BCC Minutes 02/10/2004 RFebruary 1 O, 2004
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, February 10, 2004
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in
REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex,
East Naples, Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala
Fred W. Coyle
Frank Halas
Tom Henning
Jim Coletta
ALSO PRESENT:
Jim Mudd, County Manager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Jim Mitchell, Office of the Clerk of Court
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA
February 10, 2004
9:00 a.m.
Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1
Fred W. Coyle, Vice-Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA
ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST
REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE
PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED,
REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN
ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS),
REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD
MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE
NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH
EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS
PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD
UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS
BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS
PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO
ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1
February 10, 2004
ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE
(5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE
CHAIRMAN.
IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY
ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS
PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO
THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT
THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL,
NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING
DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
LUNCH RECESS SCHEDULED FOR 12:00 NOON TO 1:00 P.M.
1. INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. Pastor Roy Shuck, Faith Community Church
2. AGENDA AND MINUTES
Ae
Approval of today's regular, consent and summary agenda as
amended. (Ex Pane Disclosure provided by Commission members
for summary agenda.)
B. January 7, 2004 - BCC/LDC Special
C. January 13, 2004- BCC Regular
D. January 21, 2004 - District 3 Town Hall Meeting
3. SERVICE AWARDS
4. PROCLAMATIONS
Ae
Proclamation to designate the week of February 22-28, 2004 as
"Right-to-Know Act." To be accepted by Dan Summers, Director
of Collier County Emergency Management.
2
February 10, 2004
e
Be
Ce
Proclamation to declare the month of February as Retinoblastoma
Awareness Month. To be accepted by Pam Bergsma.
Proclamation to designate the week of February 16-22, 2004 as
"Collier County Surveyors Week." To be accepted by David J.
Hyatt, P.S.M., Project Manager, Wilson Miller.
Dm
Proclamation to designate February 14, 2004 as a day of love,
marriage and family. To be accepted by Buddy and Jane Kington.
PRESENTATIONS
Am
Presentation of contribution from US Home Corporation to the
Habitat for Humanity of Collier County.
B. Adopt-A-Road "Sponsors of the Year" Presentation.
PUBLIC PETITIONS
Am
Public Petition request by Mr. John F. Weir to discuss Heron Cove
name approval letter.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Ae
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-
2003-AR-4583, Beth Kosmerl and Stuart Kaye representing Kaye
Homes Inc., requesting Conditional Use 9 of the Estates Zoning
District to continue the existing land use as a model home and
sales center on 2.85+ acres located at 910 39th Street SW, in
Section 14, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida.
Bm
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-
2003-AR-4995, Mr. Bob Duane of Hole Montes Inc., representing
Christ Community Lutheran School, requests Conditional Use # 10
of the Rural Agricultural District (A) Zoning District for the
purpose of a private elementary/middle school. The property to be
considered for the conditional use is located at 14785 Collier
Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26
3
February 10, 2004
east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 9.38 acres.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. CU-
2003-AR-4799, Edward B. Hane, representing American Dream
Builders, Inc., requests Conditional Use #9 of the Estates Zoning
District for the purpose of a model home sales center. The
property to be considered for the conditional use is located at 4050
13th Avenue SW being located at the southwest comer of 13th
Avenue SW and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), which is Unit 26,
Tract 119, Golden Gate Estates, in Section 15, Township 49 south,
Range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. This property consists of 5
acres.
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
Request the Board approve an Ordinance to prohibit fishing on
designated bridges within Collier County, which Ordinance also
(1) directs the County Manager to post appropriate signage; (2)
authorizes the County Manager to determine those other County
bridges upon which fishing ought to be prohibited; (3) provides for
penalties for violation of the Ordinance; (4) directs that the
Ordinance be interpreted consisted with F.S. 316.1305, fishing
from state road bridges; (5) repeals and supersedes Resolution No.
2002-204, which established a fishing prohibition from Bridge No.
030210; (6) provides for the inclusion in the Collier County Code
of Laws and Ordinances; and (7) provides for an effective date.
This item being continued indefinitely. This item requires that
all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be
provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-3411,
Robert J. Mulhere, AICP, of RWA, Inc., representing thc
applicants, Carl M. Nagel, Managing Partner of CDN Properties
LLC, and Thomas Craig, Craig Construction and Restoration, Inc.,
requesting a rezone from "A" Agricultural to "PUD" Planned Unit
Development for a project to be known as Nagel-Craig Business
Park PUD to allow a maximum of 417,000 square feet of business
park land uses in buildings not to exceed 42 feet in height for
37.5+ acres of property located on the west side of Collier
Boulevard (CR-951) approximately ¼ mile north of Vanderbilt
Beach Road, in Section 34, Township 48 south, Range 26 east,
4
February 10, 2004
Collier County, Florida.
Ce
This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided
by Commission members. PUDZ-2002-AR-3158, Robert J.
Mulhere, AICP, of RWA Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich,
Esquire, of Goodlette Coleman and Johnson, representing Eco
Venture Wiggins Pass Ltd., requesting to rezone a 10.45 acre
parcel from C-4 to a residential planned unit development to be
known as "Coconilla" PUD to allow for: A maximum of 95
residential units on +/- 10.02 acres of developable area for a
resulting density of 9.5 dwelling units per acre, specifically
including a residential tower at a building height not to exceed 21
stories over parking (maximum of 225 feet above the required
flood elevation and in accordance with the provisions of Section
2.6.3.1 of the Collier County LDC), town home units, and a marina
basin with 52 boat slips and customary accessory uses, including a
publicly accessible ship's store and marine fueling station of
approximately 5000 square feet of commercial space; and a +/-
0.80 acre public use tract providing for additional public vehicle
and boat trailer parking to provide: support for Cocohatchee River
Park, access to the marina ship's store, and egress to Vanderbilt
Drive for park patrons to allow for safe egress via a protected
northbound turning movement at existing traffic signal at Wiggins
Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive for property located on Vanderbilt
Drive, at the western terminus of Wiggins Pass Road in Section 17,
Township 48 south, Range 25 east.
De
This item to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Adoption of an ordinance
amending Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law and
Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No. 2001-13 (The Collier
County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended)
providing for the adoption of a General Government Building
Impact Fee with a delayed effective date of March 1, 2004.
9. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ae
Appointment of member to the Collier County Code Enforcement
Board.
5
February 10, 2004
Appointment of members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board.
Ce
Appointment of member to the Immokalee Beautification MSTU
Advisory Committee.
D. Appointment of member to the Revenue Commission.
E. Discussion regarding agenda protocol. (Commissioner Henning)
10. COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT
Award Bid #04-3617 for evacuation shelter supplies and
equipment to Pro-Pac Inc., and approve a budget amendment in the
amount of $250,000. (Dan Summers, Director, Emergency
Management)
Be
Approve Change Order # 10, Amendment Four, Contract #98-2829,
in the amount of $4,635,152 for the construction of the third floor
build-out and the chiller plant expansion of the Naples Jail
Addition to Kraft Construction. (Len Price, Administrator,
Administrative Services)
Ce
For the Board of County Commissioners to consider a request from
the Vanderbilt Beach Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory
Committee to partner with them in the development of a master
plan at a cost of one-half of the total cost of the master plan at an
amount not to exceed $40,000. (Norman Feder, Administrator,
Transportation Services)
De
To review a request to forgive a loan payment from the Collier
County Fair Board in the amount of $38,687. (John Dunnuck,
Administrator, Public Services).
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON GENERAL TOPICS
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
13. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
6
February 10, 2004
14. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
15.
Approve a resolution terminating for convenience a grant to the
Airport Authority from the Economic Development Administration
for improvements to the Immokalee Airport Infrastructure (Project
33327 in Fund 496).
Be
Approve Budget Amendment recognizing award of Federal
Aviation Administration Grants, eliminating a previously approved
project, and returning net adjustment to General Fund.
STAFF AND COMMISSION GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
16. CONSENT AGENDA - All matters listed under this item are
considered to be routine and action will be taken by one motion
without separate discussion of each item. If discussion is desired by a
member of the Board, that item(s) will be removed from the Consent
Agenda and considered separately.
Ao
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
1)
2)
A Resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, authorizing acceptance of the Fiscal
Year 2003-2004 State of Florida Office on Homelessness
Challenge Grant Award, approving execution of Challenge
Grant Award, approving execution of Challenge Grant Sub-
Recipient Agreement(s) by the County Manager or the
Community Development and Environmental Services
(CDES) Division Administrator, authorizing acceptance of
the Grant Agreement from the Department of Children and
Families, and providing for an effective date.
Approve a budget amendment recognizing the Fiscal Year
2003-2004 State Challenge Grant Award in the amount of
$82,500 to be passed through 100% to the Collier County
Hunger and Homeless Coalition.
7
February 10, 2004
3)
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of
"Indigo Lakes Unit Two." The roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained, the water and
sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County.
4)
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of
"Indigo Lakes Unit Four." The roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained, the water and
sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County.
5)
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of
"Naples Lakes Country Club Unit Two." The roadway and
drainage improvements will be privately maintained, the
water and sewer improvements will be maintained by
Collier County.
6)
Request to grant final approval of the roadway (private),
drainage, water and sewer improvements for the final plat of
"Brynwood Preserve." The roadway and drainage
improvements will be privately maintained, the water and
sewer improvements will be maintained by Collier County.
7)
Request to approve for recording the final plat of "Fiddler's
Creek Phase 3, Unit Two," and approval of the Standard
Form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and
approval of the amount of the Performance Security.
8)
Petition AVESMT2002-AR3244 to disclaim, renounce and
vacate the County's and the Public's interest in all of the
conservation easement conveyed to Collier County by
separate instrument and recorded in Official Record Book
1947, Pages 429 through 436, Public Records of Collier
County, Florida, and to accept a relocation conservation
easement, located in Section 17, Township 51 south, Range
27 east.
B. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
8
February 10, 2004
1)
Board to waive the recovery of relocation expenses of
$6666.67, resulting from the negotiated resignation of Mr.
Michael A. Etelamaki, P.E., releasing any right the County
may have in reclaiming said relocation expenses, finding
that payment of relocation expenses, in this case, is in the
best interest of the County.
2)
Approve the purchase of 3.185 acres of land of which .771
acres are required for road right-of-way and drainage
easements for the Vanderbilt Beach Road Expansion
Project. Project No. 63051 (fiscal impact $336,300.00).
3)
Board approval of Adopt-A-Road Program agreements at
the Board of County Commissioners Meeting on February
10, 2004.
4)
Approve the Interlocal Agreement between Collier County
and the City of Naples to implement construction inspection
and protection procedures during the Golden Gate Parkway
Construction Project for the City's 36-inch water main
supplying drinking water to over 80% of the City's
residents. (Project No. 60027.)
Approve selection committee ranking of firms for contract
negotiations for RFP 04-3588 "Fixed Term Material Testing
Services" (estimated dollar amount of contract not to exceed
$500,000 annually per firm).
6)
Request the Board approve a resolution approving a local
agency program agreement with the State of Florida
Department of Transportation, for the design and
construction of sidewalks and bicycle lanes in Everglades
City, and authorizing its execution ($208,180).
7)
Approve a resolution to allow the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners to enter into a Local Agency
Agreement (LAP) with the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) to provide for roadway lighting
along US 41-North Tamiami Trail from Myrtle Road to Pine
Ridge Road at a cost of approximately $400,000.
9
February 10, 2004
8)
Approve a request from the Collier County Metropolitan
Planning Organization to contribute $300 to the Florida
Metropolitan Planning Organization Advisory Council for
Legislative Advocacy Activities, fiscal impact $300.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
1)
2)
3)
Approval of an interlocal agreement between the City of
Marco Island and Collier County, Florida for provision by
the City for wastewater collection and treatment services to
the Calusa Island Village Development.
Recommendation to increase Contract #02-3319 for
SCWRF berm maintenance to J. P.'s Lawn Care, Inc., to the
approximate annual amount of $50,160.
Approve right-of-way consent agreement and associated
memorandum with Florida Power and Light Company
permitting the construction of raw water transmission mains
and associated electrical lines within Florida Power and
Light Company power-line right-of-way between the South
County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road (SCRWTP Wellfield
Expansion, Project Number 70892). Transaction cost should
not exceed $50.00.
D. PUBLIC SERVICES
me
1)
Approve a budget amendment recognizing $1520 in revenue
from private contributions, and appropriating funds for the
purchase of sailboats for the Collier County Sailing Center.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
1)
2)
Amend County purchasing policy to establish a
comprehensive vendor debarment and suspension policy.
Report and ratify staff approved change orders and changes
to work orders to Board approved contracts.
10
February 10, 2004
3)
Approve resolution to amend County purchasing policy
regarding the retention of expert witnesses and consultants
to aid in on-going litigation.
4)
Recommendation to accept staff's short list for architectural
services for the new Sheriff's Special Operations Facility
ITN #03-3550.
F. COUNTY MANAGER
1)
Recommendation to award Bid No. 04-3604, a power
catamaran boat in the amount of $43,713.50 to Twin Vee,
Inc.
2)
Approval of a Budget Amendment Report - BA#04-121 in
the amount of $3,626 to outfit new donated fireboat with a
pump for firefighting purposes.
3)
Board approval of distribution of the Five Cents and Six
Cents Local Option Gas Taxes based on the actual
transportation expenses incurred during the period from
FY98 through FY02.
G. AIRPORT AUTHORITY
H. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
I. MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
1) Miscellaneous items to file with action as directed.
J. OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
1)
That the Board of County Commissioners make a
determination of whether the purchases of goods and
services documented in the Detailed Report of Open
Purchase Orders serve a valid public purpose and authorize
the expenditure of County funds to satisfy said purchases. A
copy of the Detailed Report is on display in the County
Manager's Office, W. Harmon Turner Building, 3301 East
11
February 10, 2004
Ko
Tamiami Trail, 2nd Floor, Naples, FL.
2)
To accept the background information provided to the Clerk
of the Circuit Court for a fortuneteller permit and to provide
the permit as submitted by the County Manager's Office.
COUNTY ATTORNEY
17.
1)
Approve agreed orders and authorize payment of planning
fees for Parcels 195, 197, 218, 181, 184, 198, 201,202,
21 lA, 214, 174, 170 and 172 in the Immokalee Road Project
(Wilson to Collier Boulevard #60018).
2)
Approve agreed orders and authorize the payment of
appraisal fees in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Ismael
Gonzales, et al, Case No. 02-2159-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #60018).
3)
Approve agreed order and authorize the payment of
planning fees in the Lawsuit styled Collier County v. Lazaro
Herrera, et al, Case No. 02-2211-CA (Immokalee Road
Project #60018).
4)
Request by the Collier County Educational Facilities
Authority for approval of a resolution authorizing the
Authority to issue revenue bonds to be used to finance
educational facilities for International College and to refund
currently outstanding bonds previously issued by the
Authority.
5)
Approve the stipulated final judgment relative to the
acquisition of Parcel 117 in the lawsuit styled Collier
County v. The Orchards Community Assoc., Inc., et al, Case
No. 02-1635-CA (Livingston Road Project #62071).
SUMMARY AGENDA - THIS SECTION IS FOR ADVERTISED
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MUST MEET THE FOLLOWING
CRITERIA: 1) A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM
STAFF; 2) UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR
APPROVAL BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COMMISSION OR OTHER AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OF ALL
12
February 10, 2004
MEMBERS PRESENT AND VOTING; 3) NO WRITTEN OR
ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEM RECEIVED BY STAFF,
THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, OTHER
AUTHORIZING AGENCIES OR THE BOARD, PRIOR TO THE
COMMENCEMENT OF THE BCC MEETING ON WHICH THE
ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD; AND 4) NO
INDIVIDUALS ARE REGISTERED TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION
TO THE ITEM. FOR THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ARE
QUASIJUDICAL IN NATURE, ALL PARTICIPANTS MUST BE
SWORN IN.
This item continued from the January 27~ 2004 BCC meeting.
This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex
parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition AVPLAT2003-AR5000 to disclaim, renounce and vacate
the County's and the Public's interest in a portion of the drainage
easement located on Tract "F", according to the plat of
"Fountainhead Subdivision Replat" as recorded in Plat Book 27,
Pages 53 through 54, Public Records of Collier County, Florida,
located in Section 5, Township 49 south, Range 26 east.
Request Board to repeal Collier County Ordinance No. 2001-76, as
amended, which created the Livingston Road Phase II
Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit (M. S.T.U.).
18. ADJOURN
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA
SHOULD BE MADE TO THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 774-
8383.
13
February 10, 2004
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Good morning,
everyone. Meeting is called to order.
We'll have the invocation this morning by Pastor Roy Shuck
from Faith Community Church.
Will you all please stand.
PASTOR SHUCK: Shall we pray?
Lord, we thank you for the opportunity to gather together as
leaders of the community to do your business, and we do ask for your
guidance and wisdom.
We would pray today, Lord, for those people that are serving in
the military, especially those reservists from our community, and we
ask, God, that you'll be with their families and their friends and may
they feel our support today.
We do pray, Lord, for the county commissioners and the work
that they're about to undertake as they protect and provide for the
needs of the weak and needy of our community.
Father, we ask that you help us to be a righteous community
filled with your love so we can fulfill your command to love our
neighbors as we love ourselves.
As we strive to work through difficult and emotionally-charged
projects, may we do so in the spirit of the Golden Rule, that we do
unto others as you would have them do unto us. And it's your name we pray, Lord, amen.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2A
REGULAR, SUMMARY AND CONSENT AGENDA-APPROVED
AND/OR ADOPTED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Today we're going to try to and approve
the agenda and -- the consent and the summary agenda, but first let us
Page 2
February 1 O, 2004
hear from the county attorney.
MR. WEIGEL: Good moming, Madam Chairman and
Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning.
MR. WEIGEL: The only comment that I would have would be
on 16(E)3, which is already up on the list for -- to be moved to the
regular agenda. So I'll wait for any movement that comes on that
item. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
The County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, the agenda
changes for the Board of County Commissioner meeting, February
10th, 2004.
First item, item 7(C). Correction to the agenda index only,
should have read CU-2003-AR-4799, Edward B. Hanf, rather than
Hane, and that's at staff's request.
Next item, add item 9(F), and that's appointment of a member to
the coast -- to the Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee, and
that's at staff's request.
Third item, item 10(D), continued indefinitely, and that was to
review a request to forgive a loan payment for Collier County Fair
Board in the amount of $38,687, and that's at staff's request.
Fourth item is to add item 13(A). This item to be heard
immediately following 8(D), which-- and 8(D)'s got a time certain at
11 -- at 11 this morning, and so we'll get to 13(A) just before lunch,
and that's approval of an interlocal agreement for election services for
the City of Naples special election, February 17th 2004, and that item
is by the Supervisor of Elections.
Fifth item is clarification of 16(E)2. The purchasing policy
allows changes to work orders continued to non-CCNA contracts up to
$100,000 or up to 10 percent of the original work order amount, which
-- whichever is more.
Page 3
February 10, 2004
This is a typo -- there is a typo in the last line of the first
paragraph under considerations. It should read, not greater than 10
percent or $100,000, not $10,000, and that's at staffs request, but it
was brought to our attention by Commissioner Halas.
Next item is to move item 16(E)3 to item 10(E), and that's to
approve a resolution to amend county purchasing policy regarding the
retention of expert witnesses and consultants to aid in ongoing
litigation, and that's at Commissioner Coyle's request.
Next item is item 16(F)1. This was continued-- this item will be
continued to the February 24th, 2004, BCC meeting. It's a
recommendation to award bid number 04-3604, a power catamaran
boat in the amount of $43,713.50 to Twin Vee, Inc., and that's at
staffs request.
And then we have some time certain items this morning.
Item 8(C) will be heard at one p.m., and that's the -- and that's the
Coconilla PUD item. So, again, the Coconilla PUD item will be heard
at one p.m., and that's item 8(C).
Item 8(D) will be heard at 11 a.m., and that's an adoption of an
ordinance amending chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law
and Ordinances as amended by ordinance number 2001-33 (sic), and
in parens, that's the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee
Ordinance as amended, and that has to do with a new impact fee for
government buildings.
And then the last item, Commissioner, again, item 13(A) will be
heard immediately following 8(D), and that will be just before noon.
That's all I have.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioners, do any of you have any ex parte disclosure on
the summary agenda or any additions or corrections to the agenda,
starting with Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't have any additions or
corrections of the agenda at this point in time.
Page 4
February 1 O, 2004
I do have one ex page, and--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: On the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Pardon?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: On the summary agenda?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, on --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just on the summary.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no additions or -- I don't
wish to pull any items on this summary agenda.
For 17(A), I have no disclosures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have no additions to today's
agenda.
I'm not sure if it's appropriate on 17(B) to give disclosures, which
is removal of MSTU Livingston. The board heard this item before at
a regular public meeting, and I received numerous emails from folks
from Kensington, Grey Oaks, and Wyndemere.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have essentially the same
disclosure, and I have no further changes to the agenda.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good catch, Commissioner Henning. I
never even thought about that. I was going to say no disclosures, but
yes, we all heard about that -- that issue a while back. So I will count
that as a disclosure, and I have no additions or corrections to the
summary agenda.
May I have -- are there any registered speakers for the summary
agenda?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
Page 5
February 10, 2004
that we approve today's regular, consent, and summary agenda as
amended.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I would like to make a correction.
I did have some ex parte on 17(B), but that was some time ago.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
And Commissioner Coletta, you, same thing, right?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Also, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine.
I'm sorry. Commissioner Henning, would you repeat that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve the agenda as
-- as amended, the regular, consent, and summary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion by Commissioner Henning, a
second by Commissioner Coyle.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you; passes, 5-0.
Page 6
AGENDA CHANGES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
February 10, 2004
Item 7C (correction to a.qenda index only) should have read: CU-2003-AR-4799,
Edward B. Hanf (rather than Hane). (Staff request.)
Add Item 9F: Appointment of member to the Collier County Coastal Advisory
Committee. (Staff request.)
Item 10D continued indefinitely: To review a request to forgive a loan payment
from the Collier County Fair Board in the amount of $38,687. (Staff request.)
Add Item 13A: This item to be heard immediately followin.q 8D: Approval of
Interlocal Agreement for Election Services for the City of Naples special election
February 17, 2004. (Supervisor of Elections.)
Clarification of Item 16E2: The purchasing policy allows changes to work orders
issued on non-CCNA contracts up to $100K or up to 10% of the original work
order amount, whichever is more. There is a typo in the last line of the first
paragraph under "Considerations". It should read, "not greater than 10% or
$100,000", not $10,000. (Staff request.)
Move Item 16E3 to 10E: Approve resolution to amend County Purchasing Policy
regarding the retention of expert witnesses and consultants to aid in on-going
litigation. (Commissioner Coyle request.)
Item 16F1: Continued to the February 24, 2004 BCC meetin.q: Recommendation to
award Bid No. 04-3604, a power catamaran boat in the amount of $43,713.50 to
Twin Vee, Inc. (Staff request.)
Time Certain Items:
Item 8C to be heard at 1:00 p.m. PUDZ-2002-AR-3158, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of
RWA, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette Coleman and
Johnson, representing Eco Venture Wiggins Pass, Ltd., requesting to rezone a
10.45 acre parcel from C-4 to a residential planned unit development to be known
as "Coconilla" PUD.
Item 8D to be heard at 11:00 a.m. Adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 74
of the Collier County Code of Law and Ordinances, as amended by Ordinance No.
2001-13 (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended).
Item 13A to be heard immediately following 8D:
February 1 O, 2004
Items #2B, #2C, #2D
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 7, 2004 BCC/LDC SPECIAL
MEETING, MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 13, 2004 BCC
REGULAR MEETING, MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 21, 2004
DISTRICT 3 TOWN HALL MEET1NG- APPROVED AS
PRF. SFNTF, D
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I make a motion
that we approve January 7th, '04, BCC/LDC special meeting, and also
January 13th, '04, regular BCC meeting, January 22nd, '04, town hall
meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And second?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Coyle. Motion
by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Coyle to accept
the minutes from these meetings.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #4A
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY
22 THROUGH 28, 2004, AS EMERGENCY PLANNING
COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW AWARENESS WEEK IN
SOl JTHWF. ST FI.ORIDA- ADOPTF. D
Page 7
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have proclamations this morning, and
Commissioner Halas, would you please read the first proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I wonder if Dan Summers is
in the audience. There he is. Come on up here, Dan, if you would.
This is a proclamation in regards to hazardous materials.
Whereas, the safe use of hazardous material is essential to
business, industry, and local government to maintain economic
stability and to protect the citizens of the Ninth Planning District of
Florida; and,
Whereas, it is essential to plan and prepare for the accidental
release of hazardous materials and to protect the well-being of all
citizens and visitors in the district; and,
Whereas, response teams, such as fire, police, and Emergency
Medical Services must know the type of hazardous materials and
chemicals that are being used and stored in the event of an incident to
respond safely; and,
Whereas, all citizens have the right to know the type of
hazardous material and chemicals in their communities and the right to
know the proper procedures to take care of an accident or an
emergency.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, recognize the importance
of the community awareness and Emergency Planning Community
Right-to-Know Act enacted by the United States of America, and
hereby declare that the week of February 22 through the 28th, 2004, as
Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Awareness Week in
Southwest Florida.
Done in the order of this 10th day of February, 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairperson.
I make a motion to approve this proclamation.
Page 8
February 1 O, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
hand. (Applause.)
MR. SUMMERS: Thankyou.
Opposed, like sign.
Thank you very much. Let us shake your
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You can turn around. We'd love to have a
picture with you.
MR. SUMMERS: Very good.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Dan, if you'd like to say a few words,
please.
MR. SUMMERS: Just a moment.
Commissioners, thank you.
Often we take our world of chemistry and chemicals and plastics
for granted. We know that our industries and our communities have
had emergency incidents. Unfortunately, we see those on the news
almost every day.
The real support here goes to some folks in our fire departments,
our hazardous materials teams, our EMS personnel, but our industry.
It's the industry's participation in this program that makes this
effective. It lets responders prepare for, prepare, and understand what
happens out there with all the chemicals that we take for granted on a
daily basis. As a result, we make our community much safer.
Page 9
February 10, 2004
The incidents are for real. The potential is real. But because of
good partnerships with our industry and our emergency responders,
we keep those incidents to a very low number, and we deal with those.
effectively.
Thank you for recognizing this effort. Thank you for recognizing
the efforts of all of our response partners, and we'll continue to move
forward to keep things as safe as possible in Collier County. Thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's good to have you onboard, by the
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #4B
PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY
AS RET1NOBI.ASTOMA AWARENESS MONTH- ADOPTED
Our next proclamation will be presented by Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would Pam Bergsma please come
forward.
If you'd just like to stand there while I read the proclamation --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or you can mm around and come up here
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- or you can mm around and face -
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- if you'd like and-- so everybody can
see you. Which would you--
MS. BERGSMA: Whatever.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Come on -- come on up here.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whereas, Retinoblastoma is a very
rare disease that affects children causing the growth of malignant
tumors in the retina cell layer of the eye. Ninety percent of the cases
occur in the first five years of life; and,
Page 10
February 1 O, 2004
Whereas, it is the most common eye rumor in children, the third
most common cancer that affects children overall, and if left untreated,
Retinoblastoma is almost always fatal; and,
Whereas, over the past 60 years, the frequency with which
Retinoblastoma occurs has increased and is seen in one out of every
12,000 children in the United States, and 7,000 children worldwide die
from the disease each year due to the delay in diagnosis; and,
Whereas, the key to saving lives and preserving visual function is
the early diagnosis and treatment of this disease; and,
Whereas, Collier County supports eye pathology screening at
birth and all well baby exams to ensure that everything is being done
to detect ocular diseases in newborns, infants, and toddlers.
The examination only adds 10 seconds of time to the regular
exam and costs pennies, a small price to pay to ensure healthy visions
for all of our children.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of Collier County
Commissioners of Collier County, that the month of February, 2004,
be designated as the Joey Bergsma Retinoblastoma Awareness Month.
Done and ordered this 10th day of February, 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairman.
Ms. -- Madam Chair, I would like to make a motion to accept this
proclamation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: A motion by Commissioner Coyle,
second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
Page 11
February 1 O, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
Opposed, like sign.
Thank you very much.
Oh, I love your pin.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Thank you very much. You get to
hold this while we take a picture of you, okay?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, good. I'm glad you're going to hold
that. Great.
MS. BERGSMA: Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Would you like to say a few
words?
MS. BERGSMA: Yes, please.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MS. BERGSMA: Thank you so much.
On behalf of my beloved grandson Joey and the children of
Collier County, I'd like to thank you so much for this proclamation.
I want to take just a moment to make you all aware of what I did
not know in order for no child in this county to have to go blind or die
needlessly to any treatable eye disease.
I'd first like to discuss photographs. I learned the hard way that
when you take a red eye photo, that this is actually a form of a
diagnostic in some instances. That red eye comes from a dimly lit
situation. Our pupil dilates and our retina is reflecting the light of the
flash because it's exposed to the flash.
So it is always supposed to reflect red. When it does not reflect
red, something could have blocked it, and this is when you can
photograph a cataract, glaucoma, tumors, and with little ones,
Retinoblastoma tumors.
This picture, where the white is reflecting in the right eye and his
left eye is red, would have saved Joey's vision, and his life never
would have been jeopardized, had I just known that you could
Page 12
February 10, 2004
photograph eye diseases.
But please don't misconstrue this. This is not an eye test. If both
eyes reflect red, that doesn't mean you have healthy eyes; it just means
you did not photograph an eye disease.
So always be alerted to it when you do not have that red
reflection in a red eye photo. It could save somebody's vision and it
could save a child's life.
Now, the way to detect it is with a direct ophthalmoscope. This
is an instrument that all health care professionals have in our country.
They have a stethoscope for the heart, they have a pointed otoscope,
that's for hearing.
Joey's pediatrician used it faithfully, eyes, ears, down the throat
for all, but he did not do a red reflex of the retina.
At his 15 or 18 month well baby visit, had I just known to make
this happen. They need to turn the lights out in the room. If the lights
are not out in the room and it's not dimly lit, they are not going to see
the eye disease. They'll get a red reflection, but they will not see the
eye disease.
So we need to mm down the lights. And this needs to be used at
every exam from the time we are bom until the time we die. Just like
the stethoscope is used for the heart to get us to the cardiologist, this is
for eye detection to get us to the ophthalmologist.
Make sure it's happening for yourselves, but more importantly,
make sure it happens for your children at every exam. It would have
saved Joey's vision, and it would have saved his life.
Now, through Joey's death experience, I learned about infants.
Thousands of infants in our country at the time of birth are born with
treatable eye diseases, and we are not doing infant eye screening with
the exception of premature babies.
Sadly, 90 percent of the infants that have different eye diseases
and anomalies are the healthy babies. So they truly are the ones at
risk to going blind, and if they are bom with Retinoblastoma, to death.
Page 13
February 10, 2004
So in order for this to be seen in an infant's eye, we need to add a
two cent eye drop. And I'm going to take just a moment, rather than
describe this, to show you the simplicity of this exam. Let's see.
There we go.
(A video was played.)
MS. BERGSMA: This is the well baby visit. Emma was just
weighed, and the nurse practitioner is dropping this little eye drop in
her eye to dilate the pupil.
Dr. Trotter's doing what should have happened for Joey, and,
sadly, still isn't happening for many children in our state. The lights
are out, and he's looking at all angles of the retina. It is, it's as simple as that.
A bill was written. After Joey died, I went to our legislators here
in our state and -- because I found out from some of the world's
foremost authorities on ocular diseases, that this is the only way we're
going to detect in infants' eyes.
And the frequency of this is to do it before they leave the
hospital, at the six to eight week well baby exam, and one more at the
six to nine month baby exam.
This is the infant eye care bill. It's been nicknamed Joe's Bill
after my grandson. This will be the third session for the bill. I'm
praying that it will happen, because there are just so many children at
risk, way too many eyes have been inoculated in Florida, and every
time an eye is removed, a life is jeopardized.
This cannot kill unless it gets out of the child's eye, and the only
way it gets out of the eye is because it does not get detected. So this is
what we can fix.
We have a little girl in West Palm Beach, the first child that
Joey's story saved the life of. She's now turning four. She not only
has her eye, she has perfect vision in her eye.
The tumor was so small, they froze it off with cryotherapy. It
was her grandmother who was alerted to a photo through Joey's story.
Page 14
February 1 O, 2004
And Lexi is a miracle in herself, because she did not have to have
chemo. And until she came into my life, I thought they always had to
have chemo to preserve their vision with this treatable cancer.
So what happened for Lexi is what we want to see happen for all
of these children. I feel she was a part of Joey's message. She's one of
his angels, to show us that it can happen when we start looking in their
eyes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
MS. BERGSMA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We appreciate you. And I hope
everybody has heard this message. All of us have children and
grandchildren, and maybe we'll pay those closer attention to that eye
exam.
Thank you very much.
MS. BERGSMA: Okay. Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissions Coletta?
Item #4C
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY
16 THROUGH 22, 2004, AS COLLIER COUNTY SURVEYOR'S
WEEK- ADOPTED
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Would David Hyatt, project manager of WilsonMiller, come up
front, please.
Sir, if you'd stand right up here and face the audience.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What a hot seat, huh?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Whereas, the surveyors are
counted among the founding leaders of our country and were
instrument-- instrumental in the formation of a layout of property
boundaries in the United States, which have provided our citizens the
Page 15
February 1 O, 2004
enjoyment of property ownership; and,
Whereas, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both former
Presidents of the United States, served their fellow colonists as
surveyors; and,
Whereas, the citizens of Florida recognize the valuable
contributions of the surveying profession to history, development, and
quality of life in Florida and the United States of America, and make
-- make important decisions based on the knowledge and expertise of
licensed surveyors and mappers; and,
Whereas, the surveying profession requires special education,
training, the knowledge of mathematics, the related physic (sic) and
applied science and requirements of law for evidence; and,
Whereas, surveyors are uniquely qualified and licensed to
determine and describe land and water boundaries for the management
of natural resources and the protection of private and public property
rights; and,
Whereas, the continual advancements in the instrumentation have
required the surveyors not only to be able to understand the implement
(sic) and -- the methods of the past, but also to learn and employ
modem technology in finding solutions to meet the challenge --
challenges of the future.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed that the Board of Collier County
Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, do hereby proclaim the week
of February 16th through the 22nd, 2004, as Collier County Surveyor
Week and recognize the many contributions and ongoing dedication of
the surveyors to the citizens of Florida and the United States.
Done and ordered this, the 10th day of February, 2004, Donna
Fiala, Chairman.
And I would make a motion for approval.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve, Commissioner
Coletta, second by Commissioner Coyle.
Page 16
February 1 O, 2004
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(Applause.)
Opposed, like sign.
Thank you very much for coming.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'd love to have you take a picture with
us. Turn around; we'll take a picture.
Would you like to say a few words?
MR. HYATT: Sure.
I'd like to thank the commission for this proclamation on behalf
of all the surveyors in Collier County, and not just the licensed
professionals, but all the support staff that -- people that draw up our
maps and those hard working folks you see out on the side of the road
doing our fieldwork for us every day. We couldn't do our work
without them. So thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Item #4D
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 14, 2004, AS A
DAY OF IJOVF,: MARRIAGF.: AND FAMII.Y- ADOPTED
And I have the pleasure of reading the next proclamation to
designate February 14th as a day of love, marriage, and family. Boy,
this tickles me to death to read this.
To be accepted by Buddy and Jane Kington.
Page 17
February 1 O, 2004
And as they're coming up, I'd just like to tell you, Buddy and
Jane Kington -- I'm telling -- have been married 50 years, and they're
in my Kiwanis Club, and they're probably the kindest, dearest people
you'd ever want to meet, who never, ever stop doing for others.
They're also amazing, to see the things, the way they reach out to
the community and help, especially children, families, taking
Thanksgiving and Christmas things to them, but helping them all year
long. So it's, indeed, a great pleasure of mine to read this
proclamation.
Whereas, the legend of Saint Valentine contends that the third
century Roman priest was martyred for secretly performing marriages
in defiance of an unjust decree of the Emperor Claudius, II; and,
Whereas, Valentine's Day today is a celebration of love in all its
forms; and,
Whereas, in his State of the Union Address on February (sic) 20,
2004, President George W. Bush urged Americans to value the
institution and sanctity of marriage; and,
Whereas, Collier County residents Selwyn Mills and
Amber-Rose Mills have recently launched a campaign to promote
romantic love and marriage within our community; and,
Whereas, the Collier County Board of Commissioners recognizes
that the family is a foundation of any community.
Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that Valentine's Day,
February 14th, 2004, is a day for Collier County residents to reflect on
the true meaning of love, marriage, and family as they find it in each
of their hearts and to celebrate the strength and happiness these very
real intangibles bring to their lives and to their community.
Done and ordered this 10th day of February, 2004, Board of
County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Donna Fiala,
Chairman.
Motion to approve.
Page 18
February 10, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion to approve and a second
by some very loving husbands of wives who are going to celebrate
Valentine's Day together, right?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Congratulations on 50 years.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you want to say a little something,
Buddy? Did you want to say a little something to us?
First-- first, let's take a picture.
MR. MUDD: Let's get a picture.
MR. KINGTON: I'll make this short and sweet. Ain't love
grand?
(Applause.)
MS. KINGTON: I just want to say that if you know any couples
that are having problems in their marriage, please encourage them to
stick with it because the best is yet to come.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you so much.
Item #5A
PRESENTATION OF A CONTRIBUTION FROM US HOME
CORPORATION TO THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF
Page 19
February 10, 2004
COIJIJER COl INTY- PRESENTED
Presentations. We have a presentation of contribution from US
Home Corporation to the Habitat for Humanity of Collier County.
I don't know who's presenting that. Let's see --
MR. MUDD: Richard-- Richard Woodruff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Richard.
MR. MUDD: And is Sam around? Sam, come on. I know you're
going to take this check.
MR. WOODRUFF: Bruce, you and Mike. Bruce? Bruce?
Bruce Anderson, you're going to be in this picture if it breaks the
camera.
Madam Chairman, members of the county commission, it is,
indeed, with great honor that I represent US Home this morning.
When the Board of County Commissioners approved the
development of regional impact for Heritage Bay, one of the
stipulations in that was a donation to Habitat for Humanity.
We all are very appreciative of the work that habitat does to bring
affordable housing to the workforce of Collier County.
On behalf of US Home today, we have Mike Hueniken and we
have attorney Bruce Anderson who represented the project.
This is a check in the amount of $475,000 donated by US Home
to Habitat of Humanity of Collier County.
Mr. Durso, congratulations.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I was just reading their newsletter the
other day, and it spoke of the families that they're helping, the families
that they're bringing out of deplorable conditions. So this is, indeed, a
pleasure to see this happen.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It gives a new meaning to, get
your checkbook.
MR. WOODRUFF: And I also want to make sure you
Page 20
February 10, 2004
understand that the big check won't go in the bank, so we gave Sam
Durso a little replica. Maybe the bank will take that.
MR. DURSO: I'd like to thank-- thank US Homes very much
and thank the county commissioners very much.
As you know, we're the main provider of single-family,
owner-occupied affordable housing in Collier County. We're the
second oldest habitat affiliate in the country. We're the second largest
habitat affiliate in the country. We have 600 homes completed now;
300 in Immokalee and 300 in East Naples. That's over the last 26
years. We did 110 homes a year the last couple of years, and probably
110 homes this year.
My wife and I are proud to lead this organization of 2,000 donors
and 3,000 volunteers trying to give back to society by providing a
simple, decent place to live for everyone in Collier County. We've
accomplished a lot, but we have much left to do.
Just as an aside, every time we raise impact fees, it does affect
affordable housing, so that's -- that's for later on today.
In addition to building homes, we must be the main advocate for
affordable housing as well, and we try to do that, even though it's
sometimes difficult.
We certainly support the concept of developers -- developers
helping us to supply affordable housing. This is by far the largest
donation that Habitat for Humanity has ever received from a
developer.
And we're very excited and pleased to partner with the county,
we're excited to partner with US Homes in providing affordable
housing.
This is a good start and hopefully will set a precedent for other
developers in helping to solve the affordable housing crisis in Collier
County.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 21
February 1 O, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
(Applause.)
Item #5B
PRESENTATION OF THE ADOPT-A-ROAD "SPONSORS OF
THE YEAR"- PRESENTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Our Adopt-A-Road presentation will be
presented by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, if you don't
mind, I'm going to step in front of the dais.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, please, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Madam Chair, I'll just step to
the podium.
The first -- recognize the -- one of our finest businesses in Collier
County on the wonderful Island of Goodland, Stan's Idle Hour and
Seafood Restaurant for their dedication to keeping our roads beautiful.
Is anybody from Stan's Idle Hour here?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, Stan is here.
MR. MUDD: I'll take out a list now, okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I thought I saw you sitting out there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Still doing the mullet toss?
MR. LITSTER: Yes.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
MR. GOBER: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Same to you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nice to see you, Stan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You do good work. You do good work.
SAM: Well, we try. Thank you very much.
MS. LEE: Our runner-up for sponsor of the year is Your
Page 22
February 1 O, 2004
Childcare. They're located on Bayshore Drive, and they've been an
Adopt-A-Road supporter since 1995. (Applause.)
MS. LEE: The award is being accepted by Lisa Prue, who is the
mother of Jenny Prue, the owner of Your Childcare.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: My goodness. Isn't that something.
Jenny owns it? She was a little girl the last time I saw her.
MS. PRUE: Yeah. She's 30 years old now.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much for your
dedication.
MS. LEE: The next award is going to South Naples
Communities. Now, this is where we have a change of name. They
were known as Celebration Gardens, and they pick up along 951 from
Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Grand Lely Drive. They've been doing
this since 1998.
The award is being accepted on behalf of South Naples
Communities by Margaret Ramos. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You always help so much to keep our
community looking good.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for your great work.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: By the way, would you give your name,
please, to our court stenographer?
MS. LEE: Yes. My name is Barbara Lee. I'm the
Adopt-A-Road coordinator.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. LEE: The top sponsor of the year-- we're going outside the
area of Naples to further out in the community out around Everglades
City area.
Page 23
February 1 O, 2004
The top sponsor of the year is Glades Realty and Captain Brock.
They have been picking up along County Road 29 from Camestown,
south towards Everglades City, and they've been doing this for 10
dedicated years. So we're very proud to present Naples -- Glades
Realty and Captain Brock.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Captain.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for all your work.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good job.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: One of your flock, huh?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Good job.
MS. LEE: This year we have a special award to present to a
program that is of inestimable assistance to the Adopt-A-Road
program and to every citizen here in Collier County. I'm referring to
the Collier County Sheriff's Department Working Weekender
Program.
Now, you've seen the results every weekend when they're out
there. They do a tremendous job for us. And I think we owe a great
deal of thanks to the sheriff's department for handling this program.
The award is being accepted by Lieutenant Ayers in charge of the
program.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: By proxy.
MR. MUDD: They've got the biggest guy in the sheriff's
department.
MS. LEE: I think all of these dedicated sponsors deserve your
special thanks. It's a heartless task, picking up litter week after week
and then finding it back there again, so we really appreciate them.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And thank you.
MR. VLIET: Madam Chair, Commissioners, I'd like to give you
a little history on the Adopt-A-Road Program.
Adopt-A-Road Program was initiated in the State of Texas.
Page 24
February 1 O, 2004
That's where it first began. The program took off quite rapidly, went
from state to state. It finally reached the State of Florida.
Florida Department of Transportation adopted this program and
started in the State of Florida. Collier County picked up from the
state's program and started in 1990.
It's grown since the conception of Collier County's program up to
over 70 sponsors that do Adopt-A-Road. Over 207 miles of highway
are being picked up by these sponsors.
The volunteer participants have donated approximately 12,000
hours to picking up litter on the highways. A total of about 50 tons
per month of litter.
They've produced savings to the taxpayers of almost a quarter of
a billion dollars, and it also frees up our employees to do other really
important road work, so it has been very helpful.
We appreciate the support of the board of commissioners that has
-- that they've shown for this Adopt-A-Road program through the
years. Thank you.
MR. MUDD: John, you need more sponsors?
MR. VLIET: Yes, sir. We're always open to sponsors.
MR. MUDD: Do you have a phone number for Ms. Lee, so if
anybody out there would like to help sponsor a road cleanup, that they
could give her a call and sign up. Do you have her phone number or
your phone number that they could call?
Our phone number is 239-417-6320.
Do you want to say it one more time?
239-417-6320, and we always look for willing
MR. VLIET:
MR. MUDD:
MR. VLIET:
participants.
MR. MUDD:
MR. VLIET:
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: John, did you give your name before you
started speaking?
MR. VLIET: John Vliet, Collier County Road Maintenance
Page 25
February 10, 2004
Superintendent.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MR. VLIET: Thankyou.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much for all of your hard
work.
Ms. Lee, I don't think anybody said to you how much we
appreciate all the time and effort you've put into coordinating this
program. Thank you very much.
Item #6A
PUBLIC PETITION REQUEST TO DISCUSS HERON COVE
NAME APPROVAl. I.ETTER
Now we're on to public petitions.
Public petition request by Mr. John Weir to discuss Heron Cove
name approval letter.
MR. STALEY: Right here?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, that's fine. Thank you.
MR. STALEY: My name is Jeff Staley. I'm here on behalf of
John. I represent Creative Choice Homes, the developer of Heron
Cove Apartments and Innovative Management Services, the managing
agent for Heron Cove.
And this is really just based on some previous correspondence
that has gone back and forth between the county manager and John
Weir regarding the request to have Heron Cove approved as the
permanent name for what is now referred to as Saddlebrook Village II.
It's a development on Radio Road, and there's been some confusion as
to it following the proper procedure for approval, and obviously it
hasn't.
But the name was originally denied because of overusage of the
name Heron or the name Cove, and Jack Weir responded to the county
Page 26
February 10, 2004
manager clarifying it or what our interpretation of the clarification
was.
So what we're looking to do is to get Heron Cove approved as the
site name and not Saddlebrook Village. And as indicated in the letter,
the property right adjacent to our development is Saddlebrook
Apartments now and would-- would create additional confusion to us.
So I don't know if each of the commissioners has this letter.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh.
MR. STALEY: And part of the other reason is we've developed
all of our signage, we've leased close to a hundred units under the
name of Heron Cove, we're set to open and accept our first units for
occupancy in the next seven to 14 days, and we've spent about
$50,000 in marketing under that name. So obviously we'd love to
keep it if at all possible.
And that's our request.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sir, I was just wondering if you had gone
through the formal process of applying for it.
MR. STALEY: No. I'm assuming -- I believe what had
happened-- and I wasn't involved in the entire process -- is when there
were some name changes made to the streets within the property,
Heron Cove was used as the project name, and the developer assumed
that when the new street names were approved, that the name Heron
Cove for the property was being approved at the same time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning, did you have a
question?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. No, I didn't have a
question, but just a comment.
The problem is with the emergency response to communities, and
it is really confusing and has real-life, you know, impacts to residents
out there.
And I can tell you from experience, not personal experience, but
constituent experience -- you know, those are your customers, and
Page 27
February 1 O, 2004
they're our constituents. We want to do everything that we can to
protect their health, safety, and welfare. We definitely don't want to
confuse anybody responding to a scene that needs to be there. MR. STALEY: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So we're sorry that -- well,
speaking for myself. I'm sorry that you spent all that money on a
name change that the county didn't approve. But I appreciate you
bringing this to our attention. MR. STALEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, with your approval, I
would like to suggest to this gentleman that they submit an application
to Planning Services and go through the proper steps as anyone else
would have to do.
Would that -- would that be all right if I suggest that,
Commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That has to come to the board of
commissioners for a change?
MR: MUDD: Commissioner, the application never came in to
Planning Services, okay? It was a correspondence by Mr. Weir and I
about Heron Cove and changing the name, and I did a little email
down to Community Development to see if that would be possible,
and I got a thing back from Community Development Planning, said
there's an awful lot of people with Heron and Cove on their process.
And that was an informal communication without an application that's
done.
There has been no application for a name change from
Saddlebrook II, I think--
MR. STALEY: Heron Cove.
MR. MUDD: -- to Heron Cove, so --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And if you're saying that there's
some concerns about confusion because of duplication or whatever --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir.
Page 28
February 1 O, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- I'm not sure if it would be
worthwhile for him to apply for a change.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. In reviewing some of the
information concerning the naming in this project, I think it's
important to note that on April 8th, 1998, developer attempted to get a
name of Pelican Pointe, and that was disapproved as an overused
name. And at the time the developer reserved Saddlebrook Village as
the project name.
On April, 2002, it was noted that there was a drive, a street,
called Blue Heron Drive proposed as one of the street names, and that
was disapproved as being a duplicate name, and the name was
changed.
Now the developer is coming in and asking for the name of
Heron Cove. I think there has been a succession of requests that turn
out to be duplicate name requests, and I -- I would be reluctant to
pursue this much ft~her, quite frankly.
If the staff believes that this name change request does not meet
the requirements of our code, then I'm not inclined to overturn it in
view of the history of the name changes and requests in this particular
issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mr. Schmitt, you had something to say.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes. For the record, Joe Schmitt, administrator
of Community Development and Environmental Services.
In fact, we've already done the research on this, and I can tell
you, quite frankly, from a staff perspective, we would not support this
and would come back as a recommend -- recommendation of denial.
There's a letter from the sheriff's department, which explicitly
states -- because, of course, this has to do with the 911 emergency
services, that Heron is an overused word. We have Heron Lakes at
Forest Park, Heron's Nest Restaurant, Heron's Pointe, Heron Park
Apartments, Heron at Pelican Bay; Heron Club Condo, Heron Lake at
Page 29
February 1 O, 2004
Sterling Oaks, Heron House of Naples, Heron Place, Heron Street
Investments, and Heron Pointe Recreation.
So we're -- we're overused in that word, and quite frankly, it
would come to you as a recommendation of disapproval. They would
have to apply. It's a $500 fee for official name change.
Of course, the -- when the PUD was approved, it was approved
as -- as Saddlebrook Village, phase II. And if they want to change
that name, they need to apply, and of course, they would have to
choose a name that is not overused.
So it would come right back to you. As Commissioner Henning
mentioned, it would probably, most likely, be a recommendation of
denial, and it would be a waste of their time to come in and ask for
that name.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sounds like a blue heron.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great restaurant.
Okay, sir. Well --
MR. STALEY: Well, can I make a couple of points?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. STALEY: And Jack points out in his letter, the name for
Pelican Pointe was not a request made by Creative Choice Homes. It
was a previous developer.
And Jack articulates also in his letter that the ordinance is
specific, you know, as to the number of times that a name can be used
by street, subdivision, development. And, in fact, this would be the
second development with the name Heron in it.
So is it Commissioners' stand that it applies to all of those criteria
collectively or is it individually? Does the ordinance apply to that
name collectively or individually?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: This commissioner -- I'm not
speaking for the board -- believes and has concerns about public
safety, sir. And if it comes back as Heron Cove, being in my district,
I'm going to try to convince my commissioners not to approve it.
Page 30
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So, sir--
MR. STALEY: Not a good day.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not a good day.
MR. STALEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for coming.
MR. STALEY: Thank you. I appreciate the time.
Item #7A
RESOLUTION 2004-48: PETITION NUMBER CU-2003-AR-4583,
BETH KOSMERL AND STUART KAYE REPRESENTING KAYE
HOMES INC., REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE 9 OF THE
ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING
LAND USE AS A MODEL HOME AND SALES CENTER ON 2.85
+ ACRES LOCATED AT 910 39TM STREET SW, IN SECTION 14,
TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FIJORIDA- ADOPTED W/STIPl libATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is the Board of
Zoning Appeals. It's item 7(A). This item requires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members.
It's conditional use 2003-AR-4538. Beth Kosmerl and Stuart
Kaye representing Kaye Home, Inc., requesting conditional use nine
of the Estates Zoning District to continue the existing land use on a
model home and sales center on 2.85 plus acres located at 910 39th
Street Southwest at section 14, township 49 south, range 26 east,
Collier County, Florida.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. First of all, we need to have any
declaration of ex parte from our commission members.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have none.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do. I have some emails
Page 31
February 1 O, 2004
relating to it, and my history with this particular project goes all the
way back to the early '90s.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I've seen it when they originally
framed the building, and been following it through with the civic
association. I discussed it with members of the civic association.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Commissioner Coletta.
