The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 09/14/2010 Item #16I16! BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE September 14, 2010 1. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Districts: 1) Big Cypress Stewardship District: FY 10 -11 Meeting Dates. B. Minutes: 1) Airport Authority: Minutes of April 12, 2010; May 10, 2010; June 14, 2010. 2) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of May 27, 2010. 3) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of May 20, 2010; June 3, 2010. 4) County Government Productivity Committee: Agenda of June 2, 2010 Special Meeting; June 7, 2010 Special Meeting; June 11, 2010 Jackson Labs Financing Subcommittee; June 16, 2010; July 7, 2010 Jackson Labs Financing Subcommittee; July 12, 2010 Special Meeting. Minutes of June 2, 2010 Jackson Labs Sub - Committee; June 7, 2010 Special Session; June 11, 2010 Finance Sub - Committee; June 16, 2010; July 7, 2010; July 12, 2010. 5) Historical /Archaeological Preservation Board: Agenda of July 21, 2010. 6) Land Acquisition Advisory Committee: Minutes of June 14, 2010. 7) Lely Golf Estates Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of February 18, 2010; March 18, 2010; April 15, 2010; May 20, 2010; July 15, 2010. Minutes of January 21, 2010; February 18, 2010; March 18, 2010; April 15, 2010; May 20, 2010. 161 * 8) Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee: Agenda of March 16, 2010; April 20, 2010. Minutes of February 16, 2010; March 16, 2010; April 20, 2010. C. Other: 1) Collier County Code Enforcement Special magistrate: Minutes of June 4, 2010. 2) Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program. Minutes of June 7, 2010. b � "N AUG 0 3 2010 Big Cypress Stewardship Dis&hft'1 mmissioners 1415 Panther Lane • Suite 346/347• Naples, FL 34109 • (772) 345 -5101 x6n 0,OOH lAtw L July 29, 2010 Board of Collier County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Clerk of the Circuit Court Finance Department 2671 Airport Rd., Court Plaza III PO Box 413016 Naples, FL 34112 -3016 RE: Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 Meeting Dates To Whom It May Concern: In accordance with Chapter 189 of the Florida Statutes we are required to provide to you at the beginning of each fiscal year a notice of our public meeting schedule. Please find attached Fiscal Year 2010 -2011 meeting schedule which will be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely , L6� Nancy Vogel Assistanr {{{{{{ nistrict Manager enclosure Mist Cares: clate: `D� L d U Item* I k Z I -41 161 1 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING DATES BIG CYPRESS STEWARDSHIP DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2010 -2011. December 1, 2010 March 2, 2011 June 1, 2011 September 7, 2011 All meetings will convene at 10:00 a.m. at the Encore Bank Building, First Floor Conference Room, 3003 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 100, Naples, Florida 34103. RECEIVED 0 Halas JUL 0 1 201 Heenninni ng 3oard of County Commissioners Coyle Coletta COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF REGULAR MONDAY, APRIL 12, 2010 MEETING MEMBERS Byron Meade Michael Klein Lloyd Byerhof PRESENT: Jim Murray Frank Secrest David Gardner STAFF: Debbie Brueggeman Debi Mueller Lisa Morris Winona Stone PUBLIC: Ken Rutter Ralph Hester Steve Fletcher Jim Campbell Bill Garrett Dylan Caldwell Mike Shumann Bill Bailey Pat Utter I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Floyd Crews Richard Rice Jennifer White Earl Hall Tim Parker Meeting called to order at 1:00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting. Mr. Meade praised Ms. Brueggeman on how well she has handled the issue at Immokalee Airport, and presented what he believed to be key criteria for ranking the applicants for the Executive Director position. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Murray made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and the Agenda, was approved unanimously. IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 8, 2010 MINUTES Mr. Meade made a motion to approve the March 8, 2010 minutes. Mr. Rice seconded the motion. The March 8, 2010 minutes were approved unanimously. V. FINANCE REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDED FEBRUARY 28, 2010 The Advisory Board had no questions or comments regarding the financial statements. They requested a breakdown of the average selling price per gallon of fuel at each airport. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve. the financial report. Mr, Rice seconded, and the finance report was approved unanimously. VI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Meade verified that all Advisory Board members received the message regarding the recommended termination of an employee at the Immokalee Airport. Updates and discussion of the following then took place. ➢ IMMOKALEE REGIONAL AIRPORT Y:\AdministmrionWA noardWinutes/FY2009 -2010 I V Misc. Corres: / Data D I_ 1 ID item [ i CCAA Minutes April 12, 2010 1601 1 Wi -Fi Capability — Following a request by the County Manager's office, Tiffany is researching the cost and requirements to add WI -FI capability at the Immokalee Airport. The Advisory Board approved the concept of adding this capability at Immokalee unanimously, and suggested possibly adding it at Everglades Airpark as well. • CCAA -USDA Building — A meeting with individuals proposing to add solar panels to roof of the CCAA -USDA building was held on 3/22/10 at Purchasing. The Airport Authority is being asked to fund about $50,000 of the proposed installation. The Advisory Board has requested more details on the company that approached Purchasing regarding the USDA building going green before recommending approval of the concept. Brewery — There does not appear to be sufficient land available in the already permitted area for the construction of the proposed brewery. Staff is exploring the possibility of relocating the four (4) acre National Guard parking/equipment storage site to provide sufficient contiguous acres for the construction of the brewery. The initial response from the National Guard is that they would be amenable to the relocation if a similarly equipped site were provided at no cost to the Guard. To date, the individuals proposing construction of the brewery have not provided a financial business plan or proposal to the county. The County Attorney's office was asked to give a legal opinion as to whether or not a competitive bid was required for landside commercial development at the Immokalee Airport. Ms. White gave the opinion that it is, and outside legal counsel has agreed. ➢ MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT • Taxiway Project— Staff is working with the FAA, URS & Collier County Purchasing to finalize the bid package. The FAA has reiterated that that project is on the list for discretionary funding. The FAA grant application, based on bids, is due by May 28, 2010. ➢ EVERGLADES AIRPARK • T- Hangars -The final walk through will be conducted the week of 4/12/10. Mr. Klein emphasized that the pavement needs to be addressed and the final inspection completed prior to final pay out. Mr. Meade requested that Advisory Board members be notified via e-mail as to the date of the final inspection so they could be present during the inspection. Ms. White advised that more than one Board member could attend, but reiterated that Advisory Board members cannot discuss any issue that might come before the Advisory Board, and suggested that they stand separately from each other. Y..-UdministratianM 11wrAWinutesTY 1009 -2010 CCAA Minutes April 12,20 10 3 of Ribbon Cutting Ceremony — The Ribbon Cutting Ceremony is scheduled for Monday, April 19 at 11:00. Commissioner Coletta and Mayor Sammy Hamilton are both scheduled to attend the event. ➢ ADMINISTRATION Budget— had preliminary budget meeting with OMB on 3/31/10. The forecasted revenue for the new USDA building will be used to replace funds "borrowed" from the Immokalee Development Fund (the $750,000 annual transfer) for the project rather than for operating expenses. The Authority will utilize last year's capital request to off -set this forecasted decrease in operating revenue in order to remain within budget guidelines. • Executive Director Position— The Selection Committee met on Friday, 4/9/10, to review the ranking of the 57 applicants for the position. The Selection Committee decided to request the Advisory Board to rank order the top sixteen (16) applicants. • Mr. Meade opened the floor to questions from the public that came from Immokalee to discuss the situation out there. Ms. White advised that this not be discussed because the employee has the ability to appeal the termination recommendation and any discussion at this time could put attendees in the position where they could be called to testify. She further advised that it is not appropriate to discuss this matter at this time, and indicated that nowhere in the county would the proposed termination of an employee be discussed at an Advisory Board or a Board of County Commissioners meeting. Mr. Meade indicated that the employee may not yet have received the paperwork, and that he will have five (5) days to appeal. The final outcome will become public record. The information will be available through the Collier County Human Resource Department. VII. NEW BUSINESS A. Airport Authority Advisory Board Role and Responsibilities. Ms. White reviewed the amended Ordinance 2010 -10 and Ordinance 2010 -11 emphasizing the revised role, responsibilities, and authorities of the Collier County Airport Advisory Board and reiterating that sunshine regulations still apply. B. Selection of candidates to interview and review of interview questions for Executive Director position. The Advisory Board was advised to contact either Debbie Brueggeman or Dianne Janson in Human Resources with any questions or comments regarding the interview questions. Each Advisory Board member was provided copies of the resumes for the top sixteen (16) candidates for the Executive Director position. Advisory Board Members were asked to review the applications, rank order the 16 Y. M&Wnlstra0onUA Boar"inuteSTY 2009 -1010 CCAA Minutes April 12, 2010 1 &e Iof 4 1 01 applicants and email their rankings to Dianne Janson in Human Resources by Monday, April 19, 2010. VIII. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Campbell inquired about the availability of hangers and the waiting list for the T- hangars at Everglades Airpark. Mr. Schumann expressed concern about a comment made by Mr. Meade regarding the criteria Board members might want to consider in ranking the candidates for the Executive Director position. Ms. White suggested that the Chairman's comments where related to the experience of the applicant. The meeting was then adjourned "without objection." COLLIER COLLIER Y: MministwnonlAA BOOrdViflmtesTY2009 -2010 ADVISORY BOARD " Halas JUL 0 1 2010 Henning Coyle loam of County Commissioners Coletta ✓ COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD 1 MINUTES OF REGULAR MONDAY, MAY 10, 2010 MEETING MEMBERS Byron Meade Michael Klein Lloyd Byerhof Floyd Crews PRESENT: Jim Murray Frank Secrest David Gardner Richard Rice STAFF: Debbie Brueggeman Debi Mueller Lisa Morris Jennifer White PUBLIC: David Jackson Bill Garrett Earl Hall Ralph Hester Dylan Caldwell Mike Taylor Tim Parker Larry Fox Steve Fletcher Luc Carriere Pat Utter Mark Minor Brent Addison Marvin Courtright Ken Rutter I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 1:00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting. II. INTRODUCTION OF BOARD, STAFF AND GUEST Mr. Meade thanked Mr. Hester for making ice cream at the Everglades T -hangar Ribbon cutting ceremony. He then informed the Advisory Board there are now five (5) instrument approaches at the Immokalee Airport, making it easier for aircraft to fly into the airport. Mr. Meade apologized for his statements made at the April 12, 2010 meeting that has caused a problem with the Executive Director Candidate selection. Due, in part, to his comments, Human Resources will be restarting the hiring process. Ms. Brueggeman stated that the proposed amended process it is on the Board of County Commissioners' May I 1 agenda. The timeline is for Human Resources (HR) to present the selected applicants to the BCC at the July 27, 2010 BCC meeting. HR will be re- advertising the position for fifteen (15) days. Ms. White explained that the slate will be wiped clean. However, rather than have all the original applicants reapply, individuals who applied originally will have their applications reconsidered without having to reapply. The selection committee will include one (1) Advisory Board member. The Advisory Board felt this issue should have been brought up earlier than today's meeting. Ms. Brueggeman clarified that the decision to revise the hiring process was made by Human Resources and the County Attorney's office. Mr. Meade will speak to the Human Resource Department, the County Attorney's office and Commissioner Coletta to clarify the Advisory Boards' role. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Gardner made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Secrest seconded, and the Agenda, was approved unanimously. Misc. Corres: Y:Wdminis"tion\AA Board\Minutes/FY2009 -2010 Date: Item #: CCAA Minutes May 10, 2010 1 &42 of4 1 a 1 IV. APPROVAL OF APRIL 12, 2010 MINUTES The Advisory Board disputed the April 12, 2010 minutes regarding Agenda item VI. The Executive Director's Report, specifically details related to the brewery and the National Guard. The Advisory Board did not recall discussion of the issue. Mr. Klein requested to review the tapes of the meeting. Ms. Morris will make the tapes available to the Advisory Board. Ms. White suggested Ms. Morris review the tapes again for accuracy and report her findings at the next meeting. Mr. Rice made a motion to withhold the approval of the minutes until the next Advisory Board meeting, and the motion was approved unanimously. - V. FINANCE REPORT FOR QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2010 The Advisory Board had no questions or comments regarding the finance report for the quarter ended March 31, 2010. No action required. Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve the finance report. Mr. Rice seconded, and the finance report was approved unanimously. VI. Q. GRADY MINOR PRESENTATION — Proposed Plans Phase 2 and 2A Permitting for Immokalee Airport Mr. Mark Minor, Q. Grady Minor & Associates, reviewed the plans for next phase (Phase 2 and 2A) of permitting at the Immokalee Regional Airport. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Everglades Airpark Mr. Crews addressed the letter sent by Mayor Sammy Hamilton on April 22, 2010 regarding the transfer of the Everglades Airport to Everglades City. Ms. Brueggeman first became aware of this issue when staff at Everglades City faxed a copy of the letter to her. In response to that letter, the Board of County Commissioner's indicated that it has not had discussions regarding the transfer of the Everglades Airpark to Everglades City for several years. At this time, there is no proposal being considered by the Board of County Commissioners. B. Immokalee Regional Airport Staff Mr. Crews stated the National Guard contacted him last week, and indicated they are unhappy and feel unwelcome. Mr. Crews feels the staff needs direction and guidance due to the absences of a manager on site at the Immokalee Airport. Mr. Klein questioned where Ms. Brueggeman takes her direction from. Ms. Brueggeman explained that the County Manager, Mr. Leo Ochs, had requested that she ask the National Guard about the possibly of relocating their four (4) acres to another area on the airport. C. USDA Building and Alternative Space for Salazar Machine & Steel, Inc. At this time, Salazar Machine & Steel will utilize space in Labelle in order to fill a large contract the company recently received. At a recent meeting with Mr. Salazar, Mr. Salazar expressed that he is still very interested in the space in Immokalee. Y. WdministrationUA BoardW,nutesTY 2009 -2010 CCAA Minutes May 10, 2010 16Pf oN 1 a D. Executive Director Position Mr. Crews asked the Advisory Board to replace Ms. Brueggeman as Interim Director, and replace her with a member of the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board voted 6 members opposing this motion, and one in favor. Mr. Rice then made a motion to recommend to the BCC that Ms. Brueggeman be replaced with either an Advisory Board member or another County employee. The recommendation was seconded by Mr. Crews. The Advisory Board voted four (4) members opposing and three (3) members recommending the replacement of the Interim Director with either an Advisory Board member or another County employee. As an alternate Advisory Board member, Mr. Crews only votes in the absence of another Board member. E. Airport Advisory Board Mr. Meade requested that the Advisory Board be sent daily updates via email. Ms. Brueggeman reminded the Advisory Board not to send comments or replies to each other. Ms. White emphasized that the Advisory Board should send all comments to Ms. Brueggeman. VIII. NEW BUSINESS Recommendation that the Airport Authority execute the deed of easement and bill of sale for the master meter and water main utility facilities in order for Marco Island Utilities to proceed with the relocation of the reclaimed main that currently runs through the new parking lot. Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Airport Authority, approve and execute the deed of easement and bill of sale. Mr. Klein seconded, and the recommendation was approved unanimously. IX. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Meade opened the floor for public discussion. Several Immokalee Airport tenants came to defend Jim Kenney, and expressed that he should be reinstated as the Manager at Immokalee. Dr. Dylan Caldwell stated that the inaction regarding the Jim Kenney matter is disappointing, and that a great wrong has been done that the County will pay for in the long run. Mr. Meade suggested that the tenants from Immokalee be witnesses at Mr. Kenney's hearing. Mr. Fletcher questioned the investigation and allegations and indicated that the Interim Director is responsible for the actions taken by Human Resources. Mr. Hester said he spoke to Commissioner Coletta and the Commissioner stated that the Advisory Board has just as much power as it ever had. Mr. Secrest stated that Commissioner Coletta informed him of the same. Ms. White clarified that the Board does not have and never had decision making authority over a lower level employee, such as a manager. Mr. Klein recommended that the manager be reinstated until the case is settled. Ms. White informed the Advisory Board that they do not have jurisdiction to override the decision. Y. Udminis(m1,onUA BaardWinutesWY 1009 -2010 CCAA Minutes May 10, 2010 1■ NgeJ of 4 1 V l Mr. Earl Hall stated his concerns about the Advisory Board's capability, and stated that a news conference should be called regarding this situation. He further expressed that the Advisory Board and Ms. Brueggeman will probably be named in a lawsuit. The meeting was then adjourned "without objection," but discussion amongst the Board and Public continued. "` Y. UdminisimiionL4ABoardlMinuiesWY2009 -2010 BOARD Fiala u �ECEIVEP Hales oilier County Airport Authority Henning A l okalee Regional Airport ColettJUG 15 2010 Advisory Board Meeting Coyle rioard of GOWITY Gammissio e 165 Airport Park, Immokalee, FL 34142 June 14, 2010 Minutes A. Pledge of Allegiance. B. Call to Order. Chairman Byron Meade called the meeting to order at 1:00 PM. C. Roll Call and Announcement of Quorum. Advisory Board Members Present: Byron Meade, Michael Klein, Frank Secrest, Lloyd Byerhof, James Murray, Richard Rice and Floyd Crews. Advisory Board Members Absent /Excused: David Gardner Staff Present: Penny Phillippi, Bob Tweedie, Debi Mueller, Debbie Brueggeman, Tiffany Mendoza, Jimmy Mullins, Chris Wiggins and John Keith Public Present: Please see attached sign in sheet. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. D. Introductions. After introductions, Ms. Phillippi announced that citizens will have three opportunities to speak during the meeting: 1. Items on the agenda - complete a Request to Speak form and hand to Debbie Brueggeman. Each speaker will be allowed 3 minutes. 2. During the Citizen Comment's section at the end. Each speaker will be allowed 3 minutes. 3. Questions for guest speaker(s). E. Adoption of the Agenda. Ms. Phillippi announced an addition to the agenda: Section I. New Business, as Item h., the document entitled Employee Personnel Policy. Action: Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve the agenda, as amended, Mr. Klein seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. F. Communications. Ms. Phillippi announced that there are two future events planned for the Immokalee Airport. On April 2, 2011, a Hot Air Balloon Event is scheduled, and on August 7, 2010, the Seminole Casino is having an event. The Casino folks have requested a meeting to ensure the Immokalee Airport will be able to handle the number of planes they are expecting. Chairman Meade called for volunteers from the AdviscAmB to assist on the day of the event. Dete: item 1 G. Consent Agenda. lb 1 i �1 Action: Mr. Klein made a motion that a consent agenda not be included on the CCAA agenda. Mr. Byerhof seconded the motion, and it passed by majority vote. a. Approval of the Minutes from the April 12 and May 10 meetings. Action: Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 12 and May 10 meetings, with changes noted to the May 10 minutes. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. b. Approval of the Finance Report. Action: Mr. Klein made a motion to approve the finance report. Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. C. Change Order #3 for $123,783.45 for DeAngelis Diamond Construction Company for underground site work and the assembly and installation of a meter on the apron and parking expansion project at the Marco Executive Airport. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend that the BCC, acting as the Airport Authority, approve Change Order #3 to Contract No. 09 -5245 for $123,783.45 for DeAngelis Diamond Construction Company for underground site work and the assembly and installation of a meter on the apron and parking expansion project at the Marco Island Executive Airport. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. d. Change Order #1 for $13,600 and a Budget Amendment for Passarella & Associates for the Phase II SDP, a Phase II Gopher Tortoise Survey, and miscellaneous reimbursable expenses for the Immokalee Regional Airport. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend that the BCC, acting as the Airport Authority, approve Change Order #1 to Work Order No. 4500116918 for $13,600 and a Budget Amendment for Passarella & Associates for the Phase 11 SDP, a Phase II Gopher Tortoise Survey, and miscellaneous reimbursable expenses at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. e. Fourth Amendment to the Lease between the Airport Authority and Global Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., as assigned to KPK Management, amending the rental payment amount by 5 %, as provided by the Base Agreement. Citizen Comments: (1) Concern that the CCAA lease rates should not be competing with the private sector. (2) Third Party stated that KPK does not intend to pass the proposed increase on to sub - tenants. 2 161 161 Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend that the BCC, acting as the Airport Authority, approve the Fourth Amendment to the Lease between the Airport Authority and Global Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., as assigned to KPK Management, amending the rental payment amount by 5016, as provided by the Base Agreement. Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion that the CCAA Advisory Board request staff to send a Request for Legal Services to the County Attorney's Office for a review of the lease agreement to see if it can be amended to raise the lease amount to current market levels. Mr. Murray seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. f. Creation of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for economic development at the Immokalee Airport. Ms. Phillippi read a paragraph from the sample RFP and requested that the Advisory Board approve the release of an economic development RFP. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to allow staff to proceed with the release of an RFP for economic development on the Immokalee Regional Airport. Mr. Murray seconded, the motion and it passed by majority vote. H. Old Business. None I. New Business. a. Marketing Proposal. Steve Hart made a brief presentation on possible airport marketing strategies. Ms. Phillippi requested that the committee approve moving forward with marketing the CCAA to generate interest and enterprise to the airports. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to instruct staff to move forward with garnering quotes for marketing the CCAA. Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. Citizen Comment: The $15.00 Ramp Fee is considered exorbitant if you are just going to Marco for a cup of coffee. Staff informed the Advisory Board that the fee was waived if fuel was purchased. l Action: Mr. Klein made a motion that the CCAA discontinue charging a $15.00 ramp fee at all CCAA airports. Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. b. Presentation by our URS Consultant, Mike Thompson. Mr. Thompson provided a concise presentation on the procedures for creating a business on an airport property. Ms. Phillippi asked the Advisory Board to consider allowing staff to 3 161 1 bi retain Mr. Thompson's firm to review all FAA requests for businesses at airports prior to their submittal to the FAA. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion for staff to create a Work Order for URS to review all FAA economic development applications prior to their submittal to the FAA. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. C. Security at the Immokalee Regional Airport. Staff requested approval to pay to provide night time security at the airport. Wackenhut Guards, under the County's contract, would cost 18.91 /hour (armed) or $15.72 /hour (unarmed). The Collier County Sheriff's Department reported that there have been no incidents reported for the past 15 years and suggested unarmed guards would be adequate. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to retain unarmed Wackenhut Guards to secure the Immokalee Regional Airport after dark. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. d. Placement of the Airport Authority's Administrative Offices. This item was placed on the agenda at the request of an Advisory Board member. The concern of the member is that Marco Island is too far away from Immokalee. The member requested the thoughts of other committee members. Action: The item was tabled for a later meeting. e. Fuel prices at the Immokalee Airport. Ms. Phillippi stated that there is concern that the fuel costs in Immokalee are not competitive with LaBelle Airport in Hendry County. Staff provided a brief overview of costs, overhead and comparisons. Action: Debi Mueller and Mr. Murray were asked by the Chairman to create a "Break Even Analysis" and report back to the Advisory Board at the next meeting. f. Status of the CCAA Grant Program. The Interim Executive Director asked that experts in the field of federal grants management be brought to the CCAA on June 16`h for a day to conduct a quick assessment of the status of all current grants. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to approve bringing Guardian Community Resources into the CCAA for a review and assessment on the status of current grunts. Mr. Murray seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote. g. July Advisory Board meeting. Ms. Phillippi stated that she is aware that this committee has historically not met during the month of July. She suggested that during this state of flux the Advisory Committee agree to conduct a meeting on the 12`h of July. 2 161 Action: Mr. Murray made a motion to conduct a CCAA Advisory Board meeting on July 12, 2010. Mr. Crews seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. h. Employee Personnel Policy. In the instance of the termination and appeal process of airport employees and final authority in such matters, the Interim Executive Director suggested to the Advisory Committee that they review the Employee Personnel Policies adopted by the BCC /CRA to address these identical issues, and consider submitting this policy to the County Attorney's Office for review and revisions and then to BCC /CCAA for promulgation. The Advisory Board will discuss this item at the next meeting. J. Advisory Board Comments. Byron Meade. Mr. Meade stated that he felt the CCAA organization is sloppy and in need of restructuring. He suggested that the Advisory Committee recommend to the CCAA /BCC that a complete reorganization of staff be executed, create new designations and invite current staff to apply for the newly created positions. Action: Mr. Crews made a motion that staff be instructed to study the current staffing situation and provide recommendations toward reorganization. Mr. Rice seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. Michael Klein. Mr. Klein discussed the termination of Mr. Jim Kenney and suggested that the Advisory Committee recommend to the CCAA /BCC that Mr. Kinney be reinstated until a determination of his case has been completed. Action: Staff was instructed to create a letter to be submitted to the CCAA /BCC that would show a vote of confidence, acknowledgement and appreciation of Mr. Kenney. Frank Secrest. No comments. Lloyd Byerhof. No comments. James Murray. Mr. Murray reiterated that he would like for the lease agreement with KPK Management to be studied by the County Attorney. Richard Rice. Mr. Rice wanted to make sure that the CCAA Advisory Board will support building the Wings and Wheels Event into a major air show. Floyd Crews. Mr. Crews reiterated the request for the Interim Director to study a reorganization of the current staff. 5 I 1 01 K. Citizen Comments. Mr. David Jackson, representing the Collier County Economic Development Office, requested a copy of the Airports' Master Plans. He then asked if each Advisory Board member would please state their individual vision for the CCAA. The members did so. Action: Mr. Rice made a motion to ask the Chairman to construct a letter to the Army Reserve and the National Guard encouraging them to bring an air wing to the Immokolee Airport. Mr. Secrest seconded the motion, and it passed by unanimous vote. L. Next Meeting. The next meeting will be held on July 12, 2010 at the Everglades City Hall at 1:00 PM. M. Adjournment. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM. COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT COLLIER CO ,`FLORIDA i Byron Meade, C; airm 16I` 1 May 27, 2010 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD Naples, Florida RECEIVED May 27, 2010 JUL 15 2710 Board of County commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, 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: ALSO PRESENT: CHAIRMAN: Kenneth Kelly Larry Dean Ron Doino (Alternate) Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Gerald Lefebvre Lionel L'Esperance Tony Marino Herminio Ortega (Absent) Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Jean Rawson, Attorney for the Board coletta Diane Flagg, Code Enforcement Director Misc. cones: Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Date: 0 l item #�I_ Z Page l 160 1 May 27, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good morning. I'd like to call today's meeting of the Code Enforcement Board for May to session. Notice: Respondent may be limited to 20 minutes per case presentation, unless the additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the Chair. All parties participating in the public meeting are asked to observe Roberts Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any persons who decide to appeal a decision of the board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board will be responsible for providing this record. May I have roll call. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yep, here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. James Lavinski? MR. LAVINSKL• Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Tony Marino? MR. MARINO: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Lionel L'Esperance? MR. L'ESPERANCE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ron Doino? MR. DOINO: Here. Page 2 1611 tv May 27, 2010 MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Herminio Ortega has an excused absence for today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next, move on to approval of agenda. Is there any changes? MS. WALDRON: There are a few changes to the agenda. Under number four, Public Hearings /Motions, letter B, we have two additions to stipulations. The first will be number three from hearings, Case CESD20090017585, Maria Alma Plunkett. And the next one will be number four from hearings, Case CESD20090017586, Maria Alma Plunkett. And under number five, old business, letter A, Motion for Imposition of Fines /Liens, number one, Case CESD20090009150, E.J. Properties, LLC, has been withdrawn. And number four under Imposition of Fines, Case CESD20090012961, J. Peaceful, LC, has been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that it? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: With that, I'll entertain a motion to accept the agenda. MR. KAUFMAN: So moved. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) .,_. 161 1 &-- May 27, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it passes. Now, onto approval of minutes from April 22nd. Is there any changes to the minutes? MS. WALDRON: No changes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, any questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: If not, entertain a motion. MR. DEAN: Motion to approve the minutes. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it passes. Now, public hearings. Under stipulations, B, we have number one, Plunkett, Case CESD20090017585. (Speakers were duly sworn. Interpreter Irma Ratlifsa was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Before we start case presentation, for the record, since we do have one of our active members absent today, one of our alternates will have full voting rights. And since Tony Marino has seniority, he will be the one that will have the voting rights. Ron will be able to participate in all discussions, just won't be able to vote. Sorry about that. Thank you. Page 4 161 1 PAZ May 27, 2010 MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that: The respondent shall pay operational cost in the amount of $80.29 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Must apply and obtain a Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Good, thank you. Good morning. Do you agree to everything that you signed in the stipulation? MS. PLUNKETT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And you understand you have 120 days to finish the work? MS. PLUNKETT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: I make a motion we approve the stipulation as written. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and seconded. All those in favor? Page 5 16101 K, May 27, 2010 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, that's case number one. We have one more. Is this a duplex; is that what it is, or two separate homes? MS. RODRIGUEZ: They're two separate homes. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion /occupancy within 120 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. 161 1 i� Z May 27, 2010 Again, I'm sorry; do you understand and agree to this stipulation as well? MS. PLUNKETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. Any questions from the board? MR. DEAN: I have one. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Yes, sir. MR. DEAN: Carport room added and primary -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: You need to get on the mic. MR. DEAN: I'm sorry. Is the room occupied that was added? THE INTERPRETER: Yes. MR. DEAN: See, I have a problem with that. Because you've added probably electrical and things like that, and we have an added room primary structure without a permit. And how safe is it? That's my problem. So I'm asking you, what do you think about this? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I did not go in the room. She said that it was a bedroom that they added. I'm assuming that it does have electrical. And I do believe that it is a safety issue, although I can't verify that; I haven't been in the building. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is this a similar addition or add -on or change to the last case that we just had? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, the other case was just the shed. This is an actual addition that was added onto the house. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other concerns from the board? Is there anyone that shares Mr. Dean's concern? MR. KAUFMAN: I share the concern. And I think in the past didn't we manage to get somebody from code enforcement to go out there, just to make sure that it was safe? MS. FLAGG: The building department would go out and check it out. Page 7 161 1 0 May 27, 201 MR. KAUFMAN: Can we make that part of the stipulation? MS. FLAGG: Yes. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a time frame, Mr. Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Probably within the next -- since it's a safety issue, if we can request that they would be out there within the next week to 10 days, I think that would be sufficient. MR. UESPERANCE: Is that reasonable, Diane? MS. FLAGG: Yes. MR. UESPERANCE: I would echo that concern also. MR. LEFEBVRE: The concern I have is being it is a room, there's going to be impact fees. And the question I have, is the respondent going to be able to -- if she does go ahead and get it C.O.'d, does she have the money to pay the impact fees? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's not a large room. I don't think she's going to go over the first tier so, you know, she may just be charged like $100 or something. It's not much. If she wants to leave it; I don't know if she does or not. MR. LEFEBVRE: Are your intentions to remove it or to go ahead and get the certificate of occupancy for it? THE INTERPRETER: No, she's going to remove it. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Mr. Kaufman, if you'd like to take a stab at it. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to amend the existing stipulation as written to include an inspection by the building department within the next 10 days. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Can I interrupt real quick? If they're going to demo it, why would they need an inspection? I mean, people have to move out anyway. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, then it would be either inspected in 10 days or not be occupied in 10 days. WIM 161k16Z May 27, 2010 THE INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, so we understand that what we're suggesting is that no one lives in that room. THE INTERPRETER: It's not occupied anyway, so she's not going to -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Oh, it's not occupied. Okay, excellent. MR. KAUFMAN: So if we include that -- those words that I espoused, that it either be not occupied or inspected within 10 days, as part of the stipulation agreement. THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me, I had a question. She wants to know (sic) that the room was already built when she bought the house. That's why she -- she wanted to make it clear. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We understand. And that happens quite frequently in our county. Unfortunately what happens is the violation goes with whoever owns the property now. So you may have civil recourse against the person that sold it. We have to work with the property owner of today. So we don't think she did anything wrong, it's just now we do have to correct the problem, whoever made it. THE INTERPRETER: Okay. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So you understand that nobody will live in that room? THE INTERPRETER: Right. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Excellent. We have a motion, do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. Page 9 161 1 0z May 27, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Great. So good luck. And if you have any problems, please come back and let us know before the time expires. THE INTERPRETER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. That is the end of our public hearings /motions. Now moving on to hearings, Part C. Jen? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: If you want to read the first case. MS. WALDRON: Sure. Number one; first case will be CESD20090015779, Alexander and Joanka C. Diaz Dominguez. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Unpermitted electrical boxes and outlets in dwelling. Location/address where violation exists: 669 99th Avenue North, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio 62635080006. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Alexander Dominguez and Joanka C. Diaz Dominguez, 669 99th Avenue North, Naples, Florida, 34108. Date violation first observed: October 1st, 2009. Page 10 NI l 27,J010 Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 10th, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: March 20th, 2010. Date of re- inspection: March 22nd, 2010. Results of re- inspection is the violation remains. Now I'd like to turn it over to Investigator Jonathan Musse. MR. MUSSE: Good morning. For the record, Investigator Jonathan Musse, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090015779, for unpermitted electrical boxes and outlets installed at 669 99th Avenue North, Naples, Florida, 34108. Corresponding folio is 62635080006. Notice of Violation was returned unclaimed on March 4th, 2010. Therefore, Notice of Violation was served on March 10th, 2010, by posting in the Courthouse and property. At this time I'd like to turn the case over to Steven Athey, the initial investigator on the scene. (Speaker was duly sworn.) THE COURT REPORTER: Please spell your name for the record. MR. ATHEY: A- T- H -E -Y. For the record, Investigator Steve Athey, Collier County Code Enforcement. On August 18th, 2009, I receive a phone call from the Collier County Sheriffs Department, who was executing a search warrant on a grow -house at 669 99th Avenue, Naples Park. I was allowed entry by the Sheriffs Department. It was still an active crime scene, and this is the first time anyone from Code Enforcement was allowed to enter the dwelling. I entered and took 15 photographs, which I have copies of and would like to introduce as composite Exhibit A. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to approve the pictures. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. Page 11 lb� „� May 27, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) MR. ATHEY: And if you'd like, we can go through the photographs so you can get a broad overview of what the inside of the dwelling looked like. This is the actual front of the house, just to verify which dwelling it is. You can see the electrical work, the ductwork that's inside the dwelling. Most of the electrical work was done in the two rear bedrooms and the hallway leading to the bedrooms, with an addition of an additional air conditioning unit placed in the kitchen. You'll see a photograph of that. You can see some additional outlets that were installed illegally. That is in the hallway between the bedrooms. Batteries that were used to power the lighting and irrigation systems that they used. More ductwork. That is the air conditioner unit that was placed in the kitchen. Ductwork in the hallway between the bedrooms. More ductwork. Irrigation system that was in one of the bedrooms. Pots used to grow the plants stacked in a spare room. Page 12 161 1 Ov May 27, 2010 Miscellaneous items used for growing that were discarded by the Sheriff s Department. The actual pots that they used to grow the plants in one of the bedrooms. This is the other bedroom. Packing, growing material, miscellaneous items. And the actual plants that had been bagged up by the Sheriffs Department, Narcotics Unit. Electrical items that were discarded by the Sheriffs Department, thrown into the pool to destroy them for further use. And I believe that's it for the photographs. And that was the extent of my involvement. I took the pictures and Investigator Musse took over the case at this point. MR. UESPERANCE: One question. Are the dates accurate that are on the photographs that we're looking at? MR. ATHEY: Absolutely. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further questions? MR. KAUFMAN: All this to grow tomatoes. I'd like to make a motion that a violation exists. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 13 161 1 01,1/ May 27, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have a recommendation? MR. MUSSE: The County recommends respondent to pay all operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days and abate all violations by: Obtaining a Collier County building permit or demolition permit for any construction additions or remodeling; to obtain all inspections, certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or a fine of "X" amount of dollars per day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notify code enforcement investigator when the violation has been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed by the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we know anything about the property owner? Have you made contact with them at all? MR. MUSSE: Well, the property owner is in jail. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. MR. MUSSE: And his wife, she's hearing impaired and I'm having trouble getting in contact with her; we can't find her. MR. DEAN: So nobody lives in the home right now? MR. MUSSE: No one lives in the home. MR. LEFEBVRE: Is it in the process of being foreclosed on? MR. MUSSE: There was a final judgment on the foreclosure for this property. But the banks won't really take over the property until a certificate of title, because there's evidence of people going in and out of the house. I guess, assuming, to clear out some of the ductwork, Page 14 161 1 bti May 27, 2010 AC ductwork that was in there. But other than that, that's why the banks won't take over. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that a separate case or -- MR. MUSSE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a separate case? MR. MUSSE: There's been multiple cases on this property as far as litter, pool. The pool case just actually went to OSM about a month ago, and the litter was cleared up. MR. MARINO: I have a question. Is all this stuff still intact in this house; air conditioning system, electrical, all still there? MR. MUSSE: I haven't been able to get inside the property, and so I'm assuming that it is still intact. MR. LEFEBVRE: Has the bank been aware of this case? MR. MUSSE: They have been aware, and they just said we can't do anything unless it's either vacant or certificate of title. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to take a shot at the agreement that you have here and fill in the blanks. Because it is an electrical situation with safety being involved, I recommend that -- and it is unoccupied. I recommend that we issue 30 days as the date that it has to be completed and the fine of $500 a day. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah, I think $500 a day may be much. With the bank in the process of the final judgment been issued, the title has not. With a fine of $500 a day, the bank may not take title to the property if there's real large fines sitting on the property. And this may sit there for quite some time. So that's kind of my worry. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Diane? MS. FLAGG: Just a quick comment. There is an opportunity Page 15 16 ! 3 oz May 27, 2010 here for the county to abate. And in grow- houses we typically demo because of the mold that occurs as a result of the grow - house. So the reason the bank hasn't addressed this is because there's evidence of people going in and out, and the bank won't go into a property if there's people in the property. They only address it if it's vacant. So I wouldn't be concerned about, you know, anything other than the County may abate or the bank if they get certificate of title would abate. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it passes. Very good, thank you. MR. MUSSE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Moving on to the next case, Herbert Salgat, Jr. Is Mr. Salgat here? MR. PAUL: No, he's not. He's not going to show up. (Investigator Renald Paul was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to Case CESD20100002534. Violation of Collier County Land Development Page 16 161 1 6T May 27, 2010 Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Description of violation: Detached garage was converted into living space and an office without permits. Location/address where violation exists: 5941 Cedar Tree Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 38226080009. Name and address of owner /person in charge of violation location: Herbert A. Salgat, Jr., 5941 Cedar Tree Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Date violation first observed: February 25th, 2010. Date owner /person in charge given Notice of Violation: March 30th, 2010. Date on/by which violation to be correct: April 10th, 2010. Date of re- inspection: April 19th, 2010. Results of re- inspection: The violation remains. I would now like to turn it over to Investigator Renald Paul. MR. PAUL: Good morning. For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20100002534 dealing with violations of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), violation o£ Detached garage was converted to living space and an office without permits. Location/address is 5941 Cedar Tree Lane, Naples, Florida, 34116. Service was given on March 30th, 2010. I'd like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: Exhibits B -1 through 4, C -1 through 8, and D 1. MR. DEAN: Motion to accept the exhibits. MR. LEFEBVRE: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and second. All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 17 16 I ; b,/ May 27, 010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? (No response.) MR. PAUL: And this -- the first picture just shows the detached garage. And that's the tenant's car in front of it. Second picture just shows the main house and the detached garage. This is the inside of the detached garage as you walk in. And that's just another picture. The door that you see towards the back, that's how you enter into the efficiency. