizing the new language. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, we're going to amend to go from property line? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I concur. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We seem to have concurrence on that. MR. ANDERSON: Could I have some clarification on that measurement, please? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Anderson, yes. MR. ANDERSON: ~en you're measuring, if a property is closer than half a mile, would that exclude that portion of the property which would meet the half -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Or the whole property? MR. ANDERSON: Right, right, because that's important. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah, it is. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: To be real honest with you, my observation was -- is that if there's locational criteria, that I want to see the half Page 68 16G 1 September 18, 1997 mile break from one to the other. Now, if -- and it wasn't my intent -- because I can appreciate there might be a fairly long piece of property that it only takes maybe the first 50 feet doesn't meec it. MR. ANDERSON: So, it would only be that portion that is wit~r~ a half a mile that -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Within a half mile. MR. ANDERSON: -- that would not be eligible? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That was my MR. ANDERSON: We probably nee= to make that clear. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I would support that. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait, wait a minute. You-all just confused me. I've got a property here, and I've got a property here. We're going from that property line here to allow you here. Now this property here, a half mile will take you here, but the property begins here, but you only want commercial on this side of it. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Beyond the half mile. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Beyond the half mile. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Why wouldn't they just subdivide it? COMMISSIONER NELSON: They could, that's why we should allow -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: So, he can -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: They can still do it. It's just really -- - MR. ANDERSON: I just could see that kind of interpretation coming up to bite us in the rear end later on. COMMISSIONER YORK: You can't utilize the property that's closer than -- you couldn't utilize the property that's closer -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But if he subdivided it, he's got a new property line, doesn't he? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Uh-huh. MS. CACCHIONE: Now, that brings up an interesting point. For any properties then along the arterials and collectors, would we allow them to create ten acre parcels to take advantage of this provision? It seems that you would from what you're saying. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, I would think, because in other instances, one could create parcels to do things. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But if the market doesn't justify it, it won't happen. MS. CACCHIONE: But the zoning might. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: But the zoning might. MS. CACCHIONE: As we all know. COMMISSIONER BRUET: There's still quite a bit of criteria that we still have to comply with regardless. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, it's property line to property line, right? MS. CACCHIONE: Property line to property line from commercial zoning to commercial zoning. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Right. COMMISSIONER BRUET: No. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No. Page 69 September 18, 1997 COMMISSIONER T~OMAS: Why not? COMMISSIONER BRUET: It's within the half mile limit we are discussing. If the half mile limit falls within the property, piece is not -- is not allowable -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But my point -- MR. ANDERSON: That portion that is a half a mile or more is eligible. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Outside of the half a mile regardless of property. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait, wait a minute. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: One at a time. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But you've got to deal with setbacks and 'n things like that, you know, and I'm say1 g that if we're going to see the half mile separation and you happen to have a large piece of property and about a third into the property gets you beyond the half mile limit, if you subdivide that property, then you've got a property line to work with, and then you can do the normal development on the other side of you. COMMISSIONER BRUET: That's what he's saying. MR. ANDERSON: That's what I want to make sure -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: He's saying the same thing. COMMISSIONER YORK: He's saying the same thing. MR. ANDERSON: I want to make sure that we can do that, and it- maybe needs to be spelled out clearly so that there isn't some interpretation later rendered that says, oh, no, you can't do that. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But if it's property line to property line, that means you have to subdivide it first and come back to us -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'll restate -- COMMISSI()NER THOMAS: -- right? COMMISSI()NER NELSON: I think Fred might be right on this issue. COMMISSI()NER BRUET: Fred is always right. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Not always. The last time I was wrong, I forgot about it. But I think it should be property line to property line. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Me, too. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, in other words -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That takes out the speculation, see. They're going to have to subdivide their property to make sure that they have a contiguous piece of property for co~ercial use. MS. CACCHIONE: How about zoning boundaries have to be a half mile apart? COMMISSIONER OATES: That sounds good. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Zoning boundaries -- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Bruce, what you do think? MR. ANDERSON: Commercial zoning boundary. MS. CACCHIONE: Okay with you, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes. MS. CACCHIONE: Good. CHAIRMAN THOMAS: And zoning boundaries must -- okay. That works. Page 70 16G 1 September 18, 1997 MR. ANDERSON: I agree with Barbara on that. MS. CACCHIONE: So we won't have any interpretations later on. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: On the neighborhood commercial subdistrict., what I think -- I think Mr. Nelson registered some concerns. Is ther~ anyone else or were the rest of us pretty much in agreement on thi~? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Using this. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Although Mr. Nelson liked our locational criteria, so -- MS. CACCHIONE: Can I ask one question about that? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. MS. CACCHIONE: Did that include Mr. Stuart's language about the intersection of arterial collector and collector collector? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: That's the way I read through it, and I said that's the way we adopt it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: We are voting on using this language for neighborhood con~nercial subdistrict, understanding it's from zoning boundary to zoning boundary? COMMISSIONER YORK: Right. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Right. _ CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other issues -- I'm leading up to the activity centers; not including the activity centers? MR. REYNOLDS: Up to and not including activity centers. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, we cmn put this one to bed now, right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. MR. REYNOLDS: Alan Reynolds. I'm here on behalf of the Economic Development Council, specific to the business park subdistrict. I think this, hopefully, will be a little more straightforward than the last subject you had. On Page 10, Item J, in response to the DCA's comment, the staff has identified a maximum acreage of 500 acres to be used for the business Dark subdistrict. We have a general concern about the viability of responding to the DCA with these, what we think are probably arbitrary numbers, but let's just set that aside for a moment. The issue that we have here is that the way it's written right now, if you had a business park that had a substantial amount of open space, which they generally tend to do, if you had some conse~-vation areas, that would all count against the 500 acre allocation. So, what we would suggest is language that would basically say the maximum additional acreage eligible to be utilized for the business park subdistrict within the urban mixed use district is 500 acres or whatever number you choose exclusive of open space and conservation areas. That way we don't wind up -- we essentially net out, because what we are really interested in is the amount of net usable acres Page 71 September 18, 1997 that we have for the business park use, not the gross acres of the -- that may fall within the park. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That makes sense to me. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It seems to be a more accurate measurement. Ms. Cacchione, what do you think? MS. CACCHIONE: The open space is basically a requirement for development in every district, and that's usually roughly 30 percent for business parks. I don't think we have any real concern with that language. COMMISSIONER BRUET: It makes it easier for the industry because that is how sales are established, on a net acre basis, so it would be a little cleaner. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, would we function the acreage up with percentaGinG that back in or are you suGGestinG an acreage to us? MR. REYNOLDS: You could Gross it up to a number that you can then deduct back down. Just it's hard for me to Give you meaningful comment on whether 500 acres is the right number. I think it may be a reasonable number to select so long as it's a net number, because I think that Gives you some flexibility. We may at some point in the future have to Go back and revisit that allocation, but I would say if we're Going to Go with the 500 acres, then we should make that the net acres exclusive of the conservation and open space areas. MS. CACCHIONE: I think we agree with the conservation area. The. open space area is Going to be really difficult to identify. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, if we embrace that here today at the $500 -- the 500 acre threshold, that provides you some time between now and the Board of County Commissioners' hearing to see how that sorts out -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I think -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- because I can appreciate it's difficult for you to do that here today. MS. CACCHIONE: Well, basically, that is based on our industrial study. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: If we deal with just the conservation areas CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Go ahead, Fred. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: If we deal with just the conservation area, because they are Generally fairly straight -- you know, straight forward delineated and not the open space, I mean, you know -- MR. REYNOLDS: The open space is defined in the LDC. I mean, there's a specific calculation that you have to do when you submit a project that's defined in the LDC as to what is attributable to open space. So, I think that's a definable number, and the conservation areas are Generally apart of that, but what you may have -- if you exclude one and not the other, you may have an instance where you have a piece of property that's 50 percent conservation. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. MR. REYNOLDS: That's not an unusual occurrence these days, so -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's 'what I was Getting at is if we use the 500, which we understand is kind of arbitrary at this point, the~ PaGe 72 September 18, 1997 between now and the board's hearing, at least there's the opportunity to see how that sorts out. MS. CACCHIONE: Yeah, I wouldn't characterize that n=mber as being arbitrary. I believe that it's based on the '94 industrial study, and that would be important to have as part of the ~r~g ~e~e today, that that number is based on a definable reason, and ~= {.s ,our industrial study's -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: We just want to make sure it's net acres then. MS. CACCHIONE: That's what -- MR. REYNOLDS: And the additional -- MS. CACCHIONE: -- the suggestions -- MR. REYNOLDS: -- and the additional acres, because we have projects that exist today that could be, and are, in fact, business parks, and if you start taking those off the number, then you probably have no use of this district. So, it has to be additional, you know, basically new acres that are used for that purpose. MS. CACCHIONE: Well, today, until Creekside comes to the board, we don't have any business park district approved, per se, under the business park district of the -- MR. REYNOLDS: Under this provision, that's correct, but generically -- you know, the word business park is also a generic term, and I would suggest that we do have some business parks. I just- want to make sure that it's clear that we are not talking about those existing projects when we calculate the number. MS. CACCHIONE: We have a specific subdistrict in the Land Development Code called business park, and it's true that you can also come in as a PUD. My question would be, you know, what are we going to count as a business park in terms of what's already zoned in industrial areas? MR. REYNOLDS: Let me give you a for instance. Seagate, okay, which is styled as a business park, could be construed to be a business park as an approved DRI, a couple hundred acres. So, again, what I'm trying to avoid is make sure that when we create the district, we have an allocation that accommodates the new uses that we are trying to -- and not the existing uses that have already been approved under some prior provision. MS. CACCHIONE: That's correct. That makes sense. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And we've got it on the record that way. MR. REYNOLDS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Were there -- anyone up here that had any major objections with Mr. Reynolds' comments? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: No. MR. STUART: Greg Stuart, again, for the record, and I wasn't aware that Mr. Anderson was going to be speaking on this, and I conferred with him just out in the hall, with regard to the locational measurement, you're measuring from the edge to the edge of a zoned activity center or was the language any -- for example, using my quarter acre zoned vacant land analogy, would the measurement be from that half a mile -- I mean, because my language referred to activity Page 73 September 18, 1997 centers only and not these isolated vacant commercial lands that may be scattered about, and I'm just not sure what you-all voted on. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: My understanding was either activity center or neighborhood center. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That's my understanding, neighborhood center. MR. STUART: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other issues besides the activity centers? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That took us long enough. CHAIRF~%/q DAVIS: That brings us to the activity centers, and I 9~ess if we are speaking about a specific activity center and there's additional speakers for that same activity center, we'd like to hear from them all at the same time, please. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait a minute, before you start, we are talking about the maps now, right? All of the rest of the folks are just talking about maps? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Probably acreage. MR. SICILIANO: Good -- I guess it's afternoon now. For the record, my name is Bruce Siciliano. I'm the planning director at Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, and the specific activity center that I wanted to discuss was activity center number eleven, which is the Airport Road -- or Vanderbilt Beach Extension and Airport Road. I have an exhibit that I'd like to hand out because it refers to a specific -- COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I think I should mention that I talked to Mr. Pickworth about this. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, I talked to Mr. Pick-worth, too. -COMMISSIONER YORK: As did I. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I talked to Mr. Siciliano about this issue. CHAIRMAN ~VIS: Ditto. COMMISSION]~R THOMAS: I just need to ask staff something. Can I ask staff a question? CHAIRMAN DAFIS: Go right ahead. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can I ask a question, staff, as it relates to this activity center eleven, just curiosity. Can you explain this configuration for me? MS. CACCHIO~E: I can explain it. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: I don't know if it will be to your satisfaction, Mr. Thomas, but I can explain it. Basically, the configuration you see is reflective of the Pelican Marsh DRI commercial, the Vineyards DRI commercial on the southeast cormer and these very small five acre tracts that are zoned ag. that we ~dn't think would have an opportunity, really, to develop in anot~h~r pattern, and they are in the activity center today, and that's the reason for the boundary. ~SSIONER THOMAS: Let me make sure I understand. In the northwest quadrant, that is the actual boundary of an approved DRI co~u,ercial district? Page 74 September 18, 1997 MS. CACCHIONE: On both sides and the north, right. COMF~I~)NER THOMAS: And that's the same thing for the southwest corner? MS. CACCHIONE: Right -- southeast corner. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm talking about southeast, yeah. Now, let me ask you this question, when you look at all that, is there some magic number that we cannot exceed? MS. CACCHIONE: In terms of what? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Acreage. MS. CACCHIONE: I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: In terms of acreage. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: In terms of commercial acreage, is there some magic number that we cannot exceed? MS. CACCHIONE: I think at some point, when you look at what you've approved there -- I'll get the figures for you in a minute, but it's over a million square feet of commercial that's already approved there. At what point -- which is about what you have at Airport and Pine Ridge today exclusive of the Pine Air development. So, I mean, we are approving a million square feet, between 800,000 and a million at every one of these activity centers. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. You're confusing me, because we used to have the activity centers on the quadrants that had how many acres; 40 acres total? MS. CACCHIONE: I see what you're getting at, yeah. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. Now, is there some magic to that? Is that over 40 acres, less than 40 acres? MS. CACCHIONE: I'll get the acreage specifically for you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: While she's doing that, please proceed. -MR. SICILIANO: I was going to say, just touching on the acreage issue, to me, I guess, this activity center falls into the first category that's in the district where they are actually establishing boundaries. So, I would assume that each of the activity centers in that category, really, they are all different acreages. They really -- basically, they're almost like zoning boundaries going around the approved projects. In terms -- COMMISSIONER T~IOMAS: The reason why I'm asking the question, when we came up with the initial concept, we pulled a number of 40 acres around all these major -- as saying that would satisfy our needs. I'm trying to find out how this relates to that. MS. CACCHIONE: The activity centers now are pretty much all commercially zoned, at least 80 percent commercially zoned of these ones that we are talking about here. They range in size from 63 acres to~159 acres. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Let's deal with activity center number eleven. .~. CACCHIONE: Number eleven, you have 122.89 acres zoned for c0mm~-v_ial. That's -- I mean, that's how big the activity center is. C(~f~SSIONER THOMAS: Right now, one hundred and how much? M~. C~CCHIONE: Twenty-two. Page 75 16G 1 September 18, 1997 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Why can't it be 150 acres? MS. CACCHIONE: Well, it could. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Any reason -- any reason why it can't be? MS. CACCHIONE: No, not one reason in the world. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: I think it would be -- it would probably be along there with the second largest one that we have, but it could be. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: Third largest one, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Speaker? MR. SICILIANO: Commissioners, if I may, to me, there's really two reasons; one, I somewhat apologize on the part of the landowner for coming in at this late date, but I think this often happens with comp. plans, it's a situation where you have a smaller landowner who's not tracking comp. plans and didn't even figure out this process was going on until the last minute here, and so we've come in and evaluated it and would make a suggestion. To me, the justification of adding in this, what is a ten acre parcel, and the parcel I'm referring to is the highlighted parcel of land which is outside the'staff's proposed activity center boundary -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What is the present zoning on that La Fontana PUD? MR. SICILIANO: That -- it is -- La Fontana is a residential or ALF PUD. It allows 16 multi-family units or 120 ALF units on the site. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That just came before us, didn't it, not too long ago? MR. SICILIANO: No, it's an older 1993 PUD. -MS. CACCHIONE: I think you're thinking of Marker Lake Villas which is just down from there -- Marker Lake Villas which is just down from there. COMMISSIONER YORK: Time flies when you're having fun. MR. SICILIANO: If I may, to -- I think, first, understanding some history with the property is very relevant because I view this, to me, as really a hardship case with these individuals. This property was purchased in 1989. This activity center, of all the activity centers in our county, is unique in that it was labeled future activity center. Under that designation, the property owners were prohibited from coming in and getting any kind of commercial zoning until Vanderbilt Beach Road was built. The property owner owns actually all of the hatch land, which is 15 acre= that goes up to the corner. The property owner on numerous occasions has sought to try to get commercial zoning and has always been advised, no, you can't come in for commercial zoning until the road is built. In 1991, which is when the property was zoned, at that point, not being able ~a do anything with the property from the standpoint of what was anticipated, they got approached by someone who said we want to do an ALF on the property, we want to put a contract on it, would you get it zoned. They went through the zoning. At the time they Page 76 September 18, 1997 came in for the zoning, they were also told you can only have six units a~ acre because you are also not in an activity center. So, they came in and got it zoned for 120 units. The deal fell through, as often happens. They've been sitting on the property ever since, still kind of in the same predicament. Interestingly, last year, the road gets built, and now they are being proposed to be pushed out of the activity center. They are the only property owner being, basically, taken out of the activity center. To me, those circumstances alone, I think, are pretty significant cause, I think, to consider at least leaving them back in the intersection or in the activity center. I think there are several other very good planning reasons for it, and one I would argue is that if we divide this parcel into a five acre parcel to be commercial on the corner and ten acres to be residential, that from an aesthetic standpoint, from a design ~tandpoint, we're doing a terrible injustice to that corner. For me to try to design anything on a five acre parcel is going to mean I'm basically be able to chop it up into three or four small outparcels. I mean, a Walgreen's is two and then -- I mean, it's not big enough to do any kind of center. With a -- and on the ten acres in contrast, it faces not only other commercial uses that culture -- what I've shown as a cultural center across the street, even though it's been excluded from the activity center, it basically consists of a use that's allowed 80,000 square feet, 750 parking spaces, 750 seats and 400 in parking spaces which is a commercial use. The site, the ten acre site is not big enough to put any kind of sigrrificant amenity on, so I would say we're going to have a very low end project, and then we are going to have a couple of commercial outparcels on the corner; whereas, I think we are fully capable of doing not big, a neighborhood center on that corner for which we can do something that is aesthetically nice and designed to work well. Transportation-wise, if you notice where I've labeled full median access, the county intends that location, which is basically the west property line, as the place where full access can go. If we don't allow -- if we allow for a unified use, again, I can tie everything together. On the other hand, there's going to be the issue of how does the commercial piece get served. Those things considered, I think, one, the fact that the property owner has sat, has waited, has gone through all of this and gone through, and I think for all the planning reasons, I think it's very ~ustifiable to bring the site into the activity center. I would say that in addition, the current plan for this activity ce_%ter does allow for the intersection to fully build out, if you wilk,, a~ 100 percent which would basically allow this activity center by ~=af~'s numbers to have up to 13 more acres of co~u~,ercial. So, ~ortunately, the way it's drawn though and as hard as these lines are, this site isn't included. So, they anticipate more commercial at the corner, just not in this particular piece of Page 77 September 18, 1997 property. CHAIRMA~ DAVIS: The acreage that you're proposing adding is how much? MR. SICILIANO: Ten acres. COMMISSIONER YORK: It takes it to 132.89 acres. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Lock them in; that's precise. MR. SICILIANO: And I would say -- I mean, Barbara is right in the sense there is -- there is a lot of commercial approved at this corner, and I would also say, I guess, ten acres is going to be insignificant in the context of what we've got approved here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions of the speaker? Is there anyone that -- else that wants to speak on activity center number eleven? MR. KILLEN: Good day. My name is Tom Killen. I'm here as a citizen representing a friend -- not representing but on behalf of the landowner. I'm the poor guy who back in '93 fought the battle to get that La Fontana PUD approved by the planning commission and the commissioners, and what was said was exactly right. This was because of a potential land purchaser who wanted to build kind of a strange oddball project primarily for rehabilitation for people who had all types of surgery. The deal -- we designed the project. It was a nice project, but it didn't fly, so the thing fell apart. Since that time, Rosemary and I have become friends, been in contact -- we've been in contact. Every time anything would happen in that area, I would fax the information to her, front page of the paper, fax it to Rosemary. I worked with Lad over at capital projects for several years. Every time anything happened, I'd call Lad. No, we are not there. No activity center. Then a few years ago, I was informed, yes, now we hav~ an activity center, however, it's just the south -- I mean, it's the east side of Airport only. Well, on the other quadrant, you have WCI, so Door Rosemary is sitting on a corner that hadn't happened yet until just a few months ago. After we did the La Fontana PUD, she then bought the corner, the five acres on the corner. So -- with the high hopes that yes, we are going to be in the activity center. So, a few weeks back, Rosemary called me and said, Tom, I'm having all kinds of problems getting a handle on this thing. Would you go find out what's going on. So, I go down, and I talk to Bryan ~ilk. Bryan, Rosemary wants to modify the PUD, add the five acres in ~ corner and bring it up to a commercial level of some type. Great, n= problem. You'd better check with future growth management. SQ, that -- a few minutes later, I go down and see David, and I go "~.r~ugh this program and scenario with David. Now, this has been going ~m for several years now, and David said, well, I have something you mig~ be interested in. He hands me an eight and a half by eleven drawing of the new activity center, and poor Rosemary has got her five acres in, and the ten acres have been bumped out. Page 78 ]6G'l' September 18, 1997 So, I call Rosemary, and the poor lady almost had a heart attack. She said, what do I do. I said, well, you find someone a lot smarter than I am that has attorney at the end of his name, and you go down and go to war with the county. I'm not the smartest guy in the world. I'm a design professional in this county. I've been doing this all my adult life. I have to explain to you this. I went to high school. I went to classes. I did fairly well. One of those courses was English, and back then in those days, I was 'told the ~efinition of comprehensive. Today, I don't think I know the definition of comprehensive because we work under a comprehensive plan, and I can't understand it. So, therefore, I think we should rename the future growth management book. The next thing I like to do is play football. So, I played football. I never played a g,~me that they changed the rules every quarter. Today, I'm playing a game where all the rules change every quarter. In my profession, I don't just have to deal with zoning and planning. I deal with thm ADA. I deal with environmentalists. I deal with electrical codes, plumbing codes, building codes, ordinances, rules and regulations, several counties and a couple of cities. We don't have a program anymore. We don't have a book to go by, and when you find it in the book, you find that someone issued an ordinance saying that's not the way we do it. My profession doesn't even get notified, and this -- to me, this is another example of o~going problems with government. The only thing I did learn, Barbara, is -- I took carpentry in school, and if you have a big hammer and a lot of faith, you can put a square' peg in a round hole if the hammer is large enough. My closing comment is, I think I get a little tired of seeing the big guys get what they want and the little people just get shoved aside. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Killen. Anyone else to speak on activity center number eleven? MR. FARTMANN: My name is Walter Hartmann, and I'm one of the owners of the activity center. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you spell your first name? MR. HARTMANN: Walter Hartmann. And what Mr. Killen just said, I just would like to tell e%~_rybody that if it is in the possibility of the commissioners that yo~ can have this ten acres zoned commercial, and this is my partner, A1 Vennini (phonetic). ~R. VENNINI: My name is Albert Vennini, and I got involved in thLm im 1989 with Rosemary Woods, and we -- there was a lot of things in ~he ~aper about the future activity center, and there was supposed to ~ -- {n f~ct, they said the money was there. They're going to build the L,~ in the next two years, and here it is eight years later, and w~ are paying and paying, and we -- finally, hey, the road is finally done, and we're going to get our activity center. Now, I Page 79 September 18, 1997 find out that we may not have it, and I would appreciate, you know, if we could get it back. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Anyone else to speak on activity center number eleven? Staff, would you like to respond to any presentations? MS. CACCHIONE: Just answer questions. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: When somebody gets a chance, if you could find the acreage for activity center number thirteen. MS. CACCHIONE: Thirteen? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thirteen. MS. CACCHIONE: Pine Ridge and Airport? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. MS. CACCHIONE: Three hundred and two. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Oh, is that right? MS. CACCHIONE: Uh-huh, and then the next biggest one is -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No, I just -- I just wanted to -- I wanted to make sure I knew the acreage of the one I didn't like and then I'd -- MS. CACCHIONE: That's because we included Pine Air. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You've included Pine Air? MS. CACCHIONE: Right, because it didn't -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Why would you include Pine Air? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. I understand. How much is Pine Air? Do you know the breakdown? MS. CACCHIONE: Pine Air is 140 acres. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So, it's 160, 140, roughly. MS. CACCHIONE: Right, and this one would be -- is 122 -- 123, and with whatever acreage you add, it would be -- 'COMMISSIONER THOMAS: One thirty three. COMMISSIONER YORK: One thirty-two point eight nine. -- and is approved for one point two million MS. CACCHIONE: square feet today. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: HR. VARNADOE: this issue? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: What can you tell me about the cultural center? Mr. Davis, if I could, maybe, shed some light on Yes. HR. VARNADOE: George Varnadoe. There's a petition in to modify the DRI on Pelican Marsh which will be -- and I don't remember the figures. I think reducing by 150,000 square feet the commercial on that project which is, of course -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: How does that translate into acres? MR. VARNADOE: I don't think we are taking the acreage down, Mr. T~omas, but acreage doesn't mean anything. What we've done is roll ~_~_- -- are rolling the cultural center into the activity center property, so we are reducing substantially though the impacts from com%mez~ial development on the adjoining property. That's not -- hasn't h~pened. That's pending. It's been submitted to the county and the ~cate for approval, but just taking into account what these people are asking for, I think you should know that. CHAIRM~N DAVIS: Mr. Varnadoe, did you say you were rolling the Page 80 September 18, 1997 cultural center property into the activity center? MR. V~%DOE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Some of the activities, that would decrease the amount of coa=~ercial they could MR. VARNADOE: Yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I've got you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Because the cultural cenLer today, what we are looking at is not part of the activity center. COMMISSIONER YORK: It is not.. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: %9~at' s right. MR. VARNADOE: That's correct. So, the petition is, is to move that into the activity center -- to 'move those activities into the activity center. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Ah, thank you. MR. VARNADOE: I didn't say it correctly, excuse me. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Going back to Mr. Killen's English class. Thank you. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Do you want a motion? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'd like -- COMMISSIONER YORK: I would make a motion that we amend -- amend this activity center to include the La Fontana PUD. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I second that motion. MS. STUDENT: It's a straw vote, is it not, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, this is a straw vote. What you -- what you mean is the ten acres that the presenter -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: The La Fontana -- the La Fontana PUD. COMMISSIONER YORK: Yes, the La Fontana PUD. -COMMISSIONER BRUET: I can support that, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I can, too. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Congratulations, Mr. Killen, you got one of the big boys on your side. COMMISSIONER BRUET: It was that -- it was that -- it was that eloquent presentation, that big hammer that you used. MS. CACCHIONE: I guess I need to get a bigger one, huh. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We are in -- we are in agreement to add the ten acres discussed. MS. CACCHIONE: Do you want to add the CF in, too; that little piece right there? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Do you think it would be nice to kind of square it off? MS. CACCHIONE: Yeah, I think we should. COMMISSIONER YORK: Square it off. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Square it off. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. I~ we can call the meeting to order. CO~?-~IONER THOMAS: Excuse me. Make sure the straw vote -- because th~ =ecoa,.~endation we received from Barbara Cacchione includes CF, okay. I just want to make -- Page 81 September 18, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Does everyone understand that, that the little piece ~wn in the corner we are including also? All right. That moves us to someone bringing up another activity center. MR. DUANE: Robert Duane from Hole, Montes & Associates. I sensed some sympathy for small property owners, so I wanted to jump in at this point in the process, if I could, and i'm dealing with -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: No small property owners without representation. MR. DUANE: No, actually -- well, he called me two days ago. He found out he had a problem, so I'm -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Which activity center? MR. DUANE: This is activity number -- center number ten at Pine Ridge Road and 1-75, and we are dealing with -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Pine Ridge Road and 1-75. MR. DUANE: We are dealing with two properties that are proposed to be taken out. My client owns 12 acres here at this location and the Seagate Baptist Church. I believe you'll hear from them after my short presentation objecting to our properties being removed from the activity center. My client has owned this property since 1945, and most of you are familiar with the crane that's on 1-75 right there. There's a four story hotel going up right here at this location. Since the activity center has been placed on this property since 1989, the conditions, in my mind, are no less conducive for co~u~ercial development. In fact, if anything, the commercial pattern of development is solidified, particularly within the southernly PUD which is located immediately to the north of this property, and interestingly enough, there's been some-interest, not only in my client's property, but in a portion of the Seagate Baptist Church, and there's been some discussions between the property owners between doing a joint venture, sharing access and trying to coordinate or integrate these properties with some of the existing developed commercial properties. Therefore, I would appreciate your consideration if you would leave these two properties in the activity center. They've been there since 1989. I don't believe that there's any basis to redesignate them at this time. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Including the church? MR. DUANE: Well, I'll let the church speak for themselves. I'm not representing them. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can I ask you a question? MR. DUANE: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What is that -- that kind of a diagonal thing set there, what does that represent? MR. DUANE: That's on the county's existing future land use map, ama % believe they tried to locate a building there, but that's not' thee affect location. U~IDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No, that's ST. MR. DUANE: Oh, this box sets an ST designation. It has -- about four acres of it is wetlands of the twelve acres. Page 82 16G i September 18, 1997 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: If that's all wet, then I don't understand. MR. DUANE: Two-third -- four of the twelve acres has some cypress on it. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Kind of hooking around like this or are you going to try to do something for the ground? MR. DUANE: Well, it really needs to be consolidated with a portion of the church property next door. The church property, and I'm going to let Dr. Odom represent himself, but their building is approximately at this location, and they had always anticipated using the balance of the property for some other use. In fact, they had always anticipated trying to develop this, you know, commercially, and I think you'll hear that from Dr. Odom, but the line that was initially established in 1989, which is a straight line, picks up the commercial properties on the other side of the street, so I don't think we are asking to do anything out of character or anything that, at least since 1989, hasn't been contemplated for this property, and l think it's a fairness issue; two small property owners that are trying to enhance their properties, and they both object to being removed. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All right. Additional speakers on this activity center number ten? MR. ODOM: Thank you. I'm Dr. James Odom. I have been in this community since 1971, and I appreciate you men, of course, appreciate everything that's done in the county. We moved out on this property that's located here in 1984. I believe we purchased it in 1981, and we designed the property. We designed the 20 acres -- actually, we bought 40 acres. We had sold part of the other property, but we had designed the 20 acres to be developed either on the ten acre part of that or 15 acre. -Knowing what was going to happen when we bought this property -- of course, like you, Mr. Davis, I remember Pine Ridge as a two lane road. I remember -- and I've been here in the growth pattern. When we bought the property, there was no Interstate 75. There was no Pine Ridge Road. When I took my congregation out there to show them the property and then later break ground, I had some elderly folks say, as we took them out on the buses, pastor, are you sure there's a road coming out here. So, we envisioned what was going to happen. We knew that maybe we would -- we might develop all 20 acres or we might not and maybe -- or develop what would be commercial on the back part in connection with what was going to go on. Mr. Suther and I have known each other for many years and which he had developed the PUD there at the interchange, and first, like the gentleman earlier, I apologize for not speaking earlier. I did not ·now what had been considered until Monday. I, like many others, do rr~t follow all the planning situations, so I was totally unaware until I was ~D~roached by Bob and some of the others to discuss this matter. ~ b~, over the years, several considerations on the back section of ~rr property, and even right now currently, we have a consideration of a combination of the property that Mr. Duane spoke about and ourselves. Page 83 September 18, 1997 Of course, you realize what's happening in this area with the new hospi~ and the clinics coming up, the idea of a medical park or possibly even a health park in all this area back in here to be used, and we feel like that our property should stay in this activity center for the future expansion of our ministry and to allow us to be able to do what we need to do if we do develop the back property or sell the back property as a commercial use. COMMISSIONER YORK: Question. MR. ODOM: Yes. COMMISSIONER YORK: The part you're talking about is with the dark footprint there, that's your property? MR. ODOM: This right here, all of this here. COMMISSIONER YORK: And that center part, the dark -- MR. ODOM: That is not -- no, that's not -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Is that not the church? MR. ODOM: No, that's not -- that's not the -- the church sets on the front part of the property. It sets up here on the first five acres, and if you can see right here, this is the church property, it runs back to here to here to here, and right here is where the church is on the front part. This is basically that five acres in this area here that would tie in with this particular property here. COMMISSIONER YORK: On the other drawing, what's the significance of the dark square? MR. ODOM: I don't know what that is, sir. I have no idea, unless the county is trying to, you know, show you that's the site of the facilities, but it's not. Like these here, these are -- this is part of the motel. This is a gas station, pizza place and so on, you know, so maybe that's what that is, but that's not the proper location, and so our concern in consideration, as the other, we've been in this since 1989, and when we built this property, of course, Mr. Forsythe designed our buildings, Mr. Bob Forsythe, who now retired, and the access. We do have a private school. We have a Christian school. So we have facilities and use of the property for our facilities and for future expansion in the community working with not only the adults from all ages, especially young people, as well, and we would request that we be left in this activity center for our ministry or for the use of our facilities to expand in the future. I don't know what the future holds. This community in the last five years has exploded. Mr. Thomas talks about Golden Gate. Well, many of my congregation is in that area and out where you live, and I cannot believe the amount of people that's in this area and what's going to happen, and I feel like what we've tried to do over the last 26 years I've been here -- the church was founded in 1964, so we are no~ a fly-by-night people. We've been here for a long time. We are concerned about the community. We appreciate the good job you do, and w~a~reciate your consideration in this matter. ~h~nk you. CBAi~MAN DAVIS: Thank you. Ac~d~al speakers on activity number ten -- activity center number t~, excuse me? Page 84 September 18, 1997 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: My -- my thoughts on activity center number ten, I don't think the church property is going to leave -- I mean, the church basic property. The other property that they want to include has a lot of environmental problems with it. If we include it all, there's not going to be a major impact. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I agree, Mr. Chairma~l. COMMISSIONER BUDD: So do I. COMMISSIONER YORK: So do I. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I apologize to Barbara. I should have given you a chance if you had any response to the speaker's presentations. MS. CACCHIONE: No. What you want to do is include the church parcel and the other parce 1 ? COMMISSIONER YORK: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm saying that it's not going to have that much of an impact since most of the other property has a wetland problem, and the church property is going to be a church, a church and a church. MS. CACCHIONE: I think that's why we took it out. Sorry. That's why we took the church out. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Wait. If we leave the church out, can they put in another sanctuary later on? MS. CACCHIONE: Yeah, they have a provisional use for their church, sure. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What if they wanted to put in a retirement home for old ministers? MS. CACCHIONE: They can do that. If they want to do a hotel, they cannot do that. They'd have to come in and seek conunercial zoning. So, the only reason it has any effect of being in the activity center is to sell it for commercial purposes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. Which is a good fund raiser for a church. MS. CACCHIONE: Perfect fund raiser. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I have no problem with that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It's -- we' 11 do a straw vote here. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I think it was all in support. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, it was. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: To be real honest with you, I'd leave it out, so it wasn't unanimous. Apparently, there's enough support to add that iu. Do you have another activity center for us, Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VARNADOE: If I could. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: A whole new one. 3~R. VARNADOE: Activity center fourteen. ~'~,~lw. IS~IONER THOMAS: Fourteen. ~ ~AVIS: Fourteen. MR. ~IE: It's the corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Goodlette-Frank Road. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Golden Gate Parkway, Goodlette-Frank Road. Page 85 September 18, 1997 MR. VARNADOE: Currently -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Is that in the city? MR. VARNADOE: Currently, 56 -- Mr. Thomas, I'll handle the presentation; you ask questions. Currently, 56.4 acres, according to staff, in this activity center. I'm representing the Fleischmann interest. They own about 155 acres south of Golden Gate Parkway on both sides of the river, which includes all of the undeveloped activity center other than six acres on the south side. The proposal is to take the activity center down to 20 acres on -- in each quadrant, being the northeast and the southeast quadrant. That's a little misleading because there is only approximately six acres in the county in the northeast quadrant, and the rest of it is in the city. What our proposal is is to have the activity center comprise of 45 acres without reference to which quadrant it is in. That would leave approximately 30 acres that is undeveloped at the current time for commercial. This property is fairly unique in that it has access problems. It has proximity with the airport. It has -- which has some constraints on height then and use for residential purposes. It's across from the mall. It has commercial around it. It's at the intersection of two fairly major roadways, and we think that having the ability to have approximately 30 acres of commercial in conjunction with other uses, other mixed use projects is appropriate. I would tell you that the only support in the EAR original report for any changes to the activity centers as far as I know was the multi-traffic study. The multi-traffic study said that this -- the area-in here is under served and there was a need for additional commercial, and his reco~endation was to expand this activity center all the way down to the post office. We are not asking for that. We are saying leave the boundaries the same and just leave -- and just provide that the maximum amount of commercial in the activity center would be limited to 45 acres. I think we have staff's support for that position. COMMISSIONER TKOMAS: Ms. Cacchione, can I ask you a question? MS. CACCHIONE: To change the maximum to 45 is what you said? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is this a -- you were talking before about percentages of commercial. Is there a percentage involved here? MS. CACC~IONE: Basically what we did on those five that are master planned, we identified the maximum amounts for commercial. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can I ask a question? Can you show me on tha~map where the city boundary line is? ~.OMMISSIONER YORK: Right down the middle of the street. M~. CACCHIONE: Right here and comes around here. C(~C~u~SIO~ THOMAS: So, where would the expansion be that he's talking ab~at? Show me on there where the expansion would be what he's talkimg about. Page 86 September 18, 1997 MS. CACCHIONE: Expansion of what? MR. VARNADOE: There wouldn't be any expansion, Mr. Thomas. The activity center is currently 56.4 acres. The question is, how much of that is going to be allowed to develop as a maximum amount of commercial. Staff was basically saying 40, and I'm saying, in two quadrants, I'm saying that doesn't really -- that has no applicability here. I'm saying 45 in the entire activity center. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. Without changing the boundaries? MR. VARNADOE: Without changing the boundaries at all. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. MS. CACCHIONE: I think staff is in agreement with that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Objections -- any objections up here to that change? MS. CACCHIONE: We'll have to change the language in here in regard to that on Page 14. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, before we do that, I should have asked, is there anyone else here to speak about activity center fourteen? Seeing none, we are all pleased with that change. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you very much. MR. REYNOLDS: Good afternoon now. Alan Reynolds. There are three activity centers that I would like to speak to, but let me deal with two of them collectively because the proposal is the same, and I hope I can keep this brief because I believe that staff has -- is also concurring with this. Activity centers number three and seven on Page 14 are the two activity centers along 951 that Barbara previously described as being on the eastern side of the urban boundary, and in response to ~he DCA's request to quantify acreage, the staff's proposal was to deal with-activity centers three and seven by limiting the amount of commercial use for these to 20 acres per quadrant. COMMISSIONER YORK: As opposed to 40. MR. REYNOLDS: As opposed to 40 per quadrant. Our request wculd be to change that allocation from 20 to 25 acres per quadrant for those two activity centers. I represent a property owner in each of those activity centers. They even concuzred with that approach. They have -- both are in the planning stages. Both have already done market feasibility studies, and the 25 acres would be adequate for their needs. There may be other property owners that would want to speak to these activity centers, but I think that the 25 acre allocation does recognize the fact that these are sort of on the edge of the urban area, but also axe in a location that is going to be serving some of the future growth that we have allocated, really, to the eastern side. So, that would be my suggested change for those two activity centers, and then I would like to speak to another one after you've dealt with this. ~HAIRMAN DAVIS: On three and seven, comments? M~. CACCHIONE: Three and seven, we would agree with 25 per ~ DAVIS: Is there anyone else here to speak on either Page 87 September 18, 1997 three or seven? MR. SICILIANO: Commissioner, Bruce Siciliano again for the record, activity center number seven I would speak to, but actually, I think the same applies to both. I have a graphic that I would like to hand out that I think will illustrate. Let me say as I hand this out, the request that Mr. Reynolds has made has somewhat answered the request because the first cover page relates to a PUD. That PUD is an existing approved PUD with 25 acres of commercial, so in a sense, it solves the problem, i think, for that project. Our specific concern on the -- that's reflected in the first graphic is that we have an existing approved PUD, and what the trend seemed to be with activity centers is that we are now tending to draw specific boundaries around the commercial zoning, and I more or less wanted for the record to get it on record that we have an approved PUD and that that entire commercial PUD ought to be acknowledged and not severed. The other property owners I represent -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Before you leave that subject, so the PUD you're talking about has u west boundary of here and it works back into this way? MR. SICILIANO: Yes. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. MR. SICILIAN0: So, what I'm suggesting is that either the activity center boundary ought to go around the commercial zoning -- The property owners that I also represent own the land in the southwest quadrant, and we've done basically an analysis on their behalf in terms of the applicability or the appropriateness of the 20 acre-standard, and I would like to refer everyone, if I could, to the blown-up version of the mixed use activity center index map. It shows all the activity centers with some circles around it. The point of illustration here is that generally the activity centers in the county serve about four sections of land. What is somewhat unique here is that both -- and I'll take you to !mmokalee Road, which is activity center three, as well as activity number seven, those activity centers serve an enormous land area or ultimately will. They're within driving distance. In the case of s~en, it's three to five miles to the next activity center, and that's just within the urban boundary, not to mention Golden Gate and what I've heard today about all the other people that are being served. It seems really not logical to me to take these two activity cera~ers and cut them down to 20 acres when all of the other activity cen:ters are 40. So, I think foremost and simple, on behalf of our cli~.mts, we would strongly reco~end that I think these activity cen~=~s should be put back to where they are. ~ think if not, then I think I would certainly suggest that maybe we co~T~m~plate if we're going to limit the co~u~,ercial to 25 acres, that we at least allow the opportunity for the other mixed -- mixed uses to go in the activity, i.e., the office and other things that Page 88 September 18, 1997 we've really ultimately wanted to see. The reason being is, also from a design standpoint, one of our gripes with activity centers is they tend to go on commercial shopping centers. If we pare these centers down to simply 20, 25 acres per corner, ultimately, what I think we're going to get is basically strip commercial centers. We don't really have too much opportunity to get very creative with mixed use and to integrate those uses into -- really, probably the two activity centers that I'd almost call town centers because of the large areas they are going to serve. (Commissioner York leaves the meeting). HR. SICILIANO: So, therefore, our request is that -- I think the owners are somewhat flexible. Certainly, the 25 acres is better, but I think we would try to suggest that maybe we at least contemplate either going all back to the normal activity center and let zoning control the day or maybe even allow the other office and other uses for the remainder of the activity center. That's all I have to say. If anybody had any questions, I'll be happy to answer. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions? None. Comment? MS. CACCHIONE: I don't think we agree. COMMISSIONER OATES: I think 25 is big enough in each quadrant. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The -- what about the piece he spoke about being outside the boundary? COMMISSIONER OATES: Well, it's already approved. MS. CACCHIONE: That's fine the way it is. I mean. we are not modifying any PUD or any zoning as a result of this. He -- and in fact, we've allowed more flexibility in where the commercial can be located. We've required that they be master planned activity centers. Office is a commercial use, and currently, the property owners on the east side of activity center number seven are only permitted 1.5 units per acre, and that's just the way the plan has been because it's in the urban coastal fringe, and you'll recall our first rece~..endation to you was to take both of those quadrants off. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. Okay. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, are you saying to me we don't have to change the map to include that little piece that's sticking out? MS. CACCHIONE: Right, that's what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And that's on the record now. HR. REYNOLDS: Let me clarify, because I think Mr. Siciliano misunderstood, perhaps, what I had -- what I had reco~,..ended. What I had recommended is that there is a commercial allocation within these activity centers that staff had recommended to be 20 acres. I had recommended 25 acres. That does not mean that the activity center bo*am~ changes from what has been proposed already. So, you do, in fac=, ~till have the mixed use. t~%~ DAVIS: Your suggestion, Mr. Reynolds, was to increase from 20 'Z~ 25 simply? MR. REYNOLDS: For commercial allocation because that's what -- that's specifically what was -- Page 89 September 18, 1997 COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Just like Varnadoe did the time before. MR. REYNOLDS: Correct. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm with you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: What other one did you have to worry about? MR. REYNOLDS: The other activity -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, we haven't finished up with three and seven, and there's no one else to speak on three? COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, there is. C"HAIRMAN DAVIS: I'm so£ry. Please come forward. MR. SMITH: My name is Wayne Smith, and I own a piece -- in fact, the northernmost piece in the northwest -- excuse me, northeast quadrant of activity center seven. With this being brought down to a 20 acre maximum co~ercial development there, what we are going to wind up with here is a foot race with people that have probably the largest resources winning in order to get their land rezoned. I wasn't even aware of this until last night sometime, and then, this morning, I spoke with somebody about it. I don't know why we weren't notified. I guess maybe we don't have to be, but I didn't buy this land on speculation. I bought this land to use this land to develop it. I wanted to develop it a number of years ago. I was told by the county at that time for me to wait until the road was four laned and then it should be approved without any problem at all. The road was just four laned. In fact, as far as I'm concerned, it was just February 14th. That's when they finally finished the entranceway into the property. I do have a full median access which took some finagling to do. I have a bridge across the property, so therefore, the canal on that side of the road is not a -- is not a hampering situation to myself, but my problem is, I only have five acres, and in order for me to qualify with the criteria that's set forth in this document today is I have to have a minimum of 10.5 acres to beat 51 percent of 20 acres. I think that it's an unintentional discrimination against small property owners. I wish I had 10.5 acres, but i don't. I bought this land originally a number of years ago when I could have bought land anyplace else in the county zoned agricultural if I had wanted agricultural property. I do work in agricultural work, but I don't want to work agricultural work the rest of my life. I'm tired of it. I'm sick and tired of pulling weeds and getting bit by fire ants and whatever else is out there, thorns, et cetera. I would like to see the entire northeast quadrant remain -- the full 40 acres remain on the activity center just so that, I'm not gI~eedy for myself, but if nothing else, I'd like to see some wording put in this that would permit me as a five acre parcel to apply for com~e~c, ial zoning; nothing less, and that's all. I mean, I don't in~ ~ just sell this to somebody to build a big old shopping cenZer. I mean, the configuration of the property doesn't permit it. The purpose I have in mind, the property is exactly what I want; nothing more and nothing less, and I've had this land a long time. Page 90 16G 1 September 18, 1997 I'm the only pioneer out there. I've paid for all the utilities. I've done everything, and now I understand that what I intend to do to get me out of having to work in the environment I've been in for 23 years, I may not be able to do. So, I'm asking that you keep me in somehow. If you even just take that one quadrant and rework it, I don't care. I believe the other quadrants are large parcels. I know the one directly across the street from me is owned by one individual, and the other ones look like they are large parcels. I'm not familiar with who owns what on there, but they shouldn't have any problem meeting the 20 acre requirement, but I can't. So, that's all I'm asking today is to keep me in there somehow. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Could you speak to the -- MS. CACCHIONE: Yeah. I think what Mr. Smith is talking about is the requirement for a master planned activity center, that you own 51 percent, and of course, he only has a five acre tract, a little bit less than five acres, and the tract beneath him is also in the same situation. All of the other tracts are larger property owners, and I think it probably is a fairness issue, and we should add some language in there that allows him to seek a rezoning on those two tracts -- on each of those two tracts. Now -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: .I think that's fair. MS. CACCHIONE: -- you know, I think a unified plan brings us something better, but, you know, I don't think he should be precluded from coming in to seek a rezone. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I agree with that. You're going to get some language before the county co~m~issioners. -MS. CACCHIONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anybody else to speak on either three or seven? Okay. I think we can probably get our thoughts finalized here. So, are we in agreement on the 25 acre -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Twenty-five acres for both of those plus the language for the smaller land owner. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That Ms. Cacchione just mentioned to us? COMMISSIONER OATES: Right. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And on the record, that on seven, that includes the existing commercial PUD. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. All set. Next -- next one, I think you had one more, Mr. Reynolds? MR. REYNO~.r~S: Yes, I did. Thank you. A~d I just want -- again, I think your motion said this, but I want to make sure that it was clear that our intent was that those acres that were not allocated to commercial are still within the activ~y center -- C~mm~z~vON~R THOMAS: Yes. MR..~"~kDS: -- are still eligible -- CC~S~I(~ZR THOMAS: Yes. MR. P,g~DS: -- for activity center uses. COMMISSI~ THOMAS: We didn't change the boundaries. We just Page 91 September 18, 1997 increased the amount of commercial. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: From 20 to 25. MR. REYNOLDS: The last one I'd like to speak to is activity center number nine. We had a fair amount of discussion about this in the spring. This is the 1-75, 951, 84 activity center, and it is the one activity center in the county that I think is unique in a lot of ways; not only with respect to the number of roads that we have intersecting, but I think the opportunities that we have out there for a wide variety of uses. The language that had been transmitted to the state had called for a master plan or a specific plan to be accomplished on that activity center, and as part of the recommendation, you included some properties into the activity center for purposes of that planning. One of those properties is the Golden Gate Health Park which is owned by Bonita Bay Properties who I represent. The second is the White Lake property which is owned by Power Corporation who I also represent, and then there's a third property owner that is south of the Golden Gate Health Park, and what was transmitted to the state was the inclusion of those properties in the activity center and a requirement that you do a specific planning process for the entire activity center that would look at the allocation of uses. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Didn't we vote on that in the spring? MR. REYNOLDS: You did, and you sent that forward, and you approved that concept. Now, we are -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, and is that not in here? MR. REYNOLDS: Well, now we are in a position of, again, having to respond to the objections that DCA has raised, and their objection is the same that they have raised in all of these activity centers, is that-you have not provided for quantification and specificity on the uses. That's really the issue. They want to know how much of what kind of use you're going to have in each one of these activity centers now. What we are suggesting is a response that we think retains the integrity of what you did previously, but is -- at least goes a step toward responding to their objection without, basically, doing away with the whole concept in its entirety, and if I could give you some l~_nguage. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'm getting ready to leave, so go quick. MR. REYNOLDS: I know the hour is late, so I'll go very c~ickly on this. Basically, what this language does is create a process whereby the property owners would meet together with the county staff. They would do that within 60 days of the adoption of the plan. They would agree on what we are calling an interchange enhancement plan. What we are looking for there is a process that would generally define some of the lanx~ uses and allocations and other attributes that you would like to se~, ~ then it calls for the property owners to submit for rezoning ~ that enhancement plan as the next step in the process. What we then do is create a cap of 55 percent is what we are suggesting, but you can choose a different number. We think 55 Page 92 September 18, 1997 percent ~s the appropriate number -- for commercial acreage alloca~/on. So, what this does, basically, is it does -- it retains the proposed boundaries as you've approved them in the spring to include the three properties that I've described. It creates a process whereby the property owners and the planning staff will meet together to determine some objectives, and then it will allow each party then to do their master planning and bring forward rezoning petitions that will provide for the uses in their property, and the percentage that we have identified will cause a limitation, again, on the amount of commercial uses so that, in fact, on each of these properties, you will wind up with a mixed use, and we think this process does a lot of things for the county. It gives us a better plan overall for that activity center which is a critical one. It allows the property owners to meet together and sort of agree as to how best to coordinate on things such as access management, allocations of uses, design standards, those types of things, and I think it's responsive to the department's objection. So, we would ask you to support this. COMMISSIONER OATES: Barbara, have you seen this? MS. CACCHIONE: Yes. I think that I agree with Mr. Reynolds in terms of the process. I think it's a good one. It's too bad we didn't use that on all of the activity centers. There are a couple of things we probably need to discuss, and that is the -- how we adopt this vision statement and perhaps the thresholds, and we'd like to work on that between now and the board. COMMISSIONER OATES: So, in essence, you basically -- -MS. CACCHIONE: We agree in principle on this process. MR. REYNOLDS: Good. Thank you very much. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Sorry. I'm going to have to -- I can't play with you-all any longer. I've got to go. I've got a two o'clock meeting in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER BRUET: We've got enough here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We've got five. Fred -- COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I'll see you-all at the next meeting. I've got two more to go, I think, or one and a half. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No, this is it. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Is it? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah, because the appointment is next Tuesday, the 23rd. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: He takes over in October? CHAIRMAN THOMAS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Well, it's been a pleasure. COMMISSIONER OATES: Fred, enjoyed it. Loved every minute of the e~.w~ afu~air. ~~ssioner Thomas leaves the meeting). COMMISSIONER OATES: We don't have many more activity centers left, do we? Page 93 September 18, 1997 MS. CACCHIONE: No. COMMISSIONER OATES: Fast. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You're down to five. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We are the property owner that is to the south of the health park. We are the piece that is landlocked between the health park and the 1-75 entrance ramp. We.. are here at the -- COMMISSIONER OATES: Which center is this? COMMISSIONER BUDD: Same one. COMMISSIONER OATES: Oh, same one. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, yes, yes, number nine. We agree with Mr. Reynolds, and -- and we point out that the 55 percent threshold is a minimum, and it should not go any more below that. Otherwise, you're just going to have a race amongst people to, you know -- and that does not foster good planning. Thank you. COMMISSIONER OATES: Thanks. MR. ANDERSON: And we have people here if you have any questions. COMMISSIONER OATES: No. MR. ANDERSON: We are the only property owner that has submitted a market study to justify our request. I have Ms. Fitapelli here to explain her report and Mr. Duane also to testify as to the incompatibility of this property for residential use. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I think we have. MR. DUANE: It was a long speech, too, and I'll be happy to give it to you. COMMISSIONER OATES: No thanks. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I think you have -- -COMMISSIONER OATES: There are times to shut up. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- the support of the five of us up here and also agreement by staff that this is a good concept and maybe just a tweak or two to get it ready for the Board of County Commissioners. Anyone else to speak on activity center number nine? All right. I would invite another activity center to the podium if there is any. MS. CACCHIONE: I think we need some new activity centers. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All right. Where do we go from here? MS. CACCHIONE: We are on item -- COMMISSIONER OATES: We've got to approve the Future Land Use Element. MS. CACCHIONE: Well, there's just a couple quick items here, just real quick. Item G -- COMMISSIONER OATES: Real, real quick. MS. CACCHIONE: Real quick. We added in the synopsis of the industrial land use study that the DCA had requested. We modified the cnast~ management boundary as Ken Pineau talked to you about, and we ~idn' t h~e a~ll the subdistricts on the map, so we put them all on the maD, and w~ a/so amended a policy that we feel takes care of their concerns w~th uses not being allowed in the ground water protection well filled zones. Page 94 iO[ I September 18, 1997 There were some comments. We addressed them, very briefly I might add, because we are not required to address those. There were three additional changes that we recommended at the staff level that weren't part of the ORC, and the first one was to move Port of the Islands. It is not an overlay. That is just a designation under the urban mixed use. We wanted to move it to the more appropriate location. The wetlands map was supposed to be included as part of the future land use map series, and finally, under Policy 5.1, we neglected to put industrial use in there along with commercial which allows you to modify those types of uses, and our recommendation is that you -- as the action you've taken so far -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Recommend adoption. MS. CACCHIONE: -- recommend adoption, that's exactly it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on anything else in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Seeing none, we'll need a motion and a vote. COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we recon=nend adoption of the FLUE portion subject to all the changes we have discussed here today. MS. CACCHIONE: And that would include the map and the activity center maps? COMMISSIONER OATES: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Endorsed. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Oates. Seconded by Mr. Bruet. Discussion? Ail those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response). 'CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: Just one final motion on the whole thing just to I mean, Mr. -- MS. LAYNE: Mr. Davis, if you'd read the top -- I think if you take that at the top of the agenda. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The top of -- MS. LAYNE: The recommendation to forward to the board. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, if it's in this pile somewhere -- if you would bring that up here, I'd be happy to read it. Up here? MS. LAYNE: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'm going to need a recommendation from one of you -- a motion to recommend to forward to the Board of County Commissioners the proposed 1996/97 Collier County Florida Growth Management Plan amendments in accordance with the adopted evaluation an~ap~raisal report and/or in accordance with BCC directed amendments fo= adoption. COMMISSIONER OATES: So moved. ~S~HMISSIONER BRUET: So moved. ~ DAVIS: A motion by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Bruet. All ~hose in favor? Opposed? Page 95 September 18, 1997 (No response). CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously. We have one item that we've had under new business, LDC, and because both Mr. York and Mr. Thomas have departed, there is a great concern that the architectural standards implementation in the Immokalee community have caused an adverse reaction to businesses locating there, and I think this board might want to consider conveying to the Board of County Commissioners that those standards be relaxed in the Immokalee community until such time that standards for the I-mmokalee commlunity can be developed. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Is there a plan to develop something specifically for Immokalee? MS. CACCHIONE: The way LL=~Lokalee looks, particularly in the south end, has hurt them in attracting business, and we've been doing major efforts at redevelopment and trying to improve those. If we need to look at something that's geared a little bit toward different standards, I think that's -- we can do that, but the problem has been that, for instance, the VR district, which is the worst district you'll see there, has allowed everything; single family, duplex, multi-family, mobile home and commercial. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We are only talking about the architectural standards for commercial? MS. CACCHIONE: I understand. I think it's important that we have those standards in order to help with the redevelopment. If we need to look at those, you know, maybe differently, but I think you need some standards for that area. MS. STUDENT: I'm going to have to tell you, you just can't say we're not applying our ordinance some place and do it. You've got to com~ in with an amendment with something to replace it or repeal it for that area, but you just can't say we are not going to do this ordinance. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I guess the part that makes me wonder is I drive through the Immokalee coa~unity; so little complies to anything. So, we have that at this end of the scale, and all the way at the other end of the scale, we want it to look just like Carillon, and that doesn't make any sense to me. MS. CACCHIONE: I think there is an item in the Immokalee Master Plan that says we will look at doing a zoning overlay. I think our concern is that we make sure we have some basic standards that are workable in the community. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Are we to a point that we can do that or at least start the process? MS. CACCHIONE: I think we can start that process. As soon as we get these shipped off, we can probably be ready to start that. COMMISSIONER OATES: Let's request that then. ~ DAVIS: Okay. C~H~T~,%~IONER BRUET: It seems to be appropriate. I think this is something t/aat requires more than five minutes of quick conversation. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Oh, yeah, yeah, and I know that staff, particularly the ones that are here, are very knowledgeable about the Page 96 16G 1 September 18, 1997 Immokalee co.~unity and understand that there is some dilemmas there, because let's face it, there are things that you treat differently there than you would in the coastal community. I think we all understand that. MS. STUDENT: And -- and that's entirely appropriate. We just have to have -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. MS. STUDENT: -- some understanding of what they are so we have a rational basis for what we do and the differentiation, but it's not something you can just do. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right, we are aware of that, but what we're conveying the support of, we five that are left here today, to start that process. Thank you. Mr. Mulhere. MR. HULHERE: Two things; first of all, with regard to the meeting in two weeks, as I understand it, Mr. Pedone will still be out of the country. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I believe. MR. MULHERE: I believe Mr. Wrage does intend to be here, so I thought I'd just ask to see because with three people abstaining, we need every other planning co~,~uission member at least for that initial petition which will be the Cypress Creek petition -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. MR. MULHERE: -- in attendance, and I just thought I'd ask -- COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm out. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You're going to be here, Rich? COM}{ISSIONERNELSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The three of you are out. I'll be here. -MR. MULHERE: We'll call the others. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Wrage, I assume, intends on being here. Mr. York certainly would be important, and the new member, which theoretically should be Mr. Priddy. MR. ~: Actually, we don't know. There were three -- there will be three potential vacancies. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, yes. COMMISSIONER BUDD: I'm up for re-appointment. CHAI~ DAVIS: Right. I'm going to -- I'm going to -- MR. MULHERE: No, I understand that, but with three vacancies, there's a potential that there might not be az~ abstention. It's okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We'll have to work with it the best we can. I'll convey -- I'll have a discu~sion with Commissioner Hancock so that he's aware that regardless, if they are on for Tuesday, let's get them dome. M~. MULHERE: The other issue was that we have relatively -- I would sa~ relatively minor -men~ents proposed in this cycle, land develoE~e$~ code amendme, ts because we needed to continue some of the more sig~{~.~nt amendments until the EAR process was completed, and so, basic~I~, we are going to bring forward those that are fairly minor in nature in this thin cycle. However, some of those do deal with land use -- cb~ging permitted land uses under our conditional Page 97 September 18, 1997 land uses, therefore, in speaking with Marjorie, the meetings will have to be in the evening. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: But they may not be as long as we're used to. MR. MULHERE: They shouldn't be. They should not be very long at all, maybe an hour or so, but we'll need two evening meetings and then -- at least, that's been your practice. You could have one, but generally, we've had two, and I have some dates. The last time, we did the evening meetings on the opposite Thursdays of your planning com~ission meetings, so it would have been the second and fourth Thursday, and November 13th, Thursday, November 13th, and I think it's Thursday, December 11th or -- I'm sorry, November -- Thursday, November 27th, so, the 13th and the 27th would be the two dates that are available. MS. STUDENT: Excuse me, isn't one of those Thanksgiving? MR. MULHERE: Thanksgiving. Okay. We'd have to go to December. So, maybe we go on the 13th and then the first -- the second Thursday in December, but it all would depend on when the board wishes to have their hearing. So, I just wanted to throw it out as consideration, and I'll speak to Sue Filson to try to get some firm board dates, and then I can report to you at your next meeting. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Does anyone have an objection to us, at least the idea being to continue to do it as we have in the past with the alternate Thursdays? MR. MULHERE: And it may be that we only need one meeting. Marjorie, do you know if they're required -- MS. STUDENT: I don't have the codes here. It's going to take me a minute to look, but we can report back to you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. There being no other business, this meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:10 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MICHAEL A. DAVIS, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRII~T PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING BY: Daw~zeehne Page 98 IOL~ October 2, 1997 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 2, 1997 LET IT BE REMEMB~, that the Collier County Planning Co~Lission in and for the County of Collier having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULr~ SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRPERSON: Mike A. Davis Rich Nelson Russell A. Budd Edward J. Oates, Jr. Russell Priddy Gary Wrage Michael J. Bruet Donald J. York Absent: Michael Pedone (Excused) ALSO PRES~X~T: ~arjorie Student Assistant County Attorney Bob Mulhere Collier County Planning Services Page i AGENDA COI1.Ih-~ COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THUKSDAY, OCTOBER, 2, 1997 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIO~ MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUII.r~ING, COUNTY GO~ ~ 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, EAST NAPLES, FLORIDA: ANY PERSON V, TIO DECIDED TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL Nh-k~ A RECORD OF THE PRYING PERTAINING THERETO, AND TttEREFORE MAY ~ TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PRYINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE ALI. MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD GF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 2. 3. 6. 7. ADDENDA TO THE AGIgNDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Aug. 21. I~7 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES: BCC REPORT CHAIRMAI~ REPORT ADV~.Ki~ PUBLIC HEARINGS: Bo Peiiim No. B~-I9, Domld P. Ricci, Sr., ct' Mam~ Mmn~ ~ r~presmm~ Thomas b~l lift f~lit]r f~ Pt~I~ Izc~ ~ 790 ~ Driv~ ~ d~il~ as Lo~ 14, Block 419, Man:o ~ Uni~ 13. Co . construct a ~ ov~ an existing bont dock and boat IiR fro. property ~ at 350 C, ermam Avennr., fm'R~ dram'lint as Lot 10, Block P, Onnm% V~ Beach Esmm, Unit 2. 1 16G 1 9. LO. l~-tition No. PUD-82-29(3), ~ t,. Dua~ of Hole, Mo~ & Asmciaa~ i~i~ C.C. Naples, Inc., a DeLawa~ C. orpotation and $ohn N. Brugg~, Trnst~ for a r~z~ne from 'PUD' to PUD for the purpose of allowing a confimzmg ca~ refimne~ cc.~n~ty tnclm~ of ~ health car~ living units on Tract 'B" and rr~,g othea' chazg~ to th~ aza:nded PUD whik the v~st ~ of ]~orth T~minmi Trail (U.S. 41N) and cxtzmds west to V~t ~ Petition No. SV-97-1, Eve~Jad~ Private Airboa~ ~ CIVIC Heardan~ rzqzzsfing a v-a~_,~e_ f~nn Section 2.5.5.2.3.10.4 of the LDC for 2 ~ Signs 64 ~ feet eactz and feet high in.~tati~d on ~ parked on the propet~y along U.S. 41, located in Sec~o~ 26 and 27, Township 52 So,-h. Rnng~ 29 East. (CoordiMtm~_. Chnlzram Badamtchian) No P~tition No. CU-9'/-19, MJchaeA J. Corradi requesting ~ Use "I" of th~ "C-3" ~ district for amns=a~ts and re~afi~ s=vi~ (fov-,~- tr. ller, ps~a rugler, aswolo~r, and spizJt~ cxmnselor) for propezzy Ioca~d at 10401 Tnm~.mi Trail North, fuzth~ ck:scfibed as Lot~ 9 & 10, Block 7, Naples Pazk Unit 1, in Section 28, Township 48 Sonth, Rang~ 25 ~ Co~li~- C. our.,W. HorJd~ consisting o[.62 acres. (Coordinator. Chahrnm Badamtchian) Oo locat~t at 401 South Second Strict, hnmoimlee, in Section 4, Townehip 47 South, Ran~ 29 ~ Collier County, Fkzkla, cor~omg of 1.34 acres. (CeoRfinam~. Chahram B~latmchizn) Petition No. CP-97-3, Growth Mana~ Plan ~ for the Fiddlers Crt~ portion Marco Shores FUD/DRI. (Cooutizatot: David Weeks) (Transmit~ I-Ieming) qo Petition No. BD-97-15, let-v/Neff ofTttrre, ll & Associates, Inc., ~ Deiz ~ South, Inc. requesting a 45 fc~ bo~ dock extem~on from the rzquir~d 20 fo~t to allow a boat d~k ~ w~tt 16 dips and llft;__ imm'taring 65 feet into the waterway for property located at 1020 Collier Bcmleva~ Sm~t. fimhez des=fibed at Lot 3, Block587, MazcoBew. hUnit21. (Coordin,xton ~ Bmdammhian) (Continned from ~ 4, 199'0. OLD BUSINI~S NEW BUSINESS DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 10-2-97 CCPC AGENDA/md October 2, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I will call the Collier County Planning Co~,m~ission to order, and begin by congratulating Commissioners Budd and Pedone on their reappointments or resentencing, possibly, to this board. And welcome back our old friend, Mr. Priddy, from Immokalee who has been off for a year, and we are fortunate enough to have him back again. And with that, call the roll. Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Budd. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Here. CT{AIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Bruet. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Davis, here. Mr. York. COMMISSIONER YORK: Here. CHAIP/~AN DAVIS: Hr. Oates. COMMISSIONER OATES: Here. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Pedone is excused. Mr. Wrage. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: ~{ere. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Addenda to the agenda. Anyone have anything? I'm looking at the way our agenda is set up. Item Q and R, when we had continued those items, it was our wish that they be continued to the first items on the agenda. With that in mind, I think we need a motion. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move that we move item Q and R to the first part of the advertised public hearing. COMMISSIONER 0ATES: Second. 'MR. MULHERE: May I make a suggestion? On Q, we're waiting for the county at torn -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: He' s here. MR. MULHERE: He's here. Okay. I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT: I'm going to address that anyway, and then if there' s any questions, he's here. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: As far a.s discussion on that, if we could have R being -- excuse me. Yes, R being the -- COMMISSIONER YORK: First item. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- first item, since, if as we remember, there's only five of us that are able to vote on that, and we have those five here, so before one of us passes out or something, we can get through that item. With that understanding then, I'll -- yes, ma'am. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chairman, I thought that Q was going to come first. It should not be too long, really, the boat dock. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's the one where we have to have the discussion and the county attorney wants to speak with us. MS. STUDENT: All right. Well, I'm going to speak, and then he's '~ez~ if there's any questions that anybody wants to address to him. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, let's leave it that way, then. C0~4ISSIONER 0ATES: Mr. Chairman, when the motion was made to continue R, it was made that it would be the first item on the agenda. Page 2 October 2, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. But I ~hinkwhat's going to happen with Q is there's going to be a discussion, and we're probably not going to do anything with it, I'm guessing. So we'll leave the motion intact. ~1 ~ho~e in favor signify by saying aye. O~Dosed? COMMISSIONER OATES: No. CHAI~ DAVIS: It carries. Let's see two, four, six -- seven to one. : MR. MULKERE: Mr. Chairman, one otller addenda -- addendum. Just wanted to have a discussion on dates for LDC hearings at the end of the meeting. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COURT REPORTER: Mr. Chairman, on that last motion the second was ~y -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Oates, I'm sorry. Ail right. A~proval of minutes. COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move for the approval of minutes of August 21st. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion of approval by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Bruet. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And I'm not going to vote on that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Since you weren't present at that meeting? COM~tISSIO~ER PRIDDY: Right. Since I wasn't present. CHAIRM~%N DAVIS: Okay. Ail those in favor signify by saying aye. That carries unanimously with the exception of Mr. Priddy who abstained. Planning Commission absences. ' -COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be gone the second meeting in November, the first meeting in December, and two meetings, I think, in February. And it's my um_derstanding that Kensington is going to file or has failed a PUD amendment, and I'd make a request now that if those ha~en to come up before the board when I'm not going to be here, I'd like to be here when they are heard as we did for Mr. Nelson before, because I live next door to Kensington. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there an objection to that request by Mr. Oates? Hearing none, staff will duly note that. I'm going to be missing the next meeting. I'm going to be up in north Georgia watching the leaves turn beautiful colors. COMMISSIONER YORK: I'll missing the next meeting, too. I'll be in Greece. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: How do you-all get work like this? C~ DAVIS: So~ehow Greece sounds a lot better than Georgia. With that, we'll move over to BCC re~ort. Anything of note? MR. ~: No, Mr. Chair~a~, not at this time. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. And w~'re passing around a letter that I had received from Mr. Bruce Anderson concerning the repeal of the Twin Eagles PUD. I thought -- I wasn't sure if everyone else got a coUy 'Page 3 October 2, 1997 and it was something -- it was in the paper this morning but something I thought that you-all would like to read. You noticed in your packet there's a letter from the chairman of the Lee County Planning Commission and a response from me representing this board, the discussion ongoing about a joint meeting with the Lee County Planning Co~,~ission as we did a couple years ago which was a -- which was a good exercise. I think we learned a lot and hoping to do that, as you saw in the letter, possibly later in the year, early next year; so I'll keep you posted on that. COMMISSIONER YORK: Do you have any idea when that will be, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Not at this ~,~int. He alludes to getting back with me later this fall. I'm guessing it will probably be after the first of the year. COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. Thank you. CHAI~ DAVIS: The only other thing that we had today, this being our first meeting of the appointed year, if you will, was election of officers, and I'd ask what your pleasure is, to do that now before we get into our public hearings or to wait till the end of the agenda today? COMMISSIONER OATES: No. I think we ought to do it now, Your Chairmanship. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If you're accepting nominations, Mr. Chairman, I'm ready. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. I'll recognize you, Mr. Priddy. COmmISSIONER PRIDDY: I'd like to nominate Mike Davis as chairman, Mike Bruet as vice-chairman, and Rich Nelson as secretary. 'COMMISSIONER OATES: I would second that motion. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No res~nse.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER OATES: Congratulations. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Congratulations or condolences. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: If you'll wait just a second, I'll move. Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that the Immokalee contingent is the bookends of thi~ organization now. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: We get no respect. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. And with that, that brings us to our first advertised public hearing, item Q, Petition BD-97-15, Dela Park South, Incorporated. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. It is the position of the County Attorney's Office that the · L~n~ng Commission doesn't have -- now have the authority to hear dis item, and this is because of provisions in the charter -- the W~rco Island charter which was approved by the voters on August 28th, giving Marco the status of cityhood. As you recall, there's a rather convoluted history to this boat Page 4 16G 1 October 2, 1997 dock, which was approved by the Planning Commission in July. And after -- before the application was filed, land code amendments were in process to change the criteria for the granting of the boat dock. Then the application was filed, and the matter was heard by the Planning Commission not long after the LDC crm .erla for boat dock extensions changed, and due to an error, the petition was analyzed under an incorrect set of criteria. Two appeals were filed after the Planning Commission heard this matter, and as a basis for both of those appeals -- at least one of the basis was the fact that incorrect criteria were utilized. So at the advice of this office and in talking with the then attorney for the petitioner, he agreed to just go ahead and have the petition reheard by the Planning Commission utilizing the correct criteria. Subsequent to that, the cityhood for Marco was approved and so that gives us this convoluted set of facts that we have to deal with. But nevertheless, the charter provides that the land development regulations for Marco Island are -- are LDRs and codes and so forth as they exist on August 28th, and there's language in there that says in any variances thereto. It is our position that that term "variance' doesn't just mean the strip type of variance that we find as is provided for in Section 2735 of the land code, but particular with the use of the word 'thereto", that would mean any type of change to -- to the code in the sense that some kind of variance or change were being granted. And as you know, boat dock extensions you can obtain if you go out a certain amount of feet as a matter of right. After that you have to come to this body if you -- and can be granted, an extension beyond that, if you meet certain criteria. -So it works very much like a variance, and it is our position that that term "variance" is there to mean any changes of that nature to the code. So -- and also this is bolstered by a provision in the Marco Island charter that vests the power in the city council and in the city of the powers that our Plan~ing Commission has and our Board of County Coum, issioners and Board of Zoning Appeals. So for those reasons, it is our conclusion that this matter cannot be heard by the Planning Commission today and that the old approval is alive and that that appeal that has been filed with our Board of County Co~m,issioners will be forwarded to the Marco Island city council to hear that appeal from your decision of July the 17th, because that power is now vested in the City of Marco. And Mr. Weigel and I discussed this at length, and he's here'if I've left anything out to provide any clarification or -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Let me ask a question to see if I understand what you've told us, that the action we took previously is alive -- MS. STUDENT: Yes. The reason that we decided to -- we felt that if the appeal -- there's another point to this. Had it not been for the Marco Island cityhood -- had the appeal gone to the Board of County Commissioners, they very likely would have said, well, this is the incorrect criteria we used and just remanded it back to the Planning Coa=,~ission to hear it under the correct criteria. Page 5 October 2, 1997 So what were trying to do -- my office and in talking with attorneys for the petitioner -- was, well, we know there's a problem, so let's just have the Planning Commission hear it without taking that step of taking it to the board and then having them send it back to you, to try and, you know, speed things along since we recognized that an error, in fact, had been made. And, of course, after that the Marco Island cityhood was approved, and that kind of, you know, changed things a bit. But nevertheless, after the city -- Marco Island cityhood was approved, with our advertising requirements and filing requirements for the appeal, that couldn't have been heard until September by -- this is the appeal from the original decision -- by the board until Sept-~ber, and that would have been after that bright-line day, if you will, of August the 28th, and so that would have to have go on to -- that appeal would have to go on to Marco even if none of this other none of these other procedures had or the new application had been processed and started for this hearing today; so it doesn't really change the result. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: If we take your advice, what sort of motion would that constitute, then, on behalf of this board, if any? MS. STUDENT: Okay. Let me think a minute. I think that you would just move that you are not going to hear it -- excuse me. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Weigel. MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. She's in the right direction. Excuse me. David Weigel, County Attorney. The action -- what we're telling you sin~Dly is this, that with the affirmative vote approving the charter for the City of Marco, that all functions coming from the Land Development Code that would come before you or the Board of County Commissioners, our legal advise to you is that you do not have the jurisdiction to hear these things, that they will automatically per force go over to the city council of Marco Island when and if they have a city council elected and in place. But it's purely a jurisdictional statement that we are telling you that you no longer have, nor does the Board of County Commissioners have the jurisdiction to hear these kinds of matters. These are -- the matters that come before the Planning Commission and the matters that come to the board, whether as a first hearing basis or in an auDellate situation, are no longer the province of these two boards when they pertain to Marco Island. Only the decisions that are administrative of nature and don't rise to the level of a hearing before you or the Board of County Commissioners are going to be administered and handled by the county staff, and that's as simple as it gets. Although the facts are somewhat convoluted and it took us a significant amount of time to come to this determination, we now feel very comfortable with this determination, and it is not a cue-by-case basis before you in regard to matters of Marco Island. It is our legal advice to you that all of these things are not within the jurisdiction for you to hear at the present time. Now, Mr. Davis, your question as to what do you as a commission then do with these items, I think that you can take a motion. It's Page 6 16G 1' October 2, 1997 not necessarily the only type of action that has to be taken. I think as a matter of law these things are going to go over to the City of Marco. But if you wish to take a motion directing staff to assist this conm%ission that all matters before you affecting Marco Island that are on today's agenda, and when you get past this particular agenda item, other agendas in the future, you may direct staff by a motion, appropriately, that these matters are to be recognized on your record as going to the City of Marco Island, the city council, and that staff will assist you in making sure that this is done in a timely and appropriate manner so that the property owners that have petitions before you are not harmed in any way other than the fact that there is a law in effect that has to be recognized, and that's the city charter for Marco Island. COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I would make the motion suggested by Mr. Weigel. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I would just add one -- I'm sorry. There was a motion made by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Budd. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Chai~, before you vote, I think there's some people that just wish to address this issue, not the substance of the petition, but the merits of this issue. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: And I only wondered if Mr. Weigel agrees to add one additional comment to that motion, and that is -- and this is for clarification. The continuances, until they are heard by the Marco Island city council, I think could also be altered so that if the Marco Island city council decides that we should hear them again -- in other words, the county planning commission, they could come back to us'ahd then they would then make the final determination. But they're going to be required to put a planning advisory co~=,~ittee together, and before they do that or to. speed things up, they may decide to revert it back to us for the usual decision-making or advisory role. COMMISSIONE~ YORK: That sounds too convoluted. It's either we are or we aren't. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Well, I was only clarifying that we aren't until they send it back to us. CHAIRMAN DA%~IS: In other words, you're saying that, I guess, include that if they so desire, make ourselves available as an advisory board for them until such time as they appoint their own? COMMISSIONER NELSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairm~, I think Mr. Weigel has already told us that we don't have any jurisdiction. So, I mean, anything that we would do would be an effort in futility. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, I su~ose if that situation arose, it becomes a separate issue by itself. But if they asked us to do that for them, you know, it could be discussed and a decision made. MR. WEIGEL: Even the charter itself indicates that things of this nature, that is the carrying on of government when positions and offices are not in place with Marco, shall be done by interlocal agreement. And I expect that that will be an action of the city council of Marco to make overtures to the county for an interlocal Page 7 '6G 1 " October 2, 1997 agreement, both with the Planning Commission aspects, if any, as well as board and other staff aspects that will come into play. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Pickworth. MR. PICKWORTH: Yes. Mr. Chairman, members of the co~,u~ission, I'm Don Pickworth. I'm now the attorney for Dela Park South. I just have two or three very brief comments to make. You've been advised by your County Attorney that you no longer have jurisdiction and -- and I respectfully understand that you will follow that advice. I do want, however, just to put a couple statements on the record, and then I'm done. One is that I do not agree with that advice.' I do not agree that you are divested of jurisdiction in this instance. And the other thing is I want the record to reflect that I -- you know, our position is that the dock permit that was approved in July was -- was properly and fully approved and that there should never have been a rehearing in the first place. Obviously, there is not today a forum to raise these issues and discuss this so, you know, when and if it's determined where and how and who hears all of these objections, we'll make that. I mean, I understand the attorney's advice is that that is not for your board to decide at this point, but I just wanted that statement to be part of the record that goes to whoever it is that does make this decision at some point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Pickworth. Mr. Saunders. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Burr Saunders with Woodward, Pires & Lombardo, and we are representing one of the adjoining property owners. And Kim Kobza is also here representing some property owners in Dela Park. Just real briefly for the ~ecord, I don't at all disagree with the conclusion of the County Attorney. I understand that it does create somewhat of a problem, but we'll work through that. One issue that I think just needs to be addressed real quickly is the issue of the appeal that is pending right now. We're not sure -- I'm not sure what the legal status of that appeal is or that earlier finding of the Planning Commission. I have advised the County Attorney and Mr. Pickworth that I'll work with them in getting that to some forum for resolution of what that prior decision really means. We're not suggesting that that was a valid decision by the Planning Commission, but we will expedite trying to get that heard by some entity to resolve that issue. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Okay. With that additional input, anyone have any questions or discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. It would seem -- it would seem then that item B on our agenda, BD-97-19, which is a boat dock extension request on Marco Island, we would want to similarly deal with at this time. COMMISSIONER 0ATES: Item B or D? Pa~e 8 October 2, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Item B. COMMISSIONER OATES: B. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: B as in boy. COMMISSIONERYORK: Mr. Chairman, I would move that Item B be deleted from the agenda and forwarded to the City of Marco for Jurisdiction. COMMISSIONER OATES: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: A motion by Mr. York, seconded by Mr. Oates. Discussion? All the~e in favor signify by saying aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously, which brings us to Item R, Petition No. PUD-97-11. Mr. Milk. COMMISSIONER 0ATES: Mr. Chairman, I must recuse myself from discussion on this as my spouse is a 25-percent partner in Barron Collier Partnerships. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I'll also have to recuse myself. My company has a contract for the construction of the Tyton-Hillerman manufacturing plant should this be approved. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I also must recuse myself and to Collier Enterprises and Barton Collier companies have various business interests, so I'll have to recuse myself. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. And let the record show that that leaves five to vote on this issue, which is a quorum. COmmISSIONER YORK: When the going gets tough, the tough get going; is that it? C~2tT-~4ANDAVIS: Something like that, yes. "COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Can you-all go get coffee and doughnuts? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: With that, I would ask everyone present in the room today that may want to speak on this issue to please stand and raise your right hand so the court reporter may swear you in. (The sl~emkers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'd ask each of you later when you do come forward to speak, when you state your name for the record, to also state whether or not you've been sworn. Mr. Milk. MR. MILK: Good morning. For the record my name is Bry-n Milk, -nd I -m presenting Petition PUD-97-11. The petitioner is requesting a rezone from industrial -nd agricultural to PUD in order to establish a business commerce Dark consisting of business services, professional --d m ed/cai offices, warehousing, wholesale distribution of products and light manufacturing. The subject property is approximately 108 acres in size and is located at the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road and Immokalme Road. Approximately 39 acres of the project is Located at the southeast intersection. The project -- the property in ~ particular quadrant is zoned industrial today. It received a com~&~ibility exem~tion in 1990 d~ring the zoning reevaluation process, so it exists as industrial property. The property itself is undeveloped and is forested at this time. Property to the east -- or to the west of ~oodlette-Frank Road is also Page 9 October 2, 1997 zoned industrial and agricultural. The industrial property is a~proximately 15 acres. It's developed with a packing house. The remainder of the agricultural property is used for active farmland production. This is approximately 69 acres on the western quadrant. The master plan provides for two land use categories. One would be B for the business category, and the other would be the IC, industrial commerce, area. The business areas of the project are adjacent to Ia~,okatee Road. They provide for a hundred and fifty thousand square feet of office space and forty thousand square feet of retail uses. This area within this intersection is within one quarter mile of the North Collier Hospital which provides the ability for medical and professional offices related to the hospital. You will see in the business part land use areas the availability for medical offices and professional offices relating to health services. The maximum building heights in this area are 50 feet. One-quarter of a mile away from this intersection the building heights are limited to 35 feet. These areas in the B district are required to satisfy the architectural and site design guidelines of Division 2.8 of the Land Develoument Code architectural design guideline standards. The remainder of the property is going to be used for the industrial commerce area. There's an availability for 620,000 square feet of business services, corporate headquarters, light manufacturing, and wholesale distribution of products. The maximum height in this area is 35 feet for all buildings. The master plan as indicated is a unified master plan providing for unified architectural design guidelines, landscaping, signage. And the roadway cross-sections -- there's three provided. Each of the cros~-sections are very similar to the cross-sections provided for in the Land Development Code. Each of the cross-sections provide pedestrian sidewalks, a minimum access driveway of 24 feet, curb and gutter, landscaped right-of-way, pedestrian ways, and unified street lighting. That has been looked at and approved by our transportation engineer. The project provides access from L~okalee Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. The project provides for a 20-foot landscaped buffer along Immokalee Road and a 20-foot landscaped buffer along Goodlette-Frank Road. The petitioner has also, in that landscape buffer on Goodlette-Frank Road, has provided a 3-foot berm and a 5-foot opaque hedge on top of that along with tree plantings placed every 25 feet. Trees will be planted with a maximum -- at a minimum height of 12 feet with a 6-foot spread. So what you'll have along that corridor is an opaque landscaped buffer along Goodlette-Frank Road. Each of the buildings in the industrial IC area that front an interior or exterior roadway will have to have a facade that is made up of a masonry type product. Corrugated metal or aluminum facades are prohibited in the PUD. The project also provides for -- along Goodlette-Frank Road, if there is a project which fronts Goodlette-Frank, they can use a combination of the 3-foot berm, hedge, and tree scape or somewhat Page 10 October 2, 1997 modify that to the requirements of the buffering along this area (indicating) and increase the agricultural design guidelines very similar to Division 2.8. So there is somewhat of a flexibility there. Based on the corporate signature, if somebody wants to be seen from Goodlette-Frank Road, then they have to comply with agricultural design guidelines for that facade on the roadway. The project is consistent with the Collier County Future Land Use Element and Growth:Management Plan. The project does exceed five percent of the level of service C design capacity. Level of service C is 36,000 trips. Five percent would be 1800 trips. This project is going to provide on the roadways a~proximately thirteen to fourteen thousand trips. Five percent of that is a~proximately 4,000 trips. It is estimated through our traffic review that 30 percent of the trips are going to head west on I~okalee Road, 30 percent are going to be heading south, and 40 percent are going to be headed east. Immokalee Road currently is operating at a level of service B. It is a~roximately 30,000 trips on that particular roadway today. It's a four-lane divided highway -- or collector arterial road. Goodlette-Frank Road currently operates at a level of service A with a~roximately 12,000 trips. In the county's five-year road impact improvement plan, Goodlette-Frank Road in the next three years will be updated to a four-lane facility. U. S. 41 north of Immokalee Road will be updated to a six-lane facility. Immokalee Road from 1-75 to 951 will be upgraded to a four-lane facility. In the next two years, it's projected that Livingston Road north from I~u,okalee Road to Bonita Beach Road will be a four-lane -- or a two-lane facility through private donation or in the next five-year work program with the county, it will build a road if the private folk~ don't. And with the conclusion of Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, the project will not -- and it's concluded based on all this analysis --d traffic patterns and circulation that it will not exceed or impact the level of service D standard for the roadways in the radius of develoument influence around the particular project location. Therefore, the conclusion is the project will not have to be phased and no further mitigation besides signalization, geometry, median cuts, and decel and accel lanes be provided along with arterial level street lighting at all project entrances. That was concluded based on the traffic impact statement, based on traffic review, analysis of the five-year work schedule for improvements. Staff has not received any letters of objection on the project as it stands today. If I can answer any questions at this time, I'd be happy to do so. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. York. COMMISSIONER YORK: Bryan, the planned buffering, are those -- do the~ start at future right-of-way? In other words, we're going to be ~~g Goodlette to four lanes. Does that buffering start from the Di~ four lanes? MR. MILK: It's going to be at the property line internally. COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. MR. MILK: So it's on-site buffering per project. Page 11 October 2, 1997 COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Bryan, this looks like a very, very upscale business industrial park. Do we have anything in the county that approaches -- that's -- that's available today that approaches this quality of development? HR. MILK: By virtue of what the development regulations call for, no, sir. It's an upscale from all the hybrids here, Trade Center Way, Horseshoe Drive, that sort of thing. And I say that because of the integrated architectural design criteria, the signage criteria, the sidewalk criteria, the rights-of-way criteria, and the unified landscaping plans, so it will be a hybrid. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have one other question, and I don't know if it's appropriate for you or for the petitioner, but there was some -- some rumor, some talk, some articles in the paper in the past that there was going to be a mega commercial mall, shopping center located in or on part of this property. What -- what part of this development flows over into the property that was slated for -- for a mall? HR. MILK: Approximately 70 acres. Everything to the west of Goodlette-Frank and south of Lmmokalee -- the mega mall included everything from U.S. 41 east to Goodlette-Frank south of Immokalee. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And that project, Mr. Varnadoe (sic), was maybe two or three hundred acres? HR. MILK: A hundred and sixty acres, two point one million square feet of retail, hotel/motel, outparcels -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. So then is taking maybe 40 percent of -- HR. MILK: It's taking exactly half. ' -COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Exactly half. Okay. HR. MILK: Of that area. What's left out of that is the intersection at U.S. 41 and Immokalee Road. There's a 40-acre interchange activity center, and then there's a 20-acre agricultural piece left in between. That's the remainder. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Additional questions? Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Just one. Bryan, your analysis of the traffic was on an average daily basis? MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Is there any reason to look at it from a peak traffic flow basis? In other words -- HR. MILK: We looked at it from a peak season daily traffic, the background traffic, the passerby traffic, and the daily traffic. I interpolated that all into a, quote, 13,300 trips per day average, 30 percent going west, 30 south, and 40 east. Because of that, it does exceed the 5 percent level of service C designed for the roadways. It ~%es not drop below the level of service D capacity which is a policy s~ement in the Future Land Use Element for roads within that radius of dsvelopment influence. That's very critical, because if it does, then we have to phase or mitigate the project. COMMISSIONER NELSON: And just for clarification, that's on an · Page 12 " ' ' 16G 1 October 2, 1997 average daily compilation of the data? MR. MILK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Are there periods of whatever length when it does fall below level D? MR. MILK: No, sir. And that was all taken into consideration in this review. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of staff? Mr. Priddy. COMMISSION:PRIDDY: One other question. Bryan, the potential traffic impact under the original scenario of a mega mall in relation to this, this has got to be much, much, much better? Much less? MR. MILK: The scale of intensity is probably four or five times less -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. MR. MILK: -- from a traffic stan~>oint. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Before we recognize ~he petitioner, we need to do some disclosures, at least I do. I had a meeting with Mr. Varnadoe where we discussed and went over t. he site plan that's on the wall, and I also had a phone conversation with Mr. Mark Morton to answer some questions ~hat I had about the project. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I had a phone conversation with ~. Varnadoe, but it centered around a welcome back more so than it did the merits of the project. COMMISSIONER YORK: I had a brief discussion with Mr. Varnadoe in my office regarding this. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Seeing no one else -- MR. VARNADOE: My name is George Var~adoe, attorney for uhe ~etitioner, Barton Collier Partnership, and representing the project, Cr~ekside Comerce Park. Also here today on behalf of the Barton Collier Partnership, Allen Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek. Wilson, Miller, Barton and Peek are the engineers and planners in the project, and Hr. Rey~ol~ will be discussing the planning aspects of the project, consistencywith the Growth Management Plan, and some of the neat features of the plan which you have already heard from your staff. Also, Bill Oliver of Turndale, Oliver and Associates, the transportation consultant, is here to answer any questions you might have on transportation, although I think staff has pretty we11 covered those. Also I'd like to have Ruth Ayres, director of operations for T~on-Hellerman, give you a brief presentation on their company. Unlike most of the zoning you hear, we actually have a couple of tenants that are going into the project. We can identify who they are and where they're going to be, and I thought t3mat since this is the t-~p~ of ~et industry we're trying to attract to the county, retain in the county, I thought you might want to hear a few words from her, ii I can prevail upon you for ~hat. ~&X~NDAVIS: You havebeen sworn, Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VMUtaDOE: That is co=rect. MR. VA~/~ADOE: Before I begin, I want to t. hank your staff for ~heir diligent A~d ex~editious handling of ~his ~etition, particularly PaGe 13 16'G 1' October 2, 1997 M~. Milk who has helped us refine the landscaping and the signage standards to improve the product. He has represented the county well and squeezed us so that we, I think, have a very nice buffered project. The proposal, as you heard, is to rezone this property to PUD, and I'll describe the overall use as an upscale business or commerce park. And let me tell you what it is and what it isn't, because we've had some confusion on that. What it is is a master planned community for business. Just as for years you have reviewed master planned communities, residential communities, Pelican Bay, Vineyards, Collier's Reserve, whatever they are, seen the standards they've had for architectural control, lighting, access ways, both pedestrian and vehicular, now we're moving into the same realm as far as business or co~%erce parks are concerned. And this may be the first one that you've seen that has all of those elements in it. It is a project that provides for a planned integration, as you've heard, of white industrial office, medical office, business services, institutional and government facilities, financial and support retail uses in a controlled environment. It is not smoke stack industry. It is not traditional heavy industry or outdoor uses. It's not factories. It is a project that'll provide an opportunity for the economic development and diversification which Collier County has been trying to achieve. It's an evolutionary how this project came about, and Mr. Priddy kind of eluded to it. As you remember, all the lands west of Goodlette-Frank Road bordered by I~anokalee Road and U.S. 41 in the Pelican Marsh project were part of the DRI application for a mall. I'll not use the word 'meg-a mall," but for a mall with about 1.2 million square feet of retail commercial. At the same time Barron Collier had an interest in developinc the 39 or 38.9 acres east of Goodlette Road which was zoned industrial and is zoned industrial. The -- and, of course, as you heard, the 18-plus-or-minus acres west of Goodlette Road that fronts on Goodlette Road is also zoned industrial. About this same period EDC contacted me as a land use attorney and said where can we satisfy the needs and demands to put high tech, low impact businesses and industries in this county. We have some that are looking around to expand. They want to be in an upscale park. They're talking about going to Lee County. We have others who are talking about coming to Collier County, and we don't have any place to put them. So not being a rocket scientist, but understanding the two, I put the EDC together with Barton Collier, and we started talking about the opportunities to do this. It soon became apparent that the 57 acres that's divided by Goodlette-Frank Road really wasn't sufficient in terms of area to ~e~te a sense of place, a business park, just didn't have enough room to do ~ke things you needed to do to be able to spend the kind of money for the common si~nage for the landscaping, the agricultural controls, for the covenants, conditions, and restrictions to really restrict what was going on in there to make it the kind of park that Page 14 October 2, 1997 we wanted to make it. So it started expanding. And this soon evolved into the proposal you see here today, and as Mr. Priddy points out, there's a~proximately 70 acres west of Goodlette-Frank Road. Since there isn't room for this expanded project and the mall, this expansion of this project, if approved, will doom the mall, and the mall will not go forward. Right now the mall's on hold with the DRI process. I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Reynolds here ,-ery quickly to describe to you the planning aspect. But before I do, I'm afraid I'm going to have to reserve some time to respond to objections or criticism you might hear regarding this project. Most of these, if not all, come out of the Collier's Reserve project which is identified up in this area (indicating). Although we've met with them on three times, we have not been able to satisfy their concerns. And perhaps you can understand why we can't if I tell you that their first three agenda items, which were put to us in writing by their attorney, were limitation of any industrial use to that area east of Goodlette-Frank Road, elimination of any access on Immokalee Road west of Goodlette-Frank Road and their right of a~oroval over any industrial uses that are in the currently zoned industrial property. We have made some substantial changes to try to address some of the concerns, particularly their access concerns. We eliminated some of the uses in the PUD, which Mr. Reynolds will go over. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Varnadoe, if I understand correctly, the southeast and southwest corners of Goodlette-Frank and Immokalee are right now zoned industrial? MR. VARNADOE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So you could go put an industrial building ther~ today without being here? MR. VARNADOE: That's correct, 57 acres. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And yet there's some concerns about the project from an industrial standpoint? MR. VARNADOE: I'd rather let them talk to that, but I think that's their main concern, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Reynolds. MR. REYNOLDS: Good morning. I'm Allen Reynolds. I'm executive vice president of Wilson Miller and the principal planner on this project and pleased to be here today. This has been an enjoyable experience for me in working on this project, both from the standpoint of being able to use some of the master planning techniques that we've used in a lot of master planned communities on a business park, and also from the standpoint of having been and continuing to be involved with the Economic Development Council and seeing the momentum that we have developed in this co~mLunity towards diversification of our economy and finding a place that we can house some of our targeted uses, so it's -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Reynolds, if I can interrupt, you have been sworn? MR. REYNO~S: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Page 15 October 2, 1997 MR. REYNOLDS: The location and surrounding uses I think Bryan has covered that very well, and I think the aerial photo that's up on the board that George referred to is the best illustration of how this project fits into the context of North Naples. I know the projects that had been identified -- and you can see on that board in addition to Collier's Reserve that has been identified, the River Chase shopping center which you see up on the aerial in the red color, and some undeveloped commercial tracts that front Immokalee Road that are part of the Collier Tract 22 DRI, which extend all the way over to the North Collier Hospital site. And some of the office uses that are included adjacent to the North Collier Hospital, you can see that in the pink color. As you go further to the south, you see the Pelican March community and the green, which is the Bay Colony golf course within Pelican Marsh. East of Goodlette-Frank Road you see an orange, the North Collier wastewater treatment plant site. And the circle that you see there is the quarter-mile radius that extends around the hospital site which allows for medically related types of uses to occur, and you have several projects that have taken advantage of that in their zoning. And, of course, the Creekside Co~m,erce Park that sits in the middle of all that. George has identified that we've got 57 acres today of zoned industrial use. You might want to compare that to the 44 acres of industrial co~ercial development tracts within the project as it's planned, which actually is less than what we have zoned right now for industrial use. The reason for that, as you'll see when we get into the plan, is that we have an extensive amount of open space and a preserve area in addition to the business uses within the project. -The board that's to my right and your left is the proposed PUD master plan. What are the characteristics of a co~,=,,erce park as we have planned it that make it different from perhaps what you have seen in the past in our community? First of all, the emphasis is obviously towards an u~scale type of a use. Because you're going to be mixing a variety of businesses, offices, financial institutions, retail services and light manufacturing uses in the same park, it's important that all those uses are compatible with each other so that you don't wind up detrimentally impacting some of your interior uses. So to that end, a lot of the techniques that we use as far as the configurations of the parcels, the buffering, the design guidelines that Bryan has identified are all employed so that you wind up with compatibility between all those uses. The types of things that we use are very similar to what you've heard in a lot of master planned communities starting with amenitization. In a business park such as this, it's important to provide sites that have amenities servicing them. In the case of a business park, those amenities are lake frontage, preserve frontage, th~ kinds of landscape treatments, sidewalks within the park, green ~lma~es, common signage, lighting, all of those elements that oftentimes you do not find in a more traditional old-style industrial ~mrk. Underground utilities, everything is centralized, central storm water management systems. And you can probably recall from past Page 16 lob i October 2, 1997 experience the costs of going back and retrofitting old industrial parks in Collier County to provide centralized storm water management, as a for instance. Ail those kinds of things are planned up front when we're designing the park. The plan itself does allow for two districts. And you can see on the board the pink -- the business district bas been configured along the frontages of the road. That was done for a couple of reasons. First of all, those uses tend to function better with that exposure to the arterial road system. But also, if you look at the aerial photo, you'll see that we have similar types of uses across the street. Particularly on Immokalee Road the entire frontage of the Collier's Reserve tract and the North Collier Hospital are similar types of uses to that business district. They are offices. They are small scale retail, so compatibility is enhanced when we put those uses across from each other. The orange color, then, is the IC district that has been described. Access to the project. Two primary accesses: one -- actually two on Immokalee Road, the primary access on the west where you can see on the drawing where the star is located across from the entrance to Collier's Reserve. The primary access to the east is located across from the access into North Collier Hospital. And then the primary access on Goodlette-Frank Road is located right here (indicating). And what we do in the design of the project -- again, like a master planned community, we create the internal collector road system so that all the sites are serviced from the internal network. That, in design, also has the benefit of allowing users within the park to circulate to other users so that you reduce the off-site impacts, you capture those trips on site. And the mix of uses that we put %n is intended to provide services and facilities to the employees of the businesses. For example, we will try to have restaurant type uses in the [~urk so that employees can go at lunchtime to a restaurant within the ~mrk and not have to exit on the external street syste~%. Access ~mnagement guidelines. As you know, Collier County has extensive requirements as far as separations of accesses, and the project has been designed to be consistent with your access management guidelines and spacing criteria. Let me talk a little bit further or give you maybe a better illustration of how the amenities that we designed will have the external affect on the project. The board I just put up shows the view into the main entry on Ium%okalee Road that aligns with Collier's Reserve. If you were standing at the Collier's Reserve entry looking south, this is the diagram of how that will look from an eye-level perspective. What you can see in the drawing is first of all a boulevard entrance. You see some low walls that have the signage that are integrated into that entry feature. You have landscape featuxes, canopy trees, and low hedges. You have a lake at the entry and, again, if I go back to this board for a second, looking right here -- you're looking right here south, and you can see the lake and the preserve area in the entry, and that's located right here (indicating). You can see the lake. So the point being is that the visual appearance of the park from Page 17 16G' l October 2, 1997 the external roadway is very similar to what you would see in a master planned community. You don't have the buildings pushed right up to the entryway. You have them set back. And, in fact, you probably can't see it very well but behind the trees and the signage on the left side of this drawing is the post office that would be the building, the IC building that would be closest to that entry screened out by landscaping materials so that you can Just see it through that entry feature. The next thing that we do in the PUD -- and I won't get into all the details of this, they're rather extensive. But the design standards that we built into the PUD are enhanced from what you require in a traditional zoning district or Land Development Code requirement. Such things as minimum building sites, in the case of this park, 20,000 square feet as a minimum. Almost half an acre is the minimum parcel size that we can have, and in the case of a lot of our uses, those parcels are substantially larger than that. The maximum height, as Bryan had described, 35 height -- foot height limitation that we have throughout the park with the exception of the area that's within the hospital zone. Thirty-five feet is the same height that you use as a maximum in your single-family districts. That's the lowest height level that -- requirement that you have in Collier County. That helps to reduce the scale of the uses and obviously enhances the compatibility of the project. Our front yards are double what you would typically find, 50 feet. Our floor area ratio is a -- is a technique we have put in the PUD. It's something that's starting to become more used in Collier County as a limiting criteria for the bulk of buildings. In the case of this commerce park, that ratio is .35. It applies to all the uses within the park, so that means 3500 square feet of building on 10,000 square foot lot is -- cannot be exceeded. And I can tell you that's a very low ratio as would be compared to a more traditional type of a development or commercial type of development. The co~,,,,ercial architectural design guidelines, which just won an award, as a matter of fact, from Florida APA, are applied to the commercial uses within the project. And as Bryan indicated, we have also put some design guidelines in for the IC uses, even though those are not -- do not fall under your architectural design guidelines for commercial uses, but we've added some standards in the PUD for those uses as well. A few other things, outdoor storage. There are screening requirements, a 7-foot high opaque screening. There are no allowances. for any exterior processing or manufacturing type uses. Those all have to occur within closed buildings. And, again, if you've looked at the document -- I won't go through it in detail, but I'll tell you that we have some six pages of design guidelines in the PUD that I think go well beyond anything that you've seen in any previous project ~f %~/s type. r want to spend Just a second on the compatibility issue, because that's an important consideration and one that I think you're going to hear some co~a,~ent about is how this park is, in fact, compatible with it's surrounding uses. Page 18 October 2, 1997 First of all, by creating the two land use districts in the project, we have put like uses across from like, particularly on T~okalee Road. We have restricted the uses substantially in the park from what your -- what your industrial zoning district allows. And, in fact, we have a handout, if I could ask Anita to give that to you. We have -- up front we came in, and we took that district, and we cut out a whole bunch of uses that might have the potential to be perceived as incomPatible in a business park. And I'll just -- you can use that as a reference to see the kinds of things that we have pulled out at the front end. Now, in addition to the things that we control as far as the development standards, the limitations of uses, it's important to also know that the surrounding projects have also addressed the com~atibility issue, because that's something that they had to deal with when they were planning their projects. I was the principal planner on the Pelican Marsh community, and I can tell you that the design of that community anticipated that on this piece of property there would be a more intensive use. At that time it was contemplated to be the mall, and because of that, the design of Pelican Marsh put the golf course along that northern perimeter as well as constructed some rather high and well landscaped berms and buffers. You have a minimum of 300 feet, and in some cases far greater than that, of green space along our southern boundary that was designed to protect and enhance compatibility to Pelican Marsh. Similarly, the Collier's Reserve planning, they had put their commercial uses out front which act not only to buffer their project from our use but, in fact, and, I think more importantly, buffer their project from the road which really is the most intense kind of use tha~ you normally have to buffer with a residential community. So the residential uses are set back in the case of Collier's Reserve 600 feet from I~u,okalee Road with commercial uses and ther golf courses. So the pattern that has developed around this, we're actually like an infill within that north Collier community, and it was because of good planning on other projects that compatibility is enhanced externally. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, I'd like to touch on just briefly, because there is a number of different provisions in the Collier County Com4~rehensive Plan that apply to this project. When you take them all together, the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Those include the provision with respect to the medical uses around the hospital. There is a provision in the comprehensive plan that allows industrial expansion subject to a set of four criteria wh.'.~h include the requirement that the rezoning be in the form of a PUD, .hat you have central utilities and other requirements that N~= meet. So the project is consistent completely with your current comDrehensive plan. You will also recall that during the EAR process, I had promoted a business park district within the plan that would take the place of s~e of your existing provisions in there, industrial criteria and so~e other uses, because it's a little unwieldy the way the Comprehensive Plan currently deals with these kinds of uses. Jo that Page 19 16G ] October 2, 1997 has been streamlined into a single business Dark overlay use within your proposed ComprehenSive Plan, and I can tell you that this project is consistent with that -- with that presuming that that district is adopted by the board later on this month. What I'd like to do now is I want to address an alternative plan, now that I've shown you the plan we have. And what we have done is, based on the comments that we had heard from the Collier's Reserve homeowner's association, we went back and looked at the plan and tried to identify ways that we could make some changes to address the concerns that we heard from those residents. And I'd like to show you that plan now and describe the changes. And the Collier's Reserve folks have seen this, so they're not missing anything by not looking at it. We've met with them a couple times. The primary change had Go do with the internal circulation system. The -- one of the key issues that they had voiced to us on the prior plan is that that westernmost road that extends south from our western entrance, which services these IC uses on the western side of the project, their concern was that that was the primary access to our IC district west of the canal. And their concern was that that caused excess traffic to occur at our entry, not only from the standpoint of employees, but service trucks and those kinds of things. Bear in mind now that the traffic levels that are projected to occur at that intersection are consistent with all of your policies as far as meeting your standards. But what we did is we looked at reconfiguring the internal access so that we could take the -- some of those uses to an alternative access on Goodlette Road. And what we did, as you can see, is we created on the east-west collector road, the primary access now extehds over to Goodlette Road as opposed to coming down from Immokalee Road. That has the effect of reducing the amount -- the volume of traffic at that main entry at Collier's Reserve by about 20 percent less than what we had previously. It also provides, then, the primary access to that IC tract that's south of that east-west road out to the eas~, and so the access that is at Collier's Reserve -- and note that there are two on Immokalee Road actually; one at Collier's Reserve entry and one at their service entrance, so basically, that northwest quadrant of the project now. But we have retained the interconnectedness of the internal system so that people can circulate within the project. We have proposed that change. We've -- Bryan has looked at it briefly. From all other aspects, we think it's an improvement to the plan as well, and we're going to offer this as the alternative plan for the project. We also identified, through the review with the county staff and with the Collier's Reserve people a number of the uses that they found to be particularly objectionable, and those uses have been stricken from the PUD. And you will see in your document, I think, the strike-through and underline that you have further eliminates a nua~er of ume~ within the IC district. And we also have a list of those that bav~ been taken out of the IC district since we originally submitted the FOD. CKAI~ DAVIS: That's the list that was passed out to us? Page 20 October 2, 1997 MR. REYNOLDS: No. There's a second list and we'll give you a copy of that, too, but you have the strike-through version. Your document shows those uses having been taken out of the PUD document. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The document we will have, or is it in our packet? MR. REYNOLDS: I think your packet should have a document that has strike-throughs and underlines? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, it does. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. So the uses that are stricken through are the ones that have been taken out. I think I can conclude at this point. I would like to emphasis that -- that we do have a need in this community for this type of a use. If you take into account all of the characteristics of this site, the fact that it has existing zoning, the fact that it is served by two roadways, the location adjacent to some of the uses that we've already described and the way that those have been designed and the way the park is designed, I can't think of a better location for this type of use. We also have the benefit in this case of having a developer who is locally based who has an excellent reputation and who certainly would not be making representations of the kind of quality that I have made today and George has made without being prepared to stand behind that and make sure that this is a park that would be well received by the community and a welcome addition. So I think I'll stop there and answer any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. One of my questions was day-care center, but I see that that is allowed and would hope that that would cut down on some traffic movement too, for the people that are working in the park to have a place to put their small children. I want to commend you on the quality of this project. I have a couple concerns. One is we have a shortage of industrial property in this county, --~ the fact that you're reducing 57 acres down to 44 acres is a bit of a concern, but I see that you're going to make up for the price difference in the quality of the program so the tenants will -- will Day for that, but that's -- has been a concern of where we're going to put industrial uses in this county. There's just not a whole lot on the future land use map. Number two, I don't necessarily like your six entrances into this park. I think the original plan of four probably helps the -- the traffic pattern and keeps people from having to slow up on Goodlette with only having two places people can turn off as opposed to four. And the only other thing that I think you missed in putting in this ~-roject -- and I don't know how Mr. Mihalic let this go by -- but certainly we need an affordable housing place for these people that axe ~aing to be making $10 an hour to live, and maybe that 20 acres next door would be a nice place for the secretaries and middle management people to live. MR. REYNOLDS: On your last point, I would point out that if that were something that you wanted to encourage, we'd have to revisit our Page 21 October 2, 1997 comprehensive plan, because right now the densities on that site would be limited to four units per acre which is not really conducive to -- but I certainly agree with your thought as far as the need for -- COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, with our planning concepts of mixed uses and keeping people concentrated where you live, work, and play without having to clog up the roads all across the county to do each of these things would certainly make sense to me. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Priddy hasn't changed much in his year. His questions still sound like statements. I actually have some questions, Mr. Reynolds. Under the first handout you gave us, uses allowed in the LDC industrial district but not in Creekside, you list automotive repair service and parking. Does that preclude a tire store with associated repairs within this park? MR. REYNOLDS: I'm going to have to look at my staff, because these get very complex when you get into the SIC code. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The reason I ask that is -- and I can think of a couple of examples -- Henry Johnson Tire in Corporate Square, which seems to serve a great number of people within that industrial park area during the day, and very convenient for those people. And it doesn't strike me as being a very negative use given the accessibility and the convenience for people in there. I can appreciate if this, in fact, means -- I also have noticed in the Airport Industrial Park heavy truck repair and things like that, which are not a very pretty operation by any means. The architectural standards, I want to get something clear in my mind. It related back -- I think Bryan told us that they -- and you did also -- that they apply in the pink areas contiguous with Immokalee Road and then in the orange areas you have something upscale from what the LDC normally requires. But if ccmmercial uses are to be occupying the orange lands on. Goodlette Road, then they likewise have to abide by the architectural standards in the LDC? MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Now, lastly, could you show me generally on the site plan of the project the acreage that's cur -- today is zoned industrial that you can go build steel buildings on and what more is there that's not currently industrial today? I'm trying to get a feel for a picture of each. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. The industrial zoning boundary as it exists today runs along the west side of this canal easement (indicating) down to approximately this location (indicating), so it includes that entire block of the project, and it includes all of the property that's east of Goodlette Road that is currently zoned industrial. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So the piece you just outlined that's west of Goodlette-Frank Road down at the bottom -- which that piece you did not ~r~clude -- there's a lake and what else? M~. B~NOLDS: Preserve. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. So under either scenario, it's pretty much -- that's what it is. MR. REYNOLDS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So the difference -- the difference, then, is Page 22 October 2, 1997 what's west of the canal? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Any other questions of Mr. Reynolds? Mr. Wrage. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I guess I'm confused. In looking at your traffic pattern, you're saying that we -- you're proposing that one now versus what we have in our packet? MR. REYNOLDS:. That's correct. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I personally don't like it. I like the one that's in our packet, and I travel If~okalee Road quite frequently, but the people are going to go with least resistance. If they're going to go west, they're going to go west. I just can't -- I guess I can't explain that you've got more access for more people to make more interchanges than what we got on -- that were originally shown. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I have to agree, Mr. Wrage. I don't want to have to slow up twice once I turn on Goodlette Road. I just want to slow up once. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: And the sole purpose, you tell me, was to cut 20 percent out of the -- assuming 20 percent less traffic in front of Collier Reserve? MR. REYNOLDS: Yes. That was -- well, that was the primary reason behind it is we had heard a lot of comments from the Collier's Reserve people, is there some way to redirect some of the traffic away from that entrance somewhere else in the project? But let me ask for clarification. Is the -- is that added access point, is that what's -- what's driving the concern on the new plan? Because those two access points remain the same. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Yeah. That plus you have got two more on Goodlette, also; right? HR. REYNOLDS: Well, actually we don't, because the existing plan allows for right-in/right-out. This was the primary access point, and what has happened is that has just been shifted to the south, and this former full intersection is now limited to a right-in/right-out, but you can see that there's already an existing driveway cut that would allow a right-in/right-out at this location here, so we've not really added any access p~ints here. And we can certainly revisit this -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: That's not what it shows on what I'm looking at, though. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Reynolds, what measures do you have other than the -- I hear the right-in/right-out. What measures do you have in place to limit the amount of cut-through traffic? MR. REYNOLDS: Cut-through traffic within the park? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah. If I'm coming north on Goodlette-Frank Road, and I see a bunch of people at the light, I can hang a left and shoot across and sneak out and get on over to Immok -- to 41. MR. REYNOLDS: Well, that's true, because these are not going to he, you know, gated entries. You can't do that, probably, in either D~n, but actually that -- you may want to look at that as an advantage because anything that we can do to provide alternative accesses and bypasses, particularly the intersections, normally helps traffic flow. So people tend to follow the path of least resistance. Page 23 October 2, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you for making my point. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. On the other hand, you don't want the folks out of Collier's Reserve clogging up your commerce park not to have to go on Immokalee Road. MR. REYNOLDS: Let me just clarify, too, if the concern about the new plan is that we're adding accesses, we can go back and revisit whether or not, in fact, any new accesses are necessary. The intent was to relocate the primarily accesses as opposed to adding accesses, so we can -- we'll address that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of Mr. Reynolds? Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. MR. REYNOLDS: Okay. Let me just point out -- I'm going to introduce Ruth Tyton next, and she is the director of operations for Tyton-Hillerman Let me just show you, though, in the plan where their proposed facility is located. And it's in this portion of that IC tract right here (indicating), and i~,~ediately west of that is the proposed location of the post office. So that -- this entire tract will be taken up by those two users, both of whom are under contract. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Tyton-Hillerman on the east side; the postal service on the west side? MR. REYNOLDS: On the west side, that's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And if you could leave those two like you have them, so we can kind of go back and forth, that would be a big help. MR. REYNO~S: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, could we request that those two boards maybe be put up so that -- because I can't see one of them -- maybe pinned up on another wall. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I don't know if maybe over here and the audience members could see it better or over here. I'm not sure which is better, but I think that's a good idea. MS. AYRES: Thank you. My name is Ruth Ayres, and I have been sworn in. I am director of operations for Tyton-Hillerman we have been in Naples since 1990. We are based out of our headquarters operation in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We have been in business since 1969. We have a parent company in England called Bullthorpe PLC. They own approximately 80 companies worldwide. Tyton-Hillerman is one of those. They have 25 companies within the United States. We are a light manufacturer of plastic components. We make fasteners, cable ties, wiring duct, raceway tracking for the aerospace, automotive, electrical and teleco~unications markets. Some of our customers are Boeing Aircraft, AT&T, GTE, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Mercedes, Saturn. We have products that are currently in the space shuttle. We have currently 128 employees in our facilities. We have -- we lease seven buildings right now in the industrial park off of Airport Road in the Arnold Industrial Park. We are looking to build a facility that's 110,000 square foot totally air conditioned, enclosed, in this industrial park. This is a picture of it here. We will have a total of 164 employees. Ail of our materials -- like I said, our product is plastics. Page 24 October 2, 1997 All of our materials are trucked in approximately two shipments a month by truckload that come in. We have a closed-looped system type of system that we manufacture with. All of our by-products off of our machinery are ground and processed back into the system so there isn't any discarding of waste. We -- like I said, we are air conditioned, so we are totally enclosed. We do not have any smoke stacks. We do not have any exterior containment outside the building. We have samples. We've brought samples of our product today, if anybody would like to have samples of that. We have here what shows what would do make and manufacture. And we would invite anyone here that would like to come and visit our facility and see what we actually do and who we are, that they are more than welcome to come and do that. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of the speaker? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We can't keep these, can we? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: No. But we can certainly look at them. Thank you. Anyone else to speak from the petitioner's team? MR. VARNADOE: No, Mr. Chairman, not at this time, but we do want to reserve some time for rebuttal. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I think we may very well have some questions for you after the speakers. This is a public hearing. Anyone present in the room today certainly has the right to come up and speak to us about this petition. If, in fact, there is a representative of a homeowner's association or someone speaking for a group, I'd encourage you to jump up first. That may save some time. Please come forward. If.you could state your name for the record and whether or not you've been sworn, sir. MR. GAI1LICK: Yes. My name is Tom Garlick. I have been sworn. Encouraged by your suggestion, I'm jumping up first. CHAIRM~NDAVIS: Thank you. MR. GARLICK: I represent the Collier's Reserve homeowner's association. I'm also a resident of Collier's Reserve. I've been a resident of Naples for about 16 years now. We looked at and we have studied and given a great deal of attention to the plan that's presented. This is a nice looking park. It's a nice commerce park. It's a nice /ndustrial park. It's just in the wrong place. It is just simply in the wrong place. Now, let me talk about some basics. Creekside -- this Creekside Park and the majority of property that lies within the two-mile radius of Creekside is within the urban mixed used district and the urban residential subdistrict. These are basics and, therefore, the Future Land Use Element of the comp plan contemplates that the future use of this area is residential. This is a residential area. It's true that the current comp plan allows where you have an industrial zoning in one area to expand that industrial zoning. And that's what the intent is to be done. Page 25 October 2, 1997 I want to talk just a minute about the industrial zoning and what it is. Just east of Goodlette Road -- or just to the west end of Goodlette Road, there's a packing house. It's a tomato packing house. From that area west all the way virtually to U.S. 41 are tomato fields at the present time. I suggest that the commercial use, that is packing house, they got zoned commercial as a~. agricultural anomaly. It was something that happened to serve taking tomatoes out of a field. This area was not intended to be industrial and commercial. And that's what it -- but that's how it started. And, indeed, that area, that one piece on the west side of Goodlette and the piece on the east side of Goodlette, 57 acres, you know, a lot of land available for industrial and commercial use. That's a lot of land and a good location. That's how it all started. Now, you know, what happened from there? Well, I think what happened from there is the regional mall was proposed. And it was said here the regional mall ran from Goodlette Road all the way to 41. And they did some marketing, and they did some studies on the regional mall. And when they were finished, they decided and they concluded, hey, you know what, there's no demand for that. It's not here yet. It's not time. They expanded Coastland. We've got other regional malls. What are we going to do with this property? What are we going to do with this property, okay? What happened? The Economic Development Council came and talked to George Varnadoe. And George said, well, wait a minute, Barron Collier's got a piece of land, or maybe Barron Collier, you know, said to them we got a piece of land that would accommodate these users. We got Tyton here, a plastics manufacturing company. They're already here. They already have a place, okay, but the~ want to go to a different place. Okay. We have another user. We got a post office. Well, okay, we got two users, and we got a piece of land over here. And it didn't work as a regional mall, and it's adjacent to a commercial industrial use, and EDC wants this. And we all understand. Okay. And the people who live in Collier's Reserve are business people. They understand we need business uses. We need to diversify our economy. We need to get away from, you know, agriculture and tourism and real estate. Okay. Many of them ran businesses themselves. They say we got to find a place for it. So I think what happened here, gentlemen, is that EDC in expressing their need -- and it's a need -- in going to Barron Collier, who had a piece of land, said let's make this fit. This is an attempt to make something fit where it doesn't go. It won't fit. It's industrial use in a residential area. Now, let's talk a little about the specifics -- and incidentally from the first site plan to the second site plan, my suggestion is that the criteria in order to get your zoning and spread your commercial zoning west from the existing site would require that you have an internal roadway system, okay, that is designed to alleviate and take traffic away from residential areas. And I suggest to you that the original plan didn't do it. It doesn't do it as submitted, and as revised it does respond to taking traffic away from residential Page 26 i DG ! October 2, 1997 areas. The -- let me talk for a minute about the business park plan, because Mr. Reynolds referred to it, and apparently he had a hand in the creation of the new business park district that is proposed. As I understand it, the -- there has been a preliminary hearing to refer the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which this board and this commission has passed on and has approved, to DCA. DCA has already responded. The county has submitted revisions, and there's a final hearing scheduled at the end of this month on October 28th to adopt the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. In those amendments, we have a business park, and we have a business park defined. And I suggest to you that under the criteria for the new business park, this PUD as presented would not qualify. And if the thought in the forward looking of this Planning Co~=~ission for Collier County in the future says we ought to have this business park-type ordinance, then if it's good -- if it's good, it's been passed, it's been approved, it's been adopted by you, it's going to be adopted by the county on October 28th, then what's wrong with having that approach and having that application to this park to this PUD which we suggest would not qualify under the intended business park plan. Traffic: what's wrong with traffic? Well, you know what's wrong is that the main entrance to an industrial park -- and that's what it is, an industrial park -- is directly across from the main entrance to a residential golf course community. And I ask you, you know -- on I,=uokalee Road -- does that make sense? You have 31,000 trips daily on Immokalee Road today. County staff acknowledges that you'll get a five percent increase to take it to the -- to reduce the level of service. Okay. They say that, well, it's not totally going to reduce the level of service, because there's going to be other things happen and other roads built. But the fact is that today, by admission of the county staff, this plan does reduce the level of service on I~m~okalee Road. So they say, well, that's okay because some other things are going to happen. So while we're going to increase traffic on U.S. 41, because 41 is going to be four-laned north from Lmmokalee Road within the nuxt few years. Well, if they would read in the newspaper in the last couple of weeks, they'll find out that the department of transportation, unable to reach an agreement with adjoining landowners who they asked to take off surface water drainage and management, unable to reach agreement on indemnity with regard to that roadway, the state departnnent of transportation has said as recently as the last week that October i was the deadline to reach agreement for extension of that four-laning 41 north. And October 1, gentlemen, was yesterday, and it didn't happen. So do we know 41 will be four-laned north? I don't think so. They talk about Livingston Road. They say, well, Livingston will b~ ex~e~ded north; that'll take away traffic. Livingston Road has been the most controversial road in Collier County for the past ten years. You know, do we really know that Livingston Road is going to be extended? Livingston Road goes through areas that are wetlands. Page 27 October 2, 1997 Livingston Road has had tremendous discussion and no action for ten years. Vanderbilt Beach Road. They say Vanderbilt Beach Road will help to take -- alleviate and take traffic off. There's no numbers. There's no counts. There's no statistics. I don't see any consideration in the staff report, show me -- I'm from Missouri -- how does Vanderbilt Beach Road extension help? And then they say Immokalee Road four-laning east of 1-75 to 951, that's going to helD. Well, 1-75 is a long ways east of this proposed development. So I suggest to you that traffic impact studies, while admittedly lowering thresholds and lowering levels of service, are even substantially more suspect. Let's talk about the use. We have a post office. Now, you know, traffic studies and these type of determinations, like everything else, are based on general statistics. They're based on studies. They're based on manuals, and they're based on data, and they're based on, you know, statistics which may or may not be wrong or may or may not be helpful, but generally give a guideline that are followed. But what about a post office. I understand that there are studies available to show traffic in and out of a post office. I understand that those studies would demonstrate that that are -- travel to a post office is significantly more intensive than travel would be, for instance, to another commercial use of a similar type. In other words, people are going in and out of that post office. You know, the next post office is all the way, what, nine miles downtown at the end of Goodlette Road and at the other end up at Bonita Springs? And that post office is a traffic magnet. No one can tell me ahy %ommon sense will tell you a post office is a traffic magnet. And what was the original proposed plan; to put that post office right across from the Collier's Reserve entrance, okay, with a road going back to serve an ~ndustrial area in the back and no outlet. Okay. Why did we object to that? Well, you know, if there is an industrial park and Collier's Reserve is a golf course community immediately bordering on the north and Pelican Marsh Bay Colony section is i~ediately bordering on the south, is there any tra -- is there any true transitory, you know, use there? Is there anything really to break that up? Isn't it dropped smack in the middle of a golf course community? And shouldn't the entrance, then, be over where the industrial zoning already is; on the 57 acres east of Goodlette Road, or at least shouldn't the entrance be on the west side of Goodlette Road? Shouldn't that be a primary access point to an industrial park and not in front of a golf course co~m~unity? The -- what's the heart of this issue? Well, you Enow, it's an industrial use incompatible with surrounding the neighborhood. It's ~industrial park in a residential co,~unity. You know, what -- sZ~ff said in their report there isn't any other reasonab]..~ use. Come on. This is North Naples. This is residential. You know, what happened to business office? What havened to medical? What happened to retail? What happened to single family? What happened to Page 28 October 2, 1997 multifamily? There isn't any other reasonable use? I don't think so. Let's talk about need. Is there industrial zoned land in Collier County? Sure there's industrial zoned land in Collier County, and there's plenty of it. Is it as pretty and nice as this park? No. You know, is it as nice as Commerce -- Collier Park of Commerce? No. You know, is that -- is that something that we need? Is that something we want to create at this location just because we have a couple of tenants right now, good as they may be, bad as they may be, unknown as they may be, that want to be there. Here is the industrial land use study prepared for the Board of Collier County Co~=~issioners. It's dated February of '93. It's the most recent thing we could put our lands on in quick access. It has a Table 5 that shows projected year and projected acreage surplus of industrial zoned property. In the year 2000, the acreage surplus is 2,014 projected for Collier County, Florida. Okay. That was '93. What about now? Well, at an Economic Development Council function held within the last two days at a follow-up round table -- led to understand that a conm%ercial realtor from John R. Wood, Bill Gunnering, quoted that there is industrial zoned land available in the coastal area, the coastal area -- we're not talking L~m,okalee -- the coastal area of Collier County that is equivalent to a ten-year supply. So, you know, does this fit? You know, if it doesn't fit, should we force it? I think that's t~e issue. That's the heart of the issue. This property is a mile from the beach. You know, has Naples come to the point now where we're now having -- we talked forever ad nauseam about we have upscale communities. Don't we almost even get tired of hearing about the word? A~d Naples has come to the point where it had to have an upscale industrial park? I mean, it's almost -- when you think about it, it's almost silly. Is it wonderful? Is it great? Yes. Is it the right place? No. I want to talk just a minute about the uses, because there has been some d/scussion about the uses, and I'll quit and let our homeowners talk -- homeowners other than myself. If you look at the Land Develolmnent Code for the county, the permitted uses as defined therein, just a couple, corporate headquarters, laboratory, light manufacturing, medical laboratories, printing, lithography, publishing, ~echnical research, are those the uses that they're proposing? Well, they might say they are, but that's not what they read in their proposed PUD. What do they have? They have the SIC codes. The SIC codes are broad. They're comprehensive. They allow things that can't be easily foreseen because of the broadness of the definition, and they certainly should be restricted. In what respects should they be restricted? Well, perhaps the uses listed in the new proposed business parks of district ordinance would make sense. In other words, they really need to be defined. Why are we worried about that? Well, you got a project here that proposes 810,000 square feet. That's a lot of space. That's a lot of square feet. And how much of that is industrial? 620,000 square feet; that is 75 percent of this park is industrial. Call this a Page 29 October 2, 1997 business park if you wish. We submit it's an industrial park, in fact; 75 percent. Landscaping. They say, well, we've tried to do a little more than we're required. We've done a little more than we think is necessary but -- and we got a nice picture to show you when you come out of Collier's Reserve of what it's going to look like across the street. Well, it's going to look just like you. It's going to look like an entrance to a golf course co~unity. We don't think the landscaping is adequate. We think the visibility of Tyton is too high. We think it's located too close to the road, and we're concerned about the other users that we don't know. You know, did we -- did we meet? Yes, we met. And as they point out, we've met three times. Two times we had total presentation. One time we had an opportunity to dialogue. One time we said here are some things that are on our mind. You know, don't we need to build this internal road system? Yes, thank you. We like that. We like that internal road system, and that helps, and that takes traffic away, and it does slant this park towards an entrance on Goodlette where an industrial park ought to be and not on I~m~okalee ,where traffic is high. It does help, but you're not going to build it now. For the next foreseeable four or five years, all that traffic that's going in here is going to go in right through that Collier's Reserve entrance/exit. You know, right here (indicating). There is our light. This is Collier's Reserve. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Garlick, there's a microphone to your left there in the corner -- MR. GARLICK: Thank you. -CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- so everyone can hear you. MR. GARLICK: I always appreciate help from George Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: You still know how to turn it on. MR. GARLICK: In any event -- pick up the pieces -- when you come in here and you take a -- you take a left and go that way, we said, you know, that might be okay. Now that you put these roads in and we can out, that might work. We're worried about over here because, you know, over here is still that large piece of property that was a regional mall that goes all the way to 41. So what happens when you tie that in? You got traffic from this, traffic from this, River Chase over here, Collier's Reserve over here, hospital over here. I just don't buy those traffic n~a%bers, all right? It's too much intense use. Why don't you guys not -- why don't you agree not to tie this road into the parcel to the west? You know, why can't you build this all -- why can't you build your infrastructure and get that road done? They said, no, we can't do that. You know, why can't you put your main entrance on Goodlette Road? No, we can't that. You know, why can't we consider -- could we m~m;e frown this piece over to this piece where it's back further in the pro~ec~ near this berm they talked about on the other side? The answer: No, we can't do that. So, you know, we did talk. We did make some proposals. We did explore some other possibilities. The main entrance at Goodlette, Page 30 i6G 1 October 2, 1997 MR. GARLICK: Yet, you can't go back and change zoning that's agricultural, but why -- that's been industrial. You know, but why make a bad thing in that area worse? Would why you make -- why would you extend it to the west 44 acres? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I'm having trouble with the -- with the concept of having that today without asking permission or having a project that we're looking at in these pictures that to me is much, much, much better~for North Naples and for the co~u,~unity. And given the choice of the two, unless, you know, or someone can help me in the next few minutes, I'm having trouble with your position. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Garlick. We'll ask the speakers from now on to spell your last name. Before you begin, sir, I'd ask -- we gave Mr. Garlick longer than usual and the reason was is because he was representing a significant number of homeowners. So I want to ask the rest of you to be quite a bit briefer and please don't repeat any of the information that Mr. Garlick brought forward, but we'd certainly encourage you to tell us if you agree with the points. MR. WALKER: Yes. I'm Everett Walker, and this is my wife, Diana Walker, and we are soon to be residents of Collier's Reserve. We own property there. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You've been sworn, sir? MR. WALKER: Yes. We have both been sworn, so any questions or any comments I make, we have been sworn. I'll just briefly answer Russell Priddy's question. He asked why he -- how we can get from placing -- going from what we are suggesting or eliminating. We suggested to them at one of the meetings why not build the post office at the corner of Goodlette-Frank and Immokalee Road and build the Tritan (sic) plant in the industrial area east of Goodlette-Frank Road. They said, no, they don't want to consider it, period. It was a suggestion we made to them, and build the rest of it business -- as a business park. That was the answer to your question. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No. My -- what I'm needing help with is, why is it okay for them to do that today at that, you know, two, three hundred feet down the street -- MR. WALKER: Yes, I understand that. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: -- without the aesthetic -- you know, the aesthetics that will be there in the newly planned project? Why is that okay with you-all for them to build it there? MR. WALKER: Because we realize that they can do it without any approval whatsoever, and %~e realize that -- I'll say one other thing, too. I realize that Barron Collier Enterprises is a -- is a recognized developer. We're new to the community. We've learned that they're a wonderful developer, that they're good people. We think this is a wonderful project just as Tom Garlick said, but it is, as he said, in the wrong place, and I don't (sic) want to reiterate that. Am~ -- but I do believe that they are good people and that this will be a wonderful project somewhere else. I just want to address one point basically, and that's got to do with land values. I hope you don't view my wife and I and other Page 32 October 2, 1997 members of Collier's Reserve as the rich people coming here saying don't build it in our backyard. We're not going to be NIMBY'S. But my wife and I spent 25 years in business up in the northeast, and we worked hard, and we were fortunate. We sold our business. We came to Florida, came to Naples, liked the area, and briefly we looked -- we came to North Naples because of all of the golf course co~unities that are here and subsequently bought property in Collier's Reserve, and we're looking :forward to moving in there. What we've done is invested a substantial -- and I am telling you -- a substantial portion of our life savings into that property. And what I think Barron Collier Enterprises is doing is really putting that in jeopardy by -- not by the project they're building; it's a great project. Not by the landscaping, not by the roads, not by the tenants that are going in there, but by the perception that they're going to cause. Our property, if something were to happen to my wife or I, is going to have to be sold as being a property that is across from an industrial park with factories in it. I don't care what you say. That's the perception. If someone is looking at my house and there's someone -- and is looking at a house that's in another community, say Grey Oaks, don't tell'me that the salesman from Grey Oaks is not going to say, well, that's a wonderful community, they've done a great job at Collier's Reserve, but that house that you're considering buying over there is an area that's across from an industrial park with factories in it, so you really should consider buying in our property. As a result of that, what can we come back with to counteract that? We have to reduce the price of our home and the value of our hom9 to counteract that in order to be able to sell it to offset the fact that we are across from an industrial park with factories in it. And I say to you that's where I feel we are being hurt and our substantial investment or our life savings is being hurt. If you vote to have it go through, fine. I think that, if on the basis that it's a good thing for the co~unity, the economic development co~unity said we need it, and you say we need to vote it through on this basis, fine, because it's good for the base for all the taxpayers in the co,~,unity, wonderful. But if you're going to do that, then vote us, myself, my wife and I, the members of Collier's Reserve, other homeowners or property owners, and surrounding property owners, a reduction in our taxes so that the remainder of the tax base in the coa~unity is taking up the hurt that we will suffer from putting a project of this nature across from us. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Walker, if I could ask you a question? MR. WALKER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You say you're a recent purchaser in Collier's Reserve? MR. WALKER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The red areas -- I'll direct your attention to the map on the left -- the red areas that highlight the commercial that is between your residential development and !~,~okalee Road -- HR. WALKER: Right. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: -- were you aware of that? Page 33 " October 2, 1997 MR. WALKER: Yes, we were. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. MR. WALKER: I have to tell you one thing. There was an analogy brought up to us at one of our meetings about the hospital being there and it not harming property values. I think that's a poor analogy. When we bought in there, we saw the hospital as a benefit because we're all getting older, and we may need it very shortly, so -- I'll say one other thing, too, that Allen Reynolds in his presentation said to us, and these are his words verbatim. We don't know all the end uses in this park as it sits here today. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I had a quick question, also. That risk that you mentioned to your property value, wouldn't that be a risk as well if the existing industrial zoned property was developed industrial? MR. WALKER: In the existing area, yes, but it's further away from the entrance to our community which now in this project is slated to be directly across from our entrance. We also asked them -- when we asked them to move Tyton to ~he southern section, asked them to change the area that Tyton is proposed for to a business, which would be less obtrusive, and we felt that in building the infrastructure off the Goodlette that it would take the commercial, the heavy industry well, not heavy industry, but the truck traffic away from our entrance. They said they couldn't do it. They said they had to. There's no conceivable way they could even consider this dollar-wise. And we said, all right, if you can't do that, can you at least make an entrance, a service entrance, from the southern road into the i~du~trial park for Tyton so that in the future when you build it -- even if you don't build it now? We would like you to build it now, but if you don't build it now, could you at least make a service entrance? No, we can't even consider that. We tried. CHAI~DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Walker. COMMISSIONER NELSON: And I have one more. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. COMMISSIO~ERNELSON: Mr. Walker, the newly moved entrance further south on Goodlette-Frank -- MR. WALKER: Yes. COMMISSIONER NELSON: -- I assume fulfills some of those needs that you had? MR. WALKER: Very much so. COMMISSIONER NELSON: All right. And number two, if in fact, the park is developed with the landscaping that you've seen in the pictures -- and as I think you would admit -- the entrances look very attractive. MR. WALKER: Yes, they do. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Is this an interim cloud risk over your property values that may go away if the park is developed to your expectations? MR. WALKER: I would hope so, but I'm afraid what's going to happen is that the people that we have to sell against in this Page 34 October 2, 1997 community should we -- God forbid something happened to either my wife or I, and we were forced into a situation where we have to sell -- are going to use that -- it may be a wonderful park. It may never interfere with our quality of life. It may be wonderful, and I think it may very well be, but the problem I see is that the perception to anyone coming in from the north to buy -- say from the northeast or from Michigan or somewhere would say, okay, I've got two competing properties that I want to look at. They're all -- they're both nice golf course communities. They're both equal housing. Everything is the same. The prices are comparable, but there's going to be the stigma, oh, this one is across from an industrial park with factories in it. It may not be a correct perception, but I believe -- and I sincerely believe that this is what's going to happen and this is why O' ' I feel we're g lng to be impacted by this. I don't know what else to say. I just feel it's the wrong use at that location. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Walker. Mr. Milk, while the next speaker's coming up, Mr. Gariick raised the issue about this park's compliance with the new standards for business parks and spoke something about road criteria. When we get to the end of the speakers, I'd like for you to address that with your expert testimony. And, Mr. Wrage, you're good till 117 COMMISSIONER WRAGE: We're pushing it but, yes, I'm not leaving. so __CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. We're running the risk of losing a quorum MR. TEWS: Good morning. My name is Robert Tews, and I am a full-time year-round resident of Collier's Reserve. I'm also on the Collier's Reserve homeowner's committee that has carefully studied this-entire plan. CHAIRMA~ DAVIS: Mr. Tews, could you spell your last name and -- MR. TENS: T-e-w-s. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And tell us if you've been sworn or not. MR. TE~S: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, sir. MR. TEN~: Like I said, I'm also a -- I'm also on the Collier's Reserve homeowner's coh=~ittee that has carefully studied this entire plan. First of all, after listening to everybody's comments here, it kind of seems going against the Barton Collier company is kind of like going against Santa Claus at Christmas time. Well, the Barron Collier company is an excellent company. They have an excellent plan. We all agree with that. The Collier Reserve homeowners are not opposed to business. We want to make that absolutely, perfectly clear. We're not opposed to business. We are opposed -- and let's Tryton (sic) what it is -- we are opposed to putting a factory between two upscale residential communities. When you stand on ~,=,okalee Road and you look south, the first ~h/ng you see is the Bay Colony clubhouse. When you look the other way, you see Collier's Reserve, two fine residential, we think, good citizens in Naples, in North Naples. Now,'what you want to do is you want to stick a factory -- and Page 35 October 2, 1997 let's call Tyton exactly what it is; it's a factory. They want to stick a factory in between those two residential communities, which I think is absolutely ludicrous. It's not compatible in any stretch of the imagination. Tyton is not in Milwaukee. Tyton is in a placed called New Berlin, Wisconsin. It is located in a huge, huge residential park where that re~idential park has bigger corporations, any number of heavy manufacturing facilities. That's where Tyton belongs in Collie= County. We think it b~longs in Collier County, but we are sure it doesn't belong sandwiched between two residential communities. Also, in their -- in their presentation to us as to what they're going to do, they are going to feed 100 percent of their traffic into the Collier exit, 100 percent in the first phase of the development. All the post office traffic and all of Tyton's traffic, they are directing directly into our entrance. And I'll tell you, you're worried about being clogged up on Goodlette-Frank Road, Immokalee's really going to be clogged putting all of that traffic into that intersection with 41 just two blocks down the road, and what traffic tie-ups we have there now. That's all I have. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Tews. Anyone else -- excuse me, anyone else to speak on this petition? And I'd remind you of our very tight time situation. MR. AUGUSTIN: I'll take just a brief moment. My name is Kern (phonetic) Augustin, A-u-g-u-s-t-i-n. I live in Collier's Reserve for a year now. We came from up north. I am a business partner in a plastics firm up north in New Jersey, and I would like to have some like to make a few comments about the materials that are being used in this particular operation. One of them I was told is nylon of which the =ompany makes these tie wraps. Nylon is also own known under the name of Zytel. I don't know -- this is probably a DuPont product. I have a DuPont material safety.data sheet here, and I'd like you to listen to some of the comments that are made by DuPont company about that material. It starts out with fire and explosion hazards. Large molten masses may ignite spontaneous in the air. Water quenching of such masses is good practice. Hazardous gases and vapors produced in fire are ~%~aonia, carbon monoxide, small amounts of hydrogen cyanide and aldehydes. Engineering controls. And we've been told that the building was completely enclosed, air conditioned, et cetera, et cetera. There are no ducts going to the outside, no smoke stacks involved, yet DuPont recommends under engineering controls that ventilation use local exhaust to completely remove vapors, fumes, and plasticizer liberated during the hot processing from the work area. I don't know how Tyton deals with that, but I remember we had to put huge fans in our facility just in order to exhaust the fumes because they're dangerous "~ people, apparently. Then we have here stability and reactivity. There are hazardous decumposition products, which is cyclopentanone, carbon monoxide, aldehydes, and ammonia. I don't know what other plastics are being used, but in my opinion, I agree with Bob Tews. This company just Page 36 October 2, 1997 does not belong in that area. And if there ever is a fire -- we had fires in New Jersey in plastics companies because of a -- a fuel company goes up in flames, because nylon actually is a fuel. You can use it as a fuel. As a matter of fact, it's recommended to be used as a fuel in recycling. So that's all I have to say, really. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. MR. EBBEN: My last name is Ebben, E-b-b-e-n; first name William. I'm here with my wife~ I do live in Collier's Reserve, and I have been sworn. And I'd just like to take a minute. First, I need a disclaimer or two. I do not know Bryan. I was not privy to any of the prior meetings, phone calls about this project. I'm not a -- I'm a member of the homeowner's association. I'm not on the committee that worked on this. I did go to one meeting where I heard a presentation by someone whose name I don't recall. And I received a copy of the notification of this meeting today. So I would just like to add -- with those disclaimers, I'd just like to say that the reason why my wife and I decided to live in Collier's Reserve -- and we're going to live here full time -- we've been here a year -- is because there are only 228 people who are going to live in Collier's Reserve, and we haven't made a traffic study, but my guess is there'd be less than a hundred, hundred and fifty total trips a day out of the community. And, therefore, there'll be probably more trips -- I didn't know that Tyton was going to have 164 employees, but there'll be more trips in and out of Tyton in one day than there'll probably in and out of Collier's Reserve totally in a couple days. But be that as it may, the thing that seems to me is that before you folks consider expanding the industrial zoning to the west, that you would do a double trump hesitation. Clearly that area to me as John Q. Citizen does not seem compatible with putting in things called industrial and increasing the.traffic pattern ~nd all of the com -- services and vehicles and Christmas time traffic to the post office that will come from that. Clearly from traipsing down to Goodlette Road to the ~ost office, we do need a post office in North Naples. No question about that. I concur with many of the comments made by Mr. Garlick, Mr. Te~s, and Mr. Augustin, but I just wanted to add those kinds of comments. To your question, Mr. Nelson, it seems quite clear that people accept business, industrial and everything, down by the water treatment plant and the hospital, but once you come west of the canal, it seems you've got a horse of a different color when you put that kind of thing in. Put all that kind of stuff, nice as it may be, up that way. But please don't come west. It Just doesn't seem compatible with what we have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, sir. Additional speakers? MR. MIHALIC: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my D~e is Greg Mihalic, and I'm director of housing and urban i.~~ent for Collier County. I also have been charged with implementing the economic diversification program by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Could you s~ell -- spell your last name please. Page 37 October 2, 1997 MR. MIHALIC: My last name is M-i-h-a-l-i-c. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And you have been sworn, Mr. Mihalic? MR. MIHALIC: Yes, I have. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. MR. MIHALIC: Collier County and the Board of County Commissioners has looked at economic diversity and economic develoument as one of their top five goals that they want to achieve. In a ranking of 32. potential operations that the county wanted to handle, business retention and business development were within the top five. And I never realized that NIMBYSM was going to chase me through all my professional career here, 'cause I'm usually in front of you talking about people that don't want things that I'm involved with in their backyards, and I didn't know that a high-scale industrial park was going to be that way. This park will produce the type of high-wage jobs that Collier County desperately needs. As you know, 70 percent of our employment comes from tourism, hospitality, agribusiness and other service industries, which are typically low-paying industries. The type of industries that will be attracted to this park will be typically high-wage, year-round jobs with benefits. And these are the type of high-wage businesses that we need in Collier County. This diversification is crucial for the county, and the Board of County Co~,issioners has recognized that. It's interesting for me to hear that the neighboring property owners are against it, the residential property owners, because we have received inquiries already from people who live or own lots in Collier's Reserve that want to bring their businesses to Collier County and are interested in locating within this industrial park. I th~nk it's the wave of the future. We know that Collier County has to provide a high-scale product. Our parks and our land are more expensive than our adjoining competitors. If people want to have' lower rates for their square footage for what they want to offer, they can move to ~ee County, and they can move to other places to provide that for the~. But they don't want that. They want business amenities that are on time same level with their residential amenities and close to where they w-~t to live as business leaders, and this park provides that in a fast-growing North Naples area. And if there are any questions, I'll be happy to respond to them. CHAIRMAN OAVIS: Questions? Thank you. MR. MIHALIC: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, sir. Next speaker. MR. NERING: My name is Ted Nering. I'm a homeowner in Collier's Reserve for less than 60 days, and I'm a full-time resident of Collier's Reserve. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: If you could spell your last name and -- MR. NERING: N-e-r-i-n-g, and I was sworn back at the beginning. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. MR. NERING: Two things that I think have not been emphasized that I would like to emphasize. One of them is that what you see on the map is what we were told in our meetings there's no guarantee Page 38 October 2, 1997 we'll be getting. And I'd like to run my finger along what it is we've been told there's no guarantee we'll be getting. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Use the microphone, please. MR. NERING: This road right here on Immokalee going this way through the property requires for it to be built that there be sales by the developer to others beyond Tyton and beyond the post office. Because we had a desire that this road be built now at the beginning, and it's not economically justified for the developer to do that, because the deal with Tyton and the post office doesn't provide the money to be able to do it. Now, why is this road on the map to begin with, and why is it important? Because without this road, it means that 100 percent of the traffic of this development goes to the front door of Collier's Reserve, that 13,000 cars a day on average. And a second point I'd like to make is that when you asked a question of the developer how many cars is it going to be during season and what is the impact going to be, you didn't really get an answer except that they'd-done the study, but you weren't told the numbers of cars. You were told that there were 12,000 cars a day this way and 32,000 cars a day on Immokalee. That 32,000 cars a day on I~m%okalee is now going to have no diversion, because the only thing the developer proposes to build for certain is this little section of road right here (indicating) all pouring out 13,000 cars a day into the front door of Collier's Reserve. In my opinion, that's the primary reason so many of us are here today and are so upset. The plan has a lot of elements that may never get built. And when we press them, when will it be built, the answer is, well, we would hope a year from now, but it might be 20 and it might be never. -The second thing that the developer was asked to do, and there's not enough money to be able to do it, is to take Tyton and put them in the southernmost section where the impact, where the visibility, where the intrusion on In~nokalee Road, where the visibility is going to be less or nonexistent. And, again, it's too late for -- we're too far along in the planning process; we don't have enough money to be able to do that; we've already cut our deals with Tyton and with the post office; there's not enough money. For me, those are the two primary elements, the fact that what's on the plan may never be built and the fact that all of this traffic is going to be going into one location on Immokalee directly across from Collier's Reserve. And the final point I'd like to make is that people build homes next to other homes. They build homes next to hospitals. I've never heard of anybody choosing voluntarily to build a home in front of an industrial park. That's a very, very troubling thing. Had I known that this was an industrial park or that there was talk that it was going to be an industrial park when I made my decision two months ago between Grey Oaks and Collier's Reserve, frankly, I would have chosen C~ey Oaks. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. Okay. If you could pause just a moment while the court reporter _makes a paper change. Page 39 October 9., 1997 MR. BERNIER: I wasn't sworn in. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Could you spell your last name, Mr. Bernier? I{R. BERNIER: Yes. It's B, like in boy, e-r-n-i-e-r. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I'll ask the court reporter to swear Mr. Bernier in. (The speaker was sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Please proceed. MR. BERNIER: I'm a developer here in town and also a builder for the past 16, %7 years. I started building houses about 17 years ago, and I started into the commercial industrial properties about 9 years ago. There was a former commissioner here named Fred ross, and I was good friends with him, and I told him that I wanted to go into industrial property. And he said to me, he says, you know, in any town, he says, I was a mayor previously and here I'm a commissioner now, he says, and we sure like industrial property on the outskirts of the town. He said, You really should consider old 41 and look up there, and it's a lot of zoning already in place. You wouldn't have to go through any rezoning. % bought all together about a hundred acres up there. I have developed a place called Railhead Industrial Park, and I developed that about 7 years ago and we had, oh, 40, 50 lots. It took me 7 years to sell those lots. I have still about three left. I am currently in the process with the state and the county here of developing 41 more acres of industrial property on old 41. As you go up 41, you turn north-- as you turn right onto old 41, it's -- the property is located just -- just past the Landmark Estates. And within the course of about ten months, I'll be ready and on line to be selling lots. Hopefully the development will be finished, and I'll be fini%hed with it, starting to sell the lots. I am going to put a pretty higher end area there with a very, very beautiful entry, and I'm going to attract hopefully some very high end users. The Railhead Industrial Park, we had -- we didn't allow any body shops. We didn't allow storage of trucking and things of that sort. We set our own standards of what kind of clients that we wanted in the park. We felt that Naples was more of an affluent town and that we wanted to attract this type of clientele, and let them go to Bonita or elsewhere. And all said and done, we were successful in Railhead Park, and we feel we're going to be the same now that we have developed a reputation in this field at this other park. The other park is being -- is going to be called North Collier Industrial Center. I think you got to be a good citizen as a developer, and I live here with my family for 20 years, and I feel that the industrial site that the Collier's are willing-- are promoting to do here today is not a good -- is not a good site in the sense that it's in a surrounding area of homes, and it's -- it to me -- it's not being a good fellow citizen to be in there and want to promote that. That's all I really have to say. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Bernier. Is there anyone else to speak? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Oates. And we're 20 minutes away from Page 40 16G 1 October 2, 1997 losing a quorum, so I'm going to ask everyone to be very brief. COMMISSIONER OATES: We'll move right along. My name is Ed Oates, O-a-t-e-s, and I've been a resident of Naples and Collier Coun -- and I was sworn -- a resident of Naples add Collier County for 40 years. The property that you're discussing today has been in the Collier family for approximately 70 years, which also includes the property that is now Collier's Reserve and River Chase. That was in the Collier family for approximately that many years. It seems as though that most of the people that are here today have been here for 60 days to two or three years. I'm not sure that they understand that the property rights of people are very, very important. This land was proposed as a shopping center. The people in the area objected to a shopping center, so they went back, worked with the Economic Development Council. As you heard Greg say, one of the most important things is attracting business into Collier County. We cannot live on develoument, tourism, and agriculture forever. It Just will not happen. We need to get some business retention and some business develoument. I really think that uhis is a good project. I am involved with it because of my wife's ownership of partial of it -- partially of it. But I still think it's a good project, and I would hope you would vote for it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, ma'am. MS. PAREIGIS: Good morning. I'll be brief. Susan Pareigis, p-a-r-e-i-g-i-s. I'm the executive director of the Economic Development Council that you have heard so much about this morning. I would like to say briefly to you that we are real eager to have an upscale commercial park located in Collier County. We have many p~os~eCts on a ~aily basis that contact the EDC, and we have not had any competitive site to locate them in. The closest we come is the Collier Park of Commerce with. Collier Enterprises, and what has instance with Tyton is that the client has d in this articular happene P . _ decided that that partlcu£ar location was not suitable. This is driven in par~ by cost, is driven in part by location, where their employees live. As you have heard Ms. Ayres state, they are a good corporate citizen currently of Collier County. They do help diversify the economic base of Collier County. We do think that we are very fortunate to have a private sector of companies such as the Barron Collier Corporation come to the podium and say not only are we going to do this, we want to do this in the right -- the right way so that it's best for the community. I think they have a vested interest in making sure that this project comes off well. And I'll tell you the co~Lm, itment from the Economic Development Council is to work with residents within the community. We hope they are happy. We will tell you, though, that competitively within the United SKates and in the international market, there are many different sites for this particular company to land. They are currently in Collier County. They're currently operating in seven different buildings, and they really need to consolidate their efforts, and we would hope that you would approve this project. Th_~nk you very much. Page 41 October 2, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. And you were sworn Ms. Pareigis? MS. PAREIGIS: Yes, I was sworn. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Any other speakers? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Are there additional questions for the petitioners? Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Not of the petitioners but of staff. I can't remember -- one of the speakers mentioned that the -- the plans under which this is going to be developed are not the same as the new set of plans on the land code -- CHAIRKAN DAVIS: And I had asked Bryan to address those two issues, and it looks like someone's going to address it. MR. WEEKS: Good morning. I'm David Weeks with the county's planning staff, W-e-e-k-s, and I was sworn in -- comprehensive planning staff, which is charged in part with reviewing plans for consistency with the Growth M, nagement Plan. The two most important points I want to make is to reiterate what has already been told to you, and that is that this petition is consistent with the Future Land Use Element that is presently in effect and that is what you're mandated to review this project is done under. Secondly, staff will be proposing changes to the Future Land Use Element that this co~=~ission reviewed on September 18th and that the board will review on October 28th to add a provision that projects such as this, but not only this, projects that utilize a provision in the current Future Land Use Element to expand industrially designated or zoned areas, will be consistent with the Future Land Use El~nent. Right now that language does not exist. Is it not staff's intent to adop~ the Future Land Use Element that creates inconsistencies. One of the provisions in the Future Land Use Element right now for industrially zoned or designated areas is that the perimeter is a transitional area, therefore, can have commercial zoning. And that is one of the provisions that was in the text that you previously reviewed, and we simply, as a matter of an oversight, failed to accommodate or provide language that will make consistent projects which utilize the industrial expansion provision. There's -- this would not be the first one. There's at least one other project that has used that provision. And since we're deleting that provision to allow for an industrial expansion, we need to have a provision in the Future Land Use Element that would make such as -- a project such as this consistent with that Future Land Use Element proposed for adoption on the 28th of October. The additional point -- and I'll come to your specific question in a moment -- regarding the existing zoning, the industrially zoned portion of the project is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, and as has been stated on the record, can be developed as currently z~e~. L~kewise, the proposed Future Land Use Element up for adoption later this month would still leave the industrially zoned portion of the property consistent. That is, if this rezone petition is not successful, the industrially zoned portion of the site will still be eligible to develop as it is currently zoned industrial. Page 42 16G October 2, 1997 The last and specific point, I am not in agreement with the statement that this project is consistent with the proposed business park district in the Future Land Use Element for three reasons, some of which can easily be remedied, I believe. One is that the proposed business park land use district does allow that for properties that are zoned or designated industrial, that industrial uses are allowed on those properties. But in this case, because there is an expansion, there, in the PUD,~ are some industrial uses not allowed in this new business park land use district out in the agricultural area presently zoned agriculture, that is outside of the industrially zoned area. Secondly, the proposed business park land use district limits retail, office, and other non-industrial type uses to a maximum of 30 percent of the land area. And this PUD allows for some of those uses at an unspecified percentage. So, again, that is easily remedied if the petitioner is -- would be so willing. They could easily cap that to say no more than 30 percent of these such and such uses. The final point is it is unknown if the percentage and mixture of the category of commercial type uses would qualify with the proposed business park land use district, because we don't yet have the zoning standards to implement them. The business park land use district requires that the business park zoning district be established that establishes what those mixtures of uses are and the specific types of uses. Seeings how that is not yet in effect and cannot be put into effect until after the Future Land Use Element has been adopted, we cannot say that this is -- or, for that matter, we cannot specifically say it is not consistent. We just simply don't know. But the most important point I want to make is that you're viewing -- reviewing this petition under the existing Future Land Use EIe~ent. Staff's recommendation to you is that it can be found to be consistent. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Kant, were you going to answer the other question? MR. KANT: My name is Edward Kant. I'm with county transportation services. I'd like to, first of all, have that other question restated so I make sure I understand it in my own mind. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There was an issue raised by Mr. Garlick, believe it was, about as it related to the study of traffic and some concerns he expressed about the DOT's recent statement in the paper that the additional laning of U.S. 41 north above Immokalee Road may or may not occur. MR. KANT: That's a correct statement, it may or may not occur. As i understand it, there's still some negotiations going on with several of the developers including the Collier cor~ -- the Barron Collier people and I believe WCI. I'm not sure who else is involved, but as we stand here today, there has been, to best of my knowledge, no pronouncement. Now, I had been on vacation for two weeks. I'm just coming back, so I'm not sure what havened in that interim. But unless and until the state makes some formal pronouncement as to the status of that project, I'm not sure that we can go on what might or might not happen. Right now that's a project that's been designed. It's in the mill and it's -- it's a project which, as far Page 43 October 2, 1997 as we know, has not been pulled. One of my main reasons for coming up here is I simply want to make sure that the record, as I'm sure it will be examined in the future, is corrected. I spoke with Mr. Milk for just a moment. And I believe Mr. Milk misspoke in a minor point earlier in his presentation when he said that Goodlette Road, as part of the CIE projects for the county, will be four-laned from Immokalee Road south to Pine Ridge Road. The Goodlette Road four-laning project will be from Vanderbilt Beach Road south to Pine Ridge Road. But even with that correction, based on the information that was put together in the traffic impact statement that the applicant sub~tted, that would not change the levels of service that we would anticipate with this project. So I just want -- again, I just want to make sure that the record is straight on that, because I'm sure that it will be reviewed. I'm not sure if my answer to the first question is satisfactory, Mr. Nelson, but at this point that's really the only answer that I think anybody can give you is that that's -- that project's on the books and unless and until the state says it's not on the books in the sense that they have formally gone back to the planning -- their own planning folks and indicated that that is to come off of their five-year work program, we have to go on the assumption that that project is going to get built. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We've also closed the public hearing; correct? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. The public hearing is closed. Any q~.e~tions of the petitioner? The public hearing's closed. MR. GARLICK: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I wondered if I might submit to you some stipulations sua~rizing what stipulations we have requested to the PUD and make them part of the record? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: If you'd like to give those to the County Attorney, those can be passed forward to us. I'm sorry. Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I know Mr. Varnadoe asked a chance to respeak. Is he going to be respeaking? I know we don't have very much time. M~ question was, that one of the members of the public asked about the ventilation of plastic gases. I don't remember Miss Ayres, whether she brought that up or whether Tyton's going to exhaust the gases that are as ominous as what that gentleman brought up. I wonder what we hear about that? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: My office is in between two of their plants, and I sure haven't seen them. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we forward Petition PUD-97-11 to the county co.~ission with a reco~u~endation of approval. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I second that. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There was a motion -- recoa~endation for recommendation by Mr. Priddy, seconded by Mr. Wrage. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I guess there would be a little bit of dis~-ussion. Page 44 October 2, 1997 CHAIRM~N DAVIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I personally liked the first drawing, but I chink I'm probably in t. he minority of the people in the room on that, ~Dd I don't have any real heartburn with the second traffic drawing, but I would take some input for my motion from the other commissioners. ~ DAVIS: I would support the motion if it includes the alternate site plan. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: 0kay. CHAI~ DA%r~S: And also along with ~ha= some language -- I'm a bit concerned about the entrance, the functional entrance if you will. And if -- COMMISSI~ YORK: The one across from Collier Reserve? CHAIRM~ DAVIS: Right. And -- the one that I see -- that seems to me needs to be develop~ firs= is the one on Goodlette-Frank Road if that, in fact, is going to be the main entrance. And it se~s to serve what we've heard to be the first two lots to be developed quite well. It's a straight shot right back to th~m. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I will make my motion with your first recommendation of the second traffic pattern flow, but I do not want to put a stipulation of the one off Goodlette being built first. C~~ DAVIS: Fair enough. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I agree with Mr. Priddy. CHAIRM~N DAVIS: Any more discussion on the mo_Cion?. 'd be COMMISSIONER NELSON: Only that I agree that that snoux developed first. I can't suplmort the motion in its present configuration, thi there's a lot of . hing? tha. · t~le eClclOne:' erent C2xan wnat shat are sli -- gust slightly diff ...... .~_-~Z-- · ~., ~,,l~ ~h~n end uo with a developmen: wa~ua, ~" ........... ish the were making that was fully _accep_~abl. e to =he ~p~b. _lic__._,~I w~..__~rt ~t unless they do. changes, but they're no=, _~a · ca=~ u th°seCHAIP. M~N DAVIS: Andy other dis. cuss.ion_o.n the motion? All those in favor of the motion sLgnLzy by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries three, Cwo. We' 11 be in adjournment for five minutes. (A short break was taken at 11:00 a.m.) (Mr. Wrage not ~res_e~_t _for r .e~a. ind~e_r_,o_f._me~d~egr')and begin with C~ DAVIS: Cal. 1 t~e meetxJ~g.om¢~ u.y -'---~ -~ ~r Miss Petition No. CP-97-2. Miss ~ayz}e. It's --. ?o_ .wm ~_=c-~ ~ ---- , MS. STUDENT. 'rn~ ~ ~J ..... "~ ~=-- ~--- are l~nlslatlVe- mu~ ~ ~ .... , ..... MS. Lay~e. ,~,~,n~ ~a~rrq. okay. With that, please proceed, . _ _ ~~- .... ~-~--- - ~* .... ~-- ~1~ is Petition ~e a ion ag~ =~s m~m~ ...... . I ~ Y~ ~ g s of ro r~y 1nCo a .- sci Co lace 12.75 acre P .~ _.. locat~ ~iaCely west oK ~e m~e ~mu%j~ ~-- ...... north side. · Pa~e 4,$ ltG I October 2, 1997 I don't know if you can see with this small map. This is the Golden Gate master plan. The subject property is the small area in green. The purple is the existing Pine Ridge Road activity center on the north side and the southeast quadrant here. It also runs on the southwest and southeast. But this just shows the Golden Gate area. Of that 12.75 acres, the petitioner has auproximately 2.75 that would be proposed for conservation area, which leaves about 10 acres. The western two parcels, five acres of that, they are proposing for C-1/T uses only, offices, low intensity commercial uses, or the entire 10 acres could be used for conditional uses. They are also requesting to amend the conditional use section of the Golden Gate master plan which reads right now that you cannot have conditional uses exceeding five acres. They are proposing that unless the subject property is located next to an activity center they could not go larger than five acres. Their original request was to limit it to those three parcels. We have reviewed it with petitioner and made some stipulations stating that they could go higher than five acres on those three tracts or to the one to the west. We've included that in so that so~e day -- that is the one on the corner of Livingston and Pine Ridge Road. I think most of us know it as Bill Grant's house, t3uat colonial house or southern plantation type house that is there on the corner -- so if eventually that would want to go to a conditional use, r_hey wouldn't have to go through this process. We went ahead and just made the language so it was not tract specific; it made it language specific. We have requested that there be some additional conditions on the change. Some of those, that there would be no access onto Livingston W6o~s Lane, which is the residential street to the north. There shall be a landscaped buffer along the north and west property lines. On the North property line, there can only be water management which the petitioner proposed yesterday, and you have that language in front of you this morning as an addition to that. And on the west property line, they could have driveway access, parking and water management. Neither of these, however, would be located no closer than 30 feet to the property lines. And the maximum floor area that could be in the commercial area only would be 35,000 square feet. The petitioner originally requested fifty. The existing C-1/T says twenty-five. We're proposing taking the limits out in the new FLUE, and we have agreed at 35,000 square feet maximum of commercial in that area and -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Ewcuse me. That's struck through here on what you just handed us. MS. LAYNE: Yes. If you look in the paragraph above, Mr. York, we put it up there so it would clarify it -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. I'm sorry. ~S. LAYNE: -- that it relates to the commercial uses only, not to the conditional uses. COMMISSIONER YORK: Thank you, Lee. MS. LAYNE: And then the last item was that they delete -- well, not delete, but there would be no parking garages, homeless shelters, Page 46 October 2, 1997 or soup kitchens allowed. Those are uses that are allowed in the existing C-l/T, and those would not be allowed within this district. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, it sounds like there's a pretty good -- you're envisioning a pretty good transition down to the nursery that's on the other corner and the gymnastics academy and Community School? MS. LAYNE: Right. That's what we were looking at. Naples Gateway PUD abuts it immediately to the east. You have the Livingston Woods Lane to the north, and then you have Livingston Road to the west. On the south you have Pine Ridge Road activity center, plus that can be coh~ercial infill on the south side; so we thought this would be a good transition between the single-family and the activity center property, rather than single family against the activity center. COMMISSIONER YORK: Did you say that it does or does not include the big house that's there? MS. LAYNE: The activity center -- or the mixed-use district, the new district does not include the house. The conditional use requirement would include that so that they could come back in and ask for a conditional use theze. If they wanted to be included in this new district sometime in the future, then they would have to come back in and amend the mixed-use district. That is stated specifically limited to those three lots. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of staff? Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONERNELSON: Just real quick. You said the existing square footage development limitation is 25,000? MS. LAYNE: In the C-l/T, yes. COMMISSIONER NELSON: And there'll be no limitation in the new regulations? ' - MS. LAYNE: In the new future land use -- in the Growth Management Plan amendments that you just looked at, we took out that limitation. COMMISSIONERNELSON: Okay. CHAI~ DAVIS: Any other questions? Presentation by the petitioner. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, men~ers of the commission. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson representing the property owner. In view of all the items you have on your agenda today, I'll just be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I have Mr. Duane, who's the planner on the project. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Anderson, could you point out on there where we could put a convenience store? MR. ANDERSON: It's a little further east of the subject property. COMMISSIONER BRUET: We assume that you're all in agreement -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. We are in agreement. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- all the language -- MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- entitlements and so on? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay. Page 47 16G 1 October 2, 1997 MR. ANDERSON: I just had'one clarification question that I need to ask on the record, and that is with regard to the 35,000-square-foot limitation, that that limitation only applies to C-1/T uses, so that if, for instance, someone built a 35,000-square-foot office building on three acres, that would not prevent the other two acres that are eligible for commercial zoning from being developed under a conditional use? MS. LAYNE: ~at's correct. Their request had'been that the eastern five acres would be allowed to have C-1/T uses. If they only use three of that but put 35,000 square feet, because we have a square footage limitation, then their C-1/T is complete at that point. The rest can be used for conditional uses. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Additional speakers on this petition? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Motion? COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we forward petition CP-97-2 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that they submit it to the Florida Department of CoL~=~unity Affairs with all the changes as recommended by staff. COMMISSIONER OATES: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion -- motion of recommendation of approval by Mr. York, seconded by Mr. Oates. Discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRM~N DAVIS: It carries unanimously. MS. LAYNE: And, Mr. Chairman, one clarification. The date on the peti%i'on for the board meeting had October 14. That has been changed to November 25th. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So noted for the record. Moving right along, Petition No. BD-97-18. Ms. Murray. COMMISSI~ OATES: Mr. Chairman, I have had some discussions with Mr. Saun~ and Mr. Scofield relative to this petition. COMMISSI(H~ YORK: I also had a short talk and conversation with Mr. Saunders with regard to this. CHAIRMAN DA¥IS: I had a meeting at my office with Mr. Scofield on this petition. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mr. Chairman, I discussed this with Mr. Scofield. 'n COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I had a meetl g in Immokalee with Mr. Scofield on this petition. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I have also had some discussions with Burr Saunders on this. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Mike, do you feel left out? COMMISSIONER BRUET: It hurts. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: I don't believe I did. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you for the disclosures. I'd ask everyone here today that's going to speak on this petition or may want to speak on this petition to please stand and 'Page 48 October 2, 1997 raise your right hand so the court reporter may swear you in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: Good morning. Susan Murray, current planning. I just want to start out with a note, because it was not noted in your staff report that this property had previously been before you as a conditional use, and you heard it on April 3rd. At that point, the vote was four to three to deny, and at that point the petitioner withdrew the petition, and now it is back before you today under boat dock extension criteria which resulted from the June amendments. The subject site is a pie-shaped lot, and it's located on a cul de sac. Sixty-eight feet of the site's rear property line fronts on a 100-foot wide canal to the south, and 84 feet of the site's rear property line fronts on a portion of Vanderbilt Lagoon to the west. Presently there is legal conforming existing dock structure and boat lift located on the site. From the eastern property line heading in a westward direction, the dock and lift combination sit 25 from the easterly side property line. The dock and lift are horseshoe shaped and are parallel to the seawall and project 19 1/2 feet into the canal for a length of 35.75 feet. At this point the dock becomes a 5-foot wide walkway adjacent and parallel to the seawall. This portion of the dock adjacent to the seawall continues along the seawall wrapping around the corner into the Vanderbilt Lagoon and heading down the westerly rear property line for a distance of approximately 35 feet. At this point, a wooden platform type of dock extends into the Vanderbilt LaGoon approximately 20 feet for an additional 30 feet in length. The end of the platform dock sits 20 feet from the westerly side-property line. Consistent with the recently amended section of the Land Development Code, the applicant is applying for a boat dock extension simply to construct a 20-foot wide by 30-foot long roof structure over. the existin~portion of the dock which supports the boat lift. It appears fz~m the drawings sut~u[tted by the applicant's representative that the roof at its peak will be approximately 5 feet higher than the existing sut~ort pilings for a total of 13 feet in height from the existing seawmll. The applicant's request is consistent with the criteria defined in the appropriate section of the LDC. I did want to touch on the criteria to minimize the impact of use of waterways by surrounding property owners, 'cause I know that was the issue in the April 3rd meeting, the main issue. The applicant does plan to construct a roof over an existing boat lift which does not exceed the maximum allowable height of 15 feet. Staff's analysis concluded that the view of the waterways by adjacent property owners north, south, and east of the site would not be negatively impacted by the addition of the roof. I did provide in your packet a photograph. I'd like to call your attention to that. I specifically choose to illustrate the view from block O, lot 12, which is southeast of the subject site across the canal, because the views from this property and I believe some of the Page 49 16G 1 October 2, 1997 neighboring properties were an issue at the conditional use hearing. I wanted to give the commissioners a perspective from this property of how minimal the addition of the roof to this existing boat dock and lift structure will be. The northwest corner of block O, lot 12 sits approximately 155 feet east of the intersection of the canal and the Vanderbilt Lagoon, and the proposed roof addition will impact the view, basically, of the tall multifamily structures to the northwest and not of the waterway itself. Additionally, simply by virtue of this site's proximity to Vanderbilt Lagoon, the property owners still has significant view south of the existing dock structure. Staff does recommend approval subject to the stipulations in the adoption of -- resolution of adoption, excuse me. I'll be happy to answer questions. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Susan. Questions? COMMISSIONER YORK: I have a question. Susan, the photograph that we have showing the boat dock and lift with a roof and a walkway around it, where is that in relation to the subject property? MS. MURRAY: That is -- COMMISSIONER YORK: Across the canal? MS. MURRAY: No, it is -- I'm sorry. It's next door. That probably doesn't come out clearly. On the east side. COMMISSIONER YORK: To the east? This one already exists, right? MS. MURRAY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER YORK: To the west of it? MS. MURRAY: To the east. To the west would be towards the lagoon. -COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Susan, you mentioned the height if this is approved of the cover, how tall would that be? MS. MURRAY: The maximum allowable height under the LDC is 15 feet. From the applicant's drawings, it appears to be 13. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. And the neighbor, which I think is to the east, that has the covered boat dock but has a deck rather than a pitched roof, how tall is the railing, the top of the railing? MS. MURRAY: Honestly, Mr. Priddy, I tried to find that information out from permits and whatnot, and it just wasn't evident. It is probably a good, in my estimation, 17, 18 feet, maybe taller. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: So it's probably two or three feet taller than what the neighbor is requesting? MS. MURRAY: I would agree. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You can't build that today, can you, Ms. Murray? MS. MURRAY: No, you can not. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Petitioner. MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the pla~lning Commission. My name is Burr Saunders with the law firm of Woo(tward, Pires & Lombardo. Mr. Miles Scofield is going to be going through the petition, but I wanted to just give a couple of very preliminary remarks. Page 50 October 2, 1997 First of all, we obviously agree with the staff report in its entirety in terms of the impacts of this particular petition and the compliance with and consistency with the LDC and with what is in the neighborhood already. We have one map on the wall that I obtained from the tax appraiser's office. The -- that's Connors Vanderbilt Beach -- Vanderbilt area. All of the indentations that are marked in yellow, those are places where there are boat houses, not just boat docks, but boat houses, in Connors Vanderbilt. I wanted to present that to you to indicate that this is a very common facility in that area. The lot that's marked in blue is the subject property, and Mr. Scofield will go through showing some pictures that will give you some indication of the visual impacts in that area. This -- a similar petition was voted against by this commission four to three. As staff has indicated, the difference this time is that we have photographic evidence concerning the impacts, and I think that the important thing I want you to keep in mind as we're going through this is that this is an existing boat lift facility, and the only thing the petitioner is asking to do is put a small roof over that. And Mr. Scofield will go through the dimensions of that and the impact on the views. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, my name is Miles Scofield representing the petitioner in this case, and I'm going to give these photographs to you, and then I'll walk -- we'll go through and we'll relate these to the aerial photograph. First of all, there is -- if you can see these circles, this is Vanderbilt Beach area here with the Gulf of Mexico here. And I have got these circles. They're listed as one, two, three, and four, and th~correspond to the photographs you have there as Exhibits 1 through 4. And just quickly running through them, Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are almost identical situations to what we're proposing today. MR. SAUNDERS: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I wanted to do one other thing. I'd like to qualify Mr. Rocky Scofield as an expert in marine construction and marine permitting and compliance with Collier codes as they re,ate to marine construction. He's appeared before this commission ~n numerous occasions, and he's available for questioning on his credentials if you need to prior to accepting him as an expert. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: This board has -- this board has accepted Mr. Scofield as such many times previously, but for the record, would there be a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I move to accept Mr. Scofield as an expert witness. COMMISSIONER YORK: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There's a motion of accepting Mr. Scofield as an expert witness by Mr. Priddy, seconded by Mr. York. Discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. O~Dosed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. Please continue, Mr. Expert. Page 51 October 2, 1997 MR. SAUNDERS: Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Finally a title, huh? Okay. So as I said, these -- the 1, 2, and 3 corresponding to the photographs you have are -- are like situations. They're almost identical in the fact that there is a boat dock -- or excuse me, a boat house on the canal side. These are all people on the corner pro~erties. There's a boat house on the c~Dal side with a wraparound dock to a ~itting dock, or whatever you want .to call that on the front, a fishing dock on the front on the Vande'rbilt Lagoon side. The photographs show you they're identical situations to what the a~plicant is wanting to do at his lot, which is No. 4 on your photogr&phs. Now, the whole contention, it a~ears to be, as it what was before, is a view issue here. As you can -- if you'll refer to Exhibit No. 4, they're -- the two photographs on Exhibit 4 are ident -- they're the same photograph on the top and bottom. The top photograph shows the existing dock with the boat on the lift. The pilings are up to support the roof. The bottom photograph shows a roof superimposed on there as it will look. The objections, as far as Ican understand right now, there's no objections to the dock a~d thebo at lift as is; it's only to putting a roof on there. By our drawings there, we show that is minimal impact if -- very minimal. There is trees and condominiums in the back,round. It does not -- it does not hinder a view of the Vanderbilt Lagoon. The view is up in the air. The boat dock is already there. Again, that's not being objected to. That was done with a regular county ~ermit. It only extends out 20 feet. And the other -- there's only one more set of photographs that you have there labeled as Exhibit 4-A, and that is the boat dock that you had that Susan handed out to you, the picture there of the boat house directly to the east a~Jacent to the a~licant's property, and that is the neighbor's boat house. And, yes, she is correct on the height there. It is over 15 feet in height, and the neighbor's is going to be -- excuse me, the a~licant's boat house is going to be a low profile house and, of course, the code now says we cannot exceed 15 feet. I tried to get .hese photographs from the perspective of people across the canal, from =heir situation, from their docks. %'hey were taken by water. Obviously, I wasn't in their backyard, but I got as close as I could on the waterway. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of Mr. Scofield? Mr. Nolson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Is it possible that the people that came and objected when this was last reviewed thought you were going to k~ild a boat house real similar to the one that was built on the neighbor's property since it was the same owner at that time? MR. SCOFIELD: I don't believe so. Even when it was heard last, ~F~%a're not allowed to build that ty$~ of a structure anymore. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I'd say most of us -- I reread the minutes -- ~ a huge problem with how ugly that one was. Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Scofield, has -- has the neighbor or the neighbors that are objecting to this petition seen Exhibit 4? Page 52 October 2, 1997 HR. SCOFIELD: No, they have not. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: It might be helpful if they were shown that, because I would have to think that most of the argument would disappear. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'm sure we'll find out about that. HR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. HR. SAUNDERS:. Just a couple more quick things. I have a run from the property a~raiser's office of the CoD_nor Vanderbilt area, all of the properties of all those lots there, that reflect that there is no impact on valuation as far as the property appraiser's concerned, whether there's ab oat house on a canal or whether someone lives next to one or not. And I'd like to submit that for the record; it's the official tax run of the county. And I have a photograph and a copy of the original petition that was approved by the Planning Commission for Petition CU-97-5, which was Carla and Greg Siebert. I'd like to submit that. It's part of the official records of Collier County, and a. photograph that shows the boat house that they constructed, which is the identical type of roof that would be constructed on this. It's also an end unit on a canal. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Next speaker, Ms. Passidomo. MS. PASSIDOMO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Kathleen Passidomo, and I represent several property owners in Vanderbilt in the neighborhood of the proposed boat house. The position of these neighbors is notwithstanding the co,=Lents that were made here this morning regarding what the structure is going to look like, and that it is, quote, identical, unquote, to other boat houses in the neighborhood, that this proposed structure does not comport with Section 2.6.21 of the Land Development Code for a couple of reasons, mainly centering around safety in the canal in which it's proposed to be constructed and the view issues. Two -- two arguments for a~roving this petition were cited was that this was an identical project to many other projects in Vanderbilt Beach and that it should be granted because of that. Every boat dock -- boat house is different. They're not all identical situations. It is my understanding from my clients and the little bit of driving up and down the neighborhood that I did, that there are -- no two boat houses look the s-me and that the majority of the boat houses constructed in Vanderbilt do not protrude as much into the canal. T~is protrudes 20 feet into the canal. ~ny of them are boat slips. Many of them don't protrude as much as 20 feet. And so the statement that this is identical is incorrect. There was another statement that perhaps this should be granted because there is an existing boat dock with pilings in place and, you k~m~. just merely putting a roof on it would be the best thing to do, which brings to my client's mind is this one of those situations where, well, let's -- first we'll get the boat dock built and we'll put these big pilings on, because we can get that without going through the process. And then we're going to go through the process Page 53 October 2, 1997 and say we already did that, so we need a roof. And that's of great concern to our client, because in a -- our clients in a way that this -- it sort of undermines the process. It's not a given thing. You're not entitled to a boat house unless you meet the criteria, and it is my clients' contention -- I'm going to let them tell you, because they're here, and they live there. I can't -- I don't live there. I don't live in the house across the canal. But I visited that house, and there will be a severe impact on the view. There's also a very serious concern about safety in the canal. This property is on a point, and the size -- interesting enough, the size of the lot, there's 84 feet on Vanderbilt Lagoon and only 68 feet on this canal. I don't think the other properties were identical, because when you look at the plat in Vanderbilt, they're all different sizes. And my clients don't object to a boat house. What they're saying is that maybe it would have been better had he built his -- you know, the bottom, the dock with the pilings in the front of his house on Vanderbilt Lagoon as opposed to on the canal because of the 20 feet projection into that small waterway, which is only a hundred feet wide compared to the width of vanderbilt canal. Many of the neighbors were not able to be present because they 'n live up north and this is -- you know, they're gert1 g ready to come down, but they're not here now. I got a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Pierre Fabrey. They live on German Avenue -- Germain Avenue. They object to the proposed boat house mainly because they see a proliferation of these and were concerned. I don't want to read them all. I know we're in a time frame, but they object. Mary Weigold, who lives on 453 Seagull Avenue, has a letter -- and I'm going to p~o~ide these for the record -- objecting, again concerned about navigation and the boat traffic in the canal and views. Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Firestone, who live at 4'18 Germain Avenue, also are opposed, again, boat dock -- the boat traffic, the safety issue and the views. Several of the neighbors would like to speak to you, because this is very important to them. So I'll sit down. I'm just the -- you know, the hired gun, and I don't live there. Finally, the statement is we do not believe that the staff is correct. We do not believe that this proposed structure comports with the code. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Miss Passidomo, how may of the clients you represent have, in fact, boat dock -- covered boat docks? MS. PASSIDOMO: One I know does, but I don't -- I think the rest do not. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I have a -- one question. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I may have missed something. I often do, an~ it tickles me when it's this simple. But since that boat dock is akr~ there and we're simply putting a roof on it, how can there Doss~d=lybe a protrusion safety issue? MS. PASSIDOMO: The concern is the roof and the overhang and the visibility. That's a -- it's kind of an interesting little canal. Page 54 16G I October 2, 1997 The other side of the canal is riprap, so it's not -- it's not a straight wall where you can hug the other side. To get out of that canal, you have to stay more in the center, and with -- you know, when you think about it, the guy across the canal could do the same thing, and then the boat couldn't get out at all. COMMISSIONER NELSON: My point is it's already there. MS. PASSIDOMO: They can -- well, they can't see getting around -- my understanding is -- and I'm not a boater -- from my clien?~ that there's a concern'that they won't be able to see going around it. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Because of the roof? MS. PASSIDOMO: I'll let them answer. They're the boaters. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We may hear more -- more from the surrounding residents on that issue. Thank you. MS. PASSIDOMO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Next speaker. If you could spell your last name and remind us whether or not you've been sworn. MR. BUSBY: I've been sworn. My name is Busby, B-u-s-b-y, Bill. I live on Germain Avenue. Good morning, by the way. I live on Ge~main Avenue, and as far as your views and the obstruction of this boat dock, it has no affect on me, none whatsoever. I do have a boat, and I am in the process of even getting a bigger one, like a 35 footer. My concern is, number one, this boat dock was built, and it wasn't built, as Mr. Scofield said, in similarity to these other ones, because I've been through those canals. That wraparound dock that he was talking to, the boat house does not sit on the point of the canal on the property. It sits back in. And the wraparound comes around. So there is visibility coming out of that particular canal. This particular boat dock sits right on the point. When you're coming into that canal, you have to bear to the boat dock side, because on the other side, you get that riprap, and it comes down, and it gets very, very shallow. That and also -- you know, my concern is what if the people on the south side of that canal says, well, Mr. Planning Board, I want to build a boat dock with a boat house, and I want to come out 20 feet. It's going to be hard to say no. I mean, you already got one. And so now we got even a smaller entrance, and it's my understanding, too, you know, we have all these boat docks and boat houses and that they've put up here on the board, but I think if you had the opportunity to go through those canals, which I imagine Mr. Scofield and others have. I have done it. They are not on the point of the canal. They are in a position where there is no public safety or boating safety or anything of that nature. And I'll tell you, you're coming out of that canal, and you're making a right-hand turn, and sometimes you get these jet skiers who like to fly through there, you got a problem. You got a problem. So it's not the view as far as I'm concerned. I think the big concern to me is, you know, I built a boat dock about, oh, I think about a year and half, two years ago, a 36 footer. And before I built my boat dock, I went to my next door neighbor, and I asked him, I said I want to come into the dock this way. Do you mind? He says, no, Bill, no problem. So I think communication sure was lacking in this Page 55 October 2, 1997 instance and really in the construction of the dock. Why wasn't it built on the bay side, the main channel side and coming around with the -- with the little deck that you wanted to build there, not put a boat dock with a boat up. That's -- you know, gentlemen, that's all I have to say. I thank for your time arid -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Busby. Next speaker. , MS. SPONSELLER: Good morning commissioners. I m Betty Sponseller, and I live on Seagull Avenue. My property is directly across the canal from Mr. Maggio's property. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Ms. Sponseller, if I could interrupt you, could you spell your last name for the court reporter. MS. SPONSELLER: S-p-o-n-s-e-l-l-e-r- Okay? All right. Mr. Maggio owned the property directly across the canal from me previous to the property that he owns now, which is right next door. When he bought the property across the canal from me, he built this enormous monstrosity of a sun deck over his boat dock. It's huge, and it's an eyesore. It presents a terrible view just across the canal to look at this thing. Now he has purchased the property right next door, west of that, and he's putting up the boat house, and I would never have objected to the boat house, only that between that awful thing that I have to look at across the canal from me that he built, and now the boat dock, he is wrong. It's on the point of the canal, and it has taken 80 percent of my view. My property has definitely been depreciated because of these two structures that Mr. Maggio has built. No way. I have had people come out to my home -- and I invite every one of you to my home to come and see what I have to look at. I bought waterfront property, like everyone else does, for the beauty of it and for the good looks it gives to your property; right? Your real estate people are always saying oh, the beautiful views, the beautiful sunsets and all that. Well, ,nyhow, 80 percent of mine is gone between these structures. An~ I don't know, I just feel that my property is of no value at all anymore. It's really depreciated my property- I'm lot 12 on the map there. And I don't know, I just feel that it isn't fair that somebody like Mr. Maggio would have more consideration for his neighbors and surrounding properties and present what he intends to do before he does these things. This sun deck was put up quite awhile ago, and I understand they no longer allow these, I guess. It's huge. I mean, it's as long -- it's as long as this room, and it's ugly. Believe me. I have had people come over to my home, and they look at my house, and they look at what I have to look at now, and myproperty's depreciated immensely by these two structures that Mr. Maggio has built. That's all. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Miss Sponseller. .~dditional speaker? I live MS. JENSEN: Hi. My name is Phyllis JeDsen, j-e-n-s-e-n- om &07 Seagull, across the street from Mr. Maggio -- across the canal from Mr. Maggio's home. A couple of the issues I have is -- I have some pictures here that I'd like to -- Page 56 16fi October 2, 1997 COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Do you know what lot you live on? MS. JENSEN: We're right next door to Miss Sponseller. MS. PRIDDY: To the west? MS. JENSEN: To the west -- to the east. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: To the east? MS. SPONSELLER: She's 13. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: She's 13, okay. Thank you. MS. JENSEN: .That first picture is the existing structure that's there now. The --' that will show the view from -- I have a stilt home; so my view directly looks right at the proposed boat dock roof. I call them garages. We have to stop putting these garages on our waterways and just go to a regular boat dock. When we start getting into garages, I mean, on our wate=#ays, I thi~k there needs to be a stop to this. We have a boat, and our problem was that when we built our dock two years ago, we had to get a variance to go 17 feet into the canal. I had to -- we had to auply for a variance, and so I don't understand how he even got 20 feet going out into the canal. But again, it is on the point. It's not like the other ones. All these others -- and we ride up and down all the canals all the time with our boat, and all the others are set back, and they're not exactly on the point like thiS'Now, the roof being on this -- when -- you'll see the other picture which shows the property across the street with the riDrap and no dock -- no seawall. It's very, very shallow quite a ways out. So when we go out, we have to go right almost past the middle to the right. And with a roof now -- you're low. You're not -- we kind of see through his boat and through the thing to get around the corner, but now when you have a roof over it, I don't know, it's going to be -- it's going to be very difficult, because we've seen others with roofs, and it's a safety issue as far as I'm concerned. And not only a safety issue, which to me is the biggest concern, to go around there and not be able to see now, is that when we bought our home, we ~re sold -- and on our description it says -- partial bay view. So we had to pay extra to have a martial bay view. Well, with this roof being on there and us being elevated, we're going to be looking at a garage on our waterway, and that is a big concern for me. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Th~nk you. Additional speakers? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Do we have any questions of the ~etitioner? Mr. Priddy, are you -- are you ~erpetuating some tradition of the Immokalee commissioner? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Yeah. Mr. Thomas made me take an oath to ask a lot of questions. Mr. Scofield, is there, in fact, room -- and I realize the existing dock is there and whatever. Is there -- is there room for t~at to be moved down the canal a ways or not? MR. SCOFIELD: They -- one thing is there's only -- there's only 10 feet that can be moved. Now, a lot of these boat docks or boat Page 57 October 2, 1997 houses in Vanderbilt Beach have 15-foot setbacks off your property line. Originally, I had proposed that there -- to put it, which would move it 10 feet back. The DEP -- again, when I do permitting, I get -- usually go through the whole bit. I went to the DEP and got the DEP's approval for this. DEP's setbacks requi:e 25 feet. The county's 15. So in order to be in compliance with the corps and DEP and everybody else, the boat dock was moved to a 25-foot setback. Some of these other properties, yes, they are set back a little. The ones you have in there, they are set back, because they do have a little bit more room. There are other boat houses that are out on the ends of the street and -- well, they're on the lagoon side also, but that's the reason for the location of the house as it is. And other than that, it's totally similar to what the photographs that you have here is. The other thing I just wanted to address, safety in navigation, a roof has nothing to do with it. It is up in the air. Unless they're coming out in a boat with a big tuna tower, I guess it would block the view, but other than that, it's not -- there's not much difference as you can see by the photographs that we showed there. If there's any other questions, I'd be glad to answer them. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah. Excuse me, Rocky. You had said you had gone -- you'd gone through the permitting process with the DEP and, of course, you show it located over here, and that's where you stand today? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER BRUET: And tell me once again, why was it not considered located on the lagoon side? It just seemed to make -- I didn't like it when I saw it six, eight months ago, and that was one o~ the reasons was siting it. I think it's sited very poorly considering all of the frontage that he has. Just tell me once again why it isn't on the lagoon side. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the owner is here. If you'd like to ask him the question, you certainly can. Just one point to you that -- most of the boat houses, there's 54 out there, and there's more boat houses being applied for every -- every month in this area. They are all -- most of them are on these canals, and they are -- most all of these boat docks are 20 feet -- almost to the 20-foot property line. There's only a few areas in all of Vanderbilt Beach where they're in cut slips into the property with a boat house over it. There's very few of those, so this is similar. When it was said that no other docks stick out 20 feet, most all of the boat houses do. COMMISSIONER BRUET: The 20 feet doesn't bother me if it's on the lagoon side. That's not even an issue. And I'm just trying to find out why it was never cited on the lagoon side with all of the room, the view, the safety issues. I just would like someone to tell me that. The photos look great. Looking down the canal, hey, I don't ~m~ve any problem with that, looks good. But I would just like to uzK~erstand it a little bit better. If there's some rational reason that it couldn't have been located there, obviously I may feel different. Page 58 October 2, 1997 MR. SCOFIELD: Well, you're certainly -- would you like to address it? No. Just the owner would -- he didn't -- he wants to have it where it is. That's what we did. We permitted it as there, and now we're here to file for the petition. COMMISSIONER BRUET: This is where it is. CHAI~ DAVIS: Mr. Scofield, in your pictures, you show a boat dock with a roof structure over it on Tradewinds. I think it's the Bues property? MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It's very similar in positioning to this one; am I correct? MR. SCOFIELD: The other ones are set back further. The Bues doesn't show up on this photograph, but his property, it is closer out than the other two to the end. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I see, okay. Any other questions? All right. Public hearing is closed. Did you have something to ad Ms. Murray or -- MS. MURRAY: No, I didn't. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we continue to deny the application that Would be petition BD-97-18 due to the siting of the facility and not considering any alternate sites in view of safety, view, and all related issues. COMMISSIONER NELSON: I'll second that motion and add to the discussion that I think it just slightly exceeds the line. If it were -- if it were moved, I could probably support it. The view obstruction of this one and the width of the canal, I think it's just slightly over what I can accept. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There's a motion by Mr. Bruet of denial, seconded byMr. Nelson. Is there discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Aye. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Opposed? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: So the motion fails five to two with Mr. Bruet and Mr. Nelson in the minority. Is there an additional motion? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Mr. Chairman, I move Petition BD-97-18 with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There's a motion by Mr. Priddy, which I think you meant to say a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: To approve. C~4AIRMAN DAVIS: Seconded byMr. Budd. Is there discussion on t2~t motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Aye. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Aye. Page 59 October 2, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries five to two with the same two people in the minority. Petition PDI-97-6. Excuse me, I also have to read to petitioner -- Mr. Scofield, the applicant should be aware that this boat dock petition may be appealed by an affected property owner within 14 days of this hearing and therefore the applicant proceeds with construction at his or her own risk during this period. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Back to PDI-97-6. Ms. Murray -- and I'd ask all those present that are going to speak on this petition to please stand and raise your right hand so the court reporter may swear you in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Ms. Murray. MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, current planning. The petitioner seeks approval of a insubstantial amendment to the Moorings Park PUD master plan in order to add one additional project entrance from Goodlette-Frank Road to the southern one-third of the subject site. The applicant plans to retain the same approved uses as described in the PUD document. The boundaries of the PUD and the location of existing ingress and egress points will not change. Moorings Park is 82.9 acres in area, and it's located a half mile south of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. It has about 1800 feet of frontage on Goodlette-Frank Road. The present approved master plan allows one point of ingress and also one egress only. The ingress-egress point is located on the northern portion of the site. The egress only is south of the ingress-egress, which is -- it's approximately centrally located on the bite. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Ms. Murray, if I could interrupt you. Everybody has read Ms. Murray's staff report. Is there anyone that has a question of either she or the petitioner? COMMISSIONER YORK: The only question I have is, does it create any traffic problem? MS. MURRAY: No, it does not. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The finding was no? MS. MLTRRAY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: With that, I'll close the public hearing. Motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend we move forward and approve the Petition No. PDI-97-6, Moorings Park PUD. COMMISSIONER YORK: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion for approval by Mr. Bruet, seconded by Mr. York. Discussion? Ail those in favor si~%ify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously. PDI-97-4. Once again, I'd ask all those present to please stand and raise your right hand so that you may be sworn in by the court reporter. · Page 60 October 2, 1997 (The speakers were sworn.) MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, current planning staff. Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to abbreviate my presentation if you would prefer. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. This I think is very similar in nature, pretty straightforward. MS. MURRAY: It's very straightforward. The only thing I would like to add -- and it doesn't necessarily have to be a stipulation unless the county .attorney feels it has to be, but I would like the applicant to place on their revised master plan the location of the proposed maintenance facility for the golf course. There was a bit of confusion as to where that was going to be. And just as a point of clarification, I would like that to be put on the plan. MS. STUDENT: I don't know if that's necessarily a legal point, but to clarify it and so there's no confusion down the line, I think that's a very good idea. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Maybe we could hear from the petitioner's representative if there's a problem with doing so. The indication is that that's no problem. Any questions of either the staff or the petitioner on this petition? Is there anyone else in the audience that wanted to speak on this petition? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve PDI-97-4 as recommended by staff. COMMISSIONER OATES: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That's with the addition of the -- COMMISSIONER YORK: With the location of the maintenance. 'CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion of approval by Mr. York, seconded by Mr. Oates. Any discussion? Ail those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response. ) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously. Petition No. NUA-97-2, Mr. Bellows, and once again all those present that are going to speak on this petition, please stand, raise your right hand so that you may be sworn. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAUIS: Thank you. Apparently, once again, pretty straightforward, Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. For the record, Ray Bellows. This is a nonconforming use alteration application to allow unit owners of Naples Land Yacht Harbor to replace older dilapidated structures with newer structures. No letters for or against have been received. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Any questions of either staff or the petitioner? Anyone else here to speak on this petition today? Se~ing none, I'll close the public hearing. C~ISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move we recoam~end approval of Petition NUA-97-2 to the Board of Zoning;~als. COMMISSIO~ BRUET: Second. Page 61 October 2, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion of appr -- recommendation of approval by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Bruet. Discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. Petition V-97-7, which is a companion item to CU-97-18, I'd ask · ~ all those present that are goln~ to testify on this issue to please stand and raise your right brand so that you may be ~worn by the court reporter. This is a new swearing. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: T~nk you. Mr. Bellows. 14R. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. These are companion items. I'd like =o present the variance first. The petitioner is requesting a varig%ce from the minimum lot area requirement of 5 acres to 4.09 acres and a 33-foot variance from the required lot width to 165 feet -- from ~.65 feet to 132 feet. This is a nonconforming lot that was created in 1983 by a previous owner and was involved in a foreclosure action in 1991. Since this lot was not legally created, it requires a variance in order to obtain building permits. The petitioner is only seeking the minimum amount that will allow for the development of the site as a plant nursery. In addition, it is unlikely that any detriment to the public welfare would result from its approval. It should be noted that the proposed stz~ctures along the northern prol)erty is illustrated in your plot plan is buffered and it meets the setback requirements for the agricultural district for ndn~onforming lots of record. In addition, the proposed -- adjacent l~d uses that I can show you on the map here. It's south of the Gada]Leta PUD, north of Arbor Lake. There's an FP&L power easement that cuts through the westerr. portion of time -- end of site. As you can sse, it's a very long and narrow. It's over ten times long as it is wide. Across the street there is s~ industrial uses. Petitioner is also proposing conditional use 21 of the agricultural zoning district to allow for a retail plant nursery in conjunction with a permitted wholesale plant: nursery. The retail portion will only be 900 square feet with ~ maximum of 1,500 square feet of floor area. The TIS indicates that the retail plant nursery will only generate 44 weekday trips and 76 ~:rips on a Saturday. This will not exceed 5 percent of level of service C capacity of old U.S. 41. The project's ingress-egress will not a%dversely affect traffic flow on the road. In addition, the proposed conditional use has been designed to minimize impacts on adjacent properties due to the l~_ndscaping and buffering provided. The pla~ also proposes l~-intensity uses adjacent to residential -- residentially zoned properties. Staff, therefore, recou~ends approval of 'Doth V-97-7 and conditional use 97-18. No letters for or against any petition has Page 62 October 2, 1997 been received. ~ DAVIS: Okay. Does ~he petitioner have anything to add? I' m sorry. Mr. Nelson, you have a question? COMMISSIONER NELSON: I was going to ask Ray who Daniel Conley is. He was mentioned a couple of times here. ~R. BELLOWS: He was ~he trust holder for ~he current property owner. Mr. Busk is the contract purchaser, ~d as you can see on the -- in your applica.~ion, Mr. Daniel E. Conley is trustee for ~rial Hom~s p~_~sion holding company. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Was he involved in the original -- MR. BELLOWS: No, he was not. He -- they acquired the property after the foreclosure action in 1991. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Do you know why the original 200 feet was put off? MR. BELLOWS: No, ~hat did not come up in t. he research. ~ DAVIS: Mr. Hoover, it seems pretty straightforward. MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover of Hoover Planning, representing ~he petitioner. We just wanted to bring out one ~>oint here. We discussed with E~ Kant one OF -- Item 6 or stipulation n,~er 6, ~d we just wanted to clarify that if there -- what Mr. wants is that if there's an operational problem developed, ~hat turn lanes would be put in. The wording is a little umclear here, and we would like it to read, for the last line there, the installation of either or both northbound and sout/xbound turn l~nes will be required instead of both. And Ed Kant agreed to the language change as well as Mr. Bellows. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I failed to mention that. I discussed that with Mr. Hoover and have no objection. -MR. HOOVER: If -- in other words, there's three different scenarios: The southbound turn lane, a northbound, or both at the same time. C~ DAVIS: Staff has no objections to that language change? MR. HOOVER: No. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions of either staff or the petitioner?' Anyone in -- I' m sorry. Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Does the ~etitioner know anything about why the lot was created as an illegal lot and then why it was bought for investment purposes even though it was an illegal lot? MR. HOOVER: Okay. Let me explain ~hat. Back in 1983 the person that owned the -- there was 8.69 acres here. They lived in L~d O' Lakes, Flori~. Is that up by Lakeland or Tampa someplace? They sold in St. Petersburg, Florida. I don't the property to somebody else ...... "or Because think ~hey knew that they were creating a n. onco. nzorm.x_ng~ t_ ' if ~* =~,, ~_bink about it, it's still 4 acres xn sxze. ant ~_o -- _ was -- ~he person in St. Peter?burg _ p .p . o ~-r -ale and the petitioner purcnase~ 1=. uo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ times since the illegal transaction was made. Page 63 16G October 2, 1997 COMMISSIONER NELSON: And did the petitioner know it was an illegal when he purchased it? MR. HOOVER: Not that I'm aware of, no. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Nelson, I would say that from -- not related specifically to this petition, but from my experience over the past five or six years, there's been a much higher level of due diligence, especially if there's a bank or an attorney involved. Without a bank or an attorney, oftentimes this is what happens. COMMISSIONER YORK: Damn bankers. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Anyone else to speak? Anyone else to speak on this petition today? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, you're looking for a motion on both issues? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Each one separately. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Fine. Mr. Chairman, I recommend we approve Petition V-97-7 as reco,~ended by staff. COMMISSIONER OATES: I think it should be recommend approval, shouldn't it be? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes. Reco,~end approval. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion to recommend approval of V-97-7 by Mr. Bruet, seconded by Mr. Priddy. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously. COMMISSIONER OATES: In filling out my finding of fact sheet -- ' COMMISSIONER BRUET: In follow up, Mr. Chairman, I recommend -- COMMISSIONER OATES: Oh, excuse me. COMMISSIONER BRUET: In follow up, I recommend that the Planning Commission approve Petition CU-97-18 for conditional use 21 for the agricultural zoning district. COMMISSIONER YORK: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And once again, that's a reco~m, endation of approval. MR. BELLOWS: That includes that stipulation that provides language? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. A motion for reco~endation of approval of CU-97-18 by Mr. Bruet, seconded by Mr. York. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously. And if everyone would be sure to -- the findings of fact are filled out, pass them down that way so they can be added to the pile for the record of the day. PSP-97-10, Mr. Nino, who's been waiting patiently for us. ~R. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. (Brief break for court reporter paper change.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: With that bit of levity, we're back to it again. Page 64 October 2, 1997 PSP-97-10, Mr. Nino. All those present here today to speak on this petition, please stand and raise your right hand so that you may be sworn. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. You have the very standard preliminary subdivision plat approval petition before you for consideration. It contains a -- it's a replat of a platted tract within the Southhampton, slash, Stonebridge PUD. It would bring about 51 single-family lots, all of which will front on a private street within the Stonebridge PUD. Our resolution -- our draft resolution for adoption includes those considerations by reviewing staff, which assure us that when this land is developed, it will be developed in a manner consistent with Land Development Code regulations. We recommend approval. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: The I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. Thank you. Questions of staff? Petitioner, anything to add? Any questions of the petitioner's representative? Anyone else here today to speak on this petition? Seeing none, I'll clo~e the public hearing. COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the Petition PSP-97-10 subject to the conditions contained in the resolution of adoption. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion of approval by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Bruet. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) -CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries un,nimously. COMMISSIONE~YORK: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONE~ YORK: I would make a motion, as a courtesy to Mr. Varnadoe, since he has a plane to catch, that we move Item P to the next item of business. COMMISSIONEHOATES: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Discussion? All those i~ favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And I'm sorry. That motion was by Mr. York, seconded by Mr. Oates. With that Petition CP-97-3, Mr. Weeks. This is -- Miss Student, this is a transmittal recommendation. MS. STUDENT: Right. It's a comp plan amendment, and once again CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Legislative? ~. STUDENT: -- it's legislative and witnesses need not -- you might call a witness, but individuals need not be sworn. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: All right. CfH4MISSI~ BUDD: Mr. Chairman, a disclosure on this. I spoke with Mr. Varnadoe and Mr. Strange regarding tb{s issue. Page 65 16G October 2, 1997 COMMISSIONER OATES: As did I. COMMISSIONER BRUET: As did I, Mr. Chairman. COMMISSIONER YORK: I spoke to Mr. Varnadoe. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I spoke to Mr. Varnadoe, and quite honestly, I don't remember whether we talked about this petition or not, but -- COMMISSIONER OATES: That's what happens when you get older, Russell. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'll have to say the same thing as you, Mr. Priddy. I think I talked to Mr. Varnadoe about it. Ms. Student. MS. STUDENT: I just wanted to state, because this is legislative and not quasi-judicial, you don't need to worry about disclosures on legislative matters. It's presumed that people are going to talk to the legislative-making bodies, but I appreciate -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We like to make it clear, though, that -- MS. STUDENT: That's fine. If you wish to do it, that's very good. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Although as was just pointed out, we don't have a very good recollection of it so -- COMMISSIONER YORK: That's the second thing to go. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. Wayne Arnold, planning services director. I'll be presenting this petition. Again, this is a comprehensive plan amendment which the suggestion is to add a very site specific amendment to our plan which would authorize a reallocation of an unspecified number of dwelling units from the current Fiddler's Creek project, which is immediately west of the subject property, into this area which is designated agricultural rural in our Future Land Use Element. The property is 1385 odd acres, I believe, the is the total, and what's suggested is to keep the maximum 6,000 dwelling units intact for the Fiddler's Creek PUD allowing some of those 6,000 units to spread into this specific project site. I think they have an exhibit which might indicate that the plan of intent is to go ahead and develop additional golf course sites as well as some additional amenities for the Fiddler's Creek development. We looked at several issues related to this amendment and one of those criteria was whether or not it meets the intent of sprawl under the state's definition of sprawl. I won't go through each of those criteria. They are in your staff report. It's our belief that it does not meet the definition of sprawl as defined by the state. That ultimate decision is up to them, but we do not believe that it does. Again, we looked at this area. The subject area is within the county's water-sewer district. There is urbanized development to the immediate east of the project site, which is Boyne South golf course. There's industrial development to the north, the Krehling Industrial Park there as well as an additional park that's m~rtially developed. There's travel trailer parks, mobile home parks to the north and east of the project site as well as to the west. There's also some vacant C-3 co~,ercial property to the northwest of the project site. Page 66 !6G 1 October 2, 1997 As you can see from the aerial that Mr. Varnadoe has, most of the site has been actively farmed and is, I believe, still currently under some agricultural production. There is some wetland area on the project. You'll note that the language of the stipulation suggests that no more than ten acres of wetlands will be impacted from the development scheme. One thing I might add is that the language that you see in the staff report, we have a suggested amendment. After discussion with the county attorney -- I have copies of that I'll be happy to hand out to you. This language clarifies that the reallocation will only occur in Sections 18 and 19. It will not include Sections 29 which -- this is only a portion of Section 29. It's immediately south of the Boyne South golf course project. It would not contemplate putting in any dwelling units within that project site. I don't know if you-all can see that. You can see it down here. It's the little small isolated parcel on the large exhibit in front of us. And that also adds clarification to the language regarding the density of the project in going from approximately 2.5 units per acre down to a density of 1.6 units per acre as a gross for the total project density still maintaining 6,000 dwelling units. Again, I don't have a lot more to add. I think they're -- certainly you're going to -- potentially may hear some issues, perception of urban sprawl. Again, we don't believe this meets the definition of urban sprawl. Water and sewer services are available. It's still within the county's water-sewer district boundaries. Those boundaries were not retracted at the time the county's urban boundary was retracted several years ago. Again, this is -- even though it's a fairly large partial and mayb~ as we saw another project recently could develop with a clustered land use scenario with golf course and home sites, I think the result here is that we probably net 277 fewer dwelling units on the project than we might otherwise have. By doing the calculation separately, that land would yield 277 dwelling units if you divided them into five-acre tracts. Those won't ever occur on that property under the scenario that Mr. Varnadoe has suggested. We've suggested that you transmit this to the state for their consideration -- or to the board for their consideration, excuse me. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Questions of staff? Mr. Varnadoe. MR. VARNADOE: For the record, George Varnadoe. I'll be very brief. You're going to see this project again and go into all the gory details. It's coming back for the amendment to the PUD, the DRI, and final adoption of this Growth Management Plan amendment. I'll go into as little or much detail as you want to hear. I think Wayne's covered the essentials, and that is we're adding 1385 acres, no new units, no impacts into the wetlands. And I'm sorry, I've covered some of that up, but basically it's these two -- what's in the dotted red is what we're adding. Fiddler's Creek is in the red over here (indicating). We're going to be developing what's been farmed. All the areas that have trees on it now including some of Page 67 October 20 1997 this down here which is upland remains on this parcel down in here, which you may not be able to see. Same situation. You can see it better here. This has currently not been developed. The part that's in the darker green has been. That will be turned into recreational areas. No units down here. So the units will be contained in this area here along with additional recreational open space situations. So to me it's a win-win situation, no new units, less density, more recreational opportunities, higher quality of life, and no environmental impact. But I' 11 be glad to go into as much detail as anybody wants to hear. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Question of the petitioner? Thank you, Mr. Varnadoe. Additional speakers on this petition? Seeing none, I'll close the ~blic hearing. COMMISSIONER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I'd -- I would move that we forward C~-97-3 to the Board of County Co~issioners with the recommendation that they submit this petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion of transmittal by Mr. York, seconded by Mr. Bz~/et. Discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No res~onse. ) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously. Mr. Varnadoe, we have all these nice books that we now have no use for. -COMMISSI~ PRIDDY: You can give them back to us. The next two or three times y~u come, bring this back. MR. VARNADO~-: I would recoa~end to the Planni:~g Commission they would ask Mr. Priddy the essence of my conversation with him on welcoming him back to the Plapntng Commission as appropriate, maybe off the record, though. COMMISSIONER BRUET: When will that be appropriate? COMMISSI~ PRIDDY: He Just asked if I was a slow learner or had a short memory, and I told him I qualified for both. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: With that, we'll move on to PSP-97-11, Mr. Nino. I'd ask all those present that are going to speak on this issue to -- all those present that are going to speak on this petition to stand and raise your right hand so that you may be sworn. So far it's Mr. Nino. Raise your right b_-~. (The speakers were sworn. ) C~AIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: For the record, Ron Nino. Again, we're dealing with the st-~d of preliminary subdivision pla~ application procedure whic]~ -- which has a phase of -- or a portion_of Pe_lic.a~. Str_a~.d, which you're all familiar with, well into the. .interi.o.r of Pe.l~.can .S=ra~a, ._~ along Pelican Strand Boulevard accessea my anonner private street w~un a cul de sac creating 26 single-fa~u[ly lots. Again, staff has reviewed this, and to insure that as the Page 68 16G 1 October 2, 1997 project develops, it remains consistent with provisions of the Land Development Code, the resolution is drafted to contain those stipulations that will insure that that comes about. We recommend approval. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of Mr. Nino? Does the petitioner have anything to add? Anyone else here today to speak on this petition? Seeing none, .I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve PSP-97-11 subject to the resolution of adoption -- conditions of the resolution of adoption. COMMISSIONER YORK: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion by Mr. Oates for approval, seconded by Mr. York. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion carries unanimously. Petition V-97-9. Once again, all those present that are going to speak on this petition, please stand and raise your right hand so that the court reporter may swear you in. MR. NINO: I think, Miss Terry, you ought to raise your hand. You might very well be -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I'm sorry. Go again. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes. Ron Nino for the record. Petition V-97-9 is a petition by the WCI Co~unities requesting a reduction in the minimum floor area as it applies to a specific parcel of land within the Pelican Marsh co, m~unity. Located on Immokalee Road, Pelican Marsh covers a whole lot of area and this is a kind of a panhandle from the Pelican Marsh co--unity which runs all the way through here and a panhandle running straight north to Immokalee Road. This property here representing -- let me finish this by saying that that parcel of land is immediately next to the Courtyards of Naples. It used to be Regent -- it used to be -- well, I forget now, but in any event, I'm sure you might know were the Courtyards is on the south side of Immokalee Road, and to the south of the Courtyards, which is a multifamily product, is a single-family development, and that is -- no, I can't read it. Variances of this type -- this would have you vary the minimum floor area of a thousand square feet to seven h%,Ddred and fifty square feet as it would apply only to the development within the specific parcel of land. Variances do not have any relationship to the Growth M~-agement Plan or to the FLUE, so we're not really concerned with consistencywith the Future Land Use Element or any element of the Growth~ement Plan. ~owever, variances, as you know, require a finding, and staff has reviewed the prerequisites for su~orting a variance and I trust that you've all had an o~ortunity to review that. And the opinion of staff is a preponderance of the findings support the request for Page 69 October 2, 1997 variance. We think there are peculiar and unusual circumstances present here that support the reduction in the floor area for those -- for only certain units. And, again, the presumption is not that all of the units are going to be 750 square feet, but only those that are -- consist of one-bedroom, one-bath units. If you had a chance to review the resolution that we've drafted, it specifically provides that floor areas would be tied to the bedroom-bathroom composition of the various units. And the -- the actual developer is here. I suggest they might be able to advise you that it is, indeed, their intention to build a variety of bedroom-bathroom compositions and not all one-bedroom, one-bath units at 806 square feet. Given that and given our preponderance of the findings, staff is comfortable recommending that this variance be -- that you recommend that the variance be granted to the Collier County Board of Commissioners. You might also be interested in knowing that there is an application to amend the Pelican Marsh PUD and that application -- that amendment package will include a provision for reducing the minimum floor area for those multifamily units that are built to the east of Airport Road. So there will be a PUD amendment coming along shortly which will verify the action that you're doing today if you decide to recommend the variance. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of Mr. Nino? Mr. Priddy. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I know I'm treading on thin ice by asking another question, however, what's our minimum square footage per unit in the county? 'MR. NINO: In the Land Development Code? Actually, the minimum floor area in the Land Development Code for an RMF-16 district or an RMF-12, which is comparable to what we're doing here, is 650 square feet. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER 0ATES: Mr. Chai~n, I guess I should -- I think I announce that I am a trustee of the Pelican Marsh courts,unity development district, which has nothing to do with the development itself, but we take care of all the medians and all that stuff. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Oates, are you -- are you paid a salary by -- COMMISSIONER OATES: By the district. MS. STUDENT: By the district, okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions of Mr. Nino other than Mr. Priddy? No? Petitioner. MR. TYSON: My name is Bruce Tyson. I'm a project manager with Wilson Miller. Miss Watts is on vacation this week, and she'd me to just stand in. The only thing I really wanted to add is that if you r~call last December, believe it or not, we actually came before you wi~h this exact same petition which you approved, in essence, for a PUD amendment. It was in there. Subsequently that PUD, before it got to the board, was withdrawn and simply -- because there were a number of other amendments that were going to be added to it, and we didn't Page 70 October 2, 1997 want to come back and piggyback amendment upon amendment. So, in essence, you're voting today on something that will be included in the next PUD amendment that will come along, but in order to speed up the process forms. Taylor, we'd like to have you vote on this variance. It's just a matter of, at this point in time, I think, of just making this as expeditious as possible for her. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any questions of the petitioner? MS. STUDENT: . I still want to Just state for the record that we thought that it wo~ld be better that this go as a PUD amendment. We could find no legal -- necessarily legal objection to it not, but I still must remind you that you need to be guided by the criteria for granting a variance as opposed to any need of anyone to have something expeditiously. That is not in our variance criteria. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: What's that -- a 750 square foot unit, what is that? It's not like four bedrooms, three baths, I assume? MR. TYSON: It's a -- that's a -- as a matter of fact, the smallest unit that the petitioner has here is a one-bedroom, one-bath unit of 806 square feet. The reality is that when you put a project together like this today, it has to have a mix of uses. Probably the thing that I can think of that's existing now is -- even though it's a much different product -- would be something like Arbor Walk of quality that has a fair amount of open space throughout it with the lakes included, but also has a mix of uses that's available. So this runs from a range of a low of 806 all the way up to about 1200 and almost 1300 square feet for a three-bedroom, two-bath unit. It's just a matter of having all of that -- you know, the flexibility of being able to develop that type of a product. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Any other questions? -Anyone else to speak on this petition? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chaizlnan, I recommend the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition V-97-9 to the Board of zoning Appeals with recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion of recommendation of approval by Mr. Bruet, seconded by Mr. Budd. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries unanimously. PUD 82-29(3), and once again, I'd ask all those present that are going to speak on this petition to please stand and raise your right hand so that you may be sworn by the court reporter. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. The petition that's before you would have you rezone the property known as the Retreat from PUD to PUD. And as we've told you on many occasions, that action is really of administrative convenience to the staff in dealing with the various PUDs as they're amended. In fact, this is an amendment to the Retreat PUD. Page 71 October 2, 1997 The existing Retreat PUD as it relates to the sole r~maining tract in the Retreat development -- namely Tract B in this area here, and Bentley Village. Those of you might be familiar with Bentley Village, lies to the north of the main Retreat drive which bisects the property into two sides. The north side is entirely -- comprises of the Bentley Village together with its independent living units and its golf course and dining facilities and a nursing care facility out near the highway. We're -- we're immediately south of the dining facilities and the health care facility primarily with that portion of Tract D that will be the subject of the development. Tract A is the -- is in the southwest corner of the Retreat, and that tract is developed with conventional housing. The Retreat PUD when it was first approved was approved for a total of seven hundred and -- where is my report here -- not very well organized today -- was approved for a total of seven hundred and -- Bob, help me out. What is it here -- 740 dwelling units. And those dwelling units were assigned to individual tracts. And Tract B, for example, was assigned a total of -- Tract B was assigned a total of 182 dwelling units. Under this proposal, that will go up to 190 units, however, Tract A never get -- never did get developed to 186, and that will be reduced to 176. The long and the short of it is the 740 units will remain, so that from a density point of view, there is a wash. However, what really drives this amendment is that the uses that were to be allowed on Tract B did not include congregate living units. So the major push for this amendment is to allow a congregate living facility similar to the Bentley Village. As a matter of fact, it's the same -- same owners, the Hyatt Corporation -- to construct an assisted-living environment on Tract B. And the units will wash out. In the real world, the density will be much less pronounced, because if Tract B were developed with conventional condominiums, that would -- that would tend to -- to include more than just old folks who don't move around very much -- COMMISSIONER OATES: You may be going there yourself some day. HR. NICK): -- so that the impact of assisted-living facilities is really much less than conventional housing. And as a matter of fact, Bruce Tyson would tell you that in his research there is an equivalency factor of about 6 ACLF units equaling one conventional unit. Bruce and I have argued about this over the years. I don't agree with him on that score. I really think it's 4 to 1, but Bruce says it's 6 1/2 to 1. But to make a long story short, there is certainly a ratio there that one could -- that is more than a one-to-one basis. In the process of -- Mr. Duane has restructured the Retreat PUD so that it's consistent with today's model. There are some issues that Miss Student has addressed that need to be addressed yet. They are not of a substantive area, but I'm sure -- and Mr. Duane is aware of t,h~se, but Mr. Du~ne was on vacation and asked if he could get the revised PUD to us after your meeting which happens to coincide with his return from his vacation as well, and I said I thought we could live with that situation. You can always be assured that Miss -- Page 72 October 2, 1997 between Miss Student and myself, the PUD will -- will be responsive to the county's requirements. We recommend approval of this rezoning petition. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of Mr. Nino? Petitioner. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning again, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson. Mr. Duane and I are here on behalf of Classic Residence by Hyatt. We also have here present Mr. Jerry Falcon, who is a Vice president of development for Classic Residence by Hyatt. Mr. Nino has given a more than adequate explanation of the purpose of this PUD amendment. It's simply an expansion of the existing operations at Bentley Village and no increase in density. And, in fact, you may recall recently you amended the Land Development Code to change the way that we measure density for these continuing-care retirement communities, and there has been a cap set of .45 floor-to-area ratio. This amendment will result in a floor-to-area ratio of less than half of what is permitted under today's regulations. We'll be happy to answer any questions you have or make a full-blown presentation, whatever your desire may be. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Questions of the petitioner's representative? Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Is there anyone else to speak on this petition? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. COMMISSION'ER YORK: Mr. Chairman, I would move the we forward PUD-82-29(3) to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. -COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion for reconvnendation of appuoval by Mr. York, seconded by Mr. Bruet. Discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That carries unanimously. Mr. Duane is going to help us save yet another tree. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I'd like to know why it takes the petitioner 30 seconds to say the same thing that Mr. Nino takes 15 minutes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Mr. Nino seems a little slow, and I think because we took so long before we got to him. Do you need to make a change? COURT REPORTER: If you're going to be much longer, I'd like to, yes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: I don't think we're going to be much longer, maybe hal f an hour. COURT REPORTER: Hal f an hour. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It' s up to you. COURT Pd~PORTER: If it's half an hour, we'll just keep going. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: With that, SV-97-1, Mr. Badamtchian. This is a variance, so I'll ask all those present here today that are going to speak on this petition to stand and raise your right hand so the court Page 73 16G October 2, 1997 reporter may swear you in. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Before you begin, this is a sign variance. I run a sign company. That's how I make my money. And while I do not have a contract pending for this particular petition -- MS. STUDENT: You're okay. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, I'm going to not vote on this because of the appearance of impropriety, as I'm allowed to do under state statute. MS. STUDENT: Okay. If you'd like. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I also have a problem here in that I work for the company who owns C~4C Heartlands, and i'm involved with these issues, so I'm going to step aside. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Let the record show that that leaves us five people present for a quorum. Mr. Badamtchian. COMMISSIONER OATES: -- the committee meeting, too. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Should I let him run the meeting? MS. STUDENT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. And I pass the gavel over to our newly elected secretary, Mr. Nelson. COMMISSIONER NELSON: What gavel? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: There is no gavel. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners, Chahram Badamtchian from planning services. Miss Terry H~use, representing Everglades Private Airboats, is requesting a vari:.~ce from the requirements of one pole sign for businesses with more than 150 feet of road frontage to allow for two additional pole signs for a total of three signs. They lease two square miles of land on U.S. 41. They have approximately two miles of road frontage on U.S. 41. The property is located approximately 19 miles east of 951 on East Trail. Staff reviewed this petition and recommends denial of the petition based on the fact that they do not fully comply with the requirements of the variance section of the Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Not of staff. I have some questions concerning the type signs and -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: One more thing I should add, they are requesting to install two pole signs onto airboats and park them on the side of the road. That's not like signs with foundation. They're going to be like mobile signs. COM}~ISSIONER NELSON: Mr. Badamtchian, would the petitioner have any other methods to advertise such as billboards down the road, things like that? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: There are existing billboards, but they have to rent those billboards, yes. MS. HOUSE: And we have tried, believe me. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Somebody keeps taking them down, I bet. Page 74 16G 1- October 2, 1997 MS. HOUSE: No. There's just a waiting list like you wouldn't believe for them. Nobody -- nobody gives those up. COURT REPORTER: I need your name for the record. MS. HOUSE: Theresa House, Everglades Private Airboat Tours. COmmISSIONER ~LSON: You may proceed. MS. HOUSE: Basically, I understand that the Land Development Code does not call for the signs. Chahram's calling them pole signs. I don't know if I'd consider them a pole sign as opposed to a gro~md sign. They are 64 square feet, but they're sitting down in a boat. They're not up on a pole as our sign next to the building is. And the boat is sitting in the water. You know, the variance is calling for a 20-foot height. They're going to be 10 feet from the boat, and the boat's sitting in the water, which is probably today level with the road, but normally it sits two to three feet below the road. So as far as the crown of the road goes, they might be six or eight feet above it. I do understand that -- it doesn't call for it, but I have pictures of the other three businesses that are located between Highway 92 and 29 along with us. Some of them have conforming signs; some do not. I just -- you know, if you-all would look at the pictures and maybe take that into consideration. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: I would like to look at some of those. Keep in mind we'd have to keep them -- MS. HOUSE: Oh, I made each one of you a set. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Oh, okay. You're goin~ to point out those that are nonconforming? MS. HOUSE: Well, you know, the Collier-Seninole State Park boat tours, as you see, have directional signs in either direction. -MR. ~: Do you have an extra copy of those? MS. HOUSE: Oh, sure. I'm sorry. MR. ~RE: So we know what you're talking about. MS. HOUSE: Thank you. I'm sorry. The Collier-Seminole State Park boat tours, as you can see from their sign, have a siqn on either side of their entrance, one coming from the west headed east for one mile, one coming east headed west for three-tenths of a mile, which is exactly what we want to say, Everglades Private Airboat Tours, one mile. You know, they just increased the speed limit to 60 miles an hour on this road, and there is absolutely nothing for eight miles before you get to us but wetlands. Port of the Islands, as you can see, has many signs. They have two I'd say at least 250 square foot signs and then 9 signs of 32 square feet that are scattered along the road there. And then my neighbor to the east of us has a 100-square-foot pole sign that exceeds the 25-foot height limitation, yet only has a hundred feet of road frontage, which doesn't allow for a pole sign at all. And I'm not looking to get any of these people in trouble. I'm just looking to try to be on the same level with them. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Could I ask if you use any billboards now? MS. HOUSE: No. No, we have one Dole sign right next to the building at the entrance, and we have one wall sign, and that's it. COMMISSIONER NELSON: And when you said you had asked to use Page 75 16G li October 2, 1997 billboards, you're on a waiting list? MS. HOUSE: With 3-M. I mean, Wooten's and Ever -- and Florida Boat Tours pretty much have those under contract. And until they're gone, they won't be off those signs. They're just locked into them. COMMISSIONER NELSON: All right. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: The size of your signs you're requesting are what size? MS. HOUSE: Well, they're 64 square feet, and the reason for that is that the right-'of-way in that particular area is 150 feet all on my side of the road because of the canal, so it's 150 feet off the center line on the south side. So those signs in order to be able to be read at 150 feet need to be bigger than the normal little directional signs unless I could Barbasol them all the way down the two miles. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Two sheets of plywood is -- MS. HOUSE: Two sheets of plywood. COMMISSIONER YORK: I'd just like to make a comment that, you know, I'm all for businesses going forward, but, you know, that strip is all the way through the Everglades, and it's -- when our tourists come here and they drive tt=ough there, it's the beauty of the Everglades that they come to see. And I just hate to see it get junked up with more signs. I can't support it. MS. HOUSE: I wish you'd been with DOT when they put those signs up for the bridges every 500 feet. I agree with that. But these are in boats. They're not permanent fixtures. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Is there anyone else f.'om the public that wishes to speak? I don't think so. All right. Close the public portion of the meeting. Would someone like to make a motion? -COMMISSIONER YORK: I move that we take staff's recommendation and deny the request. COMMISSIONER NELSON: Any second to that? Russ, did you second it? COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No. I've got mixed emotions about which way to fall on this. COMMISSIONER BUDD: Okay. I'm on the other side of the fence, too, because I've had the opportunity to go out there and drive right past the entrance, because I couldn't find the place. And while I've got mixed feelings, rather not see signs in the Everglades, I like the idea that it's off the road. It's down on a boat on the side of the road. Having driven right Dast their entrance, I know it's tough to find, because you go through miles and miles of nothing. And I think their putting it on a boat off to the side of the road is making the best of a bad situation. So I'm on the other side of Mr. York on this issue. I can't second it. COMMISSIONER NELSON: All right. That motion fails for lack of a second. Do we have any other motions? COMFF~SSIONER BUDD: I'd like to make a motion that we recommend that we forward Petition SV-97-1 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation for apDroval. COMMISSIONER OATES: Second. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: And in way of discussion, I'd just like to Page 76 16G 1 October 2, 1997 ask you to do the best in signage that you can do. MS. HOUSE: Chahram, do you have a picture of the signs? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes, I believe I do. MS. HOUSE: The signs were up before, and someone complained, one of my competitors, so I'll show you exactly what they're going to look like. All they say is Everglades Private Airboat Tours, one mile, and then the next sign. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: Well, I don't it was as much as what they were going to say, but the quality of the sign and how they're going to look and blending in with -- MS. HOUSE: I'll talk to my sign man about that. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: COMMISSIONER NELSON: second motion? All opposed? COMMISSIONER NELSON: COMMISSIONER YORK: Okay. All right. With that, all in favor of the Aye. Aye. COMMISSIONER NELSON: So it carried three to two. Mr. York and Mr. Nelson opposed it. And I'll turn the meeting back to Mr. Davis. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Nelson. Staff has received some photographs that have become public record that I think staff doesn't have much of a choice but to forward them to code enforcement. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Those signs are down now. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: No, but the tall one is down now? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Some of them are grandfathered in, and some of them others are illegal. -COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: You can have these back. We just need one copy to forward. MS. HOUSE: Oh, Okay. That's fine. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Petition CU-97-19, once again, all those present here today to speak on these petitions, please stand and raise your right hand so the court reporter may swear you in. (The speakers were sworn.) MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services. Mr. Mike Corradi is requesting a conditional use 1 of C-3 zoning district for fortune telling and palm reading business to be located at 10401 Tamiami Trail North, Naples Park. And no improvem,ents necessary for this business. This is an existing shopping plaza. All they want to do is move into one of the units and operate a business. Staff recommends approval of this conditional use. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: QUestions of staff or the petitioner? Does the petitioner have anything that they'd like to say? Or maybe possibly a prediction from a crystal ball of how we may vote? Anyone else from the public to speak? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Motion? COMMISSIONER OATES: Mr. Chairman, I move we submit CU-97-19 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. Page 77 16G 1 October 2, 1997 CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion for recommendation of approval by Mr. Oates, seconded by Mr. Bruet. All those in favor signify by saying aye. O~posed? COMMISSIONER NELSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: It carries six to one, Mr. Nelson in the minority. That brings us to CU-97-20. COMMISSIONER 0ATES: Going from palm readings to God. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yes. Possibly a sure thing. I'm not sure. I'd ask all those present that are going to speak on this petition to please stand, raise your right hand so that you may be sworn. (The speakers were sworn.) CHAIRMAN DAVIS: And, ma'am, you get our personal commendation for patience. MS. CARR: Thank you. Does that mean lunch, too? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. Miss Victoria Cart representing House of Prayer of the Living God is requesting a conditional use 3 of the village residential zoning district for a church and related services. This building is surrounded mostly by commercial uses. There are some residential units close by. This building used to be a grocery store, a bar, a butcher shop in the past, and now it's closed, and they are proposing to renovate the building and have a church there. Staff reviewed this conditional use and recommen~c, approval subject to staff stipulation. The site needs some improvements, and we may need to go through a site development plan or site improvement plan to improve the site. Staff recommends approval subject to that stipulation. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Okay. Any questions of staff? Petitioner, do you have anything you'd like to add? Any questions of the petitioner? You've been sitting here all day. You get to say something if you want to. And seeing that the room is com~)letely empty other than the petitioner and our camera lady -- MS. CARR: Well, one thing I do want to say. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Please come forward to the microphone and state your name for the record. MS. CAR}{: My name is Victoria Carr, C-a-r-r. And the only thing I wanted to add 'cause everything was straightforward, that we do have intentions of improving it, but we're just wanting to get our permit first. And then the other thing, I wanted to also request that there be an addendum to our application so in the future if we want to expand that building -- because it's on two lots. We have two lots there, and part of that structure is sitting on one of the lots. So we just want to know if we could -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: That'll take an additional petition in the future, wouldn't it? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Usually conditional use, whatever site plan Page 7 8 October 2, 1997 they Give to us, that's what we approve. Any other additions is going to require other review, traffic in, pact and other requirements of the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We can't do that. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Something in the future. MS. CARR: Okay. Thanks. C}~IRMAN DAVIS: Thank you. Close the public hearing. Motion? COMMISSIONER YORK: Move that CU-97-20 be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation for approval. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Motion by Mr. York for a recommendation of approval, seconded by Mr. Bruet. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAI~ DAVIS: Carries unanimously. Under -- nothing under old business. Under new business, Mr. Mulhere, you had something on LDC hearings? MR. ~: The board has tentatively agreed on two Wednesday evening hearings on December 3rd and December 17th, which pushes obviously us back into November. And as we discussed at the last meeting, my thought was as we've done in the past -- by the way, I researched the Land Development Code, and becaus,, there are some permitted and conditional use changes in this -- although -- although this cycle will be, I think, relatively light and shouldn't really take more than a hour, maximum of two to Go through the process, nonetheless we do have to have two evening hearings. We are required by the Land Development Code to have two evening hearings. We previously had them on the opposite Thursdays of our normal agenda, the 2nd and 4th. And -- but the problem is that the 4th is Thanksgiving, so -- the 13th is not necessarily a problem depending on what the Planning Commission desires. But I was wondering if the 26th -- I don't know if we have people planning to be out of town for the Thanksgiving holiday, my thought is that that second hearing will probably be no longer than ten or fifteen minutes. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We really need only five of us that are close by. COMMISSIONER OATES: I won't be here. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I believe I'll be out of town that Thursday. MS. STUDENT: Mr. Mulhere, are you still talking about a meeting -- what day is the 26th? MR. ~: Wednesday. MS. STUDENT: A Wednesday. Okay. MR. ~: That's the day before Thanksgiving. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: That's a terrible day. I've Got Farm City barbecue and -- MR. MULHERE: How about -- how about -- the only problem I have is that -- I would say we could do it the evening of the 20th, but my problem is I'm not sure that Gives me a whole lot of time to respond to whatever issues come up at the first hearing. How about Monday? Page 79 October 2, 1997 I'm not sure what that Monday is, but Monday the -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Twenty-fourth? COMMISSIONER YORK: I believe that's Tourist Development Council meeting. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Well, we wouldn't necessarily even need this room. COMMISSIONER YORK: But I'm on the Tourist Development Council. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Oh, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: We may not necessarily -- CHAIRMAN DAVIS: You meet at five? COMMISSIONER YORK: We'd be meeting at 5:05. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Because theoretically with no more changes than there are, our second meeting is going to be very brief. MR. ~RE: Yeah. I would say Tuesday, but I can't be sure that the board -- CHAI~ DAVIS: How about Monday? We don't necessarily need to meet here. We could meet in. the first floor conference room if need be. I know you have to advertise it. MS. STUDENT: The only problem is if the board -- I guess we're saying if the board goes over, the land use items are at the tail end of the board agenda, so there might be a problem with getting -- I don't know. Because they haven't been that -- it hasn't gone that long lately. Is that -- was that your point, that they might, though? Maybe different staff would be involved, and I know I could -- if it was, I'm sure I could leave and probably Bob could to and leave it with -- MR. MULHERE: I suggest we maybe plan for Tuesday the 25th, and if there is a problem, we'll continue it, or we'll deal with it. You know~ we'll just have to work around it. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: We had a meeting one time where I came and did something with the gavel and left. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I suspect that -- because what I'm looking at right now, there's maybe, you know, a total of 20 pages and relatively minor amendments, nothing of great controversy. MS. STUDENT: Except for one. COMMISSIONER PRIDDY: But if we scheduled it for another room, we wouldn't have that potential conflict to start with. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Yeah. And we'll leave that up to Mr. Mulhere and his wisdom. MR. ~: So the 13th and -- potentially the 13th and the 25th? CHAIRMAN DAVIS: Right. And the 13th obviously being when we really deal with the meat and potatoes of it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We may be able to feel comfortable using this room. I'll check with Sue Filson and find out what the board's agenda looks like for that period of time and -- CfH4MISSIONER PRIDDY: Supervisor of elections, there's room over there. COMMISSIONER NELSON: And the time? ~. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DAVIS: 5:05; they're required to be evening hearings. Page 80 16'6 1'-', Anything else? Thank you very much. October 2, 1997 The meeting is adjourned. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjour~ed by order of the Chair at 1:05 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MIKE A. DAVIS, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY DEBRA J. DeLAP, NOTARY PUBLIC. .Page 81 MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHMEN,_,Tr.:r.,~iVE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OCT 3 I 1997 ~oard of Ccnnt.¥ Commissioners AGENDA MEETING OF NOVEMBER 5, 1997 MACKLE PARK 6. 7. 8. Agenda. Approval of Minutes of October 1, 1997 Beach Cleaning Schedules - purchase of second machlne - beach tilling - instructions re shell removal Collier County Ordinance 189-11 - schedule for buoy Installation Hideaway Beach T-Groin installation ¥1deotape presentation of beach - Harris Caxambas Boat Docks @roJect 2 Mirage on the Gull Capri Pass Inlet Management Plan - public hearing -Public hearing date - 10/30/97 @ 7:15 10. 11. 12. Old Business New Business Public Comment Adjourn till December 3, 1997 IIo~-15 Hancock Constant~ne~,'~, Mac'Kte I~rr~ Misc. Cortes: 7 _ · Copies To: Collier County Government Center · 3301 Tamiami Trail, East · Naples. Florida 33962 · ' 16G I To determine the rt~k of people ~rowntng in the ~ollier County coastal waters- the Collier County Medica! Examiner'~ records have been searched for the period of 1990-1997. We find that the Wiggens Pass area and the Tigert~tl Park areas have had a number of drownings. The 'Fiqertatl Park area has indeed had more loss of life. From what information that ts available, the hazard~ appear to bo related to: 1] strong water currents in narrow openings between th~ G,~lf amd the enclosed lagoon, 2] the eastern/downward ~lope (of the western wall of the la.eon) is very loose and does not provide for a firm footing for people. 3] the bottom of the lagoo~ [all or some of the lagoon area] is very soft/ perhaps not a "guick-sand" but very difficult to walk through. We believe that these hazards-some or all apparently play a role in the "hazard". 7'igertatl Lagoon Safety Survey It is timely for a definition of potential water ~afety oroblems in this area. We believe that a small,representative group must walk the area together and agree to a~¥ list of hazards. This agreement will provide a basis for action. We recommend the following group: Engineering-Humiston & Moore Co. 2] FL PEP- Ann Lazar 3] FL Game Commission-Mark Robson 4] City of Marco Island Beach Com. This group should be charged by the Collier Cnty. BCC and the FL DEP to define potential hazards in the area. A ~eport in 3 m~nth~ should be 10/28/97 MARCO ISLAND BEACil RENOURISHMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 1997 16G The Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Frank Blanchard, Chairperson. Members present were Charles Huttlnger, Giles Goral, Barbara Schlerlng and Joe Christy. John Dougherty, Buddy Harris, Gl1Scholes and Mike Gllme were excused. Also present were Uarry Huber, Collier County Capital Projects; Pat Berry, The Bottom Line. A mot]on was made by [iuttlnger, seconded by Goral to approve the minutes o[ the August ith meeting as presented. Motion carried. The September 10th minutes were presented and a c~rrection was made. A motion was made by Huttinger, seconded by Schiering to approve the September 10th minutes as corrected. Motion carried. Huber reported that the beach has accumulated a lot of trash due to recent storms, lie Is currently working on the bid documents for the second beach cleaning machine. There was strong opposition by the committee regarding the proposed 12 acres of beach tilling scheduled for 1998. Blanchard reported on a complaint received regarding the removal of shells from the beach. Huber will look Into the possibility of using the shells to create a road at Residents Beach. Huber will furnish a sketch for Installation of the buoys at all proposed locations along the beach and coordinate the project. Letters will be sent to all condominium managers regarding the buoys. Blanchard and Huttlnger announced that a meeting is scheduled with the manager of the Marriott Hotel to discuss the proposed acquisition of the ATV to be used for beach patrol by the Fire Department. Huber reported that the T-Groin installation project has been completed. Cost estimates are being received for the signs to be installed this month. Huber reported that 20 variances were submitted for approval in Collier County. Bob Mulhere reported to Huber that the Planning Committee has been instructed to cease and desist approval of all variances for Marco Island at this time. The new M~rco Island City Council will address these issues in the future. The public hearing for the Capri Pass Inlet Management plan is scheduled for October 30th. The committee discussed the three recent drownings at Tlgerta]l. Everyone agreed that this issue must be addressed immediately. Several options were discussed - to fill in the lagoon, dredge the area, or install a boardwalk. Mike Stephen, Engineer will be asked to revisit this issue. Clarification of the mean high water line may help to resolve the problem. State and County liability may be another issue. Blanchard agreed to contact the County Attorney on this matter. After discussion a motion was made by Christy to seek a permanent resolution of this hazardous situation at Tlgertail/Sanddollar Island. The motion was seconded by Goral. Motion carried. Marco Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee Minutes - October l, 1997 Page Two Huber presented an Executive Summary [or professional services vith Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. relative to the 1997/98 monitoring period. Huttinger stated that a vendor expressed interest in removing trash [rom the dunes. I{e has a small tractor and can get closer to the necessary areas. The committee discussed its position when the new city council is elected. The new council can install a new committee. Blanchard stated that 35%-40% of the TDC dollars is generated from Marco and only 10% is returned. This will be discussed further at the November meeting. Huber recommended approval on the reneval contract for secretarial services. motion vas made by Christy, seconded by Goral to renew secretarial services from The Bottom Line. Motion carried. As there vas no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 10:00. Respectfully submitted by The Bottom Line. MARCO ISLAND BEACH RENOURISHMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 10, 1997 The Meeting vas called to order at 9:00 a.m. by Frank Blanch,rd, Chairperson. Members present were Charles Huttinger, Giles Goral and Barbara Schie£ing. John Dougherty, Buddy Harris, Joe Christy, Gll Scholes and Mike Glime were excused. Also present were {larry Huber, Collier County Capital Projects; Ken Humiston and Brett Moore, Humiston and Moore; Pat Berry, The Bottom Line; and Dave Sommers, Hldeavay Beach. There were no motions made during the meeting due to there being no quorum. Humiston and Moore gave an overviev of the Capri Pass Inlet Management P~lan. Several issues discussed by I{ueiston were: - Due to the south extension of Little Marco Pass, Humiston suggested considering the Little Marco Pass shoal as a borrow area for future beach renourishment. - Coconut Island Is eroding and is currently at 10% of the original size and shifting to the west. The erosion could result in future problems. Humiston suggested looking at future stabilization. - Humiston suggested pursuing the expansion of the "no wake zone" at the Hideaway Beach area. It was reported that signs at the T-Groins have slowed down trafiic at the vest end of the Hideaway area. {{umiston suggested inviting Kevin Duggan along with a State Representative, and a representative from Florida Fish and Wildlife to the Workshop which is scheduled for October 30th at 7:15 p.m., they will be asked to address the "no wake zone" issue. Humiston also suggested "no wake" signs for the Caxambas Channel at the proposed location of the Del, Park Place dock area. - Humiston recommended an inter-local agreement with the Florida Game and Fish Group regarding Sanddollar Island. It was reported that this vas addressed in the Management Plan but Tallahassee seems to be ignoring it. It was agreed that County Staff draft the agreement and submit it to the Game and Fish group. - South beach area shows no need for renourlshment in the immediate future. - The 1990/1991 borrow area has been filling In and will take approximately twenty years to recover at the current rate. This area viii continue to be a source for future borrowing. The management plan recommends against going north with sand from this borrow area. - Ongoing monitoring will continue and it was suggested that monitoring increase North through the Collier Bay Inlet. - Creation of wildlife habitat at a shoal away from recreation areas - an area without controversy. Discussion followed on Tlgertai! recreational park area as it pertains to beach renourishment. It vas recommended that both State agencies, Tallahassee and West Palm Beach, receive any and all information regarding the Inlet Management Plan, etc. In the future. Marco Island Beach Renourishment Advisory Committee Minutes - September 10, ]997 Page Two 16G 1 A question was raised regarding replacement of bags 1£ they are damaged In the [{ldeaway Beach T-Groin installation. [[umlston reported that one or two bags can be replaced wfthout a new permit. A new permit will be necessary to Install the permanent structures. A question was raised relative to the State Beach Cleaning permit, does it include Hideaway Beach, [[uber agreed to respond to the issue. After workshop on October 30th the IMP plan will be submitted [or Collier County Board approval and then the DEP who will also hold a workshop. ]luber reported that the arrival of the beach cleaning machine is two months away. Huber has not completed the purchase papers for the new beach cleaning machine. The buoy installation for the entire shore line needs to be reviewed with Kevin Duggan. Huber agreed to address this with Ouggan. The Caxambas boat dock hearing before the Collier County Planning Commission is scheduled for October 2. Huber will be working with Burr Saunders on this appeal. }{uber suggested completing a comprehensive plan for boat docks for future use. The new Marco Island City Council will be sworn in November lOth. A question was raised on the future of the MIBRC. The new City Council could dissolve this committee and reform a new city committee. As there was no further business to discuss the meeting adjourned at 10:00. Respectfully submitted by The Bottom Line. RECEIVE[ G OCT 3 NATURAL R~SOb'RCES 941-434-4655 EAX 941-434-3059 S~CO~ 974-4655 ~OTZCB OF PD~LZC The Beach Renourish~ent/Naintenance Committee announces a 9ublic meeting to which all interes~ed'persons ars invited. DATB: Thursday 06 November 1997 TIM~ 9:00 A.M. PLACE= City Council Chambers, 735 Eighth Street South Naples, Florida 34102 , 1. Roll Call. 2. Consideration of a approval of the minutes of the 11 September and 02 October meetings. 3. Budget spreadsheet update. 4. Status of Sand Dollar Island issue. 5. Report on public workshop for Capri/Big Marco Pass Inlet Management Plan. 6. Proposed beach maintenance and cleanup procedures: A) Post- storm; B) Routine. 7. Report on TDC meeting of 20 october 1997: A) Grant application; B) Guidelines; C) Upcoming applications. 8. Project updates: A) South Channel/Water Turkey Bay; B) Wiggins Pass dredging; C) dune revegetation; D) upland sand stockpiling; E) Vanderbilt Club. 9. ~a~'ine t'u~tle monitoring report. 10. Discussion of requests to remove dune fencing, danger signs and outer sections of storm drain pipes. ' 11. Agenda for next meeting, 04 December 1997. 12. Adjourn. TO~AL ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITFJ~ DISCUSSED O~ ADDED TO "r~zs AGENOA. ANY P~RSON WMO D~CIDF.~ TO APPEAL AR¥ DEC~sIOH ~ADE BY THIS CO~HITTEE NITH RE3PECT TO ANY MATT£R CONSIDER£D AT THIS HE£TING WILL NKED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND HAY ~P*£D TO r-NSUR~e THAT A YERBATZH RECORD IS HADE, WHICH RECORD IHCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON W~ZCH THE APPr. AL IS TO Be HEARD. ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITy REQUIRING AUXILIARy AIDS AND SERVICES FOR THIS HEIe-TING HAT CALL THE C~TT CLERIC'S OFFICE AT 434-470! #ITH REQUESTS AT LEAST TWO BUS/HESS DAYS BEFORE T'~E MEETING DATE. 5additional information, please contact Jon Staiger at 434- ~/~. tailor,/Ph.D~ Natural Resources Mana er Misc. Corres: Item# /~. ~.--/. Copies To: RECS-_IVED AGENDA 0 C l' 3 0 1997 COLLIER COUNTY HISTORICAL/ARCTfAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1997, IN THE GOVERNMENT CENTER COMPLEX MUSEUM, AT 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRAIL NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE HAPB WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 1. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA o APPROVAL OF MINL~ES: October 24, 1997 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT REPORT: o Ao Archaeological Training For County Staff OLD BUSINESS: Historic Designation of the Morris Property Archaeological Site Bo H. Nehrling's Tropical Gardens and Arboretum Captain Horr's House National Register Ceremony Historic/Archaeological Guide Map 5. NEW BUSINESS: A. Election of Officers B. Building Department Procedures 6. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 7. ADJOURN HISTORICAL AGENDA/md// Norr%$ /v .... Hancock Constantine Berr~- ~' , - M:?r.. Corrcs: {;up:es To: o · 16G I COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 33942 (941) 643-8400 A CERTIFIED BLUE CH;P COM MU~,'ITY October 29, 1997 Mr. Michael Zimny Bureau of Historic Preservation R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 .RE: Collier County Preservation Board Meeting Dear Mr. Zimny: This letter is to inform you that the Collier County Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board held their pul-!ic hearing on Friday, October 24. 1997. I have enclosed a copy of the minutes for your review and records. In addition, I have enclosed a copy of the agenda for the next public hearing that is scheduled for November 14, 1997. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me at my new number: 941-403-2463. Very truly yours, Ray Bellows Principal Planner (CLG Coordinator) ttistoric Pr~scrvation/RV B/rb cc: Vincent A. Cautero Ron Samro Robert Mulhere Nnncy Siemion Preservation Board 1 6G 1 MINUTES COLLIF-P. COUNTY 141STOFAICAL ~ AP. CFIAI::OLOGICAL PP.I~SI~P. VATION t~OAP. D P,..,..t: D,o,., C-~ol.,. C~-.-,o. S,~ff. Lo,- J,o~ Yo,,~. V~,-C~o, D.~,~ .jo,,., Co, ADDI~NDA TO AC:~:_NDA: APPROVAL OIZ MIIxlUTI~S. PLANNING SF:=P. VICES DF=PAP. TMI~NT RI~PORT: OLD BUSIN[~SS D N~¥ EtUSIN[-SS A DISCUSSION OF- ADDENDA NEXT M[--~TING No,~-I~ ,. ,oo~ ~t 0 o~, A M st tb Coll,.~ Co..t~'M ..... 16G DATE: PLACE: ENVI~OMENTAL POUCY TKCHNICAL ADVISORY BOA IE'-C EIVED AGENDA I~,$V Z 1997 November 10, 1997 COLLIER COUNTY COMPLEX HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING 2nd FLOOR, ROOM 216 3oard of County Comissioners TIME: 4:00 p.m. I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Ill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 13, 1997 IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS V. OLD BUSINESS a. Byron Meade's Position b. Exotics Management Work Plan VI. STANDING CONfMITTEES A. COMMITTEE REPORTS (I) Steering Committee - Bill McKinney (2) Resource Committee - Mike Simonik (3) Growth Management - Mike Delate B. SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITTEE REPORTS (1) NRD Budget - Bill McKinney VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT IX. ADJOURNMENT ~ ,&n¢oCk k.,/ ~isc. Corres: Copies To: COLI. R COUNTY GOVERNME PELICAN BAY SERVICES DIVISION RECEIVED t~oard of tour, t.~ Co~,,~sfoners 801 LAUREL OAK DRIVE SUITE 605 NAPLES, FL 34108 (941) 597-1149 lAX (94 l) 5974502 A ~FIF...D BLUE CHIP COMMLr~ITT .NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE IS IlERBEY GIVEN OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PELICAN BAY MSTBU ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THE FOUNDATION CEIVTER, 8962 HAMMOCK OAK DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA 34108 ON OCTOBER 31, 199'/at 2:30 P.M. AGENDA 1. Roll Call 2. Clam Bay Restoration Project A) Consideration of'Engineering, Design and Construction Inspection Proposals B) Budget Status Report - Fiscal Year 1998 3. Adjourn ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE ADVISES THAT, 1F A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE PELICAN BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, FIE WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THIE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. Misc. Cortes: Date: ~ Copies To: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Pelican Bay Advisory Committee ,ames P. Ward/~/ October 27, 1~97 ' Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan I have attached for )'our information aha review, the engineering design and services during construction propo,:,als from the various consullants along with the revised Clam Bay Restoration Program Budget for Fiscal Year 199a. First, the issuance of the permit for the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan is expected tox~ards thc end of November, and therefore in anticipation of the permit issuance the procurement of the engineering ser¥iccs is thc next step required to insure that the Division can be in a position to begin construction activities around the first of thc calendar year. As you know, thc dredging activities must be completed outside luctlc season and are expected to take at least 90 days Next, thc Revised Budget includes the cost of the engineering services that staff has received from thc design consultants, which are intended to provide for both the engineering design required for each of the amicipated construction projects and once each of these const~action projects has been ax~arded to a contractor, the proposals include the engineering services during construction. This includes field inspections that are required to insure conformance with the engineering design criteria, re¥icw of contractor pay estimates, and at completion of the project the certification that the project was constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications. This Phase has been broken into four projects which are listed below with the recommended consultants. Project #1 - Tidal Creek Cut's 1, 2 & 3 Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek - Design and specifications, bidding, construction services. Tackney and Associates - Design and specifications, bidding, construction sen'ices. Project #2 - Clam Pass Main Channel Cut ~ Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek - Eh:sign and specifications, bidding, construction sen'ices. Tackney and Associates - Design and specification, bidding, cortstruction services. Dr. Snedeker - Construction services. Project #3 - Inter/or Tidal Creeks Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek - Design and specifications, bidding, constructions ser~ccs. Lewis Environmental - Design and specifications, bidding, construction services. Project #4 - Seagate Culverts Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek - Design and specifications, bidding, construction services. Wilson, Millet, Barton & Peek is rtcommended to act as the lead consullant on all of thc projects since they have thc resources required to perform Ihc various aspects of thc projects, such as design, technical specifications, inspection, surveying, final certification and preparation of record drawings. As you will see in the proposal Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek have outlined many ofthe tasks involved in all phases of the project. Though it is MEMORANDUM October 27. 1997 Page 2 expoctod that some changes will be required as w: move through this project, this proposal ~ill provide the Division with a basis to track the work on this project. Tackney & Associates is recommended to assist in all three phases of Projects #1&2. David Tacknc~' has been thc consultant that has headed the effort for Cut's !, 2, 3 & 4. He has coordinated thc data collection and performed the technical analysis to dcvclop thc model of the system that has idcntified the llow and tidal deficiencies in the system. His efforts will be directed primarily in the dredging operation, both in thc preparation of specifications and in the construction activities. Mr. Tackncy has also listed various tasks involved with his proposed work and identified his estimated hours. This will assist the Division in tracking his work for this project Dr. Sncdcker is recommended as a consultant for Project 2. on an "as needed basis". Dr. Sncdckcr has a high lex'el of credibility in mangrove s3'stcms and his opinion is held in high regard. This can be particularly important when coordinating efforts xvith the regulatory agencies. It is anticipated that he would be needed during the dredging operations. As he has outlined in his proposal, he would inspect the pumping of thc slurry xsaters from the disposal material into the mangroves, evaluating the operation for any adverse cftc'cts. Currently it's not certain this would be the mclhod of disposal, if an alternativ~ method is used this may limit Dr. Sncdckcr's involvement. Lewis Environmental is bcing recommended for Project #3. Thc work for Ihis project includes thc additional flushing cuts stmilar to the ones performed by Lewis in the spring of 96. Based on observations and thc monitoring performed in this area these original cut's were successful in achieving the desired result of reducing some of the flooding in that area. Lewis Environmcntal's involvement is not typical consultants work. It requires significant field work in identifying the channels to be cleared, hands on full time coordination of contractors work and collecting data to report to the agencies prior to, during and after construction. As part of this proposal, Robin Lewis will be monitoring, with Ihe Division's assistance, and providing reports to thc regulator).' agencies for thc next five years. Again this proposal is divided into various sections outlining the cslimatcd hours for thc Divisions tracking purposes. It is important Io note that contained in thc Revised Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan Budget is the amount of $225.000 which is the budgeted cor~ruction cost estimate for thc Interior Tidal Crecks-Pha~ I. The permit includes an additional two phases of interior tidal creeks to be constructed based upon the results of the field examinations following the completion of all other implementation protocols idcntifiec' in the Plan. Pursuant to the Plan, each phase of the interior tidal creek impn)vements will be implemented as individual projects subsequent to the completion of the Phase I tidal creek. The amount included in this budget line item is intended to include the requisite engineering design services and services during construction along with the construction activity itself for Phase II and Phase III. As such, as more definitive costs are available eof Phase I construction activity the balance of the funds will be identified and earmarked for the Phase II and Phase III portions of the Interior Tidal Creek Project. I have taken the liberty of scheduling this item for action by thc County Commission on November 4. 1997. since staff is required to submit material to the Commission two ~ceks in advance of the Commission meeting. However, if the Advisor)' Board does not intend to proceed with these proposals, then this itcm can be deleted from the Commission Agenda. I look forward to .seeing you at the mecling, and if you have any questions, please let mc know. Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 1998 t6G Revenue Summary Unappropriated Fund Balance ss of Octol~r 1, 1997 ~tercst Income Developer Coutn'bution Az~-szrnent Levy Capital Projects Fund Cl~ Bay Restoration Program Total Available Funds: $313,900 $0 5819,399 $667,700 $1,800,9.99 Appropriation Projection Capital Projects 'Clam Bay Restoration Program Engineering - Permits Engineering - Design Frestwater/Stormwater Analysis Construction Monitoring Contingencies Total Clam Bay Restoration: $196,427 5101,150 S245,000 $1,102,650 543,072 $0 $1,688,299 Other Fees & Charges: Tax Collector Property Appraiser Revenue Reserve Total Other Fee~ & Charges: $20,000 $13,400 $79,300 $112,700 Total Appropriations: $I,800,999 The Developer Contribution is limited to a maximum of $1,000,000.00 for the life of the project. -1- Comer County Pelican Boy Services Division Operating Budget Fiscal Year 1998 16G Capital Projects Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance For the Fiscal year Endln~ September 30, 1997 Received Anticipate Total Budget Expended September Received FY 1997 YTD 1997 Expended Assessment Levy $533,800 $510,682 $0 $5 ! 0,682 Interest Income S5,500 $13,151 S0 S13,151 Developer Con~bufions $252,450 $160,024 S20,577 $180,601 Total Revenue ,, ,$791,750 , $683,857 $2~0,577 5704',434 Appropriations: Capital Projects Engineering $643,150 S362,000 $0 $362,000 Improvements $55,000 S18,286 S0 S18,286 Total Appropriations $698,1S0 $380,286 SO $380,~6 Other Fees & Charges Tax Collector S16,000 S10,214 $0 $10,214 Property Appraiser S 10,700 S0 S0 SO Revenue Reserve S 12,600 S0 S0 $0 Total Other Fees and Charges $39,300 $10,214 $0 $10,214 Net Income $3 ! 3,934 Fund Balance October I, 1996 (Actual) $0 Fund Balance September 30, 1997 (Projected) Distribution of Fund Balance Additions $0 Carryforward to Expenditures (FY 98) $313,934 Total Fund Balance - September 30, 1997 (Projected) S0 $313,934 Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) S23,118 (S7,651) S71,849 $87,316 $281,150 $36,714 $317,864 $5,786 S10,700 $12,600 S29,086 -2- Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division l 6G'"1 Operating Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Capital Projects Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Appropriation Analysis: Engineering Project~ from Fiscal Year 1997 - Open The following projects arc related to the issuance of thc Clam Bay Permit. T. R. Brown Company Lewis Environmental Services Tackney & Associates Wilson, Miller, Et. Al. Dr. Samuel Snedeker Dr. Hillburn Hillcstad Sub-Totals: Budget Actual Balance Due $207 700 $79 000 $86 5OO $90 000 $27 60O S49 lOO $539,900 $153,167 $54,533 $71,460 $7,540 $54,184 $32,316 $47,112 $42.888 $7.001 $20,599 $10,549 $38,551 $343,473 $196.427 Engineering Final Design Element Seagate Culverts Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek Tidal Creek Curs 1,2&3 Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek Tackney & Associates Clam Pass Main Channel Cut g4 Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek Lewis Environmental Services Interior Tidal Creeks - Phase 1 Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek Lewis Environmental Services $8,700 $18,500 $8,700 $23,400 $18,500 $5,900 $17,450 Sub-Totals: $101,150 Freshwater/Stormwater Analysis Construction Seagate Culverts Engineering Services During Construction Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek Construction of Culverts $7,300 $70,000 Sub-Total: $77.300 $196,427 $101.150 $245.000 $77.300 -3- Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division 16G Operating Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Capital Projects Fund Collier County Appropriation Analysis: Tidal Creek Curs !.2.3 &4 Engim:~-ing S,~'vice~ During Construction Tackney & Auociat~ Dr. Samuel Snedeker Wilson, Miller. Barton & Peek Sub-Total: $4,700 S2,000 S24,000 S210,700 Clam Paas Main ~1 Cut ~4 Engineering Services During Construction Tackney & Associates Dr. Samuel Sncdeker Wilson, Miller, Bar',on & Peek Construction Sub-Total: $10,100 $2,000 $27,000 $450,000 $489,100 Interior Tidal Crreks. Pl~se i Engineering Services During Cons~xucfion Lewis Environmental Wilson, Miller. Barton & Peek Construction Sub-Total: $54,050 $7,500 $225,000 S286,550 Clam Bay Ecosystem Enhancements Removal of dead mangrove trees in northern Clam Bay and planting of starter Mangrove Islands. Monitoring Contingcncies $210,700 S489,100 $236,550 $39,000 $43,072 $0 -4- Collier County Pelican Bay Services Division 1 1 Operating Budget Fiscal Year 1998 Capital Projects Fund Clam Bay Restoration Program Approprf~oa Other Fees and Char~es: Ttx Collectoc. (Fund-Co~t Ccnter-930700) Fees trc bu~ on Fis~J Year 1998 uaessments to !~ cotlectecL The Tax Collector ch~a~es thr~e (3) perc.,-nt of the tax~ collected. z~rty Appni~ O~md.C. ost C,n~-9~0600) Fee~ are based on lrtscal Year 1998 assessznenU io6ed. Revenue Reserve (Fuad-Cost Center-991000) The Board of County Commissionc~ policy and State Law requires the Division to appropriate 95% of estinmted revenues, which will cover discounts and non-payment of assessments. S20,000 $13,a00 S79,300 Total Other Fees & Charges: Total Appropriations: $112,700 SI,800,999 -5- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISIONERS AUTHORIZ£ THE PROCUREMENT OF ENGINEEP,~G SERVICES FOR THE II~fPLEMENTATION PHASE OF CLAM BAY RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN AND AUTHORIZE AN INCREASE IN RATES FOR WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK ~ TMt the Board of County Commissioners authorize the procurement of engineering sen~s from Lewis Environmental Services; Dr. Sam Snedeker, University of Miami; Tackney & Associates and Wilson. Miller, Barton & Peek to provide engineering services for the implementation phas~ of the Clam Eay Restoration and Management Plan and authorize an increase in rates for Wilson, Miller, B,'u'ton & Peek. CONSIDERATION: On August 13, 1996 thc Board of County Commissioners approved the procurement of set,ices ~ith T. R. Brown and Dr. Hilbum Hiller, ad to direct in the developmeat of a Clam Bay Restoration Plan. In the. d~'elopmem of this Plan the panidpation of consultants with expertise in specific areas and historic knowledge of the ~'stem were approved on December 17, 1996 for assistance in this Plan. In this original authorization, the Board ~ai~ed the prvvisions of the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA) and deciared this project a vaJid emergency such that staff could expeditiously proceed in the permitting of this Plan. It is being requested that the same consultants that have been involved in attaining the permit be used for the implementation phase of this project. The issuance of the permit for the Clam Bay Restoration and Management Plan is expected to~-axds the end of November. In anticipation of the permit, staff is recommending the procurement of eagir, ering ser, ice~ for thc preparation of the engineering plan~ and specifications, ~uch that thc Division can be in a portion to beg/n con,ruction activities around the tim of the )'ear. The dredging activ/tiea, which mu~ be completed outmle turtle season, are expecxed to take at least 90 days. Therefore it is important that ~ ac~'ities m:! in early. Ianuary ff they are to be completed before tunic season which starts May first. There are four constmcnion projects in the Management Plan to be ~nc~ at :hi: time. Project #1 Clam Pass Tidal Creeks (Cuts #1,2, and 3) Project//2 Clam Pass Main Channel (Cut ~4) Project//3 Interior Tidal Creeks Project #4 Seagate Cuh,erts The following is an outline of the consultants recommended. LEWIS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC~ This firm has both past and present knowledge of this r/stem Mr. Lewis has been lr~,ol,scd tn ~ s,hon term solutions implemented last year which were the flushing cuts including the cormdtant responssble for the additional flushing cuts outlined in the current permit submittal for the long term restoration. Mr. Les-is xsould assist in the preparation of the bid documents, construction activities and final repomng and record drawings. AGENDA NO....