I have none.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have spoken with staff about this
issue.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have spoken with staff also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And all those that need to be sworn in,
please stand.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Our presenter, Mr. Kaye?
MR. KAYE: Good morning, Madam Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Stuart Kaye.
We're here to request the approval of the conditional use for an
existing model center at the subject location.
We get along very well with our neighbors. To date we're not
aware of anyone who has objected to this approval.
We probably build more nongovernment subsidized homes for
our working folks here in the county than anyone else.
Staff has requested the addition of a sidewalk to the five-year
extension that they have recommended, and we are willing to do that.
I'm sure you know that entry-level housing is of paramount
importance here in our county, and we know you feel that way, too.
Again, we're not seeking to change the current zoning, just
Page 32
February 1 O, 2004
simply to maintain the current use. And we appreciate your
consideration.
And with that, we'll open the floor to you for questions.
yOU.
Thank
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you, if I may.
The history of this goes back some time. Originally when the
model home was being constructed, it raised the eyebrows of a
number of residents in the estates, not so much the fact of the model
home, but what it may become at the time that it ceased being a model
home, and that's still a concern for the Golden Gate Estates Civic
Association. And they caught the fact this was coming before us, and
they wanted me to make some inquiries to you on that fact.
At that time -- and I wasn't on the commission. All I can -- I've
got a vague memory of what took place. It was approved, but the
stipulation on what the home would be converted to at the end is still
something that's a mystery. I'm not too sure what the agreement was.
Some of my members of the civic association said they understood it
was going to be torn down. Of course, that's not an economic feasible
situation, I would assume.
But can you recall anything on that particular part of it, how it all
came together? I know that it was a very hot button issue for a period
of time back, what was it, '92?
MR. KAYE: Somewhere around there. Would you, Mr. Coletta,
ask me to elucidate on which part?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, what I'm trying to -- what
the big concern is is not so much approving it for-- continue its use as
model home, but the direction that it may take at the point that you
cease using it for a model home.
It's built in such a way and configured in such a way that it's truly
a duplex. It would have to be totally renovated in such a way that --
and I'm not too sure how that would happen because of the
Page 33
February 1 O, 2004
configuration of it, unless you mm one half of it into a gymnasium.
I'm not too sure how it could ever be a single-family home.
Can you give me some reassurance on this, how the direction of
this is going to go? I know it's not in your immediate plans to mm it
into a residence, but the day will come.
MR. KAYE: Okay. Well, let me -- let me step back a minute --
and I think we're all familiar with the location at the comer of Collier
Boulevard and-- and Pine Ridge Road.
There are commercial uses on two of those four comers. We feel
it's -- it's a very good location from a visibility perspective to be able
to bring in traffic for folks looking for these types of homes. It has
worked that way for us. It's been there for a number of years, as you're
all aware.
We do maintain it and update it on a regular basis because it's
important for us to show the homes in the best light possible, as well
as the community. And I think that's one reason why the neighbors
and the folks in the Golden Gate area have -- have supported it.
You're asking me what's going to happen when it no longer
becomes -- I think your question is, what's going --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct, sir.
MR. KAYE: -- to happen when it no longer becomes a model
center, and my hope is that that's not going to be something for me to
need to consider seriously for a long time to come.
As you know, the estates is tens of thousands of acres, and there
are many thousands of vacant homesites left. There are very few
entry-level affordable housing areas left in Collier County at this time.
Thank goodness the Golden Gate Estates is one of them.
And our intention and desire is to maintain that model center at
that location as long as there continues to be demand. And based on
what I'm hearing with regard to the ultimate absorption in the estates
area, that's going to be for a long time to come. So it's very difficult
for me to tell you some day in the future what-- what I see happening
Page 34
February 1 O, 2004
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I understand, Mr. Kaye. And I
don't know what the original agreements were made at the beginning
when this thing was constructed. I will do some research on it. But I
have to admit, you've been a model citizen in your operation. I'm a
neighbor of yours also.
MR. KAYE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Never heard any complaints.
Your grounds are beautiful, well maintained. I've never seen a traffic
problem there that was caused by your business. I have no problems
with the model home continuing there.
I do have a couple questions --
MR. KAYE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- that didn't make any sense.
Exactly what is the intent -- what is the reason they're requiring
sidewalks when there's no sidewalks leading up to your -- or planned
from either White Boulevard or 39th? Why would sidewalks be a
necessity for your location?
I can understand pathways maybe connecting one home to the
other, but I'm lost on the sidewalk requirement.
MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. Michelle Mosca, for the record, Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review.
The reason for the sidewalks is it's an ADA requirement for
drop-off and pick-up of individuals with disabilities. So they cannot --
the bus cannot drop off at the driveway. They need a sidewalk to drop
off. That's what I've been informed by --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's right next to the comer.
We're talking about public transportation stopping next to the comer?
I'm still lost. I don't want to --
MS. MOSCA: At the subject property --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- put a burden on them that's
Page 35
February 10, 2004
not going to be utilized. If it's truly going to be utilized, then I have
no problem with it.
I can understand connecting pathways from one house to the
other. But a sidewalk might almost be unsightly right on the comer,
coming at a 90 degree angle where it connects to nothing. People are
going to look at it and wonder where the rest of the community failed.
That's my concern. There's no intentions on the part of Collier
County government to build sidewalks on White or 39th, so we're
going to have sidewalks going the length of one property and turning
the comer.
Please, one more time, how is this going to work to the benefit of
everyone in the community?
MS. MOSCA: Again, from a transportation perspective, what
I've been told is that it's simply an ADA requirement for those
individuals visiting the model home sales center to be, you know,
picked up and dropped off at that location.
Directly north of this property, there are sidewalks going down
White Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there --
MS. MOSCA: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Will this connect to that?
MS. MOSCA: No, it will not. There aren't -- there are no
'sidewalks presently located, except for intemal to this project, on
either 39th or White.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Ma'am-- Diane Flagg, could
you help to shed a little more light on this situation?
MS. FLAGG: Good morning, Commissioners. Diane Flagg, for
the record. If it is a business -- private homes are not required to put
sidewalks in,. but if it is a business, sidewalks are required to go in as
part of the Land Development Code. That was approved by the
commissioners last year.
I will tell you that even though there are -- we are now, because
Page 36
February 1 O, 2004
developers are putting in sidewalks, we're in the process of connecting
the dots. So just --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So there is a possibility
in the future--
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- this could become part of a
system?
MS. FLAGG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I just didn't want something
standing alone all by itself.
MS. FLAGG: Understood.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand what you're
saying. Maybe this will give us the reason, if the neighbors can see
that there's a possibility that sidewalks can be there, they may support
it, if they see that that gaps in there -- MS. FLAGG: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- and give us the right-of-way.
I like that, Diane.
MS. FLAGG: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, I do have another
question. I'm sorry to monopolize this whole conversation, but just
one more, if I may, regarding the sewer and water.
I'm sorry, Diane, that's all I needed. Thank you very much
though.
On the sewer and water, to the best of my knowledge, there's
absolutely no intention to bring sewer and water to that particular
neighborhood. Why this requirement for them to hook up to a sewer
and water that I'm not even -- know that's available in that particular
area?
MS. LEE: Commissioner, I apologize. I don't have the answer
for that. That was a utility requirement at the end of the life of this
model homes sale center, that they convert.
Page 37
February 10, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Here's where the problem lies.
If we require the lines to be put in any particular location, there is that
possibility it's going to go by somebody else's property that does not
want to be hooked up.
And if it's a county utility, anyone that has the sewer and water
lines going by their particular residence would be required to hook up.
So I have reservations on the requirement for the sewer and the water
hookup if it's not -- if it's not going to be an absolute requirement for
everyone. It's -- a little bit lost on it. It gives me reason for concern.
Is there someone that can address that?
MR. MUDD: If there's water and sewer lines going down 951,
and there are -- well, you've got Vanderbilt Beach Road where you
have the major water plant, and the sewer plant's over to the side, but
you're going to have another one going out in Immokalee. You have
an ordinance that basically specifies that certain residences within, I
think it's 200 feet, 300 feet -- don't quote me. It's in that range
someplace -- that there's a mandatory hookup requirement by county
ordinance.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Exactly. That gives me
concern, because out in Golden Gate Estates, we have quite -- we have
everything quite well under control as far as our sewers go and our
water supply. Because of the size of the lots, there is no problems as
far as septic -- septic seepage into the water table. There is no
polluted wells.
And to all of a sudden have something like this come up where
some of the neighbors may be required to hook up because of the
availability going close to their property lines, I really am concerned.
I would want that to be strucken (sic) from there.
I'm sure at the point in time that sewer and water becomes
available or we're required to do it by the state, maybe 20 years from
now, everyone will have to come underneath that.
But by putting this in, we're endangering the welfare of the
Page 38
February 10, 2004
people that live in that area, their financial stability with the
requirements for a hookup because of the fact that that -- within 200
feet or whatever. And I don't think we can make exemptions for them
without going through the whole code and exempting just about
everybody else.
MR. MUDD: Change the law, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Well, change the law, I'd
rather just strike this out. If we -- if it's not going to cause any
meaningful damage, I would just as soon this requirement be dropped.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Coyle, Commissioner Henning.
Commissioner Halas, you're first.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. You really didn't -- the
question that Commissioner Coletta asked you, I don't think you really
clarified. You kind of danced around the question, and that is, what's
going to happen with this after you get done with this thing? It has to
be a single-family home.
And as it looks to me, at this point in time -- I have one of these
GIS pictures here with me. It looks as though it's a duplex.
MR. KAYE: Okay. Again, let me suggest to you that our goal,
if the -- if the county and the county commission and the powers that
be allow us, is to maintain this as a model center for a long time to
come.
You're asking me some day in the future what I propose, and I
would -- it would be wrong for me to create some sort of assumption.
Now, you've mentioned the word duplex. We're a model center.
And the question that you had, Mr. Coletta, is, what would happen
with the main building. And the reality is, is the way it's set -- it sits
right now is -- is conceivably, it's a five bedroom, four bath home, if it
ever became a single-family home as it is right now.
Again, let me reiterate, it is our intention that it would not, in the
foreseeable future, ever be utilized as a single-family home.
Page 39
February 10, 2004
I think-- and our goal is to maintain it as a model center, to
continue to meet the needs of entry level, affordable and first-time
housing in the Golden Gate Estates area.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But most model homes that
I've ever been associated with eventually become a residence of
somebody. Eventually, down the road they will become a residence
for someone, so that's -- that's the stipulation we're looking at.
And I believe the Planning Commission said that we should only
continue this for an additional two years instead of five years as you
earlier stated.
MR. KAYE: Well, I think we can -- well, I would like to
possibly call upon, or request, David Weeks from your staff to provide
an explanation.
The Golden Gate -- there was a question about the Golden Gate
Master Plan and what it called for in terms of model centers, and then
Mr. Weeks provided an explanation and interpretation and, I think, set
the record straight, which was the question of why, perhaps, it should
only be two years based upon the question.
He is far better able to explain what the qu -- what the concem
was and the interpretation that I -- and if you'd like, he would be
happy to provide that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I read the -- I read what the
Planning Commission had suggested from the material that was
presented to us, sir.
MR. KAYE: Okay. Mr. Coletta, if I may, my respect for you is
increased many fold based upon your thought-process about the
sidewalk.
Staff works hard. They did mention that it is an ADA
requirement in spite of the fact that might appear somewhat unsightly
because it's a sidewalk kind of to nowhere.
What -- what we would be willing to do, if it's -- if it's doable and
if it meets with the commission, is that, as opposed to requiting it to be
Page 40
February 1 O, 2004
put in right now, we would be willing to live by something that
requires us to put it in at any time that the county decides that it's part
of something that can be of benefit to the public use.
So we share your concerns. And if that's something that can be
done, we would be more than willing to abide by that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. The -- question for the staff.
Isn't true that the use of this particular structure is going to be
determined by the underlying zoning? MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the underlying zoning is
single-family, then that's the only thing that can be there unless we
change the zoning.
MS. MOSCA: That is correct, unless a comprehensive plan
amendment comes in--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: -- for a change of that zoning.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we have control over what is
going to be there. It could not become a duplex rental property. It
could not become commercial offices unless we make a change to the
comprehensive plan of the underlying zoning. MS. MOSCA: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is that a correct statement? So we
do have control over that process.
Now, I'm confused on the issue of the hookup for private well
and wastewater. Do I understand that the current law requires these
hookups?
MR. MUDD: It does if the service is available.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So the current law says, if
the service is available, you're going to have to hook up to it, and
there's no option.
And Commissioner Coletta's concern is that he doesn't want to
Page 41
February 10, 2004
see it rammed down the throats of the people in that area.
How would we deal with that if it comes to that point? We
would have to change the law if that's what we wish to do to provide
people an option if they didn't want to hook up?
MR. MUDD: You'd have to change the law that basically talks
about mandatory hookups --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: -- and where they are. And I -- and I can't tell you
at this juncture right now, and that's why I had Leo go back and talk to
Mr. DeLony, who should be finding that information out.
First of all, I can't tell you if service is available at that particular
comer at this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't think it is.
MR. MUDD: And the next thing -- and the next thing I can't tell
you, if there's a Florida statute that backs up our county ordinance
about mandatory --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If there is?
MR. MUDD: If there is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If there is, okay.
MR. MUDD: There's some questions I've got.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. My point is that I believe
we cannot change that requirement with a motion on this particular
petition. We would have to go back and change the fundamental law
so that we cannot eliminate that as a condition of this particular
petition. But if we don't like it, then we can go back and revisit the
law.
MR. MUDD: But, sir, what I wanted to do is make sure that our
law was independent of something in the Florida statutes, because if
the Florida statutes basically mirror what we have, then it becomes a
moot point in the fact that even if you changed our ordinance, we still
have Florida statutes to deal with, and that's why I want Mr. DeLony
to talk about that just a second and then talk about, are the services
Page 42
February 1 O, 2004
available.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I -- yeah. I just wanted to
make sure we all understood that point, because Commissioner Coletta
is justifiably concerned about additional expenses to his constituents
against their wishes, and we do need to take a look at that and see how
we would handle it.
And also, I'd like to emphasize again that the conditions that are
attached to this particular recommended approval are in conflict -- the
staff is recommending a five-year extension, and the Planning
Commission is recommending a two-year extension, and I just also
would want to emphasize that.
Commissioner Halas mentioned that earlier. And if anyone wants
to make a motion, I'd ask for clarification as to which -- which
extension period we're talking about.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess I need to give an extra
ex parte communication. I did watch the Planning Commission's
meeting, and it's quite evident there was -- the only descending (sic)
vote was from the-- Ken Abernathy.
And his concern was that this should not be continued as a
continual use for a model home, and the reason for the two-year was
Commissioner Mark Strain -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- stated
that the applicant in a previous -- his previous extension for this
conditional use said that he would not ask for another continuance for
a continual use.
Doing some research on the Land Development Code, what I'm
reading is, model homes are temporary uses by nature, and, therefore,
they should not become permanent.
And I think if you could just give us a little clarification on what
the Planning Commission's thoughts were.
MS. MOSCA: I don't want to speak for the entire Planning
Commission, but you're correct in saying that Commissioner Strain
Page 43
February 10, 2004
was concerned about the consistency with the Growth Management
Plan, specifically the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
The current language in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan talks
about locational criteria for conditional uses. The language that exists
now talks about locational criteria for a temporary use. Now, this is a
condi -- it should have read, conditional use.
And you are correct in stating that model homes are supposed to
be temporary in nature. But for certain circumstances, this one in
particular, because there is still land, substantial land, to be developed,
sometimes two, three years may not be enough, so a conditional use is
offered to extend that period of time past the three years, or the
temporary use permit.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And what does the Land
Development Code say about renewing conditional uses in a -- in this
case of a model home?
MS. MOSCA: In this particular case, in 19 -- I believe it was
1998, the board at that time allowed them five additional years. And
at that time, they were supposed to revert to a single-family home.
Now, I have not found anything in the Land Development Code
-- and I deferred to legal during the Planning Commission hearing --
that prohibits the petitioner from coming back in and requesting a
second conditional use on that property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I thought there was-- in general
terms in the Land Development Code, they can come back and ask for
additional conditional uses, years for that particular use -- and help me
out.
MS. MOSCA: That's what the petitioner is doing now. They
already have a conditional use on the property, and they are asking for
another conditional use --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, this is--
MS. MOSCA: -- to continue -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How many conditional uses was
Page 44
February 10, 2004
granted for this model home? MS. MOSCA: Just one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So he came in in '90 --
'92?
MS. MOSCA: Came in in '93 for a temporary use permit, and
then received a two-year temporary use permit, and then an extension
to that temporary use permit for three years. After that three-year
requirement, it's in the Land Development Code that to continue the
use, they would have to come in for approval of the conditional use,
and which the board did -- the board at that time did approve for five
additional years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So a temporary use for two
years, that brings it up to '95? MS. MOSCA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: And then from '95 to 2000, that
would be the five year?
MS. MOSCA: Actually, it was '95 to '98 would give you your
three-year extension on the temporary use. That was the code at the
time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: That was applicable at the time.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And --
MS. MOSCA: In '98 -- I apologize. In '98, the petitioner came
in for the conditional use, which would give them additional time,
which is required by the Land Development Code, after the temporary
use has expired.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're at a conditional
use, we're at the end of the conditional use. And what does the Land
Development Code say in this case where we're going to ask for a
continuance of the conditional use?
MS. MOSCA: It's actually silent. It would be another
conditional use. And I may, again, have to defer to legal, because I
Page 45
February 1 O, 2004
cannot locate anything that would prohibit the applicant from coming
in and, again, requesting an additional --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: -- conditional use for the property.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And I think Commissioner
Strain stated on the record that he did the history of the minutes of the
previous meeting on this conditional use. The applicant said that he
will not come back for another conditional use? MS. MOSCA: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. And I guess that's a
concem of mine.
And also, another concern, I remember this -- it was quite
contentious at the time. There was concerns about, once it stops being
used as a model, the fear was turning it into a duplex.
So I would like to hear from the applicant how we're going to
change it from -- into a single-family, not what we're going to do as
far as keeping this as a model home, because we know that's not the
zoning for it. It's a conditional use. So how are we going to transition
from a model home or duplex to single-family?
MR. KAYE: At the -- at the last planning counel (sic) -- planting
-- Planning Commission meeting, I learned for the first time that
someone who represented our company and spoke at the prior request
had mentioned that we would not be coming before -- for another --
for an extension to the model center.
Let me tell you categorically that while that person worked with
us and they said what they said and, therefore, they represented our
company, I absolutely would not agree with that and I would tell you
that I would -- I would never say that we would never want to come
back for that, because as long as there is demand for entry-level
affordable housing and that there's a marketplace left for it, it is our
intention to continue to maintain that model center as it is.
Your question to me is, when it no longer becomes a model
Page 46
February 1 O, 2004
center, what's going to happen? And, once again, I think Mr. Coyle
said, and very succinctly, that the county commission controls any
future use. I can't make it commercial. I can't make it duplex. I can't
make it anything other than what it is right now without coming back
before you and asking you for something different.
So we need to stop -- I would like to suggest that we stop
worrying about what it may be, because we know all it can be without
a comprehensive plan use amendment change, that would have to
come before you in any event.
So what I would rather do is focus on the current use and the
current need that we are attempting to meet and the opportunity to
have another five years to then come back before you. And if the
market changes or if things change or if zoning laws change, or if
something changes, it will again be in your court, and in your court
only, to decide if anything can change. No one can do that without
you, and no one is looking to do that without you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta, then
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm not quite done yet --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- Mr. Kaye.
MR. KAYE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I hope you realize that a
conditional use takes a super majority of votes by the Board of County
Commissioners, and I just don't count that up here now.
So we better regroup and tell us how we're going to bring this
back to the zoning that is there today.
Now, I'm more inclined to go with what the Planning
Commission recommended at this point.
MR. KAYE: Well, I'm here to help you make a decision, and if
I'm not providing you the information that you need to make a
decision, then I would appreciate you allowing me or staff the
Page 47
February 10, 2004
oppommity to try to clarify that.
I will tell you that each and every one of you are very sensitive to
your constituents, and if it would be of help to bring hundreds of folks
in here to sit and to talk about the good things that we've done -- and
again, we don't know of anyone who is opposed to that -- if that helps
make a difference, we would do that.
I didn't think that there was going to be this difficulty. And,
obviously, I'm not -- we're not doing a good job communicating to you
the need as we should. And so if you'd allow me another chance, I'd
be happy to do that or make -- or suggest something to me that I can
help you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
And I do respect everyone that's here.
We've got to keep a couple of things in mind. One, we've got a
very good viable business that has been a good neighbor for many
years. If we force them to move any earlier than they're ready to, the
only thing they're going to have to do is pull up roots and start over
again at another location, up and down the Boulevard, up and down
the -- 951. What purpose will be served by it?
By granting the conditional use extension, that's exactly what
we're here for. That's why we have it come back to us, to see if he has
been a good neighbor, if he has lived up to what he's supposed to do.
There has been no failing in what this company has done.
They've done everything, what they said they were going to do, what
they will do.
Commissioner Coyle is absolutely correct. We're protected by the
Land Development Code. There's no way that they can do this unless
they do it illegally, and from every indication in their past
performance, I don't think we're going to see that.
I would like to make a motion at this time, if I may. Do we have
to close the public hearing or--
Page 48
February 1 O, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, we do have to close the public
hearing.
There are no speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Then I would like to close the
public hearing. Yes.
MR. MUDD: Just to address Commissioner Coletta's thing on
water and sewer. Service is not available. It's fine to strike that issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, thank you for bringing that up.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would like to make a motion at
this time that we accept this for five years, because it makes absolutely
no sense to drag this back and take up the time of this commission by
bringing it back in two years; we go for five years on it and drop the
requirements for sewer and water hookups from there, because that
will -- when the time comes that that's required, it will be there, rather
than try to put it on them and then change the laws to make the -- meet
the needs for the immediate neighbors around there. That's kind of a
little top-heavy, and also, drop the requirements for sidewalks.
And other than that, the recommendations that were made by the
staff and the Planning Commission over and above those items, I
would incorporate in my motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I would second it, but I wouldn't want to
drop the sidewalks. I would want to keep them in. If you would --
you would change your motion to include the sidewalks, I would
second.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'll include the
sidewalks, it's just that I -- I think that they're going to be unsightly
where they begin and end. But if that's what it's going to require to
move this forward-
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then I'll second that motion.
Commissioner Halas had asked to speak. So Commissioner
Page 49
February 10, 2004
Halas, did you have anything to say?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. The only thing I would say is
that we have a Planning Commission who obviously went through
everything, and they do a thorough investigation of all the land
development codes.
And, of course, what bothers me is that this is inconsistent with
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and that's why I feel that I can't
really address (sic) this.
And also they -- they also suggested -- and this is the Planning
Commission, and -- that this be limited to a two-year period of time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Yes, Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I was wondering if we
might have Glenn Heath come up and address that about the
inconsistency with the Golden Gate Master Plan. If that's correct, then
I want to amend my motion so that it does agree with it.
MR. HEATH: Good morning, Commissioners; Glenn Heath,
comprehensive planning.
The inconsistency was kind of staff created at the last amendment
cycle. There was some language that was -- we were directed to put in
the plan amendment that was incomplete.
I think Mr. Weeks has alluded to this at the Planning
Commission meeting. The language that we wanted to include, it
should recommend that conditional use permits for model home
renewals are not subject to the locational criteria in the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan's estates designations conditional use subdistrict.
They are -- because the temporary permit can go anywhere. So if
you're going to renew the temporary permit as a conditional use, then
you're already dealing with something which may not meet the
requirements of the -- of the master plan as they stand. So it was kind
of-- it was pointless to try to subject those to the conditional use
locational process.
Page 50
February 1 O, 2004
That is the methodology that staff has followed for some years.
And when we tried -- unfortunately, when we tried to codify that into
the actual master plan, we didn't finish the job.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What was the intention, if I may
ask, so that we -- since the master plan doesn't completely address it,
what was the intent?
MR. HEATH: Well, we realized that there was no language
regarding model home conditional use permits for the renewal in the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan and that the estates zoning designation
has a conditional use as a subdistrict, which was intended to create
specific criteria for locating conditional uses in and around the estates.
And we wanted to include the fact that the model home permits
had not been subject to this previously and that -- just recognize that
and recognize that that was a different process.
But we need to go back and rewrite that. And we were going to
do that actually probably upcoming -- part of an upcoming
amendment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So in summary, it appears that staff
would recommend a five-year extension for this conditional use?
MR. HEATH: The actual time period of the extension, of course,
is up to you folks. But the -- we would recommend that it is not
inconsistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, it-- this is very important,
because Commissioner Halas's point is well taken. If we have a law
or a master plan that says we are to do one thing, we are to do that one
thing until we change the master plan. So it's very important that we
understand.
Is it currently -- is this recommendation for a five-year extension
in violation of our Growth Management Plan?
MR. HEATH: The staff interpretation is that it is not.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It is not.
Page 51
February 1 O, 2004
Okay. So if we voted for a five-year extension on this particular
petition, it would not violate the Growth Management Plan and would
not be contrary to any provisions in the -- of the overlay in the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan?
MR. HEATH: That is your staffs professional opinion, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any -- could you read the motion
over again, County Manager?
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, what we -- what I have on the
-- what I have on the table right now is a motion on the floor for a
five-year extension, okay, striking the water/sewer, which was
paragraph seven, which is the special conditions, okay, and
Commissioner Coletta mentioned about sidewalks, Commissioner
Fiala said please keep the sidewalks in, and I think sidewalks are in.
So we've got five years and sidewalks, with every other condition
except the water and sewer.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. We have a motion on
the floor and a second.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's a 3-2 vote. With the dissent --
dissenting votes from Commissioner Halas and Commissioner
Henning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a second motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that we include
Page 52
February 10, 2004
the sidewalk but with a limit of two years.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second that motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Any further discussion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please. You still agree
with the striking of the sewer and the water?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Halas, I think we
still need to address how we're going change this into, if it's the
continual conditional use for two years, after the two years, how are
we going to transition to a single-family home residence? And right
now it is two family -- two homes in one separated by a wall.
Now, either -- in my opinion either the plumbing needs to come
out on one side or one model home needs to be tom down to come
back to a single-family home.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Or that needs to be turned into a
garage.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, wow. That's a pretty big
garage, or warehouse.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I still have a problem here.
We have staff that says that this is consistent with the Golden Gate
Master Plan, but yet the Planning Commission says it's not consistent
with the Golden Gate Master Plan.
So there's where I'm really confused, and that's why I'm
concerned about extending this any longer than two years, and that's
why I made this motion. I stick to it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. There's a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Halas to limit it to two years. There's a second by
Commissioner Henning.
Page 53
February 10, 2004
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. I have a question.
You know we've heard testimony that says that -- that there's
going to be a need for this model home for a long time. And if,
indeed, we are interested in having entry level homes built, there's got
to be someplace for a model home, it seems to me.
So is the intent of the motion to provide a two-year extension to
the conditional use for the model home and then have it come back to
us in two years for another extension? Or are you saying that that is
the end of it and it has to be converted?
Because if what you're trying to do is decide the conversion
routine at this point in time, you're saying that this is the end of this
model home, and so the builder then will go find another place to
build another model home.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Start all over.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so if you're not saying that this
is the end of this model home, you're saying, bring it back to us in two
years and we will consider it again.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's exactly where I'd like to go
with this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if in the interim the staffhas
done whatever is necessary to remove the confusion about whether it
is or is not in violation of the Growth Management Plan, then they
could come back in and get another five-year extension.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So if that's -- that's what the
intention is, then I understand it. But if the intention is to say, you get
a two-year extension and then we want you to convert this thing, I
don't understand that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
COMMISSIONER HALAS:
Well --
Okay?
The other thing, just for
Page 54
February 1 O, 2004
clarification, is that I believe also the Planning Commission or the
staff, I'm not sure which one, said that they have within six months
after the conditional use is extended to make sure that the sidewalks
are in.
So what we have is a way of finding out if this is going to take
place. And then at the end of those two years, if that individual
decides -- the petitioner decides that he wants to extend this, that's the
option that the Board of County Commissioners has to extend this,
and hopefully by that time, whatever out-of-compliance area that
we're -- that that model home may be in, then we've taken care --
we've addressed that particular incident in regards to the Growth
Management Plan in the Golden Gate Estates.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, when
reviewing the Planning Commissions on television, Mark Strain was
the chairman of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and it was his
observation, by the committee of the Golden Gate Master Plan, is not
to continue model homes for -- or conditional uses forever unless
there's a -- with a locational criteria.
So there -- you know, what I'm hearing is, there's still
opportunities for a conditional use -- uses out there, but more of a
criteria -- a locational criteria, and not just discontinue all model
homes in Golden Gate Estates. You have them so they're not spread
all over the place.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, if you'd allow me to speak, I'd
like to make a couple of comments. And as usual, staffs position here
is neutral. We have no dog in this fight. We just make a professional
recommendation.
A couple points I wanted to make. First is that there's nothing in
the Golden Gate Master Plan or the Land Development Code that has
a time limitation on conditional uses.
Page 5 5
February 1 O, 2004
As Ms. Mosca was explaining, when this type of use begins, it is
a temporary use permit, and the Land Development Code does have
specific time limitations.
At the end of that -- that administrative process as a temporary
use, you then, to maintain the model home sales center, have to go to a
conditional use, this public hearing process.
It has been a staff policy to recommend a five-year time
limitation. And, of course, that's what's happened here, five years
ended and they're back before you.
Another point I wanted to make was that there -- so you -- excuse
me. You have the option of whatever time period you so choose or no
time period whatsoever.
Additionally, another point would be that the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan does have locational criteria for the other conditional uses
that are allowed within the estates zoning district, the ones you're
more familiar with, churches, childcare centers, nursing homes, things
of that nature.
The characteristics of those types of uses is far different than, in
staff's opinion, than that of a model home, both while they're
operating, but especially at the end of the time period as a model
home. That church is a church, theoretically, forever. The model
home is a model home for some relatively short time period usually,
and then it tums into a single-family home.
As has already been discussed on the record, that's all it can be is
a model home. The zoning does not allow for anything else other than
-- excuse me -- other than a single-family dwelling unit.
The church gets its conditional use approval, it stays as a church,
as an example. That model home, at some point in time, turns into a
single-family dwelling unit or it's removed from the property and
another single-family home is on there or they come in for some type
of change to our Golden Gate Master Plan and subsequently to their
zoning.
Page 56
February 1 O, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for clearing that up. I
appreciate that.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess we're going to have to
wait for Commissioner Halas to get back. But I would like some kind
of stipulations on how that's going to transform into a single-family
home.
MS. MURRAY: May I?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MS. MURRAY: Thank you. Susan Murray, director of the
zoning department.
Let me just clarify for you, Commissioner, when and if the home
converts to single-family -- because there is no requirement in the~
LDC for it to convert. They could tear it down.
Right now the likelihood, if they were to convert today, is that it
would have to be a single-family home, because that's what's
permitted in the district.
The code also defines what a single-family home is, and there are
certain criteria it has to meet. There is nothing in the code that says it
can't have four bathrooms or five bedrooms, but there is criteria
relative to kitchens. So if the dwelling unit has two kitchens, chances
are they'd have to convert and take out one of those kitchens.
It all is going to depend on what the code is at the time the
individual goes to convert. The code may -- what it says today may
not be the same as what it says two years from now, five years from
now, 10 years from now. When they go to convert, they will pull their
building permits and they will be required to meet the Land
Development Code at the time that they do that.
So it's really difficult to describe what somebody is going to do at
this point in time when we don't know what the code is going to say
when they actually do come and do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. You know, rather than rush
Page 57
February 1 O, 2004
this -- and our stenographer really needs a 1 O-minute break -- and we
have Commissioner Coletta and Commissioner Henning on deck, and
we still have a vote. Is it all right if we take a 1 O-minute break right
now? We can do that legally, can't we?
Ten-minute break for our stenographer, and we'll be back. And
then from, after we vote on this, we'll go right to our 11 o'clock time
certain. Thank you.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: You have a hot mike.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We're back in session.
MR. MUDD: Mr. Kaye would like to put something on the
record, ma'am, if you would.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
MR. KAYE: Madam Chair, if I could just clarify. At such time
that we can no longer utilize the subject property as a model home, we
are willing to abide by whatever the zoning laws at the time require us
to do to make a clarification of the question, what will happen in the
future. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Let's see. We have Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Commissioner
Fiala. I'll be honest with you. I think we worked this thing over. I
don't think any of us are going to change our minds. I think we've
reached a consensus of what we're going to do. I would like to see it a
little bit more the other way, but, I mean, I can live with it. That's all I
have to say.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we have a motion on the floor, and
Mr. Mudd, would you--
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, the motion on the floor is two-year
conditional use for this particular property with the exclusion of item
number seven on the staff recommendation which has to do with water
and sewer, and the sidewalk issue is paragraph one, and the sidewalk
Page 58
February 1 O, 2004
would be in.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. The motion was made by
Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That passes with a 5-0.
Thank you very much.
Item #7B
RESOLUTION 2004-49: PETITION NUMBER CU-2003-AR-4995,
MR. BOB DUANE OF HOLE MONTES, INC, REPRESENTING
CHRIST COMMUNITY LUTHERAN SCHOOL, REQUESTS
CONDITIONAL USE #10 OF THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL
DISTRICT (A) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF A
PRIVATE ELEMENTARY/MIDDLE SCHOOL. THE PROPERTY
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE IS
LOCATED AT 14785 COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN
SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS PROPERTY CONSISTS OF
9r38 ACRF, S- ADOPTF, D W/STIPIIIJATIONS
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item -- the next item is
7(B). This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte
Page 59
February 1 O, 2004
disclosure be provided by commission members.
It's conditional use 2003-AR-4995. Mr. Bob Duane of Hole
Montes, Inc., representing Christ Community Lutheran School,
request-- request conditional use number 10 of the rural agriculture
District (A) zoning district for tile purpose of a private
elementary/middle school.
The property to be considered for the conditional use is located at
14785 Collier Boulevard, which is County Road 951, in section 34,
township 48 south, range 26 east, Collier County, Florida. This
property consists of 9.38 acres.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioners, any ex parte declarations?
Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Other than I just discussed this with
staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning -- I'm sorry;
Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I -- my correspondence on this
item is here, emails and telephone calls. I did talk to staff and the
petitioner.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. I also talked to staff, the
petitioner. I have a whole file here that anyone's welcome to see it,
that has items on here that I received as far as email goes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I have no disclosures.
People in the audience who want to speak on this subject, please
stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Very good.
Mr. Yovanovich.
Page 60
February 1 O, 2004
MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you.
For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
Also here on behalf of the school is John Cushner and Nancy Lewis.
Bob Duane is here, who is the planner on the project, and George
Hermanson is also here, who's the engineer on the project.
This has been a rather lengthy conditional use process. Actually,
the school was originally scheduled to go on a different property a
little bit further south on 951, and basically at the intersection of Wolf
Road and 951.
And as we were getting closer and closer to going to the Planning
Commission, a transportation related issue came up where
transportation staff basically needed four acres for a pond, which
made the school no longer functional on that other site.
So the school, after expending a lot of resources and energy and
money, was forced to abandon that location and move to the current
location in -- which is before you today, which is a little bit further
north on 951 but in the same general vicinity.
And the general vicinity is north of Vanderbilt Beach Road on
951. It is on the west side of 951. The site has already basically been
improved. It's a truck repair stop right now.
What we're asking for is conditional use number 10 for a --
basically a private school, approximately 350 students when it's --
when it's completed, and ultimately used with 25 employees.
The staff report is very thorough and very detailed. There is one
additional stipulation that I do need to read into the -- into the record,
and a couple things I want to point out.
First of all, there's already -- there's a residence on the property
which we're going to retain and use as a caretaker's residence, and
there's also a metal building on the property that we would like to
retain and use for storage.
And there's a transportation stipulation that needs to be added to
the conditional use that I'd like to read into the record.
Page 61
February 1 O, 2004
It says, in compensation for providing land to the county for the
six-laning of County Road 951, the petitioner shall receive road
impact fee credits equal to the county's appraised value of such land
less the construction cost of a southbound right mm lane into the
property, which the county may elect to construct for the petitioner.
And I'll provide a copy to staff and to the court reporter, but I
believe that that stipulation has been agreed to by your transportation
staff to address the right-of-way concerns along our eastern boundary.
I think I've hit all the high points.
Oh, one last thing. Since we had paid all of our fees to go
through the conditional use process on a previous parcel and because
we had to switch parcels because of transportation's needs, we had
paid-- we were required to pay another conditional use application
fee, which we did pay under protest.
We're asking that the Board of County Commissioners not make
us pay two fees since we were being relocated on a different piece of
property to accommodate transportation's needs and not by our own
wishes and desires.
So what we have asked for is a waiver of that fee, or actually a
refund of the fee of $2,175.
I think I've hit all the high points. If you have any questions of
me or anybody else, I'd be happy to answer them.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I would be agreeable myself, as
one commissioner, of waiving the fees if you could do what most of
the other people have been doing lately as far as the right-of-way for
951, and donate it without impact fees and without reimbursement.
That would be a good citizen thing to do and would make me inclined
to be very supportive of what you're trying to accomplish.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I can assure you that the dollar and
cents tradeoff there --
Page 62
February 1 O, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It wasn't meant to be even.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It wasn't-- it's not even close.
And Commissioners, it is a parcel of property that my client was
(sic) actually incurred additional expenses to trade the property. We
went through additional expenses to acquire that property, we paid for
the land, and it is -- it is only fair that the county compensate us for the
taking of the right-of-way.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, your compensation is that
you get to be in wonderful Collier County on one of the greatest roads
that we could possibly come up with, which is Collier Boulevard.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And again, Commissioner, had it
been a normal circumstance where we would have been on our
original 1 O-acre parcel and not had to go through all these expenses of
relocating because of a transportation request to take -- we've been hit
pretty hard in the pocketbook by the move and taking. That
right-of-way will be an expensive hit to the --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich, you do realize
that the majority of times we've dealt on this particular subject, the
petitioner has very willingly given us that land. I kind of hope that
you'll give this serious consideration before we come to a vote.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, if you'll let me talk --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Sure. I appreciate that.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- to my clients. And I'll answer any
other questions in the meantime.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning has some.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I worked with the church in this
case, knowing that we needed their previous sites for storage ponds on
951. And I know the expenses, and you got -- not only expenses that
you just stated, but you also have, you know, legal expense, planning
and engineering expenses to go to this new site to accommodate the
county, so I understand what you're saying, and I hope that
Commissioner Coletta could take that under consideration.
Page 63
February 1 O, 2004
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And not to mention, we've also
been forced to kind of do a two-step program for our school. I mean,
when we were -- originally set this up, we had -- we were going to go
right to our campus, now we're going to have to do portables and then
phase in. And we've gone through a lot of expenses, Commissioner,
and I appreciate those comments from you, Commissioner Henning,
as well.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Norm?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: After all, it's God working,
right?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you have something to add to this,
Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, transportation
administrator.
First of all, I need to point out that the property that they were
originally on is now owned by ARM where we're going to work with
retention pond, as Commissioner Henning noted, that in our
acquisition of that easement for the retention pond, they are being
provided ARM for provision to the church, $50,000, as part of the
compensation for the move, so there is some issue there.
The other thing is, whether they provide the right-of-way or not,
which I'll leave that to your discussion with them, I need to clarify on
the item that they read in, and that is that if we do provide impact fee
credits for the right-of-way, they need to reduce the cost of that, as I
said, by any mm lane that we'll have to develop in the future, but also
they have to develop at their cost now a turn lane that they'll utilize
until that roadway is widened, so I need to clarify that.
In other words, right now, if they go to develop well before 951,
they'd have to put a turn lane in, we'd require that of any development
of that size, and then we're providing for, if I have to buy the
right-of-way, that the cost of the addition of that right turn lane when I
expand the road would come out of the valuation of that right-of-way.
Page 64
February 1 O, 2004
So that's what that provision hopefully means to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. With all due respect, this
is a business per se until that point in time that they're built and
everything, then I'll recognize them as a religious organization. But if
we -- we've got to be careful about the separation of church and state.
But, Norm, this mm lane they're going to put in, if they put it in
prior to 951 being six-laned, isn't it going to have to be removed again
when we get ready--
MR. FEDER: That's the point that I'm making. If they --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So there's no advantage to that
MR. FEDER: -- come in before 951, they have to pay --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's cost.
MR. FEDER: Well, they have to pay the cost of that turn lane.
But I'm also --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But that's of no consequence to
where we're going to be at the end? MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's the privilege of doing
business, the turn lane they're going to be putting in so they can be
there before 951 is built.
MR. FEDER: What I'm adding to the conversation is that my
understanding, that if we do pay for the right-of-way in the way of
impact fee credits, that we will subtract out that future cost of a turn
lane that would have to be modification or replacement of the one
they'd have to put in to start operations before the six-laning. So, in
effect, yes, that it's taken out of the cost of the right-of-way if that's
what action the board takes.
Am I clear on that or have I --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Moderately clear.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can -- and Mr. Feder, I think,
misspoke on the amount of compensation that ARM is getting.
Page 65
February 1 O, 2004
We had told -- and I think the 50,000 figure is what the additional
costs were. ARM is getting $25,000 on our behalf if that agreement is
ever finalized. So we're still out-of-pocket at least 25,000 from those
costs, plus the closing costs and other related delays related to the
acquisition of the property.
So we're not getting 50,000 in the ARM deal. It's only 25 -- it's
25,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is -- this question I'll direct to
Norm Feder, head of our transportation department.
What's your best guess for the widening of 951 ? Is it --
MR. FEDER: 951 widening is next fiscal year, 2005. We are
trying to do everything we can to get that accelerated. You agreed to
our purchase of right-of-way. We're starting to move on that and
finalizing design.
It will either be late this -- this fiscal year or the very first of'05.
So we're looking at starting, or at least putting it out to bid and getting
the contractor onboard the fall of this year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And the last question I have for
you, Norm, is the fact that the petitioner is telling us that they've
moved to the second site. That was to accommodate our needs for
stormwater retention; is that correct? MR. FEDER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how many acres does that
entail7
MR. FEDER: I believe both, about 10 acres. Let me defer.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Both parcels were both approximately ! 0
acres. The cumulative take that the county needed between -- with the
right-of-way and the lake was almost five acres, so we were going to
lose half of our site to transportation, which, obviously, we could not
build a school with the related facilities on five acres, so we had to go
find another site.
Page 66
February 1 O, 2004
And -- you know, and fommately we were able to find a site.
We overpaid for the site, but we had to do that because if we're not up
and -- if we're not -- if we don't get an approval today and get up,
we're out of business if we're not up and running by fall. So we've got
to -- we've got to get moving on this, and we've been jumping through
all kind of hoops at our-- at our additional expense to make this
happen to accommodate that five-acre need.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And what do you plan for the five
acres that are still available?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is -- we traded properties --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOVANOVICH: -- with ARM, ARM bought a 1 O-acre
site, and then we had -- we traded our 1 O-acre site with ARM, who is
dealing with Collier County, and now we have moved north to
another, approximately, 1 O-acre site.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Feder, what's been
our consistency on receiving donations of lands without impact fees or
credits of any kind? I know this has been something the commission's
been very proactive in doing, trying to protect the taxpayers' money.
MR. FEDER: The first -- the first item of protection is to make
sure this development comes, that it reserves the right-of-way for the
transportation project. That's the first effort, and you've been
consistent throughout on that.
More recently the effort has been to identify that there's a lot of
benefits that accrue to the properties, and you've sought where there's
been that concurrence consideration of provision of that right-of-way.
But the reservation is the thing that particularly has been
throughout. In many cases we have to pay for the right-of-way and/or
utilize impact fees, unless there's some provision that -- to approve the
PUD, there's been agreement by the developer to provide that
Page 67
February 10, 2004
right-of-way without impact fee or monetary compensation.
I do want to clarify the record. Rich is correct, it is 25,000 that
will go to the church in that process, and so I just want to make sure
that was clarified, and they did work with us in movement of their
project. They swapped with ARM. ARM has more land adjacent to
that 1 O-acre parcel that's down by Wolf Road, and that's why they're
working with us to utilize the five, and then they can use the balance
along with their other property in that area.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What's the value of this
right-of-way?
MR. FEDER: Let me let Greg Strakaluse address that before I
tell you wrong. I believe it's about 75,000.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Greg Strakaluse, for the record.
It's just under one half of an acre. And land appraisals that have
been coming in are somewhere in the range of, I believe, 70 to
$90,000 depending upon where that land is situated. So we're roughly
looking at between 30 and $50,000, to give you an idea.
MR. MUDD: So the original cost, if you just gave him the 75 to
90, is based on an acre, and so --
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's correct.
MR. MUDD: -- this is a half acre, so that it would be half that.
MR. STRAKALUSE: That's correct.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I can-- I can assure you, if you can buy
land at 70 to $90,000 in that area, buy all you can, because that's not
what it cost us to buy the Yurewitch base.
What was the number? It was a million six for the 10 acres to
swap, so that's 160,000 an acre. So you're talking about an 80 -- 75,
$80,000 --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Richard, without 951 being
expanded to six lanes, I don't think we'd even be talking to you today.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, I understand. I'm just
telling you, that's $80,000 out of our pocket, on top of the 25 we're not
Page 68
February 1 O, 2004
getting compensated for.
It's a -- this is a school that's going to be serving people in Collier
County. It's an expensive line item to them to do that, to give up that
money.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, if we're going to make an
exception in asking for it in this case, then we're going to have to do it
for anyone that wants to declare themselves a nonprofit organization,
and it becomes pretty problematic.
I apologize if it seems like I'm picking on a church; I'm not. I'm
picking on an entity and a process that we've been going through to try
to bring the cost of getting the infrastructure in there that's reasonable,
the infrastructure that the church will benefit from and everyone else
will, too.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Commissioner, again, we've had to
swap a piece of property that we paid a lot less than a million six for.
So the additional costs related to -- if we were left where we originally
were, this is a nonissue, but we were -- we were forced to move in a
very short period of time to accommodate the very road on behalf of
the public, and we think that this not-for-profit organization has given
enough.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that's an important thing here is
that they have been cooperative with our transportation department;
isn't that correct, Mr. Feder?
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, yes, it is. I might point out that we
do have an unusual -- I'm back to Commissioner Coletta's question --
in that there were costs incurred to try and work with the design of
951. For the board's consideration, you might consider trying to
establish a cost sharing issue here, if that's something --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I could -- I could be agreeable
with that; in other words, they did incur extra expenses. What were
the extra expenses against what it was for the land and the value of the
land, fair appraised value? If that was something they would agree to,
Page 69
February 1 O, 2004
then I would -- I rest my objection.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
Sorry about that, but I just had to get a couple words in. I have
been so quiet this morning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You've been doing good.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about the petitioner there,
would you be willing to freeze, put a cap on that -- the price of that
land to the county at 80,000 at the time that we need that
right-of-way?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry; I didn't hear the question.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you be willing to put a cap
on that land of 80,000 at the time of-- '
MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you. Then why don't we do
that? For all your grief and everything that you've gone through, if we
can be assured that you'll put a cap on that land, and when the time
comes for that right-of-way, that we don't end up getting robbed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: My client is shaking their head that
they'll agree to cap it at 80,000. We'll sell you the half acre -- it's a half
acre, right? Roughly? Approximately a half acre.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ten acres.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't want -- I didn't want it to grow on
me. We had a half acre grow into five acres at one time.
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, if I could, what I would ask you, if
you do consider that, is to make sure that the caveat is, unless the
appraised value comes in for less.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good point.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If there's no public speakers, I'm
ready to make a motion.
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
Page 70
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No public speakers, so I'd like to close the
public hearing.
And with that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree with Commissioner
Coletta, a lot of times that -- that we do try to get the best deal we can
for right-of-way for infrastructure in Collier County.
The church is providing an amenity to the community, and that is
teaching our children. It is not adding homes, it's not adding retail or
manufacturing. It's not a private gain. It's a -- it's a personal gain.
But be it that -- it may, that the petitioner agreed to put
stipulations on the sale price of the right-of-way. That's a part of my
motion to approve, with staffs stipulations. And the church receives
-- its second conditional use fees be reimbursed. That's part of my
motion. Amen.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
motion?
Okay. And do I have a second on that
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that, but would
Commissioner Henning put on there, it's either capped at 80 or
whatever the appraised value of that land is, the right-of-way?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure, that's part of my motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. We have a motion and a
second.
Commissioner Coletta has asked to speak.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
The only thing I wanted to point out is, we've never established
what the difference between the cost that they lost on the sale of the
original property and -- versus the cost that we have for the road
right-of-way.
I grant you, if they spent as much or more, then I can understand
where we're going. But if not, there should be some sort of cost
sharing. That's the way I feel on it.
Page 71
February 1 O, 2004
I think it's a wonderful project. It has a lot of good things to it. I
do feel that there should be something more to be able to meet the
element of transportation, however, I may be in the minority on that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Usually when we buy properties,
we have more than one appraisal on it and we offer the appraisal
which is justified -- or offer the amount of money which is justified
for those appraisals.
We're talking about limiting the amount of money we pay to
either $80,000 for a half-acre portion or to whatever the appraisal is.
MR. MUDD: If it's less.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What appraisal? Whose appraisal?
It's un -- it's a good idea, but the process is confusing to me. I don't
know how we -- how we do that. Which appraisal are we going to
use? Whose appraisal?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, what we would do before Mr.
Feder purchases that property, we would get an appraisal on that
right-of-way value of what it's worth. At that juncture, that's the
appraisal that we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So-- so any appraisal that
the owner gets is irrelevant? Is that what we're saying?
MR. MUDD: It's our appraisal as we do the purchase, and then
we -- and then we basically go out, and sometimes there's two
appraisals. We average the difference between the two, because they
never come in the same. That's normally --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, that's my concern.
MR. MUDD: And that's normally the offering price that we --
that we offer for the property.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So are we going to have the price
as the price of the appraisal that our appraiser gives us, or are we
going to have the price at the average of the price -- of the appraisal
and our appraiser and the property owner's appraiser? That's the
Page 72
February 10, 2004
question here. That's why I'm raising it. It's just confusing about how
we're going to administer that.
MR. STRAKALUSE: The first point of order is that the county
does acquire its appraisals, and subsequently, occasionally property
owners also acquire their appraisals, their own appraisals. And we try
to Work with them on that.
In this specific case, the county is about to acquire its appraisal.
We're still early in the process.
And it would be my recommendation that whatever the county
appraiser determined the value of that property to be, that that would
be the value assigned to that half acre strip of land that's necessary.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I think that would work in
the county's best interest, but I also think it's fundamentally unfair.
We don't do it for any other property acquisitions in Collier County. It
is not the way we normally proceed when we condemn property.
MR. STRAKALUSE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I am very much concerned
about violating a practice when we're talking about acquiring property.
So I think the idea is sound, but the process we're going through,
I think, is dangerous. And I would ask the commissioners really to
reconsider the motion with respect to how we're going to administer
that.
MR. STRAKALUSE: IfI put forward a recommendation in that,
in our list of appraisers that work for the county, we -- the county
could work with the property owners to select an appraiser of their
choice and to work up front in determining parameters of that
appraisal in the best interest of both parties.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be happy to suggest taking
the average of the two appraisals. That is generally the way we
approach in condemnation hearings when we make an offer of
settlement on these things. So I would be happy to do that. I just
think we need to give some thought about how we're going to get it
Page 73
February 10, 2004
done.
MR. STRAKALUSE: In the case the county acquires two
appraisals, it is in the instance when the property value is worth above,
I believe, it's $300,000, and then the county acquires two appraisals
and takes the averages of the two. The value of this particular
property or the strip that we're looking at is well below that price.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I agree, and I'll incorporate that
in my motion. But I don't remember in the motion that I said a high or
a low; a cap either way. It was about the appraisal.
MR. FEDER: What we're looking at, as I understood the item, is
the offer was that they would be willing to sell at 80,000, the half acre.