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So as of right now, there's no violations here? Is this a violation that we're looking at? MR. PAUL: No, this is not a violation, this is just the first part of it. I took the other pictures on a different day, that's why I have different exhibits. MR. KAUFMAN: Can I ask how you were granted admittance to this? MR. PAUL: I spoke with the tenant on -site and he allowed me inside the residence. MR. KAUFMAN: Thank you. MR. PAUL: And as you can see, once we entered the residence, they've got a kitchen inside, they've got a refrigerator, bathroom, two bedrooms inside the efficiency. And it just shows that there is somebody definitely living at the residence. That's just one of the bedrooms. That's the second. And that's just the rear of the property. Page 18 161 14),,- May 27, 2010 This case began on February 22nd of 2010. I was on -site after receiving an anonymous complaint. I knocked on the door but no one was home at that time. And that's when I took the first group of photographs that you see. I ordered the files on the property, the original files for the residence. On 3/10 of 2010, I received the paperwork back, found that the original permit, Permit No. 1998091725 showed that there was a house and a detached garage, and there was no effic -- there shouldn't have been any efficiency or office. On 3/12 of 2010, I returned to the property with another investigator, Carmelo Gomez. We spoke with the tenant at that time and we had explained to him why we were out on the property. He did say that the owner of the property did not reside at the residence at that time. He did allow us to take photographs, and we were able to go walk through the property. MR. UESPERANCE: May I ask a question? Is there a second renter or tenant to the main house? MR. PAUL: There is another renter in the main house -- MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. PAUL: -- but it's not the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Is there one electric meter, did you notice, for both facilities? MR. PAUL: No, I didn't observe that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Are both residents listed in the rental program? MR. PAUL: No, they're not. They don't have a rental registration. MR. MARINO: The -- I have a question. The pictures you just showed us was the detached garage -- MR. PAUL: Yes, those were just the detached garage. MR. MARINO: -- bedroom, the bathroom, all that was in that one section, that half of the garage? Page 19 161 1 6 May 27, 2010 MR. PAUL: Correct. At that time I sent out a Notice of Violation to the property owner. I wasn't able to serve it to them. The Property Appraiser's site says he lives on -site, but he doesn't, so it was sent certified mail. The certified mail return receipt was returned. It was signed by the property owner. On 4/12 2010, after research, found that there were no permits applied for at that time, so I continued to monitor. On 4/16 of 2010, the property owner gave me a phone call. He did state to me that he was trying to short sale the property, and at that time he couldn't afford to fix this problem. He said he was just going to allow the bank to take the property. I did notify him of our procedure and that if he didn't take care of the issue that this would go to a hearing and he said okay. On 4/19 of 2010, after research, found there was no change, no permits applied for, nothing. On 5/6 of 2010, I posted the property with the notice of hearing and the Courthouse and completed all affidavits. And as of yesterday, the violation still remains. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any questions from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to find them in violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Ave. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. Page 20 16 I j62 May 27, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Does the county have a recommendation? MR. PAUL: Yes, we do. County asks that the owner pay the operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Abate all violations by: Respondent is required to obtain any and all permits as required by Collier County for any and all improvements and alterations to the residence or obtain permits for removal of all unpermitted improvements to this property and obtain all required inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days of this hearing or be fined "X" amount of dollars a day for each day the violation remains. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. And that if the respondents fail to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do we have any questions or discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: I'll offer up that concern about a health and safety issue, since there's active tenants. MR. LEFEBVRE: I have a question. Does zoning allow a guesthouse to be occupied by a tenant? MR. PAUL: Yes, they do. As long as there's no profit. You can't actually rent out a guesthouse. If let's say the tenant of the main house has house guests or a family member, they can allow them to stay in the guesthouse, but they can't actually rent it out and profit Page 21 May 27, 11 0 from it. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Do we know if this tenant is paying rent? MR. PAUL: As of right now, the last conversation I had with the owner, he stopped paying him rent. MR. MARINO: I have a question. If the homeowner decided that he's got a short sale and he doesn't really care, from what I can understand, can't we just go ahead and code -- like you said, just put an order to demolish the property? Nobody wants it, he can't sell it, the bank won't take it. Or am I wrong in understanding that? MS. FLAGG: In a short sale what that means is that the owner is negotiating with the bank to -- on a price that the bank would accept to wipe out the loan. So it's not that the bank doesn't want it, they're just in a period of negotiation. MR. MARINO: Okay. Thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: In this particular case -- we heard one earlier where the violation stays with the property. It's very important for us as a board to make sure that this property doesn't go to somebody who doesn't know that there is a violation there and they wind up before the board really innocent but having bought a property that was in violation. So this is just another example of trying to do the right thing to protect future buyers of this property. CHAIRMAN KELLY: I concur with Mr. Kaufman's opinion. MS. FLAGG: We monitor that very closely. And Mr. Dean has the brochure I think with him that we make contact with the banks, we ask the banks for who is buying the property. Then we make contact with potential buyers of the property, to make sure they understand the importance of obtaining a code property inspection and code lien search prior to closing on the property. Because if there are any violations, they can use the costs to correct those violations in their negotiation with the bank. MR. LEFEBVRE: And this would obviously show up in a lien Page 22 16 I 1Z May 27, 010 search once we -- we already have an order. MS. FLAGG: Correct. Any -- the lien searches that we provide for the community actually show even if there's just been a code case opened up, we report that also. So as soon as it comes to our attention, it hits our records and then is reflected on a lien search. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is that voluntary or mandatory now? MS. FLAGG: The lien search and code property inspections both are voluntary. However is not voluntary for a realtor to provide that brochure to their clients to make sure that -- NABOR, Naples Area Board of Realtors, has been very cooperative in making sure that realtors pass that out to their clients. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Well, if there is no further discussion, maybe we'll take a stab at a motion. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll take a stab, if you want. Thirty days of the hearing, that's one of the blanks I'd like to fill in, 30 days. And a fine of $250 a day. However, I think that needs to be some notification, I'm not quite sure how to pull this off, to the tenant that's there who is not paying rent anyhow, to vacate the property because of a safety and health aspect of electrical and plumbing in the property without any inspection. CHAIRMAN KELLY: How long would you give the tenant in your motion? MR. KAUFMAN: The same; 30 days should be sufficient. MR. UESPERANCE: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Diane, maybe she can answer this. Do we have the wherewithal -- this board have the power to request eviction of a tenant? MS. FLAGG: We can always ask the tenant to abate. There is an order requiring them to leave, so we'll produce for the tenant a copy of your order that they need to vacate within 30 days. MR. UESPERANCE: So it would be voluntary on their part. MS. FLAGG: Well, we're usually pretty effective in making sure Page 23 161 162 May 27, 2010 your orders are followed. MR. UESPERANCE: Thank you. MR. LEFEBVRE: Would there be a fine attached to that 30 -day window for the tenant to vacate? MR. KAUFMAN: I don't think we can fine the tenant. We'd have to fine the owner. MR. LEFEBVRE: Right, that's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: I don't think that would be required at this point in time. I think $250 a day, tenant vacates the property. It looks as though -- this is a side to the motion -- that the property is in the works for a short sale, and hopefully this will be resolved and the next person who purchases the property will either abate the fine or at least be aware of the violation. CHAIRMAN KELLY: So to clarify, your motion is to accept a recommendation from the county with 30 days and $250 per day on the abating the violation. And then in addition, outside of the actual fine period, but still with the same 30 days, to ask the tenant who's occupying the structure to vacate. MR. KAUFMAN: That's correct. One last thing, is the main house is also occupied -- MR. PAUL: That's correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- but there's no violation there. MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: That complicates things a little bit. But the 30 days for the tenant in the detached conversion garage needs to be part of the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Jean, do you understand? MS. RAWSON: I think I got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Seconded. Page 24 161 pz May 27, 2010 Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKL• Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it carries. Thank you, Mr. Paul. MR. PAUL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, next is Mike and Mary Ruth Lucero. MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Chair, we did get a stipulation for this case. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, great. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. It is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $80.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building permit for such improvements, or a demolition permit to restore building to its original permitted state, and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 180 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed until the violation has been abated. Respondent must notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of Page 25 161 10q,,, May 27, 2010 abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you understand and agree to the agreement? MR. LUCERO: Yes, sir. MS. LUCERO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Do you have any questions? MR. KAUFMAN: I have a question. Is this a screen porch, like a screen enclosure with a slab, or is this something different than that? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It was a screen porch that was enclosed. There's a slab there. MR. KAUFMAN: The reason I asked is because the 180 days seems to be, if it's -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: The reason that I gave them 180 days is because she has two sons that are disabled, so financially she couldn't afford it. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions from the board? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept the stipulation as written. MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. Page 26 161 lez May 27, 2010 MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. If you have any problems completing it within six months, please let us know ahead of time. MR. LUCERO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Now, we're moving on to old business. Old business case one has been withdrawn. Case two would be Medeiros. This is for imposition of fines. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: Good morning. For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to CEB case -- Case No. CEPM20090009462, Board of County Commissioners versus Ronald Medeiros. Violation is Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 6, Sections 22 -231, paragraph 12, subsection M. And 22 -231, paragraph 12, subsection B. Location: Eight Pelican Street West, Naples, Florida, Folio No. 52340400004. The description is a protective coating of exterior walls on second floor is peeling and chipping. Walls have several holes in them and it appears that a pest is eating away at the wood. Past orders: On March 25th, 2010, the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached Order of the Board OR 4551, Page 1817 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of May Page 27 16 1 1p, May 27, 2010 27th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as follows: Order item number one and four, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between April 25th, 2010 to May 27th, 2010, 33 days, for the total of $6,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order item two and five, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between April 25th, 2010 to May 27th, 2010, 33 days, for the total of $6,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number three and six, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between April 25th, 2010 to May 27th, 2010, 33 days, for the total of $6,600. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number nine, operational costs of $80.86 have not been paid. Total amount to date, $19,880.86. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Clarification. Order number nine, they have not been paid. MS. SORRELS: Have not been paid. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Because our paperwork says have been. MS. SORRELS: Sorry, apologies. MS. RAWSON: What were the costs? MS. SORRELS: The costs were for $80.86. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the owner? MS. SORRELS: I have not, sir. This property is in foreclosure, has a lis pendens filed against it. MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to impose the fine. CHAIRMAN KELLY: We have a motion to impose. Second? MR. LAVINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Second by Mr. Lavinski. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? 161 16�-- May 27, 2010 MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Next we have Mr. Saint Jean. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SYKORA: This is in reference for imposition of fines and lien on CEB Case No. CESD20090010557. For the record, my name is Carol Sykora, S- Y- K- O -R -A, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. The Board of County Commissioners versus Petitoles Saint Jean. Violation: Collier County Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), building and land alteration permits. And Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article 2, Section 22 -26B, 104.5.1.4.4. Location of the violation: 105 Doral Circle, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 54901800009. Description of violation was Permit No. 2007061296 for a screen pool enclosure expired without obtaining all inspections and certificate of completion. The past order on September 24th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See attached Order of the Board OR 4499, Page 2132 for more information. Page 29 161 1 p,-, May 27, 201 An extension of time was granted on January 28th, 2010. See attached Order of the Board OR 4537, Page 1718. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of May 27th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order item number two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the periods between April 29th, 2010 to May 27th, 2010; 29 days, for the total of $5,800. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number one, operational costs of $86.43 have been paid. The total amount to date, $5,800. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Investigator Sykora, just for clarification, when was the last time you visited the property to confirm that it was not in violation? MS. SYKORA: It's not in -- the property -- the permit history still shows that it's not complied with. However, the respondents are here, and I believe they have hired someone to handle the situation correctly. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Would you like to tell us what you're doing right now? Maybe we can help understand what's going on. MS. SAINT JEAN: Well, I have someone there for me and I can't find him. I call the company every day, someone to just come over, just do a measure. I don't hear any. That's why every time I have the time to do it, the time is passed. And this week I -- last week I went to see Mrs. Carol, how can I find someone to do it for me. I find someone, he's telling me he's not going to do it last week and this week, he going to do it next week for me. He going to give me a permit next week. He going to start it, try help me get everything. He going to start it next week. MR. KAUFMAN: Were you the or -- MS. SAINT JEAN: But I try myself, call in Yellow Page, call the company, can help me to do the permit. They coming over. They tell me in three days I'm coming back to you, and you call, there no Page 30 lay'27, 110 answer. Every week I try, try. Three months pass. MR. KAUFMAN: Were you the original people who pulled the original permit to get this work done originally? MS. SAINT JEAN: Yeah, me and my brother. MR. KAUFMAN: And the company -- you did that yourself or you hired a company to do it? MS. SAINT JEAN: I had a company. I didn't want to make a mistake, I hire a company to do it. MR. KAUFMAN: And the pulled the permit -- just so I understand this, they pulled a permit, they did the work, and they never got the final inspection. MS. SAINT JEAN: No. MR. KAUFMAN: And that's where we are today. MS. SYKORA: The final inspection, they did not have the proper paperwork out to be signed off upon, so they failed it. And there's a $75 charge there. They also needed -- they had the notice of commencement, they filed that. They also needed a spot survey, and that wasn't given. I had spoke with the contractor and he advised that because they owed him money, that's why he dropped the ball on the permit. However, she has had a lot of problems trying to find and afford someone to finish this. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Is there a case against the contractor for having an open permit? MS. SYKORA: No, I don't believe they started a case due to the fact there was money owed. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Any other questions from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: In most cases we would probably see a motion for extension of time if there was active work being done. We did see the one, but here we are faced with an imposition of fines. Page 31 16 1 ' 1 t2 May 27, 2010 And typically the board does not go lenient on these. We can't pass through, we have to make a ruling on it today unless it's withdrawn. So what -- MS. SYKORA: I saw the paperwork that this contractor provided her, so I believe that this time it's going to be handled. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it possible that we could ask the County to table this until the next meeting to see what progress is being done? MS. SYKORA: I have no objections to that at all. MS. FLAGG: The County will withdraw till next month. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Director, if you'd like, if we amended the agenda to help out and keep everything legal, since they're here we might be able to entertain a motion for extension of time, which would put it past this, and that would give them legal reasons to continue without having fines accrue. If that's an interest to the board. MR. MARINO: I have a question. The reason the permit didn't go through is because the contractor was owed some money; is that what you said? MS. SYKORA: I believe so. That's what the contractor advised me. MR. MARINO: Did he state to you how much was owed and -- MS. SYKORA: No, he didn't. MR. MARINO: -- or a reason why it wasn't paid? MS. SYKORA: No, he did not. MR. LEFEBVRE: Let's ask the respondents. Do you in fact owe the contractor money? And if you do, what is the -- MS. SAINT JEAN: Well, he did it almost (phonetic) for $7,000. 389 left. But every time I called him, he said he's up north. Now when I called them, he say you're supposed to pay $4,000 now to have it. But I asked someone last week, he's going to do it for me for less money. Page 32 161 1 02 May 27, 2010 MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion. Do you think 60 days would give you enough time to get a hold of the contractor and get this all resolved? MS. SAINT JEAN: Yes, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: And if we grant you an extension of time of 60 days, if that motion passes and you have a problem, you will come back to us before that extension of time? MS. SAINT JEAN: Before the time, yes. I'm going to contact Mrs. Carol. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Just for formality reasons, are you then asking for an extension of time of 60 days? MS. SAINT JEAN: No, 60 days is enough. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sixty days is enough. But you are asking for an extension of time? Yes. Say yes. MS. SAINT JEAN: It going to be enough for me. I'm going to do it. Too much trouble. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we grant an extension of 60 days time to get a certificate of completion on this job. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Kaufman, is that from today? MR. KAUFMAN: From today. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have a -- MR. LEFEBVRE: Would it be from today or from when -- CHAIRMAN KELLY: Better from today, to make sure that we don't have to do the calculations and mess it up. Is there a second? MR. MARINO: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's seconded. Is there any discussion, questions, anything further? MR. LEFEBVRE: Well, I just want to state that we usually give one extension. And as you can see we really thought about giving a second one, quite a bit of thought about it. We will not -- if you go past the 60 days, I know I can speak for myself, I will be hard pressed Page 33 to give an extension past 60 days. done. MS. SAINT JEAN: Yeah. 161 lbv May 27, 2010 So you will have 60 days to get it CHAIRMAN KELLY: Very good. Any other discussion, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? Very good. MS. SYKORA: Thank you so much. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Next, Mr. Lamp. J. Peaceful was withdrawn, so it will be Case No. 5, Scott Lamp. Is the respondent here? And for the board, there was an amended -- I think it was an amended notice that was given to us at the beginning of the meeting. MR. LAVINSKL• Affidavit of non - compliance. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MS. SORRELS: For the record, Azure Sorrels, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. 2007110819, Board of County Commissioners versus Scott A. Lamp. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Sections 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and (i), Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Article 2, Sections 22 -26, paragraph B. 104.1.3.5 and Florida Building Code 2004 Edition, chapter one, Section 105.1. Page 34 161 1 g, May 27, 2010 Location of violation: 1000 Barefoot Williams Road, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 00727960009. Description of violation: Unpermitted conversion of an existing permitted barn to living space, consisting of complete enclosure of barn, added electrical and plumbing, installation of AC unit and interior walls erected. Past orders: On May 28th, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a findings of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4460, Page 2924 for more information. An extension of time was granted on November 19th, 2009. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4515, Page 3493. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of May 27th, 2010. The fines and cost to date are described as the following: Order item number two, fines at a rate of $100 per day for the period between May 19th, 2010 to May 27th, 2010, nine days, for the total of $900. Fines continue to accrue. Order item number one, operational cost of $88.43 have been paid. Total amount to date: $900. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any contact with the respondent? MS. SORRELS: Yes, I have. Mr. Lamp and I spoke over the phone and he indicated to me that he has still been underneath the direction of his attorneys not to do any work which would consist of abating the violations due to the fact that there's legal issues with the mortgage company and his mortgage. They have been working with the legal issues trying to fix the mortgage and what other legalities there may be. I did explain to him that the imposition of fines -- we would go through with the imposition of fines. If he chose -- he has stated that Page 35 161 12 27, 20 0 b Y if they do not resolve the issues, he will probably let the property go into foreclosure. If they do resolve the issues, he will abate the violations at that time. And I informed him that he would have an opportunity to come back in front of the board and ask for fines to be reduced or whatever you would grant to him. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Motion and a second. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Passes. MS. SORRELS: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you. Next case is Carlos Perez. (Speakers were duly sworn. Interpreter Jesus Fernandez, Jr. was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: If I may offer a little bit of history for the board to remember what happened on this. This was a case in the industrial park in the condominium where they had had -- done an illegal office. Since the -- from the inception of the code case, there was since another tenant that purchased it and didn't agree with what was going on in that condo association. He had -- actually the condo association Page 36 M6 17,210b2 was being sued to figure out exactly what they were allowed to do within that association, because he wanted to store cars there. If you remember correctly, we brought him in for imposition of fines. Mr. Perez brought his attorney with him and we didn't do it at the time, we extended him time to go ahead and come into compliance. He eventually did come into compliance after the attorney and after the litigation had been finished, everything was done. Unfortunately after he came into compliance -- or right before he came into compliance he was not able to permit anything because he had spent so much on attorney's fees in trying to figure out what he needed to do. But he came into compliance as soon as he could. That being said; let me read the board's order for imposition of fines. And obviously the county would like to give a recommendation before we're done. This concerns Case No. 2007080099, Collier County Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, the Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), 10.02.06(B)(1)(e) and 10.02.06(B)(1)(e)(i). The location is 3573 Enterprise Avenue, Naples, Florida. Folio Number 76720002147. And the description of violation is construction remodeling done on first and second floor without first obtaining valid Collier County building permits. Past order: On August 22nd, 2008 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referred (sic) ordinances and ordered to correct the violations. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4389, Pages 1143 for more information. The respondent has complied with the CEB orders as of September 30th, 2009. The fines and costs are dated as described as following: Orders number three and six, fines at the rate of $200 per day for a period Page 37 Oay � 7, 2110 between November 21st, 2008 and September 30th, 2009, 314 days, for a total of $62,800. Order number eight, operational costs of 88.43 have been paid. And the total amount to date is $62,800. CHAIRMAN KELLY: And do you have a recommendation. MR. SNOW: Yes, sir. Mr. Perez has done so much to try to come into compliance. It was an extreme financial hardship on him and his wife. And he's since had to close that one down because he couldn't afford to get it permitted. This case has been long running and he has tried to comply and he did comply when he could, so we would recommend waiver. MR. LEFEBVRE: I make a motion to abate all fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: No fines. Thank you very much. MR. SNOW: I thank the board. MR. DEAN: You got a good investigator there. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Supervisor, isn't it? And last case of the day, Tricia Jenks. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. AMBACH: Good morning. For the record, Christopher 161 1 6Z May 27, 2010 Ambach, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20900001470. Violations are as follows: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 22, Building and Building Regulations, Article 2, Florida Building Code, Sections 22 through 26 -13, 104.1.3.5. Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, chapter one, Sections 105. 1, and Collier County Ordinance 04 -41, as amended, the Land Development Code, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a), and 10.02.06 (B)(1)(e)(i). Location: 830 Third Street Northwest, Naples, Florida. Folio No. 37115960008. Description: Garage built on property without Collier County permits. Past orders: On November 19th, 2009 the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinance and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4516, Page 6 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the CEB orders as of May 27th, 2010. The fines and costs to date are described as the following: Order one -- excuse me, order item number one and number two, fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between May 19th 2010 and May 27th9 2010, nine days, for a total of $1,800. Order Item No. 5, operational costs of $83.15 have not been paid. Total amount to date: $1,883.15. MR. LEFEBVRE: Make a motion to impose the fines. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. Page 39 161 1�2 May 27, 2010 MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: And it passes. Thank you. MR. AMBACH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: That's the end of our motions and public hearings. Moving on to reports. Diane, do you have a report? MS. FLAGG: I do. Through May 23rd of this month the banks have spent $1,553,000 to abate code violations in Collier County for -- they've abated 1,136 code cases. And the weekly savings to the County and the taxpayers by the banks abating rather than the county having to abate was $7,565 for last week. In addition, the Board of County Commissioners has amended the Code Enforcement Resolution that discusses fines and liens, and it's written now in a format to further incentivize banks and community members to come into compliance. In summary, what it is is that the current owners would receive a waiver of the fines and release of the lien once compliance is achieved. Under this new program where buyers and sellers are advised of code violations, that once they take title, whether it be the bank or community member, since the resolution has passed, which was May 25th, this week, once they take title, they will have to pay the fines. But what it does is it gives the community member and the bank an incentive to abate the violation before they take title. So as you can tell by the report, we continue to get tremendous success with the banks in abating violations before they take title, as 1=_.,o 1 16 ��, 20 #0 � soon as we contact them for the most part. They've done a terrific job. The only time, as you saw in one of the cases, if there's somebody in the property, the bank won't go into that property until they have title. But otherwise they're doing a great job of abating in the lis pendens phase before they take title. So as a result of this, the investigators have spent a lot of time following up with property owners of old cases that never came into compliance. The end result is, is that they are now starting to achieve compliance with those old cases. Some of these cases are 10 years old. And these cases are now coming into compliance and then we're taking these cases to the board. So the good news is that we're getting compliance on current cases and now we're achieving compliance on old cases. The rental registration program, the board also discontinued. And the reason that that was discontinued was that the cost to handle the program, administer the program exceeded the revenue. So we did a cost benefit analysis, took that to the board and they discontinued the program. Since last month the department continues to provide meet and greet events where the investigators go out with teams, and also the Sheriffs deputies and utilities department, the whole community task force team membership, they go out and do meet and greets. And then they've had also several cleanups in various areas of the community. One of the communities in the Immokalee community, they just recently did a cleanup and filled nine dumpsters full of debris, tires, construction material, old appliances, and really did a great job in cleaning up that community. They've also had a significant cleanup in East Naples and Golden Gate Estates and North Naples. So the cleanups continue to be extremely successful. The theory of the cleanup is that the code investigator, Sheriffs deputies, utility folks, all the community task force team members go out, identify an area in the community that needs to be cleaned up. Page 41 161 1 o May 27, 2010 And rather than handing out citations or notices of violation, they go shoulder to shoulder with the community member and get the area cleaned up. And then all that material in the dumpsters are dumped at no charge to the community member because it's arranged through our contract with Waste Management. MR. LEFEBVRE: Now, if there's a violation and a fine that is on a property, you go to closing, so on a closing statement it shows that Collier County gets paid "X" amount of money. What happens if that violation's not taken care of? The fines -- MS. FLAGG: The fines are going to continue -- they would have to pay the fines at the point that they took title to the property. So if a lien has been imposed, if it's at the point that a lien has been imposed, they would have to pay the fine at the point they took title. So that's why there's further incentive to do that lien search and that code property inspection, to identify what exactly is on that property before you actually take title. So if it's going to cost $10,000 to bring the property into compliance, that you use that to negotiate your price with the bank. I wish I could bring you good news in regard to foreclosures but, you know, as we have discussed before, there's a significant, what we call a shadow inventory. The shadow inventory is where lis pendens has been filed and /or the bank has taken title but the property has not been put on the market. So there is still a significant number of properties that are in bank ownership that have not been put on the market. So if you're seeing prices of properties increase, there may be some artificial basis to that; because there's still a significant number of properties out there. In addition, there's also a significant number of properties that folks have not made their mortgage payment for six months, a year, two years, and the banks haven't filed a lis pendens on it yet. So remember, the bank files a lis pendens, then they go through the Page 42 16 1 N1 May 27, 20-TO process and then they take title anywhere from a year to a year and a half or longer. So there's a wide range of what is happening in the market. And obviously our goal is just to reach that bottom line, which is when you drive down the street in Collier County you can't tell the difference between a foreclosed property and an owner occupied property. Because we know if we keep the aesthetics of Collier County sound, that Collier County will be one of the first areas to recover when recovery occurs. MR. L'ESPERANCE: Director, do you have any approximate numbers on those topics you've just mentioned? MS. FLAGG: Numbers in terms of the number of foreclosures filed, or in the foreclosure process exceeds 17,000 in Collier County. We have -- we're monitoring 1,200 vacant homes through the community caretaking list. And obviously when the teams go out and do what they call a vacant home sweep, they add and subtract from the list of the homes sold and it comes off the community caretaking list. However, typically what they find when they go out and do these sweeps, they get home sweeps as they're adding to the community caretaking list. The reason that we monitor the vacant homes is because we know that crime and unusual activities can occur in vacancies, so we maintain a community caretaking list for each district. There's five code districts and they distribute that list to the Sheriffs Office and the task force members so everyone knows where these vacant homes are to keep an eye on them. MR. L'ESPERANCE: You've answered my next question already. Thank you. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN KELLY: Fantastic work, Director. Very nice. MS. FLAGG: It's a great team. Page 43 1b 1 b2 May 27, 2010 CHAIRMAN KELLY: For sure. Our next meeting date is going to be June 24th. And a reminder to everyone, the location's at Community Development and Environmental Services, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, and that is in Conference Room 609 -610. MR. KAUFMAN: Will they have coffee? MR. LEFEBVRE: There's a lot of new members. Are there going to be any code of ethics training that usually is put on? Is it once a year the county puts it on? CHAIRMAN KELLY: You mean the Sunshine Law? MR. LEFEBVRE: Yeah. MS. FLAGG: The County does offer Sunshine training. Would you all like -- MR. LEFEBVRE: I think we have several times, but there are several new members and I think that would be a good -- MS. FLAGG: We can take care of that. MR. L'ESPERANCE: That would be a good idea. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Larry? MR. DEAN: I make a motion to adjourn. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN KELLY: All in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Aye. MR. LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. MARINO: Aye. MR. UESPERANCE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN KELLY: Opposed? No comment. See you next month. 161 182,-- May 27, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:16 a.m. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD KENNETH-KELLY, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 45 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida May 20, 2010 161 1 May 20, 2010 RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 3oard of county commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: h � r,4JI CFIAMMAN: ji m _9 �� 41 / i t IY ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Nick Casalanguida, GMD Deputy Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Mark Strain Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley Fiala Halas Henning_ Coyle Coletta __ — _.Tres: S' Date: 1 v Item Page 1 -'es to. 16 1 ✓3 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybodyjust dropped off the cliff here in this little hole. Good morning. Welcome to the May 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman'? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTFI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I am here. COMMISSIONERVIGLIO'lTI: CommissionerMidney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI Chairman Strain'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTC Commissioner Vighotti is here. Comm ssioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTIT Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. There was a revised agenda sent out I think earlier this week just changing the schedule. The first thing up under the regular hearings today will be the shoreline protection amendment to the LDC. Then after that we will get into the Immokalee Master Plan. For people trying to gauge their time today, 1 think both items will take a bit of time. Right now I'm thinking we're going to be here for most of the day. So just to give you all a heads up. Ray, we still have a meeting on June I st for the adoption of the GMP. Is that still on schedule? CCPC -- it's according to the schedule you sent out. I just want to make sure, because we have a June I st meeting shown and a June 3rd, our regular meeting. MR. BELLOWS: Let me double check my calendar. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody know if they can't make it to the June 1 st meeting? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll be away that week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN Okay, that gets us a quorum. Page 2 1 b ! 1 May 20, 2010 The June 3rd meeting would be the typical meeting. Does anybody know if they can't make it? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti won't. Okay. Ray, when you get a chance sometime today, confirm -- right now the adoption hearings are set up for the 1 st, the 15th and the 21 st, according to the agenda that you handed out last meeting, or the schedule. MR. BELLOWS: I'll have that verified before the end -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you? Because I know some things may have gotten delayed, and I don't know if all the ORC Report responses are completed or not. Okay, that takes care of the addenda to the agenda, the Planning Con mission absences. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES -APRIL 15 2010 REGULAR MEETING Approval of minutes. The April 15th, 2010 Meeting Minutes were distributed. Anybody have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve by Ms. Homiak. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. MR. BELLOWS: Commissioner Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: I just was -- 1 LB needs to be continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, thank you. I forgot completely. Susan, thank you for reminding me. 11.13 was a new business item to discuss the use of NAICS, North American Industrial Classification System, in lieu of the SIC Code we are currently using. Staff needs more time with that. That will be continued to a future date. So I LB will be continued. And back to the approval of minutes. We have a motion made by Ms. Homiak, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Item #6 BCC REPORT — RECAPS — APRIL 27. 2010 Recaps, Ray? Page 3 161 1 b3 May 20, 2010 MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on May 1 Ith, the Board of County Commissioners heard the variance for PL-09 -1220. That was a variance in the Estates for a metal shed. That was approved on the summary agenda. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report. We're just going to have a long day, that's all I've got to tell you today. We'll just have to get into it. Item #8A LDC AMENDMENT 2.03.07 G — IMMOKALEE DEVIATION PROCESS The consent agenda items. The first one up is B.A. It's LDC amendment 20307G, the Itmmokalee deviation process. There were some corrections to this process from the County Attorney's Office. I believe they were going to be incorporated. I want to thank the County Attorney's Office for a thorough review that they did on this. It was greatly appreciated. It's good to see these kinds of reviews coming forward, so thank you. And I guess Susan, are you still here? Or who's going to walk us through -- oh, Robert, okay. Bob? MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, Bob Mulhere for the record, representing the CRA. I think you summarized it. We did meet on several occasions, Ifeidi and I and Susan, and we did a lot of work through the Internet. We incorporated the changes that the County Attorney's Office wanted. I think the product is better as a result. And that's really all I've got. Maybe Heidi wants to add something. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I don't really have anything further to add other than I think the final product is -- I'm happy with the final product. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "That's good, thank you. Okay, this is a consent agenda. 'The changes that the County Attorney's Office wanted to make are not substantial; they're just more or less housekeeping changes, so I don't see how that changes our prior vote. Based on that, is there a motion to accept the LDC amendment 20307G with the changes recommended by the County Attorney's Office and supplied in our consent agenda? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Homiak. Discussion`? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTE Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ayc. Anybody opposed'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Page 4 161 1 b3 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great, thank you. The next one that you have won't go that easy. Just thought I'd prep you for the rest of the day, Bob. MR. MULHERE: This is decaf. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got the high test. Item #8B PETITION: SV- PL2009 -2421, TAC HOLDINGS, L.P., AMERICAN MOMENTUM CENTER Okay, 8.B is consent agenda SVPI, 2009 -2421, TAC Holdings, LP. And that's for the signs at the American Monumentum (sic) Center in Pelican Bay. Is there a motion or discussion on this? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll move to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Homiak. And I'm slowing down. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Item #8C PETITION: PUDA- PL2009 -1499, LENNAR HOMES, LLC, HERITAGE: BAY PLANNED UNIT The last item up on our consent agenda is PUDA -PL- 2009 -1499. It's Lennar Homes, LLC, with some changes to the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development. Discussion or motion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a discussion earlier with Mr. Anderson on a couple of places here where I think the ordinance needs to be clearer. And one where it's not corrected at all. If you go to Section 3, tables 1 and 2 are development standards for the R -1, R -2, R -3 and R -4 area. Tables 2 and 2 -A are to be used only by the AC /R3. And Mr. Anderson was in agreement with that. And I think we canjust separate it out by creating a second sentence that delineates that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce? I don't have table 2 in front of me. I understand about 2 -A. Would table 2 -- is table 2 solely for AC /R3? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: They could be used interchangeably, do you remember, 2 and 2 -A? Page 5 May1 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. One's for commercial, I think, and the other's for -- yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Additionally, in section four, that gets into the deviations, section four and section five. And those deviations only relate to the AC /R3 districts, and that needs to be culled out in both of those sections. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: "That's a good catch. It's certainly what we discussed and recommended. It'sjust a matter of clarifying it. Do you have any problems with the clarifications? MR. ANDERSON: No. No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does staff understand what the clarifications are enough so that it hasn't got to be continued for consent? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we do. CI (AIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- comfortable with you, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a -- any other changes or corrections? (No response.) MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion consistent with the recommended changes? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll make that motion to approve with the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made. Seconded? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Any discussion? (No response.) Cl [AIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLF,Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTL Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNF.Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CIAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you, Ms. Caron, for catching all those. Item #9A LDC AMENDMENT — MANATEE PROTECTION PLAN — SHORELINE CALCULATIONS _ The next item up will be our regular hearing, advertised public hearing, and it is a continued item that we've gone around with before. It's the LDC amendment Manatee Protection Plan, shoreline calculations. And I'm not sure who from staffs presenting this. Steve? Okay. I'll check with the County Attorney's Office. We don't need to swear in for this, do we? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, you don't. Page 6 161 1 May 20, 2010 03 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. LENBERGER: Good morning. For the record, Steven Lenberger from the Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Services Department. The amendment here is with regards to the shoreline calculations for the Manatee Protection Plan, specifically as they relate to shoreline within conservation easements. You had heard this I guess about a month ago at one of your meetings. Since that time we had worked with the County Attorney's Office and they were very helpful with reviewing the minutes from the Board of County Commissioners' meeting back in April 22nd, 2008. And apparently there was some confusion. And looking over the minutes myself, I can see where the confusion occurred. There was lots of discussion. But there was a motion made by the Board of County Commissioners on how to proceed with this amendment, and the amendment you have before you is consistent with the board's direction on what they wanted. Since that time we also took the amendment back to the Development Services Advisory Committee, as well as the Environmental Advisory Council, and their recommendations are included in the narrative portion of the amendment for the board's and your consideration. If there's questions, I'll be glad to answer them, but that's the sequence of events since we last met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to -- 1 know we have public speakers on the matter. Is there any questions before the public speakers from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what -- go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'd like to hear I guess a little bit more from the County Attorney's Office on what their feeling is on this. Because this is different than what had been stated in our last meeting. And it's also different in terms of the directions as a result that we gave to staff. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go there, it might be a good idea; there's been a lot of versions of this floating around. Could you put the version that's under discussion today up on the overhead while we speak? MR. LENBERGER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Ijust wanted to make sure that everybody's on the same page. I saw a lot of e -mails that were coming in about some version. It surprised me the e -mails that I saw, because it didn't fit to where -- what the people that previously spoke on when they were present in this room, so I'm not sure everybody's got the same version. So I want to make sure we're all reading off the same page. And now that that's up, go ahead, Heidi, you could -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. In April of 2008, I believe it is, the board directed that the language that's before you come back in the LDC cycle and that it be taken through various stakeholders for their input. The prior draft that went through the process was different than what's currently being proposed, which is on the overhead. We'll need a vote on that language. You'll need to make a recommendation for approval or denial, so forth. Some of the issues that we discussed last time were whether or not an LDC amendment would be required and whether it could be handled in a different manner. So we sort of have two issues, if you'd like to make a recommendation, in addition to your vote on the language. We talked about whether it could be done on an administrative level or without an LDC amendment. Because whichever language is adopted, I expect that there'll be problems with the administration of it. As you know, the county conservation easements don't currently address the calculation of the shoreline. And the position of our office is that if you place the property in a conservation easement, you're giving up all rights. And that's typically what happens through the rezone process. Unless you retain specific densities over the conservation easement, you've given it up. You also look at the shoreline when the boat docks come before you. We already have an LDC amendment that does look at the shoreline when you're calculating the boat docks when you've got 10 or more slips and it protrudes 20 feet out, you look at it. But there are going to be instances where it's not captured. Either way, if we go forward with our conservation easements, we'll need to specify -- that's a whole separate process. The conservation easements that are processed through staff are a standard form, and that will also have to Page 7 161 1�3 May 20, 2010 be amended to address whatever the outcome is. I think the simplest process in my opinion, is that the board direct staff that if these come in on a staff level that you have the ability to approve boat slips on the staff level where a conservation easement is excluded. So -- and in those instances where the conservation easement is not addressed and you're not going to exclude it as the staff process, those need to come to the board, if it's not specified in the conservation easement. It seems to me that's the simplest process, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that get to your question, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, sort of Sort of yes and no. The direction that this board unanimously gave was that we wanted to use the County Attorney's language for this amendment. And the County Attorney had stated on the record that - -just what you initially said, which if it's in conservation, that's it, it's conservation land, there are no more rights. You've already gotten rights to density and other things in your PUD process. And so whatever is in conservation is genuinely conservation. And we said at that time that what we wanted to have happen after that was that knowing that everybody has the right to appeal to the board if they disagree with something, that we should set out some criteria for the board so that they weren't just left there to make anyjudgment, depending on the whim of the day or whatever, that perhaps things like if slips were made for the public or that that would be a reason to approve -- may be a reason to approve wet slips. But also conversely, if there are things like mangroves or sea grasses or other reasons not to do that, we would list some things that would allow the board to say really, this is not appropriate. And that's not what I see coming back to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Steve's introduction about the direction the board gave, meaning the Board of County Commissioners, was probably more on point. We had an opinion and we expressed that and we suggested the stakeholders go back and look at our suggested process. But we can't direct them to do anything. They basically disagreed with us and sent back language that now they would like, and now we have to deal with it and send our own recommendation to the Board of County Comnssioners. I think in the end the BCC's going to have three separate recommendations: One from the DSAC, one from EAC and one from us. I don't right now think they're all going to be on the same page. I know I'm in disagreement with the language in front of me right now, and I don't -- I think it goes further than it needs to. I think this whole process and whole system is going further than it needed to. It could have been handled simply through administrative level, not meaning approval, but with a process that would have opened it up to an O.I. which opens it up to appeal on a case -by -case basis and going forward from there. By changing the entire code to accommodate a concern over what apparently is one project I think is not -- our code shouldn't be tailored to a specific piece of property, it should be tailored to everybody in the county. And I'm not really liking what I see in front of me here today, but we'll get into more discussion on that as we go forward. I think, Steve, it would be helpful for us -- and I understand your staffs position because of board direction. You did what you had to do. The stakeholders looked at it as they were told to look at it, and so did the other boards. Can you tell me what the purpose of G is? And 1 don't mean in the reference to counting slips. The quantity of slips impacts something. And I know the answer, but I want to understand it and see if my assumption concurs with yours. This overall process being added to the Manatee Protection Plan is to do what? Protect manatees? Is that the ultimate goal? MR. LENBERGER: Well, the ultimate goal would be for protection of manatee, the whole section of the code and the Manatee Protection Plan, of course, as far as within conservation easements. The reasons behind it were not actually conveyed to me. That was by management. And -- but it was the issue of the conservation easement, whether they severed that right or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I understand all that. MR. LENBERGER: As far as the broader picture regarding sensitivity of habitat and the Manatee Protection Plan itself, the state as you know recently -- well, at the end of 2007 adopted their Manatee Management Plan. And in that management plan, I had a chance to look at it, not all of it but a good portion of it. They're going to be looking at existing manatee protection plans, Collier County included, for possible revisions. They'll also be looking at speed Page 8 16 Jay 20, 110 0 zones and a lot of other issues. So that's something staff will be working with Florida Wildlife Commission and stakeholders in the future. Probably latter part of this year and into 2011. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, a lot of times in order to understand a law or a rule, it's nice to go back and figure out what the intent and purpose was. When you look at statutes, you go back to legislature and see what their discussions were, what was their intent and purpose. And obviously there wasn't a history on this other than the board discussing it, sending it back through a couple of times as they have. So I went back to the Manatee Protection Plan, tried to find the intent and purpose of how this would fit into that plan and how it may be judged based on that intent. I'm going to read a paragraph or two. It will take a m ante. But I think it might help maybe for those of us who are not familiar with the prelude to the Manatee Protection Plan. It starts out: Boating related accidents are a major cause of manatee mortality. Furthermore, much of the resultant development from the increasing population is occurring in the coastal zone which may affect manatee habitat. Shoreline development brings with it concurrent increase in boat traffic to the area. According to the Marine Manurial Commission's '88 report, the principal threat to manatee habitat is increasing levels of boat traffic in essential travel corridors, in feeding areas, resting areas, warm water refuges and fresh water sources. Increased levels of boating traffic are a threat to manatee habitat because they increase the probability that manatees will be killed or injured by collisions with boats and because they disrupt normal behavior patterns. While this is not a threat in the usual sense, if so altering an area that it no longer meets the species' needs, the hazards created by high -speed boat traffic in areas preferred by manatees clearly reduce its suitability for the species. And under purpose: The purpose of this plan is to provide county -wide protection for the West Indian Manatee. The objectives: Manatee objectives for county manatee protection plans by the FDEP include reducing the number of boat related manatee mortalities. Now, I think the connection between the number of boats on the water and the mortality rate of manatees is clear as the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan. Now, if you follow that reasoning through and then take a reasonable look at G, how are we helping the manatee protection mortality -- manatee mortality rate by providing a conservation easement that unintendedly allows more boat traffic to be concentrated right next to it? I'm not sure that meets the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan, from the way Ijust read it. I think the Manatee Protection Plan; part of it was to limit the number of boats and boat traffic. Otherwise, you wouldn't have all the shoreline restrictions. And so if you take that into consideration, I think G is a little broader than even it needs to be in the way it's written in front of us today. And as we go through today's discussion, my suggestion was going to be the fourth line up from the bottom where it says, pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan, just putting a period and crossing off the rest of it. Now that I've thrown that on the table, we can go through the rest of the meeting and we'll hear comments and discussion and hopefully have a decision by the time we're done here today. Any other comments from the Planning Commission before we go into -- ask for public speakers? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I have comments on this wording. Is that what we should do now, or wait till — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you. If you want to hear the public comments first -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1'd rather hear them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and then have your discussion, it might be more relevant, but it's up to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd rather hear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, Ray, we'll start with the registered public speakers and then anybody who's not registered, will have an equal opportunity to speak. So let's start out with the first one. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Rich Yovanovich. Page 9 16 1 1 @3 May 20, 2010 MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich for this first presentation on behalf of Signature Communities. I registered twice, I have two different clients here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you going to get up and down twice or -- MR. YOVANOVICIL I am, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- are you going to kind of mix them altogether here? MR. YOVANOVICH: I am. I need the exercise, so I'm going to do that. As you know, this has been a pretty intense and it's a detailed issue that needs to be discussed. Commissioner Strain, you're right, the Manatee Protection Plan is there to protect manatees. And in the Manatee Protection Plan there are sighting criteria and how you calculate the number of docks the shoreline will result in, as you know. Depending on whether you're preferred or a lesser category you get more or less docks based upon the 100 foot of shoreline you have. It goes from one to I think 10. Tim Hall is more familiar. This particular -- so if you have 1,000 feet of shoreline in your preferred site, you would get 100 docks, because you get 10 per 100. If you have 1,000 feet and you're in a lesser category, you get one per 100, so you would get 10. The Manatee Protection Plan addresses that already in how you calculate the number of docks. This particular amendment is designed for one project and one project only, and we all know that. It's the Dunes project and the concern about how many docks can the Duties project generate. And I bring that up because I think we need to put it in historical context. And then I'm going to explain how what you're doing today will have absolutely no impact in the future. So it's a retroactive application of a staff interpretation that this is always what the Manatee Protection Plan provided for. And if we look at the Dunes project and the Dunes minutes for when that PUD was adopted, you will know that it has never been the official board interpretation that if you place a preserve or a conservation easement on that property you gave up your ability to use that same area for the number of docks you can ask for. Because it's just like residential density. If you put that area in a preserve, you don't lose the residential density, you just don't put the residences in the preserve. Similarly, just because you say you're not going to put docks in the preserve -- and 1 don't think you'll ever find an easement that says you can put the docks actually in the preserve, so the language there is already telling you you're never going to have it happen. But you use that area for calculating the number of docks you can ask for. Now, there was a detailed discussion about the Dunes project and the dock issue during the PUD phase. Because we never calculate the number of docks at the PUD level. We always include, if you're waterfront, the provision that you can have docks or boathouses as an accessory use. But we never put number there, because we know we have to go through a boat dock extension process in the future. In the Dunes PUD it specifically says as a permitted accessory use is boathouses and boat docks. No number. There was discussion at the adoption how many are you going to ask for in the future. We had miles of waterfront. And under any calculation, how many docks would you get for miles, you would gel hundreds to thousands. The developer committed on the record to ask for no more than 60. Ile then had his PUD adopted that showed the shoreline as a preserve. Ile shows in his PUD he's going to have docks, he'll come back in the future, he wants to ask for 60. This language, if applied retroactively, will result in zero docks in the Dunes project. Yet it was discussed specifically that there would be docks and that we would come back in the future to go through a process to address docks. And specifically the calculation issue came up during the minutes, and it said with the PUD master plan right smack in front of their face showing preserve, it says you get to come in with 10 per 100 feet. So we know for a fact that it was never retroactively applied that once you put that preserve designation on there, you've got no docks. Because it was specifically discussed on a particular project and the calculation issue came up. And I believe Mr. Bellows was involved in that discussion, I know Mr. Mulhere was involved in that discussion when that PUD was going through the process. So what you're trying to do with this language is retroactively take away the docks for Signature Communities. Now why do I say you're doing nothing in the future? Because people like me and others who are going to Page 10 161 1 May 20, 2010 3 come through with a project that's on the waterfront, we usually have more than the minimum required preserve that's required under the LDC. We are going to make sure that our preserve doesn't touch the shoreline. We'll make sure it's back, it's not identified as preserve, so this language will not apply. The true language that's to protect the manatee is the language that says how you calculate the number of docks you can ask for in the first place, and then the process that we go through second, which is the actual location of those docks. That's how the Manatee Protection Plan is intended to work. That is how it has always worked. And I -- this came up from an historical standpoint with the Cocohatchee Bay settlement. Because I had been told by a former staff person that it was her opinion that if you had a preserve or an easement on it you could not ask for any docks. I said well, if that's really your interpretation, I want to resolve it now and I want to resolve it as part of this settlement with the Cocohatchee Bay. And she could not tell you, and your staff can't tell you of a specific example of where they have applied this provision to an applicant the way they're now trying to apply it and say it has historically been done. So you're not going to get any future relief based on this language, because well know how to deal with it. All you're going to do is address a retroactive application in a specific situation where docks were discussed. So now you're going to try to take away that property right. And I'm sure you all know that the value of 60 docks is a significant number and a significant exposure to the county for taking away valuable rights. Now, the County Attorney and I disagree as to what an easement is, apparently. An easement is a document that I convey to the county where I say I'm going to limit -- I'm going to give you certain rights on my property. A utility easement, I give you the right to put utilities on that property. I don't give up any other rights, just because it's for a utility easement. I retain all other rights. And I never gave up my riparian rights in a conservation easement or a preserve. I kept those rights. And now you're trying to take those rights away through this very language. And that is one, wrong; two, compensable if you're going to do that, and shocks me that we tout in Collier County that we're a waterfront community and you should enjoy the waterfront, yet this regulation is trying to stop people from enjoying the waterfront. I don't understand, it just seems to be intellectually a challenge for me to understand how we could be a waterfront community and tell a waterfront property owner you're not allowed to use the water for one of the most riparian rights of all, which is boating access. At this point I would prefer that the language be the language that the DSAC adopted, and that's the language that says if you specifically gave up the right to calculate the shoreline in that easement for boat slips, then you've given it up. If you didn't, as I understand the law, you didn't -- if you didn't give it up, you didn't give it up. You have to specifically give up that right. So the DSAC language is correct. And I will tell you that the F.AC, and I know your staff report doesn't talk -- they talked about this issue for hours. They were struggling with the retroactive application of this language. They punted. 'they said we'll let the board deal with it but we're struggling with the issue of should this apply retroactively or should it apply prospectively. If you're going to adopt this language, it should be prospective and not any apply to any PUD's or any projects previously adopted. We'll go through the normal boat dock process. And interestingly enough, on both of these projects that I'm referring to, The Dunes and Cocohatchee Bay, we've been trying to get a conservation easement adopted that specifically allows the use of boat docks. So we knew we never gave up those rights. You have a form that doesn't specifically address the issue. We want to address the issue in that conservation easement, so we're expecting that our draft conservation easement that includes language that says we specifically can count that area will in fact be approved by the board. Because we don't have those conservation easements recorded yet. So we would hope that if that's the true measure, what does the conservation easement say, you'll give us the opportunity to address this situation. And let's get down to the real issue at hand: Is the number of docks we're asking for and in the location we want to put them appropriate for that particular project. Not this language that's clearly geared to address with ordy one project that I'm aware of. And that's my comments regarding the application from Signature Communities' standpoint, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Heidi? Page 11 16 1 103 May 20, 2010 MR. YOVANOVICH: --the language. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just wanted to clarify a statement that Mr. Yovanovich stated earlier as to the status of the easement for the Dunes project. At this point it's a developer commitment, and we have not received the executed easement. And he started to allude to it at the end, which is of his statement, which is that I've specifically requested that the number of docks for that project be specified and reserved in the conservation easement. And that will subsequently go to the board for their consideration and approval. But he earlier stated that they -- I think his statements might have led you to believe that the conservation easement was already recorded. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no, it's not been recorded. And in fact we agree with your comment, because the state has already limited the number of docks. And there's a state easement that says -- I think the number is 49. Is that right, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's my understanding as well. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're in limbo here on actually getting the county easement recorded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but from what I just heard, if you specify the number of docks that I'm assuming were somehow acknowledged, then that's going to be part of your conservation easement. So you're really not going to have a problem. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know, because I don't have an approved conservation easement that -- because anything that varies from the standard form goes to the Board of County Commissioners, I understand is the process we're going to go through; is that correct, Heidi'? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we're going to go to the Board of County Commissioners, then I'm going to get into the fray of should I be allowed to ask them for (sic) in the first place, based upon this language that references preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But why didn't you from the very beginning approach this in that manner? Why didn't you just submit your conservation casement when staff rejected you, as apparently they did. Why didn't you request an 0.1. and then appeal the O.I. to the Board of County Commissioners if the O.I. didn't work for you and go that process instead of attempting to change the Land Development Code -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not attempting to change the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but why are we here today? MR. YOVANOVICH: The reason we're here is because when I asked for the interpretation, that's what started the chain reaction of amending the code. It all came up, Commissioner Strain, in reaction to the Cocohatchee Bay project, where I wanted in that particular project to include in the settlement agreement the number of docks. And I was told by staff you can't do that, we deal with that later through the boat dock extension process. And then we talked about it in front of the Board of County Commissioners and the Board said staff, come back with your interpretation of what are the rules of the game. And then that's how it went. It was -- was it technically the official interpretation process? No. But we went to the decision makers, which were staff and the board regarding what time interpretation is. And as you know, it's a 3 -2 vote as to what the interpretation is. So what is the interpretation when you have a 3 -2 vote on a land use issue that requires four? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all I want to make it clear, this meeting is not about the Dunes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is about -- but the Dunes is the example that we have to talk about only to get the points to be understood. You said during the meeting in which you talked about the docks for this project, someone said that the measurement would be -- calculation would be 10 docks per 100 feet. Is that on record? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have the record with you'? MR.YOVANOVICIL Ido. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you mind putting that on the screen'? MR. YOVANOVICH: This is near the end of the hearing on the PUD amendment to add this 100 acres that had about a mile or so of frontage on the water. And as you can see, Commissioner Mac'Kie at the time starts the question about there. And then you have -- Page 12 1 I ay 20, 2010 you get down to Mr. Nino. Earlier they had said how many can they have, and that's when he comes back and says, got it, 10 slips for every 100 feet of shoreline. And then that's was the -- and then it was put in the reference, oh, my God, you've got miles of shoreline, are you really going to put in thousands of docks. And the answer is no, no, no, if you want to see the rest of the record where the developer got up on the record and said we'll cap ourselves in com ng forward and asking for 60. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ron Nino I believe was one of the planners here at Collier County at the time, he was not a member of the environmental staff? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is correct, he was one of the planners at the county. And your environmental staff was there at the meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know which members of staff? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they here today? MR. YOVANOVICH: She no longer works for the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said earlier in your discussion that if this property could not use the conservation easement that they would not be able to have one dock; is that correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: If -- this language says preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. And we've shown on our master plan this shoreline as preserve. So the answer would be if the entire shoreline is in preserve -- and we're not building the docks in the preserve, as you know, we're building the docks in the water -- we would end up with zero. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: And again, we're arguing about one particular development here now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. KLATZKOW: -- rather than the Land Development -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get off it, but I don't know how. MR. KLATZKOW: It has always been my recommendation that you do this in a prospective manner, okay? Apparently there's some disagreement between the development community and staff as to what a conservation easement means. Okay, the development community, as Mr. Yovanovich has said, we don't give up our rights for the docks. Staff has said you do. Okay. My thought was to do a bright line that once you pass the LDC amendment on a going forward basis, and just a going forward basis, okay, if the developer is going to give a conservation easement, that's the end, no more docks, unless the developer specifically reserves the right in that conservation easement. So everybody knows how many docks are going in, just like everybody knows what the density of a PUD is going to be when we set up preserves. Okay, we're taking the density out of the preserves and we're putting it into the upland generally. It's the same concept. As far as everything from that day where the LDC amendment is enacted and then prior to that it would -- is whatever the deal was at the time, okay, which is why when I went through this record and talked with Heidi, I said give them 60 docks as part of a conservation easement and we're done, because that's what the board looked at and voted, okay. There may be another PUD who comes in or another developer comes in and says wait a second, when I did my deal, this was the understanding. And whatever that understanding is, we're bound by it, okay. I'm not trampling on anybody's vested rights here, but you need a bright line going forward. I personally don't care what that bright line is. That bright line could be they get the docks unless otherwise specified. It could be they don't get the docks unless it's specified, but you need a bright line, which we don't have. That's the only point of the LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I agree exactly with what Mr. Klatzkow said, the bright line needs to be prospective, not retroactive. Page 13 r 16. (�3 F y May 20, 2010 Because I can only tell you from my personal experience that when I've had shoreline PUD's, I've been directed by staff not to address the number of docks in the PUD. That is done through the boat dock extension process. So I relied on that by not discussing it as part of the PUD process. I will now know in advising clients if it's a bright line forward to make sure 1 address that during the rezone process. And all I'm asking you is for my clients and me to know what the rules of the game are so 1 can properly address them at the right time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not all those rules though are clearly understood to be needed at the time of a PUD. Look at Moraya Bay. Who would have thought that we would've needed to say something; that the land out in front of the Dunes is public and that you can't block it off. But that's exactly what happened. There are unintended consequences of things that are not said, because no one images them even being applied. That's another example. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The toss out at the BCC hearing by Mr. Griffin of 60 docks had -- was based on nothing. So to just grant him or them 60 docks in their conservation easement because they mentioned that as a toss out figure to get through the process seems to be a little disingenuous. I think that if there is the possibility that they are allowed docks, that they have to calculate them based on the shoreline that they have available to them to actually put docks on, not some -- not this weaving around and up into little tributaries that scope around their project and into Water Turkey Bay where they promised that nothing would come out of Water Turkey Bay over and over again. MR. YOVANOVICH: We promised no docks would go in Turkey Bay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think, though, the conversation's going too specific to a project that's not here under a hearing today. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we need to back away from that. And I understand it's the one that triggered the issue, but we've got to be careful, we're not here to discuss the Dunes today. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But if we're going to do bright line, that's fine from here. But the county attorney just tossed out, well, just give them in their conservation easement the 60 docks and we'll be done with it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what he was -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and I think that docks are a separate -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But he wasn't saying that. Ile was saying that you would take the prior actions on a case -by -case basis and go back and look at the -- for example the transcript to see if there's any discussion about docks and quantities of docks and apply that into things happening before the bright line. That's the only reference I think he meant by bringing in the Dunes as an example for the number of docks that they brought up in public discussion. But I don't want to debate the Dunes here today, that's not the purpose of this amendment. MR. YOVANOVICH: 1 understand that, but the only way I knew how to give an example of previous application of the Manatee Protection Plan was to bring you a real life experience of the Manatee Protection Plan. And that referenced a 10 per 100 as a reference to the Manatee Protection Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, just going back to the language that's been presented and the DSAC language that's been presented. The DSAC language still goes about the code the wrong way. We have a prescriptive code that says we tell you what's allowed, and if it's not allowed -- if it's not stated as allowed, it's not allowed. So -- and the DSAC language is backward on that, still to this day. So we need to read our code correctly and put language together that correctly states what we're going to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, my point, and maybe -- when we do building codes, it's very clear that we're not doing building codes for the buildings that were built already. So 1 think the vested rights issue should be totally -- if we want to address it like this one line does, we should only discuss it there. Page 14 161 1p� May 20, 2010 I mean, I'm really getting confused with the Dunes. I don't know the history of the Dunes. I don't know what this has to do with the Dunes. This is an ordinance from this point forward, why don't we just focus on that and purely that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's what I'm asking is to put the date in from this day forward, this is how it will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we need to move -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do we at this hearing decide how many docks go to the Dunes? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm not asking you to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then why are you wasting time on that? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not asking you to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, we'll move on to the next speaker. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: David Galloway. MR. GALLOWAY: I'm going to pass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: Kathleen Robbins? MS. ROBBINS: I'm going to cede my time to Bruce Burkhard. MR. BELLOWS: Bruce Burkhard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BURKHARD: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Burkhard, and I represent the Vanderbilt Beach Resident's Association. As I sat through last week's DSAC Meeting on this very topic, and then later pored over the staff analysis and revised amendment language, it seemed to me that we're still not getting to the product that we're aiming for. The language in the last draft doesn't seem to conform to the specific directions that the CCPC ordered -- or asked to be drafted in conformance with the County Attorney's statements at the last meeting. As we all know, the LDC is prescriptive in nature, as Ms. Caron just mentioned. If a specific use is stated in the code, it's allowed. If it's not stated, it's not allowed. In cases where a landowner has put some or all of his land in preserve or protected conservation easement, in order to gain something else in return, such as increased density, the public is led to believe, as well they should, that the set -aside land is no longer usable for other purposes. Developers often use such reassuring words as the land will be protected in perpetuity. Those words should have meaning. If dock, marinas and other intense water uses are not integrated into the SDP and into a specific conservation easement until years later in the application process, then those things were left out for a reason -- probably to gain some other advantage -- and they should not be perniitted. Staff has stated that the shoreline was not counted for wet slips in the past when the shoreline was fronting on a conservation easement. No doubt because that interpretation conformed to the letter and the spirit of the code. If shoreline use for wet slips is not addressed in a conservation easement, then the proper interpretation of the code says that the shoreline cannot be counted for wet slips. Over the years we've witnessed over and over again instances of government bodies charged with protecting the public from overzealous individuals and corporations not doing theirjobs. Rather than protecting the public, the environment or sometimes even the security of the nation, we find that these agencies are either looking the other way or actively working to assist the overreaching entity. It's not the job of government bodies to help private businesses enhance their bottom line or make their job easier. Government's job is to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the community that it serves. Yet we continually see examples of government acting unthinkingly in exactly the opposite manner. In this particular amendment, the goal that benefits the community at large is not to the see how many boats we can jam into a particular area to benefit a given landowner or a few select boat owners, but rather how do we protect and actually preserve notjust manatees, although that's a worthwhile thing to do. If we allow development to encroach on every piece of shoreline, one development at a time, what becomes of the estuaries that are the spawning grounds and the habitat for so much of the wildlife and fish that add to our quality of life? Page 15 16 1 Ma120,2010 p I think that we all believe that when the land was being put into conservation easements or wetland preserves or whatever you want to call it, we thought a good thing was being done for the environment that we live in. If it turns out that they're nothing more -- these conservation easements are nothing more than a sham, then we all lose. We need to keep in mind that we are a tourist mecca and a desirable retirement community. But that can be quickly reversed through bad development decisions. The number one job of all of us should be to see that our development legislation takes into account Nature's delicate balance. I think we need to get the language in Section G heading more in a direction of something like this: Quote; shoreline fronting on a wetland preserve or conservation easement which was freely given up should not be counted in the calculation of allowable wet slips unless wet slips are specifically listed as being permitted in the grant of the original conservation easement. So I'd respectfully suggest that this document needs more work and that the staff once again be directed to bring their language into more conformity with what we have been talking about as we've been going through this process. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Nicole Ryan. MS. RYAN: Good morning. For the record, Nicole Ryan, here on behalf of The Conservancy of Southwest Florida. And I appreciate your introductory discussion about what is the purpose of sub - paragraph G and how will this apply to the protection of manatees, because this is part of the Manatee Protection Plan. The other consideration and concern that the Conservancy had was that the previous language which indicated that unless a use was specifically excluded within the conservation easement, it should be assumed to be an allowed use, we felt that really attacked the integrity and the proper legal interpretation of conservation easement. So we saw it as really two dual and very important issues. If in this instance you assume that unless it wasn't allowed it should be allowed, that could be applied for many other use. So we found that language very concerning, as did the County Attorney's Office. So we do appreciate that staff did make some changes to that. And in the current draft before you where it states that shorelines within these conservation easements which do not allow wet slips shall not be used in calculating the maximum allowable number of wet slips pursuant to the MPP, I think that gets us where we need to be. And I don't believe that any of the following language needs to be in there. This clearly states what the conservation easement does, how it is interpreted. And if a property owner or past projects believes that they have some sort of vested right, then they're able to go back, go to the county, and try to renegotiate that conservation easement. If it's a vested right and it's a legal entitlement, then the county will be obligated to amend that conservation easement, allow the use, again keeping the integrity of the conservation easement intact. So I think that we can satisfy all of these concerns by simply doing as Commissioner Strain suggested, putting a period after pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan and ending it there. I do want to make a few comments about the two additional concepts in this language for your discussion purposes. When we're talking about accepting projects which make 50 percent or more of their wet slips available for the public being able to request additional boat slips through a conditional use, first of all, when this went to the BCC, it was 100 percent. So I'm not quite sure why that was chopped back to 50 percent. But 100 percent, 50 percent, these are boats that are going to impact manatees just as much as a private marina will. And if we're looking at protecting manatees, why would we want to put this exception in? And also, the issue of the way it's written I believe is a little vague. Is this allowing these particular marinas to request additional boat slips above and beyond the maximum wet slip calculations allowed by the MPP? It really isn't clear and I think could potentially be used to try to argue even more boat slips. And the last sentence about existing and vested rights with respect to wet slips shall be exempt from this ordinance, you don't need to put in every LllC amendment That vested rights are vested rights. That sentence could be taken out and vested rights are still entitled vested rights. 1 don't see that that sentence serves any purpose. But I would wam you that it says these vested rights will be exempted from this ordinance. The ordinance is Page 16 161 1� May 20, 2010 more than just sub - paragraph G. I think what staff was wanting to do is exempt it from sub - paragraph G. This exempts them from the ordinance. So I think that that is not what staff was wanting to do. And that was discussed at EAC, so I point that out because that goes far beyond simply exempting from this ordinance. So I'd ask that you take the sentence, the second sentence, end it after pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan. I think that gets us where we need to go, and ask that you go in that direction. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Lew Schmidt. MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. Most of my concerns have been addressed. I've attended 11 of these hearings, and I have to tell you, I totally lost sight of what it was all about. And it's really about the Manatee Protection Plan. And Commissioner Strain, thank you for bringing us back to what it's all about, and what it is all about is the intent of the Manatee Protection Plan. And I think there's one other concern. I don't know how it can be addressed that I wanted to bring to your attention. But Commissioner Caron got to it first. The question is, does the Manatee Protection Plan give a property owner a right to density based upon the total shoreline? Is it a density that we're looking at in this plan? What's happening is we can take shoreline that they can't put boat docks in. No reasonable person would put a boat dock in. And yet you can swap that density allowance to a place where you can build boat docks, and overbuild and defeat the purpose of the plan. It's a way of circumventing the plan. I don't know how you can fix that. But the way that I see it as it's written now, they can do that. And I would put that up as a flag. And 1 thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Joshua Maxwell. MR. MAXWELL: Hi. For the record, Josh Maxwell, with Turrell, Hall and Associates. I just want to -- it seems like the Planning Commission has a pretty good understanding that we're not going to be building docks in conservation easements. The language in G kind of gets a little confusing in the fact that you're not allowed to build in conservation easements. Well, that's the reason that they're there, so that you won't be building upland structures or docks. It's a little tough to, you know, keep a boat on the upland. The big issue with geez', it's going to be further restricting the riparian rights of the upland owners. Riparian rights are given to us by the state to use, they're sovereign submerged lands, to build docks and keep our boats over. By further restricting this you're taking away rights of people that buy property along the water line. Yes, they can still have docks, but they can't have as many as they originally intended by buying a larger piece of land. This -- passing this will notjust affect the Dunes as it was been (sic) a big thing in today's discussion. It's also going to affect Chokoloskee, Goodland, all parts of Collier County that are not incorporated. So just passing it with a lot of the emphasis on one area of Collier County is going to affect everything as a whole, which I think you guys have a pretty good understanding of. I'm not sure if other people here today understand that. By passing it for something in the northern part of the county you're going to be further restricting what they can do in Chokoloskee, which as some of you may not know, their entire economy depends on the waterfront. So if you further restrict Chokoloskee's ability to use their waterfront, then you could be affecting their entire state of life. Also, Everglades City minors Collier County's Manatee Protection Plan. If they also adopt this, you're going to further constrict what they can do in Everglades City, which is just like Chokoloskee, everything they do depends on the water. Another big concern I have is when it says that 50 percent of the slips given to the public will allow you to get more slips for your, you know, multi - family development. I bought a property out in the Golden Gate Estates. That does not entitle me to riparian rights along the waterfront in Collier County. So therefore I don't see how that should be a constraint to allow or restrict how many slips we have. You only have riparian rights if you buy along the -- you know, along the water. Page 17 � µ 161 1p, May 20, 2010 If Collier County's intention is to provide public slips, that's great. You know, the county has a few boat ramps that have, you know, other dock slips, we can help you further develop that and provide slips to the county. But I don't think that it's the upland owner's responsibility to provide public slips. If you have any questions -- I think that's at the end when you guys ask the questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we'll ask you any questions now if we have any of you. But we're going to be have -- we'll be having quite a bit more discussion on this monster, so. MR. MAXWELL: If you have any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Rich Yovanovich, representing his second client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't think it's another 20 minutes, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think I'll need 20 minutes. Rich Yovanovich, on behalf of the Pelican Bay Foundation. The language is not up, but the concern that the Pelican Bay Foundation has is in regard to Clam Bay. And as you know, Clam Bay is a NRPA. And that last -- that sentence addressing -- allowing docks, if you provide public access, the concern was that there would be an interpretation that under that type of language you can allow docks, if they're public docks, in Clam Bay. That issue was discussed by the FAC, and they reconunended language that the foundation supports, which is the third language. It's on Page 2 of your staff report, under the LAC recommendations as item number three. It says that this ordinance is not intended to allow publicly owned wet slips within a NRPA. And that would be language that we would like to see in there to assure that the government doesn't exempt itself from the very same protections it's saying a private property owner is subject to, just simply because they're public boats versus -- or they're private boats, but being provided space by the government versus being provided space by a private property owner. So the foundation would like that last sentence added to the current language and supports the LAC recommendation on that. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have no more registered public speakers. Is there any member of the public who would like to further speak? Tim? MR HALL: Good morning. For the record, Tim Hall, with Turrell, Hall and Associates. And I'm here speaking on behalf the Marine Industries Association. My company, as an owner of the company, as well as several other clients, of which Signature Communities is one of them. I've heard a couple of people say that this is part of the Manatee Protection Plan. But 1 think it needs to be understood that the Manatee Protection Plan is actually a stand -alone document that was developed with input from interested stakeholders, the state and county participants. What this amendment is is actually additional codification to the Land Development Code section that implements or addresses that Manatee Protection Plan. It's not actually part of the plan itself. Different staff members at different hearings have said different things, really, regarding whether or not this has been applied in the past. I know from my standpoint and my job and with what we do, we've worked on a lot of shoreline projects within the county and it's never been applied on any of the projects that I've worked on. A lot of which have had conservation easements along the shoreline. And the shoreline has always been counted in that maximum allowable slip matrix. Because of the way the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan is set up and the allowances that are given, there's very few instances where you can actually build what you're allowed, because of the numbers that are allowed Page 18 161 1 May 20, 2010 03 per hundred foot of shoreline, depending on the different criteria. Rich was close, the max number is actually 18. It's one, 10 or 18 for the three different criteria. And I heard councilman (sic) Strain on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're thinking of the city now, be careful. MR. HALL: Sony. Chairman Strain says that the Manatee Protection Plan was put in place to limit slips. I don't think that's actually why it was put in place. It's a side effect of it. It does limit slips in certain locations, but it was actually put in place to identify where slips were more or less appropriate in terms of the environmental and physical criteria at the different sites. We understand the importance of the natural preserve areas. And quite honestly, very few properties remaining within the county or, you know, shoreline as you go up and down the state have left their natural shoreline in place. And there are several instances where having boat docks outside or adjacent to natural areas is not detrimental to the natural areas, as long as those slips or those docks are developed in an environmentally responsible manner, taking into account the potential impacts that they might have and addressing those in the development process. What this amendment does or could do is actually penalize those projects which have protected their shoreline. As I said, there are very few of those left. And the ones that have gone and protected their shoreline now are actually being penalized or could actually be penalized if this amendment goes forward. If the amendment is needed, then the Marine Industries Association believes that it should be in the form that was previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and that was recently approved by the Development Services Advisory Council, by DSAC; namely, that all the shoreline should be counted unless it's clearly or expressly prohibited in the easement documents. Barring that, if the amendment has to go forward in its existing state or as it's written now, we have a few things that we believe are reasons or ways in which it should be amended or changed. First of all, that it's wrong, and quite honestly I think it's a little arrogant for county staff to presume what was or was not allowed in state or federal easements in which they were not involved. I think if it is going to apply, it should only apply to county easements, not to the state or federal ones. If the state doesn't want docks or doesn't want the shoreline counted for docks, they're very good about putting that in the easement. They have an actual specific type of easement called a proprietary easement you put along the shoreline. It actually gives the state a partial like an ownership interest in that where no changes could be made over and above the amount of slips or what they have allowed in the permits that they issued. And I think that's very clear, and the county could use that. But going back into normal passive use or standard easements where this was never an issue and was never addressed, I just think it's wrong for them to assume that a project or a property owner has given up all of their rights to docks because of that. We don't -- also don't believe that any of the language referencing additional slips for public use should be included. Docks are docks. If the intent of this amendment is protection of these conservation easements, then it should apply to all of them, not to private versus public. And it also should only apply to any easements that are put in place after the passage of the amendment. It should not apply to those already in place, especially the state and federal, which were put in place prior to this being an issue in which it was never addressed. And the last thing is we'd like some additional clarification with respect to existing or vested rights. From my standpoint, I believe if I own shoreline, I can count that shoreline for my slips. That's a riparian right that is recognized by the state and by the approved Manatee Protection Plan. So that needs to be clarified as to what it does or does not apply to. If it only applies to docks that are constructed, does it apply to PUD's or site plans in which maybe it hasn't been constructed yet? How far out or what kind of vested rights does the county see having to be in place for that to be allowed. Appreciate the time, thanks. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Tim, one of the problems is the taking the depth of the shore -- or the Page 19 1 k'20, 20; b3 length of the shoreline, and you described how you waddle through the muck to get that. How do you think we should handle shoreline that obviously is never going to be able to have a dock yet we're going to take the lineage of that back to some other area where we're going to be multiplying it by 10, maybe even 18. How do you think we should handle that? MR. HALL: Well, what I think should be done -- to be clarified, I think that the criteria from the Manatee Protection Plan that's established with the shoreline should be applicable to the shoreline that's being counted. For example, if you have 100 feet of shoreline that is on a canal that's four feet deep and you have 1,000 feet of shoreline that's on an area where you have sea grasses and very shallow water, then for that 1,000 feet you would be in the protected category and be allowed one slip per 100 feet. And for the 100 feet that you have on the waterway with deep water and so forth, you would be allowed the 18 per foot there. But as I said, I mean, 18 slips per 100 feet of shoreline, if you tried to tit 18 slips in side -by -side, that's -- a normal boat 10 feet wide, most slips, you know, for a little bit are 12 feet wide. 'Twelve times 18 is more than 100 there. I mean, you would take up your entire shoreline. The numbers that are allowed in the plan are a little bit extreme, I guess is the best word to use. But if you calculated it that way and then through the permitting process you know that whatever slips you have are going to be in that area that's most appropriate for them. They would be in -- you'd place them in that 100 feet that's on the waterway. You would not place your slips into the shallow or the sea grass areas. It all comes down really to a project -by- project analysis of where the slip's most appropriate, where they're going to be the most environmentally conscious, do the least amount of environmental impacts, and how many can that area actually support, you know, according to the Manatee Protection Plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To sum it up, what you're saying is take that length in the category that it would be at -- for example, it's probably protected if you're waddling up these tributaries -- and that's the density you can bring back to the other location. MR. HALL: Correct. The way it's done right now is they look at the site and wherever you're putting your slips, that's the criteria or that's the allowance that they use for the entire project. And when you get those projects that have a lot of shoreline, a lots of times that results in these astronomical numbers. If we go back -- and I wasn't going to talk about it, but if you take the Dunes for an example, even under this definition the shoreline is going to be identified by the interface of the mean high water with -- the mean high water line. That goes all over the place when you're in a mangrove shoreline. I mean, it goes all over the place. It will be more than just a straight line count. So that part of the language is actually going to increase the amount of shoreline that's counted in some instances. But, you know, that's just if you own property that has that much shoreline. I mean, that is the shoreline calculation. And as I said, right now if you have a section where you're putting your docks that is moderate, that moderate ranking or 10 slips per 100 feet of shoreline is counted for all of your shoreline. I think it would probably be more appropriate if you split the shoreline up and counted it -- it's moderate there but it may be protected in some other areas. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, now we -- thank you, Tim. We already had all the speakers. Anybody else wishing to speak'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, discussion by the board. Anybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, how do you want to go from here? I mean, do you want -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 certainly have a -- I'd like to explore some input from our legal staff a little bit more on this whole thing. And the reason for that is is Tim started out his discussion with a very good comment. This -- or I think it was Josh, one of those buys. This applies to more than the Dunes, more than North Naples. It applies to places like Page 20 16 11 1 May 20, 2010 d 3 Chokoloskee and Goodland and parts of the county where they want to see more boats, where they like the idea of boat traffic, where they don't have a problem in congestion like they do in Vanderbilt Beach. Vanderbilt Beach is atrocious. I feel song that the people up there have to put up with the boat traffic that they have to. But that doesn't apply to the whole county. IIonestly, soon with the Gulf turning into a giant pool of oil, maybe we won't even need boats. But with that said, I'm now concerned whether we need to do this at all. Maybe the best thing is leave in place what we have, let the vested rights of those projects that already have conservation easements go forward and be challenged as they may or be set upon by the -- what's on record as they may. Or in areas where people don't care, let them use what they would have used with no objection. And then as we go forward it's a -- this is a well known issue. I don't think it's ever going to get by a conservation easement discussion again. So maybe we don't need this additional regulation that's going to go beyond what many see as the intended purpose, which happens to be the Dunes, and do damage where we don't know if we really needed to be doing that damage. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question --or what would be the problem in just making all marinas subject to a public hearing? The honesty is that if you look at this the way that you can calculate density in this plan, it is huge. You would never get anywhere near this. So this isn't regulating density, this is giving you a number that's laughable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm really thinking an additional layer like this is actually going to probably hurt us than help us. And your idea of having marinas come through a public process, that may not be a bad one. But I think it needs to be looked at for what triggers there are. You know, triggers if -- and Jeff, I'd like to know from your perspective, if we decided to do nothing, if our recommendation to the board was we don't need this language, we have plenty of opportunities in place to manage this through appeals, through review by the County Attorney's Office, through challenges by the public, through the public record, through the approvals in the past, what do you see that -- do you see that as a positive outcome or do you see that as problematic? Does this have to be addressed from a legal perspective? MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know why -- I'm not really sure why we began this discussion to begin with, okay, to be perfectly blunt. Because I never got from staff what the real intent was here, okay. This was a staff generated item by a staff person who's no longer here, all right. It's sort of like we threw a grenade up there and now we're trying to figure out where the shrapnel's going to land, and I don't know, all right? I am fine without the way things are without this amendment, okay. The reason for the amendment apparently is staff had a disagreement with a particular developer and to resolve that difficulty with a particular developer, we do what we often do in this county and that's to change the code. And I've never liked that approach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Doesn't that, though -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- conflict with what you said about wanting a clear line for the future? MR. KLATZ.KOW: No, what I said was that if you're going to do something, okay -- and again, I'm just limited to get the conservation easements. Okay, this has nothing to do with Chokoloskee or any other place where we're operating your shoreline outside of conservation easements. Understand? If you're going to do something, do it on a going forward basis. Do a rule. I'm indifferent as to what the rule is, but at least look at certainty in the system. You don't need this rule because, as Commissioner Strain has said, we do have mechanisms to get this through. And O and I would have been a mechanism in the case we've been talking about to have gotten this to the board for a resolution. We don't need an amendment. And I don't know that the amendment fixes that issue anyway. In fact, I know it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vighotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, I tend to agree with you, I'm worried about the -- what's going to happen in the other areas, Chokoloskee and that, and I'm worried about the consequences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any comments or questions at this point? Page 21 161 lad May 20, 2010 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're almost wrapping it up. So, I mean, if you got anything to say, now's the time to say it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Absolutely. 1 don't see the need. Certainly if we're going to do anything, it should end at line four there. A better thing to have brought forward from stairs perspective would be that all marinas have a public hearing, as Mr. Schiffer said. That would have been a better way to deal with any issues that come up. The whole issue with The Dunes docks is going to have to be settled on that individual case. And I just -- I think we're spinning our wheels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer' COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, I think the only thing we could do further is that when you really look at this allowable wet slip density, this is done back in the days of bulk- heading and stuff. I mean, I don't think this even makes sense, in now that we're doing conservation on the shoreline, now that we're -- the dimensional thing is ridiculous. I'm sure they -- you know, right minds did not realize you're going to be calculating up little tributaries. So I think that if we do anything, we should review this whole section 5.05.02 and come up with something that really does protect density and the manatee along the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think Steven said something earlier too that there's going to be some recommended changes corning down to the various counties regarding their manatee protection plans from a more recent review by the state. If I'm not mistaken, our plan is a decade or two or quite old, if I'm not -- how old is our current Manatee Protection Plan? MR. LENBERGER: I believe it was'95, but I'd have to check the date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if that is a decade or more old, there might be a lot more new science out there. And the state you did say is reviewing these and is going to come back with recommendations? MR. LENBERGER: That's right. And they have -- are producing different data and looking at it now. So we will be reevaluating the Manatee Protection Plan in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't see one case that's going to be affected by this any differently than whether we passed it or not right now. The Dunes is going to happen, based on what they've already committed to in a public meeting. And that fight will continue, regardless of what we do today. The other ones that are out there may not have a fight with them because they may not be in an area that is problematic. And going forward, it's so relevant that there is -- 1 don't see another conservation easement coming through this county that someone's not going to know this issue's going to have to be looked at and addressed. So maybe our best solution is to recommend that we -- to the BCC that they consider dropping item G completely, leaving everything as it is today, going forward on a case -by -case basis and then review the Manatee Protection Plan in a whole when the recommendations come in with the changes that the state's formulating. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that may be the simplest solution and the best solution and the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll snake that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- most -- the least litigious (sic) too. But let's -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to give you -- THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Murray, could you get on your microphone? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get to that point, I'll ask you. Okay, Nick, did you have something you wanted to throw in? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. I think Pandora 's Box was opened maybe by a prior staff member. Steven, if anybody knows him, has been the poster child, the whipping boy for this amendment. He's been on the road to Abilene for six months dealing with this. I think we're perfectly fine with your recommendation where it's going. I think both the public and private sectors have voiced their opinion, and we've been kind of along for the ride. I think Steven agrees, if that's your Page 22 161 1 63 May 20, 2010 recommendation, we're happy to go with that CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else from the Planning Commission wish to comment? If not, Mr. -- oh, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one quick thing. Since this is for boat slips, multi slips of 10 or more, or all marina facilities, that would come before us anyway. I mean, it would be rare that somebody would find a site that they could build 20 feet to the shoreline, so they're going to have to come before at least the Planning Commission to do anything of any depth out past 20 feet. So I think we may -- it may be a public hearing already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I also think that the recommendations coming down from the state will probably help a lot. I can't see them getting more flexible. I think there'll be more science involved and probably giving a better result. So with that, I'll ask Mr. Murray if he'd like to make a motion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would, I did, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second to Mr. -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer. And the motion was as previously stated. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8 -0. Thank you. We are out and we will take a break until 10:15. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break, everybody. And now that we finished up one of the more controversial items, we will get into one of the lengthy items. MR. MULHERE: But less controversial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Less controversial, yes. It will just be a lot of tedious discussion. But it needs to be done. The record needs to be as complete and we need to make sure all the little nuances are buttoned up. Item #9B PETH'ION: CP- 2008 -5, AMENDMENT TO THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP We had a staff report and a newly issued revised Immokalee Area Master Plan. The next item up is the hamokalee Area Master Plan, a continuation of CP- 2008 -5. There's been a lot of changes, including a complete numeric change to the plan which threw me for a curve when I first read it. I thought oh, my God, what did they do now. And I'm not sure where it's best to start. Bob? I think what we'll do is we've got an introduction letter from you that is lengthy and I have some questions on it. And then we get into the body of the document. But I also have a lot of questions from the staffs letter that they sent to us, the staffs recommendations. I'd like to walk through that at some point, too. So I'll let you decide how they fit together best_ Page 23 16 i 1 �3 May 20, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Let mejust, if I could -- for the record, Bob Mulhere, on behalf -- here on behalf of the CRA. Let me just state just a couple of introductory remarks briefly. I just want to express gratitude on the part of the CRA on myself We put a lot of time into this. I know you guys, the Planning Commission, did as well. But even more recently working with David, Carolina and Ileidi. It was a lot of hours. I think it's a very good product as a result of that. And even most recently Heidi's comments. Now, you don't have within that version the County Attorney's comments. We just met yesterday to resolve those issues. And I have those here and I'll have them on the visualizer, Mr. Chairman, highlighted in gray, so we'll know exactly which those comments are. As well, 1 think Heidi is having copies brought down; is that true? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not of this version. I can bring -- MR. MULHERE: No, no, no, your comments. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Just my comments with -- in red, it will have the comment as to how they've responded. MR. MULHERE: What the disposition of it is. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, with the -- MR. MULHERE: And we're in agreement. We're in agreement. But I also have made the language changes that are reflected in Heidi's memo based on our meeting in this document that's on the visualizer. And to me the easiest way is to go through it, because you're going to see the yellow highlighted changes that reflect changes since your last meeting, and the gray highlighted changes reflect -- they're relatively minor, but the changes that the County Attorney's Office requested. There are one or two substantive ones that we probably will have to spend a little time on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I was going to approach this page at a time like we did originally. I don't expect the intensity of the original review. But I think we still have issues that I want to make sure are clear. I want to make sure everybody understands them. And funding issues are part of that. So we'll have to -- we'll get into that. And you started out with an attachment "A" that was a lengthy -- 1 know you probably wrote it really lengthy hoping nobody would read it, but unfortunately 1 read it. And all that fine print that you decided to drop it down to -- that's a data and analysis requirements. It was right after your statement of compliance. It was the very first thing in your document. MR. MULHERE: You know, that's not a new document, though. That was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. MR. MULHERE: -- submitted previously. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You put it in a new spot, so it took new attention. MR. MULHERE: Well actually I'm not sure exactly how that happened. We didn't produce -- we didn't make copies of this, the CRA did. So maybe some of the exhibits got -- I don't know. I'm not blaming them, I'm just saying maybe some of the exhibits just got moved around from where they previously were. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what: Why don't we go right into the page you're on. And if there's some questions not answered by reviewing the document -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that are in the data and analysis page, we'll go back to it. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At what point do you think it would be best to move into the staff report? MR. MULHERE: Arc you primarily concerned with their recommendation? Because I'm of the opinion that we've addressed all of the issues that staff -- all of the concerns or issues that staff has. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's more of explanation. Some of the staf7report -- for example, they have a table in there that is incomplete. Yet their comments are that the -- that will require funding and allocation of staff that may not be readily available. Yet we don't know because the table's incomplete as to the cost of the items that staff laid out what it is we're possibly approving from a funding perspective. I'm not saying that's a deal breaker. I want an explanation on how they think they're going to sell that to DCA. Page 24 16 120, 210 03 And if DCA finds that to be a deal breaker -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what do we do then? MR. MULHERE: Well, here's my response to that, and then I'll -- the staff can certainly -- and we've talked about it. I believe that the changes that we made which, number one, condition every one of those policies that have a fiscal impact associated with them or a potential fiscal impact associated with them, every single one is conditioned upon the availability of funding. They also have a time frame. Most of them are within two years, but there's even a stop -gap there. Because if it doesn't happen within the two years, then the county is required by the plan to revisit them as part of the next EAR -- so that's another five years, or a total of seven years -- to determine whether they're still appropriate and viable and how they would be funded at that point in time, if they haven't already occurred. There are so many different ways that many of these policies can be funded, it is impossible for us to suggest to you that we know how that's going to happen or even what the cost is at this point in time. Certainly there could be estimates. For example, the stormwater management plan, the CRA has procured a $3.5 million grant for the first phase of that. They may get another grant for the second phase. I hope they do. That's certainly what I know Penny's working hard to do. There are many examples like that. There are other examples where the policy would typically, if deemed to be appropriate by yourselves and then by the Board of County Commissioners, it would typicallyjust become part of a staff work plan. And if it says within two years, it might be this year and it might be next year. If there isn't funding it will get deferred. So my personal -- and, you know, I think staff agrees with this, is we'd like to transmit this document. And if DCA has a concern, probably if they have a concern at all, it might be related to the time frame, because that could be extended out to seven years. How would we respond? If that is a concern, we would have to go back and either eliminate some of those policies, or put a specific time frame up, a maximum of five years, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was where my question was, wanting to understand -- MR. MULHERE: And I'd like to sort of see what they have to say and then well go from there. Because we do have -- we do have a definitive time frame for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mind that approach. But the acknowledgment is if DCA has an objection that we can't overcome financially, we basically have to then remodify -- MR. MULHERE: We would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --the objective. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's kind of what I thought. I just wanted to make sure everybody understood it. With that then, maybe we ought to -- there's not many questions on the staff report. Maybe we ought to just roll through that real quick. MR. MULHERE: Okay, that'd be a good spot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, is that fine with you? MS. VALERA: Absolutely. Carolina Valera for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The staff report is -- was sent to us in a separate three ring binder, smaller one. I don't know if all the commission members have it. But why don't we take the first say three pages or four pages at a time. Does anybody have any questions in the staff report? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. On Page 17. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's between 1 and 3, huh? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's between 1 and 4. That's okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear you say that. I obviously was ignoring you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought whoa, that's a jump. Page 25 161 1b� May 20, 2010 COMMISSIONER CARON: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take it a little slower. COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 learn to count my own way. Sometimes it's helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My first question's not going to be until we get into about page -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Seventeen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, 17. COMMISSIONER CARON: Seventeen, see? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So let'sjust move forward. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Say, let's do Page 17. Ms. Caron, go ahead then, that would be fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, if you have one before Page 17, why don't you ask yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 12. On Page 12, Carolina, in the middle of the page you said something that seemed interesting. We just discussed in the prior paragraphs the issue of DCA and the possible unacceptability of the lack of funding. But then you added a sentence in the iniddle of the page that says, the petitioner has also indicated that general information in regard to fiscal impact will be presented to the BCC. Okay, why to the BCC? Why wouldn't we get the benefit of understanding that too? MR. MULHERE: I mean, I can respond. MS. VALERA: Please do. MR. MULHERE: This request just came down in the last couple of days, and so we're actually going through an estimate. We'd be happy to bring that to you as well, wejust didn't want to delay the process. We are working on estimates as it relates to each one of those, but we're not finished with that and we probably would be finished in the next few days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said it just came down recently. From who? From staff.? MR. MULHERE: From -- no, from the County Attorney's Office. Well, yeah, staff, but in the form of the County Attorney's Office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you please send that to each -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- member of the Planning Cotmnission? MR. MULIIERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, 1 understand the numbers are going to be something we've got to deal with no matter what they are -- MR. MULHERE: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --so it's not going to really change the outcome. It's just a matter of now having the knowledge of what that is and how it fits into the big picture. MR. MULHERE: I'll tell you what we've done and maybe this will give you some idea of at least the methodology. We'll send it to you as soon as we're finished with it. Some things are already funded, as I said, through the CRA. So we've identified those and we know a cost associated with those. Some things we don't know. We've identified potential funding sources, and we're still working on that. As far as some of the tasks, we've gone in and made an estimate of man hours of the number of FTE's over a period of time that would be required to accomplish that. And we've used a -- and we're talking to staff about using a -- you know, a standard average hourly rate plus benefits to calculate a cost. 1 mean, it's typical methodology that would be used. Maybe it's $80 an hour plus 35 percent for benefits. That will give us an hourly rate, total hourly rate. And we'll multiply that, times the estimated hours to accomplish the task. And we'll be able to tell you both the dollar amount and a .5 or .25 FT N, whatever. So, I mean, I think that's the methodology that is the most appropriate one is how we would estimate the cost on anything else. But there will be estimates. I mean, there's just no way for us at this point without the details to figure out an exact cost. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine. But will you, in the process of identifying the fiscal impact, identify Page 26 161 I g3 May 20, 2010 the source of the funds? Because some of -- MR. MULHERE: Potential source. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- these policies -- right, some -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- these policies are covered by the CRA? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And some are expected out of the overall trough of the taxpayers -- MR. MULHERE: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --of Collier County. MR. MULHERE: Or grants. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Mulhere, could you wait until the speaker is finished. MR. MULHERE: Sorry, yeah. MS. VALERA: Mr. Chairman? Just to say clarify, I agree, it was just a matter of timing. Not -- in no case was it not wanting to present it to this board, it was just a timing issue. And since, you know, we will be here back with adoption, so we thought that, you know, if it was acceptable to just bring it to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And has the CRA considered, since they're going to be doing some of the funding, getting a large bond covered by their incremental tax increases to cover a lot of the costs that are laid out in this plan or that will be laid out in the fiscal impacts when they're presented to us? MS. PHILLIPPI: Penny Phillippi for the record. We have discussed some of the disaster recovery bonds with our CFO for the county, but we have not yet committed to going into debt, because we don't have a huge increment at this point in time, as we discussed earlier, because of the current economy. So down the road, yes, that will definitely be an option for us, but right now we're not ready to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, and I'm glad to see you're being conscious. I was just trying to -- when we get the fiscal impacts in front of us and we have to figure out how they're going to be laid out over the next decade or so, I was just curious what options the CRA's looking at. And if you're already considering that at the right time, well, that works. So thank you. MS. PI IILLIPPI: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: There is one thing I'd just like to add that relates to this. And just as a reminder, you'll recall that we took out -- and I think it was really at the Plamring Commission's recommendation, we took out the policy that would call for a separate capital improvement plan for Immokalee, which made sense taking it out. But we replaced it with a requirement to prepare a prioritized capital improvement, you know, list especially by the CRA for hmmokalee, which will -- that will be the time when we would have a better idea of the specifics of the funding sources and the costs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Carolina, the second paragraph on the top of that same page, the second sentence says: In addition, the proposed plan will shift prioritization from some countywide efforts to the Immokalee urban area. As we go through the plan, would you make sure you highlight that to us, tell us when we -- MS. VALERA: I'll certainly try, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron, let's roll on to Page 17. COMMISSIONER CARON: In the third paragraph down that says within Lake Trafford/Camp Keais, that first line says: There are proposed changes to increased density or intensity. And then in the last line it says: In addition, no increase of density within Lake Trafford/Camp Keais is allowed. And that was according to the F,AC hearing. So was the EAC recommendation incorporated? MS. VALERA: Yes, it was incorporated. But I believe it has been changed once more. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So we're going to get to that. The County Attorney's Office expressed some concerns related to just some very small portions. Less than five percent of that whole overlay is not designated low residential, but is already partially developed and designated either medium or high residential. Page 27 161 1 d3 May 20, 2010 What we had done was we had limited the density to four units per acre across the entire spectrum of it. So approximately four percent of it is not designated low residential. And the change that we've made is to limit the density to the base density of the applicable sub - district, but not allow any bonus density. Practically, what that does is, 95 percent of it's limited to four units an acre, as we already proposed, or more than 95 percent. The balance, though, because of vested rights concerns, would be able to get the density that they -- the base density that the sub - district allows, which is up to I think six or eight. And it's a very small -- it's less than 100 acres. And we're going to get to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the staff report? Might as well take the whole document. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, on Page 23, number 12. Just curious how you came to that conclusion. Number 12 says: The proposed increase in density and intensity of the proposed plan will likely alter the existing character of hnmokalee. What made- -just what's the conclusion'? The density is just being shifted to some areas, so you get higher density where you had not so high density. But in your preamble and in Bob's, they basically said that nobody builds out to the density supplied anyway, and that the market really dictates the density that's used. So how did you come to that conclusion that the density and intensity will likely alter the existing character of Immokalee? MS. VALERA: Well, it will definitely change the character, especially along the main roads -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MS. VALERA: -- Main Street and 29 and so forth. So in that sense it will. MR. MULHERE: For the better, we believe. MS. VALERA: I'm not saying that is negative or -- I'm just saying that it will change it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because actually, the overall density to reducejust got shifted and there's higher pockets of density now MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. VALERA: Yes, but now also you have a mix in areas where you did not before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, and that's most of my -- that's my questions from the staff report. Bob, if you want, we'll start -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- right in with your document. What I'd like to do is when you have a revision that was recommended by the County Attorney's Office, let us know where it occurs. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that that got accomplished. MR. MULHERE: So the first changes that we have occur on Page 4. And I'll just pull it up so you can see them. These aren't I don't think real substantive changes, but they are in yellow. They were I guess textural changes that clarify and better -- I think maybe actually Nick I think requested that we remove the reference from two lanes to four lanes. And there had been an ongoing discussion about removing the reference to the interchange, the 1 -75 Interchange. Which we did remove everywhere else and somehow this was a remnant and so we've removed that as well. The other one in gray is one of the county -- there's a general comment by the County Attorney as anywhere where you use abbreviations to, you know, use that standard format of -- and I think we did it in most cases but there were some that we missed. And I -- to tell you the truth, 1 didn't really know what RNAV and LBV VOR is except I know they're instrument approaches, so that's what I put in there. CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Okay. You can be -- interesting, if Tor was here he'd be focusing on that today and making sure that those got covered. So we don't have the acronyms covered as we used to. Maybe we ought to remember to do that from now on. If anything -- MR. MULHERE: And we did try, but I think we missed it in a few spots, yeah. Page 28 161 1 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And now what I'd like to do with the Planning Commission, if -- are you going to walk through your item page at a time like we just did? And as the Planning Commission members have questions, we'll just have to -- we'll just chime in, okay? My first is going to be on Page 6, so you can -- MR. MULHERE: The pages might be slightly different in mine. So, you know, that's okay, I mean, we'll figure it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And this is the issue which when DCA has an objection to the lack of specificity of funding, will it be because of this goal and objective and policy? Is that how they'll approach it? Because this is what basically says we'll only do it to the extent we have the fiscal ability to do it. MR. MULHERE: I think it will be -- if they have an objection, it will be a general objection to say that the plan -- throughout the plan there are objectives or policies that call for certain activities to occur, and there isn't a specific identification of funding mechanisms for those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we either provide it under say this goal or we come back in and modify the policy, okay. MR. MULHERE: And honestly, I'm pretty confident that they cannot expect every single county and municipality at the time they do a plan to understand how they're going to pay for everything that's in it. You do have to do that, but that's why you have other procedures. You know. I'm speaking too fast again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I just like this, we got Cherie' this time. That was her phone. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm so sorry. MR. MULHERE: Because I told her 1 was going to practice speaking slow. So far I haven't succeeded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Spotlight is on Cherie'. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, maybe this is small potatoes, but in this same Objective 1. 1, and to use the tern and so forth, I realize you're trying to capture any potential that may be for the future that you hadn't thought of, and I'm trying to think of some things. And so forth, is that really -- I mean, I know it's a GMP type of thing. MR. MULHERE: Well, you could say et cetera. I mean, it's just that it's not limited to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's your intent is that it's not limited. MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And 1 accept that. That's fine. MR. MULHERE: I do have one change to what you see before you in gray. Heidi's comment was that we again, you know, define CRA at its first place where it's used. And the first place where it was used was in the title so that's where I did it, but that's now where it should happen. It should happen under objective one, not in the title but under objective one. I need tojust define it as I did above, and then put in parens CRA there. So the parens CRA in the title will come out. It's a minor change, just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Heidi, you want to pass those out? MR. MULHERE: And it should be area instead of agency. We'll make those corrections. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what Heidi's passing out are the County Attorney's Office's suggested corrections. And if it's in color, most of them will show that they've been addressed and we'll see it all today. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: And those are in order, so we're more or less going over those just in the same order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, if we're done with that page, I know I've got a question on Page 7. And move it down a little bit in the yellow. Commercial trade hub. 1 got the information you sent on the commercial trade hub. I asked for some information on the Federal Enterprise Community. And one other. And the Federal Empowerment Zone. And I was referred to a Collier County government page that describes the CRA but it doesn't describe those two things. So when you get a chance, if there is a basis of what a Federal Empowerment Zone is -- and basically, Patrick, it was numbers four and five on your e -mail. Your reference link just gives me the CRA site at the county site, which doesn't give me the -- what the Federal Empowerment Zone is and what the Federal Enterprise Community is, other than saying that -- Page 29 161 1 03 May 20, 2010 MR. MULHERE: You need definitions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I need to know what they are. Not that it's going to affect today's meeting, but I would like to see that for future reference. MR. MULHERE: Okay, we'll get - 1 think he's going to want it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need it in writing, Fred. I'll need it in writing. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Are you done with your -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I had one other point. The second bullet, assist the CRA, and then it says: EDC and other economic entities. Why don't you just say, assist the CRA and other economic entities in the marketing of commercial and industrial opportunities? Why did you refer to the EDC? MR. MULHERE: Well, because that's really specifically what the EDC is charged with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it is charged as long as they exist. If they don't exist, I'd rather not -- why don't you just leave it generic and if you use them, fine, if you don't -- MR. MULHERE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it takes it more of an opportunity to be flexible. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And in bullet point one, it's the same thing. It should read, work with the Imtmokalee CRA and other economic entities of Collier County to actively promote blah, blah, blah. And we had talked about that at the very first meeting, was to take out -- because you don't want to limit the CRA either. MR. MULHERE: Well, that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: And it's not that they're not going to work with the EDC, that's what they're doing. MR. MULHERE: No, that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it broadens it for the future. This is a long tern plan, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the yellow and the gray highlighting there is in response, some of it, to the County Attorney's -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, the gray is. And again, it's mostly not substantive but, you know, clarification and also spelling out the abbreviations and those kinds of things. At least in this case. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I will say that you'll see that there's a couple of changes. Instead of assist and assist and work with, it says support, encourage and support. The purpose, as I understood it from I Ieidi, was that those are more flexible. 