~ '- ',..' - 1 g7 DR. SAMUEL SNEDEKER, U~I~ERSITY OF MIAMI 1.6G 1 Dr. Snedeker is a Profe~r of the Division of Marine and Biological Fisheries al the University of Miami and has national eXlX:fience in mangrove systems and during this phase of the project wrould be c:flled upon. as needed, to assess environmental impacts to vegetation and spoil discharge for the dredging activities. Dr. Snedeker has a high lex'el of credibility in this field and would be used only on as needed basis for Project #2. TACKNEY & ASSOCIATES Mr. Tackney's involvement in thc project has been to perform the hydrographic evaluation of the Clam Bay ecosystem. During this phase of the project Mr. Tackney ',rill be responsible for the preparation of the sections of the design plans and specifications, bidding and cost estimates, including services during cons'umction related to the dr~dging related to the Clam Pass tidal creek and the Clam Pass main channel. WILSON, MILLER, BARTON & PEEK Their services would be used on projects #1, 2, 3 & 4. Th~, would act as lead consultant for the formulation of bid documents, construction phase services and final record drawings and ccrtifi:ation activities. As the Division's engineering firm, Wilson, Miler, Barton & Peek, is mosa familiar with the project and has been involved in the permitting process of this project. Lewis Envirom, nem~ Services, Inc. $ 71,500 Tackney & ~ 42,000 Dr. Samuel Sncdcker 2,000 Wilson, Miller, Barton & l%ek 122,300 _FISCAL IMPACT: The Fiscal Impact for the above se~ice requested is $ 237.800 as outlined above. The Pelican Bay Services Division would fund 50% with funds available in Fund 320, Cost Center 183800, the remaining 50% would be funded by WCI Communities per ibc agreement apprw,'ed by the Board of Count).' Commissioners. In addition, the Division has had an agreement with Wilson, MiIlcr, Barton & Peek since January 21, 1987, ~sith the rate structure remaining the s~me since November 19, 1991. Attached is a rate increase to ihi~ agreement that sma' is recommending the Board of County Commissioners approve and is reflected in the attached proposal submitted by Wi'son. Miller, Barton & Peek. GROW'Ill MANAGEMENT IMPACT: None "'-'Pamei P. Ward. Di,4sion Administrator REVIEWED By: Ste~'e Camell, Purchasing Director RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Board of County Commissioners authorize the procurement of engineering serxiccs from Lcx~is Environmental Services; Dr. Sam Snedeker, Universily of Miami and Tackncy & Associates. That the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work Authorization with Wilson, Miller. Barton & Peek under existing agreement That the Board of County Commissioners authorize an increase in rates to ~he agreement xHth Wilson. ,Miller. Barton & Peek That the Bo'ard~f County Commissidners authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Work Authorization and request, for rate: increase. /" DATE AGENDA ITEM No. ;~- --(_, NOV - zt 1997 PAG~ 168 1~ Luwla Envir'~nment:al Services, Inc:, To: Xy~c L~ ~ ]hy ~a'v~ D&ta: O~oWr I 7, l ~7 ~~d ~~ ~ ~e U. ~ ~ ~ or~n~ (~ ~ ~ the p ,.~ ~sj ~~ ~ ~or in tho ~~ ofth~ d~ ~ndi~ on. Cost T.k ]. rmaI Deslsn Su~totel ~ t 4,800 1,200 700 ~025 $14,600 NO, .. ,,, NOV - ;~ ID, 841 SS? PAGE 1 6G"l"' PC~onr~ Tt~: 4. SlJp4rvi~ Wcidc .Subto~ #2 Subtot~ #3 .~ubtet~d #4 $1,250 3~0 $ 2,$~0 5,000 ~,~0o 1,350 $10,325 25,2OO 1,200 1,7.50 5,400 $39,425 ZD, ~41 SIB? 1 6G Personnel R. ~ lOrnhX$12.s a. Chr,~ z0mhXS35 F:xpmsM 2,,~0 5O 4,300 I~leue rcview this drr~ ~ sod cOnt,ta rrm 8i 813-230-5464 wkh rot ~[dki~n~ or ~tea~io~ ItJ.y Dennis NOV - ~ ~9~ PROPOSAL FOR SLIYlLR. Y-WATEK DISPOSAL EFFE~S MONITOKING To: Kyle Luc~, Pelican Bay Services Division Fax to: (941) 597-5400 ' From: Samuel C. Snedaker, consultant Date: 21 October 1997 On the fu'st day of dredging and dun'y-water disposal into the d~ignat~d mangrove area, I propose that you, and possibly David Tack:ney, be on sim to observe how the slurry water disperses and the extent to which it i~ confined within the mangrove area. Since disposal invalves a very large volume of water, it may move as surface sheet flow out of the a.rea and not be totally retained. On that day or the next, phone me with a report. At daybreak on the morning of thc third or foarth day of slurry disposal, and prior to the initiation of drcdging on that day, I propose that you and I: (1) check the entire disposal area for evidence of detrimental ponding, sedimentation, and surface erosion, (2) examine the mangroves in the disposal area for any symptoms of acute stress, and (3) go over what to look (i.e., monitor) for during my absence from the site, and then call me it' you observe an~xhiag whatsoever that appears to be ur. asual. I will also stay on site that day during the dredging that day to observe the patmm of slun-y water dispersal and the consequent sedimentation, erosion, etc., and whether nalural surface debris (leaves, twigs, propagules, etc.) is rafting. Sometime around the loth day following the initiation of dredging, I propose that you and re-visit the disposal a~a, beginning at daybreak, and examine the mangroves for any evidence of incipient chronic stress. If none i~ found, I will give you more details on what to monitor there afar. If, however, the mangroves at that time exhibit any signs of potentially non-reversible stress, we will cor~ult with others and possibly recommend that slun3' disposal ia the mangroves be stopped. Mid-way through the dredging, I propose that you and I will again re-visit the site for a detailed examination of the effects of prior slurry water disposal. The main purpose of this visit will be to look for other evidence of deLrimen~ effects that may not have been obserx'ed earlier. 16G ~Tl~ie's .xv.ould rain'.re)ally require three days of field work plus overnight accommodations on mgnts pre:eaing the field inspections - this equates to a dollar cost of approximately S2.000. However. ff you or some one else notes something of consequence, I will be prepared to make an ad hoc visit(s) to confirm or evaluate his t'mdings. For your information, beginning ia .lanuax3, 1998, I am teaching and there/ore will be routinely available only on Tuesdays and Thursdays (and of course, weekends). However. if an "emergency" arises, I can make arrangements to be available on most any da)'. My contact numbers are office: (305) 3614624 and home: (305) 665-9854. NOV - 16G li TACKNEY & ASSOCIATES, INC. · COASTAL ENGINEERING 0385 NORTH SGth BTlqGLeT SUffE 30~ TEMPI.l; TEFIRAOE, FLORIDA 813 ! g88.g4g~ October 21, 199'7 Mr. Kyle L~r.,a= Pelie.~ B,~y $~,,~ Diviaion R01 Laurel Oak Drive, Suite 605 Nqde.% ¥'1..'14108 Dear K;4e: Please consider thim letter a proposal £or enginecrin8 services related to tho dredging proposed by the Clam Bay Re, storaxton Plan. It is my undwr, znding that the plan is considered to Lqdude £our projects: 1. Dredging of primary tidal eree~ between Clam PaJs end Upper Clam Bay. 2. Dredging of'channel fi'om Clam Pass to Outer Clam Bay. 3. Opening of'supplemental creeks to allow interior drainage. 4. Work related to Seagate c~dverts. I would not antioipate involvement Lq Projects 3 and 4 and lher~f'ore., the proposal relates only to Projects I and 2. It is my understanding that Wilton, Ming, Barton & Peek, Inc. will be the lead firm for the phases oftha projects but our firm would ba specifically responsible for: 1) prepwing the sections of the spedficafion$ related to the dredging in Projects 1 and 2; 2) provide updated construction cost estimates and bidding supervision rdated to dredging and 3) provide consulting services to the lead firm related to the actual dredge constme, tion. NO._~; '--':' .'-J NOV - Mr. Kyle Ootober 21, ' III'fl~'' ''' I ''f'~'~''' __ _Principle E,nitlneer (SgS/I-Ir) 2:l ~ ($2,090) 60 I-Irs ($ ~,700) Seem&fy ($1o/Hr) ~ Itrs ($ 90) 2o Hr~ (s l~xpea~e~ (At Cost) ($2,520) ($ 4,200) _ToN (~,70o) (S~O,~oo) T~nble 4 - phn~e :3 I hope that this provides you with the information you request~i but ifyou should haw any runhcr questions, please let us know. Very truly yours, D. T. Tacknoy and Associates DTT/dr Ted Brown Steve Means Mi'. Kyle Lucas Page 2 O~tob~r 9-1, 1997 Table I lists tho costs for the thr~ pha~ o£Proje,~'ts I and 2. The tabic also lists the numbar of llte vilitdmo~tin~ that ar~ anticipated for the thr~ phases of thc projects. ............. ~.-- - ....... ~:,~,~:,~; ................... :~.'has~:' ....... .~,... ::: proj~ l $ 7,~oo $1,s0o s n,7oo Project 2 $I $,500 $3,000 $I0,100 THpa/M~ino 3 2 7 Totals ~2,700 $4,500 $14,800 Tables 2 through 4 provide breakdowns or'thc costs for the various projects and phas=s. t _principle En~inccr ($gS/Hr) 42 Hfs ($3,990) 82 lin ($ 7,790) Engineer' ($45/Hr) 40 Hrs ($1,S00) 110 Hrs ($ 4,950) Secret~($10~) 31Hrs($ 310) 7t~Hrs (S 760) Expenses (At Con) ($1,100) ($ 2,000) _T°~ ($?,2oo) ($ ~ s,soo) Principle Engine' $95ffrlr) 10 Firs ($ 950) l 8 Hrs ($1,710) _Secretary ($10FH0 _. _ ,,. $ Hfs ($ S0) 29 Hfs ($ 290) ~pmsa (At Cost) ($ soo) (sl,ooo) ~' ~,~...~ ' Ne. IT°'al t$1,$00) ($3'000~01ff~t ~ Table 3, Phase 9_ ~'1__ - 16G 1 WORK AU'[~ORTZATION This Work Authorization ~ ~ en~ ~ ~ , dayof 1997, by and between the Board of' County Cowm!-,~J'oners of Collier County, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, ~ referred to as "COUNTY" and '~,'dson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., a Florida corpon~on, Im'einaflcr referred to as "ElqGINEER". WITNESSETH: ~, ENGINEER entered ham an engineering agreement dated January 21, 19~7, with the Pelican Bay Improvement District to perform general consulting services iavolviag engineering, surveying, planning environmental management, or permitling, financial or economic feadbility studies, v,'~ and sewer utilities, w~t~ mazmgement facfliti~, street lighfir,.., facilities and other infiv~-uau~ and c/MI-type Projects for the Pelican Bay Improvement Dis~iet, a~ defined WHEREAS, the Pelican Bay Improvement District was dissolved and under the Plan of dissolution, COUNTY assumed the right~ and obligations of all conwaets for services and mam-iais to which the Pelican Bay Improvemen~ District was a party; and V,~-IEREAS, pursuant to the agreement between ENG~R and the Pelican Bay Improvement Di~ri~ COUNTY wishe~ to contra~ with ENG~ to provide engineering ~vieea for Projects serving tim Peli~an Bay area: NOW, ~OR.E, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits which will aox'rue to th~ partie~ ~ in carrying out the terms of this Work Authorization, it/s mutually understood and agreed as follows:. 1. PROJECT DESCRIFrION: The Project consists of the design, bidding, and construction phasc services associated with a portion ofthe "Clam Bay Restoration and Manag~ent Plan." The purpose of thc plan is to set forth a coherent and task oriented package of practical solutions for the re.oration of the Clam Bay ecosystem and the regeneration of the dying mangroves. The following scope of services outlines the work ~ to accomplish the construction portion of thc plan. 16G 1 For bidding and contracting ptu"po~, the Project is separated into smaller Projects as follows: Project Project Description Management Plan Section Number 1 Clam Pass Tidal Creeks 4.5.2 Cuts I, 2, and 3 2 Clam pass Main Channel 4.5.2 Cut 4 3 Interior Tidal Creeks 4.5.3 4 Seagate C~lver[s 4.5.1 The separation into smaller Projects will provide flexibility in awarding the con.m~ction contracts allowing the County to ~Iect up to four contractors to complete the entire Project. Initial conversations with marine and dredging contractors indicate that bec__ause the work encompasses various contratzting specialties, most contractors will not vrant to bid the entire Project without large mark-ups on the sub-contracted portions. In addition, and because time is a factor in the completion of the Project, multiple contractors can finish the Project in less time than one contractor can. Projects I and 2 - Clam Pass Tidal Creeks and Main Channel Field studies revealed two different conditions that contribute to the observed mangrove mortality. The tidal creeks leading north from Clam Pass and the two ~per bays axe s:.m'ounded by a berm that functions as a dike separating the tidal creeks and upper bays from smaJler embayments within the mangrove forest. Rainwater ponds behind the berm for prolonged periods. The second condition that contributes to prolonged periods of flood~g results from the existing geometry and bathymetry of the bays and connecting tidal creeks and flow channels. The tidal creek leading north from Clam Pass is narrow and extremely sinuous. In addition, the northern end of the creek connecting Inner Clam Bay and Upper Clam Bay is extremely constricted. The restricted condition of the tidal creeks dramatically reduces the tidal range in the upper bays. This reduction is due to the relatively small cross sectional dimensions of the creek and its sinuous nature. Excavation in these areas to enlarge them to the average cross section of the creek xvill significantly increase tidal flow in the creek without the desamction of mangroves. NOV - 16G 1' To reduce the flooding tendencies of the upper (northern) bays, the hydraulic efficiency of the tidal creeks will have to be improved and openings will have to be made in the berms surrounding the isolated retailer bays and an efficient flow channel will have m be maintained between Clam Pass and the Southern terminus of the tidal creeks. This will be accomplished by excavating the eonsxxicted tidal creeks and Clam Pass Spoil excavated from Cuts I, 2, and 3 will be sprayed over the adjacent chan~el banks or transported to the back of the beach dune. Spoil excavated from Cut 4 will l:e deposited in spoil disposal sites. The resulting ehannel~ will main their sinuous nature to the fullest extent possible. No mangroves will be removed except where absolutely esr, en~ to the implementation of the Plan and the volume of excavated material has been designed to minimize the amount removed. Project 3 - Interior Tidal Creeks The existing interior tidal creek sy~.em of Clam Bay consists of three conditions distributed throughout Clam Bay. The three conditions axe: 1) nonexistent. 2) reacted or blocked, and 3) re~ored. All of these faetom have combined to retard the function of the tidal channels with the result being that they are beginning to silt in some places and in other places the tidal channels no longer exist. This has resulted in the loss of natural channel maintemnee p~ with the consequence being that the interior t/da/channels are in many areas of Clara Bay totally filled in (nonexistent) or on a track to be totally filled in absent some effort at re~on (restricted or blocked). It ;s proposed that an additional 32,963 linear feet of restored channels of four types be consa'ucted in phases in Clam Bay, The scope herein will accomplish Phase I. The spoil will be 0,' .,~r.,-,, of on site by careful placement in adjacent mangrove areas and in such a fashion so as not to create concentrated piles of spoil nor create blockages to existing and proposed drainage. Project 4 - Seagate Culverts The Seagate Culverts are located at the extreme South end of Outer Clam Bay and serve as the connection point to Venetian Bay to the South. The culverts allow water to be exchanged between Outer Clam Bay and Venetian Bay through three twenty-four inch diameter culverts. The culverts are located beneath Seagate Drive, a private thoroughfare connecting to developed land lying adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico. I ~,"~-~O"/M ¥~ ~:43-(~ I-O0?-EFLO-]04 )4 NOV - q 16G The Management Plan intends to take advantage of the flows through the adverts on th= flood cycle by retaining the volume of water generated on the north side of the culve~s (the Clam Bay s/de) for d/$¢harl/e through Clam Pass. This is to be accompl/shed by the installation of/lap gates or a comparable product designed to preclude the oscillation of the tides throu~ the culverts. Modified as proposed, the culverts will effectively operate as a pump, push/ng water from Venetian Bay to Clam Bay. The design of the improvements to the Seaiate Culve~ will first involve a st~'ey of existing condition~, to include a determ/~on as to the condition of the adverts for the contemplated retrofitting. Addit/onally, the design will require a check v~.lve t]mt /s appropriate for the tidal cond/tions encountered at the Sea, ate Culverts and which check valve can be inst~ed and maintained in a cost sensitive way. Construction of the improvements will require excavation around the northerly end of the culverts, placement of a coffer dam during construction of the end wall, placement of the check valves, bat. kfilling behind the end wall, and installation of tip-rap. Existing plant material will be removed and preserved for reinstallation to the extent feasible. Any destruction of roadways will be repaired. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES: The ENGINEER shall provide professional services ha general accordance with the following scope: 2.1. Construction Plans and Technical Specifi=~ons 2.1.1. Attend three design phase meetings. 2.1.2. Gather pre-construction cross-sections and other field survey information for design purposes. 2.1.3. Prepare construction plans for the four Projects on one set of plans. The limits if each Project will be clearly identified on the plans. 2.1.4. Prepare on inclusive set of technical specifications for the four Projects. 2.1.5. Other consultants will provide design and technical support to tas'ks 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 under separate contract with the County. lb'12.~'9~/.}0'764 Vis" 019.AW~ NQ I f13.4)JI ~ ,.GO'7.Ez-LO,-2G4 } 4 166 1 2.2. 2.3. Contract and Bidding 2.2.1. Prepare bidding quantities for the four Projects. 2.2.2. Prepare opinions oflmobable corn for the four Projects. 2.2.3. Collier CounW lh~chasing and Pelican Bay Services Divis,:on (PBSD) will assemble the bidding documents and bid the Projccts. 2.2.4. ~ Collier County Pumhasing and PBSD with contractor selections. Co--on Phase Services 2.3.1. Sci hori~nt~l and ve~ical surv~ control for the conu-actors' use dm'lug 2.3.2. Attend pm-construction meeting. 2.3.3. Conduct periodic site visits al intcrwds appropriate to the v~-ious s'm. ges of' con.stnL~on to observe the contractors' progress and ~o observe if Contr~or is con.structing the improvements in general accordance with the plans and specifications. 2.3.4. Attend seven bi-weekly cormtmcfion progress meetings. 2.3.5. Field measurem~t of post..constmction cross-sections and completed quantities for pay estimate pU.,lx)ses. 2.3.6. Prcparm. ion of field r~<)rts of contractors' progress. 2.3.7. Proce.~ pay r~luests and change orders. 2.3.8. Conduct final inspection of work. 2.3.9. Pr=par= Certificam of Substantial Completion to Collier county for site improvements based on certified r=cord drawings prepared by Contractors. NOV - 16G 1' TIME OF PERFORMANCE: Items 2.1 ~d2.2 of thc Scope of Service will be completed within sixty (60) calendar days after execution ofthi~ Work Authorization by the COUNTY except for delay~ Beyond the contwl of the ENG~ Completion of Item ?-.3 will depend on thc co--on completion schedule. FEES TO BE PAID: : The ENGI~qEER. shall be paid for his servi~ al the hourly ~ show~ in the CO1VIPENSATION SCHEDU[~ provided in the ~mnuary 21, 1987, Agt~..ment ~ the Pelican Bay Improvement Di.~trict and ENGINEEK which haz been ~1 from time to time with an amount not to exceed $122,300 w~thout approval by the COUNTY. For reference, the followi~ ruble pwvide~ a br~_kdown of the fee.~ per project and ph~. Four County pum'n~e orde~ will be i~ed, one for e~ project, payment~ d~l be mad~ upon monthly billing Payable wi{h~n thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice ~.~able to the COUNTY. Total= $122,300 iOrM~y }*-3dTN,4 Var' oil. ',WMI NOV - IN WrINF_,SS WHEREOF, O~c panics hereto have caused thcsc prcscnts to b~ cxccui~d thc day and year fir~ above writtcn. BOARD OF COUNI~f COlviMISSIONERS DATED: - COLLIER C0UNT~, FLORIDA A~: Dwight E. Brock, Clcrk By:_ Timothy L. Haricot. k, C:hainn~ Wimcss Witness WILSON, MII2.ER, BARTON Vice President David Wcigcl County Attorney NOV - zt PLANNERS, E.~;VIRON.MENTAL CONSULTANTS, ENGI.'qEERF. SURVEYORS, L,~Nb$CAPE .-~RCHITECTS, CONSTRL"CTION ,'V[ANAGER_~ Octol~. 21, 1~97 3301 ~t Tm~im~i Trail N~ole~, FL 34112 Pdicm B~y S~c~ Division Pu~umt ~o Section V ofthe Engineering Agr~emeflt ~ Wilso~ ]YEller, B~n & P~ ~d P~ B~ ~~ D~ ~ ~ 21, 1997, ~ r~~y ~ ~ &o B~ ~~~~~s~e~~ 1991. O~p~6~~ Pl~e ~ ~ m~ ~~on s~e md ~ ~e ~ for o~ ~. WR.SON, M]TT.~, BARTON & PEEK, ]:NC. APPROVAL OF COMPENSA_'HON SCI..lir:~gl'~ ench~d COMFENSAT~ON SCHedULE ~r new,,~rk autb~ns eff~ Nov~ml:~- I, 1997. Ttrn~ Amhoriz~fl~i~ ...... d~ot ,19~7 A~thi~dayot Vic~~ WRs~ Miller, Barm~ & Peek, ,1997 WMIS&I~ SCHEDULE OF FEF~ ~ August 30, 1997 16G 1 I~ROFF~SIONA_L STAFF 1~C I Prof~tsional Co~ Level I $55.00/Hr. PC II lh'ofessional Connxlttnt ~ II 70.00/Hr. 1~C III lb'of _.~_'_onal Conn.xtt~ Levd m /5.00/Hr. 1~ IV Vrof. essionnl Coeaultsat ~ IV ,. PC V ?rofe=/ond Consultant Level V llO.OWHr. ~ Prk~p~l oftl~ Fm l~$.00/Er. SUPPORT CT1 Comput~T~ I C'r2 ~ T~ II CT3 Comput~ T~:i~ m ~5.~. FI'I Field Tecl~lician I 45.00/I~. Fl'2 Field Technkiln II 55.00/Er. Fr~ Flekl T~ rrt 60.00/Er. AMA1 Astm/ni..ea.~fi~ Assiseant I 35.00/Hr. AMA2 ~ Anlstl~II 50.00/Hr. CW2 2 Person F'te~ ~ S5.(X)/Hr. (Add $15.00/ar. for ea~ sddition crew member) Reimbtn'nble expenses, such as vehicle tr~vel, LD telephone, printing,, mrvc~ matcgals, will be billed st W'dson Miller stsndard rsIes (Schedule ev,~_~,,~le on request). All other out-of-pock~ ~. /z,, a-.& NOV - 997 ./ Pf /v _ PROFESSIONAL coNsuLTANT ~.F. VEL DESCRIF~0N LEVEL LEVEL rrr LEVEL V PRINCIPAL OF ~ FIR~: Individual having tamed a BS or BA deip~." f'orn ~:regitcd ~t7. 0 to 3 y~r~ prof~s,_'onal ~pcrienca. Degreed individual Mth= pre-r~btmfion or ~'_; r~gistered with 2 to 5 years of profe~onal exp~rierl~ or individual having earned ~ MS, MA, or PkD. with 0 to 2 years professional expedence. Registered professional, or equivaI~nt, with $ to 10 years o: profe~ional experi~c~. ~ prof'e_~onal, or equivalent, with g to 12 ~ of profezsional experience.. Senior level resist~ professional, or equiv~lc~, with 12+ years ofprofeslional crpexi~ncc. il;£~0A. II'flt. .o./f-- fC NOV - ~ BLU OVP COP OVM BON Vehld~ Travd '. Line ~ (up to 24 i 3 03 Sep~ X:'dzzti~ (up to 24 Copies 1.00 /F~ 0.1o / ~ o. Io / ~.00 /FA 1.~0 / ~ ~.~ /~ ~ _ Misc. CorTes: ~a.eoc~ J ~ / 7~ Coesta~ttae_ky~.~ Date:_ b G M~c'~,, _ ' " Iten~# /J'. ~' Naples, Florida. Suna :24, ~r~r.. ~// ,,, 1 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD inet on this dat~'~fi'R:-gul~r session st 2:00 p.m. in the M~in Librax7 with the following m~mb~m print: CHAIR: Syd M¢llinger Sabina Musci Doris Lewis Diane Williams ALSO PRESENT: John W. Ion~ Literary ~ Larry Malinconico, Pi~., Fdencts of the L~rary Marilyn' ~ Head cg Central Services Luz Het~, Sr. ~ RECEIVED OCl 17 Board of County Co~etsstoners APPROVAL OF ~ lVits. Mellmger asked for comments or corr~ion~ to the tninutes of May 28, 1997. There being no REPORTS OF OFFICERS Mm. Mellinger had sent a letter to the BCC recommending Diane Williams for thc LAB vacancy. COMMUNICATIONS - None UNFINISHED BUSINESS The construction at the Marco !_~!s_m4 Branch L~rary has started. Some changes in the plans were made. Eighty percent of thc demolition has been done. Mr. $o~ stated that the piece of land he's interested in belongs to the Florida Power & Light Co. He is tqdng to ~gotiate a price for the land b~t mt this point, no negotiations have taken place. The Board reviewed the applications submitted for the Library's employee of the month for the montl~ of June & July. Gaff Watson was selected for the month of lune and leanne Ienunotl was selected for the month of July. The Golden Gate Branch renovation has been completed. Everyone is pleased with the results. A dedication will take place at a later time. Maxilyn Matthes and other members of the L~rary staff wrote a newly proposed set of Rules ~ Use of the L~rarv. Revisions to tim Gifts PoUcv and to the Emolovee Rules and Benefits were~lsomadc. She handed copies ofthe name to nll Board memhers for their review. TheBoard suggested ~ome changes to the ]~des Oovertd-~ Use of the Library. Mrs. Mellinger entertained a motion for approval of the Rules ~ Use of the Library. with recommended changes by the Board. Ms. Musci moved, with M~. ~ seconding the motion. The Board next discussed the proposed changes to the Gifts Policy. Mrs. Lcwis moved, with Ms. Musci seconding the motion. Lastly, the Chairman entertained a motion for approval of the Emolovee Rules and Benefits. MS. Musci moved, with Mrs. Lewis seconding the motion for approval. The Chai~ mggested the Librasy gaff review the Fines sod Fees befor~ thc S.-pt~mber meeting for pom'b~e c~ur.a. Mr. Jones mud that the budSet for I:T'~8 is still going strong. No changes were made at the last budget heating. Some of the new psJ't-time positions requested will be combined with the pr~cnt pan-time ones to ct:ate full-time pcsittont NEW BUSINESS - None ~ CONS~ON$ Mrt ~ ~ tlmt the meedn$ for December be cJaan$ed to th{: 17th. Everyone agrood. DIRECIY)R'S Rm~RT ~L~,A~oci~o~~ Th~Fti~d~oftheL/braty will be l~ying for ~~ Dr. Maflncontco rePoeted tb~ tim FHends will be e~_~nS new c~cc~ at thc ne. xt meeting. Itc also ____w~onded by Mrs. Lewis and carried unnnlmnus~ that the meeting be adjourned. Time: 3:15 p.m. 16G 1 LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD ANNUAL MEETING Jura 24, 1~7 LET IT BE KNOWN that the LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD mc't on ttd~ gat= in thc Main Libr~uy ~t 3:16 p,m. in order to oouduct thor ANNUAL IVII~:TING. Tim roller, rig m~mb~'~ NOMINATION AND ~r~.~CTION OF OFFICERS OTHER BUSINESS - None ADJOURNMENT There being no othex b-~inem to come before the Library Advisory Board, Mrs. Mcllinger declarcdthattlgmeetingbeadjounxxL Time: 3:20p.m. Coun~ Government Pro, duct,!vity Committe. e., Meeting Minutes September 17, 1997, 9:30 A.M. Member3 Present RECEIVE G 1 OCT 1 7 8oard of C.~[~;~n~O~missioners .lack McKenna x Barbara Berry. x Misc. Cortes: David Craig x Edward Ferguson x Date: Charles Getter x /~ ~ Robert Laird Ite~/~,.~-? , x Bill Neal Fxlward Ott Cop)es Karl Otto x John Schoemer John Stockton x Bernard Weiss x Staff Sheila Leith Procurement Process Review -the Committee discussed thc presentation of the report to thc Board of County Commissioners and were pleased with the response from the Board and the County Administrator -Bob Fernandez, the County Administrator will be reporting back to the Board in a few weeks regarding the eighteen recommendations and their possible implementation -the Committee discussed the possibility of changing their scope to included the Collier County School Board Jail Study -Adolfo contacted Karl Otto to relay that the Board wants the Productivity Committee to stay involved in the Jail project as it moves forward -it was not clear exactly what the role of the Sub-committee will be -Sheila will pull the minutes from the Board meeting with the V-group in order to determine the Board's direction -Commissioner Berry showed the Committee some information on spring form jail structures -they are about 1/! 0 of the price of a regular building and could be considered for lower security housing Human Reaourcea -Ed Ferguson indicated that some clarification is needed on the audit project -will this be full fledged audit? -Ed handed out some materials on Human Resources audit procedures New Business -Commissioner Berry discussed the proposed Ethics Committee and her thoughts on tile issue -Bernie Weiss will put together a "think piece" on ethics and the education process as he has been involved in developing these programs in the past -after 2 V1 terms David Craig handed in his letter of resignation -tile Committee would like to recognize David for his dedication and service to tile County and will be planning something within the next few weeks - Meeting adjourned I !:30 a.m. Thc next meeting will be on Wednesday October 15'~, at 9:30 a.m. in the County Administrator's Conference Room. cc. Board of County Commissioners Office Robert Fernandez., County Administrator 16G 1: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Sue Filson, Administrative Assistant, Board of County Commissioned, f) / Bleu Wallace, Utility Regulation Manager and Executive Director, ColHer County Water and Wastewater Authority ~ Transmittal of Minutes - Collier County Water and Wa-~tewater Authority October 28, 1997 Transmitted herewith are the minutes of the September 22, 1997 meeting of the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority. These minutes were approved at the Authority's regular meeting on October 27, 1997. 1997. Direct any questions to me at extension 7146. t'-//__ COI.I,IER COUNTY WATER Norris _ t/ .~D'WASTEWATER AUTtlORITY H~ncoclt _ Constantine .~,~// _ Minutes of Regular Meeting I~ac'l~te ~_L/-'7 . __ Board Meeting Room ~' __ 3~ Floor, Administration Building Serfs _ 2:00 PM, September 22, 1997 An audio record of the following proceedings is on file with the Office of Utility Regulation, Suite 203, Administration Building, County Government Center. 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 34112, Phone (941) 774-8577. Assistant County Attorney Thomas C. Palmer was present to provide legal advice to thc Authority and Utility Reg, lation Senior Fiscal Analyst Thomas Nohl was present to represent thc Office of Utility Regulation staff. I. Call to Order (Determination of Quorum) In lieu of the Chairman, Dr. Neno Spagna and thc Vice-Chairman, Richard F. Bergmann being absent from thc meeting, the Authority selected Mr. Robert C. Bennett, Jr. as thc interim Chairman. Also present were Mr. George J. Schroll and Mr. Joseph A. Mandy. Interim Chairman Bennett called the meeting to order at 2:10 PM, declaring that three members were present, constituting a quorum. ',997 11. Approval of Minutes - August 25, 1997 The minutes of August 25, 1997 were approved (3-0) after motion by Mr. Schroll and a second by Mr. Mandy. II!. Open to the Public Interim Chairman Bennett welcomed guests in attendance and asked if anyone wished to address the Authority. Receiving no response, the Interim chairman moved to the next agenda item. IV. Misc. Corrc,.s: Items Requiring Action by the Authority A. Acknowledgment of Actions Taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Interim Chairman Bennett requested Mr. Nohl address this item. Mr. Nohl advised that staff requests that the Authority acknowledge three actions recently taken by the Board of County Commissioners. The first action is the acknowledgment of the Board's adoption of Ordinance No. 97-31. The second action is the acknowledgment of the Board's adoption of Ordinance No. 97-40. The final action is to acknowledge thc four year appointment of Mr. Joseph A. Mandy as a lay member of the Authority. Cop~es ]o: 16G 1 Mr. Schroll moved to approve all three actions taken by thc BCC; sec,nd by Interim Chairman Bennett. Motion passed unanimously (3-0). Al this time, Interim Chairman Bennett welcomed Mr. Mandy to thc Authority. Selection of Authority Member to Attend Utility Rate School. After a brief discussion regarding the travel arrangements necessary for an Authority member to attend the Utility Rate School in Clearwater from October 19th through 24m, Mr. Mandy gave a tentative commitment to attend. Mr. Schroll moved to select Mr. Mandy to attend the Utility Rate School; second by Interim Chairman Bennett. Motion passed unanimously (3-0). Mr. Mandy was to contact thc Office of Utility Regulation to finalize the travel arrangements. , Consideration of Formal Request for Staff Assisted Rate Case - North Marco Utility Company, Inc. Mr. Nohl advised that staff is requesting that the Authority approve North Marco Utility Company's request for a staff assisted rate case and direct staff to proceed with the cost of services review of the utilities wastewatcr rates. Mr. Nohl noted that as stated in Ordinance No. 96-6, staff assisted rate cases are intended to provide the small utility with the means to obtain rate relief through staff assistance and thereby try to reduce rate case expenses of the utility and to its customers. Noah Marco Utility made this request in writing as required by the Ordinance. At this time, Mr. Schroll asked Assistant County Attorney Thomas Palmer if the Authority could require North Marco Utility pay any incremental costs over and above the $50.00 which is specified in Ordinance No. 96-6. Mr. Palmer advised thc Authority that unless there was extraordinary costs incurred due to the Utility's failure to cooperate, staff assisted rate cases are absorbed basically as administrative costs of the department. Mr. Schroll moved to direct staff to proceed with providing North Marco Utility with a staff assisted rate case for the fee of $50.00; second by Mr. Mandy. Motion passed unanimously (3-0). Executive Director's Report Mr. Nohl advised the Authority that staff has received a price index application from Eagle Creek Utility II. This item is expected to be on the October Authority agenda. Mr. Nohl was contacted by Mr. Bergmann regarding a recent article in thc Wall Street Journal in regards to Florida Water Services and surcharges and refunds. A copy of this article was distributed to the Authority members for their review. VI. Vil. Authority. Members Discussion There was no discussion from the Authority members. Adjournment Mr. Schroll moved to adjourn; second by Mr. unanimously (3-0). Meeting adjourned at 2:40 PM. Mandy. Motion passed COLLAR COUiVl"Y 16G RECEIVED OCl 2 8 t997 Board of Cour,~y Com=,issioners ~IVIRO~AL ADVISORY BOAI~_ NOVEMBER 5. I~7:9:00 a.u~. (~OMMISSlON BOARDROOM. TtTTRD FLOOR~~S~TION BUI]LD~G 1 I. ROLL CALL Il. APPROVAL OF MINWrES - Octol::~ 1, 1997 IV. CONSEHT/ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AGENDA V. REGULAR AGENDA F'mal Site Development Plan Amendment No. SDP-90-69C V'unaBe Bay Section 15, Township 52 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florid~ Planned Unit Development No. PUD-97-13 Veterans Park Center PUD Section 26, Towns~ 48 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Flori~ Co Preliminary Site Development Plan Amendment No. SDP-97-123 Naples Memorial Gardens Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida Hancock Con stant { n~__ Berry Conditional Use Petition No. CU-97-17 Special Treatment Permit No. ST-97-1 W'md Dancer Airboat Tours and Alligator Farm Section 36, Township 51 South, Range 27 East Collier County, Florida Mi$¢. Corres: Date: _/ · Copies To: 166 t Environmental Advisory Bosrd Agenda ...................................... ,November 5, 1997 Page 2 VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSIHESS VIII. ADIOURNMENT IX. WORKSHOP NOTES: [Board Members]: Notify the PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT (403- 2400) no later than 5 P.M. on October 31, 1997, if you cannot attend this meeting or ii'you have conflict and thus will abstain fi~om voting on a particular petitio~L Bo [Genersl Public]: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record ofthe proceed~gs pertaining thereto; and therdore may need to insure that a verbalim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. 16G 1 MINUTES OF THE E~?v'IRON ~"MENTAL ADVISORY BOARD DATE: October 1, 1997 9:00 a.m. Floor Boardroom, Administration Building, Collier County Government Cemer, Naples, Florida ~TAFF pRESENT x Foley X Herman.son X ITmch¢liff X Ssadeh X Straton X Willdson 9:06 A.~tton Burgeson X Chrzanowsld X Lenberger ~ Barbara S. Burgeson, Environmental Specialist II (~ALLED TO ORDER AT;.. 9:00 a.m. ADJOURNED AT:, ~ Paul Hinchcliff 10:00 a.m. 1~. ITmchcliffwas elected President and Blair Foley was elected Vice President by unanimous vote. ADDENDA TO ~ AGENDA; Added a discussion about the airboat item going in front of the Board of County Commissioners on October 7, 1997. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Motion made by M. Saadeh. seconded by ~ and carried 7-0, to approve minutes of' September 3,1997. Environmental Advisory Board Minutes ........................................... October 1, 1997 Page 3 Make the followin8 changes to the PUD document section 4.7: Under letter G ther~ are three separate paragraphs. The second one shall be labeled H and the ~ird shall be labeled I. b. Add "J. Buffers shall be provided in accordance with CCLDC S~'tion 3.2.$.4.6.3. All preserve m'eas shall be recorded, by separate instrume~ as coition/ preservation tracts or easements dedicated to an approved entity or to Collier County with no respo,m'bility for maintenance and subject to the uses and limitations similar to or ss per Florida Statutes Section 704.06. Contact Collier County Real Property Division if the conservation areas are to be dedicated to Collier County." c. Add "K. A Gopher tortoise relocation/management plan shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval. A copy of the approved plan language shall be included on the final Site Development Plan.' d. Add "L. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules and be subject to review and approval by Collier County Current Pla,ming Environmental Staff. Removal of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County wetlands." e, Add "lVL Buffers shall be provided around wetlands, extending at least fifteen (15) feet landward from the edge of wetland preserves in all places and av,amging twenty-five (25) feet from the landward edge of wetlands. Where natural buffers are not possible, structural buffers shall be provided in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resources Permit Rules and be subject to re, view and approval by Collier County Current Planning Environmental Staff." f. Amend F to read "..approved by Collier County_ Current pla.ma_- Enviro,-unental Static" DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Office of Int~,ms~d I~ ~ ~ Cultural Atl,ti~ FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Sandra B. Mortham Secm'ary of State DIVISION OF ELECTIONS 16G MEMBER OF TIIE FLORIDA CABINET I I~l,~c gh)rkla h~tcr~ Palm ~,,~h RinKlif RECEIVED OCT 2 9 Board of County Conafssloners October 20. 1997 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk to Board of County Commissioners Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples. Florida 33962-4977 Attention: Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge your letter of October 17, 1997 and certified copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 97-49, which was filed in this office on October 20, 1997. The copy showing the filing date is being returned for your records. Sincerely, Liz Cloud, Chief Bureau of Administrative Code LC/mw Enclosure Norris Hancock Coest&nttne_ #ac'lite Bert3 The Elliot Building Misc. Con'es: Date: / ,'~7//2'//~ 7 ,te , lC..&. Copies To: · Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0230 · (904/488-g427 · . ............... October 1, 1997 Environmental Advisory Board M,nutes ........................... Page $ Make the follow~n$ changes to the PUD document s~-~on 4.7: a. Under letter O there are three separate paragraphs. The second one shall be labeled H and the third shall be labeled I. b. Add "l. Bufferin shall be provided in accordance with CCLDC Section 3.2.8.4.6.3. All preserve area~ shall be recorded, by sc. pat'ate instsumcnt, as conservation/ pr~'ation tracts or easements dedicated to an approved entity or to Collier County with no responsibility for maint~Ce and subject to the uses and limitations similar to or ~ ~ Florida Staxutes Section 704.0~. Contact Collier County Real Property Division if the co--On ar~s arc to be dedicated to Collier County." c. Add "K. A Oopher tortoise relocation/management plan shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff' for review and approval. A copy of tl~ approved plan language shall be included on the final Site Development Plan.' d. Add "L. Environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental P, esource Pern~ Kule~ and be subject to review and approval by Collier County Current Planning Environmental Staff'. Kcrnoval of exotic vegetation shall not be counted towards mitigation for impacts to Collier County wetlands." e. Add "M. Buf~er~ shall be provided around wetlands, extending at least fifteen 05) feet landward from the edg~ of wetland preserves in all places and averaging twenty-five (25) fe~t from the landward edge of wetlands. Where naturol ~ are not possible, structural ~ shall be provided in accordance with the Sta~e of Florida Environmental P, eso~ Permit l~,ules and be subject to review ~zl approval by Collier County Current Planning Environmental Staff." f. Amend F to read "..approved by tl'~, ~,r~ror, ~ ..... r?' ~ Collier Cou,~v Current pl~n? Environmental Staff." 16G 1: Environmental Advisory Board Minutes ........................................... October 1, IPI7 Page 4 OLD BUSINESS: The EAB members discussed the airboat item which was scheduled for October 7, 1997 at the BCC. The EAB agreed that they would like Mr. I-Ymchcliffto represent them with the foilowil~ proposal. Paul was asked to ask the BCC to require that i~ Sta~is directed to desisn criteria, the EAB should be allowed to review and commeni to Staff prior to bringing it back to BCC. They also asked that Staff'work with representatives ofthe Aitboat industry in desisting the crkeria. This motion was passed 7-0. ~ BUSINESS: The EAB discussed the applicant that were submitted to them for review for the two vacancies to the EAB. A motion was made and carried 5-2 (I-Iennnmon and Saadeh voted against) as follows. The FAB recommends to the Board of County Commissioners that no applicants ~rom this pool be appointed to the EAB. The motion included a reques~ thai the County re-advertise for the positions and asked that Staff conUtct the applicants that had submitted resumes for the last vacancy. The Board felt that there were better qualified applicants to chose ~rom in that pool. (The EAB would like to be able to recommend two applicants that are more q~ed th~ these applicants and who can demor~-ate the necessary expertise) For a complete record of the proceedinlp reader is directed to the tape recording of this meeting, located in the Office of the Clerk to the Board, 5" Floor, Building 'F", Collier County, Government Complex. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair. Environmental Advisory Board Paul Hinchclit~ DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE t~' ~d the I~v~km t~ Cultural AIt.II~ I~x't~x~ ~d 1 .iN,tn' FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State DIVISION OF ELECTIONS October 20, 1997 RECEIVED OCT 2 1997 Board of County Commissioners Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk to Board of County Commissioners Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 33962-4977 Attention: Sue Barbiretti, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge your letter of October 17, 1997 and certified copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 97-49, which was filed in this office on October 20, 1997. The copy showing the filing date is being returned for your records. Sincerely, Liz Cloud, Chief Bureau of Administrative Code LC/mw Misc. Corres: Hanc~k ~ac'Kle ~ ~ .- 8.rr~ :_ ~ -- BUREAU OF ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ~pies ~e ~iiot Building * ~1 ~uth Mon~S~t · Tallahas~, Rofida 3~t~4~ · (~) ~27 FAX: (~) ~9 · W~W Add~s h~q/~.d~mtate, fl.us · E-MaX: C~UNT'f TAX C, O4LJ~ CTC BLDG. FLOfUOA ~41'1 7744'171 16G 1 RECEIVED c.F.c. OCT 2 8 ~oard of County Comtssioners October 28, 1997 Mr. Robert F. Milligan Comptroller of Florida Tl~e Capitol Plaza Level 9 400 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0351 Dear Mr. Milligan: Enclosed are the necessary forms in compliance with sections 1603, 218.32, 218.36, Florida Statutes. 1. Constitutional Officers Financial Report for 1996-97 Form DBF-AA-405. Combined Statement of Position Form DBF-AA-402 All fund t~es and Account Groups 3. Fund Group Form DBF-AA-403 Revenues and Expenditures/Expenses Copies of the enclosed form have been given to the independent auditors for consolidation purposes and the Board of County Commissioners. Very Truly Yours, Norris Hancock Constantine Mac'Kte Berr~ ~ lton, Tax Collector GLC/pld cc: Hon. Timothy Hancock, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Mr. Urban Kantola, Arthur Andersen Hon. D~ight Brock, Clerk of Courts ~/inance Department ,/ , & Co. Misc. Corre~ Copies To: 16G 1 A 1 16G 1 0 k~ Z 0 p- wP- o o 16G 1 16G 1 FUND GROUP REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES REPORTING ENTITY: COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR ID NUMBER:69-0500244 REPORTING FUND GROUP: REWENUE~ AND OTHER CREDIT~ (311.000 THROUGH 390.000) Account No. Object 01-7000-000 01-8010-000 01-8030-000 01-8040-000 01-8100-.000 01-8200000 01-8400.-000 01-8500-000 01-8600-000 01-8700-000 01-8800-000 01-8g00-000 De$crip~n EXCESS FEES OCCUPATIONAL LIC FEES HUNTING & FISHING LIC REAL PROPERTY LIC FEES MOTOR VEHICLE RE(} FEES VESSEL REG. FEES STATE COMMISSION COUNTY COMMISSIONS DISTRICT COMMISSIONS SCHOOL BOARD COMM DELINQUENT TAX COMM MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES Whole Oolla~ Only Amount 0 106,271 66,169 0 839,965 66,181 360 5.222.633 686,806 0 53,976 187,922 TOTAL REVENUt=.8 AND OTHER CREDITS Duplicate this page i! additional lines are needed. (CONTINUED) FORM DBF-AA-403 7,230,283 16G-l' FUND GROUP REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES/EXPENSES REPORTING ENTITY: REPORTING FUND GROUP: EXPEND~~ AND OTHER DEBIT; ($II I'HROUGH 592) Account No. Oblect 10 30 60 COLLIER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR ID NUMBER:69-O500244 Description PERSONAL SERVICES OPERATING EXPENSES CAPITAL OUTLAY Whole Dollars Only Amount 2,901,416 818,250 232,903 TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND OTHER DEBITS Duplicate It~is page If additional lines are needed. FORM DaF-AA-.403 {Rev. e~7/04) 3r952t569 16G 1 COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY_ _APPR___~AI___SE___~R October 27, 1997 Honorable Members of the Board Board of County Commissioners Collier County Collier County Government Center Naples, FL 34112 RECEIVED OCT 2 7 ~ 8card of County Commfssfoners Dear Members of the Board: Please find attached the Collier County Property Appraisers's Annual Reports, for the year ended September 30, 1997. Yours very truly, Abe Skinner, CFA Collier County Property Appraiser AS/gr Att: Misc. Corres: Copies To: MEMBEFL' FLORIDA ASSCX~IA TION OF PROPERTY APPRAISERS. INTERNATIONAL ASSOC~ TION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS 330I Tamiami Trail East · ~ C.2. Naples, Flork~ 34112.499~. (9~ 1) 774-8141 · Fax: (94 I) 774-2071 REPORTING ENTITY:Co 11 REPORTING FUND GROUP: Genera[ BXp£AIDITEIRE$ AND OTHER DEBITS (511 TIIIfOUGIt FUND GROUP AND EXP~~~EN~S Count}' ?ropert¥ A~r,_ID NUMBERi__LL.-~ ~Per$onal ~e~vicq~ Operat~nR. Exoenses Gap~ta~ Out'aY De~t Services Whole Dollars Only _ [,177-128. 429.98t. -__ TOTAL EXPENDITURES AND OTHER DEBIT~ Duplicate this 13age If additional lines are needed. 2.950.015, IrUND GROUP .. - REVENUES ~ i~pENm'U. IR~/EXPENSE$ 96-97 REPORTING E[tTIT~:-C°lller County Property Appr..~D NUMBER:_ 11 REPORTING FUND GROUP:_ General p~EV'ENUE$ A.ND OTtIF-.R CREDITS (311.000 THROUGH 390.000) ~ _Descriotion 3/,1 901 369. 901 _36 L- _~ o_.~ _3_6L _3_8o_. _OOL Independent Taxing District's-Comm~'s... Interest Oth.____e.y Income - Xerox Fees Other Income - Comouter Fees - Other Income - Misc. -- Board Of County Commissioners - Whole Dollars Only 280,813. '7~398. - 6,166, - __ ~2.052. Comla tts ~ 16G 'TOTAL REVENUES AND OTHER CREDITS Duplicate ~ls page If adclltlonal lines are needed. (continued). _~121~947 1 I:ORM DBF-.AA-4~ For your ~ ~is da~e we hsve msde a disu/x~n of Current Ad Valorem Tax and Non-Ad Valorem Assessme~ to the Board of County Commi~on~ after Tax Collector's commissions, as fotlow~: County WTda Sol~d Waste Grand Total S 3,~04,S6S.$6 983,110.97 Atiached you will find & distn'bution recap showing year to date totals of taxes collected net of dhcount for 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997. Yours respectfully submitted, Misgael A. Welsh, Contro Office //O6111er County Tax Collector's ' MAW/pld encl. Hon. Timothy I. Constantine Hon. Barbara Berry Hon. John Norris Hon. Pamela Mac,lie Mr. Robert F. Femande~ County Administrator Hon. C-uy L. Carlton, Tax Colleetor Mr. Claude A. Haynes. Deputy Tax Collector Mrs. Marilyn Lewis, Property Tax Dept. Director t~isc. Corres: gate: ~ ,,e~,~ /~' '~' Copies To: I)KCXHBEI 2, 199'; Affidavit of Publication State of Flonda Lamb ,., who on oath ssys that Ihe~serveasl~e~_ Asst. CORP. ,Secretary -f~he ~CC Public Hearinq ~l~ernatt~rof Ngtice of Consideration/ Adootion PUBUC Commissioners of Coltier County, Flodda, proposes to enact t~e Ordinance amending Ordinance 91-102, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS, DIVISION 1.6. DECEMBER 2, 1997 BCC Public Hearing NOTICE OF CONSIDERATiON/ADOPTION AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION, RECITALS; SECTION TWO, FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE [, GENERAL PROVISIONS, DIVISION 1.6. INTERPRETATIONS, ARTICLE 2, ZONING OMSIO~I 2.2. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.4. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING, DIVISION 2.5 SIGNS, D~ISION 2.6 SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 3.2, SUBDIVISIONS, DIVISION 3.4. EXPLOSIVES; ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 6.3. DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF ANTIQUE STORES, PAWN SHOPS, USED MERCHANDISE STORES, ROOF SIGN, WALL SIGN AND DIRECTORY SIGN; APPENDIX O, AIRPORT ZONING, BY REPLACING ZONING MAP B., MARCO ISLAND AIRPORT, ZONING MAP C., EVERGLADES AIRPORT, ZONING MAP D., IMMOKAL£E AIRPORT; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE, INCLUSION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AN[:) SECTION SiX, EFFECTIVE DATE. The Board of County "' :,-', I ,---. ,--e'"-J It J J.--.,-lt .,?' .' . :.,.:. / ----.,._. _._ -- INTERPRETATIONS, ARTICLE 2, ZONING DIVISION 2,2. ZONING DISTRICTS, PERMITTED USES, CONDITIONAL USES, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS, DIVISION 2.4. LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING, DIVISION 2.5 SIGNS, DIVISION 2.6 SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 3, DIVISION 3.2. SUBDIVISIONS, DIVISION 3.4. EXPLOSIVES; ARTICLE 6, DIVISION 6.3. DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE DEFINITIONS OF ANTIQUE STORES. PAWN SHOPS, USED MERCHANDISE STORES, ROOF SIGN, WALL SIGN AND DIRECTORY SIGN; APPENDIX D, AIRPORT ZONING, BY REPLACING ZONING MAP B., M~CO ISLAND AIRPORT, ZONING MAP C., EVERGLADES AIRPORT, ZONING MAP D., IMMOKALEE AIRPORT; SECTION FOUR, CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; SECTION FIVE~ INCLUSION tN THE L~ND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AND SECTION SIX, EFFECTIVE DATE, which will be effective within the unincorporated area of Colfier County, Florida, and as stated in said ordinance. The unincorpora~l area of Collier County is Shown on the map in this advertisement. A Public Hearing on thi~ regulation will be he~ o~ WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1997. at 5:05 P.M, in the Board of County Commissioners Me.ting Room, 3rd Floor, Bulding."F," Collier Coun~ Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. Final Adop~on of the ordinance w~ll be considered at a second public hearing on Dece~lbe~ 17, lg97. All interested parties are invited to appear arid be heard. Copies of the Pml:x)sed Ordinance are available for public inspection in the Currant Planning Section, Community Developm.en.t~S.e~i.ces Center, 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, between the hours of 8.~0 A.M. and Monday through Fnday. Any questions I::)ertaining to this regulatio~ should be directed to the Current Planning Section If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Beard of County Commissioners w~:h respect [o any matter considered at such meeting et hearing, he will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose, he may need to ensur~ th~ a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes '~he testimony and evidence u[;x~n which appeal is to be based. BOARD OF COL~NT¥ COMMISSIONERS COLLIER CCU;;l¥ FLORIDA TIMOTHY L. HANCOCK. CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. E~ROCK, CLERK