The only thing we're trying to add is, obviously, and I think consistent,
I hope so, per acre -- 80,000 per acre -- excuse me.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no.
MR. FEDER: Per half acre.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Nice try, Norm.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, thank you; 80,000 for the half acre that we
need with the understanding that we will do an appraisal, and only if
that appraisal says it's less, then work through the process of
something less than 80,000.
But if, in fact, the appraisal that we get shows that it's worth that
80,000 or more, that we will provide the 80,000 and that the property
owner will waive other appraisals, expert witness, attorney fees, and
all other issues, and 80,000 will be provided for the property. That's
what I understood we're discussing. And if that's a concern, then the
board needs to address that, I guess.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does that meet your approval,
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't have to approve it, I
was just suggesting we think through the process.
I think Commissioner Henning has agreed to deal with that issue,
Page 74
February 1 O, 2004
but you understand the concern. If-- as I understand the intent, was to
establish a cap of $80,000 for that half acre.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That was the intent of the
discussion as it began. So that's the -- that's the ceiling.
Then the commissioners had a concern about, well, what happens
if it doesn't appraise out at $80,000, we've got to protect the taxpayers.
That's good. So we're going to have an appraisal.
I would merely suggest to you that if we hired an appraiser-- and
we have hired appraisers who come in very, very low on property, and
that appraiser comes in at $50,000, we need to give the property
owner a chance to be considered with respect to another appraisal.
And I would -- I would strongly recommend to the
commissioners that what we say, very specifically, is that we will
select an appraiser, the property owner will accept -- will get an
appraiser, and we will average the cost of those two, but under neither
circumstance can they exceed $80,000.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I really go along with that. I think --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Definitely.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that that's the only fair way.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, let's just say that
the owner may get an appraisal --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- and not demand.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's part of the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So your motion states that.
Mr. Mudd, do you want to repeat the motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Tell it to whoever you're
talking to on the telephone.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, that was -- that was going to be
Mr. Herrington, okay, because I think our county policy is if it's under
Page 75
February 1 O, 2004
$100,000, it doesn't need an appraisal at all, okay? That's the first
thing. And if it's over $300,000, it requires two appraisals, and that's
what I was going to check on, that $100,000 limit or not, because I
wanted to be sure before I stated it.
But all that stuff aside, there's -- there's a motion on the floor to
approve this particular conditional use for the Christ Community
Lutheran School and that the -- that the right-of-way gets set aside,
that the turn lane that Mr. Yovanovich gave me and I put in court
record, that they would -- they would fund, is part of this motion, and
they would set aside the right-of-way for 951, and that the purchase of
that right-of-way, some half acre -- if, indeed, it is a half acre. If it's
not a half an acre, then I think we're probably in a different ballgame
-- but if it's a half an acre, it's capped at $80,000, that we would go out
and get an appraisal at the county's expense.
If that appraisal comes in lower than the $80,000, we would go
back to the petitioner and say, petitioner, this is what our appraisal
came in at. If it's significantly different in their-- in their estimation,
than the $80,000 cap, they would go out and get an appraisal of their
own, at which time we would come up with some kind of an
averaging not to exceed $80,000.
I think I've got the motion on the floor at this particular time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So the motion was presented by
Commissioner Henning. It was second by who? By Commissioner
Halas.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: AYe.
Page 76
February 1 O, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Passes, 5-0. Thank you.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Madam Chairman?
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us, Commissioner, that
brings us to a time --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Eleven o'clock time certain, doesn't it?
MR. MUDD: -- time certain. It is item 8(D).
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don, did you have something?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes. Donald Schneider with the community
planning redevelopment.
Administrator Joe Schmitt pointed out to me that if-- in that
motion there was also included the reimbursement of the fees.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. SCHNEIDER: That it could require a budget amendment
for our department to cover that reimbursement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You shouldn't have charged him
anyways, my opinion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do we need to add something to this,
or did you just want to put that on the record?
MR. SCHNEIDER: I want to go on the record.
Joe, do you wish to do any more?
On the record's fine. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: How about if we give you half?.
Because all your work was done already on the first conditional use
permit.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you.
Item #8D
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 74 OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
Page 77
February 10, 2004
AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 2001-13 (THE COLLIER
COUNTY CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, AS
AMENDED) PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF A GENERAL
GOVERNMENT BUILDING IMPACT FEE WITH A DELAYED
EFFECTIVE DATE OF MARCH 1, 2004- MOTION TO
CONTINI ~F,- APPROVF. D
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings -- that brings us to item
8(D). This item is to be heard at 11 a.m. It's an adoption of an
ordinance amending chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Law
and Ordinances, as amended by ordinance number 2001-13, the
Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance as amended,
providing for the adoption of a general government building impact
fee with a delayed effective date of March 1, 2004.
MS. PATTERSON: I'll be right with you, just one minute.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 8(D)?
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good.
MR. MUDD: And this will be presented by Amy Patterson, I
hope.
MS. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is
Amy Patterson. I'm the impact fee manager at community
development.
Over the last six months, we've been working on developing a fee
for general government buildings. And we have acquired the services
of Tindale-Oliver and Associates as well as the law firm of Freilich,
Leitner and Carlisle. And we have representatives from both of those
firms here to discuss this impact fee and to go through the
presentation.
I'm just going to make a couple of comments and I'm going to
turn the presentation over to Steve Tindale.
Page 78
February 1 O, 2004
Currently our impact fee program consists of 10 different impact
fees for various land uses, ranging from road impact fees to water and
sewer. We started this program back in 1985. And the last time that
we collected -- or that we adopted a new impact fee was in 1999 with
the adoption of the correctional facility's impact fee.
Now, this new impact fee for general government facilities will
only be used to fund those types of buildings that are not otherwise
funded by other impact fees or other user fees to avoid the possibility
of double charging those who are paying the fee.
Currently our impact fee program is over $65 million in
collections, and we estimate that this new impact fee will bring in
about $3.8 million per year.
We have a very aggressive capital improvement plan for
government buildings which has over $100 million in government
buildings that are eligible to be paid for out of this impact fee in five
years.
So as you can see, $3.8 million and $100 million, we're nowhere
near over collecting for this fee.
So we have members of staff here from facilities management,
from our -- from our affordable housing section, from our impact fee
section, as well as the consultants to answer any of your questions.
But right now what I'm going to do is mm this over to Mr. Steve
Tindale from Tindale-Oliver and Associates, and I also have a copy of
the presentation he's going to go through for your convenience and for
the court reporter.
MR. TINDALE: Good morning.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Good morning.
MR. TINDALE: Hopefully I'll be fairly brief. Do I know how to
advance this presentation?
MS. PATTERSON: He's going to come up. I'm sorry.
MR. TINDALE: I'll get some training on how to operate the
power point presentation. Which button do I hit every time I want to
Page 79
February 10, 2004
-- okay. Hopefully we'll just go forward.
Briefly what I want to do this morning is, one, go over the impact
fee formula, which is the concept that is pretty well consistent with
most of your other impact fees, talk about a level of service standard
for buildings -- currently you do not have a level of service standard in
your comprehensive plan element, and we need to add that standard
and show you how we establish that -- talk about how we come up
with the costs briefly, credits in terms of any potential taxes that new
develop would generate, briefly show the proposed impact fee
schedule, and just mention that we're going to use the same indexing
process that you used in your other impact fees.
The formula for impact fees is fairly straightforward. The impact
fee basically is a unit development, it's cost to provide a service based
on its demand, and then we come out with credits. The courts say you
cannot double charge. We couldn't charge an impact fee and then have
the development community pay taxes that would build the same
facility, so we have to -- we don't-- usually we do come up with
credits and establish those. That's basically the formula.
The impact fee is the difference between revenues you generate
in the future with taxes and the actual cost to provide each increment
of development to the service.
The general government buildings include all your support
buildings, court-related, health, general, all the services you provide.
None of the structures that are any -- any of the other impact fees are
included in this inventory are included in the cost, so we do not double
charge in terms of generating, for example, fire stations or anything of
that nature in this inventory and in the cost.
You don't have -- as I mentioned, you don't have a current
standard. We took the current number of square foot of buildings you
have today, and, again, excluded anything and everything we thought
was not appropriate for general services, took the functional
population we calculated, and basically, we're saying, for every
Page 80
February 10, 2004
person, we have 1.9 square -- almost two square feet of buildings for
every person in the county. That's your standard in terms of what
you've achieved today.
In other words, those people that are here today have built two
square foot of buildings for every person that's in this county. So that
is why we adopt that as a current standard and adopt that in the impact
fee.
I want to briefly talk about the functional population. I think one
of the questions we were asked is, we understand a lot of the other
impact fees, but how do you come up with the proportionate share or
the proportionate demands. So I want to kind of go over that and kind
of briefly describe that.
It's clearly for government buildings and general purpose
buildings. I think there's a general feeling that it's the community
walking up to the building that the buildings support. But that's not
just the case. Your government buildings support other departments.
So the demand for your buildings is more than just the people
that are out there in the community that walk into your buildings.
Your purchasing, your payroll, your administrative people support all
the departments, so really the service we're providing in these general
service buildings is for the community and all of the support
departments who also support the community.
And I've got an example here of people walking in from a
residence, shopping, office or having some type of a demand. But,
again, those community people -- people in the community require a
service from other departments and other-- and your government
buildings support those.
So it kind of gives you a feel for -- that the way we come up with
proportionate share is not based on just physically having people walk
into your buildings, because I think that's the first mental picture most
people have in government services.
Why do we go to what we call functional population, which I'm
Page 81
February 1 O, 2004
going to show you in a few minutes? Well, it's very obvious. You
support traffic, stormwater, EMS, fire, libraries, parks, and other
specific things when people come in.
Traffic is vehicle miles. Stormwater is runoff. EMS could be
calls or functional population. Library is just books.
So we have this government service you're providing, and when
you're providing it and supporting these other functions, there's just a
number of different ways you could estimate demand.
So we have to look for a general way of estimating demand, and
that's the reason we go to the more people that are at a location, the
more relationship there is for the demand. So we have to go to more
of a functional population, and that's the reason for it.
We can't go to a simple process like -- I say simple. Sometimes
when you're seeing some of these fees, they probably didn't seem that
simple to you, but we don't have a one -- one shop way of developing
the demand side.
So what do we do? And this is, very briefly, how we come up
with it. We know there's 2 -- almost 2.4 people per every home that's
built in the county. That's current. And what we said is, they spend
about half their time at home and half their time somewhere else;
shopping, office, retail, or whatever.
That basically says that about half of the fee or half of the
demand for the service is going to be the residential side, and basically
we think that half of the -- of the demand for public services is sitting
out there on the non-residential side. Fairly basic concept in terms of
a starting point.
That half that's out there in the other side are either at their office,
they're industrial offices, shopping centers, or fast food, et cetera.
How do we estimate how many people are at each one of those
locations by square feet? How do we come up with those
relationships?
Well, it's just amazing that we've got this national set of data,
Page 82
February 10, 2004
tremendous set of data, that we know the numbers of the employees
per square feet for a tremendous number of land uses, we know the
number of visitors in each one of these sites, we know how many cars
drive in, how many people are in the cars, and estimate how long
they're going to stay.
So it sounds real complicated, but we just happen to have this
data set that gives us a really good way of estimating the number of
people at this time of day today that are sitting in these buildings per
square feet.
And that's that whole process you read about cars and employees
per square feet and how long they stay. That's what all that's about is
we have a really good, we think, a method of estimating that
functional population in terms of-- again, we just said that the demand
is based on the number of people.
So the more activity you have in a -- in a facility, the more
demand for services. So we go through that process and we show in
the -- in the schedule how we calculate that.
The -- we went through the 2004 and took an inventory in terms
of dealing with cost. And I can tell you, we looked at costs about five
different ways. We looked at costs in your old master plan -- or I
guess not that old, but in the master plan -- we looked at costs of the
last two or three buildings you built, we looked at costs that you were
putting in your CIP that you're doing estimates based on reality.
Multiple ways to come up with the cost.
The bottom line in terms of that cost of looking at those is we
used $184 per square foot. We feel comfortable with that. We think
that's a legitimate cost in terms of the current cost to construct those
buildings and their current value.
As I mentioned, your master plan is $186 -- I went and took your
five year CIP, which includes some parking decks and some other
items that you're going to now move into. That one it jumped to about
244. For every square foot of building you're building because of the
Page 83
February 1 O, 2004
new types of things you're having to do, that cost is $244 a square
foot. So we feel very comfortable with the 184 as a starting point.
We took the land values. As a matter of fact, we did it two ways.
We took all the land you currently own, and a lot of times you have to
land bank. You can't go out and just build a building and buy one
acre. You go out and buy 25 acres, and then you build to it. Well, the
government then has to have more land than the actual buildings use.
We went through that process, plus we used just a, what if we
had to build a 10,000 square foot, and we used a dollar and a half-- an
acre and a half, we come up with $35 a square foot.
The other methods we were using, we were actually coming up
with more because of your land banking requirements. So we feel
very comfortable with the land costs in terms of what we've done and
being conservative.
The -- you take the building cost and the land cost, and basically
we're saying it costs 2 -- almost $220 a square foot to build a building
with both those combined. And that's the starting point for cost.
Remember we talked about the residents, the 1.9 residents at a
home. If you take that and multiply it times the cost, you basically
come up with a cost per functional resident, per resident of $416. That
means for every person that moves into the county, the gross cost is
$416.
We then -- after we come up with that total cost, we have to say,
what -- if we spend taxes or other revenues, what would be the
revenues that -- new development, not your gross revenues, but new
development revenues.
We basically took a 20-year period and come up with 27 percent
of the revenues generated in this community, what would be
generated, and the tax would be generated by new growth.
We also added a five percent for a piece of land that's been
vacant that they paid taxes on, and we took your vacant land, and we
give another credit for that. So we're not only giving credit for the
Page 84
February 1 O, 2004
new revenues that a piece of property generates, we're giving credit
for the revenues it generated when there was no use on it, to be very
conservative.
They give us a 32 percent reduction in the fee because of those
revenues. We took the $416, which is your cost, and said, 32 percent
of that revenue would be from taxes, and basically the credit's $137.
So we're saying for every person that moves in over that 20-year
period, there'd be -- that $137 would be credited against the building
impact fees. And, again, that's per person.
That's simply -- then we take the gross costs, we give those
credits, those estimated credits, and we end up with about $280 net
cost. And again, that's per functional population.
Well, that's how we get to, every time you'd look at a person that
comes in this community, it's $280 differential between the revenues
and taxes that person's going to generate and the fees that each
person's going to generate.
Remember we talked about the -- the number of people within
each -- in a home. Well, we have .5 -- and we come up with the
number of people per home, and then looked at the number of
residents per 1,000 square feet. And this is something that's a little bit
probably confusing, and some of your fees are strictly by home.
And we've actually now come up per 1,000 square foot of home.
So every time you see 1,000 square foot, to get a 2,500 square foot
home, you've got to multiply the fee by 2.5 to get it per home, to get it
back to some of the other fees.
But we actually come up with .57 residents for every 1,000
square feet. That means if it's a 1,000 square foot home, it's .57; if
you're at 2,500 square feet, you're averaging two and a half times that.
So you take the .57 times the 279, and we basically come up with
$159 per 1,000 square foot. It's pretty straightforward. Again, if you
have a 2,500 square foot home, you multiply that 160 times the 2.5.
And this basically steps you through that. It's 270 -- 280 -- almost
Page 85
February 1 O, 2004
$280, .57, about $160 per 1,000 square foot for every home that's
built. It's all basically taking your inventory, the number of people that
are there, and mn through those calculations.
And this is a summary of the -- of three uses that we've come up
with. The functional -- the cost for a single-family home is a dollar
sixty (sic) per 1,000 square feet. And I'll remind you, if you took-- if
you took a 2,500 square foot home, which is usually what you see in
your impact fees, that would be almost $500.
There was some questions raised about, it seems to be this fee is
a little low for residential and a little higher than the other ones. Well,
if that's $500 and the office is 1,000, it's about two to one per home,
and that's about the relationship to your transportation, your other fees.
If you look at a home, not per 1,000, but per home and compared
the other fees per 1,000, it's about two to one. So this fee is not out of
proportion to any other of the fees. All we've done here is we've got
the per 1,000 rather than per home.
So we feel very comfortable about the relationship between the
residential and the office and the fee schedule.
The second test we did was took your development permits and
said, how much money would be generated based on your past
permitting in the last year or two if it continues?
Now, if we have half the people at home and half the people
somewhere else and you pull permits, my feeling would be, half the
revenues come from the homes and half the revenues come from
other, so it comes 60/40.
We took your current -- the $3.8 million, we took the permitting
process, and about 60 percent of the 3.8 million comes from homes
and about 40 percent of it comes from the office and the other.
So we've looked at this multiple different ways, compared it to
the other fees, the other methodologies, your revenues. Our basic
assumption is we feel very comfortable that not only the numbers are
conservative and correct, we think that the methodology based on tests
Page 86
February 10, 2004
we've done in terms of practicality of actually pulling permits and
who's going to pay and how much, those numbers match.
I think that may be the end of the presentation. No, I've got a few
more, the indexing. Just to mention, we did include the indexing.
We're using the building cost indexing and the land values, which is
typical to the same thing you've done with the other ones. Use some
method, whether it's transportation costs for roads, we're using
building for indexing, and then your land values. And we have this
basically same methodology where you index the fees each year.
And that's the end of the presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
We have two commissioners that have some questions. We have
five speakers, we have 20 minutes until we're supposed to break for
lunch, and we have another item to be heard, and we have to be back
for a one o'clock time certain. I'm just pointing that out so I can ask
the commissioners, see if they can ask their questions and -- in a very
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Concise?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- in a very concise manner.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In a brief manner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: In other words, what you're trying
to say is hustle it up?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah.
Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I can't ask anything in a concise
manner. It's going to take a while. But in the interest of time, let me
tell you what my overall concern is, and then I'd like to ask you to tell
me how you've compensated for that.
With respect to facilities cost, we own a lot of the land that we're
going to be building on. I'm concerned about how we determine cost,
because in your analysis, cost is about 17 percent of the total cost, the
impact fee cost, as I -- as I understand it.
Page 87
February 10, 2004
The other thing is, we are setting up in Collier County satellite
facilities, one-stop service centers, for example, in Immokalee. How
does that affect your analysis of the numbers of trips by -- per unit of
population?
We also are experiencing population growth in areas of Collier
County that don't have the highest land values. I am concerned about
-- how would your analysis be impacted if we set up satellite facilities
to service those centers of population growth in those areas rather than
doing it centrally.
The -- the number of residents per 1,000 square feet, I think, is at
.57, I think is where you have it.
MR. TINDALE: It's 1.9 square feet per residence, almost two
square feet per residence.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. And then for 1,000
square feet, it's about what, .57?
MR. TINDALE: Yes, per-- yeah, it's .57 per square foot of
home. That's how many people are per square foot of home.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Now, if you-- if you take
into consideration that we have a lot of retirees in Collier County that
live in some fairly large homes, you would reach the conclusion, if
you had a 10,000, you're going to have 5.7 people living there, and
that probably is not the case.
So I'd need to understand how those things have been taken into
consideration in the analysis, and I'll try to leave it at that point right
now.
MR. TINDALE: Well, I'll give some, I guess, maybe some fairly
general rather than specifics about costs.
Number one, I think that the building costs and the land costs are
underestimated. We do that absolutely deliberately, especially on the
first fee. And I think testing your CIP and showing that the types of
things you do as you urbanize, parking facilities and those types of
issues, that your costs are underestimated, total cost.
Page 88
February 1 O, 2004
As far as land values, we talked about the campus versus the
satellite and those types of things. I'm thoroughly convinced that your
land banking requirement as a government agency -- as a private
individual, I'd go out and buy an acre of land and build me an office.
You don't do that. And the average land that you have and have to
have is -- far exceeds the land that you have -- need per square foot
when you finish.
I feel very comfortable that -- I know there's all kinds of
combination about cheaper land, suburban land versus -- I think that
the land costs are not overestimated.
And when you take the two together, even if land estimates was
10 percent or 15 or 20 percent high, the cap -- the building costs are so
conservative, I feel very comfortable with the total.
So I don't really -- you know, debating one or the other, the main
thing I want to make sure when we do this first one is, that if
somebody asked me what the two -- total cost was, my guess is, right
now it's basically the next five years you'll spend 30 to 40 percent
more per square foot than what we're proposing. I feel very
comfortable with the cost.
As far as the -- I guess you asked a question about the size of
home, and I guess that did come up about capping it. There was a
conversation about -- and I think that -- I think we decided to leave
that as an administrative decision, not a -- not try to put one in here.
It's clearly a level of the number of people. There's clearly an
increase -- and this is Collier County data. This isn't other counties.
It's your retirement community data. There's clearly a direct
correlation between the number of people in the square feet, even
though you have retirees, and it continues on.
Somewhere out there it clearly levels off. And I think if
somebody comes in with 15,000 square foot home and you
administratively want to say, we're not going to go more than about
7,000 square feet on this, you know, I would cap it. But I don't think
Page 89
February 1 O, 2004
we want to put some formula in there that we don't have. So we have
had that conversation of being practical with somebody coming in
with extremely large homes. I think you have to be in the application.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner -- Commissioner Coyle, if I can
interject. Jim Mudd, county manager, for the record.
What I put on your visualizer was a breakout that I had Mike do
of the new facilities that are -- that are coming onboard. You know,
you'll see the sheriff's special operations, operational building,
emergency operation center, new fleet, you've got the c°urthouse
annex, the initial three floors, then you've got the balance of the
building that's supposed to go to eight under our -- on our master plan.
And in order to even start a courthouse annex, you have to do a
campus parking deck, because people can't find spaces in order to park
in that process.
And then what you're missing on your slide is, I carried those
forward, and I asked Mike -- and I don't want to get it out of the part
that you can read, but I also asked him to tell me what it would be for
debt service for 30 year and 20 year and give us an idea.
And so when they mentioned that it's 3.8 -- 3.8 million a year for
impact fee, his comment, that's probably under, is probably good, and
just a way to litmus paper test it is to kind of take a look at what the
debt payment would be on those buildings that we've got out there in
the process.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But just as a follow-on to that, I
believe it's true that much of this construction represents construction
that's necessary to deal with the current requirements and is not
necessarily all related to future growth which would be applicable to
an impact fee assessment.
MR. TINDALE: I can explain very quickly how we separate
that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. TINDALE: It's my opinion -- we were asked a question
Page 90
February 10, 2004
about economies and scale. I'll answer two questions with that. And
is it 1.9 -- as we go -- can't we get it down to 1.8, 1.7 through
efficiencies? And my reaction was, I've been working for
governments for almost 30 years. I've never seen a government that
didn't have -- it had enough building space.
So I asked a question. You've got like 100,000 square feet of
buildings that you're leasing that we're not including in this inventory.
We're not charging for it.
And if your deficiency's in terms of where you'd like to be and
where you're probably going to be, which is probably two and a half,
we're not charging for. We're charging for the current standard, not
what you're going to be.
So taxes -- between impact fees paying for that standard and
replacing it and combining some of your other revenues, five years
from now my guess is you're going to be at 2.5 or 2.6, and then, at that
point in time, you can consider charging the next set of development.
But right now we're charging for the current standard.
I also looked statewide, and we've got -- we've got communities
with 2.5, 3, 3.5 square feet per person. So yes, you are tight, and, yes,
you are going to have to build more than impact fees pay for.
But the impact fee schedule is based on the current standard, not
anything to do with the deficiencies. If I took and said -- well, it looks
like if you had all these people in the right buildings, you'd have like
two and a half people per square foot, and I put that in the equation,
it'd be illegal.
So we're using the current standard and what you've already
achieved with your residents for the impact fee, and you're having to
take some tax money to take care of deficiencies.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Does that answer your question?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, I think so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Commissioner Henning?
Page 91
February 10, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't understand the disparity
between single-family and the next item, retail, in our book. I don't
understand how business demands more government service.
What I heard you say was that you base it on our present impact
fees and what we collect today. What I understand about our present
impact fees, we can model how much a McDonald's is going to
generate -- not generate, attract in trips for our transportation. We
know how much water and sewer capacity we need for that
McDonald's through sizing.
And I just need to get how we're getting at the figure of, you
know, the disparity between the two figures.
MR. TINDALE: Okay. I think -- I think in my mind what we're
saying is, that if you took -- if you take -- if you look at your home
and you look at the people in your home on the average and look at
the number of people per square foot and the activity of your home
and you look at this building, okay, and the number of people that
demand services, that's the basic common denominator is, if a -- if a
place is very active as engineers and planners and it's an office
building and it's got, you know, one person for every 10 square foot,
that building generates service demands.
That's what we're having -- we can't use runoff, can't use traffic,
you know, because it's got trip lengths in it, we're using the functional
population.
And our assumption is that half-- half the time you're at home
and you benefit from government services, and half the time you're
sitting here or somewhere else, and that's the basic concept of
proportionality is, that we've said that the government -- the general
purpose government buildings are related to that functional
population.
It's the -- I've looked at the five other fees done in the State of
Florida, and every one of them -- it's not -- I don't think it's by choice.
There is no -- one of the things I asked is, what is the option? There
Page 92
February 1 O, 2004
is no option. There is no other method. There is no other indicator that
we think that could indicate better what is the demand for services.
So I think that's the simplest answer, is, we think it's legitimate,
it's proportional, it's correct in terms ofjust the logic of it. And
believe me, when we went through this the first time several years
ago, we'd sit around and kind of walked into a retail site and looked at
the activity, the number of people.
And you've got to think, well, I'm at home and there's two of us,
and I've got 2,000 square feet. Well, walk into a retail site and find
two people for 1,000 -- you know, 1,000 or 2,000 square feet and
think about the traffic it generates and the complaints and the parking
and the -- you know, all the services that you would get, emergency
calls, whatever. It's related to that population.
So that's what we've done, and we think we've got our -- we were
lucky enough to have a set of data that gave us a real good estimate of
that activity, and then we would sit down and looked at the numbers
that we came up with and actually in our minds went out and looked
and said, are we computing this rationally in terms of the activity here.
And that's the -- and we feel very comfortable with it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm glad you do.
MR. TINDALE: Okay. It took a -- it took a lot. It was more
than an hour's worth of thought, I can tell you. It was -- it was -- the
first set of these that were done of how to do general purpose
buildings, I mean, we were kind of at a loss to even come up with
something. I think this is the only legitimate way of doing
proportionality, and no other one that we've had anybody talk to us as
an option. We've not heard one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. TINDALE: All right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Is it
I still don't get it, and I need to.
All right.
The retail, what kind of people are going to be in this building?
going to be residents?
Page 93
February 10, 2004
MR. TINDALE: They have to live somewhere. I mean, yeah, it's
pe -- everybody's a resident. What we said is, they spend half their
time at home and half the time at other, in terms of the activity, and
then we used this methodology and tested it in terms of actual -- the --
you know, your permitting process in terms of what gets built in terms
of this proportionality.
If we wanted to tell you that people were home 80 percent of the
time, and 80 percent of all government services, including everything
you do, we could have said, okay, we'll do it 80/20. I mean, that's the
first -- the first basic thing I think they -- if there's any question, is the
.5 legitimate? Other than that, once you decide that and we go
through this methodology and then we test it, and we actually find
those people out there and find out the actual activities there --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Let me ask it a different way.
Can you demonstrate the rational nexus between retail, what --
government uses, and how often that retail will use government uses
versus the single-family home?
MR. TINDALE: Yeah, I think I have. When they applied for a
water meter, they had a much bigger water meter, and probably the
staff spent a lot more time -- that the administrative building
supported, the purchasing supported, contract administrating is
supporting, that retail -- these aren't --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Let me stop you there.
MR. TINDALE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And maybe somebody can help
me out with this. Is -- when you go in for that bigger water meter, you
pay a fee for that application.
MR. TINDALE: And this--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You know, is that --
MR. TINDALE: We're not charging for any of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can I finish?
MR. TINDALE: We're charging for the admin -- we're -- it's the
Page 94
February 10, 2004
support on top of that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. When you charge--
when you're charged that fee, that permit fee, that does not pay for
staff's time?
MR. TINDALE: No, that's -- one thing I started out --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And --
MR. TINDALE: -- we made sure we did, is no building, no
utility building, no water building, no lease building, no -- any other
impact fee building was charged in this fee. That's the first thing we
went -- and we started out with about 750,000 square foot of
buildings, so we kept asking, we kept asking, and we made sure any
potential of anybody who has collected a fee -- because remember,
you've got--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Then we have to use a different
example, sir.
MR. TINDALE: Sure.
COMMISSION HENNING: We can't use the water meter size,
because it's my understanding that when you go in there --
MR. TINDALE: The complexity. I didn't mean size. The
complexity of servicing a retail site --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. TINDALE: -- versus a home, for water, for sewer, for the
stormwater, for those types of things, in my mind, clearly are -- takes
more activity. And, again, it's because you have more people there.
I mean, if you -- if you think about it, the retail sites and the
office sites which have more activity, more protection, more fire
protection, more everything, and are more complex, the number of
people that are there is the reason it's more complex.
And if you had-- you know, if you had -- even if you take the
industrial site, and, again, we have fewer people per square foot, and
we're charging less. And the complexity in terms of the number of
people there would be less.
Page 95
February 10, 2004
So we clearly -- and again, I go back to people and activity, I
think, are clearly good indicators of general services and general
support across the board for multiple disciplines, and we have no other
method in terms of trying to come up with an equation for doing it,
and we feel comfortable that what we've done here reflects that
proportionality.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I heard you state that the
retail or the business is going to use more fire, more police, so on, so
forth, correct?
MR. TINDALE: Well, per square foot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Per square foot.
MR. TINDALE: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The retail is, or the business is,
more so than single-family?
MR. TINDALE: Well -- yeah, more of all public agencies,
including the support, correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. We charge a fire impact
fee.
MR. TINDALE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, do we charge water on
businesses --
MR. TINDALE: You've got--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- or retail? So they're paying
for that already.
MR. TINDALE: No, They don't pay for the support. They only
pay for the fire stations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
can't -- and correct me if I'm wrong.
staffing.
MR. TINDALE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. TINDALE:
Okay. I understand that we
We can't use impact fees for
What's the support mean?
The buildings -- the support buildings that you
Page 96
February 10, 2004
-- the purchasing, administration, all the people who are not tagged to
a department, okay, that don't -- only -- that are non-single purpose,
that are not impact fees. Those are the ones and the only ones we have
in this inventory, and that's the only thing we're charging for.
We're not charging for the water department's buildings or
anything they provide, sewer, stormwater, anybody else you have. It's
only the general support buildings that are in this cost.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners, it's -- it's just about noon.
We have five speakers, which is 25 minutes, we have two other
commissioners who have questions, and we -- I want to know if you
want to just stay here until we finish this subject and take a 15- or
20-minute lunch, or shall we break now, hear this when we get back
and finish this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm confused. I'd like to take a
break. Maybe I could clear my mind.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If you wouldn't mind me going out
of mm, let me just ask the other commissioners a question.
This -- this is a complex calculation, and I think we have to feel
comfortable with it before we can really vote on it to decide whether
or not we want it or not.
And I would like to ask what your impression would be to
postponing this until such time as we get the report from the revenue
commission. They're the ones who are trying to find ways to generate
funding, to identify some other funding sources.
Would you feel more comfortable considering this along with
their recommendation so that you have some alternatives? And if so,
we could just postpone this discussion until that report is ready.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Question?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I got a question.
Page 97
February 1 O, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The revenue commission, when
were they going to be bringing back a recommendation? Was the
recommendation specifically going to be in line with a way to finance
our government facilities?
MR. MUDD: No, sir. The mission that you gave to the revenue
commission was for buried power lines, take a look at that particular
issue, to take a look at landscaping of medians, to take a look at beach
and boat access, and to also take a look at stormwater.
And right now, over the last, let's say, six meetings that the
revenue commission has had, those are the major discussion items.
They have nothing to do with the government buildings at this point.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So we basically right now have
a couple of avenues open to us. One would be the impact fees, ad
valorem tax, or don't build, or some combination of all three.
Now, I don't know. Are we -- is there a possible other revenue
source out there I'm missing?
MR. MUDD: No -- no, sir. You can go for another half penny in
sales tax, but I would tell you--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Guess again.
MR. MUDD: -- but I talked about -- I talked about never doing
that one again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah.
MR. MUDD: And I wouldn't recommend it. The other two that
you have are -- you have impact fees and you have ad valorem taxes.
That's about what you've got right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas, and then we're
breaking.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yep. Okay. My -- I've got a
concern here. Now, we're talking about future residents here and the
impact they're going to have on the government buildings. We also --
presently we have residents that live here that use these government
Page 98
February 1 O, 2004
buildings, so I guess we've got to figure out what's the -- how we
balance all this out. I mean, yes, we need impact fees, but we also
have to look at the idea that we've got residents that are presently here.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, if you take a look at page 44 in
your packet under 8(D), we took the five-year plan that's sitting there
in the master plan and tried to break out these things, the estimated
construction cost and what's eligible and what's not eligible as far as
what the -- what the residents are.
That list I also put up there about the parking lot in the thing.
Now, I don't need the parking -- I don't need the parking deck if you
don't build any more courtrooms, but I've got -- I've got the chief
judge over there telling me he's got two more judges coming and he
needs me to clear the fourth floor, that means I have to take the special
prosecutor our so we can put two more courtrooms and put the judges'
conference rooms and suites in.
When you do those particular items, that's a growth-related issue
because -- you need more judges because you have more cases that are
coming before them.
You take a look at the sheriffs special operations center. 911
changed some things for us. Part of that stuff is and part of that isn't.
And we have to discern which part gets to the residents we have today
and which part are -- is based on the new ones.
And that -- and that is a divide -- and a thing that we're going to
have to justify in order -- in that collection. And I will tell you that the
clerk of circuit courts will be part of that committee that help us
determine what's old and what's new as far as what you can use impact
fees for, because he has in the past on everything we've done so far, I
don't think he's going to get out of that role, and we appreciate him --
his efforts in that particular decisiOn process because --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Mudd.
We are now going to break for lunch. We will reconvene at one
o'clock and finish this subject, and then we will move on.
Page 99
February 1 O, 2004
Item # 13A
APPROVAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ELECTION
SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES SPECIAL ELECTION
FEBRI IARY 17, 2004- APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, can we do 13(A) real quick, and I can let
the Supervisor of Elections go?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
MR. MUDD: This was a walk-on item. This was a very
mundane item, but it came in late after the things were printed.
Pat will come to the podium. But basically what it is, there's a
special election in the City of Naples on the 17th, and they need--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve by
Commissioner Halas, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion by any of the commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Great presentation.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pat, you really do good work.
MS. POCHOPIN: Thank you.
Page 100
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We are adjoumed till one o'clock.
(A luncheon recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is the county manager in here? Thank
yOU.
The meeting is reconvened.
And we will continue on.
Commissioner Coyle, you're next up to bat.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I'm going to try one more
time. You know, I think the staff has done a good job with this impact
process. I think the analysis was thorough, but there are a lot of
questions that we're not going to get answered in the next hour.
And I'm going to try one more time to ask the commissioners,
let's give this thing the consideration it deserves and let's postpone it
so we don't hold up the people in the audience who have a very
important issue to discuss with us. There is a time certain at one
o'clock.
So I would make a motion that we continue this impact fee
discussion until some further meeting. I originally had suggested that
the -- we do it so that we can consider the results of the impact fee --
I'm sorry -- the revenue committee's recommendations.
I do not think it makes any difference whether the revenue
committee is taking a look at landscaping, burying power lines, or
doing anything else. The point is, we are looking for sources of
additional revenue and they're helping us do that.
If we find sources of revenue that will fund some of the things
we're currently spending general fund money on, it will free up
general fund money for capital improvement projects, which is what
we're considering now for this impact fees.
I'm certainly not inclined to support an impact fee that has such a
major effect upon -- upon the retail businesses in Collier County
without considerable further discussion, and I don't think we have time
for that discussion in view of the interest of these people to get their
Page 101
February 10, 2004
time certain issue resolved.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So the motion is to -- to postpone this
particular subject on government impact -- government building
impact fees until a future date when you have more information
available; is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or at least more time to discuss it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Or more time to discuss it.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, yes. I think they've done a
good job of putting the information together. I think they've got -- got
a lot of information they can share with us, but I don't think we have
time to discuss it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second to that motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to second that motion,
and appreciate staff's time during lunch break to explain it to me. I get
it a little bit better, but it just poses some more questions, like -- well,
I'll ask later.
But the one thing that I think the board needs to think about since
we do use ad valorem dollars to pay for government buildings, do we
lower the millage rate at our existing -- what we charge now for
residential and commercial alike?
I can tell you, I looked at one piece of property, a retail, 10,000
square feet, and they pay $29,000 a year in taxes, property taxes,
where I pay around $3,000. So I think that's another question we need
to ask ourselves. Do we lower the millage rate.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Something you can bring up at that
meeting then? Okay.
Any further discussion? I'm sorry.
MS. FILSON: Do you want to hear from the speakers?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have five speakers on the subject.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we're going to continue it, we'll
just have to continue the speakers, too.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion from the commissioners?
Page 102
February 1 O, 2004
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRWOMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you.
Item #8C
PETITION NUMBER PUDZ-2002-AR-3158, ROBERT J.
MULHERE, AICP, OF RWA INC., AND RICHARD D.
YOVANOVICH, ESQUIRE, OF GOODLETTE COLEMAN AND
JOHNSON, REPRESENTING ECO VENTURE WIGGINS PASS
LTD., REQUESTING TO REZONE A 10.45 ACRE PARCEL FROM
C-4 TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO
BE KNOWN AS COCONILLA PUD TO ALLOW FOR: A
MAXIMUM OF 95 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON +/- 10.02 ACRES
OF DEVELOPABLE AREA FOR A RESULTING DENSITY OF 9.5
DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDING A
RESIDENTIAL TOWER AT A BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO
EXCEED 21 STORIES OVER PARKING (MAXIMUM OF 225
FEET ABOVE THE REQUIRED FLOOD ELEVATION AND 1N
ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2.6.3.1 OF
THE COLLIER COUNTY LDC), TOWN HOME UNITS, AND A
MARINA BASIN WITH 52 BOAT SLIPS AND CUSTOMARY
ACCESSORY USES, INCLUDING A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE
SHIP'S STORE AND MARINE FUELING STATION OF
APPROXIMATELY 5000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL
Page 103
February 1 O, 2004
SPACE; AND A +/- 0.80 ACRE PUBLIC USE TRACT PROVIDING
FOR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC VEHICLE AND BOAT TRAILER
PARKING TO PROVIDE: SUPPORT FOR THE COCOHATCHEE
RIVER PARK, ACCESS TO THE MARINA SHIP'S STORE, AND
EGRESS TO VANDERBILT DRIVE FOR PARK PATRONS TO
ALLOW FOR SAFE EGRESS VIA A PROTECTED
NORTHBOUND TURNING MOVEMENT AT EXISTING
TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE WIGGINS PASS ROAD AND
VANDERBILT DRIVE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
VANDERBILT DRIVE, AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF
WIGGINS PASS ROAD IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST- DF, NIF, D
Okay. Now, we're coming up to the Coconilla subject, and let
me -- let me set some -- some parameters here, because we have a
large audience, we have a lot of people who want to speak, we have
presentations.
So I'm going to say, first of all, the presenter, Rich Yovanovich,
will be limited to one hour. If he can give his presentation in less
time, I would appreciate that. Then we have North Bay Civic, and
they would like 20 minutes. I'll give them 20 minutes.
Staff won't need any time because they're not requesting this.
Staff will just be there to answer any questions. We love to have them
out there.
I would ask that the commissioners not ask any questions during
these presentations so we can move the process along.
Anyone who has requested to speak, if you've filled out your
slips, great. If you haven't, please fill your slips out. I'm going to
limit every speaker to three minutes.
If you found that somebody before you has given the same
speech you want to give, you can just waive. We'd appreciate it. I'm
sure everybody else in the audience would appreciate it.
Page 104
February 1 O, 2004
After that is completed, the commissioners will then ask their
questions and we will deliberate. Okay? Very good. Proceed. Oh, do we have to swear people in? Is this one of those?
Okay. Before I go on, first of all, let me ask the commissioners,
do they have anything to declare, ex parte? Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, I do. I've met a number of
times with the petitioner and his associates, and I've also gotten a ton
of email from both sides, and I've also talked with staff on this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I can't say that the public
process is falling behind here. I also have -- I've had many meetings
with many people, I have had correspondence, emails, and a number
of phone calls, and this is my file for anybody who's crazy enough to
want to read it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I, too, have had communication,
correspondence, meetings, and so forth, not only here in my office, but
also in my Marco Island office, with -- with all parties concerned. I
have a lot of paperwork here, all, by the way, of which I found very
interesting.
And Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I have a similar stack of
paperwork, communications that are available in my file if anybody
wishes to view them. I have met with people who oppose the project,
I've met with people who support the project, I have met with the
petitioner and his representative, I have discussed issues with them
about building heights, setbacks, densities, and I have spoken to staff
about this.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I have met with the former
property resident, Wiggins Pass Marina, along with staff. I have
Page 105
February 10, 2004
numerous phone calls, emails, and letters, and I received a package
from North Bay Civic Association, and I also talked to staff about it,
and it's all here for anybody that would like to review.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I forgot to mention. I also did two
site visits. Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I did a drive-by.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I love it. Okay.
All those who wish to speak today, please stand so you can be
sworn in. Look at everybody, by the way, and figure three minutes
each person. Know how long you're going to be here. (The speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Rich. Rich, I just have to tell
you, I'm going to be really strict today -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- to keep things rolling. I'm not only
telling you that. I'm really saying that to everyone.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. Good afternoon, and I'm
sure into the evening.
Commissioners, for the record, Rich Yovanovich representing the
petitioner in this matter.
We have several people here on the team that will speak to -- will
be here to answer questions. Not all will be speaking. I'll introduce
the team to you.
Ed Oelschlaeger with the Eco Group will be speaking to you;
Chris Oelschlaeger, also with the Eco Group, will be speaking to you;
Bob Mulhere is the planner on the project; Bob Hall is the architect on
the project. He'll be here to answer questions and make a
presentation; Ron Talone is our transportation consultant. He'll be
available to answer some questions; Duke Woodson is here, who is
our environmental attorney. He'll be making a presentation on the
environmental issues; and Andy Woodruff, also an environmental
consultant, will be here to answer questions; Jo Tecker -- Jo Tucker is
Page 106
February 10, 2004
here from Mac Tec. She will answer environmental questions if you
have questions regarding pollution-related issues; Thad Kirkpatrick,
the owner's representative, is also here; and Ken Huminston, who will
also talk to you on the marina issues if you have questions regarding
that.
The presentation we have will be as follows: I'll give you a
project overview and talk about consistency with the comprehensive
plan; Ed Oelschlaeger will talk to you a little bit about Eco Group and
all the projects they've done in Collier County as well as in Florida;
Chris Oelschlaeger will give you issues overview as well as discuss
the community involvement we've had; Bob Mulhere will talk about
the planning issues related to the project; Mr. Hall will take you
through the architecture and the setback issues; Duke Woodson will
talk to you about environmental issues, listed species, mainly the eagle
and the manatee; then finally I'll wrap it up. And then we'll, I guess,
from what I've heard from the chairman, we'll go to public speakers,
or if you want we can answer questions at that time, whatever's --
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
minutes for North Bay.
MR. YOVANOVICH:
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. YOVANOVICH:
After your hour, then we'll have 20
Okay.
And then we'll go to public speakers.
Okay, okay. With that being said, this
project has been in the process for quite a while. It is the former
Wiggins Pass Marina site, and the property is located on Vanderbilt
Drive at the intersection of Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Drive. It is
an approximate 10.45-acre site, which is currently zoned C-4.
I think it's important that we tell you a little bit about what we're
not so that you understand that there's a lot of information out there,
not all of it has been accurately portrayed.
We are not the Trieste development on Vanderbilt Beach Road.
There are no freshwater springs on our property. We are, in fact,
reducing boat traffic, and we are reducing vehicle traffic from what
Page 107
February 1 O, 2004
currently exists at the site.
We are -- and it's also important to point out that this has always
been private property. It has never been public property. And the
public has never had their unfettered right to come onto this property
and use this property for any purposes, including boat access.
We're adjacent to the county's park and boat launching facility.
We're adjacent to the Cocohatchee PUD that has been approved for
five residential towers. The tallest tower is 20 stories over parking.
And that -- the tallest towers are within 150 feet of our project
boundary.
Our -- another neighbor is the Pelican Isle development, which
has been approved at 11 units per acre.
What we are proposing -- and there has been a change because
the Planning Commission staff report recommended a density of nine
and a half units per acre, so the project has been reduced to 95 units;
85 of those units will be in the residential tower; 10 units will be in
villas.
Because of its reduction in density, the previous request for
height has been reduced. We're talking about one residential tower, 13
stories over parking on the lowest end, and 18 stories -- 17 -- 17
stories over parking on the tallest end.
That resulted in a reduction in 21 stories over parking, so there
was a four-floor reduction at the tallest point in the building, so the
building has shnmken in size, if you will.
The project includes a public use tract for the public to have
access to the water as a right. It will be there preserved in perpetuity.
There will be a public fueling station, of which the net profits from the
public fueling station will be tamed over to Collier County.
There will be additional public parking for the public to have
additional parking spaces at the park, increasing public access to the
waterway. Current configuration-- and we'll be working through the
actual design during the site planning -- yields about 51 additional
Page 108
February 10, 2004
spaces, 29 of which will be boat trailers, 22 of which will be regular
cars.
We will have 52 wet slips to serve the project. That's just a brief
summary.
I wanted to get into the comp. plan issues and tell you how we
got to where we are. This property was originally designated as a C-4
use because at the time the county's comprehensive plan was adopted
in 1989, a marina was a C-4 use. Under the county's 1989
comprehensive plan, we went to the activity center concept, and we
wanted commercial activity to be in the activity centers and get rid of
other non -- non-consistent commercial development.
So there is a density bonus provision that applies to this property
as an encouragement to make not consistent C-4 property convert to
residential, and that is found in your policy number -- it's found in the
density rating system.
The incentive is up to 16 units per acre, density bonus, and
coincidentally there's a cap in the county at 16 units per acre.
There has been some questions as to whether or not that density
bonus provision is, in fact, in compliance with role 9(J)(5) in state
statute. That issue was raised at the Planning Commission. And since
that time, we have gone to the Department of Community Affairs and
asked the question, is that density bonus provision in compliance with
9(J)(5). And for the record I want to hand out DCA's response.
The Department of Community Affairs, who is charged with
reviewing the county's comprehensive plan, in determining whether it
is consistent with state roles and state statutes, has put this issue to
bed. The density bonus system has been found in compliance, it is
effect, and can be applied by the Board of County Commissioners.
And you will see, in looking at your comprehensive plan, that
this density bonus provision did not -- was not limited to the coastal
high -- was not -- the coastal high hazard area was not an area that was
excepted from this density bonus provision.
Page 109
February 10, 2004
There are other areas where the density bonus had specifically
been excepted. The coastal fringe and the urban fringe areas are two
of the areas.
Staff-- your staff has determined -- and I think Mr. Weeks is
available to answer this question, and we did answer this question
previously with the Vanderbilt overlay discussion -- that this density
bonus provision is in effect, it is applicable to this property, and we
are eligible to apply for the density bonus increase.
I do want to point out also that the hurricane evacuation times in
this areas far exceed the adopted level of service, if I can use that
phrase. The standard is 18 hours. With our project, the evacuation
time is about nine and a half hours. So with the density bonus, there is
no danger to human life to get them out if the hurricane comes. We
exceed our density standards.
There has been some information provided about density in the
area, what the surrounding PUDs are. And I just want to let you
know, with that information provided -- and it was provided by the
North Bay Civic Association -- the PUDs in the area, including our
residential density at 95 units, the per acre unit count will be less than
2.1 units per acre with our density increase.
So the area will have a density of less than 2.1 units per acres
with our project. So from an area standpoint, we are under the four
units per acre that people are talking about as well -- and as well as the
three, if you talk about the traffic congestion zone.
The comp. plan also talks about priorities as far as redeveloping
shorelines. It says, priority is given to water-dependent over
water-related uses. And then it says, however, the type of water
dependent use, adjacent land use, and surrounding marina and upland
habitat are all factors to be considered in what development will occur
on the property. All of these factors were considered when we put this
PUD document together.
Surrounding uses to this property is primarily residential,
Page 110
February 10, 2004
consideration was given to providing access to the county's public
boat ramp, consideration was given to the public's fueling needs, and
consideration was also given to providing a public marine supply
store. All of those uses were included in our PUD.
The Coconilla PUD includes both water dependent and
water-related uses. The water dependent uses are the marina as well
as the increased boat trailer parking and additional parking for access
-- for people to get access to the water.
The water-related uses include the public fueling, public marine
supply store, and the residential development. The new marina is
consistent with the county's marina siting criteria in the comp. plan.
We have also been required to prepare a Bald Eagle Management
Plan and a Manatee Protection Plan. If you've read the papers -- or the
paper recently, you will see that your U.S. Fish and Wildlife has
issued a biological opinion regarding both the bald eagle and the
Manatee Protection Plan and have approved our Bald Eagle
Management Plan.
I also want to hand out a letter that we have received from the
Audubon of Florida that addresses the bald eagle issue, because this
has been the issue that people seem to be hanging their hat on as to
why this project is not a good product -- project.
You will see from this letter that Florida Audubon, although they
-- and they do not -- they specifically say they're not endorsing our
project -- they are providing scientific evidence and bases for why
they believe that our eagle management plan will work and will result
in that eagle remaining on the other parcel adjacent to our property.
We have always said that science should rule the decision on the
wildlife issues. We believe that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the experts
on the eagles has weighed in, as well as Audubon of Florida, who are
also experts in this area, have weighed in on this issue, both of which
have stated that our eagle management plan will work.
Our residential project will require a higher level of cleanup of
Page 111
February 1 O, 2004
the different pollutants we have found on the property than any other
form of development, which we believe is also a plus on our project.
The project includes the creation on mangrove areas, and we do
not, in any way, impact any mangroves. We are creating mangroves.
We are not impacting mangroves.
The project addresses -- we've heard the public say, you're taking
away our access to the water, you're taking away our access to the
beach. In an effort to be sensitive to those issues, we have addressed
those issues by providing additional parking for the county parking
facility to provide better access to the water.
The PUD also requires that we will provide a one-million-dollar
payment to the county to provide additional parking, and we've --
we've required that that additional parking be in the North Bay area. It
has to be north of Vanderbilt Beach Road and south of Bonita Beach
Road and west of U.S. 41. That was in an effort to address the
people's concerns that we were somehow taking away a pseudo public
right to water access.
We've also agreed to provide a separate one-million-dollar
payment to address beach access concerns by agreeing to construct the
boardwalk for the beach shuttle that's going to be in Lely Barefoot
Beach.
So we have designed this project with the intent of a -- of having
a public/private partnership to address the concerns that the residents
have expressed, keeping in mind, if the residential development does
not occur, the only buy right development is a C-4 use, and the highest
and best use will not result in the construction of a private marina on
that site.
So we have attempted in our project to address the neighbors'
concerns. We've had a lot of meetings. We believe that our project is
in the best interest of the people immediately surrounding this project
as well as the citizens of Collier County.
That was a brief overview of the project. At this time I'll mm it
Page 112
February 10, 2004
over to Ed Oelschlaeger to take you through briefly Eco Group, and
then he'll follow up with his son, Chris.
ED OELSCHLAEGER: Good aftemoon, Madam Chairman and
members of the commission.
I've had the distinct pleasure of meeting with each of you except
Commissioner Henning, and I wanted to take just a couple minutes to
give you a quick overview of what our company is about and what it
is that we're proposing in this community.
Eco Group has been in business for 16 years and developing in
Collier County for that period of time. I can also tell you that I
personally have been working in Collier County now for 32 years and
have seen an awful lot of changes over that period of time.
We've had -- our family has had the pleasure of having a
residence in the county for 16 years as well, and this is certainly
considered our home. We also have a home in Tampa, so we're back
and forth literally constantly.
Echo Group's mission is very simple and very straightforward.
We build projects that speak to the human spirit. And what does that
mean? That means that we don't try to do things that are ordinary.
We try to do things that are extraordinary. And in that respect, we
work very hard at accomplishing residential communities that exceed
the expectations of our stakeholders.
That also means that that's everybody that we come in contact
and we deal with, that includes the residents, the people that purchase
our residences, but also, and importantly, the community at large in
which we find ourselves living and'working. And that's the mission of
our company. It's a high standard, and we set those goals and expect
to achieve them. We expect to achieve them as well in Coconilla.
Let me just give you a very quick overview of some of the things
that we have done statewide. Here's Pelican Isle Yacht Club, which I
think you're all familiar with, which is virtually adjacent to the
Coconilla project.
Page 113
February 10, 2004
Secondly -- that's another shot of Pelican Isle as well.
This is Barefoot Beach Club up in the north end of the county.
This project consisted of 348 units, was finished in the early 90's.
Sancerre is a project that we just completed the end of last year.
Project CO'd in November, and it's on the beach in the City of Naples.
Sanibel Golf Villages is on Sanibel Island. We did that project
back in the mid 90's as well.
Vizcaya up in Long Boat Key is a 32-unit, very high end
residential project, also completed in the mid to late 90's.
Tides Beach Club in North Redington Beach, which is Pinellas
County. Again, a sample of the kinds of communities that we have
built over the last 15, 16 years.
The site in particular, Coconilla, interestingly enough, prior to
1970, that site was residential. It was only after 1970 that the marina
use came into play.
The local family here that has owned that property now for over
30 years, there was a -- the former marina operator was a tenant, but
the family has owned that property and has paid taxes now for over 30
years.
It is now held in trust. The fiduciaries, the trustees, made the
decision to sell that property two years ago. Eco Group was fortunate
enough to have been selected to develop that property in conjunction
with them, and we're proud to be doing so.
We submitted an application to rezone the property 18 months
ago, 18 months ago this month. We've worked now with staff, and it
has been a delight really working with them and through the issues
that have been raised over these past 18 months, and I compliment
them highly for the work that they have done on your behalf and the
citizens of the county as well.
We've worked with the neighbors and the community in general
and the community at large, and we've listened, and we've tried to
respond as best we can.
Page 114
February 1 O, 2004
Our vision for the property is that it be a landmark building,
something that, for generations, people can understand and see and be
proud of as a community in total.
We ended up changing our plans three different times. I won't
take you through the evolution in any kind of detail, but essentially we
started out with two 22 stories; we ended up with one building that is
staggered in height, which, I think, architecturally -- and you'll see in
some detail about that -- it's quite exciting and it's quite attractive.
We are disappointed in One thing in particular, and this is, we
have worked -- tried to work with the North Bay Civic Association
over the past 18 months unsuccessfully. They have -- they have -- in
our opinion, have been an activist without really any objective, and
they've been obstructionists rather than working with us to come to a
common solution.
The -- they don't represent the community at large even though
they hold themselves out to do that. You will hear today from some of
the folks that are here that they do not, in fact, speak for them.
I would conclude my remarks by saying to you and asking you to
listen to the facts on the advantages of the residential use of this
property versus a commercial use and make your decision based on
the facts and not the emotions that you will hear from some of the few
people that are least affected by what is ultimately built on this
property.
Thank you very much.
CHRIS OELSCHLAEGER: Good afternoon, Commissioners.
My name is Chris Oelschlaeger. I'm the vice-president of Eco Group.
It's my job today to provide an overview of the issues attendant
to the question of, how do we use this very valuable parcel of land.
Toward that end, we've prepared a series of slides that will
summarize the benefits of our residential proposal in each of the key
areas that we feel must be considered in order to make the best
decision for our neighborhood.
Page 115
February 10, 2004
These slides are just an overview, and that will be followed by
experts who will provide the -- the details behind any assertions and
answer any questions that you may have.
Okay. There are predictable implications for both residential and
commercial uses of this site. We can look at these implications and
gain insight as to what outcome is in the best interest of the
neighborhood. I would like to take you through those.
One question that has been swirling around this debate is -- is,
will a marina be rebuilt if the zoning remains commercial? This is a
crucial thing to get a handle on. Obviously property use, the way you
use a piece of land determines what its value is.
And it's important to recognize that zoning does not determine
what will be built on a given parcel of land. It simply says what
category of business can be built. The market then determines what is
of the highest and best use.
And so saying no to residential means saying yes to whatever
commercial alternative the market prefers. Clearly, a hotel or a
shopping center will be selected by the market before a marina use.
Thus, we must decide this question of land use based on the realistic
options before us. And I would really emphasize the word realistic,
because it's really the market that is determining what will be done
within the boundary that you, as our commissioners, set for this
property.
One of the other major concerns that we have worked very hard
to address is public water access, because that's one of the things that
will be changing with the downgrade in zoning. As my dad
mentioned, this was always a private marina, and water access from
this facility for paying customers of the boat storage and the repair, of
the rental services.
Public water access, truly public water access, was and will
continue to be through the Cocohatchee River Park immediately next
door.
Page 116
February 1 O, 2004
Okay. Having said that, we didn't -- we didn't want to rest on our
laurels there. We wanted to say, what else can be done? And we have
some very, I think, powerful initiatives to further mitigate and enhance
the beach and boat access in our neighborhood.
We're offering an initiative up to one million dollars to construct
a dock and boardwalk out on the bay side of Lely Barefoot Beach.
What this would allow the county to do is operate a beach shuttle and
take people by water out to the beach. Wouldn't that be a wonderful
addition to the neighborhood and a great experience for visitors here?
And, again, it's a great example of how a-- the residential
proposal can really help elevate the neighborhood and take it to the
next level.
As we mentioned, we're talking about establishing a
one-million-dollar public water access mitigation fund. Again, that's
earmarked for the North Bay area and is designed to provide greater
access for boats and car parking so that they can -- they can get to the
water.
And, again, the land easement which will facilitate the expansion
of the parking at the current park and provide an additional 50 boat
and car parking spaces; 50 total spaces.
Okay. What other implications are there of residential zoning?
We can say factually that it will generate significantly less vehicle
traffic on Vanderbilt Drive. We feel that's a very important thing for
you to consider.
Cleaner water and soil. That's fundamental to the health of our
estuary and all of our property values and the lifestyle that we enjoy.
Residential zoning will offer that above any other choice.
Healthier manatee and eagle. Again, we have a number of
people here who are prepared to answer your questions on this subject
today. But I don't want to say we feel. We can demonstrate that we
are going to benefit these denizens of our estuary by converting the
use to residential.
Page 117
February 1 O, 2004
Those benefits will be in the form of cleaner soil, cleaner water,
safer food, reduce noise, et cetera. There's some very real and very
certain benefits to the manatee and the eagle, as well as the dolphin
and all of our other friends that live out there that come with
residential zoning.
This is a more subjective point. We feel very strongly that what
we are proposing will offer improved neighborhood views and
aesthetics.
Dramatic increase in tax and other revenue to Collier County, I
think, is something we should also not overlook. There is no stronger
economic engine that we could create in terms of the revenue coming
to you and us as a county.
Again, just to look at each of those points in a little bit more
detail. We want to note that residential properties -- and this is
reported to us by our experts -- generate significantly less traffic than
commercial properties both in and out of tourist season.
So regardless of the time of year, if we're concerned about the
safety issues on Vanderbilt Drive which congestion will create, then
the residential proposal will go a long way toward -- toward mitigating
that.
Again with pollution. The former marina had a variety of
activities that occurred on the site, engine repair, hull scraping,
painting, fueling, boat storage. If you walk into those boat barns
today, you will see, underneath where each boat was stored, at the
bottom of the rack, there's a large stain on the floor, and it actually
stands up slightly from the concrete. And it's petroleum products from
where those engines dripped year after year. And then the rain comes
through and washes all of that into the soil and right into the estuary.
The residential proposal not only will clean up what was
previously omitted, but then also will eliminate the activity so that it
doesn't continue to be produced. So there's a very real, very tangible
benefit to converting to residential.
Page 118
February 10, 2004
Examples of the poisons that we found -- and, again, we have
experts who can speak with much more authority than I on this subject
-- include carcinogens such as MTBE, which is a gasoline additive,
arsenic, which is a poison, and copper, which is a metal.
We've found these toxins in the soil, in the water, as well as in
the bottom sediments where they've been being washed in over the
last two and a half decades.
Another very important point that we hope you'll take into
consideration is that residential communities must meet significantly
higher standards for cleanup versus residential (sic) properties. Saying
yes to residential means saying yes to the most stringent guidelines for
pollutants under the law. Saying yes to commercial means saying yes
to a more liberal set of guidelines for our estuary.
And I would ask, you know, do we want to have to explain to
future generations why we didn't do everything necessary to make that
water as clean as it possible can be? Do we want to embrace a lower
standard for pollution in our estuary?
Obviously the manatee are a very important concern here. Of the
different species involved, they are the most threatened. We'd like to
say that manatee would vote for residential, because we're talking
about a massive reduction in boat traffic, which is the primary hazard
to the manatee.
Secondary hazard though, of course, is swimming in water filled
with copper and arsenic and MTBE. It's also hazardous to eat the food
that grows in those waters.
And so, again, we feel very strongly that the elimination of the
transient boat traffic, the improvement in the water quality, will be a
tremendous benefit to the manatee.
Views and aesthetics. We think it's very important to note that
our plan creates a 250-foot wide view corridor over the south end of
the site. What this means is that people are going to be able to see the
estuary from that road for the first time in two and a half decades.
Page 119
February 10, 2004
That is an aesthetic improvement.
Right now you're looking at a barbed wire fence and an
aluminum boat barn, and I think people are just used to seeing that.
What it's our job as developers to do is to bring the vision in terms of
just how good it really could look and point out that there's a huge
opportunity for improvement here.
Let's see. I also wanted to mention that our plan features not only
professional landscaping but native plants. We want to be sure and
create as much habitat as possible. I wish I could take credit for this
idea, but it's a good example of the benefit that came from all of the
collaboration we did with different environmental groups in town in
terms of finding ways that we could really be good neighbors and
good citizens. And native plants was an easy idea that came up that
will allow us to recreate the coastal environment that was here, you
know, over a hundred years ago.
Okay. Staying on the subject of aesthetics and just -- I'll move
quickly. This is a computer rendered-- it's a photograph, and then the
building in the photograph is created by computer to give you an idea,
what is this building going to look like if you're out on the pass.
We took it from a little higher angle because it's really hard to see
the building if you're all the way down on the water. We wanted you
to be able to see. That's -- that's what we're talking about.
On the extreme left side of the frame you can see Tower Pointe,
which is a building that is similar to what we propose.
Now we're facing north. You can see Pelican Isle on the far left
side. As you can also see, our building setbacks are very comparable.
And if you look at the extreme foreground, in some cases greater than
what exists today. So we've pushed it as far back the road -- from the
road as possible.
Facing south. Again, just to give you another perspective. This
is Tower Pointe in the extreme right foreground, and our building is
over on the left side of the frame.
Page 120
February 1 O, 2004
It's a misnomer that there are no high-rises in our area. This is
Cove Towers. I believe these are 17-story buildings, or in that
neighborhood. And, again, you can see that not only are we
compatible with what's there now, but we're not blocking anybody's
views.
This is what you would see today if you were stopped in a car at
the intersection of Wiggins Pass. We're facing west in this shot. I
wanted to show you this, because it's going to illustrate just how much
better it can be.
This is the boat barn that exists today, and then this is what we
would propose to do. As you can see, we're going to have
landscaping, a guardhouse, and a view out over the estuary.
This is that same shot; we're just a little higher. Again, we think
that we can turn something that is a commercial site and very
industrial in appearance into a beautiful residential setting that
everyone can be proud of.
Here's the site again today. Again, you can see where a lot of the
engine and hull scraping and painting activities used to take place.
We would transform this from this commercial use to something that
looked like this. I'll just go back. From there, to there (indicating).
Finally, we have a shot taken from farther east down Wiggins
Pass Road. We're looking west now into the side of the boat barn. It's
essentially the same angle that we were looking at closer a minute ago.
And you'll have to look close, but if you look at that boat barn,
we're goingto change it to this. And I'd like to point out that our
building, the actual building is in this picture. It's on the other side of
these trees. And so we wanted to show you, if we could see through
the trees, if they were transparent, there's where the building would be.
So let me go back.
Now, there's a knee-jerk reaction to development, and everybody
is concerned about the way this is going to look. It's going to be very,
very well blended with our surroundings in our site to the point where
Page 121
February 1 O, 2004
you won't even be able to see the building until you get right up on the
intersection. We think that's an important point.
Okay, finally -- and I'll keep -- keep the pace up here -- economic
benefits of residential are substantially higher than the economic
benefits offered by any other use. Those include property taxes of
over $1.5 million every year.
Now, just by way of analogy -- I don't mean this literally -- but I
want to point out that that is enough money to dredge every single
pass in Collier County every year essentially, in perpetuity, as long as
the building was there. We're talking about a very large amount of
income. If we go with another use, we're going to forego a large
percentage of that.
One time impact fees. I know this has been a hot topic today.
We estimate ours will be just over $800,000 again. And I also wanted
to point out that, unlike other residential proposals, ours doesn't bring
with it an infrastructure burden.
Typically impact fees are designed to help pay for the extra
schools, the extra roads, the extra infrastructure that has to go in to
support the people that will be living there. In this case, the impact fee
is almost all gravy.
Estimated annual spending. What are our residents going to
spend on shoes and pizza and all of the things that we buy when we
live somewhere? Well, very conservatively estimated at over $15.7
million a year in spending in all the local businesses around town, the
deli down the street, the dry cleaners, et cetera. Again, you know, this
is a very important benefit to all of the people that live around us.
And I would like to say that that $15.7 million is every year, and
it is seasonally adjusted. If we were to look at that in terms of
year-round residents, it would be more than double. It's a very
conservative number.
Okay. Again, I wanted to just summarize the benefits in terms of
the boat and beach access mitigation initiatives. The county will
Page 122
February 1 O, 2004
receive additional dollars from the boat fuel sales to the public.
We're talking about a million dollars in beach access mitigation
in order to create the beach shuttle, a million dollars for public water
access, expanded boat trailer parking, and, of course, the actual
expanded parking at the park itself.
Our plan -- just with regard to the first bullet point, our plan
includes the creation of a wonderful ship store. This is going to be a
facility where you can get anything you need for a day on the water
and should be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Again,
helping to enhance the lifestyle that everyone is here to enjoy and take
it to the next level.
Okay. Again, in conclusion, I'd just like to point out that is a
complex decision, and these are long-term implications that will come
out of the decision you make today.
It's going to affect the economic, the aesthetic, and the
environmental health of our neighborhood for decades. And I urge
you to please weigh all of the different factors and balance them in
order to come up with the best solution for our neighborhood.
Those benefits include a significant reduction in vehicle traffic,
cleaner water and soil, healthier manatee and eagles, improve
neighborhood views and aesthetics, annual property taxes of over $1.5
million per year, impact fees, fuel revenue, enhanced public beach
access, enhanced public water access, and expanded parking.
As you can see, a residential use offers an impressive array of
benefits to our community. If we reject this proposal, we will be
turning our back on this bundle of benefits. How can we logically
justify this?
Certainly, a residential use isn't perfect, but it is far and away
much better than any of the realistic alternatives, and I think that's --
that's really the key point.
Our next speaker is Bob Mulhere of RWA, Incorporated. Mr.
Mulhere and the experts who will follow will provide you with all the
Page 123
February 10, 2004
facts and figures required to support all the points that we just made.
We urge you as our leaders to consider these facts, balance them
against the pros and cons offered by the alternative commercial uses in
order to determine what's best for the land.
Finally, I'd just like to say, that we know it isn't easy to walk in
your shoes, especially given the negative attitude that many of Collier
County citizen have toward any type of new development. This
proposal, this development, is exemplary development and should not
be lumped in with the bad experiences of the past.
Please make the right decision. Allow logic to prevail over
emotion.
Please, say yes to residential. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. MULHERE: That just cut my presentation short by another
minute.
For the record, Bob Mulhere with RWA, Inc. My purpose in
being here, my role in being here is to talk a little bit more about the
planning issues, and I will try very hard not to be repetitive and I'll try
to go over these issues as quickly as possible.
We've had some discussion about the site plan, and I just want to
go over briefly some of the components of the site plan.
As was indicated, we're talking about a tiered building that
currently -- based on the staff recommendation to reduce the density to
95 units or 9.5 units per acre -- goes from 13 stories to 17 stories.
Significant reduction in height from the original proposal, and as I
think Mr. Oelschlaeger indicated earlier, we'd gone through three or
four renditions on the site plan, starting out with two 22-story
buildings.
I did want to point out briefly the park interface, which is shown
at the bottom of the screen. And I feel that is very important. I think
Rich indicated that that -- that design -- which will utilize 30 feet of
our property to maximize the parking at the park and will result in
Page 124
February 10, 2004
some 50 additional spaces, 29 boat trailer spaces and 21 plus or minus
vehicle parking spaces -- that design is not final.
We agreed in meeting with your transportation staff that there
would need to be some final design at the point of site development
plan, because another component of this design is to allow users of the
park to potentially get egress to the light here at Wiggins -- at Wiggins
Pass.
Currently those folks have to exit at the park entrance and exit up
here. And turning north is a difficult movement, especially for those
trailering a boat.
So we will have to redesign this a little bit and try to provide for
a safe egress as well as adequate stacking, and we will work with the
staff to do that at the site development plan stage.
As you can see, the plan has very luxurious landscaping along
Vanderbilt, and the setbacks are very substantial, ranging from 150
feet to more than 200 feet at the north.
Most of the changes that have occurred in the plan have been the
result of really hundreds of hours of discussions with residents,
neighbors, special interest groups, and the staff, and in addition to that,
our meetings at the EAC and the Planning Commission.
We talked a lot about an alternative plan, the buy right plan,
which is those uses that would be permitted under the C-4 zoning.
And I'd like to just walk you through some examples of those.
Obviously, if the property is not developed for residential
purposes, the property owners will still be looking to achieve a return
on their long-term investment into this property, and the only option
that will be available to them will be those uses that are permitted
under the C-4 district. And the C-4 district allows for a wide array of
commercial uses.
One of the things that we did in order to be well prepared was to
seek out the professional guidance and design assistance from others
who have greater experience in commercial development.
Page 125
February 10, 2004
My client is a residential developer and does not have experience
in commercial development, so we asked the Sembler Company to
take a look at the site. The Sembler Company has designed several
shopping centers in Collier County, and they're one of the largest
commercial developers in the southeast. And they came up with this
plan, which results in about 116,000 square feet of commercial space.
One of the misnomers about this site is that I think a lot of folks
are under the impression that we have a great deal of water frontage,
which we do not. We have 90 feet. Thank you. We have about 90
feet of water frontage.
And so this plan does orient those uses that would benefit from
that water exposure to that location.
In here we have a restaurant on the first floor and office on the
second floor. About a 3,600 square foot restaurant and about 11,000
square foot worth of office space.
Over here is a grocery store. That's the smaller prototype Publix
store, and I suppose other-- other grocers are also coming up with that
prototype. It's 28,000 square feet.
Up here we have retail on the first floor with office on the second
floor. I do want to point out that the C-4 zoning allows a building
height of 75 feet. We have not maximized this site plan. We have
really only developed two-story buildings on this site plan. Retail,
which works well on the first floor, and office on the second.
Certainly, if the market is there, you could have additional floors
of office up to 75 feet in height. Another restaurant here, and a
convenience store here.
An alternative plan, same site, just slightly different. Again, you
have the 28,000 square foot grocery store, the restaurant, the office.
You have office here, you have a convenience store that's been pushed
a little bit more to the center of the site, and this includes a 14,000
square foot drug store, an Eckerd's, a Walgreens, a CVS, something
along those lines.
Page 126
February 1 O, 2004
And with the amount of development in that area, there's no
question that there is a market for these uses.
I think the other or most significant point is the trip generation.
And Ron Talone of David Plummer and Associates, who is with the
project team and is here today, prepared an analysis of those trip
generation rates, and within the shopping center that you have before
you, the average daily trips would be at 7,290 trips as compared to 582
trips under the proposed residential scenario, which is more than --
quite a bit more than 10 times the number of trips.
Just for comparison purposes, the former marina, based on IT trip
generation numbers, would generate about 1,200 trips, so about 50
percent of what the proposed residential use will generate. And again,
that number for the shopping center, 7,300, and 580 for the residential
use.
As I indicated, we've tried to work with everybody over the last
18 months to address all of the issues that have arisen. We've
significantly reduced the density. We've significantly reduced the
height. We've increased the setbacks, we have increased the
landscaping, and we've added to the project several public/private
initiatives that would address any perception or any reality of losing
beach or boater access to the water.
And so, I think in conclusion-- I'm certainly available for
questions -- but the significant issues I'd like to put on the record,
we're consistent with the comprehensive plan, we've addressed every
single item that's been raised by the staff, we've tried to address every
single legitimately reasonable item that's been raised by those other
citizens who have been kind enough to work with us through this
process, and we believe we have a plan that is far superior than that
plan right there, far superior from the perspective of those folks who
live the closest to it and will be most impacted by it. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. HALL: Good afternoon, Madam Chairman,
Page 127
February 10, 2004
Commissioners. My name is Robert Hall, and I'll try to make this
brief.
I'm the architect on the project. I'm the executive vice president
with Curts, Gaines, Hall, Jones Architects. Our office is located in
Tampa.
And although my firm does work all over Florida, we've been
involved in several well-known projects in the Naples area from the
late 1970's through today. Among them are Barefoot Beach Club,
Pelican Isle, Sancerre, and now Coconilla for Eco Group, a
relationship that spans over 15 of those years.
We have also been fortunate enough to have worked with several
distinguished developers on many other local communities, such as
the Terraces, Cove Towers, the Seasons, Tower Pointe, Belize
(phonetic) and Vera Cruz. We were also the original planners on the
Vineyards and Pelican Landing, to name a few.
I met and married my wife here and have many friends and
relatives that live in Florida year-round.
I've travelled to and worked in Collier County for the past 25
years. And as a result, not only have a keen awareness of the unique
environment that is Naples, but am profoundly obligated to be a
steward for its sensible growth, and I care very much about what
happens in this community.
As an architect, my primary responsibility, other than making
sure buildings don't fall down, is to bring a sense of place, order, and
beauty to those projects.
Coconilla is a shining example of that effort. It represents the
culmination of many talented, experienced, and thoughtful people that
are attempting to realize the vision of a very smart developer.
Ed Oelschlaeger is one who can recognize a diamond in the
rough. Take the neighbor immediately to the south, Pelican Isle. That
property stood dormant for many, many years as a failed attempt to
recognize the potential for beauty. It is now one of the most
Page 128
February 10, 2004
recognizable and beautiful communities in the county.
Coconilla is poised for that very same rebirth. In fact, it has gone
through the planning process and input from the community with
several modifications which you've heard along the way, and
culminating into what we present today.
And we have the site plan up. The shape and positioning of the
main building accomplishes many objectives that were gleaned from
understanding of the site as well as the concerns of the planning staff
and neighbors alike.
The large setback of over 250 feet from the southern boundary
creates a wonderful view corridor as one approaches the site from
Wiggins Pass Road.
It's interesting to note, and as Chris pointed out earlier, that the
building cannot even be seen from Wiggins until almost to the
intersection due to the tree line along its northern edge as well as the
tree line that we plan to put along our eastern boundary.
The view corridor is in alignment (sic) by the placement of the
southern leg of the marina so that one is first treated to a vista of boats
and water. This actually will go a long way to establishing a gateway
to the North Naples Community from Wiggins Pass Road.
In the -- in addition, the setback from Vanderbilt Drive is in
excess of 250 feet from the center of the road or 150 feet to the eastern
boundary from the closest and lowest point of the main building.
These generous distances and setbacks and nonparallel
alignments represent a sensitive response to the community concern of
an imposing building.
They also afford a dramatic foreground for what is planned as a
lushly landscaped entry sequence, arrival court and gatehouse.
Rounding out the plan is the inclusion of 10 two-story marina
villas along the marina, amenity spaces, such as pools, spas, fountains,
and gardens, marine promenade and basin, as well as the ship store at
the southwest comer.
Page 129
February 1 O, 2004
When the setbacks and alignments to Vanderbilt Drive are
considered and compared to that of other projects in the area, such as
the recently completed and much touted Trieste, one must pay
attention to those intrinsic relationships. Trieste is only 100 feet off of
Vanderbilt Road, and more importantly, is virtually on access with
Vanderbilt Drive.
Trieste is also a high-rise building and approximately 230 feet
tall with no real stepping, terracing, or other scale-reducing features.
These are fundamental differences between the two projects and
must be recognized as such for any informed comparison.
In addition, Coconilla is a wonderful transition from its
surrounding neighbors. At 13 to 17 stories over parking, it creates
harmony with Pelican Isle to the south at 11 stories, Cove Towers to
the southeast at 14 to 17 stories, Cocohatchee PUD to the north at 22
stories, and Tower Pointe at 17 stories farther to the north.
I stress to you that this use, luxury high-rise residential, and the
design presented today is not only compatible with all of its neighbors,
but if realized, will be among the finest built in all of Naples.
Put another exhibit up. Tough when the architect can't get the
orientation right.
The architectural design of Coconilla takes its cues from the very
boats that will grace its edges. From the subtle curves of the plane to
the gentle stepping effect of the mast, the design is distinctively
nautical, not in style, but in attitude and character.
The architectural appearance in one sense may be deemed
sophisticated boathouse, in another it is old Florida, or island chic.
Whatever the style nametag, great attention has been given to the roof
lines. With great emphasis placed on how it meets the sky. It's a very
important key.
Curving and stepping and terracing down from 18 stories on the
-- to the north to 14 stories to the south create a drama and an aesthetic
that is truly unique to the traditional approach of condominium design.
Page 130
February 10, 2004
The stepping effect, combined with intricate roof and terrace forms is
further enhanced by subtly distinctive use of color and rustication of
the building's base and key elements. This helps to define the building
in smaller components, thus reducing its scale. And this is sort of like
a Brahms piano concerto as opposed to a Metallic concert.
With that, we have lots of facts, but I think we're running out of
time and we certainly --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Seven minutes left.
MR. HALL: -- stand ready to tell you those facts if you deem
necessary.
MR. WOODSON: Good afternoon. My name is Duke
Woodson. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Foley and Lardner
from Orlando, Florida. My responsibility on this project is to assist
with the permits for listed species for manatees and eagles. I do this
for a living around the State of Florida, often brought onto project
teams, legal teams, solely to assist with permitting through the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for threatened and endangered species.
I'll get to the end of the story first. We recently received
biological opinions from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
for the manatee and for the eagle.
From the United States Fish and Wildlife Service biological
opinion, they came to this conclusion on this project as to the manatee.
The project as proposed is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of the manatee and is not likely to adversely modify critical
habitat.
From the United States Fish and Wildlife Service biological
opinion on the eagle, from their conclusion, the project as proposed is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of bald eagles. No
critical habitat has been designated for this species, therefore, none
will be affected. Fish and Wildlife Service is happy.
How do we get to the end of the story and how does the
endangered species affect your consideration of this comprehensive
Page 131
February 10, 2004
plan?
We are dealing with the Fish and Wildlife Service because we
filed an application with the Corps of Engineers for dredging the
marina. Because we need a permit from the Corps of Engineers, we
must consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Fish and Wildlife Service makes the recommendation to the
Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers in this case will issue the
permit to us because we've passed the test with the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
What does that mean to you? Your county comprehensive plan
requires us to, in effect, go through the same process that we've gone
through with the Fish and Wildlife Service. We must submit a
biological evaluation of the species. Your staff reviews that, the Fish
and Wildlife Service reviews that.
We submit proposed conditions, a protection plan, it's called, for
the manatee, and a management plan, it's called, for the eagles; two
sets of conditions which are submitted to the federal agencies and to
your staff.
We expect, and your comprehensive plan contemplates that those
conditions that have been approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service
will be incorporated into your approval.
So that's -- that's the process in a nutshell, and I will let Rich
finish, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Rich, we've got three minutes left.
Sorry to put you on --
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. What we're going to do,
Commissioner, if you will, is -- you've heard a lot. I don't want to be
repetitive. You're going to hear from a lot of different people, as is
customary, you'll give us the final word, I'll reserve time to respond to
that at this point and go ahead and honor your one -- the one-hour
commitment we made to you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
Page 132
February 1 O, 2004
MR. YOVANOVICH: And we'll go ahead and summarize and
respond to questions after the public.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you very much. By
the way, excellent presentation, excellent. (Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now we will invite the North Bay
Civic Association to come up and give us their 20-minute
presentation. I don't know who's here from that group. Okay, great.
And just for clarification, you have 20 minutes. At -- looks like
at 2:30, we will then take a 1 O-minute break for our stenographer, and
then we will come back and hear from the audience, or from the
speakers, registered speakers.
MR. WEIGEL: Madam Chairman, county attorney has a
question, that is, for those that are coming in from the hallway will
need to respond for the record if they have been sworn in prior to
testimony.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Have you been sworn in?
MR. BROOKES: Not yet.
(The speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. BROOKES: There's a number of people outside and there's
a number of people downstairs. I apologize for taking time to get in
here. That's -- that's why I was late.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Your name, sir, for the record.
MR. BROOKES: Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Ralph Brookes.
I'm an attorney. I'm representing the North Bay Civic Association and
Save Our Marina.
Let's talk about -- a little bit about what's really going on.
Here you'll see an article from Soundings magazine. It's known
nationwide as a waterfront real estate magazine, as a waterfront
boaters' magazine, and a magazine of people who boat and enjoy
living near and on the water.
Page 133
February 10, 2004
Our real estate market is driven not just by high-rises on the
water, it's driven by people who move here to go boating. It's a driver
in our economy.
It drives not only our real estate business, it drives our
recreational fishing, our retirement industry. Our economic
development is tied to our environment and the ability to access that
environment for recreation.
What's happening is developers are not getting approved for new
marinas. It's very difficult, so they'd rather go buy an existing marina
and convert it to residential use. That's what's happening here.
What is the danger of this? Today's Fort Myers News Press -- I
know you're in Collier County and this is Lee County, but we are
Southwest Florida together.
Dock permits were halted again yesterday in Lee County. You
can't get a single-family dock for your house. The common man is
losing out. They're losing out to developers on one side taking over the
waterfront, they're losing out to federal regulators on the other side,
state regulators. They're getting trapped in between everyone.
They're getting squeezed. The common man has no place to boat
anymore, almost literally.
Existing dry docks, such as this one in Naples. If you could pull
it down a little bit more. The North Naples dry docks are gone to
condominium. These things are selling like hot cakes. People are
paying $300,000 for dry slips, not only in Southwest Florida, but in
the Keys.
You have existing resources. One of these existing resources is
the Wiggins Pass Marina. You can see it there. Over 450 dry slips
that are going to be lost.
This is where the common man comes on a first come, first serve
basis to keep their boats, launch their boats. It's a wholly appropriate
place to be launching boats, especially boats of the size that are kept in
dry dock.
Page 134
February 10, 2004
You can see how close it is to the Wiggins Pass, how, literally,
it's just a hop, skip, and jump out to the Gulf of Mexico. It doesn't
involve driving through manatee zones that you have in Lee County.
It doesn't involve a lot of those same issues. You have a perfect
location. It's a perfect place to be.
All around the state it's happening. I went to this conference
(indicating). It's a conference of land use lawyers and planning
lawyers, recreational boating, waterway management and the
environment. It's a big issue all around the state.
I went to this conference setting up anchorages and mooring
fields, places for people to keep their boats. We are not doing
maritime zoning. They're going into the waterways at Matanzas Pass,
they're going into the waterways of other parts of the -- of the state
and Naples Bay.
They're starting to regulate even the marine environment so
you'll have a place to keep you boat and keep the user conflicts
together.
We have in Collier County the comprehensive plan. With
foresight, we did adopt shoreline priority uses. Those priority uses say
that we're supposed to have dry storage first, then marinas and wet
storage, and then last of all residential use on our waterfront.
We want to keep the waterfront available for boaters because
they're not making any more of it, and what God has made, they're not
giving permits for any more. So it's real important that we preserve
each and every one of these boat slips.
Meanwhile, there's also a policy about coastal high hazard area
and four dwelling units per acre, even if you do get credits for moving
from a noncommercial node to another area and converting
commercial that's not in a commercial node to residential.
We don't want to convert commercial on the waterfront to
residential because you can't get any more. You can never get it back.
There's two cases that are real important. One is the Snyder
Page 135
February 1 O, 2004
versus Brevard County Commission, and that case set up the standard
for rezonings.
First of all, a rezoning has to be consistent with each and every
policy of the comprehensive plan. That means each and every policy
individually, not as a whole, but individually, as well as a whole.
We think this is inconsistent with the policies that established
shoreline waterfront uses. It says dry docks have first -- first choice
there, then wet slips, and then, last of all, the residential. That will be
inconsistent with that, it also would be inconsistent with the more than
four dwelling units per acre in the hazard area, which you want to
keep for boating type uses.
The court -- the supreme court said, after it's looked at for
consistency, say, arguably, you find it to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan. You can still deny their rezoning if there's a
legitimate public purpose that is furthered by the existing zoning
category.
Here you have that. Boaters keep their boats there. You are
short in boat slips. You're getting shorter every day. They're shutting
down single-family docks. That's a legitimate public purpose.
Somewhere in here -- it looks like I left it outside -- I had an
MLS listing saying this particular house is the perfect solution for the
closing of Wiggins Pass Marina. It has a boat slip behind it. So even
though you're getting kicked out of Wiggins Pass Marina, you can go
buy a house that has a boat slip behind it, and they offered that as the
perfect solution for closing Wiggins Pass Marina.
It's not a perfect solution. You know, people that live in houses
that aren't on the water are going to need places to keep their boat.
And right now they utilize that area that's there.
Pine Crest versus Scheidel (phonetic) said that if something is
approved and it's inconsistent with the comp. plan, and the developer
goes ahead, the building can be tom down.
In Martin County, the Pine Crest case, it was a multi-family
Page 136
February 1 O, 2004
building, people had moved in, families moved in. And they went all
the way up and down the court system, finally up to the supreme
court, and they actually ordered the demolition of those buildings after
they were constructed.
So it's important to get it right for the first time, not just for my
clients and for their clients and for the public that utilizes the
waterfront space, but people that are going to be moving in there,
people that are relying on your approvals to be consistent with law.
Because if they're not, they could be forced out or the buildings tom
down.
I'm going to defer the rest of my time to other members of our
organization. I'll be able to answer any questions if you have them.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MR. EDSON: Hi. My name is Gary Edson, and I wanted to
have you-- you want to go ahead -- we have to do something
technical here, and neither one of us are dreadfully skilled at this.
Okay. We're going to try this again.
Good aftemoon, Madam Chairman and Commissioners. And for
the record, my name is Gary Edson, and I'm on the board of directors
for the North Bay Civic Association.
I'm actually a little sad to be here today, it's so beautiful outside.
I'm sure you'd like to be out there, and that's why we live in Southwest
Florida, but this is an important issue for all of us.
Our organization's members live in the area to the west of U.S.
41, bounded by Bonita Beach Road to the north and 11 lth Avenue to
the south.
The Growth Management Plan is Collier County's constitution.
Among its many important mandates is the coordination of coastal
population densities with the Regional Hurricane Evacuation Plan.
The dashed line on this section of the Future Land Use Map
depicts a coastal high hazard area. A zone especially prone to flood
Page 137
February 1 O, 2004
and wind damage in hurricanes.
The marina property, the subject of today's rezone hearing, is
almost entirely within the coastal high zone -- coastal high hazard
area. The conservation and coastal management element of our
Growth Management Plan in goal 12 provides that the county shall
make every reasonable effort to ensure the public's safety, health and
welfare of people and property from the effects of hurricane storm
damage.
In policy 12.2.2, we see a reference to a limit in permissible
coastal density. A maximum of four units per gross acre for new
residential density.
And note this is not a density averaged out over the entire county.
It's tied to the gross acreage of the property under consideration.
Objective 10.1 is similarly revealing. It says, priorities for
shoreline -- shoreline land use shall be given to water dependent uses
over water-related land uses. The word shall is not to be taken lightly.
It leaves no option other than to follow the associated charge.
We see here that -- the priorities that the county shall apply are
for the public boat ramps first then commercial marina over private
marinas.
Objective 10.2 is an imperative that the county shall continue to
ensure that access to beaches, shores, and waterways remain available
to the public.
Policy 12.2.2 in the conservation and coastal management
element shows that new residential development in the coastal high
hazard area is limited to a maximum of four dwelling units per gross
acre.
The Land Development Code also authorizes the Board of
County Commissioners to lessen density or intensity of development
if, among other reasons, the proposed project is in conflict with either
the intent or any of the plan's provisions.
Ken Stead of the Southwest Florida Marine Industries
Page 138
February 10, 2004
Association has long warned that adequate access to the Gulf by the
general public is in danger.
What is decided today for one of the last remaining parcels of
water access is critically important. A decision to grant this rezone
means this location is gone forever as a place to accommodate future
public boating and water recreation needs.
The executive summary from the planning staff to the Board of
County Commissioners asks the most important question of the day.
Should the county encourage by way of a substantial density bonus
people to live in an area prone to storms, especially in light of the fact
that there are no existing residential dwelling units on the subject
property?
Ultimately the county must decide whether or not to follow its
own rules. We would hope to see this resolved today before this
group of concerned citizens.
The commercial zoning adds no new density to the coastal high
hazard area. Retaining the present zoning, we believe, is a decision,
clearly, in the public interest.
Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it.
(Applause.)
MS. WOLOK: Thank you. My name is Mimi Wolok, and I'm
representing the Estuary Conservation Association, and I'm one of--
part of the 20 minutes that you've allocated so graciously.
Thank you for allowing me to be here, Madam Chairman, and
members of the BCC.
ECA is a nonprofit group of about 400 members, and it was
formed to protect ecosystems particularly around Wiggins Pass.
Make no mistake, there are positive environmental aspects to this
project. If not for the so-called Bald Eagle Management Plan,
including the new one that I was handed today, with problems that the
petitioner can very well remedy, the ECA might be able to support
this project.
Page 139
February 1 O, 2004
But as it stands, the Bald Eagle Management Plan is wholly
inadequate and violates the Growth Management Plan. Both the EAC
and the Planning Commission declined to support the plan, as you
know.
Eco Group is proposing to build a 260-foot condominium
approximately 830 feet from an active bald eagle nest. And when I
say nest, I mean there are nestlings in there right now. The condo
would loom over three times taller than the nest.
The proposal is to construct this tower year-round, regardless of
whether the eagles are nesting there during nesting season.
The bald eagle habitat management guidelines that were issued
by the Fish and Wildlife Service back in 1987 states that construction
activities within 1,500 feet of a bald eagle nest during the nesting
season may cause nest abandonment.
Eco Group's management plan ignores this admonition. This
issue highlights why it is so important for Collier County to protect its
own endangered species and not rely on or defer to other agencies or
anyone else to do so.
It's not that Fish and Wildlife Service is not doing its job, but its
job on this project was only to evaluate whether the dredge and fill
part of this project would jeopardize the continued existence of bald
eagles throughout Florida. In other words, whether it would
jeopardize the entire Florida population of bald eagles.
Even so, the biological opinion that you have before you states
quite clearly that this particular bald eagle nest and these particular
bald eagles will likely be sacrificed for the sake of progress.
The Fish and Wildlife Service was acting under the agency
consultation provision of the endangered species act, but part of this
process, it did analyze whether this project would constitute a take of
these particular bald eagles.
The Fish and Wildlife Service concluded in the biological
opinion that, yes, this would result in a take of these bald eagles.
Page 140
February 1 O, 2004
Mr. Yovanovich said that the Fish and Wildlife Service approved
the Bald Eagle Management Plan that Eco Group put out. The Fish
and Wildlife Service did not approve this management plan. It only
said that this nest will -- likely will be abandoned, but in the scheme of
all the bald eagle nests around Florida, they can't say that
abandonment of this nest would jeopardize the continuing existence of
all bald eagles in Florida.
Who is left to protect these particular eagles and this eagle nest?
Only you. Has this happened before where our own county's eagles
were sacrificed for a money-making venture? The answer is yes, and
it recently happened down in Everglades City.
The City of Everglades approved a project known as Everglades
Outpost or the Lure of the Everglades. That land was recently cleared
up to approximately 200 feet from the nest.
Now, the county had nothing to do with that. It was the city. But
the Fish and Wildlife Service issued a similar biological opinion
stating that, you know, in the scheme of things in Florida, that
particular eagle nest could be sacrificed as well.
There are only 24 bald eagle nests in all of Collier County. We
now have two bald eagle nests out of those 24 within the span of a
year that are likely to be abandoned.
Who is left to protect these particular bald eagles that we're
talking about today? Only you.
Although the Fish and Wildlife Service is somewhat free to
ignore its own guidelines, you are not. Objective 7.1 of the Coastal
Conservation Management element requires Eco Group to direct
incompatible uses away from listed species and their habitats.
Policy 7.1.2, section 2(A) requires Eco Group to use the Bald
Eagle Habitat Management guidelines put out by the Fish and Wildlife
Service in preparing its own management plan.
Eco Group has not followed these guidelines. It is proposing to
construct their tower about 800 feet from an active bald eagle nest
Page 141
February 1 O, 2004
during nesting season.
So if this project is approved today when the applicant has not
complied with 7.1.2, the county will be violating its own Growth
Management Plan.
Policy 7.1.23, which was the subject of a workshop very
recently, requires the county, consistent with applicable GMP policies,
to consider and utilize recommendations and letters of technical
assistance from the Fish and Wildlife Service. First, to follow the
biological opinion just issued, which itself is inconsistent with prior
Fish and Wildlife Service letters on this project, would not be
consistent with policy 7.1.2, 2(A), requiring the use of the bald eagle
guideline as to height and construction during nesting season.
Second, this biological opinion is not a recommendation or letter
of technical assistance. So technically, 7.1.23 doesn't even apply here,
and you're free to make your own decision.
Both state and federal laws are replete with cases that local
environmental rules that are more stringent than state or federal
agencies are constitutional and consistent with the applicable state and
federal laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has said so, in fact.
You were elected to uphold the public interest. It is certainly
within the public interest to protect our own listed species. No one
else will do it for us.
Please vote no on this project as written and protect our own bald
eagles. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now folks, we have 89 registered
speakers. At three minutes apiece, that's 267 minutes, 4.4 hours.
We're going to take a 1 O-minute break. (A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, will you please take your
seats.
Page 142
February 1 O, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much.
First of all, for safety reasons, fire code says you can't be
standing in front of the doorways, so those who might be standing in
front of the doorways, please move away from them. We would
appreciate that. We don't want the sheriffs office or the fire
department coming in and shutting us down.
Secondly --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we're going to start calling our public
speakers. As I mentioned before the break, we have 89. MS. FILSON: Now we have 90.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have 90. Excuse me. It's now 270
minutes.
Now, I might invite anybody who feels that they just want to
wave to us and let them know -- let us know that they're for -- of
course, we can pretty well see by the way you're dressed. But if they
want to just waive and say that they're here in support of one side or
the other, that would be fine. We certainly wouldn't mind if you just
waived. And I'm sure many others wouldn't mind either.
For those of you who do want to speak, we're going to call two
names at a time. I ask as the first one comes up, the second stand in
waiting over here against the wall, where the lady in the white blouse
is, blonde hair. Stand right over there so that we can keep the group
moving, okay?
And with that, we shall begin.
MS. FILSON: Nicole Ryan. She will be followed by Dick
Macken.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Away from the doors, please, over there,
would you? Thank you. For fire safety. Thank you. MS. FILSON: Dick Macken?
MR. MACKFJN: I'm here. I'll speak over here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay.
Page 143
February 1 O, 2004
MS. RYAN: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record,
Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of the Conservancy of Southwest Florida.
You have a wide variety of issues regarding this rezone, and the
Conservancy is not here to argue for or against residential versus
commercial. Our concern is with Collier County taking the
responsibility that they must take in reference to protecting listed
species, in this case the bald eagle. And we're also concerned about
the very dangerous precedent that this rezone would make if you
indeed did accept the bald eagle management plan with the adverse
impacts that are going to occur to these eagles if it's approved as
proposed.
You heard from the applicants about the fact that the Biological
Opinion for the Fish and Wildlife Service stated in conclusion that:
The project as proposed is not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of bald eagles.
I do want to really reiterate that this means bald eagles in general
in the State of Florida. Attorney Wolok did point this out, but I
believe that it's worth repeating. On Page 10 of the Biological Opinion
it states: The bald eagles occupying the action area are likely to be
adversely affected by the proposed action. The project may result in
direct take of the eagles through harm and harassment as a result of
the noise and disturbance generated from site work, construction of
homes and infrastructure and the loss of buffering vegetation in both
the primary and secondary protection zones of the nest.
Page 11 goes on to state: Construction-related disturbances, such
as the operation of heavy equipment, large cranes, further
condominium tower construction, powered hand tools and human
voices are expected to have adverse effects on this pair of nesting bald
eagles when construction occurs during the nesting season.
The bottom line is the Fish and Wildlife Service is looking at
protection of bald eagles species-wide in general. It's up to Collier
County to protect our local bald eagles.
Page 144
February 1 O, 2004
And I also had a question, becaUse this, I don't believe, has been
brought out about a state permit. And this might be something that
perhaps the planning staff, environmental staff, or the County
Attorney's office could discuss a little bit.
While the federal government has gone ahead and approved the
take of this bald eagle, there's the Florida Administrative Code Rule
68A-27.004 that states: No person shall take, possess, transport,
molest, harass or sell any of the threatened species included in this
subsection or parts thereof or their nests or eggs, except as authorized
by specific permit from the executive director, permits being issued
only for scientific or conservation purposes, and only upon a showing
by the applicant that the permitted activity will not have a negative
impact on the survival potential of the species.
And I want to point out that caveat that says only for scientific or
conservation purposes.
So I really would caution the county against approving a rezone
that could be inconsistent with this state guideline.
And I don't know if staff would like to address that, but -- in
conclusion, I'd ask that you deny this rezone as proposed, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Dick Macken. He will be followed by Bonnie
Karkut.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sue, you might want to speak
into the mic. I'm not sure if everybody heard.
MS. FILSON: Dick Macken. He will be followed by Bonnie
Karkut.
MR. MACKEN: My name is Dick Macken and I live at the
Villages of Emerald Bay, a condominium cOmmunity located a little
over a mile north of the Wiggins Pass Marina site.
I and many of my neighbors are strongly opposed to the
requested rezoning that would allow the construction of a tower that is
too tall, too big, and too close to the road. At 17 stories over parking,
the proposed tower would be among the tallest buildings in Collier
Page 145
February 1 O, 2004
County, wedged onto this small piece of land. It will permanently
blight our neighborhood. We do not want it.
The U.S. Corps of Engineers received 195 letters in response to
its public notice for the project. Eighty-four percent of those letters
oppose the project, while only 16 percent supported it. Those
percentages are probably a fairly accurate reflection of opinion in the
neighborhood.
I'd like to speak on behalf of the eagles and tell you why the
construction of a 17-story tower would be bad for them. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion issued on January 27,
2004 regarding the proposed project states the matter very clearly and
concisely: Quote, there are no known beneficial effects to bald eagles
from the proposed activity, end quote.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's report goes on to say for the
eagles: Quote, the proposed project represents a new, more intrusive
and potentially chronic disturbance. Project implementation will likely
result in the abandonment of the bald eagle nest site, end quote.
Eight nests in South Florida may have lost productivity due to
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permitted actions since January 1,
2000. Let's not add another nest to that list.
People I spoke with at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are
were not aware of any instance in Florida where a building of this
height had been constructed so close to an eagle's nest. Monitoring
information I received from them was all for single-story buildings,
with the exception of one three-story building. With this project we'd
be entering totally unchartered waters. The chances of the eagles
continuing to nest at their present site, if this rezoning is approved, are
slim to nil. They will almost certainly be driven away during or after
construction of the tower.
The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council was
unable to make a recommendation regarding this project, and the
Planning Commission outright rejected the rezoning request. And no
Page 146
February 1 O, 2004
wonder they reached those conclusions. What EcoGroup proposes is
not environmentally sound and is not good for the community.
On behalf of myself and many others living in my
neighborhood, I strongly urge you to reject the rezoning of this
property. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Bonnie Karkut. She will be followed by Susan
Stiefel.
MS. KARKUT: Members of the Collier County Board of
Commissioners, thank you for this opportunity to say a few words.
I am Bonnie Karkut. I'm on the board of North Bay Civic
Association. My husband and I have lived and worked in Collier
County since 1984. Presently my husband is retired from the practice
of family dentistry and we reside in North Naples in the community of
Tarpon Cove.
As we all know, the property in question was the site of one of
the last marinas in Collier County which provided adequate public
water access to the Gulf of Mexico. The developer would have us
believe that to build very costly condos and boat slips for the wealthy
on Wiggins Pass Marina property would be better for our
environment. The only environment that would be better would be
that of a chosen few who occupy the condos and the boat slips.
We ask that you protect the quality of life of all residents by
limiting the density along the coast and provide water access to the
public.
Today I have the esteemed privilege to speak for thousands of
people who have signed papers. Today I would like to read each of
these petitions as rapidly as I can, to stay into my little time frame
here, and then my conclusion.
The first petition reads in regards to density. We, the
undersigned members of the North Bay Civic Association and/or
citizens of Collier County hereby urge the Board of County
Commissioners and the Collier County Planning Commission and the
Page 147
February 1 O, 2004
federal and state agencies to minimize the danger of life and property
from hurricanes and provide for the safety and welfare of its citizens.
The Collier County Growth Management Policy 12.2.2 limits new
residential development, thus obligation to infrastructure expenditures,
to a maximum of four dwelling units per gross acre within the coastal
high hazard area.
Further, we the citizens agree that the BOCC and LDC
12.2.20.3.1 may lessen density or intensity of development when it is
determined it would be in conflict with the intent or provisions of the
GMP and/or create a threat to property or incur abnormal public
expenses in areas subject to natural hazards. Four units or less is the
intent of our GMP along the coast.
The second petition is in reference to our wildlife. We the
undersigned citizens of Collier County hereby urge the Army Corps of
Engineers, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Collier
County Board of Commissioners, the Collier County Planning
Commission to act in the overall best interest of Collier County and
deny the applications and the rezone. There are significant reasons
why the public interest is not served with a change of use on this
property, including the Collier County Growth Management policies,
which encourage water dependent uses over residential environment
use issues, active eagle nests and manatees, water quality, Florida
outstanding waterways, Cocohatchee River, dredging of 3.6 acres.
We the citizens are opposed to the rezone and would prefer to have the
property remain commercial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry, but I
do have to stop you so we can move along. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Susan Stiefel. She will be followed by Cam
Gleason.
MR. MUDD: Would you -- ma'am, would you leave your
petitions with the Clerk of Courts, ma'am?
MS. KARKUT: They already have them.
Page 148
February 1 O, 2004
MR. MUDD: Okay.
MS. KARKUT: Pardon me? Oh, I believe you al -- that they
were given. Well, okay, I'll leave them again. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Susan?
MS. STIEFEL: Okay, thank you very much. For the record, my
name is Susan Stiefel. I live in the Vanderbilt Beach area.
There's lots of pros and cons for this rezone. I personally am
against it. I moved into the area, one of the reasons was because of
the boating and because of the working marina in the neighborhood.
Everybody who moved into this neighborhood prior to April of 2003
moved in next door, or in the area of a working marina. Maybe it
wasn't the best neighbor, but in some respects it enhanced the property
values of the entire estuary system and boating area with the pass,
with Bonita -- Bonita Bay, with -- sorry, I lost my train of thought
there. As you can tell, I'm not a professional speaker.
One thing that happened back in 2001 was that the Board of
County Commissioners paid $4.75 million for 1.69 acres in Barefoot
Beach. They did that in the public interest. I think somehow, some
way that this Board owes it to Collier County to find some way to
extend the park at Wiggins Pass. And one way to extend and ex -- and
make bigger that park and provide more -- more parking for boating
and more access for boating and more access just period to the water
is to try somehow to -- for the county to try and buy that land. I know
people have put that idea out there before. I think the park needs to be
expanded.
In the county's own plan -- or county's own documents, it shows
a shortage in the future of boat ramps and boat water access ability.
This is one piece of land left in the county that could be used for that
purpose.
I think that if the county, back in 2001 could find a way to spend
2.8 -- $2.8 million per acre in Barefoot Beach, somehow they could
find a way to spend equal that in Wiggins Pass, in the Wiggins Pass
Page 149
February 1 O, 2004
area. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Cam Gleason. She will be followed by Bill
Wagner.
MS. GLEASON: Good afternoon. My name is Cam Gleason, I
live in North Shore Lake Villas. We bought there because it was close
to Wiggins Pass Marina and there were no highrises. Since we moved
there three years ago, 10 highrises have been approved. The marina
has closed with the potential of yet another highrise, and the public
has lost light, air, vistas and sunsets and boating access. Such a rapid,
intense change in one small neighborhood is not good planning. So
let's slow down, take a long hard look at what we're about to do here.
There's a document that offers objectives and policies to guide
you in your decision. It's the county's own Comprehensive Plan, and
it's a good one. It seems the authors had the foresight to recognize that
development pressures and growth, that priorities for shoreline land
shall be given to water dependent use. The highrise could go
anywhere, but the commercially zoned marina cannot be located
inland. This is sound planning and could be reason enough not to
change the zoning classification.
The project proposes 50 private in-water boat sliPs. But again,
the Growth Management Plan anticipates such private enclaves and
states that priorities for water dependent uses shall be public boat
ramps, marinas, public over private, and dry storage over wet. Public
marinas are an important part of our coastal amenities.
The potential loss here of public access is in no way mitigated
by the developer's offer of a few more parking spaces at Cocohatchee
River Park. This does not compensate the 450 boat owners, and there
were 75 boat owners on the waiting list to get into Wiggins Pass when
it closed. It does not address public access for older people like
myself who cannot physically trailer a boat or those who live in
communities which prohibit a boat trailer to be stored on their
property.
Page 150
February 1 O, 2004
The developer advertises that the in-water slips in his project,
which are going to be made by excavating and dredging, by the way,
will accommodate boats up to 55 feet. These boats are too large to be
kept on lifts and so will sit in the water, like two-thirds of the boats at
Pelican Isle. The heavy metals from the antifouling bottom paint will
leach into the water. When these large boat owners employ divers to
clean the bottoms of their boats, more pollutants will go into the water.
The automatic bilge pumps will discharge oil into the estuary. This is
one reason why the GMP calls for dry storage over wet.
I'm counting on you as my elected officials to follow the Growth
Management Plan and Land Development Code to protect and
preserve my neighborhood. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bill Wagner. Mr. Wagner? A.K. Brown?
MR. WAGNER: Good afternoon. I'm Bill Wagner, I live at --
in the Marina Bay Club at 13105 Vanderbilt Drive.
I bring with me hundreds and hundreds of signatures on petitions
from all over Collier County. Every district is represented. And I've
called many of them on the phone in the last couple of weeks to ask
them to be here. And many of them did come. But there's a lot of
them who work and can't make it. And others had to welcome their
children home from school. So almost every one of them has asked me
to ask you to vote for your constituents and vote no on the rezone.
Commissioners, this is not only a neighborhood issue, it is a
countywide desire to preserve access to the Gulf and to its beaches.
Please vote your -- for your neighbors and vote no on rezone. Thank
you for this opportunity to talk with you.
MS. FILSON: A.K. Brown. She will be followed by -- she will
be followed by Dorothy Todd.
MS. BROWN: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
speak here again.
You were selected for representing the public. All the trust the
public is putting in your capability to make a wise and right decision,
Page 151
February 1 O, 2004
it's up to you now. We don't want these highrises because they don't
make a better air, less waste, they are even hazard in case of a
hurricane. And we are living in an area where hurricanes are normal.
I survived, like many others, Andrew in 1991. I know what it means
to have a hurricane flying over your head. Please, keep this precious
piece of land in the hand of the citizen of the public so they can enjoy
what was given by nature to us to preserve, to take care of and to keep
for further generations to come. Otherwise, day by day land is going,
disappeared forever, buried under concrete, asphalt. And when we
have more highrises, we need more traffic. We need more roads,
more maintenance, more pesticides, more -- everything more which is
not in favor for nature. It is against. And so we are against us. If we
have caught the last fish and we have teared down the last tree, then
we know we cannot eat money. Thank you very much. MS. FILSON: Dorothy Todd. She will be--
MS. TODD: I'm not a professional speaker either. I'm just here
because I love boating.
MS. FILSON: Excuse me, ma'am, I'm sorry.
She will be followed by James Hammond. I'm sorry.
MS. TODD: I -- we came down to Vanderbilt Beach about 14
years ago, my husband and I, and we have been at the Wiggins Pass
Marina for the last -- 'til last year, and that broke our hearts because
we had to leave the marina. My husband was physically not able to
see very good, so I was his eyes going out to the -- out to Wiggins
Pass and out into the Gulf. And I brought him down here last
December for his last boat ride, and he just passed away five weeks
ago.
And when I was going out in the pass, I was very scared,
because the pass is not being taken care of like it was other years. We
used to ask at the marina every time we went out, and I would ask
because I had to be his eyesight. And I'd say, well, which way should
we go along the pass? Is it, is it -- has there been a storm in and has it
Page 152
February 1 O, 2004
been blocked up, can we get our way out there? And they would
always answer, somebody had been out there from the marina to tell
us which way we could go with our boats, even though, you know,
you have the GPS and everything else like that. But once the marina is
gone, we're not having any safety there, as far as I could see.
Right now I have a boat for sale because he passed away. And
I'll never go out there again, but I just want for other generations, for
other common people to be able to go out there and enjoy fishing and
boating like we did. We enjoyed it as much as we could down here.
We loved it. And we love Collier County and this area, but it's gotten
so overran with highrises -- which I'm on Vanderbilt Beach and
they're just building more there, too -- that we just want it to stay -- I
know it won't stay the same, but we'd like to see the marina still stay
there for other people that rent boats and stuff like that now. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: James Hammond. He will be followed by
Donald Swanson.
MR. HAMMOND: For the record, my name is James
Hammond. I live at 780 Wiggins Bay Drive in Naples. And my four
comments are pretty quick, but I wanted to point out these facts: I
personally don't think there's going to be a reduction in vehicular
traffic, because if you recall, the marina closed its gates at 5:00 p.m.
and opened their gates about 8:00 in the morning or 7:00 in the
morning. There was no evening traffic in or out of the marina. With a
development such this as this, there's going to be a lot of night traffic
and it'll be 24 hours a day, so I consider that traffic's going to be
heavier than it was.
As far as boat traffic is concerned, they compare 450 boats to 52
boats. But for us that boat, those of us that boat in the Wiggins Pass
area, at any given time on a weekend not more than about 20 percent
of the dry stored boats were in the water at one time. So I consider
that the quantity of boat traffic is going to be about the same with the
Page 153
February 1 O, 2004
52 boats and the wet slips, as compared to what the marina had. But I
consider that the 52 boats and the wet slips will be a greater hazard to
the manatees, because they're going to be much larger boats than the
smaller dry slip boats that the marina stored. So the larger boats are
going to create a -- possibly a greater hazard as far as the manatee is
concemed.
There will be more traffic also, as far as boat traffic is
concerned, with the additional parking for boat trailers and trucks and
so forth and the people using the ramps. The ramps will be more
crowded, will be more traffic going in and out that way. So those are
my comments, I thank you very much for this opportunity.
MS. FILSON: Donald Swanson. Mr. Swanson?
(No response.)
MS. FILSON: Next speaker will be Vera Fitzgerald.
Philip Osborne?
MR. OSBORNE: Commissioners, thank you for seeing me
today. Philip Osborne, representing the marine trades industries
association of Collier County, and my own business, Naples Boat
Mart. It's good to see all of you again today.
I want to thank you for the chance to come before you today and
express my views on this subject. As I'm sure you all know, Wiggins
Pass Marina was the only full service public access marina-- and I
understand it was a private marina, but it was certainly accessible to
public -- that served the needs of.
Boaters in the north end of Collier County. The boaters of
Collier County have lost public access facilities in every area of this
county over the past five years. Most recently in Naples Bay with
Turner Marine and now Boat Haven.
I simply want to make the point that regardless of how the Board
chooses to vote on this particular rezone topic, your Board has to be
thinking of ways that they are going to replace this public access
problem, not just in the north end of Collier County.
Page 154
February 1 O, 2004
There are over 22,000 boaters in this beautiful area. Part of the
attraction of moving here is the abundance of navigable waterways.
This paradise to boaters -- this is a paradise to boaters and
consequently has a significant impact on property values. We are
certainly compromising these opportunities by losing the public access
at the rate that we are.
I feel that by virtue of the fact that the Board and the county it
represents receives monies from the state on every annual renewal and
every new boat registration, that it has an obligation to boaters to
provide this much needed aspect of the boating lifestyle. You have an
obligation to ensure that boaters stop losing these marinas without
replacing them with the equivalent -- without replacing them with
equivalent resources.
The marine industries association, regardless, looks forward to
working with each and every one of the Board members in exploring
the options and solutions for the future. This is a topic that's dear to
heart not only for the boaters but the people who have made boating
their business in this county, like myself and my fellow boat industry
people.
It's also important to know, I think somebody may have touched
on it, the fact that we can build all of the boat ramps that we like, but
many of the people that you see in this room are physically just not
able to go boating using a boat and a car and a trailer. They are -- in
order to enjoy boating, have to have access to a marina facility, either
a dry stack or a wet slip facility. They physically just are not capable
of launching boats, obviously. So you please need to keep that in
mind as well.
Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to a
right decision.
MS. FILSON: Vera Fitzgerald. She will be followed by Harold
Eaton.
MS. FITZGERALD: Hi, I'm Vera Fitzgerald. I made some
Page 155
February 10, 2004
notes here. I wish I'd known that the developer was -- had rented a
couple of buses and brought all these people here. They got free
lunches, they got free T-shirts and I didn't know about it. Anyway -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Would you have changed your
vote, Vera?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe we could find out if
there's any extra T-shirts. (Applause.)
MS. FITZGERALD: You're going to be here all night.
Anyway, the problem is I would have had to find my own way
home.
First of all, I'm against the rezone. I support the eagles. I'm for
the eagles. I want the eagles. Stay away, leave the eagles alone.
But secondly, I'm against it because it is one of the last, if not the
last, commercial space on the water. And when it's gone, it can't be
bought back, it's lost. It also has a ripple effect. With no boat storage,
there's been a negative effect in my neighborhood. We are seeing
more and more boats parked in driveways, parked on front yards
because there's no place for them to put their boat now within a
reasonable distance. And so it fans out a lot more than just in the
north bay area.
And we -- I think we should be able to find a way to purchase
this. The county should surely be able to purchase this property and
have a marina leased out. Have maybe a couple of restaurants and
certainly have shuttle pontoon boats to the beach. I just can't believe
that the county can't find a way to do this. And this is what I would
like to see happen. This would be a win/win for the people of Collier
County, instead ofjust another highrise on the water that shuts people
-- the ordinary people out of access. This would really be a win/win.
And I thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Harold Eaton. He will be followed by Mary-Lou
Eaton.
Page 156
February 1 O, 2004
MR. EATON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Hal Eaton and I live in Wiggins Lakes and Preserves, which is about
one-and-a-half blocks from the Wiggins Pass Marina property. My
wife and I were sold on the location, as we could afford a small
25-foot boat and have dry storage, in and out service at a moderate
price, with deep water access to the Gulf for the boats with a
three-foot draft.
So for almost 10 years we and many other boaters have enjoyed
the benefits of this place where the public was welcomed. A lot of us
are at the age, which has been mentioned before, where we can no
longer trail and launch a boat.
Question: Should it remain a property that could allow the
general public maximum use and employment of our waterways and
the Gulf of Mexico? This is what the Growth Management Plan calls
for.
Another question: Shall you, the Commissioners, ignore the
public and allow the money hungry developers to ram one more huge
highrise into the sand to block our view of eagles nests and our
beautiful Gulf waters?
May I remind the Commissioners that approval of a highrise
here will no doubt cause a hue and cry for approval of the twice
disapproved request for highrises across the street at the southwest
comer of Wiggins Pass Drive.
Thank you for your time, and I hope you will deny this
application.
MS. FILSON: Mary-Lou Eaton. She'll be followed by Sally
Barker.
MS. EATON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is
Mary-Lou Eaton and I live at Wiggins Lakes and Preserves. And I am
concemed that you make the right decision to deny this rezoning
request for the following reasons:
One, the Collier County Growth Management Plan very clearly
Page 157
February 10, 2004
limits density within coastal high hazard areas to a maximum of four
dwelling units. And this proposal violates that policy, 13.2.2. As a
matter of fact, the surrounding 18 communities, one of which is ours,
average 3.96 units per acre.
Two: Policy 1.3.3 of this same plan, as prepared for your use
October, 1997 and amended twice, clearly states on Page CIE-12 that
quote, the county shall continue to ensure that access to beaches,
shores and waterways remain available to the public, and will indeed
develop a program to expand this availability.
Number three: Throughout the Collier County Growth
Management Plan, as well as the Land Development Code, as you
have heard, and as you well know, priority is to be ~given to public
versus private access to the waters of the Gulf.
Four: Both the EAC and the Planning Commission boards have
ruled against this zoning request prior to your consideration.
And finally, the public continues to be denied boating access, as
more and more potentially viable coastal land goes residential for the
development of highrise towers expressly for use by private and often
very wealthy individuals. We urge you to vote no on this most vital
land use issue. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Sally Barker. She will be followed by John
Hickey.
MS. BARKER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Sally Barker,
for the record.
I'm with Vera, I want my box lunch, too. I didn't get one. But
she does raise an interesting point, that all the people here today who
have come to oppose the rezone got here under their own steam. They
came here because their hearts drew them. They were not brought in
buses and given T-shirts and all that. But anyway, that's beside the
point.
I want to take a -- I want to take a slightly different tact. As
Rich alluded to, 15 years ago the Comprehensive Plan was drawn up
Page 158
February 1 O, 2004
and somebody got the bright idea that we could curb the proliferation
of strip malls by congregating new commercial land uses in activity
centers. Fifteen years later we know that doesn't work very well. It
has impacted our traffic patterns to the point where we're close to
gridlock, although Norm keeps saying we can't have that because we
don't have a grid.
But other than that, what have we done to resolve that issue?
We're now requiring large-scale PUDs to include some commercial --
neighborhood commercial component. Now smaller PUDs and older
PUDs don't have that luxury. And what have we got along the
Vanderbilt Drive area? We have no commercial in that area;
neighborhood commercial, I'm trying to define it as.
The Wiggins Bay PUD across the street does have a small
commercial area, and somebody mentioned that in the past they've
tried to rezone it to highrises, and that didn't work. But that area is also
being looked at by Parks and Rec for additional parking, so we can,
you know, scrub that area as potential commercial.
There is no other commercial available on that four-mile
corridor from 111 th up to Bonita Beach Road. So that is something
that I think we really need to look at.
Would remove (sic) the commercial zoning of Wiggins Pass
Road improve the traffic flow on Vanderbilt Drive? I don't know,
you'd have to ask Norm, he knows that much better than I do. But it
would -- keeping that commercial in some form, you know, I agree it
may not necessarily be a marina, but keeping it commercial in some
form could help by keeping people off the major arterials. And as a
commercial project, I think it is viable. Not as the sort of bare bones
genetic project that Bob Mulhere outlined for you, because really the
land is too valuable for a bare bones Publix and that.
Just one little more point? No? Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sorry, Sally. We're just going to keep
it to --
Page 159
February 10, 2004
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is John Hickey. And he will be
followed by -- Mr. Hickey will be followed by, and I'm not sure of this
name, I think it's Sanford Mendelse?
MR. HICKEY: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. For the record, my name is John Hickey and I
represented 355 owners and residents of Beachwalk on Vanderbilt
Beach Road. Most of our owner residents have signed petitions or
have e-mailed you or sent letters expressing their opposition to this
rezone request. These are represented in the materials each of you
received prior to this meeting.
It is abundantly clear, North Naples and indeed all of Collier
County sorely needs this marina. As population increases, this need
will become more pressing. A marina at this location has proven to be
wise and productive land and water access use.
What North Naples does not need is more vertical construction.
The existing use of this property as a marina is efficient land use. As
such, it is of much greater value to all of Collier County than this
proposal by the petitioner for private harbor moorings by second home
residential owners.
Further, we oppose deep draft dredging because of its negative
effects on manatee life and preservation of the mangroves. Beachwalk
residents daily are faced with three unwise zoning decisions of the
recent past: One, diagonally across the street from Beachwalk is the
22-story residential tower, the Trieste. Number two, directly across
Vanderbilt Drive from us is Regatta, a complex of six residential
buildings ranging in height from 10 to 15 stories. Three, two stone
throws across U.S. 41, close to comer of Vanderbilt Beach Road, is
the Fifth Third building, an architectural eyesore over 140 feet in
height.
In March, 2003, Collier County commissioned a boat and beach
access report, which was rendered to the Commissioners. The purpose
of this report was to assess Collier County's performance in providing
Page 160
February 1 O, 2004
beach access and boat launch facilities to county residents and visitors.
This report reveals a large inadequacy of wet slips and commercial
dry storage spaces available, resulting in at least 12,000 vessels,
dependent on boat ramps for water access. In addition, the number of
registered vessels countywide has increased steadily at 1,000 boats per
year over the past six years. These will become ramp users also. The
report statistically projects boat ramp needs over the next decade, and
concludes with a ramp lane deficit of 23. This deficit is enormous
when one considers there are a total countywide of only 27 boat ramp
lanes right now.
Even with maximization of ramp capacity, the service to
increasing boaters demands for water access -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MR. HICKEY: In summary, we strongly request you vote no on
this rezone revest -- request. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Sanford Mendelse. He will be followed by B.J.
Savard-Boyer.
MR. MENDELSON: Hi, Sanford Mendelson from Harborside.
I want to thank you for letting us speak today. I know a lot of these
people, I see them and I see the white shirts, but I don't see boat hats
on half these people. Half these people are boaters. The trouble is
they're scared because they're going to have a Walgreen's next to
them, a Winn-Dixie. That's bull crap. They're not going to put a
Walgreen's next to you. That -- we need a boat dock, boat ramp, I
think it's due diligence of the county to get the -- there's a lot of good
minds in here. Let's put our minds together and see how we can make
a beautiful marina for all of us, not for the rich, the poor. For the
community. That's what you're here to do. The community will win.
I came down from Ohio. I have a 51-foot boat north, a 20-foot
boat down here, and I have three boats. I'm stupid, but I love boating.
So what I'm trying to say is help me love my sport. I'm not a golfer,
not a tennis player, I sure don't shop. I love boating. So please, help
Page 161
February 1 O, 2004
me enjoy what I love, boating. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: B.J. Boyer. She will be followed by Joe
Connolly.
MS. SAVARD-BOYER: Good afternoon, Commissioners. B.J.
Savard-Boyer, from Vanderbilt Beach area.
We know you've been inundated by e-mails from advocates of
both sides of the issue. Ifjudging from the Letters to the Editor in the
Naples Daily News, you'll note that the ones for the rezone of this
property are a singular vocal adjacent group of property owners who
will enhance their own property values by having an elite conclave on
this property all to themselves, to the exclusion of a wide section of
Collier County citizens.
I would like to bring to your attention that the opposition to the
rezone of this property comes from an across-the-board wide and
broad spectrum of citizens from many different areas and communities
in all of our Collier County.
We've united because of this. We want to preserve the access to
the Gulf waters for all of our citizens, not just for the privileged few.
This property has been a public facility for decades as access to
the Gulf and beaches, for homeowners living inland and many visitors
who would rent boats to view our wildlife in the backwaters.
By privatizing it, you are depriving hundreds of citizens and
visitors to Collier County the privilege of enjoying the reason they
came here.
Rich Yovanovich and also Chris Oelschlaeger both spoke on
reducing boat usage and reducing traffic, and yet they offer a million
dollars for a parking lot somewhere close to the property. This will
not decrease traffic. It's going to increase traffic. If you are trailering
boats, putting them on a ramp, putting the car in the parking lot,
· putting the trailer in the parking lot, we are going to have no
movement on Vanderbilt Drive or Wiggins Pass Road. It certainly
will increase traffic, more so than the boats that are already stored on
Page 162
February 1 O, 2004
the property. All the people have to do is park their car and walk to
the boat.
As an aside, I wonder if everyone noticed the colorful posters on
the wall outside of this room. These are the artwork of school children
and their ideas of what Naples and Florida means to them. There are
pictures of fish, sun, beach, wildlife. I didn't see one highrise on those
posters. These children are the future of Naples. We need to preserve
our area for them. And the future of this site can be decided at a later
date when all of Collier County has a chance to express their wishes. I
urge you not to rezone the property. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Joe Connolly. He will be followed by Dr.
Richard Bing.
MR. CONNOLLY: For the record, I'm Joe Connolly and I live
at 10633 Gulfshore Drive, on Vanderbilt Beach. And I'm speaking of
-- president of the Van -- Save Vanderbilt Fund, who is here today to
applaud and support the North Bay Association in their efforts to try
to preserve our environment. I'm not going to take very long, the
buzzer won't go off on me. But I just want to you think of a couple of
things.
I don't think the Commissioners' decision on any land use thing
should be based on the tax valuation or the tax revenue that it's
supposed to bring in. That's not what you're here for.
Number two, the Growth Management Plan clearly states four
units per acre in a coastal high hazard area. I don't know how many
acres Rich averaged his 2.9 out, but if they got 10 acres, they're
eight-and-a-half, 85 units, which is twice what they're allowed.
You've already been -- it's already been mentioned several times,
the Growth Management Plan directs you to protect the waterways for
the use of the citizens.
Now, I don't know if all of you are aware of it or not, but we
have a WCI shuttle to the beaches, we have a Signature shuttle to the
beaches, we have a Yacht Club shuttle to the beaches, you have a
Page 163
February 10, 2004
Coconilla shuttle to the beaches. Where is the public shuttle to the
beaches? And when the people get on the beach from these shuttles,
then the state park shuts down the parking lot, because they only allow
so many people on the beach. So the public is getting shut out by the
private interest groups. And that needs to be considered.
I also think it's a little bit out of order that, you know, this $2
million could appear to be in some people's eyes a bribe to win your
vote. And, you know, that should not be allowed.
So I say please vote no to the rezone. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Dr. Richard Bing. He will be followed by
Bernard Dudley.
MR. BING: Richard Bing, 10951 Gulfshore Drive. I'm
president of Vanderbilt Beach and Bay Association. Good afternoon,
Madam Chairman and Commissioners.
As you'll recall, on January 7th, just a little over a month ago,
you passed the Vanderbilt Beach RT overlay and restricted height
there to 75 feet over FEMA, which was a little higher than what we
desired, but it was a step in the right direction, and we really do
appreciate that. And we would like to see you extend the same
courtesy to the -- our neighbors to the north. We abut the North Bay
Civic Association on our north border. And therefore, anything
greater than 75 feet would be -- we would be definitely opposed to.
Second thing is I was surprised that the applicant brought up the
fact that the Cocohatchee PUD has several buildings approved at 22
stories as a way of arguing for their high building, and to me the
argument is totally the opposite. In other words, if that's already been
approved as a PUD with several 22-story buildings adjacent to them,
surely we shouldn't have another highrise to the south.
The other point I'd like to make is Mr. Yovanovich stated that
the DCA has interjected itself into this argument about compliance
with 9(J)(5), but he didn't point out the second paragraph of his letter
says, however, as we have discussed, it is the county's responsibility to
Page 164
February 1 O, 2004
interpret its Comprehensive Plan. An exception to that would be in
the circumstance of a legal challenge. Any interpretation by the
county should take into account the overall goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. And we have heard from several
other speakers about 12.2.2, limiting density in the coastal high hazard
area to four units per acre.
So thank you for your time and please vote against the rezone.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bernard Dudley.
MR. DUDLEY: Madam Chairman and Commissioners, my
name --
MS. FILSON: He'll be followed by Carl Redfield.
I'm sorry. Go ahead.
MR. DUDLEY: I'm sorry. My name Bernard Dudley. I live at
900 Arbor Lake Drive at Arbor Trace, located a bit north of Wiggins
Pass. I'm a 30-year voting resident of Naples and Collier County.
Recently a number of our residents gathered to hear the
EcoGroup describe their proposal. We followed this later with a
meeting with a representative of the Naples Bay group to hear their
side. They admitted that among these members, about 50 percent
were for residential zoning.
Our people then met to evaluate what we had heard. In our
group were engineers, lawyers, planners, investors, other business
executives and fishermen and boaters.
We examined the three most discussed ideas. The first was
finding an angel to buy the property and deed it to the county or have
the county acquire it through a bond issue so that the marina could still
operate. This idea, unfortunately, was rejected as being unrealistic,
impractical, and impossible to successfully complete. No angels have
been forth compa -- excuse me, forthcoming and the county does not
seem anxious to get into the marina business.
The second was to continue with the present commercial zoning.
Page 165
February 10, 2004
We rejected this because of the variety of commercial uses allowed,
the type of increased traffic, such as semis in the early morning
making deliveries, all night pharmacies and other businesses with
continual daily traffic.
Some questioned the viability of a commercial enterprise,
considering the cost of the land, estimated at $22 million. We believe
the aluminum storage sheds are unsightly and should not remain in a
residential area. The soil under these sheds contain carcinogens
because of the many boats stored there with repeated leaks of oil and
gasoline which have added to the pollution at Wiggins Pass and
adjacent waters.
We then examined in detail the Coconilla plan, the third
possibility. It has answered many of our concerns. The contaminated
soil would be removed, the setbacks would be much greater than
commercial, the eagles would be better protected. We liked the idea
of professional landscaping that surrounds residential use. It fits in
with our desire to improve the general neighborhood of Vanderbilt
Drive with Arbor Trace, Tower Pointe, the Edens, Bentley Village,
Vanderbilt Lakes, Audubon, Cove Towers and others, all residential.
We have great sympathy for you Commissioners. You seem to
be criticized relentlessly. Yet the Naples Collier County area is
considered in one of the best planned communities in the United
States. And this is largely due to the past commissioners and
yourselves, who have worked with good developers to bring about this
great reputation.
As nearby residents, after much thought, we concluded that we
should give our wholehearted support to residential zoning, and I
thank you very much for your time.
MR. REDFIELD: Good afternoon, my name --
MS. FILSON: Carl. Carl -- excuse me, sir.
Carl Redfield. He will be followed by Stephanie Webb.
MR. REDFIELD: Thank you. My name's Carl Redfield, as you
Page 166
February 1 O, 2004
just heard, and I am a resident of North Naples.
And let me start by stating that the North Bay Civic Association
does not represent me. In fact, it's never even solicited my opinion, I
don't get invited to anything. So I want to start that way, despite
implications that everybody who lives in North Naples is represented
by that association.
I attended the County Planning Commission hearing a few
months ago and I listened carefully to the -- to what took place there,
was disappointed at the results. And I did learn something, though. I
did learn that there's a difference between doing the right thing
politically and doing what's right. And I believe that's what leadership
is all about. And I think that some of the Commission members just
didn't listen to all the facts.
It's always easier to come up with a rationale as to why not to do
something than to do something that's right. And what I'd like to do is
bring up a few points and try to influence you into taking the lead and
doing what's right.
The proposed rezoning to residential is something that concerns
a piece of property that's in my backyard. Most of the people that
you've been hearing negative things from, it's not anywhere near
where they live. They don't live next door. This is not true for most
of the people in this room. Adjacency should carry a heavy weight in
your decision.
In speaking in fact to a number of North Naples residents, and
you've heard from some of them, they actually prefer to have
commercial, as long as it's not next to them. In fact, they wouldn't
mind having another Walgreen's with neon lights. You know, it's not
in their backyard.
I also don't want a commercial complex next to my home. You
know, we're going to have restaurants, we're going to have runoffs,
we're going to have a bar with DUI with increased traffic taking place
at night. It's just not going to be safe and it's going to add a lot of
Page 167
February 1 O, 2004
water problems as well with boats with DUI problems.
And then there's this density issue. Now, that was new to me. I
didn't know about this density requirement. So I dug into it and
learned -- and learned that it all had to do with hurricanes and danger
associated with egress in a time period when it's important to get out
quick. So I did a study, I commissioned a study, and I assumed that
the Pelican Isle condos, the residential density that's there, is related to
occupancy. And I found out what the occupancy was across the year.
And I learned that in the third quarter of the year the occupancy is in
fact 24 percent of what it is in the first quarter. And the third quarter
is hurricane time period. If I take the 24 percent and apply it to the 9.5
that's the density that you get to by 95 divided by 10 acres, you get to
2.3 in the key hurricane time period, well within the intent of that
guideline.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MR. REDFIELD: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Stephanie Webb. She'll be followed by Peter
Franck.
MS. WEBB: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, my name is
Stephanie Webb and I do not live at Pelican Isle and I'm not
represented by the Bay Association. I live at Casa del Vita.
And we agree that the Commission is charged with one decision
here today and that decision is either yes to residential and its benefits
or no to residential and no say whatsoever in the outcome. And we
agree that the Commission is charged with control over one furore use;
this stated and beneficial residential use or an uncontrolled and
unknown commercial use with no remedy whatsoever. And
respectfully, we disagree on the outcome if you vote no to residential
today.
If this preferred residential rezoning is denied and if the
residential rezoning for the EcoGroup is denied and we realistically
look at the alternatives that are viable economically, the desired
Page 168
February 1 O, 2004
marina will end up demolished for another commercial use which is
regrettably based by the market financially. What access does any
other alternative plan offer? And I agree that we should have some
boat access and beach access and maintain a marina, if feasible. But
this is pie in the sky unless those angels are available.
There is strong economic evidence that the hotel with transient
boaters, high density and traffic would be constructed, or worse,
another shopping center. This by right use eliminates all public rights
to what will be done commercially and how. There will be no
remedies for anyone. No one will have an opportunity after today to
protect the integrity of their home or its environs, and no one can
choose the specific use hereafter or ensure any public access if the
residential plan is denied. The market will decide. And of these
alternatives we may expect another grocery store, restaurants, office
space, gas station, car wash or some other sea of glass.
We have before us an opportunity to develop this parcel right
and to maintain and improve public access, private -- provide beach
and boat access, where precious little, I agree, exists in Naples. And
let's not forget, it was a private entity in the past for those who could
afford this private entity.
We have an opportunity for boaters and boat trailers in the
southwest quarter -- that was mentioned earlier as a hotel would be
additional parking as well -- to provide enhanced access to the estuary,
clean up the pollution and decades of spills. This land is not a
commodity, it is a community, and we all belong to this community
and thus we deserve to respect its use. The residential use is a
respectful use, the best use, and the only use that will provide a legacy
for future generations. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Peter Franck. He will be followed by John
Findley.
MR. FRANCK: Good afternoon. My name is Peter Franck and
I live at 425 Dockside Drive on Pelican Isle, and I'm here in support to
Page 169
February 10, 2004
the rezoning to residential.
I've been living at Pelican Isle since '98. My boat and I call it
home. And when I heard that the marina was closing, I was a little
distraught because I would lose the access to marine boating services,
engine maintenance, engine repairs and so forth. But then when I
knew that the marina was gone and whoever still doesn't believe it's
gone, let me tell you, it's gone.
Then I had to rethink this. I said okay, what do we do next?
And then of course there was this question, should it remain
commercial and go car washes, restaurants, all night grocery stores, or
should it be residential? And that there was no question in my mind
that residential is the only choice for this, because I witnessed on two
occasions when I had my boat hauled at the yard that there were no
precautions to catch any of the toxins that they scraped off the bottom
of my boat. It went to the ground and the rain did the rest. And that's
what ends up in the estuaries. And the residential plan would clean all
this up and make sure that the environment is going to be good for all
of us in the future, for all creatures, including us humans.
Now, allow me to put on a different hat. I'm the commodore of
the Pelican Isle Yacht Club, and I'm here to say that you can add 364
more people that would not benefit from commercial use of that
property. Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: John Findley. He will be followed by Steven
Bracci.
MR. FINDLEY: I thank you for the oppommity to speak to you
today. I'm John Findley, I'm a certified marina manager and I'm a
Level 4 Hazmat responder for the State of Florida. And I've reached
that certification and dealt with primarily with fuel and oil spills and
the type the contaminants that relate around marinas.
I want to go back first a little bit to the history of that marina,
because I know marina operators that have been around and people
that worked at the marina since its inception. And originally that
Page 170
February 1 O, 2004
property was cleared as a residential in the late Thirties. It was
developed, and Wiggins Pass Road was a gravel road that was put in
by those people that built that original single-family dwelling on that
property. A second home went in and then two duplexes went in and
eventually three cottages went in over the Thirties and Forties.
In 1950, Bud Hogue (phonetic) -- in the early Fifties Bud Hogue
purchased that property and those houses along with that property,
maintained and had residence and leased those other homes and
properties out to other residents in the area and some to snow birds
that stayed in the cottages.
In the Sixties the property was bought by Ted Koppel -- or, I'm
sorry, Kapoff (phonetic), and he maintained those residential homes in
that area and throughout the Sixties. And prior to this marina, there
was a current owner, there was another guy that had it for a couple
years and brought the property in the early Seventies. And that's when
the homes were tore down and that's when the first storage barn went
up, in 1971. And if you check the records, I've researched, I've
looked, there's nothing on file that was ever permitted.
The current levels of contamination in the soil will have
long-term ecological effects on the area. It will also have long-term
ecological effects on the sea life, the manatees and the eagles. There's
contaminants in the water mostly from that current marina. The
adjacent marinas I know have -- are not allowed to scrape their hulls
and -- as some other people insinuated. It's part of their state permits,
in all the marinas in that area you cannot do that. They can clean their
props and their props only, not their hulls. So those contaminants
aren't coming off the boats on a regular basis, as stated before.
The manatees are very -- what I'm trying to say is the manatees,
they've stated that dredging will hurt manatees. Pat Rose with the
DEP will quote, so will James Kip Frohlich. I know these people, I've
worked with them on different committees, they spoke at the Sea
World -- at the inauguration of the Sea World Manatee exhibit. I was
Page 171
February 1 O, 2004
a guest speaker there for that event. Manatees need deeper water to be
safer, so dredging does not hurt the manatees, it makes them safer. It
gives them room to get away. Larger boats do not cause the majority
of the accidents with manatees. They measure the prop distances, and
it's been attributed to mostly small boats that are going faster in
shallower areas where the manatees cannot avoid the props in the high
speeds of the smaller boats.
Tower Pointe is approximately about 1,175 feet, I interpolated, I
measured it off, from the eagle's nest. That's a 17-story building and is
the equivalent of what they're looking for. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Steven Bracci?
(No response.)
MS. FILSON:
Jim Owen. He'll be followed by William Ring.
MR. OWENS: Hi. Jim Owens, 435 Dockside Drive, Naples.
And I'm in -- a registered voter in District 2.
Just to get started, I'm a member in good standing of the North
Bay Civic Association for over two years, and I would like you to
know that I do not support the board of directors of that association's
position on this matter. I am in favor of rezoning to residential, and to
my knowledge the membership was never asked to vote one way or
the other. They do not represent my views.
One of the things I'd like to talk about is environment. And the
main thing is the ambient noise levels will be lowered with the
residential use. I've been in Flo -- I've been a Florida resident and
have lived adjacent to the marina property for eight years, and I know
this first hand. The community where I reside, Pelican Isle, is an
example of a model residential community that has boat slips. The
community is peaceful and the ambient noise level is low every day
and night of the week.
Conversely, the public Wiggins Marina noise level was high.
Some of the daily activities at the marina included tuning of the boat
Page 172
February 10, 2004
motors and engines, commercial deliveries of boats, parts and fuel, the
tow motor vehicle engine noise, the high lifts for the storage engine
noise, the engine noise from the mobile crane that took the boats out
and put the boats back in the water, the noise associated with the sand
blasting, the compressors for painting the boats, and general noise
related to the commercial traffic and accompanied by the workmen
and the visitors, and still the eagles stayed on the tree.
I can only imagine what is in store for us if the site is denied for
residential and forced to be developed commercial for profit. Nothing
in the zoning prevents the tenants from opening up one or two bars
and restaurants or night clubs that will certainly increase the ambient
noise level throughout the day and night with automobile traffic,
patrons, and patrons coming by boat. The bands will surely be
playing over outside speakers, and today's music is anything but soft.
Essentially, all of the surrounding properties are residential, and
allowing the Coconilla residential development would be in the best
interest of the neighborhood. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is William Ring. He will be
followed by Rita -- it looks like R-E-U-S-S. Okay.
MR. RING: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good afternoon.
My name is Bill Ring. I live next door to the project site. I'm a past
president of the ECA, and for the last seven years I've worked very
closely with the county and its staff to keep that Wiggins Pass estuary
system safe and healthy, safe for boaters and healthy for the wildlife
that's there and the plant life.
I too have a huge stack. I smiled when I saw the stacks that you
have. And I must admit mine pales a little bit in comparison to what
you have, but -- all of the meetings that I've had with the ECA, with
the Conservancy, with the North Bay Civic Association -- I should say
discussions and meetings -- with the scientists at Florida Gulf Coast
University, and with Commissioner Halas in our district, have all
centered around how to save this marina and how to protect those
Page 173
February 1 O, 2004
eagles.
Unfortunately, as I begin to look at the hand that we're dealt and
how to play those cards, I find my sentiments going in one direction,
my emotions going in that direction, and unfortunately I'm cerebral by
nature, so I end up going in another direction. My heart's one way and
my head is another. Let me explain.
I'm not against the owner wanting to sell that property. And
that's where this problem arose and started. And I'm not against the
developer submitting the winning bid. Rather what I'm for may be
well what the Commissioners are for, and that is improved boating and
beach access, particularly for north Collier County, to protect the
environment, including the manatees, the eagles and the water quality.
Also wise and aesthetically pleasing development and use of land.
And then fourth, listening and carefully paying attention to
community input.
Before I comment briefly on each of those four points, let me
explain the assumptions upon which these comments are going to be
based. Number one, there are no impediments to developing this
property commercially. It's a C-4, and they can put gas stations and
convenience stores and 75-foot office buildings. My background is
marketing. They got a good potential to make profit in doing that.
And they have studied it and I've been assured in my discussions with
the developers that this is very real.
Secondly, because it's profitable, I think that we cannot consider
this a bluff. At one point in time I may have kidded myself saying
these people are not going to develop this commercially, that's not a
good commercial spot. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Ring.
Rita Reuss. She will be followed by James
MS. FILSON:
Pendleton.
MS. REUSS:
Good afternoon. My name is Rita Reuss and I'm
a permanent resident of Collier County, residing at Pelican Isle.
Page 174
February 10, 2004
First let me say, just for the record, I did not take a bus ride, I
bought my own lunch and I drove myself, and I give all of you A plus
for stamina. So I'm going to try to hurry.
My husband and I have been members of North Bay Civic
Association for several years, and I'm president of the Pelican Isle
Master Association, past president of the condo board, and I'm
presently vice president of the condo board.
Speaking on behalf of myself, and in my official capacity, the
North Bay Civic Association does not represent the residents of our
community. We strongly support rezoning and urge you to rezone this
property from commercial to residential.
The area along Vanderbilt Drive, almost to Bonita Springs Road
-- they sort of forgot about Royal Scoop, which is important to me -- is
completely residential. The recent Signature construction called The
Dunes is directly to the south, and Signature has the adjoining
property to the one in question to the north, and those are all highrise,
high-story buildings in the so-called hurricane corridor, which I don't
understand, because there are numerous highrises all along that area
and numerous residential sites of even single-family.
The site, however, before you for rezoning is a polluted,
commercially zoned piece of property that is an eyesore in a highly
desirable residential area. Signature's property to the north is
permitted to build five towers up to 22 stories and is located in the nest
area of the infamous eagle. The County Commissioners approved that
permit so they could do the 22 stories not very long ago.
The proposed Coconilla project ranges only from 13 to 17
stories. The plan for Coconilla, as -- Coconilla, as you have seen, is
beautiful. It will enhance the residential area and benefit the entire
community. The plan provides for an environmentally sound
construction plan and future site management program, as well as the
contributions to provide additional beach access and park programs
for the citizens of Collier County, not to mention substantial increased
Page 175
February 1 O, 2004
tax revenues. Public access to boat ramps will be increased and, more
importantly, the water will be cleaned up, benefitting fish and wildlife
and the manatee.
It is important for you to understand that the commercial zoning
will not permit us to have a good residential environment. Reasons I
have heard for denying the request for rezoning do not overcome the
cherished right in this country to hold private property and sell it for
its best use and value. Nor do they smack of fairness and justice in
light of what has been permitted to be developed in the area. We
understand and support this Commission on the need to control
overdevelopment in the environment. But this site is not the
appropriate site to take that stand. To do so, the Commission would
have to disregard the expertise of the county staff.
Thank you for your time. We appreciate your service to the
public as Commissioners. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: After this speaker, we're going to take a
1 O-minute break for our court stenographer. Thank you. MS. FILSON: James Pendleton.
MR. MUDD: Thank you, Madam Chairman, other
Commissioners. I'm James Pendleton, I reside at 425 Dockside Drive
here in Naples. My wife Carol and I have been here for nine years.
We were part of the first group to come into Pelican Isle. And being
uncertain when coming into a new development like that, I can tell
you that as we have looked back over the years, we have nothing but
praise and good remarks about the development and what we feel has
added to the community here in Naples.
We look to the new buildings and the new opportunities that are
here. And one of the things that I think is very important to consider
is the integrity, the quality and the experience that we have in our
developer and the proposal that is here. We can assure you that the
intention -- (applause). We can assure you that the attention that's
been focused on environmental issues, whether it be the eagle, the
Page 176
February 10, 2004
manatee or whatever else you might want to bring up, it will be given
adequate attention, as they've indicated in their presentations.
I serve as treasurer of our association, and I've done that since
I've been here at Pelican Isle, and I've been involved in many of the
issues that we've talked about. One of the things that we've found
about our residents is that they're not just simply residents here to
enjoy and do things that we ordinarily do. But you've heard today of
the diversity that we have; people that are involved in the estuary,
people that are involved in the Conservancy, people that are involved
in the North Bay Association. We've even gone so far as to have our
association become a member of the North Bay Civic Association.
And we wanted to be a part and to hear those issues.
Well, I can also attest to the fact that they have not given us any
opportunity to participate in this situation, and they do in fact not
represent our association.
Now, in looking to the future for where we go, given that it is
going to be changed to a commercial or a residential development, it
simply is no -- a no-brainer situation to evaluate the benefits that come
to the county, come to the people. And nobody wants to have a
position in a project that is financial (sic) weak or a deficit. The
positions that have been presented to you today, with the added values
that will be coming, the additional income and revenue to the county
certainly will help sustain and import (sic) any of the improvements
that come along. Plus the infrastructure that is being provided by this
new development is a part of that project.
So let me say again that we speak in favor of this conversion and
the, change in zoning to residential. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We'll be back in 10 minutes, thank you.
(A brief recess was taken.)
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your
seats. Madam Chair.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. Our next
Page 177
February 1 O, 2004
speaker?
And while we're waiting for our next speaker, let me just say that
we will be breaking for a half hour dinner break at 5:45. The court
reporters will change over at that time. So everybody in the audience
knows, that's our next break. Thank you very much. Move forward.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Robert Cooper. He will be
followed by Christine Hobbs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And it was suggested to me that possibly
if we hold our applause, it might even move a little bit faster, if you
wouldn't mind. I know that you're enthusiastic and I applaud you for
that, but let's hold our applause so we can move it on. Thank you.
MR. COOPER: Good afternoon, or I should say good evening.
We're getting close. My name is Robert Cooper, in 445 Dockside
Drive. I am a resident of Florida and I vote. We are a member of the
North Bay Association. At this time, I'm president of the Pelican Isles
Residents' Association. And all of you have probably heard from me,
e-mails and letters and that type of thing, so I'm not going to repeat
myself in that area because it would of no avail.
Obviously you know my -- you know my feelings, you know
exactly how we feel about this thing. Just two things I would like to
point out, though, and that is that I guess I am one of the common
men, the way we talk about here. And apparently there's some
differentiation between Pelican Isle and other areas, but I don't see it
that way. I, for instance, could not be a -- could not have a place, a
slip at the -- next door if I wanted it, because it's filled -- it was filled
up with 450 people and had a 50-person waiting list. So is this really
access to the Gulf?. That's my question I ask of you.
The other question I would ask is this: In the public finance
business, what -- the idea of using public money to finance private
access bothers me. This has been my life's blood. I've been in that
business for 50 years, and have headed up a company, upper Midwest,
that did an awful lot of public financing all over; all over the country,
Page 178
February 1 O, 2004
actually. And the idea of having -- of using public money to give
access to private people for a $20 million facility, is that thing going
to really work for you? Do you have a -- is, is there some -- does the
county have some kind of a plan as to how they're going to do this
thing, how they want to bring this thing about? Because that is a big,
big demand. I don't know how it would work, in my mind.
And the other thing I do feel very strongly, I am all for public
access to the Gulf, I'm all for public access to the lakes, anything.
This belongs to the people, and I think that's -- I would encourage the
county as a voter to somehow get public access to people so they can
take their boats -- put them on trailers, but get them in that Gulf and let
them enjoy our wonderful area down here. Thank you very much for
your attention.
MS. FILSON'
Pittman.
MS. HOBBS'
Christine Hobbs.
Good afternoon.
She will be followed by Bill
My name is Christine Hobbs.
My address is 420 Cove Tower Drive. I live in The Bequia. It's -- I'm
a resident of Cove Towers.
So since I live right across the street from the former marina
property and it's in full view whenever I sit in my condo, I'm
supporting the zoning to residential. My husband and I both feel that
this is in the best interest of the neighborhood. I'm a member of
Pelican Isle Yacht Club, Tarpon Cove Yacht Club and The Dunes
Tennis Club. I travel on Wiggins Pass Road and Vanderbilt Drive
every day.
I strongly oppose commercial use of this site. I feel that there is
more than enough traffic on these two roads already.
Being a member of Pelican Isle for more than seven years, I can
say that Ed Oelschlaeger, the developer of Pelican Isle, has some of
the highest standards in the industry and will develop an attractive,
tasteful complex that will enhance the neighborhood and keep homes
and property values up. Besides the aesthetic value this development
Page 179
February 1 O, 2004
would bring, the $1.5 million in property taxes alone, not to mention
the over $800,000 in impact fees, should be reason enough to support
this project. The Commissioners would be making a terrible mistake
to reject this revenue, just because of a small handful of negative
people offering no positive answers, that are trying to influence them.
This is my neighborhood and I'm requesting that the Commissioners
represent me by voting yes to the residential.
I oppose the North Bay group and I want you to know that I live
in that area, and they do not represent me. I'm hoping that our elected
Cormnissioners will represent me by voting yes to residential. Thank
you for your time.
MS. FILSON: Bill Pittman. He will be followed by Joe
Moreland.
MR. PITTMAN: Madam Chairman and Commissioners, I'm not
going to tell you how to do your job, but I want you to know how this
impacts me as an immediate neighbor of this area. My name is Bill
Pittman, my address is 12945 Vanderbilt Drive, which is about a
quarter mile south of the site in question. I've been a resident for 10
years. I'm a member of the Vanderbilt Beach Homeowners
Association, a member and former director of the Estuary
Conservation Association, member of the Pelican Isle Yacht Club, and
a member of the board of the Anchorage Condominium Association,
and a former member of the North Bay Civic Association. Former
because the leadership of this organization is not acting in the best
interest of my neighborhood.
As you can see, I'm involved in the neighborhood. As a matter
of fact, I was opposed to The Dunes project a few years ago because
of two concerns: Traffic on Vanderbilt Drive and the loss of the
natural beauty of the sand dunes. Now that The Dunes is nearly
complete, I must admit, the traffic is not noticeably heavier than it
might have been, and the landscaping around The Dunes has
significantly added to the beauty of the area.
Page 180
February 1 O, 2004
When I became a resident 10 years ago of-- on Vanderbilt
Drive, the only commercial enterprise on the four-and-a-half miles of
Vanderbilt Drive from Vanderbilt Beach Road to the fire station and
the county line, the only commercial enterprise was the marina.
Everything else was residential.
In the last 10 years, the number of residential units on Vanderbilt
Drive has increased five-, maybe tenfold. Vanderbilt Drive is a
residential area. We have access to all the stores, hotels, new car
dealers, restaurants, offices, bars that we need on Route 41.
I ask you to join me and the hundreds of closest neighbors of this
project, from Emerald Bay, Arbor Trace, Tower Pointe, Cove Towers,
Pelican Isle, Marina Bay, Eden by the Bay and the Anchorage who
have signed petitions, and we have a pile of petitions and you have
those, urging you to act in the overall best interest of Collier County,
the environment and the character of our neighborhood and approve
the permit application and rezoning to residential. I'm asking you to
keep commercial activity out of our residential neighborhood.
And I would like to make the point that a vote -- a no vote on
your part for this residential proposal is a yes vote for commercial, not
a marina. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know you want to clap, but let's move
on, please.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Joe Moreland. He will be
followed by Carolyn Bracci.
MR. MORELAND: Good afternoon. My name is Joe Moreland
and I'm a property owner in Pelican Isle, and I also have a residence in
the Vineyards. Avid boater, and have been in Naples now about seven
years. I'm also the committee chairman of the Marina Committee for
the Pelican Isle Yacht Club and I'm on their board of directors. And I
know I speak for all of my colleagues in those categories to include
some of those even in the Vineyards area who have a great interest
that they share in this.
Page 181
February 10, 2004
And a little one on myself, when I was reminded of my first time
I briefed a case in law school as a freshman, and finished it and I was
very proud with myself, and the professor turned to me and said, well,
Mr. Moreland, your bombastic redundancy is the epitome of your
sartorial elegance. Well, for those of you in North Bay, that meant
that I was loud, repetitive and very forceful. And we've heard that
today. I don't want to be loud and I don't want to be too repetitive, but
I want to make just a couple of points here, and it has to do with the
process of governance and in the roles that we have here and the roles
that you have before you.
I listened very carefully to what -- and I speak in behalf,
obviously, of the proposition. And I've listened to those that are
antagonistic towards it, and I respect their reasons. I sense most of
them irre -- are emotional. I think that many of them are based upon
facts or opinions which are not totally correct and indeed in some
cases inaccurate.
I also heard some presentations by lawyers that I was very
puzzled by. I will remain puzzled by them. And I know that the
developer and his staff will clear up some of those.
The question before the Board, though, for the Commission on
this is whether or not to grant this permit in view of the testimony
you've heard today would be an illegal act on your part. If it's not
illegal, then it's judgmental. There's nothing that mandates it unless
you get a little more subjective. The subjective is it isn't political
either. And I would hate to see it remain as nothing but a political
issue. The pot has been very tainted with predispositions of some,
perhaps, even of an elected official and of people who turn good
governance into politics. And I stand rooted against that and ask you
to share that point of view.
I had a bad dream last night. That dream, that I was one of you.
And when I woke this morning and recalled that dream and what it
was about -- I was reading the morning paper over coffee, and the
Page 182
February 1 O, 2004
editorial page of I hope it would be the Naples Times said Collier
County Commissioners voted down a permit. This vote was contrary
to the recommendation of their staff, it turned down the environment,
the economics, it did all of this and it did it--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir.
MR. MORELAND: Thank you, ma'am.
MS. FILSON: Carolyn Bracci. And in case I'm not
pronouncing -- I am pronouncing it? Okay. Jim -- Jim Landay will be
the next speaker.
MS. BRACCI: I'm Carolyn Bracci, 333 Steerforth Court in
Eden on the Bay, located just north of the proposed Coconilla project.
Eden on the Bay is solidly in support of this project. I've been
asked by my neighbors to speak on their behalf and to appeal to you to
seize this unique opportunity to vote yes on residential in our
backyard. We wish to make it clear that the North Bay Civic
Association directors do not speak for us.
First, I would like to say that we support the EcoGroup and their
project. Ed Oelschlaeger is not just a developer but a neighbor to us
all who is admired by his fellow Pelican Isle residents as only a man
of integrity can be admired.
Commissioner Halas, since -- before you took office,~ you and
your fellow members of this Commission have expressed strong
support for efforts to improve boat and beach access throughout
Collier County. This project will achieve your objectives.
Keep in mind that the county does not own this facility and
cannot afford to buy it. It is private property. Given that, it is
reasonable to strike a compromise such as the one made by EcoGroup
in offering our cormnunity an opportunity to assure that an additional
51 parking spaces, including 29 boat trailer spaces, will be added to
the Wiggins Pass public boat launch facility. Based on the 365-day
year, this provides a staggering 10,585 boat day trips per year.
Assuming two passengers per boat, the EcoGroup is offering to
Page 183
February 1 O, 2004
provide access to 21,170 boaters per year, which is over five percent
of the total Collier County population.
Compare this to the prior arrangements where property was
privately owned as a marina, where only 500 customers stored their
boats there, providing boat access to only 400 boats. By comparison,
this represents only one-tenth of one percent of Collier's population.
This expanded public boat facility will be owned by citizens of
Collier County forever as a facility that will be used by Collier County
citizens, regardless of class or wealth, and regardless of whether they
live in North Naples or all the way out in Golden Gate Estates. All for
a few dollars a day.
EcoGroup has gone even further, offering an additional $2
million to the county to construct a boat dock and boardwalk and
operate a boat shuttle from River Park to Lely Barefoot Beach. This
would be available to all residents. How fantastic would that be?
Could you just imagine how our kids and our grandkids would love
that experience? However, North Bay Civic Association would have
you deny us that.
Don't overlook the fantastic view corridor that would be created,
which would be available to all of us who pass by. I'd hate to drive by
a sprawled out commercial development and think of what could have
been. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jim Landay. He will be
followed by Don Neal.
MR. LANDAY: My name is Jim Landay. I'm a resident or
inmate at the Tower -- Tower Pointe, Arbor Trace. So my heart goes
out to boaters, really. I think that they lose something. But looks like
nothing can be done about that.
The eagles, we look at it every day. One of our inmates on the
tenth floor has his telescope on these eagles. He knows just what's
happening. Don't do anything when they're nesting. The rest of the
time you can make all the noise you want.
Page 184
February 1 O, 2004
I'm sorry to arrive here in a them and us situation. I used to live
in the U.K. for 40 years and they had that all the time. I didn't want to
-- expect to see it here in these haunted chambers.
I'm a member of the North Bay Association -- Civic Association.
I know North Bay because I used to work in North Bay once. That's
220 miles north of Toronto. I'm happy to be here.
But I support the association. But I think they're on the wrong
thing here. They -- first they talked about eagles and they talk about
this marina. There I sympathize, but it's a done thing. We're going to
have a string of beautiful highrises, whether you like it or not. It's
already been approved in certain areas. Make it as nice as possible.
Make it as good as the west coast -- or East Coast. Make it nice. And
I thank you for your time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Don Neal. He will be
followed by Ronald Reuss. Got it right.
MR. NEAL: County council members, I'm Don Neal. I'm a
resident of Pelican Isle and a former boat customer of the marina. A.
Nd the thing I would like to convey to you today is my wife and
I moved into the Pelican Isle area because we thought it was a
residential area. We are not for commercial development next door.
I think in the interest of time, I would like to say that because of
all the previous speakers, I think that the argument has been made
very, very clear what the best end use for this property is for the
county. And I would hope you would concur with me and vote this
zoning residential, and I appreciate very much your time. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Ronald Reuss. He will be followed by Gene
Elkins.
MR. REUSS: Yes, Commissioners, I'm Ronald Reuss. I live at
Pelican Isle Yacht Club. I've lived about probably 800 feet, about the
same distance as the eagle, from the marina.
We hear three objections. Basically the objection is that we
need a marina. Now, this is private property, and the price of the
Page 185
February 1 O, 2004
private property will not support a marina. When I talked to Don
Macintosh originally when this was started, this -- the price of the
marina property is going to be two or three times what a marina would
be able to have.
The height of the buildings, that seems to have been addressed
by lowering the buildings below the height of the neighboring
buildings that are going to be built.
And the eagle. Chris Oelschlaeger basically is an
environmentalist at heart. I would like you to look at the proposal and
look at the eagle management plan. They plan to bring a live eagle
onto the premise so the workers understand the eagle and what the
eagle's needs are when they are in construction. They do not plan to
build and pile drive and make major noise when the eagle is nesting.
They also are going to pad the dump trucks so that there is less noise.
Believe me, I live next door to that marina and the loudspeakers and
the forklifts with the diesel engines made so much noise I don't know
how the eagle tolerated it. So I encourage you to go residential.
Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Gene Elkins. He will be followed by Walter
Gronbeck.
MR. ELKINS: Commissioners, I appreciate the time you've
allotted to us. I'm Gene Elkins, I reside at the Pelican Isle Yacht Club.
I'm kind of like a pioneer there. We were number three to settle into
that fine community.
We took a number of chances moving into there. We bought our
residence, which was quite expensive, based on models, based on
ideas, based on delving into the reputation of the builder and the
company with whom he's associated with. There wasn't one area at
any given time that I found that I could have been disappointed in
anything that Mr. Oelschlaeger and his organization did or said that
they would do that they didn't do.
I'm a charter member of the Wiggins Bay Association, which has
Page 186
February 1 O, 2004
evolved in the ECA, of which I am also a member. I'm very much
concerned with the estuaries, with the waters, with the ecology, with
everything concerning that. I'm a boater. I've been a boater in
Wiggins Bay since I've lived here, which is 1986. There was a time
when we had to go out Wiggins Pass and follow the third dead tree to
the right and make a left when the pass was virtually closed. It's been
remained open, the water is much clearer and much cleaner than it's
been.
The marina, while it was extremely attractive for service, is
definitely going to be a better situation with residency there, and I
urge you to support the residency, please. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Walter Gronbeck. He will be followed by Pat
Worthington.
MR. GRONBECK: My name is Walter Gronbeck and I live at
Pelican Isle. I really want to waive my time here, because everything
that has been said that I would want to say has been said by my
friends in the free white T-shirts. So I'll just pass and say let's go
residential.
MS. FILSON:
Joseph S-I-D-O-T.
MR. SIDOT:
MS. FILSON:
by Fran Watson.
Pat Worthington has waived. The next speaker is
I'm going to waive also.
Okay. Elizabeth Redfield. She will be followed
MS. REDFIELD: Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth
Redfield. I reside at 425 Dockside Drive, Naples, and I'm a registered
voter in Collier County, and I'm an ordinary person.
I'm here today to urge you to vote for the conversion of this
parcel to residential. You've heard from others in the neighborhood
who wish to keep this land zoned commercial. They may be nearby
neighbors, but this is my backyard.
The marina is gone. Something will replace it. I don't want a
shopping center in nay backyard. I want trees instead of a Publix. I
Page 187
February 1 O, 2004
want naive plants instead of an Exxon Station. I want to see the eagle
from my balcony, instead of the haze of pollution from an
approximately 7,000 extra car trips. And I want to see views of the
estuary instead of the neon sign of yet another Walgreen's.
So please, say yes to residential and do not cast a vote that will
result in a shopping center in my backyard.
MS. FILSON: Elizabeth Redfield. She will be followed by --
oh, I'm sorry.
Fran Watson. Waive? Charles Watson. Waive. Linda Roosa?
She will be followed by Sylvia Neal.
MS. ROOSA: Hi, and thank you for your time.
I live at 255 Barefoot Beach, and North Bay does not represent
me. They don't contact me, they've never invited me.
My husband and I, we are both boaters. We took the bus down
here today because we like our friends and we saved a lot of parking
spaces for everyone else.
We are voters in Collier County; we have been residents for six
years.
When some people talk about the marina, they think it's coming
back, and I know we've talked about how much that's going to cost, or
how much the county cannot afford to pay. Actually, when people
stop to think about it, they surely wouldn't want the majority of
taxpayers of Collier County to subsidize their boating for 450 select
few. That's not exactly fair.
The price of the property is market driven. We know it's going
to boil down to between commercial or residential. Saying yes to
commercial will not protect the eagles. Saying yes to commercial will
not clean up the toxic dump. Saying yes to commercial will not
provide a boardwalk for the residents of Collier County or a shuttle to
come out to your beautiful, pristine Barefoot Beach where I live.
There are just too many aspects of this project that you must say
yes to for the benefit of all of the citizens of Collier County.
Page 188
February 1 O, 2004
I know it was mentioned how this property used to be a
residential, and they never even got the permits to mm it into a
marina. I think you just need to restore it back to residential. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: Sylvia Neal. She will be followed by Helen
Cooper.
MS. NEAL: My name's Sylvia Neal. I live at Pelican Isle.
I think that my -- all the points have been very well handled, and
I would just urge to you vote for this project. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Helen Cooper. She will be followed by Kevin
Powers.
Cooper waived.
Kevin Powers. He will be followed by Alice Dagg. She's
waiving. Audrey Moreland.
MR. POWERS: My name is Kevin Powers. I live with my wife
at Marina Bay Club, just south of this project. And I just would like to
say that we totally support this rezoning to residential. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Irene Owens? Rosemary Pofahl? Gail O'Leary?
Gail O'Leary. Robert Cassens. A1 Pofahl? He will be followed by
Brooke Hombeck.
MR. CASSENS: Commissioners of Collier County, thanks very
much indeed for allowing me to speak to the Coconilla project.
I'm professor Emeritus, University of Wisconsin, and so my time
clock is set to 50 minutes, not to two. ! could do it.
What I'm going to do, I have a prepared text and I would like --
MS. FILSON: Could you state your name, sir?
MR. CASSENS: I'm Robert Cassens.
I have a prepared text and I'd like to have it recorded in the
minutes. And my wife and I are opposed to commercial development,
and I'm very concerned about the toxic chemicals at the marina site,
because I think it's influencing the estuary, and I'm almost positive it's
influencing the eagles, because they eat those fish.
Page 189
February 10, 2004
MS. FILSON: A1Pofahl? You're waiving?
Brooke Hornbeck? Okay. She will be followed by Tom
Gardella.
MS. HORNBECK: Hi, I'm Brooke Hombeck and I am
approaching you as somebody that does not live near Wiggins Pass,
near the beach, but as someone from the younger generation of Naples
who will be living here for the next 60 or 70 years of my life. And I
truly, truly feel that this is the best use -- the R-1 zoning is the best use
for this property.
I have researched the Oelschlaegers' projects and Sancerre. I
drive to and from-- on Gulfshore Boulevard to work, and it's been the
least disturbance of any project I've ever seen of all the construction in
Naples.
I have a young son, and we love to go to the beach, we love to
occasionally get with friends, take boats out. And this project will
allow us public beach access, a public park, public boat ramps. And I
have no financial gain, regardless of the outcome, but I truly feel that
for the best use for all ages, but especially the people that are going to
be living here from now until whenever, I think that this is the best,
that changing the zoning is the best decision. Thank you for your
time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Tom Gardella. He will be followed by Dessa
Cassens. She's waiving. Felix J-A-R-C-Z-Y-K will be next. Okay.
Go ahead.
MR. GARDELLA: Good afternoon. My name is Tom Gardella
and I live just north of this project. And I have two small businesses
just east and south of the project, so ! do travel Vanderbilt Drive every
day. I am speaking on behalf of myself and my wife and my four
children. We did move here 11 years ago to Collier County. And
there's a lot of things that have been said already that, you know, a lot
of us feel and have been said. But I would like to say one thing,
Page 190
February 1 O, 2004
couple points, but I will try to get one thing out.
My son, who's 14 years old, he -- we moved here when he was
three. I have four children, he's just one of the children. And the
other night we were driving to the Collier County Fair and I told him
we were going to go to this meeting, and he said are you going to get
up and speak? And I said, yes. And he goes, what are you going to
say? And I said, well, I think I'm going to say something that you said
to me right around Christmastime. We were driving to a movie and
we were going down Vanderbilt Drive, and we come to Vanderbilt
Beach Road, and he just looks at me and says -- there's a big building
in front of you there -- and he says, dad, that building is pitiful. I think
we all should vote to tear that building down. And I said, oh, well,
really?
And then he paused, and he said to me, you know, they're just
building more and more tall buildings all around here. And he goes,
there's going to be tall buildings everywhere and in between we're
going to put -- they're going to put small buildings, and there's not
going to be any trees left or any animals, and I'm leaving. And that's
what he said to me. And ! said, that's what I'm going to tell the
Commissioners, just to think about the future and what's happening on
Vanderbilt Drive. It is becoming -- it will become another canyon of
highrises.
I am not totally against residential. I do not want to see another
highrise. This one's too high, too big, too close to the road. It is the
turning point. It is the one that will change the whole area. It is too
close. That is my opinion.
As far as commercial property, I'm a boater, I've been a boater
all my life. I grew up in boating and my family owns two marinas up
in Connecticut. I have been from Nantucket to Miami on a boat. I
have been on the southern California coast. As a matter of fact, I've
been around the world on a boat. And I have not seen, that I can think
of, although there may be, a commercial piece of property that
Page 191
February 1 O, 2004
someone decided to put a Publix shopping center and a Walgreen's in.
And it goes beyond my common sense that someone is going to say
that's what I'm going to put there. That land is too valuable to put-- to
use that commercial property for something like that. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Felix. He will be --
MR. JARCZYK: Jarczyk. Felix Jarczyk, thank you.
MS. FILSON: Okay. And he will be followed by George
Searle.
MR. JARCZYK: My wife and I -- thank you, Commissioners.
My wife and I live on Gulfshore Drive. I was going to take a pass, but
with so much time, your mind gets very fertile.
My wife and I are in favor, obviously, of residential rezoning.
Our kids live down here, our adult daughters, and we have three
grandchildren down here. And last night I talked to the grandkids, six,
four and seven months and asked them if they were in favor of
residential rezoning. Regretfully, they looked at me like I was crazy.
Please rezone this parcel residential. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: George Searle? Jay Greenland? Tim Rowe?
Judith Pittman? Marcy Wheat? Suzanne Ring?
She will be followed by Harry Hastilow. He will be followed by
Louise Franck. Marilyn Wenner? Go ahead.
MS. RING: Madam Chair and Commissioners, those who know
me know that I would never give up an opportunity to talk. My name
is Suzanne Ring. I live at 425 Dockside Drive. We've lived here in
this area for 13 years, but more specifically in this North Bay area,
right next door to the marina, for six years. We live -- this is our only
home, this is a permanent home and we are -- and I'm a resident voter,
along with my husband.
I love the water, the views and all the estuary system that it -- the
estuary system provides. The mangroves, the sea life and the wildlife.
It is now time to clean up the pollution that occurred at this site
for the past 25 years. Residential zoning provides higher standards for
Page 192
February 1 O, 2004
this cleanup. Should this land keep its commercial status, the
immediate and future ability for the stricter environmental standards
will be lost.
I also suggest that there be independent, unbiased water quality
testing now, before anything else happens, during any construction
and demolition phase, and for a minimum of three years after all
construction is completed, whatever that might be.
Just for this fact alone, the health of the estuary system, the vote
should be rezone residential.
And in conclusion, a vote against rezoning is a vote for
commercial development and not a vote for saving the marina. Thank
you for your time.
MS. FILSON: John Bache? He will be followed by W. Jean
McMann.
Robert Wheat?
MR. BACHE: Thank you for your time. My name is John
Bache and I'm a resident of Tiburon. And I also am a member of
Pelican Isle Yacht Club and I have a boat there at Pelican Isle Yacht
Club. And I speak for myself and not for the membership of the ECA,
even though I'm a board member. But I don't feel that the ECA has
dealt with this ethically, and I do not feel that the North Bay Civic
Association did, because they never took a vote of their membership.
And I think that's the first necessary thing that they should do.
I personally want to clean up two facts: One is that I really want
to see the Cocohatchee cleaned up. And the other thing is I'd like to
see the Pass just stay open.
Now, as far as the marina is concerned, I can speak on that
factually. The gentleman that owned the business was a friend of
mine, a business associate. He's out of Chicago. He owns Marco
River Marine. And he also owned Wiggins Pass. He took Wiggins
Pass 'cause he did not want it, and he kept it operating without putting
any improvements in it. So if we pay 23 million of the county money,
Page 193
February 1 O, 2004
I want to know who's going to pay the money to keep it open
thereafter. Because it won't be a one dip affair. So I think we should
put that in our perspective when we're looking at this situation.
The other thing is, I think we should take the money from
Coconilla, the $1.8 million in tax revenue, and put it in a reserve.
Because you people haven't given any thought to filtration plants that
you're going to have to build to clean up this Cocohatchee River. And
believe me, I lived my whole life dreaming of owning a home on the
Chesapeake Bay. And I no longer can afford to own that home,
because the government says you can't build unless you buy five acres
and put 500 acres in farmland, and I can't do that.
So I would say vote yes and let's get on with cleaning up the
Cocohatchee River. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Joann Johnson? Ralph Wenner? This next one's
real hard. Malika Sesi --
MS. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS: Anagnostopoulos.
MS. FILSON: And she'll be followed by Ron Whiteford.
MS. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS: Good afternoon, Madam Chair
and Commissioners. My name Malika Sesi Anagnostopoulos.
My husband and I reside at Pelican Isle Yacht Club. We are the
immediate neighbors. And we welcome a beautiful, serene, elegant,
safe and clean residential project next to us.
The North Bay Association does not and should not represent us
or speak for us.
You have approved another project just north of us. Please
apply the same considerations to the Coconilla project by the
EcoGroup and vote yes to residential.
The marina was private. It's sold. It's a fait accompli. And all
the pleas will not resurrect it. And if I may add, the eagles will live,
whether on trees or on ties. And also, the fish. So please vote yes for
residential.
MS. FILSON: Ron Whiteford.
Page 194
February 1 O, 2004
MR. WHITEFORD: I pass.
MS. FILSON: Okay. RalfBrookes? Mimi Wolok?
MR. WEIGEL: She spoke. They were earlier.
MS. FILSON: Gary Edson? Brad Cornell? Brad?
After Brad will be George S-I-C-H-A-N-I-S, it looks like.
MR. CORNELL: Hi. I'm Brad Cornell with Collier County
Audubon Society, and I have to confess to not having sworn. So, can
I swear?
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
MR. CORNELL: I'm Brad Cornell, here on behalf of Collier
County Audubon Society. And I want to clarify some things that have
been said earlier in this hearing, now quite a long time ago, that have
to do with our position on this project. Collier County Audubon
Society has a different position on this than Audubon of Florida. And
we are two separately incorporated organizations, although we do
work together. I need to clarify our stance now.
We have had earnest discussions with EcoGroup and we are
very appreciative of the Oelschlaegers' willingness to talk. Ultimately,
however, Collier Audubon disagreed with Audubon of Florida that
this project was the best for the eagles. Collier Audubon supports
adhering to Collier County's adopted eagle management guidelines,
regardless of other agencies' recommendations, if they are an
incidental take permit, as we have now before us.
Allowing this project to go forward will set the precedent to
destroy essential eagle nesting and roosting habitat at Wiggins Pass.
We believe this will be a domino effect.
Regarding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there is no service
staff for permits now in Southwest Florida. We've lost any local
review staff here. It's all being done from Vero Beach, they're not
even coming over here. The Biological Opinion ignores local
Wiggins Pass ecosystem needs. The loss of eagles at Wiggins Pass is
an unacceptable impact to this system. The Service's recent Incidental
Page 195
February 1 O, 2004
Take Permit on eagles' nest No. 19 underscores the need for Collier
County to confirm its own important role for protecting our own
eagles, wood storks and other listed species. And we've been having
this debate, as you all are well aware.
Because the Board of Commissioners has recently interpreted
their Growth Management Plan policies for listed species to allow for
denial of incidental take permits, in the interest of remaining
consistent with the growth management policies on species
management guidelines, Collier County Audubon Society urges the
denial of this rezone petition. However, we do urge the parties -- the
county, the residents in the area, the developer and all who are
concerned with this property -- to work on a different, an altemate
redevelopment plan for this site. We recognize that something's going
to happen here and we urge that everyone work together to find
something that is compatible with eagle habitat needs so that we may
keep the eagles at Wiggins Pass, which I think is everybody's goal.
Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is George Sichanis. And he
will be followed by Bob Krasowski.
MR. SICHANIS: Commissioners, Chairwoman. There's no
doubt that we do need dry storage, we need a marina for the benefit of
Naples and Collier County. And I would challenge EcoGroup, who is
in business to make money, and there's nothing wrong with that, that
they can develop that area with dry storage and a marina, and in a way
that they can have a -- like a condominium type of storage. In Bonita
right now there's a -- the Barefoot Boat Club there, and they have 90
dry slips. It's not easy access to the Gulf. But the last one sold for
$75,000. And it doesn't take much if you have 1,000 dry boat slips
available, and there's no reason why they can't sell for $100,000 each.
You've got enough people that would buy those and investors that
would get into it. That's a $100 million return. So a commercial
development there to do that type of a development would be very
Page 196
February 1 O, 2004
profitable and very beneficial and it would be good for the
community. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bob Krasowski. He will be followed by Doug
Fee.
MR. KRASOWSKI: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My
name is Bob Krasowski. I'm here speaking as a 25-year resident of
Collier County. I've lived in Naples Park for quite a while when I first
came here. Used to enjoy very much Wiggins Pass. It's unfortunate
that the area there and the environment there has been impacted with
the extensive growth that it has -- that has occurred there. I
understand the realities of this area being very nice and people
wanting to come here. But I think we really have to protect our
resources. I'm glad I followed the previous gentleman and the
gentleman from the Audubon, because I agree with what they just told
you.
I'm involved, as you know, and have been for quite some time,
in local organizations that look to environmental sustainability. When
I saw the presentation by the EcoVenture Group, I was very much
impressed with their orientation and attitude towards -- their
sensitivity to environmentalism. And -- but I notice in the pictures
they showed that some of their-- many of their developments had
lawns and manicured trees. I think when they put developments in
these locations, they should minimize the lawns, because then those
lawns require toxic pollutants that then run off into the -- Wiggins
Pass in this case, into the estuaries. So I'd like to become more
familiar with their work and support their work. I don't go along with
this particular project.
But also, you know that I've been involved in the recycling
effort. Multi-family dwelling recycling is one of the biggest challenge
in that area. But there are innovative things being done. These
people, with their sensitivity to developing environmentally sensitive
projects would, if they're being honest and truthful with us, would be
Page 197
February 10, 2004
interested in knowing about these things and applying them, so they
could be a good neighbor, if they just do something other than this
project. They seem like very nice people.
Just recently it was announced what the replacement for the
World Trade Center, the design they're using there is going to capture
rain water in order to operate their lavatory facilities. These type of
innovative design applications meet -- when they meet with
developers who want to understand the benefits of this, where you're
using direct rain water rather than water that's processed, and energy's
used to clean the water, it's a good marriage there.
And then also they could commit to using energy efficient
appliances. And I know these are a bit abstract, but they're very real
in terms of the impact that inefficient appliances have on our needs for
electricity. We-- I support-- I support furore by design that provides
for sustainability. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Doug Fee. He will be followed by Bill Eline.
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Good evening. For
the record, my name is Doug Fee. I'm president of North Bay Civic
Association.
You know that you've arrived when you have a controversy in
your neighborhood as important as this. And North Bay Civic has
tried to be a group that is -- involves the whole neighborhood. We
have open meetings, we have membership dues. We are not a group
that says no. We are totally open. Obviously, we all have different
opinions, and it's up to you today to look at all the facts, take all this
information in and decide where this issue is going.
For the North Bay Civic, this is not the only issue in our
neighborhood. This is only one issue. It's a very important issue for
the furore, and as you lmow, we have opposed this project for many
reasons. We put out a position statement, we've given that to each of
you. We tried to be as factual and as clear as we could.
One thing I do want to point out here is I feel like we sort of
Page 198
February 1 O, 2004
have an airport in the middle of our neighborhood, that somehow this
noise and this traffic and this bad thing that's in the center of our
neighborhood got there before all -- or after all of us arrived there.
This has been there for 20, 30 years. And I'll point out on the map,
south of the marina, probably 600 feet, is an island. It's called Pelican
Isle. And there's a lot of people in that community that are for the
residential. And I can understand that. However, the 10 acres to the
north involves the whole community. There are many in this
community, not only just in North Bay, but northwest -- northwest
comer that use this for many years.
And so you can't just look at one property owner, you've got to
look at the future and the -- you know, all that that involves.
I know I'm rambling on here, except to say that there's a lot of
issues involved here. I hope that you'll take them all into account,
realizing that we tried -- we try as a group to be as open as we can.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, Doug.
MR. FEE: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Bill Eline. He will be followed by George
Andelfinger. And then following Mr. Andelfinger will be Nancy
Payton. She's your final speaker.
MR. ELINE: Madam Commissioner and Commissioners, thank
you. I live on Vanderbilt Beach Drive at the Vanderbilt Yacht and
Racket Club. For the last two years I've been spending time with the
community on beach access. And when I saw what was happening on
this part of land that leads to one of the best accesses to the Gulf on
the west coast of Florida, I said we've got to find a way as a
community to make access for our citizens to get into that estuary.
And to mm this into a residential block really would be a crime for all
the poor people that can't be here today. So I do urge you to bring the
community together to find a way to do this, which are acceptable for
those that are against noise and also for the people who would like to
get to the water. I think it can be done if we all join together. Thank
Page 199
February 10, 2004
yOU.
MS. FILSON: George Andelfinger? Okay, your final speaker is
Nancy Payton.
MS. PAYTON: Good afternoon. Nancy Payton with the
Florida Wildlife Federation, and ! haven't been sworn in. (The speaker was duly sworn.)
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton with the Florida Wildlife
Federation. And I only have a few comments.
One, we urge you to deny this project on the grounds of
suitability. And I acknowledge that no matter what is proposed there,
there are going to be eagle questions and how to coexist with those
eagles.
We do question the statement that's on the back of the T-shirts
and was presented many hours ago, that this project will result in
healthier eagles. Now, I just don't know how that can possibly be,
particularly when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in their
Biological Opinion, acknowledged that this project harms and
harasses these -- this particular pair of birds, commonly referred to as
Nest CO 19.
I wanted to follow up on your first speaker's question, which
hasn't been answered and I understand why, but I wanted to bring it
back into everybody's mind, and that has to do with the fact that the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that this project, if it
proceeds, is a take that harms, harasses the Wiggins Pass eagles, and
therefore it is a take, and it's a take under state law and therefore, isn't
there a permit that's required under the state law as well. And if the
county staff could address that issue as to how this take of this pair of
eagles fits with our Comprehensive Plan and with state law, because it
sort of sets a precedent for no matter what's there. And that's it.
Oh, ! just wanted to say that the state take permit is only for
scientific or conservation purposes, not for development. It's either
scientific or conservation. And they have not made the case and they
Page 200
February 10, 2004
will never make the case that this is -- their project is scientific or
conservation based. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Opinion
-- I think this may have been put into the record. And if not, I'll put
mine into -- it has been put into the record? I'll put mine into the
record. Just might as well have two if-- better than none. Where it
does talk about this project harasses and harms these particular birds
and the impact on Collier County's population. Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the end of our speakers?
MS. FILSON: She was your final speaker.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. We will close the public
hearing. From here on in, we will -- yes, from here on in we will hear
from the petitioner. We have 10 minutes there, and then from there,
the Commissioners can ask questions.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I will, I'm going to have Duke
Woodson quickly come talk about the eagle issues, and then I've got a
couple closing points, and then we'll be available to answer any
questions.
MR. WOODSON: Well, let's see if I got this right. We ought to
do commercial or we ought to do a marina, because that will protect
the eagles. I told you the end of the story earlier, now I'm going to tell
you the story. Let's start with this picture so we all know where the
eagle is.
All right, there have been a couple of comments about habitat
that's going to be destroyed. This is the proposed project. This is the
eagle's nest. The primary zone, the 750-foot zone that some people
have alluded to, is not on our property. The eagle is not on our
property. The proposed project is in this area, it's in the secondary
zone. There is no habitat for the eagle in this area, except for one tree
that the eagle occasionally uses, or used to use when it was fed, and
still occasionally uses for perching.
That eagle is supposed to be taken. So the habitat that is
proposed to be removed for this eagle is that tree. That's the only
Page 201
February 1 O, 2004
habitat that's under consideration in this project.
What if this were a commercial project? The project would have
to go through the same review if the project needed a Corps of
Engineers permit. It's unlikely that a commercial project would need a
Corps of Engineers project. The only reason we're going through the
federal review is the proposed expansion of this marina. We have to
get a Corps permit, we have to get U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The state permit -- the question's been asked twice now, I'll ask
the question and then let your own staff answer the question. The
only reason we would need a state permit, and we are applying for
state permits for the clearing of this property, for the development of
this site, the permit will come from the DEP. As part of its review, the
DEP will have to consider our effect on this eagle's nest on all
endangered species.
In that review process, the DEP, absent U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service review, would defer to the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission. Game and Fish is not involved in this case because the
Fish and Wildlife Service is handling it. They've got limited
resources, they tag out. So in this case the Department of
Environmental Protection will consider what the Fish and Wildlife
Service is recommending.
There is no state permit required to do -- associated with the
development of this eagle. The Fish and Wildlife Service is
recommending -- or granting us an incidental take permit. You have
now two copies of the Biological Opinion in the record. You can read
the whole thing.
How did the Fish and Wildlife Service get to this conclusion?
That's the story. They got to the conclusion because they were
required to consider the habitat management guidelines for the bald
eagle in the Southeast Region. It looks like this. It was referred to by
one of the earlier speakers. It's what everybody has to use. Does
those -- do those guidelines say you cannot development -- develop in
Page 202
February 1 O, 2004
the secondary zone? No, they don't. They say in fact that there are
certain activities that are likely to be detrimental. One of those
activities are highrise condominium buildings like ours, likely to be
detrimental, and in most cases should be restricted. We have been
restricted. It doesn't say you can't do it, it says that they are likely to
be in most cases and they should be restricted. They've done exactly
what their guidelines have said. They've taken a look at these specific
eagles, this specific nest and given us a take permit with restrictions.
Why in the world would they do that? They did that because
they looked at the Biological Evaluation that we provided, that the
Fish and Wildlife Service reviewed, and Fish and Wildlife Service has
a ton of information about these eagles. They have that information
from Collier County Audubon, from Florida Audubon, the owners of
this property and our consultant, Andrew Woodruff who's here, and
you can ask him what he's done.
Among the things that Fish and Wildlife Service saw were
conclusions like for the -- and your staff has this information. Your
staff has recommended approval of this project. We've done flight
analysis. The owner of this property has done flight analysis. It
shows that these eagles fly toward the water. No great surprise.
That's where they eat. They fly down here to eat, they fly down here
to hang out. But most of the time the flight pattern is in this way.
What did the Fish and Wildlife Service conclude? This is a new
use in this area, a highrise condominium. It's likely to adversely affect
these guys.
What did Florida Audubon, State of Florida Audubon conclude?
You have this in the record. It's in your hands. Given the historical
adaptation demonstrated by this pair, it's probably unlikely that the
adults, with conscientious monitoring -- and I'll get to that in a minute
-- will experience disturbance levels that will be sufficient to cause
them to abandon the nest. State Audubon comes to a different
conclusion than Fish and Wildlife Service. We appreciate this
Page 203
February 10, 2004
conclusion, we have to live with the Fish and Wildlife Service
conclusion.
The historical adaptation that Audubon is talking about was also
alluded to in the Fish and Wildlife Service conclusions.
What in the heck is historical adaptation? These eagles are tough
birds. They have survived the construction of this project, the clearing
of the land here. They've survived all the traffic that goes up and
down here. They've survived the construction of what I heard today,
10 towers in their neighborhood. They've survived -- amazing to me,
they've survived this marina. And the only reason I can imagine that
these birds have tolerated forklifts and lights and noise and
loudspeakers and air pollution and contaminated fish that they get fed
is all these people wearing eagles stickers have been real careful. And
that when those people with eagle stickers come to get their boats out
of the dry dock, they tell the forklift driver to be really quiet. So that's
-- that's the eagles that we're dealing with.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded -- not Audubon,
but the Fish and Wildlife Service has said -- if you build a tower, these
eagles are likely to fly away. Not they will fly away, they're likely to
fly away. So we're going to give you a take permit just in case that
says you may go forward. But, they said, there are restrictions.
What are the restrictions? One of the very early speakers said
the Fish and Wildlife Service has not approved our monitoring plan.
They have directly approved our monitoring plan. Page 14, condition
one, applicant must implement and adhere to the September 17th,
2003 bald eagle management plan. Not only did they approve it, they
said we've got to follow it.
We have updated that plan with a February 6th draft which you
have as part of the record. We updated it to add the additional
conditions that the Fish and Wildlife Service imposed on this project
that your staff wanted us to add.
Here's what we have to do: First, we cannot tear down those
Page 204
February 10, 2004
buildings until the end of nesting season. There will be no
construction at all because the first thing that has to happen is tearing
down those existing buildings. We cannot do that until the end of the
nesting season. Condition number one.
Condition number two, we have to hire a U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service approved observer. There's a later condition which says that
we will work with Collier County Audubon in choosing who that will
be, we have to work with Audubon, make a recommendation to Fish
and Wildlife Service, it's up to Fish and Wildlife Service as to who it's
going to be.
By the way, monitoring guidelines: The Fish and Wildlife
Service has adopted a set of monitoring guidelines. They look like
this. They were approved in the year 2002.
Another condition of our approval from Fish and Wildlife
Service, we have to follow all those things. So back to our condition.
We've got to hire this person. And they're going to be there during the
nesting season. And they're going to be -- they're going to be watching
what we're doing.
The condition says interior and finish construction activities,
drywall, painting, that kind of thing, may occur during the nesting
season. I've already told you that we cannot tear down any buildings
until after the end of this next nesting -- or to the nesting season that
we're in now. Because of the concern about height, erection of cranes
used in vertical construction will occur during the non-nesting season.
We have to put up cranes to put up these buildings. We cannot put up
the cranes during nesting season. The emphasis here is protecting the
young. Protecting -- eagles get real antsy during nesting season, so
we're trying to keep them from moving off the nest during nesting
season. That's why everything is focused in these conditions toward
the nesting season.
Once we have the cranes up, we can continue the tower
construction during the nesting season with our observer. If the
Page 205
February 10, 2004
observer sees a problem, we quit.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
Okay, Commissioners, now it's your mm. And I'm sure that you
prepared many questions throughout this day. And Commissioner
Henning is first, I understand. Commissioner Halas is next.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Mr. Yovanovich, on the viewer,
can you explain to me the uses to the north of the Wiggins Pass site,
adjacent to it?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right here?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: That is -- that's the Cocohatchee Bay
highrise, five highrise towers.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Proposed.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Proposed, correct. Four of which--
well, they've been approved. And they've -- you know, they're -- four
of them are 20 stories and one of them I believe is 17. And the one
that's 17 is furthest north on their project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What's the proposed use or the
use to the east?
MR. YOVANOVICH: To the east is a golf course related to the
same project.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The south is the -- the south is
the public boat ramp?
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Pelican Isle.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Right.
You might find this strange
coming from me. Since the present zoning is C-4 with a height limit
of 75 feet, would you consider limiting the height to 75 feet?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, we have done all kinds
of analyses, and the 75-foot height will not work from a financial
standpoint for us to do a residential project.
Page 206
February 10,2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You do have the present right
to do residential on C-47
MR. YOVANOVICH: No. No, we don't. We have to -- that's
why we're here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Four units per acre?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We -- no, we have to come in for a
rezone to residential on this piece of property in order to get a
residential development.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas,
Commissioner Coletta, and then Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's my understanding, whether we
rezone this or not, but that density is not an entitlement, increased
density. And I therefore am going to stick, if we decide to go this
way, of no more than three units per acre -- four units per acre, but
then with the impact of the area there of traffic, three units per acre.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Well, let me -- I'll respond to
that. First of all, the people who said that the future land use element
limits this property to four units per acre because it's in the coastal
high hazard area are not factually correct. If you look at your future
land use element, it does not say that the coastal high hazard area is
limited to four units per acre. It does not exist in your future land use
element. What the future land use element describes in the urban area
is a base density of four units per acre. And then there's additions and
subtractions that occur through the various policies and procedures
within the future land use element. One of the -- there is a reduction
for traffic congestion and there are several additions to density that
can occur. Affordable housing is one. The second is conversion of
commercial to residential.
Your Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses the issue in the
coastal high hazard area for the coastal fringe area, which is the
southern part of Collier County. It specifically says in that area that
you're limited to four units per acre in the coastal fringe area, and
Page 207
February 1 O, 2004
you're not eligible for the density increase for commercial conversion.
It doesn't say that in the northern portion of Collier County for a very
good reason. The southern part of Collier County has more hurricane
evacuation issues than the northern part of Collier County. The time
frames to get out of the southern part of Collier County are much
longer and, therefore, there needed to be a density limitation. In the
northern part of Collier County, you don't have that issue. It's a
nine-and-a-half hour evacuation time in the northern part of Collier
County. So you weigh all of those factors in deciding what's an
appropriate density for this particular piece of property.
We submit to you that the nine-and-a-half units your staff is
recommending, nine-and-a-half units per acre, is an appropriate
density, considering all the factors, hurricane evacuation and the like.
I will tell you that if you limit us to three units per acre, that is a vote
for a commercial project.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'm going to -- I've got one
other question. It says here that the further -- the FLUE density rating,
Page 36, says that under a density bonus, consistent with the following
characteristics, may add to the density base we may add. But density
bonuses are discretionary and not entitlements.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner, we have the right to ask
for it and we have the right to assume we're going to get, if the
evidence we present shows that we have met the criteria for what
we're requesting. Hurricane evacuation is not an -- not an issue in this
area. We think we have shown you that the traffic impacts from this
residential development is less than a commercial project. We have --
I think we have shown you through the evidence presented that we
have met your staffs recommendation of nine-and-a-half units per
acre. And your staff has evaluated all of these things and has
recommended to you nine-and-a-half units per acre.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, thank you. If I may, I'd
Page 208
February 10, 2004
like to call our Emergency Management Director, Dan Summers,
forward to answer some questions. We've heard a lot of opinions, and
this is the man who I consider to be the expert. And I haven't talked to
him yet. And possibly we might be able to cut to the chase, because if
! remember correctly, one of the main reasons the Planning
Commission voted against this was because of the high haz -- the
coastal high hazard area and the possibilities of what could happen.
Mr. Summers, could you summarize exactly what we're up
against and what the dangers are to the residents in that area if this
particular project was approved?
MR. SUMMERS: Commissioner, thank you. Dan Summers,
Director of Emergency Management for the record.
We take very seriously the concerns that we have with hurricane
evacuation. We have a couple of variables, however, that remain
subjective. We do know that the Southwest Florida Regional Planning
Council, who's put the hurricane evacuation study together for us, has
given us estimated times for clearance of that hurricane -- of-- for the
various hurricane scenarios that have been discussed here. One of the
things that still remains an option for the Emergency Management
community and as a result, if a state of emergency declaration was
made and the Board and the Governor so moved, is the variable of
time. And in these areas that -- where the traffic is considered an issue,
the evacuation clearance time is considered an issue.
I have the -- the only flexibility that I have is to increase the
queuing time or increase the time in which we would begin that
evacuation order. The difficulty with increasing that time anywhere
from the 16 to 18, 24 hours has an additional variable, which is time of
day in which that is made, day of the week, and if we look at any
seasonal population fluctuations.
Having said all that, Commissioner, the issue for us is
experience, and there's not a great deal of experience in this particular
area with routine evacuations or emergency evacuations related to a
Page 209
February 10, 2004
direct landfalling storm. That means that that variable will be a
judgment call as to when we activate that evacuation notice.
And secondly, the point is that because of the behavioral studies
that typically go to a community, post-hurricane evacuation studies
asking folks how they evacuated, no one leaves at the same time, there
are other factors that determine when people are let to leave the area.
So to be honest with you, I have to plan for that worst case
scenario, build those time elements as reasonable elements of time in
which to begin that, but I have the option of starting earlier in order to,
one, ensure compliance, and number two, to have as much time
possible to queue the traffic out in a normal traffic flow.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I understand where you're
getting at, but the answer is still not concise enough. If I may phrase it
a little bit differently.
I remember reading your bio about you've been through a
number of hurricanes --
MR. SUMMERS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Actually personally been in it
up in Carolina, South Carolina, I believe? MR. SUMMERS: North Carolina.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: North Carolina. Can you--
from that personal experience, can you tell us at this point in time, are
we going down the wrong road with this particular density? Is this
something that's going to raise serious problems for us later, or is this
something of little consequence?
MR. DUNNUCK: Sir, in my opinion today it is of little
consequence. What I do expect three to five years from now is to
having to look at staggered evacuation scenarios. But I don't see as
much problem with the secondary roads as I see with the primary
evacuation routes of the interstate. So I think our secondary roads can
handle that queuing volume, much as if folks would go to and from
work every day, to give it some correlation. But my concern is the
Page 210
February 10, 2004
outbound travel beyond county lines.
So I have the flexibility and I have to illustrate to you, I have the
flexibility of dealing with that scenario only because of time, the
variable of time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Summers. I
have other questions, but I'll let the other Commissioners go and come
back later.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. I'll put you down.
Commissioner Coyle is next, Commissioner Halas, then back to
you again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA:
wishes to go next, or yourself.
COMMISSIONER HENNING:
Unless Commissioner Henning
Ladies first.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll wait till the end.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Is it my time now?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, it's yours.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, for someone who did go
through Hurricane Donna in September of 1960 here, I think we're in a
lot better shape now than we were then, quite frankly. But I'm
interested in finding out what population we use, what population
counts we use for determining that.
There's been a lot of talk about hurricane evacuation here, and I
know that hurricanes become a big issue for the media every year, and
it's hyped and it's hyped and it's hyped. And I think the things that we
don't understand are that most of our population is not here -- much of
the co -- much of the coastal population is not even here. They've
already evacuated. They evacuated around April or so. So, you know,
I don't get really too concerned about that at this point in time.
But if we keep -- if we kept building along the coast the way we
were going five years ago, I would be real concerned about it. But I
don't see any serious problems with that right now.
Okay. Can you verify that for us, Dan, about what population
Page 211
February 10, 2004
do you use for calculating the evacuation times?
MR. SUMMERS: Sir, we actually run in our models three
scenarios. We typically look at a seasonal average, and we also look
at a -- we do -- in other words, if there was a special event in town or
-- we have the variables in our models to say hey, we -- for whatever
reason, there was an additional population here or we add population
to the model, which will allow us additional warning time, is a way to
make that fluctuation. So, sir, it's based on a seasonal average.
However, we have the ability, just because of local factors or local
variables, to adjust that. And basically all that's going to do is adjust a
couple of hours either way when we basically go green and tell folks
to take action.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so you don't see a real
problem with respect to hurricane evacuation for adding 90 units here?
MR. SUMMERS: No, sir, I do not at this time.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: A couple more, more questions
and comments. There are some things that concern me about the
project. And I would like to verify, first of all, eagle protection. Now,
I've read the eagle protection plan. It requires you to do certain really
annoying construction when the eagles are not nesting, and it requires
you to stop if at any time the Fish and Wildlife Service observer
notices any changes in behavior of the chicks after they've hatched.
So I think that's good. And if we can expect very strict adherence to
this eagle protection plan, I have a higher comfort level.
But the eagle protection issue is important, I think, even to a lot
of the people who spoke here. I think the people who live there like to
have those eagles there and I think we need to make sure, if this is
approved, that you do whatever is necessary to make sure those eagles
are protected and encourage them to stay in this area.
The other things that bothers me -- now, I've got to say as a
preface, this was never a public boat access facility. I don't know why
people think that suddenly it is depriving the public of access, because
Page 212
February 10, 2004
it's never been public. It's been available to those people who could
afford to pay for a dry slip there. And I find it difficult to reconcile a
proposal that would have the government buy dry slip storage
facilities for people so they could, as one gentleman said, help him
enjoy boating. I don't think that's a government function. If it is, I
know a lot of pilots here who have been on the waiting list for hangars
for years who would just love to have us buy a few hangars for them
so they could put their airplanes there. So I don't think it's an
appropriate use for government dollars to do that.
But if the concerned citizens who really want access and want a
place to put their boats or launch their boats could get together and
form an MSTU and purchase this thing, I would jump all over it. I'd
be real happy, because that would be the perfect solution. But to place
that cost on other residents throughout the country -- I mean, nobody,
nobody came to my aid when I was trying to save Boat Haven.
Nobody was telling me I'm going to throw a couple 20 or $30 million
at you to try to get Boat Haven safe -- saved. And so those things
have unfortunately been lost.
But to my point. Now, we've discussed in the past my concern
with the height of this facility. The proposed height in my estimation
is totally excessive. And Commissioner Henning has suggested
reducing the height of this facility, and it occurs to me that we've been
talking a lot about compatibility and suitability in the neighborhood.
We've got a lot of people from Pelican Isle. Why can't we make this
thing like Pelican Isle? Why can't we keep it as high as they are, at 10
stories? And so, you know, we've talked about ways that this might be
done. And I'm wondering if you might have been able to reach any
conclusion and discuss with your representative or petitioner how {his
might be accomplished.
MR. YOVANOVICH: As I mentioned in my response to
Commissioner Henning, we have done a lot of different scenarios as to
height, and one of the scenarios we tested was doing a Pelican Isle
Page 213
February 1 O, 2004
type project with 10 residential floors over one of parking. The
difference between the two proposals -- and it will work. The
difference between the two proposals, it will be two buildings versus
one building.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but if you go with the
shorter building, it eliminates one of the primary concerns with respect
to preservation of the eagles, because it seems that high towers are
things that bother them a lot. In fact, we see that mentioned
throughout some of the literature that we've been getting. If you keep
that height down to something that's consistent with what is already
there, then it appears to me that we can -- assuming there's enough
support here to do that, and I'm not sure there is, but it certainly is
better than where we are right now. It's a lot better than 17 stories,
which I don't think -- I don't think there's enough support here to go
with 17 stories.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Coyle, again, we can do
the 10 residential floors over one of parking. We can do that height. I
just want to let you know it would result in two buildings versus one
building, and therefore, we thought that the community trade-off was
the preference of having one building.
But if the preference for the Commission is to bring the height
down to address the issue with the eagle, that is something we can
agree to.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And what does that do to the
setbacks, though, from the street?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It actually -- well, the setbacks will be --
if I recall, it's a minimum of-- they're one -- they're no worse than
what we are with the two -- with the one-story -- ! mean the one
tower, so --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It would be less obtrusive.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be a lower building with at least
the same setback. I think it's 150 feet would be our setback, so it
Page 214
February 10, 2004
would be almost one-and-a-half times the building height versus the
100 percent of the building height. Actually, if you would like Mr.
Hall, the architect--
MR. HALL: Well, we can actually achieve a greater setback
from Vanderbilt Drive with two buildings. The trouble is, we lose the
view corridor and we cover up, with 10 over one, the whole width of
the site. That was -- our concern was preserving a view corridor and
lessening the impact of the building. That's why height is better than
width.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you know, I'd be willing to
-- interested in hearing some comments about that, but it seems to me
that most of the views are from someone else's windows and someone
else's building, and by reducing the height of the building from 17 to
10, that improves the view corridor, in my mind, but I could be
mistaken. I don't know how the people feel about that.
But there's not much of a view corridor, any way you look at it,
from the street. You're going to be seeing trees from the street. So it
doesn't make much difference whether there's one or two buildings
there.
MR. HALL: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the views you're talking about
are largely views from the people who are south and east of you and
looking generally west.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And this second-- the answer to the
question is yes, we can bring it down to 10 over one. The trade-off is
a little bit of view from Wiggins Pass as, you know, before we had--
you were looking at our boat basin and all that.
The second issue is one of economics. The units will not
command the same price that we would if it were a taller building, and
our constructions costs will increase because we're building two
buildings versus one. So in the public-private partnership, we would
not be able to do all three of the things we had proposed. Remember,
Page 215
February 10, 2004
we proposed the reconfiguration of the county park, which we could
still do, and we proposed a million dollars for acquiring additional
parking and a million dollars towards, you know, the Lely Barefoot
Beach access.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Which two-and-a-half of those can
you do?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we could do -- we could do two of
those. We can -- essentially we can do the parking and we -- we'll
give you-- we could give a million dollars and you could spend it
however you want, but we cannot give you both million under that
scenario.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're not going to give me any
money, I'll tell you right now.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's right. Can't buy me off.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And also my client is telling me that the
marina itself, remember, is also reduced. It would be reduced from 50
to 25. So there's a reduction in boat traffic that goes along with that as
well.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But that --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Which is a positive, I think.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's right. That doesn't affect
the public's access --
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- from the park.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So that's a reduction you're going
to suffer?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But the public's access remains
the same, because the parking would still occur.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the -- let's discuss the
money issue. Now, there have been people in observations that this is
a bribe to get the Commission to approve something. And let me tell
Page 216
February 10, 2004
you, I think that's the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard in my life.
That is money that's going to the taxpayers of Collier County. It's not
going to us, it's going to the taxpayers of Collier County -- (applause).
And if the taxpayers of Collier County cannot or do not have the right
to expect us to extract as many reasonable concessions as we can from
people -- I'm sorry, the greedy developers, it says here -- then we're
not doing our job.
So this idea that if we extract concessions from you to make life
better for our taxpayers is somehow bad, then I think it's really
convoluted logic, and people have to really examine what the purpose
of all this really is.
But the one other thing I've got to say before I finish is that
wildlife protection is an important issue for this Commission, and that
no matter what happens here, we are proceeding, I think, in the
direction of developing some kind of wildlife protection program for
Collier County. And -- (applause). And that's something the board
discussed already, and it's something under consideration. It's not a
done deal, but we're going to keep talking about it. So with that--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: With that, sir, we are --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- I would make -- I would make --
I'll make a motion to approve, if we reduce the height to 10 stories --
MR. YOVANOVICH: Over one over parking?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- over one over parking -- over
one level of parking.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And make sure the setbacks are at
least equal, if not greater to, the setbacks of the current proposal.
MR. YOVANOVICH: If I --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that the eagle protection plan
is very, very rigorously proposed -- or implemented.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And just to assure you, we do view the
Page 217
February 10, 2004
eagle as an amenity.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You bet. You bet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: So our -- this plan has been structured
with the goal of keeping that eagle there. That's what we want to do.
We want the eagle to stay. And we have committed that if we do
anything that elicits an abnormal behavior, we immediately shut the
project down until we too -- we can take the necessary steps to make
sure we don't affect that eagle. And that's part of the plan.
Now, if I can ask for a clarification. I want -- due to the new --
you know, the truth in advertising with the height and all that, the
building height would be -- it would be 120 feet from FEMA for the
10 -- for the 10 stories over one of parking.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's from where, from the
original starting point of your proposal?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, my goodness. We were two -- 225
from the original proposal and the 17 stories was -- Bob, tell me --
196. So that's a reduction down to 120. And then, you know, you do
your normal embellishments, it's going to add about another -- about
another 20 or 30 feet to the tippy top of the --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Whatever you do to it, it's not
going to be any taller than Pelican Isle, essentially. I'm not talking
about a couple of feet here.
MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be very close to Pelican Isle. But
there will be a little bit of a difference. I mean--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's a little bit of difference --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: What's a little bit?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the height would be 120 from
FEMA and 145 to the -- remember, the tippy top of that peaked roof
over the elevator shaft is what we're talking about. MR. MUDD: And what's that?
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry -- that would be 145. Okay?
So we just want to make sure that that's on the record.
Page 218
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There's a motion on the floor. I'm sorry
that we're -- okay. Motion on the floor. Do I hear a second? (No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion dies for lack of a second.
Now Commissioners, we have our stenographer who has to
change with another stenographer, and this is what I told you about. I
know that Commissioner Coletta, Commissioner Halas and
Commissioner Henning all have other things, other questions that they
wanted to ask, is that correct?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Very much so.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so rather than delay this any further
at this time, we will take a half an hour break for the stenographers to
change. We'll see you back here in a half an hour.
(A recess was taken.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we are live. Thank you very much
for all your patience. I just want to give a little piece of advice to all
the ladies in the audience. Your husbands are here, even if you're not,
tell them you've been busy all day long, you didn't have time to cook
dinner. Let them take you out. Let them take you out.
And now, let's see. We have Commissioner Halas next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. You know, I've heard a lot
about the pollution of this site. And can you tell me how many boats
are sitting over there in that-- around the Pelican Isle area? How
many boats do you have in that marina?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a 190 slip boat marina.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And I assume you don't
have a problem there, because the outdrives don't drip oil, and we
don't have stuffing boxes leaking grease in the water, and I'm sure that
the people, when they change their oil, and the oil spills in the bilge,
that stuff doesn't flow overboard.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: No, it does not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, not ever, right? But yet, we
Page 219
February 10, 2004
have a pollution -- you know, we have a pollution problem.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Audience, we are already closed for the
public portion of our hearing. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So that, you know, I have concerns
on that, because -- and then the other thing is when you bottom paint a
boat, and then after a period of time it starts to deteriorate, and of
course, the barnacles get on it, and then you have to call divers in and
they have to scrub the bottom of the boat -- you're aware that when
you start getting --
MR. OELSCHLAEGER: You need to look at the permit
conditions on the Pelican Isles permit, which was issued by the DEP.
There is no boat scraping in the marina. There is no painting,
antifouling paint on the boats. There are pads, absorbent pads in the
bilge of each of the boats.
So there are strict permit conditions that that marina complies
with, and we would have the same imposition on a future marina.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. The other thing that I'm
concerned about is, as I look at the whole picture here, and of course,
everybody is concerned about this one area, and that's the Pelican Isle
area. We're looking at the C-4 zoning, and I understand that
everybody -- some of your comments were that it was private
property, which is exactly right.
It's just like if somebody owns a Burger King. That's owned by
an individual, but yet it's open to the public. People can go in there
and buy whatever they want.
When this marina was open, I believe the last year that it was
there, they had like 21,000 customers come through there, and that
was either to rent pontoon boats or they could go in there to get their
boat serviced or they could go in -- if they were lucky enough to have
-- to get storage, because of the fact that there was a limited amount of
storage, it was first come, first served, but there was people that went
in there and bought bait, there was people that went in there and
Page 220
February 10, 2004
bought fishing rods and all this other stuff. Plus, they were allowed to
rent pontoon boats. I remember seeing all these people with families
on pontoon boats coming up and down the waterways.
So when we say this is -- this is private property, yes, it is, but it
was also zoned C-4 to where everybody could have access to it. I
could go there. I could, you know, buy a soda. I could go buy a
fishing license. It wasn't restricted to any particular person.
But when we -- when we end up here, we're not going to have
boats for rental on this 52 boat marina. That's only going to be just for
the select few. I really have a problem with this.
And then when I look at what I -- what the planning commission
came up with, and they went through this for hours, and ! think you
were there. Obviously, you were there representing the people on the
planning commission, and through-- after due consideration and
careful application of our rules and regulations, they found it
unsuitable to recommend it for rezoning.
And I'm sorry, I've got to -- if I look at all the rules and
regulations that we have within Collier County, I've got to look at the
criteria of the GMP, I've got to look at the criteria of the FLUE, and
I've got to look at all these other things, and the other thing I have to
look at is presently we have 300,000 people in Collier County. We are
going to have 600,000 people in a short period of time. That means an
additional 300,000 or more.
And most of this development is going to take -- is going to take
place on the east side of 41 and also on the north side of 41, if you
happen to go down the East Trail. I'm concerned about those people
and having deep water access. This is the last area for deep water
access for all residents that would have the capability of using this if it
was left commercial.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Good. I'm glad you brought that up.
And if ! haven't said this clearly enough, and if we haven't made this
clear enough in our presentation, the marina is gone. It is not an
Page 221
February 10, 2004
alternative. It will not be a public marina.
It will be purchased and it will be developed as some other
commercial venture, and if you-- and if it's your goal to have
someone be able to come on the property to buy a soda pop, then
commercial is your vote.
However, that is not the vote of most of these people here. They
believe that commercial --
MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd keep your
comments down, please. Okay. The commissioners are trying to
make a decision. They've heard all -- everybody's comments. They're
trying to get information, and if you can't keep your comments down
to yourself, I'll have the sheriff's deputy clear the room. Thank you for your cooperation.
MR. YOVANOVICH: In addition, we've been going through
this process before you were even elected. I mean you attended our
neighborhood information meeting. It's been 18 months. There has
not been a viable proposal brought to this commission to acquire this
property on behalf of the public.
To require this property owner to give up its rights to use this
property and develop this property because the community feels that
we ought to have 450 people have access to dry boat storage is -- I
don't believe that's in keeping with what the people of Collier County
want.
There are many, many other social issues out there that may need
to be addressed by the county commission that I believe probably far
outweigh the need for 450 people to have a dry boat slip.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about if it was a thousand
people?
MR. YOVANOVICH: And you know what, I'll tell you what,
that gentlemen made a very nice offer. We'll be happy, if he thinks
we're going to make a hundred million dollars on a marina, we'll sell it
to him for half and he can have the other half of the profit.
Page 222
February 10, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But the other thing we have to look
at, we have to look at our land development codes, and the FLUE, for
one instance, where it says that this is not considered a strip mall, if it
was zoned C-4. This could be considered as a neighborhood village
center, as a C-4.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is. It's under 15 acres, and
so, therefore it would qualify for that. When you look at the
residential area around that area -- around that whole area, that would
classify as a neighborhood village center.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Halas, when this future
land use element was adopted, you would never have designated this
piece of property as commercial property. It would never have
happened. It would have been designated as residential property. It
was simply designated as commercial property because it had an
already approved marina.
You wouldn't-- you wouldn't locate -- I couldn't come in without
a comp plan amendment to ask for commercial on that site, and I
venture to guess, if I were to come in with a comp amendment to ask
for commercial on that site, I would not be successful.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd like to call staff up, if they
could assist me. I believe there was a rezone that was tried across the
street a few years ago that was commercial, that they tried to get it
rezoned residential, and it failed, and there's no reason that this has to
be rezoned residential.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the
comprehensive planning department.
And Commissioner, you're correct, it's the Wiggins Bay PUD.
They have a small, I believe it's three acres or so, tract of commercial
right at the southeast comer of Wiggins Pass and Vanderbilt Drive,
and they -- the owner attempted to get that rezoned, to amend the PUD
to change it from commercial to residential for high-rise. It was
Page 223
February 1 O, 2004
denied. My recollection is it happened twice, denied both times.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this piece of property qualify
for neighborhood village center, since it's under 15 acres?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. The provision you're referring to is a
PUD neighborhood village center, commercial subdistrict. It's a
provision that allows for a large residential PUD to have a commercial
component within it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we have large residential
PUDs on both sides of this.
MR. WEEKS: It would have to be within the same PUD. It also
has -- there's specific locational criteria that you don't see in the future
land use element. It's over in the land development code, but the
intent of that provision is to provide for neighborhood commercial
uses to serve the residents of that PUD primarily, and so the
regulations in the land development code require that commercial to
be internally located. There's specific criteria such as, I think it's 660
feet from the road that would provide access to the property, again, to
be internally located.
We're not suggesting it has to be a gated community, but you do
have to locate the commercial interior to the project, because the
purpose is primarily to serve that project itself, not the traveling
public, not the passersby. So this probably would not qualify for this
provision.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you so much. With your
permission, Madam Chair, I would like to call Mr. Dunnuck up to the
podium.
And while he's on the way up, one of the things that is enticing
me to go in the direction of this particular project is the fact that we're
going to, supposedly, have plenty of area for people to be able to park
their cars with their trailers for launching boats, but I want to hear
from Mr. Dunnuck what exactly we would gain from this.
Page 224
February 10, 2004
I've seen it. I've heard it, but I want to hear it from my own staff
exactly what this would mean for us.
MR. DUNNUCK: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, John Dunnuck, public services administrator.
As part of their project proposal right now, they have, in essence,
three items that will benefit the parks and rec department from the
standpoint which is consistent with our master plan for beach access
and boat launch. The three are, is that through the use of an easement,
we will gain additional parking spaces for both boat launch and for
potential future beach access from that location.
They've also agreed to give us two million dollars in value to add
to the master plan, one of which is to help us build the boardwalk at
the Lely Barefoot Beach Preserve area so that we can transport people,
via boat, to that access point, and secondarily to add additional boat
launch and beach access parking in a nearby location around the
Cocohatchee Park is what we're targeting, and those are both
consistent with our master plan.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What is the actual gain in the
amount of parking spaces we're going to come up with, and will these
parking spaces belong to the county or is this something where we just
get to be able to use that particular piece of land and sometime in the
future we might lose the use of that land?
MR. DUNNUCK: The on-site parking, the way it's established
at this point in time, and certainly in the site development plan, we'll
know a little bit better, but under a couple of scenarios, you're looking
at gaining approximately, I want to say, 22 additional parking spaces
along that easement now. Because of the way they've reconfigured the
easement, we would not own the easement under their plan. Instead, it
would be, as you suggested, it would be where we're borrowing the
land to further our parking area, the one million across the street to
purchase land, so it would add at least 100 parking spaces for boat
launch and beach access from our standpoint, which is a property that
Page 225
February 10, 2004
we're already looking to target, but this helps us from a financial
situation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And other than these particular
ventures, do we have something in the immediate future that's going to
be adding parking places in Collier County for beach -- or boat
access?
MR. DUNNUCK: Excuse me. Could you repeat that question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. Mr. Dunnuck, do we
have some plans in addition to this for adding boat access in the very
immediate future or is this about it?
MR. DUNNUCK: Throughout the county, we're going to bring
an item to you down for the property on Goodland. We're actually
going to bring it to you to begin the site development plan process for
the Goodland property, which we presently own.
We gave you a menu of items for the beach access and boat
launch plan that we're looking at for additional. We have the Shell
Island property that we're looking to gain control over for additional
boat access, and we're looking at some property adjacent to Bayview
Park, which so far, we've had some challenges there, but we're still
working through that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So the massive shortage we've
been suffering for some time, we're going to start to meet the
immediate needs and start to build up a future inventory. I do have a question for Mr. Yovanovich.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm just going to interrupt you for a
second while John's still here.
You said boat launch across the street. Is there boating -- I mean,
if you're buying something across the street, is there water there?
MR. DUNNUCK: Ramps aren't the issue. Parking is the issue,
and so you would continue to use the existing ramps we have at
Cocohatchee Park.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Then where would they launch their
Page 226
February 10, 2004
boats?
MR. DUNNUCK: They would launch at Cocohatchee Park and
park across the street.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Are there any other launches in
North Naples but that particular one?
MR. DUNNUCK: No, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: None. Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can I just finish one thing?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I just wanted to catch him while he was
there.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's fine. No, no, no. You're
the chair, with all the power vested in you.
Mr. Yovanovich, if you would, please, is there something we can
do to be able to come up with something that's iron clad that that
property we're talking about in the front that we're going to use for
parking will be county property and not at some point in time that
we'll have people come back and say --
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's a perpetual easement, Commissioner,
that we cannot rescind. It is your easement. It is your -- it's yours in
perpetuity.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I see Mr. Dunnuck nodding his
head up and down. Do you do you feel comfortable with that? MR. DUNNUCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you very much for that
opportunity.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Let's see. Commissioner Henning,
then Commissioner Coyle, then Commissioner Halas.
See, the chairman just doesn't get a chance to -- you have to
interrupt people.
Go ahead, Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I have a question for our staff. I
found where they can ask for the density bonuses from converting
Page 227
February 10, 2004
commercial to residential. It's saying that -- it says conversion for
nonconforming commercial zoning. Is that what we have here?
MR. REISCHL: Yes. Fred Reischl, planning services
department.
Nonconforming commercial zoning would be zoning --
commercial zoning that's outside of an activity center prior to the
institution of the growth management plan. So prior to 1989, if there
was commercial zoning, that the board, at the time, deemed vested, in
this case, because there was a marina on it, then it remained
commercial, and therefore, was eligible for the density bonus.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It sure would be interesting
what their thought process of doing that.
MR. REISCHL: Well, the idea was to get the cormnercial out of
those areas and into the activity centers.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: And now we're trying to get the
commercial back into the neighborhoods so the people can walk to get
a, you know, gallon of milk.
MR. REISCHL: You're right, with the neighborhood center
concept, but also the commercial has not changed. Both aspects are
still in the growth management.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: But, you know, the consensus of
what Commissioner Halas is saying is correct, but just the fine details
won't permit a neighborhood commercial, which I understand.
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks again, of the
comprehensive planning department.
Two things happened in 1989 with the adoption of our growth
management plan. One, as Fred was mentioning, was the
establishment of the mixed use activity centers, and that was intended
to be the focus of most new commercial development. We -- hand in
hand with that, we've had a, I'll call it a penalty provision and a bonus
provision.
The so-called penalty provision was a zoning re-evaluation
Page 228
February 10, 2004
program, and the objective was to try to rezone properties that did not
comply with the commercial locational criteria, such as the activity
center or residential density in the case of residential properties.
So it was a process that the county attempted to rezone those
properties, such as this one, to rezone it from C-4 to something that
would be consistent with the locational criteria, but because the
property was already developed, hands off, we were not allowed to
change that zoning.
At the same time, with the adoption of the plan in '89, we had this
incentive program, and that is the commercial -- conversion of
commercial provision that's being discussed here today, and that is
that in the one hand, we were not able to reach out and take your
zoning from you, if you will, through that re-evaluation program.
Here's the incentive, here's the positive side of it. If you're willing to
rezone your property at your own initiation from commercial to
residential, then you are eligible, not entitled, but eligible for a density
of up to 16 dwelling units per acre. So again, that's the incentive
provision.
The idea was that for properties, again, that did not comply with
the locational criteria, which primarily meant activity centers, then we
would try to rezone those properties.
And you're correct, Commissioner Henning, since 1989 --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me. Whoever has their phone
ringing, would you please mm it off. Thank you. And if anybody
else has their phone on, would you mm it off as well. Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Henning, you're correct in that we have taken
steps, including just with the adoption that occurred late last year,
taking steps towards trying to promote commercial development
within neighborhoods, and Commissioner Halas had asked about that
PUD provision. That was the one provision that's been in existence
for probably seven or eight years ago now. It's been used a handful of
times, and this commission, again, just in, I think December of last
Page 229
February 1 O, 2004
year, adopted another couple of provisions to try to promote
commercial development within residential neighborhoods.
The one thing I would stress about that is that is neighborhood
level commercial, which generally means C-1, C-2, maybe C-3 uses,
your small-scale neighborhood commercial, like convenience
commercial, barber shop, beauty shop, other types of personal
services, not to the level of C-4 zoning as this property is, because that
allows rather intense retail uses.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right. And I was just trying to
state that Commissioner Halas wasn't all wrong about that.
MR. WEEKS: Not at all.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It was --
MR. WEEKS: Just that specific provision.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Specific, yes.
Mr. Reischl, in code 3.3, it's saying density bonuses in the event
that residential bonuses is requested as provided for in the growth
management plan, a certificate of survey that clearly illustrates the
location in its relationship of the development to the proximity of
activity centers and the related activity ban shall be required. Does that apply to this?
MR. REISCHL: This is more than a mile from-- excuse me --
the nearest activity center.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MR. REISCHL: But I don't think it's close enough to require a
survey to show that it's outside.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. But it's -- it's just saying,
if density bonus is requested, but your interpretation is it doesn't even
meet the --
MR. REISCHL: I think my interpretation would be, that would
be if it was close enough to be a dispute, this is well over a mile away
from the nearest one.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, I guess I think
Page 230
February 10, 2004
we're getting closer, but I still have a problem with, you know, the
height, the whole height.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: You know, maybe I'm being a little
simplistic, but this is a really easy decision to me. There really is only
one decision. Do you want to have residential or do you not want to
have residential. That's it. That's the only thing you've got to say.
So if there's -- if there's a majority of the board that says we don't
want to have residential here, you want to keep it commercial, we
need to hear a motion to the effect, because -- and we need to
understand the effect of that.
It means we don't have anything more to say about this. It's not
going to be commercial -- it's not going to be residential. The owner
will do whatever the owner wants to do with it. They will develop
whatever they want to develop within the permitted uses, and up to a
height of 75 feet. We won't ever see it again. We won't have anything
to do about it.
We won't be able to add more parking. We won't be able to
expand the boat launching facility. We won't be able to take people
by ferry over to Lely Barefoot Beach.
Now, if that's what we want, let's get a motion to that effect, and
let's get it over with, but if you think that residential will work, let's
see if we can't find a compromise, but, you know, debating about the
fine points of the growth management plan after the staff has already
told us these things are acceptable, it is, I think, counterproductive,
and we can stay here all night picking little bits of the growth
management plan out of context, and interpreting them, and we've
been at this now for six hours, and all we've got to do is say, is
residential the best use for this property. Yes or no.
And I, quite frankly, don't care which way it goes. You tell me
which, you know, find three votes and let's do it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think it's four votes.
Page 231
February 10, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, it's a four vote to approve the
rezone, but it's not a four vote to turn it down, is it?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'd just like to find out one more
point. Everybody says the marina is gone, but yet, what is going to go
in here if we decide to put this residential? Is -- it's going to be a
private marina; is that correct? A private marina. You're going to dig
out and put 52 boat slips in there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, there will be some boat docks for
the residential property owners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There will be some boat docks.
There's going to be 52; is that correct?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It's 50 under the original proposal, and
about 30 under the motion that was brought by Commissioner --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, let me read a statement here
about our conservation and coastal management element -- object --
objective 10.1 provides the property for the shoreline use shall be
given to water dependent uses over water related uses. Policy 10.1.1
lists water related land uses, none of which include residential. Public
boat ramps, marinas, commercial public marinas over private marinas.
Dry storage over wet storage, commercial fishing facilities, other
non-polluting water dependent industries or utilities.
So I think the best way to go with this is to keep it commercial,
and I make a motion that we go in that direction. I hope I have a
second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll second.
Just for the sake of talking -- just for the sake of talking, and I'll
comment on my second. And my second is one of the things I was
thinking of. We're trying to keep the traffic off of the roadways, and
we're talking about trying to keep people in an area so that they can
shop closer to home and so forth, and this is so far from U.S. 41.
We've already got impacted streets, and so that's why I seconded it.
Page 232
February 10, 2004
So any comments? I have two other speakers up here. One of
them is Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I was going to ask
some other questions, but since we're at this point of the program, I'll
be honest with you, after weighing the whole situation, and knowing
that the marina is not going to stay in, if it does come, it's going to
probably be a private marina with commercial aspects on the thing, I
don't see where the public is going to benefit from it. I really don't.
I'm trying to weigh this whole thing.
I know there's an access issue that I've been very hot on for a
long time. I see some tremendous access here for boating. So when
we get right down to it, because of the give and -- the give and the
takes on this whole thing, I would support residential, but one thing is,
I can't agree that it should be two buildings, and I don't know if it
should be one. That's a decision that I'm not comfortable making.
Now, the people that live near that particular building that's going
up, would they rather see two buildings where there's going to be little
green space between it, or would they rather see one tower. That's the
only thing. One tower?
(Inaudible comments from the audience.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. I just had to get
some comfort on this whole thing, because there's been a suggestion
for two, and lowering the height, as height was some sort of problem,
and I don't want to prejudge that. I mean, I'd rather leave that to the
people that live in that area to be able to tell me what they think is
best.
One tower, to me, seems like it would be a cleaner thing with a
lot of green area around it. You have to look at the building every day.
The only time I'll get to see it is when I go to the top of the landfill
and look out.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion on the floor.
Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Are you on here, too?
Page 233
February 1 O, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Well, I just wanted to make sure
that Mr. Weigel chimes' in here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm so sorry.
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you. I'll chime briefly.
The motion on the floor, I believe, is to keep it commercial. I
just want to remind us all that there's a petition before you, and
typically, and we don't always go this way, but typically, a motion
might be either to approve or deny the petition. If it were to approve
the petition, it would require that four-fifths vote, the supermajority
vote, and if there's less than a four -- four votes in favor of it, the
petition is denied.
Another way to vote is a -- a motion to deny the petition, and I
believe, Marjorie may correct me here, but I believe a mere majority
vote would do that. I'm more comfortable when we achieve
supermajority or unanimity in regard to zoning decisions.
The vote or the motion that has been made, with a second, is a
motion to keep it commercial, which would have the effect of denying
the petition, and essentially nothing more. The zoning would remain
as it is presently. And I want to make it clear that everyone, as well as
the public, understands what the vote would mean if it goes forward
with the motion that has been made and seconded.
There will not be a vote specifically on the petition before you,
but in essence, it is a vote denying the petition, because you're saying
we're not acting on the petition.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes.
MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm assuming I'd be given an opportunity
to address your concern about traffic.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, and I'll tell you, I seconded it so we
have discussion.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. That's what I thought, and I want
to point out, it was early on, and it was several hours ago.
Page 234
February 10, 2004
Traffic actually is worse in the neighborhood under the
commercial alternative than the residential alternative. So if your goal
is to keep traffic off of Vanderbilt Drive, voting commercial is not
going to accomplish your goal.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Rich. I'm going to -- I've been
pretty quiet, but I'll come forward and tell you what I think.
First of all, I don't like the height, but I appreciate you saying that
you would bring it down to ten stories. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I like the idea of residential only because
there is less traffic on that area. I was very, very concerned about the
high hazard coastal area there. My fears have been put to rest,
because our emergency manager has said that there wouldn't be a
problem in that area, on top of which he has also stated that the areas
of most concern are in the south or in my hometown, my area, not up
in the north end.
So as I see it right now, the county is going to benefit by having
better boat access, better parking for the parks area and for the beach
access, that the residents are going to benefit because the building will
be lower. The streets will benefit because there won't be as much
traffic on there.
So those are my comments.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And if I may, I think if you were
to ask the group out here if they had a choice between two buildings
versus commercial, with one not being an option, I think you would
probably get the consensus that they prefer the two building
residential option at the ten stories versus commercial. That's my
sense of that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I -- I don't understand how we
serve the public by leaving it commercial. I mean, we don't get boat --
we don't get water access by leaving it commercial, because once we
Page 235
February 1 O, 2004
disapprove this, we lose control over it, and I see no evidence that the
owner will go in there then and start up the marina all over again. I
just don't see that as a possibility.
So if it develops as a commercial with the currently permitted
uses, then we have no way to require any -- any public access to water
whatsoever. We can't even require that you put a boardwalk there in
your commercial area, to the best of my knowledge. We certainly
can't require that you put a boat launching facility in there or any
parking for people who want to get access to the thing.
So leaving it as it is doesn't get us any access by the public to
water. Whereas, rezoning it to residential does get us more public
access to the water. So I don't understand the logic of disapproving it,
but once again, whatever way this board wants to go is the way, you
know, we'll go. I know I'm not going to become an advocate for this
thing, but -- well, I don't need to say any more about it.
I just think that, logically, the marina is gone, and unless -- if
there are so many people who are concerned about the loss of the
marina, let's get together and see if we can't set up an MSTU and tax
yourself a little bit of money, and then buy the blasted thing, and then
you'll all have access to it.
But aside from that, I don't see any way to deal with this. We
can't even -- we can't even put a package together in enough time to
deal with it. Somebody could easily sell this thing and begin to
develop it as commercial next week, if they wanted to.
So to me, the marina is gone. There's no more public access
there, and we're not going to get any more public access if we let it
stay commercial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Along that same line, did you -- you
already own the property; is that correct? I mean, this isn't--
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no. He has a contract to purchase
it, and he has every intention of purchasing it whether it's residential
or commercial. So it's going to be in Mr. Oelschlaeger's ownership.
Page 236
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to ask staff, if it's C-4
conditional, we have -- basically, the Board of Commissioners has
control over what can be put on there; is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: The zoning right now is C-4. There is --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And it's conditional; is that correct?
MR. REISCHL: No. It's straight C-4 zoning.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Straight C-4 zoning. Do we have
any options on what can be put on there under C-47
MR. REISCHL: The list of what's in the land development code,
it excludes the C5 uses, such as used car dealerships and mini storage,
things like that, but there are -- you know, most uses, office, medical,
retail, gas station, food stores will fall under C-4.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But we'd also, when it
comes before us, we still have that option to determine what's going to
be under C-4, right?
MR. REISCHL: No. It's already zoned C-4. So it would just be,
basically, a site development plan that's administratively approved.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. REISCHL: As long as it conforms with the LDC.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I still stand where I was before, for
denial.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't want to muckety-muck
this up. I will -- I think you might get support on this end if we could
get it closer to 75. The -- Tom Olliff was looking at trying to do
something with Wiggins Pass and trying to join our boat launch
facility. It was my understanding at that time that John Pulling owned
a little strip in between those, and we have to get some -- we'd have to
buy it or something like that. No?
MR. YOVANOVICH: We're not aware of any spike strip or
anything else.
Page 237
February 10, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: SO the deed is clean?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We would own abutting to your
property, and we would be able to interconnect our parking with your
parking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Maybe I misunderstood.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. But Commissioner, you know, 75
feet is just not going to work.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Eighty feet?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor.
We have a second. Would you read the motion for us?
MR. MUDD: And the motion, ma'am, is to deny this petition.
MR. WEIGEL: No. The motion is to leave it commercial.
That's as stated, anyway.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That would be to deny the motion
for rezone.
MR. WEIGEL: It has the effect of-- it has that effect. The
petition itself is not addressed directly, but --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: But what does the motion actually say?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you want to change the
motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll change the motion to denial.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay. The motion then, apparently, is to deny
the petition before the board, and the second would-- there would
need to be a second for that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What do we do with the first motion and
second? Do we withdraw them first before we change this?
MR. WEIGEL: The motion maker has amended his motion, and
so the second would have to follow or a new second be found.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So the motion is to deny --
MR. WEIGEL: The motion now is to deny the petition before
you. Now, the petition before you is, without the discussion, it's for
Page 238
February 10, 2004
the one tall building, the taller building scenario, and it also had the
aspects of the additional parking and the million dollars toward the
development of the boat slips.
There was a third factor, which hasn't been discussed, which I
wanted to -- would have discussed if it had been important, which had
to do with an offer to provide gas revenues for their fuel pump to the
county, which I would not recommend that this county enter-- that the
county entertain in this package.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So the motion that Commissioner Halas
has on the floor is to deny the tallest building, right, the tall building?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, it's to deny the -- it's to deny everything
that is before you in your agenda package today.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But David, if I'm correct, if that passes,
that doesn't prohibit a second motion based upon other compromises.
MR. WEIGEL: That is correct. If you took the vote for the
initial motion to keep it commercial, you, in essence, are saying, we
don't want to discuss anything that's not commercial.
Now, Mr. Halas has removed that motion and made the motion to
deny the petition that's before you, which is the petition that was
presented at the initiation of this meeting to you, and has there been a
second? No.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, Commissioner Fiala had
the second in the original.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess by her silence, I'm
hearing you're not going to second it? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I want to hear some negotiation points
here.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I'm seconding the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor by
Page 239
February 10, 2004
Commissioner Halas, and a second by Commissioner Henning.
Do we have any further discussion on this?
All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a two in favor of and a
three against.
MR. MUDD: Motion fails.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion fails.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now, where do we go, folks?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Somebody throw something else
out.
(Inaudible comments from audience.)
COMMISSIONER COYLE: We tried that one already.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, we didn't.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, we didn't get enough
discussion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Try it again.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do you want me to go back to the
original motion?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's not going to pass.
MR. WEIGEL: If you're looking--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's go back to the motion.
MR. WEIGEL: Pardon me. If you're looking for finality, this is
the county attorney speaking, you can take the opposite motion and
make a motion to approve, and it will either fail for lack of a second,
Page 240
February 10, 2004
or there'll be a second, and then you'll have the vote in chief, and it
will either pass or fail by -- and to pass, it must take a supermajority
vote.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Again, can I suggest -- Commissioner
Henning, it might help you if my client addresses the 75-foot height
issue for you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm sure these folks want
to go home and eat.
MR. OELSCHLAEGER: Yes, I'm sure we all do. I appreciate
all the time that you've put into this.
Commissioner Henning, I want to speak to the 75 feet. I would
like to be able to tell you that I could agree to the 75 feet. I cannot,
and there are several reasons why I cannot.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That's fine. You don't have to
answer, because you misunderstood what I had said. MR. OELSCHLAEGER: I did?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes. What I said was I wish
that we could get closer to 75-foot, and then maybe I could support it.
MR. OELSCHLAEGER: Can I tell you what I can accept, if I
may, back to Commissioner Coyle's motion, or when he talked about
the ten stories?
I can agree to the ten stories over parking.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. OELSCHLAEGER: And I can agree to the two buildings,
but the reason that we need that height is because that's where the
market is, Pelican Isle is ten years old now, and the market has moved
from that, and the other thing is you end up, if you don't get some
additional height, you end up with flat roofs and no roof
embellishments and you end up with buildings that architecturally are
ugly, and that's where the height needs to be.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's -- it is where it is because of
what you're paying for the property.
Page 241
February 10, 2004
MR. OELSCHLAEGER: That's a separate issue. The market --
the price of the land is one important factor. The bigger factor is the
height of the building establishes values that the market will bear in
terms of the prices that people will pay for it. So it's the -- that's the
other major, and by far, the more important factor in the economic
viability of a project than just the land cost. The land cost is one
factor.
MR. YOVANOVICH: And Commissioner, too, remember we're
having to fund, now that we're not doing fuel, but we're having to fund
the parking lot reconfiguration, we're having to fund the beach access,
a million dollars, and fund a million dollars for the parking. So those
all factor in as to what, you know -- we've got to have a project that
works from a dollars and cents standpoint, and those are all -- those
are all on the table.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just to let you know where the
commission has been in the past six to eight months. We had Heritage
Bay that came in here, and I think we ended up with 90-foot on those
buildings, and those were set back almost a mile from the road, and
we've been basically looking at 75 foot.
I'm telling you right now, where I stand on this, if we even think
about going commercial with this thing, it's going to be 75-foot, and
that is the zoning. So of course, you can put your roof on there, and
it's going to probably only be 100-foot by the time you get done.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let -- strip out all the concessions,
take your two million dollars back or million dollars back, and all your
parking spaces. How much could you reduce the building?
MR. YOVANOVICH: It still doesn't work. It still doesn't work.
We're talking about doing what we've done next door, which is
Pelican Isle, and I think everybody agrees that Pelican Isle is a first
class project. We've brought it down to be exactly what our neighbors
Page 242
February 10, 2004
are, and we're saying -- plus, we're trying to address community
concerns about access to the water, access to the beach, and we think
that we have a very fair project that benefits the people of Collier
County more than the C-4 zoning does today.
I think that's where we are. I can't make it any more basic than
that. That's what we need. We need an economically viable project to
convert this from C-4 to residential.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Now you're starting to go
the other way as far as getting an impasse from this direction when
you're talking about stripping off the water access. It's just not going
to work this way.
I think what we got is we're getting close to an impasse. I hear
Commissioner Henning on the height. It doesn't sound like he's
willing to wave on it. You heard me on the access issue. I'm not
ready to wave. We know Commissioner Halas is not going to move, I
guess, off the issue, period. If it's anything but commercial, he's
opposed to it.
So we've got four commissioners here that can make up their
mind if it's possible. If we can't, let's get down to it and call it a day.
What exactly is it going to take to make this thing work for everyone
that's here? I don't know what that is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, I don't know if it
is going to work. I think that -- Commissioner Coyle threw out a
motion. I think if there's another motion similar to it, we can vote on
that and get through the agenda today.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: There's no point in me making that
motion. You're the deciding vote on that issue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, no, no.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think if you have a solution that
will work, I think you ought to make that motion, but it appears to me
there might be three members on this commission who think that there
Page 243
February 1 O, 2004
is a reasonable compromise that will, number one, protect the eagles
better than a 200-foot tower, and we can get some additional beach
access capability for our residents, we can get some additional boat
launching facilities for our residents, we can get some more parking to
launch boats for our residents. Those sound like good things to me,
but I've made my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner, all --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I've made my motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All I'm saying is if somebody
would make a motion to that effect, at least we can vote on it, and
therefore, whether it's approved or denied, we can move on to the
agenda, through the agenda. That's all I'm saying.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The only people I see that are
going to benefit from additional water access are the people who are
going to be able to buy the 52 slips, and that's the people that are
going to really benefit from this.
(Inaudible comments from the audience.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, it is. Because what you're
going to do is you're going to end up blocking that whole area off, and
there will be nobody that will be able to get a boat in or out. When that
marina was open before, you had the ability to go over there and rent
boats. You had the--
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. To try to move this
along, I'm going to make the motion very similar to what
Commissioner Halas did earlier, and that was two buildings -- what
was that --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It was Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: It was me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Coyle, I'm sorry. Coyle.
Forgive me. I didn't mean that. I might move to the other side pretty
Page 244
February 10, 2004
soon.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You better.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Coyle, your
original motion was for two buildings over parking, what, ten stories
high?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Ten stories.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I'm not saying -- I don't
know where we're going to go with this, but with all the stipulations
that are in there that the staff has already put in there, everything stays
intact as far as the access goes, every part of it remains the same, that's
my motion.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And I'll second it, but I understood
the county attorney to suggest that we should not get involved in the
fueling revenues.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes, and I would appreciate if Mr. Yovanovich,
for petitioner, would indicate that those, call it accessory features that
come to assist with beach parking, boat parking, boat -- beach access,
I should say, that those things are still there as indicated before.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. And my understanding of the
motion was -- before, it was 120 over FEMA, and 145 to the
tippy-top. With that being said, yes, all the -- all the features in the
PUD that address the two additional million dollar payments as well
as the interconnected parking would stay the same and we'd have to
delete the fuel sale.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Where did the 120 come into?
MR. YOVANOVICH: That's originally what the motion was --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It's ten stories.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Right, and the -- right, ten stories over
parking, and the floors would be ten foot floors, okay, just so you
know how it gets there, it's ten foot floors with two penthouse floors at
12 feet, and that's what gets you to that, to that number, and that's
what the market is.
Page 245
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Two penthouse floors, did you say?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Eight floors at ten feet high.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Eight floors at ten.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Two penthouse floors at--
MR. YOVANOVICH: 12.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- 12, and that gets you--
MR. YOVANOVICH: And then you've got your slabs in
between, and we're only having -- what's the lobby -- a 12-foot lobby.
So we're not talking about having a big, high lobby area. That's the
market.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're back up to 160 feet.
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're not. Not even close to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let's do it one more time so there's
no confusion. Okay. You talked about a lobby. Now, the lobby has
got to be included in the ten floors. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So it's got to be included in
the total--
MR. YOVANOVICH: It is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let's start from FEMA.
MR. YOVANOVICH: From FEMA.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: From FEMA.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, what do you have, and let's
talk about the heights.
MR. YOVANOVICH: You have 12 foot for the -- let me let an
architect do this instead of a lawyer.
MR. HALL: Thank you. I get frustrated back there talking
about numbers.
We're talking from FEMA, which is four feet above grade, we're
talking 120 feet to the mean height of the roof. That is the way the
zoning code reads for building height. That's the 120. Then Rich
Page 246
February 1 O, 2004
mentioned to the tippy-top. We've got to put elevators, we've got to
get stairs to the roof. That's 145 feet from grade.
So we're adding in the FEMA height. The floor to floor heights
are ten feet for the residential floors, and let me correct Rich in one
thing, since he's the lawyer, not the architect. The top -- there's only
one penthouse floor. It is a 12-foot floor to floor, and we have a lobby
level that's 12. All that is included in the 120. The 120 is where the
whole building is sandwiched. That's the mean point of the main roof
and the FEMA elevation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Let me continue that for just
a second.
Now, on your original drawing, you had what I thought were
some fairly attractive units at the very top of the tiered building.
MR. HALL: That's right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, tell me why you
couldn't do that on these two buildings, because you didn't have 25
feet above those tiered penthouses on your original drawing. Can you
not do a similar treatment on the top penthouse floor of these two
buildings you're talking about and thereby eliminate this large 25-foot
additional structure?
MR. HALL: No. The 25-foot additional structure is for the
elevators, which have to be above the highest floor, no matter where
that floor is. So if we step the building, which we'd love to do, that's
why we presented it to you in the first place, we think it's the most
attractive of all scenarios. In order to get to the density and to make
the project be viable, we're going to have to take it as high as you'll let
us get it and put as many units in there as we can.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. HALL: That's why we're saying that --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm looking for a way to make this
more acceptable. Now -- but you see that -- what is that height of that
cupola on top? I can't read those numbers.
Page 247
February 10, 2004
MR. MULHERE: The height from FEMA --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Don't talk to me about that. Just
the height of that cupola on top.
MR. MULHERE: Between the two, it's about-- it's 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. That's 25 feet. Now, if you
were to apply that to the configuration we're discussing right now, that
doesn't result in the entire building being 145 feet.
MR. HALL: No.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
cupolas being 145 feet.
MR. HALL: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
feet.
It results in only a couple of
The building, generally, is at 120
MR. MULHERE: Right.
MR. HALL: As building height is measured in your code, it
would be 120 feet.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So what are we talking here in
density? Are we still talking four units per acre?
MR. YOVANOVICH: No, we're talking-- we're talking nine
and a half units per acre.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
MR. YOVANOVICH: He asked what was the density, and I said
nine and a half units per acre. That's the 95 units. You'd have 85 units
in-- well, you'd have 95 units.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, we're not going 95 units, not
going that density. Four units per acre, that's ten --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: There's a motion on the floor. Did we
have a second? The second was from Commissioner-- the motion on
the floor was from Commissioner Coletta, second from Commissioner
Coyle.
Would you read the motion to us, David?
Page 248
February 10, 2004
MR. WEIGEL: The motion was to approve based upon two
main buildings of ten stories apiece, with the added discussion that
they will, in fact, be approximately 120 with some aspects of the roof
going to 145, an additional 25 as just illustrated for cupolas to take
care of the mechanism that has to go above the top floor.
Additionally, the motion includes and the petitioner has agreed to
provide for the two major amenities to assist with beach access, boat
access and boat parking, boat trailer parking and other parking off site
for the county and the other amenity to be removed is the --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Fuel.
MR. WEIGEL: -- fuel payment to the county on the fuel pump
that will be operated and owned, of course, by the petitioner on their
project.
Have I captured everything, Rich?
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think we mentioned
parking.
MR. WEIGEL: I believe I did with that off site parking as well
as parking at the Cocohatchee Park.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I want to make sure I've got this
down pat as far as the things for parks and rec. You're talking about
parking. We're talking about parking for boat trailers. We're talking
about the sums of two million dollars.
As I remember, when Commissioner Coyle made his proposal,
Mr. Yovanovich said I can give you two, but I can't give you three.
And what I'm getting right now is all three are on the table with these
two buildings, and I want to make sure that's the difference between
the proposal before that died for a second, and this proposal that's on
the dias right now.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for that clarification.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That is correct. Okay. We have a motion
Page 249
February 1 O, 2004
on the floor. We have a second.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I can't go along with the 9.5 units
per acre.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have two oppositions, Commissioner
Henning, Commissioner Halas. Okay. So--
MR. MUDD: This petition is over.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So the petition is over.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It ain't over. I haven't heard any --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It means it was denied.
MR. MUDD: That proposal -- ladies and gentlemen, excuse me,
that proposal dies for lack of supermajority. It was a three-two vote.
It needed to be a four-one vote, and Madam Chair, unless you're
willing to continue additional petitions --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It would have to be one of the
negative votes that would have make to make the next motion. It
would make no sense for anyone else to.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: So do I hear a motion from Commissioner
Henning or from Commissioner Halas that they feel would be
acceptable? I do not.
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item on-- ladies and
gentlemen, if you could please leave the chambers quietly.
The next item on the agenda, Commissioner, is item 7C.
Page 250
February 1 O, 2004
Commissioner, I'd wait a couple of minutes so that they clear the
chambers.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: You guys are
embarrassing, especially you. Embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for
yoll.
Sir, if you could please leave the chamber.
I'm going to.
MR. MUDD:
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE:
CHAIRMAN FIALA: He is really brilliant.
UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER OF AUDIENCE:
middle, thanks.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, I'm going to take you off the mic
for about a minute and a half.
You three in the
Item #7C
RESOLUTION 2004-50: PETITION NUMBER CU-2003-AR-4799,
EDWARD B. HANF, REPRESENTING AMERICAN DREAM
BUILDERS, INC., REQUESTS CONDITIONAL USE #9 OF THE
ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSE OF A
MODEL HOME SALES CENTER. THE PROPERTY TO BE
CONSIDERED FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE IS LOCATED AT
4050 13TM AVENUE SW BEING LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 13TM AVENUE SW AND COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951), WHICH IS UNIT 26, TRACT 119,
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THIS
PROPF, RTY CONSISTS OF 5 ACRFJS- ADOPTF~D
The next item is item 7C. This item requires that all participants
be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by commission
members. This is conditional use 2003 AR4799, Edward B. Hanf,
representing American Dream Builders, Inc., requesting conditional
Page 251
February 10, 2004
use number nine of the estates zoning district for the purpose of a
model home sale center.
The property to be considered for the conditional use is located at
40 -- excuse me, 4050 13th Avenue Southwest, being located at the
southwest corner of 13th Avenue Southwest and Collier Boulevard,
County Road 951, which is unit 26, tract 119, Golden Gate Estates, in
section 15, Township 49 south, Range 26 east, Collier County,
Florida. This property consists of five acres.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Who is going to make the
presentation?
MR. MUDD: The petitioner, Mr. Hanf?.
(Speaker was sworn.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Do we have any disclosures,
she said with her mouth full, from the commissioners?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: None from me.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Not from me.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Not from me, either.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: 7C, hold on. No disclosures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And no disclosures for me. All five no
disclosures.
Can we move on. I'm sorry. I had to take a shot of sugar, I'm
telling you.
MR. HANF: Madam Chairman, County Commissioners, I
appreciate the fact that you're willing to stay here this long and listen
to our petition. I would like to compliment the staff on changing my
-- correcting the spelling of my name. You had the four -- one of the
4,639 variations in spelling my name. I've seen them all, but it was
corrected by the staff and I appreciate that.
I do want to take a moment to assure you that we are not in the
same position as the previous petitioner, 7A, with respect to the model
home. We have a single family model home at the corner of 951 and
13th Avenue Southwest.
Page 252
February 10, 2004
As I understand it, as part of the conditional use permit, the
conditional use permit for model homes was originally conceived to
be a transitional zoning requirement, that is, from a commercial space
to residential space.
To the north of us, we have another model home. To the south of
us, we have two lots that are owned by Florida Power and Light. So
this is a transitional -- we are at a true transitional zone from that
standpoint.
We have a five-acre site. It's 650 feet deep along 13th Avenue
Southwest. There are two things that I would like to address to the
county commissioners at this time. The first item has to do with the
taking of the right-of-way 75 feet by the transportation department for
widening 951.
I submit to you that within the past three months, there have been
very high voltage wires that have been installed along the sidewalk on
the western side of 951, and this is exactly where they're attempting to
take the 75 feet, right in front of our property. The 75 feet will impact
our septic tank, which means that we can no longer operate that as a
home.
Now, I submit to you that as a builder, we pay impact fees, and
as I understand it from the transportation department, part of their
determination for the cost or the setting of the impact fees has to do
with the cost of the right-of-way.
Here we have a situation where I cannot believe the
transportation department did not realize that Florida Power and Light
was going to install high tension wires along the west side of the
highway where they're going to be buying 75 feet, which means they
have to pay for the 75 feet, including the demolition of our house and
the -- either we have to build another house further back or do
something with that, because we can no longer -- will have a septic
tank, okay, and the fact that they have to pay for the relocation of
these high voltage wires. I just bring that to your attention.
Page 253
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Mr. Hanf, Florida Power and
Light can only put their power lines where the easement is. MR. HANF: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We don't have an easement any
further than where they put it. So it's just the way, you know, it is as
far as the lines go.
MR. HANF: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Now, you can relocate your
septic tank, can't you? If you're saying it will take your septic system
MR. HANF: It actually takes -- it actually comes very close,
within three feet of the comer of our house.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR HANF: Where our house is situated, our house is situated at
an angle.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: So are you saying we shouldn't
build the road or relocate it or what?
MR. HANF: No. What I'm saying is that you have -- you have
space on the other side of the road, and I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Where the canal is.
MR. HANF: And I submit -- where the canal is, and I submit to
you that you own that property, you don't have to buy it, you know,
and yes, you may have to address some concerns of South Florida
Water Management, but I see canals like that being covered
constantly, okay.
The second point I'd like to raise -- I'd like to mention is the staff
requirement for building a sidewalk along the edge of 13th Avenue
down the length of our property. I was not aware of ADA
requirements, okay. If there is an ADA requirement that we provide
access, there is a sidewalk that does run along the front of our property
along 951. We would be happy to build a sidewalk from that to our
Page 254
February 10, 2004
parking lot, which would provide for ADA access into our property,
but I see no reason to go past -- past that point, because it doesn't serve
any purpose. There is a vacant lot behind us, and there is nothing
there.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You don't think the kids down
the street would use it?
MR. HANF: No. They get driven up there every morning.
They're dropped off. They're driven back every evening.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Do you have some more
questions?
MR. HANF: Other than that, the only other thing I would sug --
I would submit to you is that we originally were after a five-year
extension. The reason that the planning commission decided to go
only with a one year, which I was, for the sake of not getting into a
long, involved discussion, I said I would be willing to go -- we would
be willing to go along with, was because again, we got lumped in with
the petitioner under your item 7A, okay, and it was a discussion there
about how long are we going to have this as a model home, and I
submit to you that in a PUD, once all the property has been sold, yes,
that model home is converted into a private residence, but in our
particular case, as the previous petitioner pointed out, there are
thousands and thousands of lots out there.
Now, the cost of the lots are getting up to the point where we no
longer will be able to provide affordable housing, as that's the area that
we are also involved with. Impact fees now are such that it costs well
over in excess of $11,000 for an average size home that we build, and
that's just getting a little up there, and our least expensive house today,
without property, is well over $100,000.
So we're not talking about -- you know, we're talking about
affordable housing for maybe some semi-professional or whatever.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I'm going to call on Commissioner
Coletta, but I just had just one question, very simple.
Page 255
February 1 O, 2004
Under considerations on our executive summary, it says that the
American Dream Builders, in 1977, but you probably meant in 1997,
right?
MR. HANF: '97, yes, ma'am, 1997.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Fine. I just wanted to clarify that.
MR. HANF: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The discussion of sidewalks
came up, and we went through it in great detail just a few minutes ago
with the property across the road, and at that point in time, the
commission agreed that it was a necessary thing. I still question the
need for it, but I would question the fairness, if we go ahead and we
make -- for it on one of the developers out there to do it, and then the
next one we make some sort of exception. I might be willing to revisit
the other side of the street again, but again, too, that seems to raise all
sorts of problems for everybody here.
MR. HANF: Well, I would like to point out to you that you
required him to put a sidewalk on, but there's no sidewalk on that side
of 951, whereas, there is a sidewalk on my side of 951.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes, but he also has to go down
White.
MR. HANF: Yeah, I understand. He has to go down his entire
property, but there's no sidewalk. He's not connecting to anything on
either side.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You just said the exact same
thing I said. He's not connecting to anything. It made no sense and
doesn't make any sense now.
MR. HANF: And all I'm saying is that at the end, we're not
connecting to anything either. I would submit to you that we'd be
willing to put the sidewalk to our concrete, you know, if this is an
ADA requirement.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do you want to hear from Mr. Feder?
Page 256
February 10, 2004
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do.
MR. FEDER: If I could, for the record, Norman Feder,
transportation administrator. Just a couple of things quickly.
First of all, Commissioner Henning, I think, already addressed
one of the issues, and that is that Florida Power and Light, when they
came down, they have, as public utilities, do have the right to utilize
our right-of-way. They utilized it. That's the right-of-way. That's the
right-of-way we have today. We already have an agreement and
understanding, at their cost, that once we expand the roadway, expand
right-of-way, that they will have to move those lines.
So that is an issue that we understood at that time. They had to
come before we had the right-of-way and the expandability to move it.
They're going to have to move it at their cost.
Additionally, I'll point out to you that it's unfortunate, but many
of these model homes were placed as close as they could to the
roadway for good exposure, and unfortunately, in taking 75 feet on a
lot that you've already seen is nice and deep, unfortunately, you will
be coming to this home.
We do not have the ability, nor the financial wherewithal, nor
actually the approval from the permitting agencies to end up basically
covering in the canal on the east side of the roadway. You need that
open both for the treatment of the water, and so it's not something that
we're going to be able to pipe in, if you will.
So we do need the 75 feet. Unfortunately, we've got a home
that's built much too close, because it was set there for exposure,
obviously, at the time, and the FP&L will be moved.
To the issue of sidewalks, I'll let Diane jump in, but what I can
tell you is sidewalks in any property where they put it in doesn't
necessarily connect, but if we don't start requiring them, they will
never connect to anything.
We're hearing that this is a transitional area. Well, I don't know if
it will be transitional, but if it is, and it starts going commercial, that
Page 257
February 1 O, 2004
sidewalk is even more imperative, but we need to have the sidewalks.
We need to put them in the places where we can get them as we go
forward.
In the past, we didn't do that. That's why they're not connecting,
and if we don't start doing it now, they won't ever connect.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I guess he told me.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Feder, how does this -- does
this affect any way of expanding this road whether what Mr. Hanf is
asking and what the planning commission recommended?
MR. FEDER: I would be concerned that we establish a situation
where we're increasing our jeopardy under an acquisition process that
he's already told you is going to come into his property. By
establishing this provision when we know that we're getting ready, late
this fiscal year, not the first, but next fiscal year, to start widening, and
therefore, are going to be in the process of needing to acquire a
right-of-way, by taking this action, are you giving him further rights
and, therefore, further costs relative to the right-of-way.
Having said that, I will defer to our legal, because I don't know
that you necessarily want to structure a situation where you're not
allowing him full enjoyment and use of his property, but in answer to
your question, I think you are possibly establishing a situation of
additional cost, knowing that we're going to have to acquire the 75
feet, and just as was presented to you, knowing that that's going to
impact this property as it was built on the site.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Hanf, give me some
guidance. It's in my district. I hear you're opposed to widening of the
road.
MR. HANF: No, I'm not--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Wait a minute, wait a minute.
MR. HANF: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that you can build more
homes to impact that road.
Page 258
February 10, 2004
Mr. HANF: No, I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we --
MR. HANF: I'm not opposed to widening of the road. I'm just
pointing out what I thought was going to be a problem, but Mr. Feder
just said that the FP&L lines are going to be moved at their expense.
So obviously, that's not an additional cost as far as the right-of-way
goes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Part of the conditions of this, if
you're seeking a five-year conditional use -- MR. HANF: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- is that 75-foot right-of-way,
we might not need 75 foot. I mean, it has to be designed, but can we
reserve a price at estate residential zoning?
MR. HANF: I am not in -- I am not in the position to make that
decision, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I'm ready to make a
motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Please do.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Do we have to close the public
hearing?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make the motion we --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: -- accept the planning
commission's recommendations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to accept the
planning commission's recommendations. I have a second. Motion on
the floor by Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Halas.
I have a question from Commissioner Coyle, and we --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: That is for what, a one-year -- now,
tell me why earlier today we granted a two-year extension to a
Page 259
February 10, 2004
conditional use for a model home, and now we're granting a one-year
extension? Are we going to have a two and a half year extension here
next week?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What goes for planning
commission recommendations --
MR. MUDD: I think what staff--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, we're not potted plants here.
We can make a decision once in a while.
MR. MUDD: Sir, I can -- all I can do is defer to staff. It was the
planning commission deliberation to let you know why they decided
on one.
MR. DERUNTZ: For the record, Mike DeRuntz with the
department of zoning and land development review.
As you see, initially, this was a temporary use for the model
home, then he was granted a conditional use in 2000. That conditional
use will expire in 2005. Mr. Hanf has gone -- come before us early to
request an extension of that existing -- the current conditional use
permit.
The planning commission agreed on a one-year extension to
bring it to 2006. That would parallel this time frame that they're
looking at that during their deliberations for the staff, to look at this --
a consistency issue with the Golden Gate area master plan and the
conditions of model homes.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And did the earlier approval we
had provide the same date for this consistency?
MR. DERUNTZ: It was the same year, 2006 was -- they felt that
it would have taken 2000 -- or two years to --
MR. MUDD: Yes, sir, it did--
MR. DERUNTZ: -- review the --
MR. MUDD: -- because the other one, basically under
conditional use, was up, and with the board action, it gave them two
years. That would bring them to 2006 also.
Page 260
February 10, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. One question, if I may.
This additional use, when we get to the point where we have to buy
the property, and we may encroach upon the house, is this going to, in
some way, affect the selling price of the property to us, back to us? In
other words, are we digging ourselves a hole that's going to hurt us in
the end as far as the value of the property?
In other words, if this man has the ability to say I've got a
conditional use that goes to '06 or whatever, could he come back and
say that's worth so many dollars?
MR. DERUNTZ: Sir, I would like to refer to our legal staff
about this -- your question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, David, but I had to
ask that question.
MR. WEIGEL: I'm glad you did. I'm sorry I'm the one that has
to answer it.
The -- I think the answer is it may be a factor if and when the
county has designs to acquire the property, because you do look at the
value of the property and the use that it has, and if there's a conditional
use that still has some time still running on its little clock, that may be
a factor for the price. I won't say absolutely that it's going to affect us
at this point in time. The recommendation by staff for one year
doesn't put it out too far into the future.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Another question. Would the
property have a different value as a model home versus a residence?
MR. WEIGEL: I think the answer is yes, but interestingly, the
model home conditional use is, by its nature, particularly the fact that
it's not an indefinite conditional use, it is a resource with decreasing
value because there will come a time by the operation of time that the
conditional use will no longer allow it to have any value for the
current use that it is as a model home, and it will have to have a use
Page 261
February 10, 2004
that's consistent with the underlying zoning that's there --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: -- which is residential.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Mr. Weigel.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor,
and a second.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion carries.
Item #8A
REQUEST THE BOARD APPROVE AN ORDINANCE TO
PROHIBIT FISHING ON DESIGNATED BRIDGES WITHIN
COLLIER COUNTY, WHICH ORDINANCE ALSO (1) DIRECTS
THE COUNTY MANAGER TO POST APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE;
(2) AUTHORIZES THE COUNTY MANAGER TO DETERMINE
THOSE OTHER COUNTY BRIDGES UPON WHICH FISHING
OUGHT TO BE PROHIBITED; (3) PROVIDES FOR PENALTIES
FOR VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE; (4) DIRECTS THAT
THE ORDINANCE BE INTERPRETED CONSISTENT WITH
F.S.316.1305, FISHING FROM STATE ROAD BRIDGES; (5)
REPEALS AND SUPERCEDES RESOLUTION NO. 2002-204,
WHICH ESTABLISHED A FISHING PROHIBITION FROM
BRIDGE NO. 030210; (6) PROVIDES FOR THE INCLUSION IN
Page 262
February 10, 2004
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES;
AND (7) PROVIDES FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE- DENIED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, the next item is 8A, and this is the
advertised -- advertised public hearings. This is to request the board
approve an ordinance to prohibit fishing on designated bridges within
Collier County, which ordinance also, number one, directs the county
manager to post appropriate signage; number two, authorizes the
county manager to determine those other county bridges upon which
fishing ought to be prohibited; number three, provides for penalties for
violation of the ordinance; number four, directs that the ordinance be
in interpreted -- that the ordinance be interpreted consistent with
Florida Statute 316.1305, fishing from state road bridges; number five,
repeals and supersedes resolution number 2002-204, which established
a fishing prohibition from bridge number 030210; six, provides for the
inclusion in the Collier County Code of laws and ordinances; and
number seven, provides for an effective date.
MS. FLAGG: Good evening Commissioners. Diane --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to approve
and a second. The motion is by Commissioner Henning, second by
Commissioner Halas. Question from Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, questions, statements.
We're looking at something -- it's an access issue we're talking about.
There has been no real accidents that have taken place. Is there a
potential for future accidents? Of course there is. There's a potential
for future accidents for people that are on bicycles all the time.
Here we see a case of a bridge where you have a sidewalk. I can
see where a cast net might be a deterrent to use it on that bridge, but
you have people that can't afford to access the water by boats. This is
something that's an American tradition.
Page 263
February 1 O, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll remOve my motion. What do
you want?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: What do I want? Well, what I'd
like to do is see it not happen in this particular--
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I remove my motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I make a motion for
denial until we can come up with a better plan.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: First, we have to get the removal of the
second, right?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The second doesn't matter
because your first is gone.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
have a motion on the floor.
Okay. Well, that's true. Okay. Now we
Would you repeat your motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, my motion is for denial for
the simple reason that we haven't -- I know it shows available fishing
access there, but that's not always the case. There's times that the
bridge itself offers a better fishing position. People ride across that
bridge on bicycles. Should we put up signs that say bicycles not
allowed?
You know, we have got to be realistic about this. You're talking
about probably people that are of a lesser economic status that don't
have the ability to be able to access the water by boats. You're talking
about the people that live in district five that have a chance a couple
times a year to get out there and go fishing.
And I'll keep this -- keep this in mind. We're talking about an
enforcement issue. We're talking about-- they're talking about litter
that comes from this, and other things that take place. I'd say that if
you have rules in place and you enforce them, then you can remove a
lot of the objection to this.
MS. FLAGG: Madam Chair, could I just comment?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure.
MS. FLAGG: This actually has come from folks in
Page 264
February 1 O, 2004
Chokoloskee, and for the -- the reason that it has is what has happened
is the five bridge that were before you, all of them are already signed,
no fishing from the bridge. There's only one, which is the
Chokoloskee bridge, and their concern is what's happening is folks, as
they're driving across the bridge, when they go to cast their bait into
the water, it's hitting their car, and then it's pulling fishing poles out of
their hand, or when they go to cast the net, the nets get caught on their
antennas on the car, and the nets are going down the road, and so it's
the folks in the -- in Chokoloskee that are requesting that for these
types of bridges, because -- they said that they've also had children,
where the folks are focusing on fishing, and they're not watching their
toddlers, and their toddlers, because you can see it's a three-foot
sidewalk, it's very narrow, and the toddlers go out into the road.
So it's not that they don't want people to be able to fish. They're
just asking that they fish from the sides, where there's plenty of space
for the toddlers to sit, plenty of space for them to bring their pole back
and toss it into the water, plenty of space to take the cast net and cast it
out into the water.
So this is -- this is not a, we don't want people to fish. This is a
safe fishing, because of-- and it's just adding the one bridge,
Chokoloskee, and the request actually came from a couple in
Chokoloskee, because their car had caught a cast net and their car had
also caught a fishing pole.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Why are we making laws for
stupid people? I mean, seriously. I mean your -- if somebody cannot
be smart enough to wing some fishing line out there, or be kind
enough to be cautioned, then it's just like walking on the road. Are you
going to walk in front of a car?
So we're creating a law for stupid people, and the next question
is, why didn't somebody coordinate from our staff to talk to the
commissioner of the district on this item?
Page 265
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor to deny from
Commissioner Coletta. Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, four-one. Commissioner Coyle
opposed. Thank you. On to 8B.
MR. MUDD: It's continued, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Pardon me?
Mr. MUDD: It's continued indefinitely, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, that's right.
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN
MR. MUDD:
CHAIRMAN
We did 8C.
FIALA: We did 8B.
We did 8B.
FIALA: We did 15A.
Item #9A
RESOLUTION 2004-51: APPOINTING ROBERT E. DOWLING TO
THE COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD-
ADOPTF, D
MR MUDD: We did -- that brings us to 9A, which is
appointment of members to the Collier County Code Enforcement
Page 266
February 10, 2004
Board.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion we approve
Robert E. Dowling.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9B
RESOLUTION 2004-52: RE-APPOINTING JOHN
MACDOUGALL AND JOHN RIBES TO THE PARKS AND
RF, CRF, ATION ADVISORY BOARD- ADOPTFiD
MR. MUDD: That brings us to the next one, is appointment of
members to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Since that person is from
Immokalee, I would like to suggest that we appoint Bernardo
Barnhart.
MS. FILSON: You're one ahead of yourself.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're, you're -- 8B --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- I mean, 9B, 9B.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion that the
recommendation of the committee, we approve them, those two
people.
MS. FILSON: For the two reappointments.
Page 267
February 10, 2004
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Two reappointments, yes.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion from Commissioner
Halas and a second from Commissioner Henning.
I'd just like to admonish the district one people a little bit and say,
I keep begging people to mn for -- or to submit their application for
the parks and rec advisory board, and still we have nobody from
district one on parks and rec, and it's been years and years and years.
So if anybody from district one is listening, please know that I'm now
spanking them. Thank you.
All those in favor of the motion, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9C
RESOLUTION 2004-53: APPOINTING BERNARDO BARNHART
TO THE IMMOKALEE BEAUTIFICATON MSTU ADVISORY
COMMITTF, F,- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. We go on to 8C.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's my turn now. Bernardo
Barnhart.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second, for the term for Immokalee
beautification, MSTU advisory committee.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion on the floor from Commissioner
Coletta. Second from Commissioner Fiala.
Page 268
February 10, 2004
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Item #9D
RESOLUTION 2004-54: APPOINTING MARK GRASSAR TO THE
REVENI JE COMMISSION- ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 8D. This is for the appointment of one
member to represent the CBIA on the revenue commission, and CBIA
has submitted an application for Mike Grasser as their new
representative for the revenue commission.
May I hear a motion to approve that recommendation?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Coyle.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Halas.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Page 269
February 10, 2004
Item #9E
DISCUSSION REGARDING AGENDA PROTOCOL- MOTION
FOR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO REREAD AND CLARIFY
MOTION BFi1NG PRF, SF, NTFD- APPROVF, D
CHAIRMAN FIALA: 9E.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: All right. Commissioner, I did
this one. I just -- I know that the codes and the laws provide that the
chairman restates the motion. I don't care who does it, but I think that
we need to be consistent--
MS. FILSON: You skipped an item.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did we?
MS. FILSON: 9E.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't know what anybody's
thoughts are, but I think that we need to make a motion and give some
guidance if somebody else is going to do it besides the chairman, and
you know, sometimes we get out there a long time, and maybe that's --
may be best if somebody volunteer from our staff.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah. I think it's an excellent suggestion,
because how many times, after the fact, we've realized we thought we
heard something else, and the motion was really a little bit different.
So I think it's great that we re-read it. Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I think that since, when we
make a motion, we want to make sure that everything is legal, and I
think that the county attorney should be the one to read this motion
back.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion, the county
Page 270
February 10, 2004
attorney reads the motion.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's good.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion on the floor
from Commissioner Halas, a second from Commissioner Henning.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. You have a new duty.
MR. WEIGEL: I appreciate that. I'm flattered to be asked, and if
I may, in regard to that, since it's mentioned in the code under
administration procedures, it might not be a bad time to come back
and put that flexibility in the code so that it's -- we know it's assigned,
but it could conceivably at some point may be assigned to someone
else, not that I'm looking forward to that at all. I zealously will want
to do this job, but additionally, there are a couple other little aspects in
procedure that we've kind of worked and finessed over for many
years, and I wouldn't mind bringing them back.
For instance, the five-minute speaker rule. We have worked
three -- for three to five minutes, and it's been considered as kind of an
absolute, but I would like to kind of play with those things a little bit,
talk to you individually, and eventually bring this back as an
ordinance amendment.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think that's a great idea. I hope you don't
mind if I just jump in here. I had on my notes to talk at the end of the
meeting, but as long as you've mentioned the five-minute rule, I also,
Page 271
February 10, 2004
looking back, it used to be that the presenter had 20 minutes, and those
times are getting longer and longer.
Today, I conceded with an hour, but maybe we should study that
20-minute presentation rule as well.
MR. WEIGEL: Fine. If you'd like, I could just bring it back as a
discussion item before we go to advertise and bring it back.
Another thing is, and it's not been problematic for many years, in
fact, prior to my being county attorney, is the question of weekly
meetings and biweekly meetings. We've had biweekly meetings for
many years, and it would appear in the book that we're certainly
authorized to go weekly. I think that by virtue of the chair and the
commission itself setting up agendas way ahead of time, there isn't a
problem for not doing weekly meetings, but it does say weekly
meetings in there.
So those are the kind of things that we can clean it up, make our
practice and the word in there not be at odds. I also believe other
aspects of the administration part of the code give great flexibility to
the chair, and so that has allowed me to opine on three minutes or five
minutes without any pressure previously, but those are the kinds of
things I look to bring back and show you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And actually, we do comply with the
weekly meeting. If we're not having this meeting, we're having a
workshop meeting or we're having an interlocal meeting of some sort
or another, but probably the wording has to be correct.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If we go to weekly meetings, I
hope we end up when we have a commission meeting that lasts for
four hours, we have a commission meeting weekly that ends up being
-- the time frame that we've been spending today, or we have in the
past where we're lucky if we get out of here at six o'clock, I think that
would be pretty demanding, not only for the commissioners, but also
for staff, too.
Page 272
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: You know, it's interesting, because I was
speaking to one of the Lee County Commissioners, and they said they
have a meeting once a week, and it lasts for half an hour. They said at
the very most, an hour. I said, well, when does the public ever talk.
They don't really talk. And I said, well, how can you deliberate. They
said, well, we have a consent agenda with eight or nine subjects on it.
I said, we have 80 or 90 on our consent, but that's still just one vote, so
how do you get rid of-- you know, get through everything else, and
they said, it's just that quick. And I thought, how can you do that
under the sunshine. I mean, I can't ask you a question about how you
feel about anything except if we're sitting right here.
MR. MUDD: Madam Chair, there's a lot of things been
delegated, okay, and they're not delegated in Collier County, and that's
the difference.
And so if you take a look at --
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we're always eager to hear what the
public has to say, and that does make our meetings a lot longer, but
anyway, so we have a motion on the floor and a second. Oh, we
already voted on it.
MR. MUDD: You've already voted on it, ma'am.
Item #9F
RESOLUTION 2004-55: REAPPOINTING RONALD M.
PENNINGTON TO THE COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL
ADVISORY COMMITTFJF,- ADOPTF, D
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We're going on to 9F.
MR. MUDD: The next item is 9F, and that's basically an
appointment of a coastal advisory committee member.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve Bob
Huntington.
Page 273
February 1 O, 2004
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #10A
APPROVAL OF AN AWARD BID #04-3617 FOR EVACUATION
SHELTER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT TO PRO-PAC INC.,
AND APPROVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT
OF ~250~000- APPROVFD
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to item number 10A,
and that's to award a bid, 04-3617 for evacuation shelter supplies and
equipment to Pro-Pac, Inc. and approve a budget amendment in the
amount of $25,000, and Mr. Summers --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I make a motion, approval.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: We have a motion to approve and a
second.
Do you have something that you need to state on the record, sir.
MR. SUMMERS: I wanted to say thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any discussion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just make sure you've got a lot of
cookies.
MR. SUMMERS: Will do, sir.
Page 274
February 10, 2004
CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA:
MR. SUMMERS:
Opposed, like sign.
Very good.
Thank you.
Item # 1 OB
CHANGE ORDER # 10, AMENDMENT FOUR, CONTRACT #98-
2829, IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,635,152 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE THIRD FLOOR BUILD-OUT AND
THE CHILLER PLANT EXPANSION OF THE NAPLES JAIL
ADDITION TO KRAFT CONSTRI ~CTION- APPROVFD
MR. MUDD: The next item is 1 OB, and it's to approve change
order number ten, amendment for the contract 98-2829 in the amount
of $4,635,152 for the construction of the third floor buildout and the
chiller plant expansion of the Naples Jail addition to Kraft
Construction, and Mr. Skip Camp will present.
MR. CAMP: Good evening. For the record, Skip Camp, your
facilities management director.
Last summer you approved a GMP, a guaranteed maximum price
for the Naples Jail addition, and at the time, we told you we would
come back to you and have it adjusted when the third floor of the jail
was designed. We received prices for the chiller plant upgrade, the
jail third floor addition, and the repair of the stucco. All quotes were
higher than our initial estimates.
Page 275
February 10, 2004
So in order to stay within the original budget, we are
recommending approval of the contract change before you today in
the amount of $4,635,152 for the chiller plant upgrade, and the third
floor buildout.
At the time the project -- at the end of the project, we will
readdress the stucco issue with you, depending on the balance
remaining in the project. This has been discussed with the sheriffs jail
administrative staff who concurs with our recommendation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions from the commissioners?
Any comments?
Yes, Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I met with the Clerk of Courts'
representative, Jim Mitchell, to see if there was any concerns they had,
and they didn't have any concerns on this, that they felt that everything
was done properly. So I don't see where we have a major problem
with this, and I make a motion for approval.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve from Commissioner
Halas. Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second from Commissioner Coletta.
I'm sorry, Sue.
MS. FILSON: We have a speaker for the next item.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm so sorry.
We have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Halas, a
second from Commissioner Coletta.
Do we have any discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
Page 276
February 1 O, 2004
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Passes five-oh.
Item # 10C
A REQUEST FROM THE VANDERBILT BEAUTIFICATION
M.S.T.U. ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO PARTNER WITH THEM
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MASTER PLAN AT A COST OF
ONE-HALF OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE MASTER PLAN AT
AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000- MOTION TO
CONT1NI ~E ( TO 2/24)-APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Madam Chairman, if I could ask Sue Filson who
that person is that's going to speak. Is that Mr. Lydon? MS. FILSON: Yes, sir.
MR. MUDD: Okay. Mr. Lydon picked up his wife out of the
hospital this morning at nine o'clock, and he was the petitioner that
basically came to the board a meeting or so ago to ask for this
particular thing to be on the agenda, and I told Mr. Lydon, depending
on when we got there. Around eleven o'clock today, I said it might be
eight o'clock at night before we get at this particular item, and I was
off by about five minutes, but I said, when it gets to the item, I will
ask the board if they would continue this item because, again, he just
got his wife out of the hospital today.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to continue.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. We have a motion to continue and
a second.
MR. MUDD: And we'll continue it to the next meeting.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to continue from Commissioner
Page 277
February 10, 2004
Coletta, second from Commissioner Halas. I'm sorry?
MR. MUDD: Continue it to the next meeting, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Continue to the next meeting. Does that --
okay, fine.
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good.
Item #10E
RESOLUTION 2004-56: TO AMEND COUNTY PURCHASING
POLICY REGARDING THE RETENTION OF EXPERT
WITNESSES AND CONSULTANTS TO AID IN ON-GOING
IJTIGATION- ADOPTF, D
MR. MUDD: That brings us to item -- and 1 OD was continued
indefinitely on the change sheet. That brings us to item 10E, which is
old item 16E3, and that's to approve a resolution to amend the county
purchasing policy regarding the retention of expert witnesses and
consultants to aid in ongoing litigation, and it was pulled from the
consent agenda by Commissioner Coyle, and Mr. Steve Camell is here
to present.
MR. CARNELL: For the record, Steve Carnell, purchasing
general services director.
This is a recommendation to amend our purchasing policy to --
MR. MUDD: Why don't you see if the commissioner has
Page 278
February 10, 2004
questions, and then--
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, but my concern is deviating
from our normal procurement policies for specific circumstances. I
understand the reason for doing this. I don't understand why we can't
do it in closed session. When you need to hire somebody for expert
witness for purposes of legal action, why can't we go into closed door
session and approve that expenditure rather than making an exception
to our normal practices?
MR. WEIGEL: Thank you, Commissioner. That's a good
question.
The closed session is used for negotiating settlement or for
strategy. Obviously, when we go into closed session, then we come
out into open session and make a decision, perhaps with not as much
discussion as had in the closed session prior to that.
What we have here is, the idea is that from time to time we will
be involved in a lawsuit or be preparatory to a lawsuit with in-house
counsel, meaning the county attorney counsel, and we may need to
work quickly, and to go through the competitive quotes or bidding
process would put us out days and weeks, and also show our hand to
the entities that we may be involved with in trying to prepare carefully
and quietly for.
The -- this is consistent with State Statute 287.057, which does
allow for state procurement for legal services not to have to go
through the competitive bid process.
We have worked in the past by when we use outside counsel and
they have to hire a consultant or get an expert witness, like for
instance, our Bert Harris case that we have, that's part and parcel of
their practice, and they hire them, and we, the county, pay for them as
part of legal services being obtained.
Sometimes we don't use outside counsel, and yet we still have the
dire need to hire these people rather quickly, and we often know who
we want, and so the best price and the dickering that goes looking
Page 279
February 10, 2004
toward that may not assist us, because we may know someone who's
been used in prior court activities that are very similar to what we
have and/or we've seen them perform, and from that standpoint, we'd
like to think that we'd exercise the best prerogative on behalf of the
board and the taxpayers in making those decisions, and there is some
limitation, obviously, from a procurement price standpoint, but that's
the reason that we have for this.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But my only problem is we're just
providing blanket approval to negotiate noncompetitive procurements
up to and including $50,000. Whereas -- that is -- and then that is
without the review of the board, and all I'm suggesting is that I don't
understand why we couldn't have a closed door session and provide
you approval to do that if there was a reason to do it. That would
provide us an opportunity for oversight. Otherwise, we're not going to
know.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I think I would be a little loathed to do a
closed door session regarding the hiring of experts. It conceivably
could come under potential litigation. It's not necessarily pending
litigation, where we'd be talking strategy and the desire and need to go
and hire someone.
When the board is in its summer recess, for example, we would
be calling, you know, special meetings and things to attempt to
achieve this. If you might find -- another safeguard would be merely
to lower it from 50 to something significantly less than that, although
if we hire an expert, and once we're involved in litigation, we would
certainly --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I'm just concerned that we --
that we do it legally, and if you can find, or if you already have found
a good, solid way of doing this legally so that we don't get into any
difficulties with it, I'm willing to buy it. MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: But I'm just always a little uneasy
Page 280
February 10, 2004
about carving out exceptions to our procurement policy, and having
one limit for this department, and one limit for that department, and
one limit for this sort of situation, and another one for one something
different. I think it's best to have a consistent policy, but if you feel
comfortable that we're on legal -- legal grounds with respect to doing
that, then I think we need to have some kind of modification to our
procurement procedures to recognize that.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, your county attorney wouldn't have
brought it to you in conjunction with purchasing if we didn't think it
was legal, and also very practical with the press of issues that comes
before us on behalf of the county.
MR. CARNELL: If I could, Mr. Chairman, address
Commissioner Coyle's issue, just to add a little to it. I understand and
respect the concern about carving out and making exceptions to how
you would typically procure. In this case, I think the carve-out is an
attempt to actually protect the public interest, not only for the reasons
we've already mentioned, but it's also to say to you that the hiring of
legal experts is different than essentially everything else, and we're
trying to, while we want to give Mr. Weigel some authority to move
on behalf of this agency in a timely way, we're also trying to narrow it
to a very specific field. It's not for the hiring of all legal services or the
hiring of all professional services. It's to one specific area of
engagement, and so from our standpoint, there's some control there.
There's also the control of the fact that the purchasing department
is going to be reviewing what the county attorney is requesting, and
there's a check and balance there between the two departments as well.
MR. WEIGEL: One other comment I would make,
Commissioners, is Mr. Henning had raised another question where it
talks about materials and services. The intent was to indicate that
often services include materials, such as grass or charts or studies or
reports, but I think that we can very easily just remove that word,
materials, to remove any kind of potential misunderstanding that when
Page 281
February 10, 2004
we hire an expert witness, that expert witness, who may be an
appraiser, as an example, the service that he provides includes the
context of an appraisal report or things of that nature, or a professional
opinion.
So we can remove the word, materials. I don't think it changes
the essence of what we're attempting to achieve at all, and I would
suggest that that be done, if the board favorably moves on this.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to approve with
removing the word, materials, the procurement procedures.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I second it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve with
modification by Commissioner Henning, the second by Commissioner
Halas.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Five-oh.
MR. MUDD: The next item is public comment.
Ms. Filson, do we have speakers?
Ms. Filson, the next item is public comment. Do we have
speakers?
MS. FILSON:
comment.
MR. MUDD:
I'm sorry. I'm busy writing. We have no public
Okay. Thank you very much.
Page 282
February 10, 2004
Item # 14A
RESOLUTION 2004-57: TERMINATING FOR CONVENIENCE A
GRANT TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY FROM THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE IMMOKALEE AIRPORT
INFRASTRI ~CTI ~RE- ADOPTF. D
That brings us to agenda item 14, which is Airport Authority, and
I know Mr. Vasey has been sitting there and biting his tongue, but the
first item is 4A, and it's to approve a resolution terminating for
convenience a grant to the Airport Authority from the economic
development administration for improvements to the Immokalee
airport infrastructure, project 33327 in fund 496. Mr. Vasey will
present.
MR. VASEY: Dennis P. Vasey, chairman, Collier County
Airport Authority. Good evening.
And for that earlier motion for five minutes, the -- what we find
in this particular item, Commissioners, the Airport Authority had to
reinvent the wheel several times too many, and consequently, we got
to the end of the line, and they said, no, we're not going to go any
further with another change order.
I wasn't there when this was brought up, but I was there when we
decided to stop it, and I can only say to you that all of the discussions
that we've had to date with the county manager have led me, as the
chairman, to one conclusion, and that is that without the
commissioners' active participation in Airport Authority operations,
there is a missing link, and in this case, the Airport Authority, in the
early part of this grant, did not participate fully with the county staff,
and the result for not talking to folks is having to cancel programs.
There's a good aspect to this. While it taught us a lesson, the
concept was lousy, and it shouldn't have been in at the airport, but it
Page 283
February 1 O, 2004
took us too long to decide that, and part of that was because of the
way that the Airport Authority perceived getting revenue, and this was
one of those attempts to build on a concept that the community didn't
want, and that was a raceway at the north end of the airport.
So we learned a big lesson, and I'm here today eating a little
humble pie, and I've got a couple of more trips up here, by the way, to
eat more humble pie, but I think, with the new ordinance and with the
new relationships that we have, and those that we've reestablished
with the staff, I think we're going to get better at what we're doing.
So I would ask you to approve the resolution which, in fact, does
terminate this grant for convenience.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioners? Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: On the executive summary, I'm
confused about some things here. I just need to know, to understand
what the impact is here.
It says that as of the effective date of this voluntary termination,
the eligible project costs totalled $1,605,726. Therefore, the
maximum cap has been exceeded. Whereas, if this grant is terminated
for convenience, effective December 23rd, 2003, we will be
reimbursed the sum of only 1,078,000. Now, that leaves about a
$600,000 difference.
Now, does that mean that we've spent $600,000 that we're not
going to get reimbursed for?
MR. VASEY: It's bad, but it's not that bad. DOT is getting stuck
for about 40 percent of that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: 40 percent of the $600,000?
MR. VASEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So the other 60 percent is ours?
MR. VASEY: Those numbers are very rough, but yesterday,
Bob Titus answered or responded to a question that Winona asked,
and those numbers are about right. Most of the figures I deal with are
unaudited, and what Winona and Jim have found out over time is that
Page 284
February 10, 2004
I'm usually off by a lot. So Janet tells me not to say anything.
It is a lot of money, and it was a big error, and yes, that's right, it
tums out to be about $600,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So where does that money come
from?
MR. VASEY: Some of it comes from FDOT and some of it was
paid by the county already.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: So we've already paid these cost
overruns?
MR. VASEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And the project hasn't been
completed?
MR. VASEY: No, there's one part of it that hasn't been
completed, but a lot of it has been.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: When did we pay the $400,000?
MR. VASEY: Well, I don't think it was 400. I think it was like
three eighty-five. I don't, again, know the real numbers, but --
MR. MUDD: It was about three twenty-five, I believe, and it
was two seventy-five -- or excuse me, it's two eighty FDOT's going to
get hit with, and the county is going to get -- has paid $320,000.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And when did we do that?
MR. VASEY: Oh, it's been over the last four years, I believe.
This grant has been hanging around since '98, and as I'm learning,
these grants, we put money in up ahead in front, and then things
happen, and we ask for more money, and that's just not the right way
to do it. So we're not going to do that anymore.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. So that money is gone. It's
something that happened in the past. It's not something we're going to
have to ante up this year?
MR. VASEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. MUDD: We're going to have to give a million dollars back
Page 285
February 10, 2004
from what I understood.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Wait a minute. It's a million
dollars --
MR. MUDD: It's in their budget that they got a grant that they
never spent --
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
MR. MUDD: Right.
COMMISSIONER COYLE:
That hasn't been spent.
But we got the million dollars.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Are we sure we got it?
MR. VASEY: I believe the Clerk of Courts has reported that we
had it. I've seen it in the documents.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Vasey, recently I read about
a story, it might have been in the Naples Daily News, but I just want
to clarify with you, that it stated that the chairman felt that the board
of commissioners actually owed the Airport Authority monies because
of the infrastructures that's been put into the airport. Is that your true
feelings?
MR. VASEY: One of the most regrettable things I am
responsible for a whining comment back when, and I am responsible
for saying that the ten million dollars was a euphemism. What wasn't
reported and what should always be reported is that because of the
way we agreed to do the bookkeeping, we have a ten million dollar--
it's not 10 million dollars, it's probably 12 now, but we have
accumulated over the last 12 years a big debt to the county.
And of course, every time I review that document that the Airport
Authority signed, I ask those around me what they were thinking
about when they signed that document, and there's not one human
being standing in the room that can tell me where that made sense,
because none of them believed that the airport would ever make any
money.
So I have been heard and in print it has been reported that the
Page 286
February 1 O, 2004
chairman of the Airport Authority said that the county ten million
dollars is a euphemism. What wasn't reported, again, is that that is a
bookkeeping entry, and we owe the money, and at some point, we are
going to have to have a workshop that sets out exactly what that
means.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't think we need a
workshop. I think we just clarified it.
MR. VASEY: Well, it clarified for me, and I almost want to be
unhappy with the things I say, but unfortunately, I said those things,
and that was that the ten million dollars is a euphemism.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions from the
commissioners? Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have a motion on this item?
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Not yet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm waiting.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second. We might as well get it
over with.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve from
Commissioner Coyle, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
Page 287
February 10, 2004
Item # 14B
BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING AWARD OF FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION GRANTS, ELIMINATING A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT, AND RETURNING NET
ADJI JSTMFJNT TO GF, NFRAI~ FI JND- APPROVFiD
MR. MUDD: The next item is item 14B, and it's to approve a budget
amendment recognizing award of Federal Aviation Administration
grants, eliminating a previously approved project, and returning net
adjustments to the general fund.
Commissioners, I will tell you since the time that we put this on
continued from a meeting, you asked Mr. Vasey and myself and some
others to go down to the city of-- Everglades City, talk to the mayor,
see if we could talk to the residents as far as a petition was concerned.
Well, we haven't gotten to all the residents, but we did talk to the
mayor on two occasions. One, when I was present, and then on the
5th where Mr. Vasey and Mr. Schmitt and Ms. Winona Stone and Mr.
Bob Titus went down there and talked to the mayor just before the
Seafood Festival, talked about all the details.
We came back across -- or came back from that meeting,
basically, with -- with the mayor voicing the opinions of the council
that they are willing to take over the Everglades City Airport, and
would be glad to entertain a reverter clause so it would come back to
the county if it ever got out of the airport business down there by the
city.
You will discuss that with some detail on the 25th of February at
a joint Everglades City council/board of county commission meeting
from nine to 10:30. So we did all of those things. I just wanted to
report back to you, because there was some concern on the board
when we continued this item, before we jumped on the FAA grant, to
Page 288
February 10, 2004
make sure, because with jumping on an FAA grant, you basically lock
into that will be an airport forever, and you wanted to make sure that
the Everglades City council was good to their resolution, and I think
we've determined that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Did I cut you off before as
we were voting?
MR. VASEY: I believe that I'm the reason why Commissioner
Henning wants all motions read back. It goes back to --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I appreciate that. And it's about
the time of the night that we did this. And it's not just because of you.
There are some other cases that we kind of jumped the gun, got
punchy, or we interpreted one thing, someone else interpreted another
thing. Not at all. Not at all.
MR. VASEY: I just -- I really want to make certain. One of--
one of the elements that we're trying to do desperately is to come back
to the board and be here to tell you what we're doing, and I have told
all of my friends that I don't mind coming here to talk to you. I don't
like coming to you saying that we've made a mistake, but I can assure
you I'm going to be back in the very near future telling you I've made
another mistake.
What we're -- what we're really uncovering here is a system that
lost communication with the Board of County Commissioners, and
what we've really gained with the county manager and what we've
gained with the staff is a wonderful voice, because we're beginning to
understand some of the complexities that are out there, and some of
the onerous reasons why we need to come back to you, and it's not
because you're trying to put your noses into our business, because you
definitely need to know.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you know, we're beginning to
understand a little bit more, too. Communication is so good.
Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say it takes a real
Page 289
February 10, 2004
man to stand up there and say, hey, I made a mistake, and I admire
anybody that says, hey, I made a mistake or we made a mistake. It
won't happen again. And you'll probably find out -- and I think it just
tells the character of the person that's standing over there by that
podium.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Airport Authority has come
a long ways. I think because of the fact that they realize that they're
human and they can err, that we're seeing some amazing things now
that they're bringing in a new partner, the EDC.
I tell you, I'm pleased at what I see. For a while there, it took a
little while, some fires were lit underneath them, but I think a lot of the
improvements we're seeing is the direct result of your honesty and
being in there and putting your nose to the grind stone. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning.
MR. VASEY: One of-- if I may just comment briefly on EDC.
We, in the branding of Florida Trade Port, are seeing so many new
interests in not only the aviation system in Collier County, but if
Tammy and her staff reports are correct, it's also opening up other
opportunities within the community, and I think a lot of that has to do
with an openness that is now present.
I don't think anyone was afraid to come here before. I sometimes
think that their reasons for coming here may not have really been on
mark, but from our perspective in the airport business, and from the
activity that is now coming as a result of the -- our attempt to brand
Florida Trade Port, I can see a lot more energy, not only in the
aviation system, but in the communities, and that's wholesome, from
my point of view.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I make a motion that we
approve the budget amendment, recognizing the award of these FAA
grants, estimated (sic) a previous capital project--
Page 290
February 10, 2004
THE REPORTER: I'm sorry, I can't under --
COMMISSIONER HENN1NG: I make a motion to accept staff's
recommendations.
THE REPORTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have a motion on the floor by
Commissioner Henning, a second by Commissioner Halas.
Any further discussion?
All those in favor, say aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: And opposed, like sign.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you so much.
MR. VASEY: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Now we're on to staff comments and
commissioner comments.
County attorney, do you have anything to say as we close this
meeting?
MR. WEIGEL: Nothing. Thank you. It's been a very interesting
day. I appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: What a nice word to choose.
Mr. Mudd?
MR. MUDD: Ma'am, it's been a very interesting day. I will see
you tomorrow, if so called, and definitely I will see you at 5:05
tomorrow night on the dias for the land development code nightly
session.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Which means we have to go home now
and prepare, right?
Page 291
February 1 O, 2004
MR. MUDD: I have nothing else, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It's going to be a nice, long night.
Everybody thinks we end when we leave here, but not the case.
Commissioner Henning, any comments?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, I -- after giving staff the
approval to create a commercial recycling order, I just was curious to
see how we compare here in the government, since we're a like
business, but really not, since we don't have any competition.
The -- I think we score pretty good, in my opinion, but the one
thing that I did discover from the elections is East Naples Kiwanis gets
paid a buck a cartridge for the old ink cartridges. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And, you know, we're
packaging them up and sending them out of town, and here, the
Kiwanis is getting a buck, and they recirculate that through kids'
programs.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's exactly right. Thank you. Geez.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I mean, we have millions of ink
cartridges here.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Could we ever ask the county manager to
ask staff to -- gee, you should belong to our club.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I am, but I live in Golden
Gate.
MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll give you an update next
time.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Coyle.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just want to tell you what a
pleasure it has been to spend the day with all of you today.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: I don't believe you for a minute.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm looking forward to spending
Page 292
February 1 O, 2004
our evening with you also.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I just want to say I think I lost
about three years of my life today in the deliberation, but it was an
interesting process in democracy, and I just want to thank all of my
commissioners for looking at all aspects of each of the problems, of
each of the items that come before us, and I know that we all vote with
our hearts, and we all vote with the concerns of the constituents and
also all the people here in Collier County, and I just want to say, it's a
pleasure to serve here as a commissioner in Collier County.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's my sentiments exactly. I
do want to clear up one thing. The fishing on the bridge issue, where
is Jim Coletta coming from. It's one -- it's an access issue, but back in
1985, when I first got down here, I used to fish off of Harbour Drive
bridge at two o'clock in the morning. It was really fun, you know. I
was a lot younger then. I had the endurance to be able to take it. At
two o'clock in the morning, we'd get down there, we'd catch a couple
of snook, and then we'd pull out and leave.
It wasn't too long before no fishing signs went up at both ends of
the bridge. I always resented that. We weren't doing anybody any
harm, and that took place.
And so when I seen this, I seen a repeat of what happened back
in 1985. True, it's not me fishing off those bridges, but it's other
people, and I appreciate you working with me on that. I will work
with staff, because some regulations have to be in place, some signs
have to be up, some signage to be able to make the public aware of
their responsibilities and their limitations of what they can do, but I
thank you for that, and I thank you for a very, very interesting evening
and day. We accomplished a lot today.
And by the way, Commissioner Fiala, you've done an excellent
job running this meeting through some unbelievable, what do you
Page 293
February 1 O, 2004
want to call it, less than favorable conditions.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: It was a tough day.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You did an excellent job. You
really did.
CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thanks so much. I tell you, I'm sure I
speak for all us of us, we were tom apart with this thing. We -- there
were -- not One of us came in here with our minds made up as to what
we wanted to do. We were just torn apart completely trying to do the
right thing. It's been a long day, and as a parting note, don't forget
your spouses. Valentines Day is coming up. Make sure they know
you love them.
Meeting adjourned.
*****Commissioner Henning moved, seconded by Commissioner
Coyle and carried unanimously, that the following items under the
Consent and Summary Agendas be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16Al
RESOLUTION 2004-36: AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE
FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE ON
HOMELESSNESS CHALLENGE GRANT AWARD, APPROVING
EXECUTION OF CHALLENGE GRANT SUB-RECIPIENT
AGREEMENT (S) BY THE COUNTY MANAGER OR THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES (CDES) DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR,
AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,
AND PROVIDING FOR AN FJFFECTIVF, DATE
Item # 16A2
Page 294
February 1 O, 2004
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING
THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 STATE CHALLENGE GRANT
AWARD TO BE PASSED THROUGH 100% TO THE COLLIER
COl JNTY HI JNGER AND HOMEIJFiSS COAIJITION
Item # 16A3
RESOLUTION 2004-37: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "INDIGO LAKES
UNIT TWO" THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-WITH RELEASE OF
THE MAINTENANCE SECI JRITY
Item #16A4
RESOLUTION 2004-38: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "INDIGO LAKES
UNIT FOUR" THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-WITH RELEASE OF
THE MAINTENANCE SF, CI ~RITY
Item # 16A5
RESOLUTION 2004-39: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ROADWAY
(PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "NAPLES LAKES
Page 295
February 1 O, 2004
COUNTRY CLUB UNIT TWO" THE ROADWAY AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY
MAINTAINED, THE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
WILL BE MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY- WITH
RFJJF, ASF, OF THF, MAINTF, NANCE SFJCI JRITY
Item # 16A6
RESOLUTION 2004-40: FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ROADWAY (PRIVATE), DRAINAGE, WATER AND SEWER
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FINAL PLAT OF "BRYNWOOD
PRESERVE" THE ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED, THE
WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE
MAINTAINED BY COLLIER COUNTY-WITH RELEASE OF
THF, MAINTENANCE SF, CI~RITY
Item #16A7
APPROVAL FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF
"FIDDLER'S CREEK PHASE 3, UNIT TWO", AND APPROVAL
OF THE STANDARD FORM CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE
AMOUNT OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY- WITH
STIPI ~I~ATIONS
Item #16A8
RESOLUTION 2004-41: PETITION AVESMT2002-AR3244 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN ALL OF THE CONSERVATION
EASEMENT CONVEYED TO COLLIER COUNTY BY
Page 296
February 1 O, 2004
SEPARATE INSTRUMENT AND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 1947, PAGES 429 THROUGH 436, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO
ACCEPTING A RELOCATION CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
LOCATED IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST
Item # 16B 1
WAIVING THE RECOVERY OF RELOCATION EXPENSES OF
$6666.67, RESULTING FROM THE NEGOTIATED
RESIGNATION OF MR. MICHAEL A. ETELAMAKI, P.E.,
RELEASING ANY RIGHT THE COUNTY MAY HAVE IN
RECLAIMING SAID RELOCATION EXPENSES, FINDING
THAT PAYMENT OF RELOCATION EXPENSES, IN THIS
CASE, IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COl JNTY
Item #16B2
APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF 3.185 ACRES OF LAND
OF WHICH .771 ACRES ARE REQUIRED FOR ROAD RIGHT
OF WAY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR THE
VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD EXPANSION PROJECT.
PROJECT NO. 63051 (FISCAl, IMPACT: $3367300.00)
Item #16B3
APPROVAL OF ADOPT-A-ROAD PROGRAM AGREEMENT
WITH SOUTH NAPLES COMMUNITIES, MICHAEL TAYLOR,
PRESIDENT-FROM RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD TO
GRAND I,EI,Y DRIVE
Page 297
February 10, 2004
Item # 16B4
APPROVAL OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
COLLIER COLrNTY AND THE CITY OF NAPLES TO
IMPLEMENT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION & PROTECTION
PROCEDURES DURING THE GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT FOR THE CITY'S 36-INCH
WATERMAIN SUPPLYING DRINKING WATER TO OVER 80%
OF THE CITY RESIDENTS (PROJECT NO. 60027)-
CONTRACTOR'S COST OF $50~000
Item #16B5
APPROVAL OF SELECTION COMMITTEE RANKING OF
FIRMS FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RFP 04-3588
"FIXED TERM MATERIAL TESTING SERVICES" (ESTIMATED
DOLLAR AMOUNT OF CONTRACT NOT TO EXCEED $500,000
ANNUALLY PER FIRM)- INCLUDING; FORGE ENGINEERING,
ARDAMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC., ALLIED ENGINEERING &
TESTING, INC., PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND
INSPECTION CO, INC., AND ASC GEOSCIENCES
Item # 16B6
RESOLUTION 2004-42: A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
LOCAL AGENCY PROGRAM AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE
OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR
THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS AND
BICYCLE LANES IN EVERGLADES CITY, AND
Al ~THORIZING ITS EXF, CI ~TION ($208,180)
Page 298
February 10, 2004
Item #16B7
RESOLUTION 2004-43: ALLOWING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO ENTER INTO A
LOCAL AGENCY AGREEMENT (LAP) WITH THE FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) TO PROVIDE
FOR ROADWAY LIGHTING ALONG US 41-NORTH TAMIAMI
TRAIL FROM MYRTLE ROAD TO PINE RIDGE ROAD AT A
COST OF APPROXIMATEI.Y $400,000
Item #16B8
APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TO
CONTRIBUTE $300 TO THE FLORIDA METROPOLITAN
PLANNING ORGANIZATION ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY ACTIVITIES. FISCAL IMPACT
$300
Item # 16C 1
APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF MARCO ISLAND AND COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA FOR PROVISION BY THE CITY FOR WASTEWATER
COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SERVICES TO THE
CAI.I~SA ISI.AND VII,IJAGF. DF. VEI,OPMENT
Item #16C2
APPROVAL TO INCREASE CONTRACT #02-3319 FOR SCWRF
BERM MAINTENANCE TO J.P.'S LAWN CARE, INC., TO THE
APPROXIMATE ANNIJAI. AMOIJNT OF $50,160
Page 299
February 1 O, 2004
Item #16C3
APPROVAL OF RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSENT AGREEMENT
AND ASSOCIATED MEMORANDUM WITH FLORIDA POWER
AND LIGHT COMPANY PERMITTING THE CONSTRUCTION
OF RAW WATER TRANSMISSION MAINS AND ASSOCIATED
ELECTRICAL LINES WITHIN FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT
COMPANY POWER-LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN THE
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT
(SCRWTP) AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (SCRWTP
WELLFIELD EXPANSION, PROJECT NUMBER 70892)
TRANSACTION COST SHOI II,D NOT EXCF. F,D $50.00
Item # 16D 1
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT RECOGNIZING
$1520 IN REVENUE FROM PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS, AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF
SAILBOATS FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY SAILING CENTER-
I~OCATFD AT SI JGDFN RF, GIONAIJ PARK
Item # 16E 1
RESOLUTION 2004-44: AMENDING THE COUNTY
PURCHASING POLICY, RESOLUTION NO. 2001-482,
ESTABLISHING A COMPREHENSIVE VENDOR DEBARMENT
AND SI ISPF.NSION POI,ICY
Item # 16E2
REPORTING AND RATIFYING STAFF-APPROVED CHANGE
Page 300
February 1 O, 2004
ORDERS AND CHANGES TO WORK ORDERS TO BOARD-
APPROVED CONTRACTS
Item # 16E3 - Moved to Item # 10E
Item # 16E4
THE ACCEPTANCE OF STAFF'S SHORT LIST FOR
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE NEW SHERIFF'S
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FACILITY ITN # 03-3550-WITH
VICTOR LATAVISH, AIA, BARANY SCHMITT SUMMERS
WEAVER: AND SCHENKEIJ SCHIH~TZ
Item gl 6Fl -Continued to February 24, 2004
AWARDING BID NO. 04-3604, A POWER CATAMARAN BOAT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,713.50 TO TWIN VEE, INC.- TO
PROVIDE PROPER FIRE PROTECTION FOR THE ISLAND
DEVF, IJOPMENT OF CI~I JB F, VERGI,ADES
Item # 16F2
APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT REPORT-BA#04-121
TO OUTFIT A NEW DONATED FIREBOAT WITH A PUMP FOR
FIRF, FIGHTING Pl IRPOSES
Item # 16F3
RESOLUTION 2004-45: APPROVAL OF DISTRIBUTION OF
THE FIVE CENTS AND SIX CENTS LOCAL OPTION GAS
TAXES BASED ON THE ACTUAL TRANSPORTATION
EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE PERIOD FROM FY 98
Page 301
February 10, 2004
THROI ~GH FY 02
Item #1611
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE- FILED AND/OR
REFERRED-
The following miscellaneous correspondence, as presented by
the Board of County Commissioners, has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
Page 302
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE
February 10, 2004
ho
Minutes:
Collier County Planning Commission - Agenda for January 15, 2004;
Minutes of CCPC/LDC Amendments November 24, 2003, Regular
meeting minutes of December 4, 2003.
Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes - Minutes of December 17,
2003.
o
Collier County Coastal Advisory Committee - Minutes for October 9,
2003, November 13, 2003 and December 11,2003.
Immokalee Area Master Plan Ad Hoc Committee - Ageada for January
20, 2004; Minutes of January 7, 20 and 21,2004.
o
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board - Agenda for January 21, 2004;
Minutes of December 17, 2003.
Community Character/Smart Growth Advisory Committee - Corrected
Agenda and Minutes for October 22, 2003; November 14, 2003; Regular
agenda and minutes for November 25, 2003 and December 12, 2003. Also
attached is Form 8B memorandum for Voting Conflict for County,
Municipal, and other Local Public Officers by member, Bruce Anderson.
Bayshore Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for January 14, 2004;
Minutes of December 10, 2003.
Citizen's Advisory Task Force - Agenda for December 18, 2003; Minutes
of December 18, 2003.
Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee - Agenda for
January 12, 2004; Minutes of December 15, 2003.
10.
Collier County Tourist Development Council - Agenda for January 26,
2004.
11.
Forest Lakes Roadway and Drainage M.S.T.U. - Advisory Committee -
Agenda for January 21, 2004; Minutes of December 17, 2003.
12.
Lely Golf Estate Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for January 15, 2004
Minutes of December 18, 2003.
13.
Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. - Agenda for January 20, 2004;
Minutes of December 16, 2003.
H:Data/Format
February 10, 2004
Item # 16J 1
DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE PURCHASES OF
GOODS AND SERVICES DOCUMENTED 1N THE DETAILED
REPORT OF OPEN PURCHASE ORDERS SERVE A VALID
PUBLIC PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXPENDITURE OF
COUNTY FUNDS TO SATISFY SAID PURCHASES FOR THE
PERIOD OF DECEMBER 27, 2003 THROUGH JANUARY 30,
2OO4
Item # 16J2
FORTUNE TELLER PERMIT 2004-01: ACCEPTANCE OF THE
BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED TO THE CLERK
OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR A FORTUNE TELLER PERMIT
AND TO APPROVE THE PERMIT AS SUBMITTED BY THE
COl JNTY MANAGFR'S OFFICF,
Item #16K1
APPROVAL OF AGREED ORDERS AND AUTHORIZATION OF
PAYMENTS OF PLANNING FEES FOR PARCELS 195, 197, 218,
181,184, 198,201,202, 21lA, 214, 174, 170 AND 172 INTHE
IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT (WILSON TO COLLIER
BOULEVARD #60018) PAYMENT OF $12,500 TO ROETZEL &
ANDRESS TRUST ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY
OWNERS FOR PLANNING FEES OF MORRIS-DEPEW
ASSOCIATF, S, INC.
Item # 16K2
Page 303
February 10, 2004
APPROVAL OF AGREED ORDERS AND AUTHORIZATION OF
PAYMENT OF APPRAISAL FEES IN THE LAWSUIT STYLED
COLLIER COUNTY V. ISMAEL GONZALES, ET AL., CASE NO.
02-2159-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018) PAYMENT
OF $4500 TO THE ROETZEL & ANDRESS TRUST ACCOUNT
ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR APPRAISAL
FF, F~S
Item # 16K3
APPROVAL OF AGREED ORDER AND AUTHORIZATION OF
THE PAYMENT OF PLANNING FEES IN THE LAWSUIT
STYLED COLLIER COUNTY I7. LAZARO HERRERA, ET AL.,
CASE NO. 02-2211-CA (IMMOKALEE ROAD PROJECT #60018)
PAYMENT OF $1559 TO THE ROETZEL & ANDRESS TRUST
ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR
PI~ANN1NG FEF~S
Item #16K4
RESOLUTION 2004-46: AUTHORIZING THE COLLIER
COUNTY EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
REVENUE BONDS TO BE USED TO FINANCE EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES FOR INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE AND TO
REFUND CURRENTLY OUTSTANDING BONDS PREVIOUSLY
ISSI JFD BY THF~ Al JTHORITY
Item # 16K5
APPROVAL OF THE STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT
RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF PARCEL 117 IN THE
LAWSUIT STYLED COLLIER COUNTY V. THE ORCHARDS
Page 304
February 10, 2004
COMMUNITYASSOC., INC., ETAL., CASE NO. 02-1635-CA
(LIVINGSTON ROAD PROJECT #62071) PAYMENT OF $21,700
TO RESPONDENT, ZOM VANDERBII.T~ I.TD
Item # 17A
RESOLUTION 2004-47: PETITION AVPLAT2003-AR5000 TO
DISCLAIM, RENOUNCE AND VACATE THE COUNTY'S AND
THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST IN A PORTION OF THE DRAINAGE
EASEMENT LOCATED ON TRACT "F", ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT OF "FOUNTAINHEAD SUBDIVISION REPLAT" AS
RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27, PAGES 53 THROUGH 54,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
LOCATED IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26
EAST
Item #17B
ORDINANCE 2004-07: REPEALING COLLIER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-76, AS AMENDED, WHICH CREATED
THE LIVINGSTON ROAD PHASE II BEAUTIFICATION
MI JNICIPAI, SERVICF, TAXING l JNIT (M.S_T.I L)
Page 305
February 10, 2004
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:25 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZON1NG APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
~~~~F~ALA, C~hai,~~an
ATTEST:
DWIGHT. E.:Bg. pCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board
presented ~ or as co~ected
on 13 ~q~'Oc~ , as
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY TERRI LEWIS AND CHERIE
NOTTINGHAM AND TRACIE MOUNTAIN
Page 306