'They still convey the message but they're more flexible in terms of the impact on the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I don't think there's any objection. The next page is Page S. I notice this particular policy doesn't refer to the 1.1.1 policy as all the others do. Was there a reason for that? The policy, Mr. Murray, is of 1.1.1, is the fiscal policy that basically says if we can afford it, we'll do it. If we can't, it will have to wait till we can. Now, everywhere else where a policy had, for example, 2.2.3. on the next page and all the others -- and 2.2.1. on the bottom of this page, all the others specifically kept referring back to Policy 1.1.1. This one did not. And I was wondering if -- MR. MULHERE: No, I think we may have trussed -- I think the thought was that this was going to occur and would be pail of -- because there's already a lot of data out there. We had that discussion here. The data pretty much already exits. But, I mean, there's no -- I certainly have no objection to putting it in. We put it everywhere else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's what I'm just asking, if you'd be consistent -- MR. MULHERE: Within two years, subject to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MR. MULLIERE: Yeah. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, on Policy 2.1.3., going down about seven lines and talking about the Page 10 16y 10 �3 mitigation bank, it says: The purpose of such a mitigation bank and/or identification of lands targeted for acquisition within or proximate to the Immokalee urban area. Why are we worried about lands that are proximate to the Immokalee urban area? Shouldn't we just be concentrating on what's in this area itself? MR. MULHERE: Not necessarily. If there were some lands that were close to the -- approximate to the urban area -- I didn't want to restrict ourselves entirely, but the reason that's in there is if there were some lands that had high value, natural resource value, you could use that as a mitigation bank. In part you could use those lands for impacts that are occurring in the urban area. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would not be in favor of that because we have so much land within the urban area that's environmentally sensitive that we don't need to be protecting land outside that already is in the RLSA that should be protected by that mechanism. MR. MULHERE: You know, I mean, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the point -- and that's an interesting point, because if you do it in proximate to, then you could go into the RLSA area, land will be a lot cheaper, and you'll end up somewhat, maybe defeating the purpose of getting environmental land within the urban area -- MR. MULHERE: Well, and there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because it's higher priced. MR. MULHERE: There is the big chunk of the overlay that would be obvious primary location for mitigation. So, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what if you took out the words or proximate? MR. MULHERE: That's fine. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would be in favor of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or proximate to. And then it says: Within the Immokalee urban area. So that -- MR. MULHERE: Right, so strike through or proximate to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: It was only there for flexibility. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And then I had another comment on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- that same section. Oh, go ahead. MS. GIBSON: Could I make a comment? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, sure. MS. GIBSON: Laura Gibson, the Environmental Review. It may be appropriate to have the proximate. I'm thinking in case that there's a natural resource that straddles the line between Immokalee and the RLSA, perhaps, and that we could still have the ability to set this up to where the land could be purchased -- required to be purchased first or used first in the Immokalee area, and then go over to the -- to outside to preserve that whole contiguous area was my thought. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would submit that everything straddles in this thing, and that there's just much more higher priority in the urban land because we don't have the protection of the RLSA mechanism. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think leaving it -- striking those words will stay -- the RLSA can take care of it itself, that's what it was devised for, so -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And then something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. And then in that 2.1.3., the last sentence where it says: Incentives shall be included in the LDC, Ordinance 04 -41 as amended, to direct mitigation to or acquisition of these targeted lands and to direct development away from such lands. Does the LDC — would that include EAR amendments, possibly? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the -- MR. MULHERE: The LDC is the document that implements these policies. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. You talk about incentives to direct development away from such Page 31 16 I 1 6� May 20, 2010 lands. When you talk about directing development away from something, you're almost sounding like disincentives. Would it be correct to say incentives and disincentives, or would you only want to use incentives? MR. MULHERE: I think we prefer the utilization of incentives. You could use disincentives. Disincentives, although l would use a different word, it's called regulatory requirements. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I'm just wondering if that might not be something that should be included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you said incentives or regulatory requirements -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --that would cover that. MR. MULHERE: Yes, that would do it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thank you. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on to Page 9. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, any issues you have? MR. MULHERE: The reference to the EDC here -- and by the way, I'll have to make sure that that's the first location that we spell it out -- is specific, because they do administer the Certified Sites Program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you didn't say them and they did it, what difference would it make? Because couldn't the county take that upon themselves if they wanted to? MR. MULHERE: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They why would you want to have it administered by the EDC if it's not the only entity that could do that'? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That was actually my comment to clarify. I had actually used the words offered by the EDC, because it's not a county program that I was able to find, it's an EDC program. MR. MULHERE: There's no harm in taking it out. It is what it is. And if it's done by somebody else, I think that would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, does it hurt to not have it in there, to take that language out? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, it doesn't hurt it. It just -- the implication I think is that it's a county program. COMMISSIONER CARON: The way it reads now. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out a solution to -- MR. MULIIERE: One solution might be to say Collier County will work with economic development organizations to review the existing Certified Sites Program. Because the issue is reviewing it and the changing it, if we need to. That's what it's calling for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Why can't we just add, Collier County will review the existing Certified Sites Program for economic development? Because then it can be any entity performing the economic development. MR. MULHERE: Well, it's a very specific program. I think that's kind of general, too general. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought we were going for. MR. MULHERE: It's a Pre - Certified Sites Program. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then should it then read Certified Sites Program of the EDC, in order to make it clear? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Yeah, you could do it that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that work? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, why don't we -- that's a better way to put it. MR. MULHERE: Of the EDC. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Section staff. As an alternative to what was just discussed, could we simply insert the word presently, part of that phrase, presently administered by the EDC? Page 32 161 1 May 20, 2010 03 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: There you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's even better We're getting better. Takes a while to get around it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, takes a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At least we're not going the route of the shoreline calculation amendment. Okay, so you're going to insert that word presently in front of that, right? MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next page is Page 10, let's say 10 and 11 in our books. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CIAIRMAN STRAIN: The 2.3.4, entertainment area. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In recognition of the fact that the casino is a significant attraction. And it goes into basing everything near the casino. And I don't doubt the casino is an attraction. And if they ever build it, it's going to be a fantastic attraction. MR. MULHERE: Big change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to try to develop entertainment in the area near the casino. But we really don't know if the casino will ever continue -- will ever expand. The Seminoles could decide any day now just to drop the whole idea and walk away. How will that impact the development of that area? Will that be a negative -- will that be a problem if this language focuses entertainment development in that area without the casino or without the expansion of the casino? MR. MULHERE: I think two things: One, the casino is the anchor for that entertainment district. That's -- people are coming there. But not everyone wants to sit inside all day and all night. Some people do. So it's to take advantage of those folks that actually want to do something else while they're there, have some other entertainment opportunities. Is it enhanced by the expansion? You -- you know, to the greatest extent, yes. That will drive the -- and the idea is to go from the casino towards town with this. And then that will connect within the downtown corridor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't have a problem with it at all. Just conceptually, the lack of cooperation that the Seminole Tribe offers to Collier County is frustrating. And when we try to go this far as to set up support districts to their casino, I'm just wondering if that's the best way to go. Without locking ourselves -- I don't want to lock ourselves into something. MR. MULHERE: Just one other thing, and then Fred wants to talk. But the other thing I would offer is, you know, that there's no harm in planning for this, but if it doesn't happen, the market is never going to allow it to occur because you don't have that expansion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I need to know. Thank you. Fred, I'm comfortable with it, so you can say something if you want to, but -- go ahead. MR. THOMAS: If you're comfortable with it, I won't say anything. But I wanted to make one little comment. The Pact has been signed. They're going to go vertical. Don't forget that for a moment. When you go to Chinatown, you don't expect to see Fifth Avenue South. We're saying to you, when you come to Immokalee, when you get up by the casino, you're entering Central America. And you expect to see Central America and anything that's associated with Central America. Like the people on the street, okay? So that's why we're going to make that the beginning of our tourist zone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Fred. Okay, Pages 12 and 13. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on the Policy 2.5.2, they're talking about amendments to the Land Development Code. You want to reference Policy 1.1.1? MR. MULHERE: That's funded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that is funded. Page 33 1 1 May 20, 2010 MR. MULHERE: Yeah. The land code amendments are funded. We are working on them as we speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And they're funded by? MR. MULHERE: CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's tine. No need to apply. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, Pages 14 and 15. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: There is a change. MR. MULHERE: Did I miss something? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Just Page 14 under Policy 3.1.1, you took out the H -2A housing. MR. MULHERE: That shouldn't be highlighted, but -- it was made reallyjust more general. I think it still says the same thing, but it doesn't specify H -2A housing, farm- worker housing. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, in our books, Pages 14 and 15 starts Policy 3.2.1. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. Cl IAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Going back to the H -2A, housing, is that a designation by the federal government for guidelines on housing'? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's the visa type. It's the type of visa that they would receive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, visa. Okay, now I understand. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: There's no changes to 3.2.1. or 3.2.2. or 3 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question about 3.2.1. The second sentence: Targeted redevelopment areas include neighborhoods with occurrences of substandard structures. How do you qualify those neighborhoods? Because you could have one substandard structure in almost any neighborhood. Do you have to have a -- is there some qualification that's going to come out -- is that what you see coming out of a future Land Development Code discussion? MR. MULHERE: Actually -- well, 1 think it's a -- there's a study that -- well, there's a housing inventory that's already occurred, at least on one occasion, if not several occasions. That housing inventory has to be updated. That housing inventory will identify substandard structures by definition ofbuilding code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it would rank them by quantity so -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your targets would be the most heavily -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- occurring areas first, is that -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how that would -- MR. MULHERE: And then whatever the course of action that's best prescribed to address it may not be land code amendments. There are other opportunities to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred? MR. THOMAS: Fred Thomas, Chairman of the CRA. On that H -2A question, that's the type of housing that the federal government mandates for the H -2A workers that come under that special visa that she's talking about. It's the type of housing that they regulate, okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's why I asked the question. Because I wondered if that should be pertinent -- MR. THOMAS: No, it's just we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You made it by reference. MR. THOMAS: It's just a type of farm labor housing, that's all. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But the intent was referenced not to refer to a specific requirement. MR. THOMAS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 16 and 17 in our book. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) Page 34 161 1 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 17 -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I do have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it may be moot, but I have to ask it anyway. With regard to Objective 4. 1, we speak of a comprehensive system of parks and recreational facilities. That gets you into that issue we always have with the AUIR about parks, private and public. And I realize that the intent here is probably public exclusively. But if we're doing ecotourism, some of them may very well want to be parks or considered as parks. And so the way I read this, it kind of disenfranchises private parks. I know it doesn't stipulate that or state that, but I wondered, because it references later on that it has to do with the public services division and so forth and so on. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. I mean, I think all we can control is the public parks -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's true. MR. MULHERE: -- in terms of connectivity and the access. If a private landowner who, you know, has a -- I mean, I guess one example -- or maybe a better example might be a non - governmental yet not - for - profit entity -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. MULHERF,: -- that -- like I guess Corkscrew. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Like the zoo. MR. MULHERE: Or the zoo. Although they charge to cover their cost. But we're talking about connectivity. So that's why it didn't differentiate. Because connectivity would be just as important in that circumstance as it is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought from the- - MR. MULHERE: -- for the residents. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought from the extreme -- maybe not extreme but from the most desired planning process you would want to have the potential to incorporate private as well as public and not focus exclusively on the public. MR. MULHERE: No, we would. But the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you cannot is what you're saying. You cannot. MR. MULHERE: Well, I think the objective doesn't differentiate, and that's why. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the objective doesn't, but the later information in support of it tends to eliminate from most thought processes that it would entertain it. MR. MULHERE: Only because that's all the county really has control over. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. Well, I thought, though, that the overall plan wasjust beyond what the -- okay, I got it. MR. MULHERE: I think it is. I mean, the RT, for example, the RT area that we expanded, you could have some private -- it's all privately owned land, it could have exactly what you're talking about and connectivity would be important there. Maybe a bike trail through it and a sidewalk or something -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all I'm really relating to. And then further on in Objective 4.1 where you have the adopted -- and that may be that one's going to go away, I suspect, or maybe not -- where it says Collier County shall implement a parks and recreation program for Immokalee that is equivalent. If we're going to retain that, I would say instead of equivalent, that of, that is -- yeah, I fooled myself. That of Collier County standards is what I was trying to relate. I don't know if equivalent -- either it's county standards or it's not, right? Because equivalent now says to me -- MR. MULHERE: That's the old Objective 4.1. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I know. So it's not going to stay, right? MR. MULHERE: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So moot, all right. MR. MUI,HFRE: We're providing that because it was -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What it was, what it will. MR. MULHERE: -- deemed to be easier for people to understand what previously existed. Page 35 1 May 20, 210 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Gotcha. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 18 and 19, anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, under Policy 4.2.1., the -- well, 4.2.1., you've got to go down a little bit. Now you've got to go up a little bit. See the fourth line up and the end? It says as priority improvements are identified, input from landowners and residents will be sought. Would you consider changing that to input will be sought from landowners and residences (sic) in order to prioritize improvements? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the way that reads, someone else could actually prioritize them and then afterwards say, hey, we'd like your input. I think it -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, can you just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --should be just the opposite. MR. MULHERE: -- say that one more time? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Will besought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Input wilt be sought from landowners and residents in order to prioritize improvements. MR. MULHERE: I think that's very good. We could even --we could just say stakeholders, but, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just say landowners and residents. That words. Just leave that in there. But anyway, I would suggest that change to that page. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Yeah, on 4.1.3 -- on 4.2.1. You can see in the gray that we just --that language was just not necessary. That is how it happens, it's not necessary to be in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: 4.1.3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, Heidi, I'm assuming you're watching as we're going along to make sure your stuff was caught. And speak out -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if it doesn't. Okay. MS. AS14TON- CICKO: Yes. MR. MULHERE: We struck through the reference. I'm just -- 4.1.3., you can see it's on the screen. We struck through the reference. We thought we got every reference to the Irrunokalee Capital Improvement Plan, but there were a couple of remnants of it. This was one of them. So I just wanted you to know that we did go through and strike through that. And in this case we'rejust referencing parks master plan. CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: Okay. Questions on Pages 20 to 21'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 4.2.2.; long range transportation improvements. Nick had thought that we ought to be four - laning 846 to hmnokalee and spending money there instead of tearing up Golden Gate Estates by unnecessary roads in our area. So I was wondering why you wouldn't want to put that as a bullet in there. I see Nick shaking his head. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll get the white flag. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well anyway, it wasn't really Nick, but I had to throw him in the mix just to keep him alert. He was tilling asleep back there. But why wouldn't we put down as a policy that we want to try to four -lane 846 out to Immokalee? To me I think that would be important to the residents of Immokalee. MR. MULHERE: Complete the four - laning of-- CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's just another item of the bullet. You listed some really nice bullets — MR. MULHERE: No, that's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so why wouldn't you want to put that one too? MR. MULHERE: It just never came up. Page 36 161 1 �3 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. MULHERE: I mean, to my knowledge it didn't. I didn't exclude it purposely. I mean, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't believe Fred would forget something as important as that. Of course maybe he doesn't want the connection to be complete, I don't know. Oh, hi, Fred. MR. THOMAS: I don't know whether you want -- I wasn't thinking. You said 846. I was thinking 858 and then coming up Camp Keais Road in. Because that's being worked on right now to six -lane it and then four -lane Camp Keais Road straight into Immokalee. You may into the want to four -lane 846 through Corkscrew, you understand, when you have better traffic coming straight down 858 past the front door of Ave Maria and coming -- but the part I'm talking about is Camp Keais Road is what I thought you was talking about, Camp Keais corning straight into hnmokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We get to the same point as the connection between Naples and Immokalee is not complete. Why wouldn't you want in this policy to have one of those connections favored? That's kind of where I was going. MR. THOMAS: That's what I say, I was clapping for the Camp Keais Road four - laning and straightaway from the already developing the six -lane road of 858 over to Camp Keais. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would just suggest that in your discussions after today's meeting you may want to expand one of those bullets to include a better connection between our community and that community, since -- MR. MULHERE: I'll get with Nick. He can help us. Because as I understand it, one's already funded, that's why it's not here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? MR. MULHERE: Oil Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oil Well's only funded for a certain portion of it. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So maybe we need to include that as well as then Camp Keais Strand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever direction you decide to go, I think a connection between this community and that community is vital. And I would suggest that the CRA would want that too, but it's up to them. I would suggest they add it to this list. It wouldn't hurt. MR. MULHERE: No, it can't hurt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. VALERA: Mr. Chairman, just trying to catch up with your request of highlighting some of the policies that prioritizes improvements for Immokalee. This is one of those, that 4.2.2. It does say that it will be new investment in hnmokalee area, so it's specific to Immokalee, so it's prioritizing some of the work to hnmokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it does say, prior to that reference, subject to available funding. MS. VALERA: Absolutely. MR. MULHERE: Well, moreover, there's no intent for this language to assume that we would have some higher priority than any other area of the community. It's within Immokalee these are priorities. And we still have to compete with the available limited resources with all the other projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like I woke up the sleeping volcano. Good morning, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nick Casalanguida. My white flag, I dropped it on the way, but I brought it, it was big. I was going to leave it today and just put it aside. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had to get you going a little bit there today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not working with these folks. We try to leave specific improvement roads and widths out of this, because your long -range transportation plan is going through its update process. And that's the more appropriate place to talk about which roads would get widened through the public, you know, participation process, rather than the GMP document. And that's why we mentioned it to Bob and the other folks. Specifically don't reference out a road other than referencing the long -range transportation plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I think that's a good point, but -- if you take out the idea of saying widening or four lanes or six lanes. But why wouldn't you want as a goal in this policy or as an objective of this policy something to lead it forward that the connection between Naples and Immokalee needs to be one of the things that is focused on. Because you didn't even mention it. You mentioned roads that don't even exist. I would think that improving Page 37 Ma y20,210 J these roads that are here would be a good goal MR. CASALANGUIDA: Referencing improvement of roads in general is a good goal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I just didn't want to put specific laneage (sic) in, because that really excites people before going through the public process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. MULHERE: Just a lot of that deals with the long -range plan for the downtown area, because until that loop road is funded, we're never going to be -- it's going to be more difficult to change the plan for the downtown area, which is tied to the long -range economic improvement in the community. So that's why those were part of -- I'm not suggesting it -- it would be relatively easy to put something in there that also talks about connectivity between Naples and Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as a general concept, 1 would think it would be an improvement for Immokalee to have better connectivity with the coastal area. For any number of reasons. If it's just for the workers to get from the Immokalee area to the hotels and other places where a lot of them work. Right now there's buses and all things going on, but it's all a two -lane difficult road for anybody. So as an overall goal, and I don't know where you'd want to put it, I'm surprised it didn't show up somewhere in this document, but I would suggest that you'd throw it in there. MR. MULHERE: We'll put it right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, anyway, it's just a suggestion. I think it would be better for the community if it was there. Pages -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Mark, could I? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: When this goes -- when and if this goes through and it changes the configuration of development in Immokalce, does that change the traffic analysis zone numbers where this will prioritize different roads in the long -range plan for Immokalee? Or -- it will, won't it? MR. MULHERE,: Everything. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Over the long haul, everything's going to -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So it's going to work itself out in other words. MR. WEEKS: But not -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Roadways. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a great question. It really is. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will, as a matter of fact. As you move density from one part of the county, not there are -- in such as a document like this, that's what the long -range transportation plan takes into account. That's a great question. It will. MR. MULHERE: And I have to add, for example -- and it's not -- you know, if we're able to create a climate where we create job opportunities, employment opportunities, long -tern, higher paying job opportunities in Immokalee, we will change the way people drive. Because right now, just as Mr. Strain said, the opportunities are limited, so people who work need to be heading, you know, west in the morning and east in the evening. And there's limited opportunities for them to do that. But we could change that pattern. And yes -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And it will change. MR. MULHERE: -- everything will change priorities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody on Pages 20 and 21? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Talking about the transportation concurrency alternatives, I see they're talking about a mitigated waiver. Can you define that a little bit? If you're talking about increasing the intensity on the roads above what concurrency allows, how would you mitigate that? MR. MULHERE: 1 look at Nick, because he probably can answer that question a little bit better, but I'm going to take a stab while he's coming up real quick. Page 38 161 10 May 20, 2010 There are provisions where you could allow to support, say, economic development a percentage above the LOS, the adopt -- so 125 percent or 110 percent or 115 percent of the LOS. Is that right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The idea that going forward from the state level and down and something we're trying to embrace is you may allow for a waiver if they do a transit or into the design. Or if they do -- in other words, they build in some sort of transit program into what they're developing. If they encourage transit ridership, you may allow them to build to a certain density. So it's something we wrestled with when developing this, recognizing you want to start the process but you also don't want to put aside concurrency. On that last point about limiting the duration, reevaluating it is important. Because what we said is we'll consider these things, wejust want to be able to take a litmus test at some point in time to see how we're doing, if it's getting bad. But we recognize that downtown Tmmokalee is going to have to be that give and take to get it going. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I thought that there already are exceptions to concurrency that have stuff like rapid transit and mass transit and things like -- aren't they already in the concurrency system? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have them in your transportation concurrency exception areas, and you have them in your TC, transportation concurrency, management areas where you can do certain things. You don't have them in Immokalee. And we're talking about evaluating and setting one up for Immokalee. We want to make sure the public's aware what that means. Because you are accepting a limited amount of congestion to get that development to come on -line. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just wondering why a builder would want to build something if he knew that there was going to be congestion when he went in. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We actually brought that up to Penny and, you know, make sure that people know to get to that development you may get more congestion up front to raise that money and get that improvement before you get an improvement to actually come on -line. MR. MULHERE: I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, don't leave, I've got a question for you, if you don't mind. And you bit on it. You said, B -3, limiting the duration or having mandatory public reviews of the continued feasibility of any such exception or waiver process. I understand the limiting the duration. That's -- under the heading on B it says: Potential limitations on such exceptions from concurrency. And one of the limitations is limiting the duration or having mandatory periodic reviews. How is that a limitation on an exception? That's just the opposite. If you have an exception and you limit mandatory periodic reviews, you'd be doing just the opposite of putting a limitation on it. MR. MULHERE: It's not limiting the mandatory periodic reviews, it's limiting the duration or having periodic reviews. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Put a comma in there, it will take care of it after duration. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- no, that won't work. Well, the way I -- and I understand the way you're reading it, Ijust wondered how -- MR. MULHERE: Well, if you have a mandatory review period, part of the reason for the review is whether or not the exception should continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Limiting the duration or requiring mandatory public reviews. MR. MULHERE: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the word "having" is the problem. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Requiring. COMMISSIONER CARON: And so we could give them one day and take them away the next day from -- MR. MULHERE: You wouldn't -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the same person? MR. MULHERE: You wouldn't take it away from somebody who already had a development order, you'd take it away as you move forward. Page 39 � ry 1 6 lay 20,110 COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See, now, I read that as an either /or. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The idea is like we have the annual update inventory report, is to give you a status. They may want to do it every six months. You know, take a sample of the road, see what's happening and then report back to say this is working so well that you're increasing congestion too quickly, we need to stop the process. MR. MULHERE: And Ijust have to acid again in response to Mr. Midney's question, you know, I mean, we've talked about this a lot, and you have competing public policies. One is you have concurrency limitations that stop development from moving forward because of the impacts on levels of service; in this case roads. But in Immokalee the community has determined that they are willing to live with some congestion in order to allow economic development and diversification and job creation to occur. So you have these two competing policies. It's not willy -nilly to allow it occur, it's under a very limited and hopefully well designed program that we haven't got to yet but that we will get to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Move on to Pages 22 and 23. Yes, sir, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: On Page 23, Policy 5.1.1., that first sentence is very awkward. Collier County will promote the preservation of native vegetation in the Immokalee urban area, exceeding the minimum requirement amounts set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.1. and pursuant to IAMP Policy 2.1.3. Up until there the sentence is good And then there's this phrase: Opportunities for mitigation and acquisition. Those words kind of -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, there's something missing. I think maybe we lost something there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Something either needs to be added or maybe that phrase needs to be eliminated. Because the way it reads, it doesn't make much sense. MR. MULHERE: No, 1 think we want to leave that, but it should be a separate sentence. And I think maybe it was at some point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it could be provide opportunities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just making sure 1 call you for the record, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Provide opportunities for mitigation. MR. MULHERE: Something along the lines of provide or this may include opportunities for mitigation, yes. We'll correct that. But it's a good point. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 'thank you. MR. MULHERE: It's a good point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on Page 22 towards the top, your Policy 4.4.1., is that being funded by the CRA? MR. MULHERE: 4.4.1? 4.4.1., hold on one second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or is it subject to Policy 1.1.1? MR, MULHERE: I think -- I mean, I'll defer -- it's the CRA. Yeah, I thought it was. The only reason I hesitated was that I do know that, you know, Code Enforcement from time to time does have these cleanup activities, and that might fall under that. They do them right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm worried about -- it says the plan. The plan's going to be developed by the year 2011. 1 just want to make sure someone's funded -- MR. MULHERE: That's the CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to cover that plan. That's the CRA. In the other areas you mention that do you need to say that in here? MR. MULHERE: That it's funded? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, I'll let you decide. It's not a big deal, Ijust wanted to make sure -- you're on record, so I just wanted to make sure we know how it's funded so there's no question in the future. Page 40 161 2 03 May 20,2 ]0 Pages 24 and 25? MS. VALERA: And just a thought, Mr. Chairman, going back to what you were saying. And you, in your general estimate of the -- you will identify the funding. MR. MULHERE: That is -- yeah. I didn't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Under Section 5.1.1, there was a section, I'm seeing now Bob, that I recommended deletion, and that's the second paragraph, the fourth line down, should it be determined through this feasibility analysis that a TDR program will be desirable, the master plan will be amended within two years. I recommended deletion of that section, because that would result in the GMP being self - amending, so -- MR. MULHERE: Okay, and I -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: We don't usually put that in there. MR. MULHERE: We wanted to have discussion -- fm sorry, go ahead. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Pardon me? MR. MULHERE: Go ahead. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: No, I'm done. MR. MULHERE: And the reason I didn't make the change that you recommended was this was one that my recollection in our meeting was one that was going -- we were going to bring up for discussion with the Planning Commission. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Oh, yes, that's right. I'm sorry, we weren't in agreement on it. MR. MULHERE: And the reason -- I still should have highlighted it, though, so that I would have remembered. You'll recall that The Conservancy at one of your meetings, first meeting, I think, when we discussed what happened at the EAC, The Conservancy had raised the issue of requiring any future TDR program to go through a comprehensive plan amendment. They were uncomfortable with it happening just as an LDC amendment. The EAC supported that. We discussed at your meeting and you left that language in, didn't object to it, I guess would be the thing. It's likely that the GMP would have to be amended anyway because of the density implications of a TDR program. And I guess my concern is how is that self - amending if we're saying that you have to amend the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you have time -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You shouldn't have a provision that says you have to amend it within two years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's the time frame I think is what kicks in the problem. If the TDR program is desirable and feasible, then the IMP shall be then amended. Maybe if you drop the rest of that it works, subject to Policy 1.1.1. MR. M ULHERE: I'll even say though on the flip side, if it requires an amendment, it requires an amendment and we don't need to say it here. So I'm just telling you the basis for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, let's drop the whole sentence, like Heidi suggested then. Pages 24 and 25? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You notice 5.1.5. doesn't have the word policy in front of it. You probably already caught that. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we saw that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you would. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we saw that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's so obvious. Policy 5.1.4., why is that there? MR. MULHERE: 5.1.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's informational. Doesn't -- it's not a policy, it'sjust informational. Itjust says something's there. MR. MULHERE: I think that was at the request of staff. They might not remember it, but that's what our recollection is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which staff? You got a change of hands here, so -- Page 41 161 1� May 20, 2010 3 MR. MULHERE: Somebody over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're sure it's one of those two? Okay. Carolina? MR. MULHERE: You know what, it could have been environmental. MS. VALERA: Yeah, I think it was Laura Gibson. And I think it was a cross- reference, if I recall. MS. GIBSON: Yes, because we felt that that policy being referenced added some regulatory regulations to Lake Trafford. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But is it a policy'? It's not a policy, it's an informational statement. I'mjust wondering how you classify it as a policy if it's not directing something or saying something. R just says hey, if you want to know if about this, go look here. That's not a policy. MS. GIBSON: And it may have been started -- MS. VALERA: Laura, if I recall well, the requirements that we had in the land use were also here as a policy. So we told them, well, just cross - reference it. You don't need to have it in two places. So I guess now I should ask -- I don't think it makes sense anymore. I think you're absolutely right, there's no need to have it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 1 mean -- MS. VALERA: Do you agree, Laura? I mean, I don't think -- MS. GIBSON: I'm not -- there were so many changes, I'm not sure. But that's fine, whatever. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It ends up not being anything but an informational note, so -- MR. MULHERE: I like that response. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Policy 5.1.4. is not needed and you're going to change the numerics. MR. MULHERE: And renumber, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 26 and 27, any issues? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just C. 1. Again, we have that name wetlands connected to. And I think we decidedjust to have a standard terminology the whole way through, which is Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand System Overlay. We don't have the wetlands connected to anymore. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think -- you're right. Thank you. We need to revise that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else on 26,27' (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll go to 28 and 29. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, on this rezoning, it's 6.1.9, this is kind of confusing me. First of all, I think the first sentence of it does, from that point on. What are you really saying there is -- MR. MULHERE: Actually, we have to have some discussion. If it's okay with you, there's some substantive changes on 6.1.6., if you want to just take care of those, and then we'll get that one too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Sure. MR. MULHERE: 1 mean, 1 just -- I don't want to lose sight of something that's previous. We have to have a little bit of discussion here on the mobile home issue. Let's see if I can get it all. If you look at -- the gray is a change that the County Attorney's Office requested. That I think is really just for clarification purposes there. But what it does do is it -- see, the problem we had is that it will be sometime before the comp. plan is adopted. And there are zoning districts in Immokalee that also occur elsewhere in the county that allow mobile homes that when the comp. plan is adopted will not allow mobile homes. So we had to -- staff wanted us to expressly state that we would amend the LDC to reflect that prohibition in those districts. Because it will only be a prohibition in Immokalee, it won't be a prohibition elsewhere where those districts apply. So we'll do that through part of our LDC: amendments. The second part of that is what if somebody comes in right now, tomorrow. This is not adopted. So they would be able to still permit those mobile homes up until the time of this being adopted. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: That wasn't specifically the language I requested. I think Bob's proposing it as a result of our discussion on my comment. MR. MULHERE: Right, actually f think it was more David's discussion. Page 42 161 1 � May 20, 2010 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but there is a case out there right now that these two policies pertain to, is it -- is that correct? MR. MULHERE: Are you talking about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The Blockers' property. MR. MULHERE: Okay, no, they didn't specifically pertain to that. I'm going to get to that too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: They didn't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to understand what we're trying to do by the changes. Because I know that the prior language without the gray language was basically flying with -- I mean, I talked to Fred about it and various people, everybody seemed satisfied with it. MR. MULHERE: Right, we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's 6.1.7. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I think Bob's on 6.1.6. right now. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MS. ASIITON- CICKO: And 6.1.7 is the one that addresses -- MR. MULHERE: I'm going to get to that, Ijust wanted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but 6.1.6 says that -- on the third line up, or if the use is allowed within the acceptable underlying zoning district. Isn't that the issue at hand with some of the processes -- MR. MULHERE: No, because -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- going on now? MR. MULIIERE: Once -- this deals with -- until such LDC amendment is adopted, new mobile homes shall be permitted as provided herein until the underlining (sic) zoning district -- if they're permitted in the underlying zoning district until the LDC is amended. That deals with the situation that we have of having VR and AMH, not only in Immokalee but also in other areas that allow mobile homes. So we have to expressly prohibit those uses in those districts in Immokalee. And legally until that happens, they can still come forward and get mobile homes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So that's one issue. And David, unless I've got that wrong, I think -- now, let's move to 6.1.7. Interestingly enough, when we wrote paragraph A, our intent was that that be read and that apply to existing mobile homes in Immokalee on individual lots or parcels, but not a part of a subdivision for mobile home parks. But the way we wrote it, if you don't read the gray, if youjust read the yellow, is that it would also apply to existing mobile homes within mobile home parks that were not approved. And so the example that you cited, the Blocker example, is the only one that I know of It's a mobile home in an industrial zoning. You know, I guess there's two ways to look at it. I'm not trying to take the position that I'm representing Mr. Blocker's position. I think the county's position is that that was not an approved mobile home park, okay? So if you read paragraph A without the gray, that would then become a legal nonconforming use and be subject to nonconfomaing provisions. And that's how Heidi read it. And after Heidi explained to me how she read it I thought, you're absolutely right, that is how it reads. So we have a couple of options. The language in the gray was what we discussed that would clarify what our original intent was. I'm not suggesting that that's what we have to do here. But that would clarify — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But doesn't that -- this kind of gets into the shoreline calculation. I mean, we reversed a couple words and it changes the entire intention and meaning of what's being done. The prior document that we have in our possession said, existing mobile homes not located within an improved mobile home park or subdivision may continue. This one says existing mobile homes located on individual lots or parcels and not located -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that phrase -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that throws in an issue of platting. So basically then you got -- how do you have a -- Page 43 1 M i 0, 2010 MR. MULHERE: It doesn't necessarily throw an issue of platting. The purpose of the -- our intent -- maybe I haven't made myself very clear. Our intent was there's a bunch of mobile homes in Immokalee on ag. zoned property, on VR zoned property, on single lots or on five -acre parcels, they're not part of a mobile home subdivision and they're not part of a mobile home rental park. And moving forward, those aren't going to be permitted. So that was our intent, to say that those will be treated as legal nonconforming. But we didn't write it very well, because when it was read, it could just as easily be interpreted to mobile homes within a rental park or subdivision that isn't approved. Then I guess you'd have to define approved. But that's the way Heidi read it and that's the way I think it could have been read very clearly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jcfl? MR. KLATZKOW: The County's in the process of foreclosing the Blocker property. Before I take property away from somebody, I need to know, okay, what arc we doing here'? If -- do we intend to allow the Blockers to remain in that use or do we intend otherwise? MR MULHERE: Well, let me be very, very clear. Originally when we wrote this language -- you have to now go down to a different section here. If you go down to paragraph C, which would extend the time period when nonconforming mobile home parks could go through the site improvement plan process to become legitimized, right, there's a condition on that. And that condition is that last phrase that says, and which are located within sub - districts that allow residential uses. Okay? That excludes the Blocker property because it's in an industrial sub - district. Proposed industrial sub - district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 6.1.7. would then force the County Attorney's Office to foreclose on the Blockers property because of the way it's written. MR. MULHERE: Well, I didn't know that. That wasn't our consideration. Let mejust -- give me two more minutes because I'll -- during the time we wrote this, the county was in a lawsuit with the Blockers. And I coordinated with the assistant county attorney who was Jackie Hubbard, right? Robinson? Jackie Hubbard. Anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jackie Robinson's a fighter. MR. MULHERE: Well, that was her name prior. Whatever, anyway. So providing this information to her, there were concerns expressed about whether or not the changes I proposed would legitimize -- would have an impact on that litigation and potentially negate the county's position. Therefore, I added that phrase, and which are located within sub - districts that allow residential development. Which then precluded the Blockers from taking advantage of that opportunity and didn't have any -- then would have no impact on the litigation. I just want to -- two more minutes. One more minute. If you would like to not force a foreclosure of the property and allow the Blockers to continue to have that mobile home subdivision in operation until they replace it with some other use that's going to be allowed under the industrial sub - district that they have, or will have, then I would suggest to you that A would be the more appropriate course of action. Because that won't legitimize it other than to make it legal nonconforming. If you follow my thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but see, C says additionally. So even no matter what you do with A, you still have to comply with C. MR. MULHERE: You should comply with C, because that would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well then -- MR. MULHERE: -- that would approved it. Cl [AIRMAN STRAIN: But compliance with C puts you back in the loop where we have litigation. Now, I think it really boils down to what does the community of Immokalee think about the process? What do they want out there in regards to this Blocker residence? Because if they're not objecting to it, why are we going through a foreclosure process? Because -- I don't understand it. MR. MULHERE: No one discussed specifically the Blocker property during this process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe you should. Maybe it needs to get on the table and get done. MR. MULI IERE: But let mejust tell you, I think the intent of the community was to limit the allowance of mobile homes across the spectrum of the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree with you. But the way this is written, though, it only negatively affects this one piece of property. It's just kind of like the shoreline calculation, if it goes forward, it's going to be Page 44 16 May 20, 2011 p done because this one property is being attacked. Why don't wejust -- MR. MULHERE: I would suggest if the County Attorney's Office doesn't object -- doesn't object to it relative to litigation or something along those lines, doesn't object to that use continuing, 171 -- I mean, I'll defer to Penny, but — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've just seen some pictures of that particular mobile home area, and I don't know why -- and from the pictures I've seen, it was presented in a manner that there wasn't an objection to it. MR. MULHERE: I've actually been to the site several times. It's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why are we going forward with more needless litigation and we can write this so that it works and covers us in that one situation in a way that doesn't foster more litigation? MR. MULHERE: Then if that's the case, then to do that I would suggest that you simply take out that phase in C which says, and which are located within districts that allow residential -- that phrase comes out. The A is not applicable, because it doesn't really -- it wasn't intended. Or you could even take out the &ray in A and then it would be legal nonconforming and could go through the process. And I don't see where that's a -- Jeff, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but is going through the process the issue? I don't think so. It's not being able to go through the process. MR. KLATZKOW: The issue is this: Staff gave an opinion that the use of the mobile home park was unlawful because it was in violation of the comp. plan. That's why they could never go through the, what is it, SIP process, okay. Staff then took that in the form of a code complaint to the CEB, Code Enforcement Board. Code Enforcement Board made a ruling, yes, and that has led to my office years later in the position where we're going to foreclose on that property. All right? This is not a policy issue with respect to the County Attorney's Office, this was an initiative that was started by staff believing that this was a code violation. All right? If it is the intent to make this use legal, that's fine, I will stop the foreclosure because there's no point on continuing it. If the intent is to put this mobile park out of business, then fine, just let me know. I just need to know the intent, because I don't want to be fighting over what this language means, what this language doesn't mean. I want the intent clear to the Planning Commission who can then make a recoirunendation to the board. We'll then have the intent clearer to them, and I can either be done with it or I can conclude this to foreclosure, to its final conclusion. It's one or the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to know the location of this trailer park. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Fred's probably got the answer right behind you. Bob? MR. THOMAS: It's the one down at the end of Alachua Street. Down the end of Alachua Street next to the old dump, okay? I will tell you how I got involved in this. Fred Thomas, Chairman of the Master Planning Envisioning Committee. We had several families come to us about seven, eight months ago who live on single- family lots to the west of 29 on hmmokalee Drive with code enforcement problems. Because they took an old map; Code Enforcement looked at a new map and saw buildings and structures on the new map that was not on the old map, because this was done before we had the initial Growth Management Plan when we had a separate planning commission in Immokalee. And they couldn't find any documents to show where they got permits to do those things. Okay? And this mobile home park is in the same situation. And it shouldn't have been a code situation, it was a land use situation. Now, we all want that property to be industrial, to help with our industrial development. There is a very viable mobile home park that's on there that should be legal nonconfornaing and be allowed to do an SIP until such time that they could take advantage of the industrial use. That's all we're asking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the succinct detail we need. And is that -- you're talking as now the visioning committee and the CRA and those boards all talk about this issue, Fred, so it's not -- you're not talking out of school? MR. THOMAS: No, we haven't talked about Blocker. MR. MULHERE: We've never talked -- Page 45 161 1�3 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is any -- do you believe the committees that you're on are sharing a similar opinion as yours? MR. THOMAS: I think you can look at Paul Midney, I think we all -- when the county came up with the first Growth Management Plan in the early Eighties -- middle Eighties, we wanted to make sure we protected the existing use and existing rights that the families had. So we put in a clause that the County Attorney's Office didn't even know, that if you didn't do more than a 51 percent change in your property use, you didn't have to go through the new deal. You understand? If you put more than 51 percent, then you had to come up to all the new codes and what have you, okay? So that we could protect the existing property uses until such time they could take advantage of the new direction that we're trying to go. And we want to become the industrial hub. We don't want to make this man change it back to residential, then change it back to industrial later. It's just a legal nonconforming use that will disappear as soon as he can take advantage of an industrial use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And 1 think Mr. Midney's indicating by nod of the head he's in agreement. I don't know if this board has a reason to disagree. Bob, why don't we make sure the language is able to make that happen, and that takes cares of the problem with the County Attorney's Office and everybody walks away fairly happy. David? MR. WEEKS: I have a question. We're talking about a very specific property. What I don't know, and I ask if anybody does know, if there are any other similar situated properties. MR. THOMAS: That's the only one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've been told there are by numerous people, but I can't attest to it myself. I've just been told -- MR. THOMAS: "Phis is the only one that falls in that category. The only one. The only one. MR. WEEKS: So all other mobile home parks and subdivisions in Immokalee are on lands zoned mobile home or VR -- MR. THOMAS: Yes. And our future land use will be -- mobile home would be or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you need to use the microphone. MR. THOMAS: I'm sorry, we're talking two different things. I hear you where you're going now. In the Future Land Use Map, all the rest of them are located where they're supposed to be, mobile home parks. Okay? Now, I'm not going to say there are any other legal nonconforming. When they tried to do an SIP for this property five or six years -- the Blockers just got the property in 2002, 1 think. When they tried to do an SIP they wasn't allowed to do the SIP because of the master planning going through and not knowing what the future land use and all that kind of stuff. You see? We had that problem. MR. MUL.HERE: There was a deadline. MS. VALE,RA: It was a timeframe. MR. THOMAS: A deadline or whatever, there was a problem. So the point is, the question came up whether they rezone it so they can do it, and that didn't make any sense either, you understand? But this is the only mobile home park that it fits that degree of -- Mr. Weeks? This is the only one, only one. MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity, this is not a legal non- conforming use, this is an illegal use. That's what staff determined. Because this is not a zoning issue, this is a comp. plan issue. You are not allowed to have residential within an industrial area, all right? So this is not a -- this property could never go through this SIP process -- MR. MULHERE: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: -- because it is an unlawful use, not legal non - conforming. So what I'm understanding now is the intent here is to change the comprehensive plan to now allow this as a lawful use. MR. THOMAS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get to the bottom of it. MR. MULI IERE: No. I mean, 1 don't know what else to say. I mean, there are hundreds of non - conforming uses made non - conforming by plan changes that are allowed to continue to exist until they are forced out of the code Page 46 161 1� May 20, 2010 3 out of existence through the non - conforming sections of the Land Development Code. Seems to me that that's what we're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think because it's zoned industrial it could never be legal to begin with; therefore, it cannot be a legal non - conforming use. MR. MULHERE: It wasn't always zoned industrial. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no, I -- MR. THOMAS: Excuse me, it pre- existed. It pre - existed any zoning that made it industrial. MR. KLATZKOW: Look, that's your position. But staffs position and what the Code Enforcement Board upheld and what the superior court has upheld is that it is an illegal use and it's always been an illegal use. So if you want to make this a lawful use by changing the comp. plan, that's fine, let's do that, okay? MR. MULHERE: I don't know how we're going to do that. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm indifferent, all right? But if you're telling me what you're simply doing is allowing a legal non - conforming use to stay there. This is not a legal non - conforming use. I just want to know, is it the intent here to allow the Blockers to stay here or not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't heard an objection from it_ Paul, you're the representative on this board from Immokalee. Just what's your opinion on this whole thing? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think it's unfortunate. I mean, when you have a viable mobile home park that people are living in and that they're, you know, trying to keep, I don't see why we want to go to foreclosures and lawsuits. MR. MULHERE: Can I ask a question? If -- in order to comply with what the County Attorney is proposing, we would need to go through -- the only way I know how to do it would be to go to the industrial district and add mobile homes as a permitted use. How else do we make it a legal use? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: That's why I wanted to ask a question of Jeff, since we're getting into this more. Jeff, I thought I heard you specifically say that it was represented to the Code Enforcement Board and I guess subsequently the courts that the issue here was a noncompliance with the designation on the Future Land Use Map in Immokalee. MR. KLATZKOW: Staffs position has always been that this was never a lawful use, that it's industrial property and this is residential use. And that was staffs position, all right, which is why we're here. This is why I could never settle this case, because it's an unlawful use. All right? I just need to know, is the intent here with the changes we're making today is to allow the Blockers to stay there? MR. WEEKS: And the specific point I'm trying to get to, and Bob I think touched on it as well, is it's more than a future land use issue, it is a zoning issue. The property is zoned industrial. It is a -- industrial zoning district as well as the designation does not allow any type of residential development. That's where I think Bob touched on it. Even if we change this future land use language in a way that would no longer make that use noncom -- non- conforming's not quite the right tern, but not consistent. If we change the language so that it is consistent with the Immokalee Future Land Use designation, it is still not allowed by the zoning district. That doesn't fix the problem is what I'm saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically what you're saying, there's nothing we can do here today with this GMP that's going to resolve the problem. MR. MULHERE: There is one thing. It just dawned on -- I mean, you could. You'd have to put a specific new paragraph or paragraph that deals specifically with that property, okay? Typically we don't do that, but you could. That's -- or generally deals -- since it's the only one, you could make a general statement that says existing mobile home parks may continue to -- I mean, I thought that's what the non - conforming language was for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, Mr. Klatzkow's in a strange position here. From what you've said, it's illegal, it's not a proper zoning. I don't know that you have a choice but to go forward. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, the way it is currently constructed. But getting on what Bob'sjust said, you could Page 47 1 May 20, 201 0 put a provision in here that says for industrial zoned property, okay, existing mobile home parks shall be an approved use. But there shall be no further expansion or new ones. And if this is the only one, all right, I think we're done. It's sort of like what we did a couple weeks ago with Tony Pires and his client. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: And the difference would be that you wouldn't have the same --you wouldn't have the same regulatory effort to cause it to come -- go out of existence as soon as possible. And what I'm talking about is the non - conforming regulations that sort of force a non - conforming use over time out of existence. MR. KLATZKOW: It's been there 50 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know. And I think that we need to get out of this without litigation. And I think that you've got the sympathy of the community in favor of it, so why are we fighting it? I think the direction ought to be were going to be taking -- we're going to go to lunch, come back with an idea to resolve it and let's just get it done. And then it solves the problem for the county, it solves litigation, it solves problems for the community. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just want to make sure. There has been testimony, but I don't know if it's accurate testimony, that this is the only one. We don't want to be making the situation worse. So if you limit it to just this particular case, we're probably okay. But I certainly wouldn't want to see this go forward so that anything else that might be out there now suddenly -- MR. MULHERE: We could do this; I think that's a very legitimate concern, because we haven't checked that. So what we could do is assume for the moment that it is the only one, I think it is in industrial, and we're only talking about industrial. And we can verify that between now and, you know, a few days. And we could certainly let you know if that's not the case. Assuming at lunch we come up with some language, which we should be able to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 1 think we're going to end up spending part of the afternoon here. Mr. Schiffer has to leave at 1:00. In deference to his last question, why don't we finish that question up. MR. MULHFRE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then go to lunch and come back an hour after that. So Cherie', as soon as we finish with Brad's issue, we'll take a break. MR. MULHERE: And if I could, I'm going to have to give you some revised language on this. Because the County Attorney's Office has revised this language. And I could put it on the visualizer if that's easier than -- you know, I think it might be easier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Try it. MR. MULHERE: Can you read that? Or is -- staff and David and Carolina and Heidi and I met yesterday. Part of our discussion was on this section. The underlying language that you see was Heidi's revisions, which arc acceptable, and some strike - through language. The blue, the new hand - struck through language was David's recommendation upon reviewing it. So what we have is agreement between Heidi, David and myself, that this language effectively addresses the issue. And if you'd like me to explain the issue, I can do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you explain the issue that I leidi then brought up so we understand what you're correcting it for. MR. MULHERE: Well, the issue is this, and the same thing in'89 when we adopted the plan. You have some zoning, developed and undeveloped, that would no longer be consistent with the plan. But we're not proposing to go in and rezone those properties, we're going to allow them to continue, but they can't further intensify. They can be -- they can rezone to au equal or lesser intensity or density. So let me give you an example. On the East "frail you've got three or four parcels that are Zoned C -3. Not in Immokalee, I'm in coastal Collier County now. You've got three or four parcels that are Zoned C -3. I want to change it to a PUD. And I want to allow a use that maybe isn't permitted in C -3, but I can demonstrate that that use will be of equal or lesser intensity than the other uses. This permits me to go ahead and do that. It also permits me to change that C -3 to residential. Because originally there was a total prohibition on rezoning those, but then it was changed to allow you to do it to an equal or Page 48 161 1� May 20, 2010 3 lesser intensity or density. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: In my change, and my concern was just the language that they used where they're saying we're going to go ahead and zone things in the future that's inconsistent with the land use designation. That's the problem I had, not with the concept. So the change in language is not to change the concept, just the inconsistency. And then I added -- so that resulted in a change in your first paragraph and also in your Subsection D. So I made no changes A through C. And then I added a section that, you know, if it's initiated by the landowner, then they shouldn't be able to use this section, so I put that in. And then worked with Jeff on B, which is a new language that deals with vested rights and takings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And B is interesting only because it's, all applications must be submitted within one year of the effective date of the LAMP or applicable amendment. So when this gets adopted, the one -year time table would start. How does (sic) general public affected by this, unless they're notified in writing? How do they know that the time table started for them? MS. ASHTON- CICKO: I guess in practice they probably wouldn't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So, I mean, the year goes by and they're down the road a year or two and they need to -- they discover they have this problem, but then they're barred from coming in for a VRD. Do we need that limit -- do we need that timetable in there for the VRD process? MR. MULHERE: Is this being treated any differently than how you treat the coastal area? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: No, I think the coastal area is one year as well. MR. MULHERE: That's my point. MR. KLATZKOW: Which is why I picked the one year. I just took what we did in the coastal area and put it in here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think most people didn't even know that the whole process existed within that one -year time frame. That's not really fair to the public. I mean, it doesn't mean because we did it in the coastal area it's right. And I'm just wondering if we need to do that. It's kind of a back door way of shutting everybody out from appealing a decision they never knew occurred. MR. KLATZKOW: But we're not shutting anybody out, we're giving them -- I'm giving them a remedy here. You're just saying that you want a remedy that has more years appeal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I want a remedy that they know about. If they don't know it, they don't know it's a remedy. That's what my concern is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: flow about adding public notice? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the public notice is simply the process we're going through today, public notice. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm thinking of newspaper or something of that nature where -- MR. MULHERE: Well, you'd have to take out an ad in the paper that says after adoption, the IAMP has been adopted, note -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- that anyone who feels they've been adversely impacted has one year to establish a -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is what I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm concerned about that issue, Jeff. And I know how we did it in the coastal area. It happened actually right after I got on this Planning Commission 10 years ago. And I didn't think -- I was wondering -- I didn't know then how people would find out. Well, now I've been on here longer, 1 know how people aren't going to find out. And they aren't. So it's a little concerning. MR. KLATZKOW: No, I'm not -- that's tine. Would you -- how many years would you suggest? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know. I'm just trying to figure out how you get to a property owner who doesn't -- especially in Immokalee they may not read the paper. They may not have access to these public hearings all the time. MR. MULHERE: We're talking about what we believe is right or what we believe is right versus what's legally required. Page 49 16 I 1 g May 20, 2010 3 CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, been then what's right should be what's legally required. MR. MULHERE: But it's always. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to correct that. MR. MULHERE: The notice requirements for -- sorry. MR. KLATZKOW: There are two issues here. One issue is you don't go onto limited people's existing rights and you want to give them some sort of remedy. Now, right now, they have a Bert Harris Claim. But I was really trying to give people something more efficient than that with this, so that's why I tied it into the vested rights as an alternative. But the other issue is that you're adopting a new plan here for hrrmokalee. Eventually you want that plan, you know, to go forward and be the plan. So you need some sort of timeline where people are adversely affected. They come and say hey, wait a second, I'm adversely affected by your plan, and then we deal with that. You don't want to be 10, 15 years down the road where somebody says wait a second, and now you've got in essence a hole in your plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what, why don't we -- MR. KLATZKOW: So one year, two years, four years -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- come back to this after we come -- we're not going to finish this discussion now. Let's just come back after lunch and maybe think about it and hopefully introduce a time frame that works. Something better than what we've got. I can tell you, one year's not much. MR. MULHERE: Is it the time frame or the notice? I mean, that's the point that I'm trying to make. If it's a more extraordinary effort to notice people, then seems to me that's an easy -- you can't notify individual property owners, it's too expensive. You can notify through an ad in the paper, or you could even in Immokalee take some extra steps because of -- you know, there's a lot of folks that may own property that don't read the Naples Daily News or whatever, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that we need to have -- MR. MULHERE: -- The Bulletin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to have some way of making sure these pe -- everybody's aware of what's happening to their property. And I don't think just saying it in a paragraph that you've got one year to do something about it is enough, so anyway -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just before I leave, what's the problem that you're preventing with that? What if a pers -- there was no time limit and I have a commercially zoned piece of property. The master plan has it as what, high density residential? Where do we get in trouble 10 years down the road? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, we don't, but there's no remedy 10 years down the road. Whatever remedies you've got in the Florida Statutes, which right now is pretty much the Burt Harris Act, and I think that's a one -year limitation period, off the top of my head, I could be in error there, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 1 think he's saying, what if we take out the one -year clause for the VRD and we have an unlimited timeframe for someone to ask for a VRD? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I have a commercial use now, I'm happily commercial, and I didn't notice all this stuff, I was fixing cars, I wasn't paying attention to this. And then where would that be a problem for the master plan? And why is the timeframe -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, because what will happen is you may get a block developing a certain way, which is what the master plan wants you to do, and you'll have one owner 5 years from now, 7 years from now, 10 years from now saying wait a second, I had the right to do this other thing beforehand, and that sort of takes away -- he's going to do something different from what everybody else is doing. MR. MULHERE: There's got to be a limit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Conmrissioners, I want to make sure we understand what this policy is dealing with. It is dealing with first of all land that is no longer consistent with its future land use designation because of a change of this master plan. But more than that, it's specifically dealing with the rezoning of that property. If your property is zoned commercial and the new designation is residential, this doesn't impact your ability to develop that properly per its existing zoning. This only impacts you if you want to rezone the property. And what the policy says is, you cam rezone to the parallel or anything that is taking you closer to Page 50 May 20,2011 �3 consistency. If you want to rezone from C -4 to C -1, well, your designation is now for something noncommercial. You're moving closer to consistency. This language was taken from Policy 5.1 in the Future Land Use Element. And it has been amended over the years. Back in'89 it was an all -or- nothing provision. You shall zone to be consistent with the plan, period. Which meant if you wanted to rezone from C -4 to C -1, no. In some cases if you rezone C -4 and you're designated residential, your only consistent zoning might be down to a three -unit per acre residential or agriculture or something like that. Very drastic. It was draconian. And so ultimately the amendment to 5.1 allowed for this: Maintain the same level of density or intensity, or anything that is moving closer towards conforming or being consistent with the new designation for your property. I want to make that clear that we're dealing with the rezoning, not your right to develop the property under the existing zoning. We're not touching that here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, let me ask; is it important that a landowner yell ouch within a year? Or what happens if he doesn't notice it till' 10 years, how will that mess up a master plan? MR. WEEKS: Well, I'm still struggling with how are they impacted to the point they even make a vested rights claim. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: I mean, there may be some scenario out there, and I think that's the whole reason Jeff wanted the language put in there, that what if just in case. I cannot think of such a scenario. Again, you can develop per your existing zoning. This policy doesn't address that at all. It only addresses if you want to rezone it. And again, you can go to the same. So if you want to rezone from C-4 to a PUD that allows C -4 uses, you can do it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we can --we'll drop back on this when we get back from lunch. It may not be that complicated by the time we have a little more time to think about it. Brad, I know you've got to leave. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I just don't want you guys to have a tie vote, so I'm going to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will work. And for the rest of the Planning Commission, I would think within a couple hours we can finish up when we get back at the most. So with that we'll take a break and come back here at 1:00. (Luncheon recess.) (Commissioner Schiffer is absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from our lunch break. And we left off with a couple lingering questions on policies on Pages 28 and 29, and we'll move right into them and then continue on. Bob, before we start on new stuff, what came about as a result of the thinking or thought on Policy 6.1.7? MR. MULHERE: Okay, so we had a discussion. Given the basic -- the limitations that we have, the limitations are, can't be a non- confornng use, it has to be a legal use, based on what Jeff said, Jeff Klatzkow. What we propose then would be to make sure that it's limiting, to actually identify that mobile home park. have to get an address or something, I'll put it in there. But what we would propose is on the visualizer right now, and it would say something very similar -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually, it's not. COMMISSIONER CARON: It's not here. MR. MULHERE: Oh, computer, yeah. Exit. I got it, I got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Electronically challenged. MR. MULHERE: I am. The existing mobile home rental park located -- we'll define what it is -- and designated industrial on the LAMP FLUM shall be deemed to be a permitted use -- and then here's what we thought was appropriate -- subject to submitting and obtaining an approval of an SIP under the provisions and time limits set forth in paragraph C above. We thought let's at least get them through a Site Improvement Plan process to make whatever improvements are appropriate, if it's going to be there in who knows how long. Page 51 161 1 �3 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's a pretty good work. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I only have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Except that I thought that because the way it is currently zoned that it can't get an SIP. That's what -- MR. MULHERE: Well -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- Klatzkow said. MR. MULHERE: -- that's what he said. But I think if we say it in the comp. plan, then I think it's okay. I mean, I don't know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't take a position on it, I'm just curious. MR. MULHERE: I think it's true if we left it silent. But if we say that it is a permitted use and needs to go through a site improvement plan, I would think that would be okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, well -- MR. MULHERE: Because otherwise you'd have to be a non-conformed use to go through the SIP. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I don't have an objection to your effort to try to solve the problem, Ijust want to be sure that we in fact do. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Just to speak further to that, we did discuss it during the break. And the specific wording using the term shall be deemed a permitted use is specifically phrased that way to have the effect of a mandate. So it is dictating that it shall. In most cases when we deal with land uses we would identify a use as being allowed and then defer to the LDC to determine how it's allowed; by right, conditional use, accessory use or not allowed at all. But in this case we're mandating that it is allowed. So it, if you will, trumps the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley was that where your question was'? COMMISSIONER WOLFLF.Y: Well, it was -- no, it was regarding the wording. The mobile home is not designated industrial, it's the land under which the mobile home exists. So I wasjust -- MR. MUI.HERE: Well -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- if you could put -- the only thing I was thinking was that -- MR. MULHERE: Okay, you're right, we'll -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- the plan -- go ahead. MR. MULHERE: Fin sorry. You're right. And I didn't mean to step on you. We'll say and located within the industrial sub - district. second. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, or mention that first part about the industrial and then what's on it MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, I'm sorry, Ijust -- MR. MULHERE: No, that's good. MR. WEEKS: Perhaps the site of the existing. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's not a big deal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 1 think the intent is clear. Mr. Klatzkow, unless -- do you have an objection to it or do you see anything wrong? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's not going to help you much. MR. MULHERE: What happened? MR. KLATZ,KOW: Just for the record, okay, Mr. Weeks, okay, from a comp. planning standpoint, should this be adopted, okay, the existing mobile home park owned by the Blockers would now be a legal non - conforming use. MR. MULHERE No. MR. WEEKS: My professional opinion is it should not. There's a reason why the -- there's a reason why the industrial zoning district does not allow residential uses. There's compatibility concerns of the types of uses you can have in an industrial area, to have residential mixed in with that. You have noise, glare, odor, dust, truck traffic, et Page 52 161 43 May 20, 2010 cetera Secondly there's the potential for health concerns, most particularly the long -term nature because of the potential in an industrial area to have the use or processing or manufacturing, whatnot that involves chemicals, fibers, things that again potentially could generate health concerns for residents in close proximity. And the third reason is the potential impact upon the industrial land users within close proximity to the site. I can think of one example; it may or may not be the only example. The National Fire Protection Standards specify a distance, minimum distance, for bulk storage of propane to residential. We dealt with this many years ago here in Collier County. And whether it was 500 feet, 1,000 feet, that's not the issue. But it's in close proximity. Which the effect of which is if this use is allowed to remain, then that precludes that one and possibly other uses from being located within some specified distance from that site. I know this development, it's already been put on the record as been there for decades; I think 50 years was mentioned. That doesn't alleviate these concerns. And of course if it's -- if this language is adopted, then that ensures that it's allowed to be there for another period of decades or theoretically forever. MR. KLXFZKOW: Let me frame it a different -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was going to say, you didn't get to the question that he asked. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me rephrase the question. If this particular provision is adopted, what would be the legal status of the Blockers' property, in your opinion? MR. WEEKS: That property would then be consistent -- that use, that location would then be consistent with the hmrnokalee Master Plan once this language goes into effect. And it would be consistent with the LDC by virtue of the GMP having, what's the word, like superior authority over the LDC. MR. KLATZKOW: Is it a lawful use or a -- MR. WEEKS: I would say it's a lawful -- becomes a lawful use then. MR. KLATZKOW: Is it legal nonconforming or is itjust not conforming? MR. WEEKS: It's conforming. It's conforming. Subject to -- MR. KLXfZKOW: The SIP. MR. WEEKS: --the SIP. MR. MULHERE: And one additional item I forgot to mention is we wanted to also put a stipulation that it cannot be expanded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. I think that's appropriate. But that makes it a legal use that solves the problem, that conforms to what the community has indicated is acceptable to them. Problems go away, we're good to go. MR. WEEKS: Well. MR. KLATZKOW: That's what they're telling me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So now -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You need a lawyer. MR. KLATZKOW: No, but see where I get a little bit skewered on this is that I am advised that it is staff that gives the impression of what the comp. plan says and what -- staff which gives the interpretation of what the LDC says. So I'm just asking staff from a comprehensive plan and from an LDC perspective, this is now a law -- if adopted this would be a lawful use. MR. WEEKS: Yes. But Jeff, as you well know, the Board of County Corrunissioners ultimately interpret the plan or the LDC or -- either directly or through an appeal to them. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I understand. From staffs -- MR. WEEKS: Yes, from staffs -- MR. KLATZKOW: Staff started the fight. I want to see if staff is now ending the fight is where I'm really getting at, okay? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: So this takes care of staffs concerns as far as the status of this property? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Page 53 161 1 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, two lawsuits settled today so far. So I think we're earning our share -- we're earning our money here at the comity. Okay, Bob, you know what to do to clean it up? You're almost there, you're going to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Moving along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's move onto the next item which we started on. We were -- we left off on the time frame for the VRD. MR. MULHERE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says one year right now. Did you guys have any thoughts on how that could be modified to -- MR. MULHERE: We did, we had some discussion. And I guess we feel it's really important to put on the record. Because the concern is the notice. I think it's really important to put on the record that we've had many public meetings, many -- notjust with the Planning Commission, but in hrunokalee. The website's been updated constantly on the progress; the CRA newsletter is constantly updated with the progress. The CRA executive director has written many op -ed or letters relating to the progress. Having said all of that, I guess I understand that there could be an absentee landowner or something. That's what I meant by the legal requirements versus maybe what might otherwise be more going the extra step to making sure that somebody doesn't get left out here. But we don't think one year should be expanded. If anything, maybe what we ought to do is do some notice after the adoption in local newspapers in Immokalee. That would be going well above and beyond what is otherwise ever done. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, to be honest with you -- MR. MULHERE: In Spanish and English, because, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- after listening to David's explanation and how this applies, the one year is too much of a moving target. Because it's so hard to determine how and when things start. I'd just as -- if we put in two years there, I think that would be adequate coverage. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think it would take care of it. It just gives it an additional buffer, and it's more fair than the coastal area. And if anybody had an objection they can easily be shown that they got a better time frame than any others in the county may have had in the same situation. So does that seem to tit for everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My opinion is that it would work just as well as one year or three years, if it's going to work at all. I still think we ought to add public notice via some kind of newspaper or other means. Because that's a real earnest effort to get the word out. Having something lying in a document that no one will have a chance to look at or think to look at doesn't serve the same purpose. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a suggestion then, Mr. Murray, for language? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. Yeah, my suggestion would be that on the occasion of the approval of this that an appropriate newspaper advertisement be made in the local paper that is -- I don't know if there's a newspaper in Immokalce. Is there? MR. MULHERE: There's several. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, whichever is the appropriate paper -- MR. MULHERE: There's the hmnckalee Bulletin and then there's a Spanish supplement of the Naples Daily News, and -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And then somebody will, or anybody who has an interest will have two years to take action, if they wish to. MR. MULHERE.: Yeah. And my thought would be that the notice would consist of notification that the plan was adopted and that there's a two -year period with anyone who feels that their vested rights and takings determinations -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are in question. Page 54 161 1 May 20, 2010 �� MR. MULHERE: -- have been impacted, you know, something along those lines. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if you add that notice provision into the paragraph, we're good to -- in paragraph B, we're good to go. MR. MULHERE: Heidi, will you assist with that? Because I want to make sure that we -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sure. MR. MULHERE: You know, there's things like the size of the ad. We don't -- you know, you probably want to look at what's done elsewhere to make sure it's done properly. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Okay. Do you want the actual map of the -- the land use map, or you just want to say the land use map is available for review? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the map will help, it will just cost more -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So just the notice that they have a time period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody living in the hmmokalee area is going to know the Immokalee area, so -- okay, let's move on to Pages 30 and 31. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd just like to say that I'm glad that you added in there including setbacks to Lake Trafford in Policy 7. 1.1 as things that will be developed in the LDC. MR. MULHERE: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Policy 7.1.1, well, that's going to be funded by the CRA, so that's covered. Can that -- who is going to write all this for the CRA? Is that something they contract out to you guys? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we're -- it's part of our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not looking to staff. MR. MULHERE: It's part of our contract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Ijust -- I had noted the Lake Trafford setbacks as well. Just to note, Paul, there's nothing that says that the setbacks will be greater than whatever they are now or any COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I'm hoping -- MR. MULHERE: That's the intent. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that that's the case, because I think that's the intent. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, it is. I mean, I don't object to -- I don't know if I want to put the words in greater, but that is the intent. I mean, we're not -- it's to protect the resource. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. All right. Ijust want to make sure that that's confirmed. And it's on the record and that's fine. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Policy 7.1.3. and 7.1.4., you don't have your Policy 1.1.1 in those. Was the intention. MR. MULHERE: Also that those are going to be part of the LDR's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The LDR's -- MR. MULHERE: 7.1.3. will definitely be part of the LDR's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that are written in Policy 7.l .1? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then where it says in the --Collier County and funded by the hmmokalee -- you really want to word -- those two things will be funded by the CRA as well then, right? MR. MULHERE: (Reading.) Redevelopment, shared infrastructure, enhanced public -- signage, transit. Yeah, I mean, it's going it be part of -- some of that's going to be part of the central business district, which is part of the LDC amendment -- or the overlay. Page 55 161 1 May 20, 2010 3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But the LDR's up in 7.1. 1. arc funded by the CRA. You said 7.1.3. and 7.1.4. will be part of those LDR's. And if they are, because they're actually more regulations that have to be written, wouldn't you want to say they will be funded by the CRA as well, as well as 7.1.4 -- MR. MULHERE: Well, we could do that. I don't know how they're going to be funded exactly. I mean, it could be a grant that funds one or the other, like especially that entertainment district thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then subject to 1.1.1. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we could put that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for both of them. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: So let's put that in there, subject to 1.1.1. I'm looking at 7.1.4., and I'm not sure that that will be found within the -- that's sort of a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. As long as that caveat's in there, Bob. That's page 32 and 33. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had an interesting one here. The enterprise zone in Policy 8.1.2 refers to Enterprise Zone Development Agency. If you read what was sent to me by Patrick, it's a 13- member committee, and it says this committee also serves as the Immokalee Redevelopment Board. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is that then -- so the first reference in 8.1.2. is in coordination with the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Enterprise Zone Development Agency. Does that mean the Redevelopment Board or the CRA on the first one? MR. MULHERE: The first one would mean the CRA. I mean, ultimately it's the same -- to the degree that something has to filter up to their advisory board, they're the same people. It's like the Board of County Commissioners and the BZA. But they may not -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Actually, according to Ordinance 95 -22, there is an Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency. I can provide you a copy, if you want that. CI (AIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I have. MS. ASHTON- CICKO: It's the -- okay, it's Immokalee. MR. MULHERE: But they are right now the same people, but they might not always be the same people. What's unique about the Enterprise Zone Development Agency in hnmokalee is that in most other locations it's a large geography. In Collier County it's just Inunokalee that's designated as that. So anyway. CI [AIRMAN STRAIN: And the 8.1.1., you're referring to the initiative with the Florida Heartland Rural Economic Development? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, we struck that now and put, with local and regional econorr c development organizations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (food. Then I don't need to get into all that. Because we really don't have anybody representing us on that group. Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: And in 8.1.2. , we took out the chamber and said other local organizations. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what about EDC? I mean, shouldn't that just be -- MR. MULHERE: Well, we didn't strike that out -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- economic development organizations? MR. MULI [ERE: Yeah, consistent with your -- so let's just make a note to do that. COMMISSIONER CARON: 1 mean, I just want to be consistent and I want to give you all the greatest latitude to work with whoever's going to help the most. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, ['m taking it through the basis that the EDC is a private organization, therefore -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: -- we treat it like other private organizations. Even though it's sort of quasi- public, we treat it that way. For the purpose of this master plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thank you. Page 56 16 1 103 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 34 and 35, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, the — or not David. Under the urban mixed use district, new commercial development will be allowed in the low residential, median residential or high residential sub - districts through planned unit developments. Doesn't that mean may be allowed? Because otherwise if you got a PUD and you submitted it, it says it will be allowed. Would may be a better word there? And then if you go to the next one below it where it says, commercial development shall be permitted within a PUD, wouldn't it be may be permitted within a PUD? And then the second line, commercial component within a PUD will be allowed? I mean, may be allowed? Wouldn't you want to make those -- use may instead of will in all those conditions? MR. MULHERE: Personally I think yes. I mean, I think that the board -- it's not an entitlement, right, is what you're saying, it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- a case -by -case decision. MS. VALERA: That is correct. MR. MULHERE: And I would -- you know, unless David has another opinion, I think that's correct. Good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on that page? (No response.) MR. MULHERE: I do want to say, I think that's the existing language in the plan today, but it's still a good -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're still going to fix it, right? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 36 and 37? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under your low residential, third -- second, third line, it talks about the uses that you can have there. Residential dwellings will be limited to single - family detached, structures and duplexes, and multi - family dwellings and single - family attached dwellings. Now, this is in the LR. What is not allowed in the LR? All of -- it looks like all residential of any kind is allowed there. And if you watch that language, it appears in the MR district as well. MR. MULHERE: Oh, yeah. MR. WEEKS: I was just going to point out, aside from saying yeah, that's the way it presently reads, it does beg the question why not just say all residential. And the reason is because mobile homes are treated differently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why couldn't you say all residential and then say mobile homes are allowed pursuant to provisions of policies? And that way you're not getting into all the different kinds of residentials. If your intention is to allow all residential, why don't you say that? All residential dwellings will be limited to single - family -- well, no, all residential dwellings and mobile homes are allowed pursuant to revisions, policies and go into it that way. Would that be simpler? MS. VALE.RA: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So that's for both, right? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, where it occurs, yeah. Because your MR's got similar language. It's not exactly the same, but it's pretty close. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that you give latitude for staff and the applicant to structure that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was just trying to short- circuit it. Why did you take the PUD out of that sentence? See where it says, provided they are within the planned unit Page 57 161 1 �3 May 20, 2010 development. They don't need to be. You can go straight zoning is why you took it out; is that right? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: We didn't want to limit it to say the only way you could do it was through a PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I agree. I just wanted to make sure I understood the reason. And if you go over to high residential on Page 3, the same language involving the residential and then the mobile home that we just talked about. Okay, Pages 38 and 39. Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I have something on 39. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 1 notice the -- there's something new, the maximum allowable zoned building height is 50 feet. Why in the -- to start off, why did thisjust now come in? We've been — we've had -- this is like the third version, and we've been considering this. Why did this decide to come along at this particular time? MR. MULHERE: I'm not even sure where we are. I'm trying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right there, top of the page, second -- well now it's the -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 'I hird bullet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Third bullet. It was the second bullet at the top of the page when he had cut it off, so-- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, there was always an intent to limit the building height so that you didn't have high -rise buildings necessarily visible from the lake. There was an expressed commitment to the committee, desire on the part of committee that we limit that. I think we werejust more general before, but now we've become -- we're more specific with 50 feet. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Because when you say maximum allowable building height, it's also allowable. In other words, you're allowing it to go up to 50 feet. And that seems to be too high for that neighborhood. I think it's out of character. MR. MULHERE: Well -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I've talked to people who live in the area and they don't want that. I've talked to other people who don't live in the area. Someone said, are you crazy? I think everybody here is familiar with Lake "Trafford and the type of an environment that it is. I think that 30 feet would be high enough. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And I'm going to play the devil's advocate. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: And I'm going to say that you want to attract recreational tourism including hotels. You want to minimize the footprint because you don't want that development spreading across the entire scope of the landscape. By allowing potentially a 50 -foot building, you will min size the impact of that footprint significantly versus saying you can go 35 feet. It will just force people to put more buildings on the property. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't think you'll force people to do anything. I think it's a bad idea. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the people that I've also talked to have also been unanimous with the same thing that -- MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm just giving you a basis for it. And -- yeah, two -story. Two -story for hotel. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Two -story would be -- MR. MULHERE: This would allow three stories. I think flexibility in allowing economic development in recreational tourism is critically important. And those vistas are as important as -- you know, from that structure or as important as an economic attractor. It's just that's I think why we wanted to go a little bit higher, we wanted to -- but we didn't say 100 feet, we didn't say 75, we limited it to 50, which is three stories. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. Well, it cuts both ways. You talk about vistas, yeah, it's -- MR. MULHERE: 1 know. Page 58 161 0, 2�0 b3 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: --going to look good from the people who live on that third or fourth floor, but -- MR. MULHERE: I know. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- from the people who are on the lake, it's not going to look good at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Just couple of comments. One was -- well, let me start with was the suggestion to replace 50 feet with a number of stories? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: My suggestion would be 30 feet. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Just to tie in with what Bob was saying, this I think initially came from a staff concern -- I can't recall if Planning Commission shared that concern or not -- concern about continuing to allow four dwelling units per acre. Because the staff concern was we're identifying these lands essentially as conservation type lands, and it didn't seem appropriatejust to allow four units per acre. That's the same as LR; that is a residential density that we think is inappropriate for land you want to see, generally speaking, in the sub - district you want to see protected. And so the way to address that without taking away the development rights that people have or believe they have today under their current designation, we thought okay, let's impose development standards. Maximize the footprint. And you can seethe square footage caps that we have proposed jointly for the sub - district. But as Bob was saying, you know, we'll make the footprint smaller; we're either going to end up with smaller buildings, fewer -- more buildings, or we can push up the height. I don't think I quite said that right. If you limit the footprint, then you've got to push the height up to get the sane density, or you get very small units and structures. So it's a typical balancing act of if you want to protect the habitat but you're still going to allow a certain intensity of use, then you've got to push up to be able to achieve that. I recognize and I'm familiar with Lake Trafford, it's all low profile one -story structures today. But also the land uses there today are not ecotourism uses. MR. MULHERE: But there's one other consideration to add. We've already said that we're going to look at setbacks from the lake. And if you have appropriate setbacks, you may not even be able to see a 50 -foot building from the lake at all. We don't know that, you know. I mean, there's vegetation, there's ways to buffer from a perspective. I j ust think you're limiting yourself. And when you go to 30 feet, that's extremely limiting. That's barely two stories by today's standards. Barely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we know whether we have control over the Seminoles if they decide to build a 12 -story building? MR. MULHERE: Do we know? We know we don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I asked the question that way on purpose -- MR. MULHERE: No, I -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- as you might have guessed. So in other words, it's theoretically possible that people from Lake Trafford might be looking at this building in the distance. And so what I'm driving at is that while I respect what you're saying about keeping it rural, this whole plan intends to modify it from rural to metropolitan. It may not be the same as some others. But Smart Growth principles also recommends that you go taller to keep more green. Now, that may be false, ultimately, but that's its purpose. MR. MULHERE: But also -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY; I would say I agree with you that by limiting it to 30 feet, or 35 even, you're placing immediately a very negative impact on where your first opportunities will be, which is in your ecotourism and your people being able to stay overnight and the rest. And 1 think that, you know, pines could be grown around it and the rest of it. It could look quite lovely, I'm sure. I respect what you're saying, Paul, but I disagree in that regard. MR. MULHERE: I just wanted to add also, because the more I look at it, there's more -- I mean, we wrote it pretty carefully. Because the other thing is we said multi - family development projects shall be submitted in the form Page 59 161 1 0 May 20, 2010 of a planned unit developed. So you would have a rezoning -- as it relates to multi - family, you would have a rezoning, you'd have a public hearing, you could look at those issues such as height and impacts associated with it. Now, that's not true for other kinds of development, such as single - family. So perhaps the maximum allowable zoned building height of 50 feet might be limited to multi - family and hotel /motel, and single - family could be, you know, limited further. You certainly wouldn't need a 50 -foot tall single - family home. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just continuing that, youjumped to that, so I -- that was a question I had on my mind, referenced the preceding conversation on the other page about changing it all now to residential. Multi - family -- I don't see mixed use here, I see multi - family. Must the multi- family be a planned unit development, or is it because we're stating that we'd like it to be that way? MR. MULHERE: No, we're saying multi- family development shall be submitted in the form of a planned unit. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what it says on this page; but suppose they were platting, is it possible to put multi - family on platting? MR. MULHERE: Not with that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. MULHERE: I mean, you can put it on a platted lot, but you still have to put for a planned unit development. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm driving at, and I may not be making myself clear, is what was changed on the preceding page to eliminate instead of all of the references to each type of dwelling, we made it all residential. MR. MULHERE: It won't matter. It's going to go through the zoning. And that's the other thing that I still wanted to tell Paul the same thing, it's the RT zoning or some other zoning district that you might zone, too. Designated RT, but there's also an RT zoning district. Or you could zone to some other district consistent with these allowable uses. Or you could zone to a PUD. So we have to look at 1 think presently -- I don't know, is that land -- do you know, David, if that land is zoned RT or Ag? MR. WEEKS: Ag. MR. MULHERE: It's mostly age. It's presently limited to -- anybody know the building height? Is it 35 feet? MR. WEEKS: That sounds right. MR. MULHERE: I think it's about 35 feet under ag. So all of those properties are going to have to be rezoned to achieve any height above what they currently have. Cl [AIRMAN STRAIN: Public process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I still think that we want ecotourism. It's a good thing. But if it's at the cost so that you have buildings that are visible from every place on the lake, I don't think it's a good idea anymore. MR. MULHERE: But I think 50 feet, that's not the case. I think you're -- I mean, I'mjust saying, from my perspective 50 feet is not as high as you seem to feel that it is. And it can be buffered from the lake and visibility can be minimized. But you might have a lobby that goes up that high and the other rooms come off of it. I don't -- it's -- I'm not -- you know, hey, listen, whatever the Planning Commission wants. I'm just -- as a professional planner, I'm advocating flexibility. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah. As an hnmokalee person, 1 think that the hnmokalee perspective would be that we want to keep the lake pretty much as it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the only problem with that is that I'm hearing two different things. Because in the beginning you said that you wanted to keep the lake fairly pristine and that's why you limited it to four units an acre. But that's not really true, because transient lodging you've got down here at 26 units an acre. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, those aren't the same as pennanent resi -- that's the same as the coastal area. It's the same density that's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I understand what it is. But everybody says, well, it's not the same as Page 60 16j20,210 t✓ regular housing. Well, yeah, it is, because the building that's going to house 26 units an acre is going to be there, so -- MR. MULHERE: If we want to attract a hotel, ecotourism -- COMMISSIONER CARON: You're going to need it. MR. MULHERE: -- or not, we need 26 units -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. MULHERE: --per acre. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not saying you don't, I'm just saying -- MR. MULHERE: And I mean, they can be designed to be -- and that's part of what we need to do if we're going to create -- through the LDR's, if we're going to create some setbacks that are specific from the lake and maybe some other standards to protect the vistas, you know, maybe -- you know, maybe the 50 -foot height requires a conditional use or something. I don't know, you know. I'm just saying I think it's -- for flexibility purposes, the additional height to me makes sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have something you wanted to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it's further in this. But I was going to actually ask, as long as Fred is there, with regard to all of the activities that you've been involved with, and especially as chair of the Visioning and so forth, when you folks discussed this, because it had to be an important issue, did you have many objections or -- MR. THOMAS: Of the residential tourism at the take? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. THOMAS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Height. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He means the height in -- MR. THOMAS: The height. No, no, there was not a whole lot of questions about the height. Let me tell you what the situation is. We see high end ecotourism, okay. Around the comer from there you can go duck hunting, you can go turkey hunting, you can do a lot of things. We didn't want to spread the footprint this way, so you have to go that way. You don't want to spread it this way but you have to go that way. But not a whole bunch of things like you see on the coast here, you know. You understand? But you have to have the flexibility where you can build a little bed and breakfast -- not a bed and breakfast, a cottage -- places where people can cook and whatnot, sit out -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Efficiencies. MR. THOMAS: -- on the patio and watch the thing after they catch the fish in the lake and what have you. Okay, understand? Now, 50 foot -- MR. MULHERE: That's all right, keep talking. MR. THOMAS: Fifty foot compared to what the tribe is going to put up, they're putting a 23 -story building up, okay? So 50 foot's nothing, okay? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. I guess what I'm trying to drive through, and with great respect to Paul, what he visions for his community, still, in order to make some kind of progress, there is a combination of planned concepts. MR. THOMAS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you folks are working to build that, and I'm assuming it's not Fred Thomas alone, it's a representation of the community that has made this. Unless Bob Mulhere in his incredible ability, foisted it upon you folks, which I don't think. MR. THOMAS: No, he did not host (sic) it upon us. And Fred Thomas would not still be sitting in the seat as a chair if he's going contrary to what most of the people in Immokalee know. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's what I have to weigh as an individual when I think about what you folks want and being respectful of Paul because he lives there and understands the community. MR. THOMAS: Well, I live there also; it's my adopted home. And I'm saying to you that it's going to be very hard for us with what's happening at the tribe for not becoming the number one tourist destination spot in the world. I'm not going to do my concierge statement anymore. But we got to be. Page 61 161 1 �3 May 20, 2010 In addition to what's happening on the tribal land, we need to have some of that happening out in the rest of the community. Lake Trafford becomes a key location. Coming down towards sunny -land becomes other key locations. And you're going to find the big farmers who already have lodges out in the tniddle of their farm fields saying oh, they can hunt deer and turkey out here. And it will become a place where people can come to enjoy getting back to nature like you do down in Costa Rica. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, Fred, it's a wonderful idea. And again, I'm going to restate it, even though it may seem like I'm restating it too often. If I were in Paul's shoes, I'd be advocating that that's all well and good, but suppose this all fails, then we've got all these buildings around and — MR. THOMAS: What all fails? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All of this effort. MR. THOMAS: Wait a minute. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In other words, it can't fail, is what I'm really saying. MR. THOMAS: No, wait a minute. What I'm saying to you, people in Immokalee are not stupid. They're not going to invest money in something that's not going to work. The good'ol boys didn't lose any money in the stock market. They're not going to invest anything until they see something happening. You understand? Trust me on that. And I don't live that far from the lake. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that we had workshops on this and we saw a lot of renderings and everything. And 1 wish we had someting that would show. Because I can envision -- I've been around the country and I've been in places in Colorado where you can go in and see magnificent lodges, and I know that all the tall pines around to some -- a great degree hide it unless they want to have a visual. MR. THOMAS: Can I ask you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I know it's possible. MR. THOMAS: — something? How tall are the buildings down in Everglades City on the canal, on the left -hand side as you're going down Everglades City, how tall are those? Excuse me, a little bit more than 30 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 'That's exactly my point. MR. MULHERE: I think that your point about, you know, having some sort of an illustration is premature at the comprehensive planning stage. We will get there. We're going to get there at zoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you don't want to lose the opportunity for this based on the absence of a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need your microphone, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Pm sorry. You don't want to lose the opportunity on tlus based on an -- MR. MULHERE: No, at this point -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- inability to convey effectively what it is you're trying to say. Cl IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it looks like we have a difference of opinion on the Planning Corrunission in regards to this issue so we'll do -- David? MR. WEEKS: I just want to interject, when staff and the agents met, we were very focused on residential. And that added language, it would be the middle paragraph on -- with the bullet points on the screen -- pertains to residential only. So actually that 50 -foot height would not apply to other land uses. I was just going to suggest that if it's -- I was going to suggest that it may be appropriate to apply that height to maybe all structures. Whatever it is, if it's 50 feet or if this Planning Commission recommends a different height, because we're missing hotels. And that's the one thing we've discussed a lot today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but doesn't the standards like this normally come out in the LDC? MR. WEEKS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's --so you're doing this as an exception to lock it in. The LDC is where it should be basically ironed out. But since it's here, we'll have to deal with it. So with that in tnind, the Planning Commission has a difference of opinion on this. Paul? Page 62 16 ! 1 3 May 20, 2010 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Or we don't have to deal with it. We can just leave it out and wait till it gets to the LDC. MR. MULHERE: Or a rezone -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE.: -- for a PUD. We thought it would be better to have a maximum height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did it as a protection. MR. MULHERF: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whereas it could be looked at as an extravagance above what is expected. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you took it out nobody would know what they could put there and they'd have to come in in the process to determine it, and that could be through a public process where everybody could weigh in on it, including the CRA, the Chamber of Commerce and everybody. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's strike it then. MR. MULHERE: Or a PUD. Straight zoning, it already has a height. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was a good discussion though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's drop the 50 -foot height reference. Everybody okay with that? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Bob, what's the height in the straight zone? MR. MULHERE: RT. It's much higher. It's 75. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, that's why. MR. WEEKS: Yeah, 75 or 100. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh. So in other words -- but if it's RT here, that doesn't automatically entitle them to anything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they still got to go back through no matter what and get the zoning, so — MR. MULHERE: In fact, most of the land that's designated RT, I don't think all of it, but most of it is actually presently zoned ag. So all of that would have to be rezoned, even to allow some of these uses. Because I don't think -- hotel is not a permitted use in the ag. district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you come in for the rezone, the issues involving height and all the other stuff will -- MR. MULHERE: Nor is multi -fam ly, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Well, just on that point, it's either one of two ways, and both of which involve public hearings. Either one for the individual PUD -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- if that should be pursued. The other is the LDC amendment that will follow this plan amendment in which specific heights for the -- an overlay or straight zoning districts will be applied. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's good. That's a good point. So you would see it corning back either way. One more comprehensively, and one more on a case -by -case. But either way that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh -huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll just drop the reference to the height and let's go on to Pages 40 and 41. Anybody have any questions on Pages 40, 41 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll move to Pages 42 and 43. That table you have there on Page 42, the one you've got on the screen, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That table is repeated two more pages after that. MR. MULHERE: Somewhat. Page 63 1 May '0, 2010 03 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: It has more zoning designations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the only difference, right? MR. MULHERE: Correct. There is a -- there was a question that came up by Marjorie Student on behalf of Habitat that relates to I guess arguably both of the tables. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're still on 42 and 43, but if it -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, but -- yours is on 44? No, these pages -- okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 45 in our book. MR. MULHERE: But it relates to the table, doesn't it, Marjorie? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, what's the issue? MS. STUDENT - STIRLING: Yeah, I can get up and -- for the record, Marjorie Student Stirling, volunteer attorney for Habitat for Humanity. I just had a question, because we have one project, Carson Lakes, that is in the VR Zoning District. And right now we're built out, but just to forestall any future problem down the road about being legally non - conforming, you know, we thought maybe it needed to be addressed here. So thank you. MR. MULHFRE: So David and I spoke about that. And all of the structure is different here. The whole language and policy intent is the same as it was previously. So there never was a reference to VR in the existing language. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, I'm just making a statement. What was the reason why there wasn't a reference to the VR? Well, the reason was that it was determined that the density — how you calculate density in the VR is a little bit different. It gives you a minimum lot size for various uses. You then have to divide that minimum -- or maximum lot size by 43,560 an acre, square feet an acre. And that gives you a number of units per acre. So for like mobile homes and single- family structures, it's 6,000 square feet. You divide 6,000 by 43,560 and you come up with -- seven and a half? MR. WEEKS: 7.26. MR. MULHERE: 7.26. It was decided at that time -- and the bonus is capped at eight. It was decided at that time that there was really very little likelihood of anyone achieving eight units per acre. But today you do have smaller 4,000 square foot lots and things like that. So anyway, our suggestion is that we include a VR designation on both tables; we show the base density for single - family. Right? Both, orjust the one'? MR. WEEKS: It would only be applicable to the table we haven't gotten to yet, the second table. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So we do that, and it's -- still the cap's going to be eight, so, you know, that should cover that concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Works. Anybody have a problem? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back on Page 42 and 43, any other issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 42, Item D, which is just above the table, just so I understand the reading of that, the LR has a base density of four. You're eligible to go 50 percent more than that for affordable so you can do six; is that how that would come out? MR. MULHERE: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay on the next page under density bonuses, proximity to commercial mixed use, 50 percent or more of a project is within the commercial mixed use sub - district. The base density allowed within the commercial mixed use sub - district of 16 dwelling units per acre applies to the entire project. MR. MULHERE: 'fell me where you are, Mr. -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right down -- you were there. MR. MULIIERF: Oh, that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you're -- I don't know where you are. Page 64 ka t20, 201 4 MR. MULHERE: I'm not sure where you're reading from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go down, go down slowly. Go down slowly. Hit that little down arrow instead of the stupid scroll -- MR. MULHERE: It goes right to that box. COMMISSIONER CARON: You want number two density bonuses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right there. See where it says proximity to commercial uses? That's the one I was reading from. What that says is if half the project or more is within a commercial mixed use district, then the 16 units apply to the entire project. Does that mean -- say you have a commercial mixed use district of 10 acres and next to it you own 10 acres in another district, so you own a total of 20. Does that mean you get 16 for the total of 20 acres or 16 for 10 and you can spread it over the other 10? MR. MULHERE: No, it means if you have a project -- if you come in with a project, a unified plan of development, and at least 50 percent of that project is within the commercial mixed unit district, then the 16 units per acre applies on the whole project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So instead of having 10 times 16, you have 20 times 16. MR. MULHERE: Correct. Except that it doesn't apply in the low residential district. I mean, it's -- if you look at the box below, it's not new language, the density's a little bit higher, and we made it not applicable in the low residential because we knew that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just wanted to understand how it worked. If you look at the page you're on, the last sentence on the top of the page, buffering to achieve compatibility with adjacent lower intensity uses shall be addressed. Why not shall be required? MR. MULHERE: I think that's good. Better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Pages 44 and 45, anybody have any issues? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 46 and 47. MR. MULI IERE: Are we on these -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, 46 is the one starting with residential infill. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right there. Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't want to be picky, but on the bottom of D, any given location. That's more of a vernacular. How do you -- what -- how do we relate that? MR. MULHERE: Any single and any specific -- maybe we don't even need that phrase. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think it's superfluous. You can start out with this residential. Because it's already -- MR. MULHERE: I think you're right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- vague. MR. MULHERE: I don't think we need that. Capitalize "this" and that works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 46 MS. ASHTON- CICKO: And actually — C1IAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and 47, anyone else? Ms. Ashton? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'm sorry. On Page 47, between one and two there's an "or ", right? That's an either /or, Bob, correct? MR. MULHERE: So I need to put a -- I'm sorry, I'll show you. I need to put a comma right there and put "or" after the word sub - district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, on that residential infill, the way 1 read that is if you have one adjoining property, at least one abutting property is developed, your property can be considered as infill? Page 65 MR. MULHERE: Yes. If it's 20 acres or less. 161 1 03 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that become infill if there's only one other property developed? It's not between anything. MR. MULHERE: It's the way it's been defined. I don't know how long it's been that way. Since'89, at least. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another mistake David has made in defining? MR. MULHERE: I don't know if it's a mistake. I mean, you know, it may be — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He doesn't either. He's not paying any attention. MR. MULHERE: But you know what? It may be that that parcel might be integral to general redevelopment. It's the parcel immediately adjacent to a developed parcel. You might need that vacant parcel to cause redevelopment to occur. You know, for parking, for whatever, you know, I don't know. I just think it doesn't allow you to leapfrog it, it limits it to there, and it's kind of always been the way it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the second part of that, about the TDR program, why are you getting into the particulars of the TDR program when you don't have one? And if you do have one, it has to come back in for a GMP amendment anyway? So why are we even discussing it? You don't know what the rules will be for it because it's got to go back through the process. MR. MULHERE: Did we leave that language in, requiring a comp. plan amendment? Because the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. You said it would require it, even if we didn't leave the language in. MR. MULHERE: And it would even if we didn't, because it's going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So if you're going to have to come back through the process and change the GMP to implement a TDR program, why are you discussing the implementation of a PDR -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, I guess just to help direct that process a little bit CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But wait a minute, you may not want the same direction when you come back in with it later on. MR. MULHERE: I know. I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why tie your hands? Is that needed? MR. MULHERE: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if it's not then let's just take it out. It doesn't help anybody; you don't have the program MR. MULHERE: Okay, we can take that out. Two paragraphs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under --the next page under density and intensity blending. Oh, Paul, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, under density and intensity blending, A, it's a -- in, let's see, the fourth and fifth lines down where it says in the case of properties which are contiguous to Lake Trafford or Camp Keais Strand which straddle. That's not a very well - defined term, and I think we're kind of going with standardization of the terminology, which is the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand Overlay. And instead of saying, which are contiguous, which is kind of vague, why don't we just say which are within the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand Overlay, so that we define our area a little bit better? MR. MULHERE: Again, because there are lands that are contiguous to Lake Trafford that are not within the Camp Keais Strand that are today allowable to take advantage of this — this was written -- this is language that was written and already exists. And the way it's written, it's written so tightly that it only applied to, as far as 1 know, one property, and that's the ranch that the county acquired. MS. VALERA: Pepper. MR. MULHERE: Pepper Ranch. I don't know, standing here in front of you, whether it applies to another piece of property or not, but we agreed at the last meeting to put it back in exactly the way that it was. And that's what we did. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, it's just that it's not very well defined geographically. MR. MULHERE: It's already kind of-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's grandfathered iii? MR. MULHERE: It's kind of been already utilized and accepted as a process. I don't know, you mean, I mean, I'm not trying to be argumentative. If we could -- Page 66 161 113 May 20, 2010 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, I'm not either. MR. MULHERE: -- change the -- nomenclature. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Dave, does that seem like a well defined geographic term for you? MR. WEEKS: It's a little loosey - goosey, but as Bob said, that's the way it's been since 2003. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: And we think it only affects that one piece of property, a piece of property the County's already bought? So in other words, my question is, none of this has the opportunity to dramatically increase density in the RLSA? MR. MULHERE: No. Beyond what existed already, no. Because see, it requires a property to have been of 200 acres in size -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. MULHERE: -- designated RT. That alone could have caused an increase in the application, if not for some of the other conditions, because wejust increased the RT designation -- or we are increasing the RT. But if you look down there, it says -- or somewhere. I've got to find it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Now, little 'T' talks about it being designated RT. MR. MULHERE: Right. But I thought it was at a certain date and time. Is it -- oh, here it is. In existence and under unified control. COMMISSIONER CARON: October 22nd. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. So it's pretty limiting. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Very limiting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else on 46 and 47? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a question about the reference that continues on 48 to the RLSA program. The purpose and intent of the RLSA program was to benefit environmental and development properties and agricultural properties within the RLSA. It's the same paragraph we've been on. This provides density to an SRA from the Immokalee urban area. How does that benefit the RLSA program as ordered by the Governor? I don't understand. MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, it was adopted. The density blending, there were three provisions in the comp. plan adopted for -- I think three -- for density blending. One was rural fringe to urban fringe. Okay? Then another one was -- there's another one that I can't remember, and then there was this one, and that's the specific to Immokalee and these lands adjacent to Lake Trafford, contiguous to Lake Trafford and the Camp Keais Strand. Those lands in the urban area had very high value wetlands. The lands right next to them in the RLSA were cleared ag. And they were under the same ownership. And so the idea was that there would -- it made sense to protect those high value wetlands, even though they were in the urban area because, you know, the habitat of the species don't know boundaries so, you know, it was to protect those and allow the impacts on this very limited basis in the RLSA. And that's what got adopted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this isn't the one -- this goes beyond the one that got adopted. There was -- I remember during the RLSA program we had that one 200 -acre parcel somewhere near Lake Trafford that Hole - Montes was -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- involved in somehow. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They came through and pushed it and got it. And is this that parcel? MR. MULHERE: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's the only thing it's pertaining to. MR. MULHERE: It's the on -- it's not written that way, but if you apply it, that's -- Page 67 161 1 3 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to be sure. Thank you. Page 48 and 49? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 49 Item B, it's under -- it's one of the things that was left there. It says for purposes containing two or more future land use sub - districts. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In overall density and intensity that could be achieved in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. We changed it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I see. What's on here is what you changed. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern is for properties containing two or more future land use sub - districts. Of what percentage? I mean, if you got one percent of an industrial district and 99 percent of a commercial, what does that mean? MR. MULHERE: But it doesn't give you any greater intensity or density. It just allows you to distribute it on the property differently to master plan the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But how do you distribute the uses? MR. MULHERE: You can distribute them throughout. You calculate what's allowable on one. Based on what you're proposing to develop, you calculate what would be allowable within one designation, what would be allowable within the other, and you can put it anywhere on the property, subject to those conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you take an industrial use that overlaps a commmercial use, you can take the higher intensity of the industrial use and spread it anywhere in the commercial use? MR. MULHERE: Subject to the project furthering protection, eihlhancement or restoration of wetlands, listed species habitat or other natural features. The project being consistent with and furthering applicable objectives of the plan, proved as part of a planned unit development, so you get to see it, and mitigating for any negative impacts on adjacent properties. I think we got any potential negative covered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: What happened to 2? Why was that struck? MR. MULHERE: Because we're not changing the acreage of any of the land use sub - districts. We're not -- that was the problem. That was deemed to be self - amending. If you change the acreage of a land use sub - district, your plan is self - amending. So we've changed that. So now we're not changing any boundaries, we'rejust allowing you to shift within those boundaries. So that's why we struck 2. It doesn't apply anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Pages 50 and 51. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Number 2, industrial trnxed use. I'm trying to figure out how you included, and you intended to include agriculture in a mixed use where you speak of light manufacturing, processing and all the rest of that stuff. Catch -all, or what? What did you envision'? MR. MULHERE: No, there's a bunch of existing ag., and that may be there for a long, long time. In Immokalee, in the Immokalee community, ag. is a huge economic driver, and they want that flexibility. They want to be able to have that use. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Until they'd be ready to do something -- MR. MULHERE: Until they change it, yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, well now it makes sense to me. MR. MULHERE: But I do have a change that I need to tell you all about. We didn't have a limit on the amount of commercial that could be applicable in the IMU when we first proposed it. When we met with Heidi, she had a concern that -- and I probably need to pull up the Future Land Use Map for this -- that some of the lands right in here which are now IMU were previously CMU. And when they were CMU, they didn't have any restriction on the amount of cotmercial that they could have. Page 68 161 1 May 20, 2010 We had -- and staff raised the issue and we said okay, how about if we put a limitation on the commercial? But staff really only raised the issue of concern as it related more to this piece that we expanded that used to be LR and was supposed to be a buffer from the higher intensity airport use to the low residential use out here. That's where we wanted to apply that limitation. So what we've agreed to do is to crosshatch that, reference it by policy in here and show it on the Future Land Use Map. So the 30 percent limitation will now apply here. It will not apply to these properties. So that they will be able to have whatever mixture of industrial and commercial that they want. And of course the basis for that is in part the County Attorney's Office had some concern that they were losing -- they had a significant diminution of property rights. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It does pertain to number 2, industrial. But just curiosity, rehabilitative centers, you're talking about people in need of alcoholic, drug and so forth -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. Psychiatric. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is that all subject to public hearing? MR. MULHERE: It's only subject to public hearing if the district that exists today, that's also consistent with the future land use sub - district, doesn't allow that use. So, I mean, what you're asking -- I'm not sure off the top of my head, I think that use is allowed in industrial. I think it presently is allowed in industrial. I think it is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's fine -- MR. MULHERE: So if it was, no public hearing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Somebody thought about it; therefore, somebody must have thought, where will we put it. So we don't — are we going to limit ourselves to industrial application or — MR. MULHERE: No, those are -- you typically also -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It says mixed use. MR. MULHERE: It's also, yeah -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commercial. MR. MULHERE: It's also permitted in C -5 I think in other commercial districts. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the lowest use would be C -5, not C -4. MR. MULHERE: Maybe even C -4. I mean, you know, I don't know exactly. But, I mean, it's typically an allowed, you know, use in at least probably C4, C-5 and industrial. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do these -- because it's kind of open, and I have nothing against rehabilitative centers, but they can be as simple as a store front where you'll have a psychologist, or we can go into -- MR. MULHERE: Hazelton. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: --beds. Yeah, Hazelton is a good -- MR. MULHERE: Willows. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- example of a very fine operation. But we also could go into something that could be a lot more liberal than that. And I just was curious. MR. MULHERE: So is your suggestion --I'm just throwing -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not suggesting anything yet. I'm trying to find out some facts. I'mjust more concerned -- it seems odd that it's in the middle of high technology, research, med, laboratories and rehabilitative. I guess all those subjects who volunteer for those activities may need to be rehabilitated. MR. MULHERE: Well, medical research is a primary focus of economic development. And as a result you could — there could be a connection there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you -- I was making a joke, but you're not. MR. MULHERE: No, there could definitely be a connection. You might want a treatment facility somewhere close to some of the research activities that are going on, or vice- versa. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But this is not by right, this is -- you're including this in, but it's not by right, is it? MR. MULHERE: No. Again, at the comprehensive plan stage, it's an allowable use. Whether it's permitted or conditional -- Page 69 161 1 May 20, 2010 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- is unknown. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'll accept that that's the case and we'll work at it on the other. But it is similar to what, you know, a lot of people are concerned, and I won't go any further, we'll wait till the LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pages 52 and 53? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, on 52, right there, that big paragraph right in the middle, says the minimum 75 -foot setback within which a 20 -foot wide vegetation landscape buffer shall be provided. About six lines down it says it's a 25 -foot wide buffer. I think. MR. MULHERE: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good? MR. MULHERE: No, good catch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. MULHERE: You ever notice that sometimes the more you look at something the harder it is to see? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I can't tell you how many times I've looked at the Iramokalee Area Master Plan. MR. MULHERE: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Living this thing. The 75 -foot setback that you're talking about. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If 20 or 25 -foot of it is used for a buffer area, what can be used in the rest of it? Setback for buildings, or setback for parking lots, or setback for what? MR. MULHERE: It was intended to be for buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you think you ought to say a 75 -foot minimum building setback or minimum 75 building setback? MR. MULHERE: It couldn't hurt to be that specific. No, it couldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust think it would help. MR. MULHERE: Couldn't hurt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you want to go to the 20 -foot wide landscape buffer instead of the 25, or you want to go to the 25 instead of the 20? MR. MULHERE: Twenty was the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: That's one of the wider landscape buffers that we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I just want to make sure we're consistent. You scroll down a little bit to the overlays and features. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A little bit. Go down to the second paragraph. See the yellow highlighted area? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Essential services shall be limited to. And then basically it's everything. So what kind of limitation is that? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's not everything. That comes right out of the -- I think the conservation designation, or it might have been the sending lands designation. It's limited to those necessary to ensure public safety. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULFIERE: So, you know, somebody has to make the determination of what it that is, but that's the existing language today in I think the conservation district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just thought it was kind of odd. It says it's limited and I don't know where it's limited. But -- and that's not a problem. MR. MULHERE: Well, you're not allowing wholesale -- these listed essential services, sewage treatment Page 70 161 1 May 20, 2010 plants, water treatment plants, towers CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may, I believe essential services also is for -- Comcast is included, or cable is included. MR. MULHERE: In this case cable is included if it's intended to serve permitted uses, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have no objection to it, I'm just saying that's one of them. And there are a couple more. But -- MR. MULHERE: I don't know, I guess maybe today you could almost make an argument that cable might be necessary for public safety, I don't know, if you can't get otherwise television. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Yeah, let me try to explain the intent behind this. Start with the second part of the phrase or sentence, those necessary to serve permitted uses, and the examples are private wells and septic tanks, utility lines, which include your cable, your telephone, lift stations, water pumping stations. Those are all the types of things that typically are allowed by right, they're -- you might think of them as accessory. I mean, they're just integral to having a house or other types of permitted uses. The biggest limitation is in the first part that are says those necessary to ensure public safety. The obvious examples are fire and police stations or ambulance service. But as Bob already gave, it would preclude the ability to put government offices there, water or sewer -- wastewater treatment stations, communication towers, unless that somehow was determined to be necessary for protecting -- for public safety because of communications necessary -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would be fire -- MR. WEEKS: -- for emergency providers, so forth. But it is limiting because the essential services without that restriction is very broad. Again, that prevents this building from being located in these lands that are environmentally sensitive and we want to see protected. And it is taken from the conservation designation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if I may further? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The term essential services -- and I can't recall now whether it's by definition only in the LDC or is it also considered in the GMP as a definition item, essential services? MR. WEEKS: Only in the LDC -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's where. So this is intended more to highlight. Because I was wondering when I read it whether you were concerned with, you know, we talk typically about packages that are used for septic services and so forth. So you want to preclude those. And these are illustrative or are they limiting? MR. MULHERE: They're limiting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They're limiting. MR. MULHERE: They're limiting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's all I needed to understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 54 is the last page of the document. Is there anybody have any questions on Page -- MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to that answer. I would say I would agree with Bob, it's limiting when it refers -- I mean, it uses the term shall be limited to. But the second part where it says those necessary to serve permitted uses, that part is illustrative. I just wanted to be very clear. The whole provision is limiting, but that list of such as private wells, et cetera, that is illustrative. There certainly could be other types of things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a question about the paragraph that's on there. You know where it says essential services shall be limited to? I low is it limited? Thought I'd just throw you for a curve, see if you're paying attention. Go ahead, Donna. Yeah, we beat that thing to death. I didn't mean to stir up so much trouble over it. Page 71 161 O3 May 20, 2 10 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, come on. COMMISSIONER CARON: The paragraph that follows that, the -- MR. MULHERE: Additional wet -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- one we've just been discussing, is that old language or new language? MR. MULHERE: This additional wetland protection measures? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. MULHERE: That would -- COMMISSIONER CARON: That do not apply to properties within Lake Trafford that have been cleared. MR. MULHERE: That is -- well, it was existing language the last time you saw this, but it's new language to the plan, obviously. Because the whole Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand Overlay is kind of new and being dealt with in here. That was agreed to with the environmental staff. There are some cleared sites, undeveloped. They're pretty minimal, but there are a few. And so it was agreed that we could not apply those additional measures to those, but do apply to all new development and redevelopment. So if somebody comes in and develops or redevelops, then they would be subject to those standards. COMMISSIONER CARON: So between now and when this plan gets adopted, people can be clearing? MR. MULHERE: They could be, but I don't know that that was intended to deal with that. It'sjust that there were some cleared developments out there that somebody might put a garage on or put something on, you know, and they wouldn't be subject, I don't think, to these standards. Minor kind of things. But it says new development and redevelopment pursuant to the nonconforming section, so you go to the nonconforming section and that tells you what those standards are that would trigger compliance with these greater wetland protection measures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to the end of the proposed master plan. And that -- why don't we just take the data and analysis section as a whole. Does anybody have any questions from the data and analysis'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. If you turn to Map 4 -9. MR. MULHERE: Where is that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's your hmunokalee listed species. (Microphone falls.) MS. ASHTON- CICKO: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the second tune you've done that. You don't like that microphone, do you? Where -- on this map you have cross - hatching denoting panther primary zone and panther secondary zone. Where did you get that information from to know where those lines fell? MR. MULHERE: It's a data set from Fish & Wildlife. I think it's U.S. Fish & Wildlife. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you send me the link? MR. MUI.HERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm curious for another application involving the RLSA Program. I just want to make sure it's consistent with the ones you're using there. MR. MULHERE: Okay. And I know this was updated. We actually -- when we had the piece of the airport that was in -- that's when it got updated. Because we had I think old data and this was updated. So we'll send it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you turn to map -- actually it's Page 58. COMMISSIONER CARON: You'll make sure everybody gets a copy of that updated -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No way, you don't get any. You're on Page 58 -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- number 5.3. Read the last sentence. Read the last sentence and track it down for me, if you could. If you can do it, more power to you. MR. MULI IERE: A copy of the zoning map is provided for reference. Map 5.3. Page 72 1610,2011 b3 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I like the map you want to call 5.3. Basically it's an aerial. MR. MULHERE: It's 5.4. It should say 5.4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure you got the correction. That's the only things I had with the data and analysis. Anybody else have any? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I do. Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Map 4.4, it doesn't seem to be right, because it's referencing what were described at the wetlands a few years ago before it has been revised. Map 4.4. MR. MULHERE: Getting there. Okay, I'm there. It may not be. I don't know whether it's right or wrong. I do know that it's what we determined -- what we believe to be the best available data, which is all that we're required. So this is wetlands, U.S. Fish and Wildlife. I don't know, 1992 So we can took and see if there's some -- more current available data. We could probably work with the environmental staff to see if there is something more current. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: This one corresponds to map 5.2. If you took at it, it's the same. And it should correspond to map 5.1 which has, you know, the more accurate boundaries of the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais Strand wetland system. That's basically what you're talking about, wetlands. MR. MULHERE: Okay, but those are completely different. The county -- I don't know, I think the county developed the boundaries of the Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetland systems. This is data from U.S. Fish & Wildlife. So they're not related. They may not be exactly the same. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think the county's more recent and more accurate. MR. MULHERE: It is, it is. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think -- unless there's anymore overall questions from anybody, I think we've reached the end of the line with the Immokalee Master Plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hoorah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we provided a lot of information to Bob. He's going to incorporate the changes as we discussed. He has the County Attorney's changes mostly incorporated, and whatever remaining is going to get done. We have a couple of rewrites of some paragraphs. We need some additional information. Although that won't impact our vote, it does -- the cost analysis and the primary and secondary and whatever other items we asked have sent to us. And I think then subject to all that, it's ready for a motion. Does anybody wish to make a motion? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I move that we approve the Immokalee Master Plan that's been offered to us today, subject to the recommendations that we've made. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made and seconded. David? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, did you want to hear the staff presentation? Brief that it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it going to change our vote? MR. WEEKS: We hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I thought we went through the staff, but go ahead, let's just hear what you got. MS. VALERA: Only in regard to the recommendations that we have on Page 24. MR. WEEKS: Very end of the staff report. MS. VALERA: Right. The number three, map revisions to identify proposed expansion of the 300 acres. We did request that, and that hasn't been done just yet. But we would like that to be updated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Number one we took care of, do you agree with that? MS. VALERA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number two, minor edits to Policy 6.1.9., we've -- that's going to be taken care of I Page 73 think everybody's in agreement on that. MS. VALERA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number three, are you in agreement on number three, Bob? MR. MULHERE: What is number three? MS. VALERA: It's j ust to -- MR. MULHERE: The map? MS. VALERA: Yes. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And number four, that's been done. MS. VALERA: Yes. 161 1 �3 May 20, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is that your presentation? MR. WEEKS: Yes. Staff -- I told you it was brief. I think the only issue, and I won't belabor, we talked about it earlier, the only issue that I'm aware of that staff is in disagreement on has to do with the change for the mobile home. I think it was Policy 6.1.7 that affected that Blockers -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that you helped write and told Jeff it would take care of things'? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now you're in disagreement with it? MR. WEEKS: No -- well -- MR. MULHERE: He always was. MR. WEEKS: We always were. We were being helpful in how to craft the language in responding, but we disagree with that CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You guys -- MR. WEEKS: You know, it's the typical we recommend denial, but if you're going to approve it, change it this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. WEEKS: Well, we recommend denial of that one provision, but that language reflects what we believe this Commission wants to see, and the community, as expressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any more discussion from the Planning Comm ssion? Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one thing. The -- I just want to make sure all of the EAC recommendations were handled. MS. VALERA: For the most part. Except for the language that was revised a bit today in regards to allowing density and intensity within the overlay, the wetland overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions for discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ave. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTfI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries seven -- MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: --to zero. Page 74 1 6 1 1 May 20, 2010 Yes, sir. You -- it's too late. MR. WEEKS: Was that inclusive of the one mapping issue? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, absolutely. And the next thing that's up -- and by the way, first of all, Bob, Patrick and Chris, you guys did a great job. Thank you. This was one of the more cooperative ventures. And Penny, I wholeheartedly thank you for all your help. You hung in there through the whole thing. I know it was tedious, but we sincerely appreciate your board's help and the community's help in getting this done. think you've got a good plan. MR MULHERE: And we worked very closely with David and Carolina and Heidi, so, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were next. Thank you David, than you Carolina. Heidi, especially, your input on these things is becoming refreshingly nice. So thank you for providing that. MR. WEEKS: I'd say we're just doing and trying to keep our job. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MS. PHILLIPPI: Well, that put it in a different light, didn't it? I do want to thank each of you for helping us through this long, tedious process. And I feel like we have a beautiful document, a document that hasn't been produced historically that I know of in this county at least. It's really I think something that the entire community is really proud of. And largely to your efforts. I thank you for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Penny. Okay. We have finished with the hmmokalee Master Plan, except for consent -- well, adoption. Item #11 A ADOPTION HEARING SCHEDULE FOR GMP AMENDMENT PETITION CP- 2008 -5; IMMOKALEE AREA Now what about new business under adoption, David? MR. WEEKS: First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question, do you want -- or does the Commission want to see this document brought back June 3rd, that's your next regular scheduled meeting, under consent agenda? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, please. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Moving on to the adoption hearing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, what comes back, it just needs to be the objectives and policies and those 50 pages, not all the data and analysis. MR. WEEKS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now back to the adoption hearing. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Right now the schedule calls for the Plamiing Commission to hear this petition, Immokalee Master Plan, on October the 28th with a carryover of October 29th. Would like to change that to November 4th, which is a regular Planning Commission date. And then the carryover date could be November the 16th, which is a Tuesday, or if you would prefer, the carryover date could be to the 18th of November, which is your regular -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we carry it to the 18th David. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we're going to have the time needed to spend on it those two days, so we probably don't even need the two carryovers, so -- is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. W EEKS: I would just remind you that at adoption, for the most part it does tend to be rather a matter of procedure, okay. You've already reviewed it, you've thoroughly hashed through it. The wild card, so to speak, is the objectives, recommendations and comments from the Department of Community Affairs. Page 75 161 10 May 20, 2010 And depending upon the magnitude of that report I think would directly correlate with how much time you might spend on this at adoption. But I have it down there for November 4th and then carryover November 18th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, that will work. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And now the meetings that t asked Ray and then through you to verify, our next meeting was originally schedule for June I st. It is not. MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So our next meeting will be June 3rd, which will be our regular Thursday meeting. We had one in between, but we're not going to need it after al I. So our next regular meeting will be the next meeting that this board has. Item 411 B CONVERSION OF THE STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC) TO THE NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (NAICS) Item 11.13 is the conversion of the two codes. That's going -- MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to be continued. David? MR. WEEKS: If 1 may, further on the dates. Not for this petition, but for the 2007 and 2008 Cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments, which this body has already act on at transmittal, it's now coming back for adoption, we have that scheduled for June 15th. This is not a change, but Ijust wanted to remind you of it. June 15th, which is a Tuesday. And then the carryover date, if needed, would be to June 17th, which is your regular second meeting of the month of June. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are the items that we had gone through, Wilson and all the rest of it? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we did have a date on the 21st of June and it's a carryover. So you're telling us we don't need that now? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're good to go. Public comment? They're all gone. Discussion on the addenda, that's done. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- made the motion, seconded by Mr. Vighotti. All in favor. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTE Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN Aye. We're out of here. Thank you. Page 76 161 1 May 20, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:24 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented _ or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 77 �3 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida June 3, 2010 161 0 t� June 3, 10 RECEIVED JUL 14 2010 Huard or County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Mark Strain Melissa Ahem Donna Reed -Caron Karen Homiak Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vighotti (Absent) Fiala Halas ALSO PRESENT: Henning Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Coyle Heidi Ashton- Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Coletta Nick Casalanguida, GMD Deputy Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Misc. Torres: Date: Item #: Page 1 i - -� ^dies to: 16 1 1 �� June 3, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the June 3rd meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everyone will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And before the roll call this moming, I'd like to welcome a new Planning Commission Member, Ms. Melissa Ahern. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the spelling, I think it's A- H- E -R -N. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And she has been appointed to fill the remainder of Tor Kolflat's position. And we had some other news last week, that we are losing Mr. Wolfley. He is going off to ventures far away and has resigned from the Planning Commission effective last week, so we will have a new person sitting over to my left sooner or later. Not this left, but between Bob and Karen. So with that in mind, will the secretary please take the roll call. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, the secretary would if he were here, but I'll do it in his stead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm so used to you being in that position for years. I'm sorry. Good point. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Ahem? COMMISSIONER AHERN: here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fin here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Part of me's here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vighotti is absent. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley is obviously resigned. And Ms. I lomiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: "Thank you. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Thanks for filling in. Addenda to the agenda. Are there any changes from staff or the Planning Commission? (No response.) Page 2 161 June K I 0� Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, our next Planning Commission Meeting will be the 15th of June. It's for -- to review -- it's the adoption hearing for the GMPA's. Does anybody on this panel here today know if they're not going to make it on the 15th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the following two days later, the 17th, is our regular meeting. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the regular meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Nick, the GMPA's, how soon will it be before we get those? It would be nice to have them. That's quite a hefty volume to read and we're less than two weeks away, and that is going to put a little bit problem on us to have to get that done plus our regular meeting. MR. CASALANGUTDA: I signed the cover sheet documents yesterday, so they're putting the packages together last tonight (sic), and it should be distributed today or tomorrow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, do you know how intense the 17th meeting's going to be? MR. BELLOWS: We have about six items on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oy, yi -yi. MR. BELLOWS: They look to be two boat docks, a PUD rezone for North United Methodist Church, and a conditional use for Grace Place, and another PUD for Meridian Village. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Whoa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's a lot to digest, because we're going to have to read the adoption notebook as well as that stuff at the same time. I would very much appreciate it if staff could get at least the adoption notebook to us by tomorrow afternoon; give us the weekend to start on it. Is that something that you think could happen, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm texting the office right now to see if I can get that squared away and give you an answer before the meeting closes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 6, 2010 REGULAR MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to the approval of the minutes. They were electronically sent out for May 6th. Anybody have any comments? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ms. Homiak. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Sclvffer. Discussion? (No response.) CIAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 3 16! 1 b3 June 3, 2010 Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, and that's probably going to be 6 -0 -- 6 -1, with Ms. Ahern probably abstaining because she wasn't here, I would assume. Right? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Correct. Item #6 BCC REPORT — RECAPS - MAY 25, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: BCC reports. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, on May 25th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the variance that was in the Estates for Leo Lasher. They approved that on the summary agenda, as well as the rezone for Port of the Islands Community Improvement District and its companion variance. That was also approved on the summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's good. We had spent some time on the Port of the Islands. I'm glad that worked out for everybody. Excellent. Item #7 CHAUMAN'S REPORT Okay, C hainnan's report. Don't have any, other than I'm probably like a lot of people, keeping my eyes on the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I can't imagine anything worse than what we've got dealing with out there. I only hope we don't have a hurricane. Item #8A PETITION: CP- 2008 -5, AMENDMENT TO'THE IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN AND IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP Next item on the agenda, though, is the consent agenda items. And this is the Immokalee Area Master Plan. There are some changes recommended by the County Attorney's Office, and one catch by Margie Student. Bob, I'll let you get into them. MR. MULHERE: Okay, thank you. For the record, Bob Mulhere, here on behalf of the CRA. Penny Phillippi is also here this morning. I have some changes that are relatively minor from Heidi. There's about maybe a dozen of them, and I'll go over each one by page. And then Marjorie's will fall into that going by page. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's line. MR. MULHERE: And then I know that there's -- Commissioner Caron mentioned she had some questions, and maybe I'll answer them. if not, you know, just stop me whenever we come to something that you had an issue with. Page 7 is the first one, under Objective 1.1. By the way, most of these were things I should have caught and didn't, so in fairness, I appreciate it, Heidi, wherever you are CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's in the back behind us. MR. MULHERE: Okay. "Thank you. It was a team effort, and I appreciate it. Just after -- the first sentence which reads: The Inunokalee -- between lnunokalee and por -- between Immokalee and Community Redevelopment Agency, we're inserting the phrase portion of the Collier County. So it will read: The Immokalee portion of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. Let's move on to the next one, on Page 8. And some of these changes occur in different locations, the same Page 4 161 une 3,10 change. Missed the -- on the first bullet where it presently reads: Support the CRA and the Economic Development Council, paren. EDC, of Collier County, that was to have been changed to other economic development entities, so that's the change we've made. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm not even sure, Bob, you need it there at all, because it's in the second bullet. I mean, 1 don't know if you want it in both bullets. It's fine, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't hurt. MR. MULHERE: I think they're different issues, so it's probablyjust -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. MULHERE: -- as well we keep, yeah. Page 10, a relatively minor change under Policy 2.2.2., pre- certified commercial industrial sites. In the highlighted one, two, three, four, fifth sentence down, adding after Economic Development Council the phrase of Collier County. And the next one is on Page 11. And this one occurs in a number of locations, and it's been made in all those locations. If you want me to cite each one, I will. But under 2.3.1., in a number of locations, let me see, one, two, three, fourth sentence down, I had used the phrase hnmokalee CRA, and I used that in a number of locations. And so we struck through Immokalee. You know, it's redundant; we don't need to say that, just the CRA. Because we've already parenthetically defined that, or whatever the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't think you need to keep going over that one, we understand it. MR. MULHERE: That's kind of what I thought. That was in a number of locations. On Page 12, at the -- those were both -- I think those are both the same change. Okay, so going to -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: Under Policy 2.4.1, it says again here, will work with the EDC. And EDC needs to come out there because it's covered under public and private organizations to promote these opportunities. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CARON: And then down at the bottom of the page under Policy 2.5.1, again, second to the last line, it says: Work with the hmmokalee CRA. And then cross out "the" and EDC, because it's covered with other public and private organizations. MR. MULHERE: Got it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Okay, next change that I had -- or should I say Heidi had -- was on Page 17. And it was relatively minor. For some reason there I left in the entire written phrase, Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency, which should simply say CRA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3.3.1. upon top, right? MR. MULHERE: Yes, 3.3.1. at the top, yeah. And again, that same change is made on Page 18 under Policy 4.L 1, striking through Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency and just inserting CRA. On page -- we're going all the way to 29. Two things here. One, just call your attention to Policy 6.1.7.1), which is the language that was -- that we constructed, that we added, just to call your attention to that. But there was a typo there, the word "sub- district" was misspelled, so I corrected that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And then on Page 30, the phrase -- part of the direction was to strike through on — I'm sorry, on Policy 6.1.9., rezoning, one, two, three, the fourth line after the word rezone, we were to strike through the phrase consistent with the prior existing zoning. 1 neglected to do that, so we've struck through that now. That's the extent of Heidi's changes. I did have one that Marjorie caught and called to our attention, and that's in the density rating system, so let me get to that, Page 47. You'll recall that Marjorie raised the issue of VR zoning, which had never been included in this table or this Page 5 1 6 tune 3,110 03 paragraph. We agreed to add it. And we did add it to the table, but we neglected to add it to the text. So we've now made a note to add it. It will be in the one, two, three, third line after single- family, add a comma, put in VR, comma, and then it will read and/or RMF -6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the extent? MR. MULHERE: That's the extent of the changes that we had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have just a couple more. On Page 41. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: MR. MULHERE: Yes. You see the bullet points on the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: --page'? The second bullet point should have a period alter unit development, because we've -- and cross out "and ", because we've MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Yeah, got it. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- crossed out the rest of it. And Page 51. It is number -- little two there, it there. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: It should read: The project is consistent with and furthers the applicable. So it just needs to reverse the word not applicable -- MR. MULIIERE: Oh, yeah, got it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: That's it. MR. MULHERE: It's just annoying. Patricia would be very disappointed in my lack of grammatical oversight here. But thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Blame it on your word processor or being at the Blue Martini or something like that. Are there any other cotmnents or questions'? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. On Page 55. Unfortunately 1 wasn't able to check this with the minutes of the meeting, because we don't have those yet. But as 1 remember, the motion that we approved, we wanted to go along with the EAC recommendations, and that would involve keeping it at four dwelling units per acre rather than changing it to the base density. MR. MULHERE: 1 don't recall that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't either. MR. MULHERE: 1 know that it was the County Attorney, or it was Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney, that raised the issue of potential property rights issues for those few districts that already allow a higher density that fall within that. But remember, I put on the record that that was less than five percent of that area. So 95 percent of it would be subject to the four unit per acre. 1 don't recall that the vote included changing that back, so -- MS. ASHTON- CICKO: For the record, Heidi Ashton, Assistant County Attorney. There were a couple MR and LR designated sub- districts, which if you limit it to four, it would have been a reduction in development rights. So that's why we switched it to sub - districts. So it is -- most of it is in LR and was a four, but the other ones had a higher density. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the public have any comments on the consent issues for the hnmokalee Master Plan? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. Page 6 161 June 3110 �v CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. And that's for consent. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNF,Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Any that was -- from the motion maker and the second I'm assuming with the changes we discussed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: With -- obviously, yes, with the changes, surely. COMMISSIONER MIDNF,Y: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both acknowledged that. Okay, good, thank you. MR. MULHERE: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, thank you. Appreciate it. Item #9A PETITION: BD- PL2009 -1259. TIMOTHY R. MCKENZIE Next up is the advertised public hearings. The first one is BD- PI.2009 -1259, Timothy R. McKenzie at 47 Southport Cove. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly swom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only disclosure I have is I called Rocky Scofield after receiving a complaint from the adjoining property to ask him to look at alternatives on how he might develop that property to satisfy the complaint, and I think we'll probably hear on that today. With that, Rocky, it's all yours. MR. SCOFIELD: Good morning. For the record, Rocky Scofield, with Turrell, Hall & Associates, representing Timothy McKenzie, whose residence is at 47 Southport Cove. Southport on the Bay is the division -- subdivision in Lely Barefoot Beach, which I have on the overhead. I'm sure most of you are familiar with where that is. This is Southport Cove in here. This is the -- this just shows you an aerial of the whole peninsula here. And we've done quite a few of these extensions around the area, anywhere from 30 feet out to almost 70 feet. This shows -- the dock outlined in blue is the proposed dock for Mr. McKenzie. And the dock there on the aerial that is existing, is just to the south of Mr. McKenzie's lot. We're proposing a dock that's got a 36 -foot extension for a total protrusion of 56 feet into a waterway that is 270 feet wide. Again, that waterway, that's measured from mean high to mean high water. Obviously there's lots of mangroves in this area, so a lot of times we come back and we look at navigable waterway. The navigable waterway distance in this area is 152 feet wide. The land across the -- I'm going to show you the aerial again. Page 7 161 June 3, 21 � That shows you the distances from the -- how the 270 is measured and then the clear distance from mangrove drip line to mangrove drip line is 152 feet. So a lot of times what we do in these cases, the -- we go to -- we show you both distances. Navigability is obviously the question here. It's 152 feet wide of navigable water. We are protruding 33 feet into that navigable waterway, which is a protrusion of 22 percent. On the other measurement, the 270 feet, which is mean high water line to mean high water line, the 56 feet total distance is a 20.7 -foot protrusion. The dock is configured -- the setbacks on the dock are 18 feet on the south property from the south riparian line. It's 25 feet from the north riparian line. It shows the access to their boatlifts is from the north, and that's why we've left a little bit more distance on the north side, so we won't have conflict should a dock in the future be built on the vacant lot to the north of Mr. McKenzie, if they were to build in at the 15 feet, which is the county setbacks. So we have -- we've received staff approval. Staff has gone through these, we've met all the criteria on both sections of the boat dock extension application, and I'll answer any questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, questions from the Planting Commission. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Rocky, that 13 -foot dimension you showed to the neighbor's dock, is that a survey dimension or is that something you got off the appraiser -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's a survey. You know, when -- the boat dock extension, part of the application is you have to have a legal survey of the property and the structures on either side of you. So every time we come before you, we have to show the position of what we're proposing in relationship to the existing structures on either side of what's being presented to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where is that shown in our packet? Because I never saw the neighbor's survey. MR. SCOFIF.LD: It's on the survey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on the foldout 1 1 -by -17 sheet, the first one. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 got it, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray' COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Rocky, in the letter that I've received from Mr. Olah -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pull the mic. closer to you, Bob. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm song. Can you hear me now'? MR. SC:OFIELD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In a letter that we've received from Mr. Olah, the concern -- one of the concerns they have is the ability to maneuver around the proposed dock in accessing the boat -lifts. Do we have a calculation, a space calculation there to be able to determine that as a probability? In other words, if you put -- I guess maybe can you show the two properties so that we can determine, or at least get a sense or I'm trying to understand how that concern will be valid. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. Well, it's -- you know, their dock and lift is 13 feet out where the lift is from their riparian line. Our proposed dock is 18 feet off the riparian line. So there's a distance of 31 feet. Now, that's going to change a little bit when you put -- when you put a boat on the neighbors to the south, when a boat goes on there, then it's going to be sticking out to the north probably another three feet. But still, depending on what size boat it has, there's 31 feet from that lift to our dock. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, and I appreciate that. The mooring of the vessels is intended to be more northerly of their property, is it not, on that decking and dock configuration that you've drawn there'? MR. SCOFIELD: You mean for the proposed dock'? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. MR SCOFIELD: Yes, they're accessed from the north. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if you will, assuming north being the top coming down -- MR. SCOFIELD- "c'hat's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- they would gain entry to their mooring byjust approaching the dock and sliding in. Page 8 16 June 3, 21 k)3 0 MR. SCOFIELD: Right. And that's -- the configuration of the dock was designed that way because we know, we're well aware of the neighbor's proximity to the riparian line. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MR. SCOFIELD: So not to interfere with them and us being able to get in -- Mr. McKenzie being able to get in and out, allowing also for the person, whoever moves in to the north of him, this is the configuration that works and doesn't interfere with anybody else's. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So from the largest vessel that's shown there to the point where their interference might be construed would be the riparian line. But that would be 13 feet plus some eight or nine feet before they would actually -- any vessel would actually get over into their riparian right area. Did you understand me? MR. SCOFIELD: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me try again. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at the larger vessel on that diagram. And from the tip of that vessel to the bow you have a distance -- and I don't know, what is that 19, 15 feet, something like that? Okay? MR. SCOFIELD: It's a 25 -foot setback. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That is including the riparian line. So it's 25 feet -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: enter into the riparian right area -- MR. SCOFIELD: Of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: MR. SCOFIELD: Right. -- before they would ever -- that Mr. McKenzie's vessel could possibly even -- of the adjacent -- Okay, thank you, that's what I needed to understand. And when people -- you know, riparian rights are there for structures. And your -- the code also says it's for moored vessel and the structure. Boats utilize other peoples, inside their riparian. They come across their lines. I mean, that's just a common thing with boating, you have to do that a lot of times to get in and out of your docks. And that's, you know, we try to minimize those things so there's no conflict. That's why we put the boats over on that side, so there's not boats backing out the other way to the south that would interfere with the neighbor to the south. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But that's also considered to be the navigable waterway as well, is it not? MR. SCOFIELD: Where the dock is? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would not be any kind of a transgression, it would be normal maneuvering. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a quick one. Rocky, the information that was provided to us, this platform that you have here, it said something about it was for handicapped access? MR. SCOFIELD: Mr. McKenzie has a paraplegic son who has use of his hands, but he's in a wheelchair. And this is -- what he's doing, he's going to put in a deck boat here for his son and make it accessible. His son can go out by himself on this boat. He needs a turnaround area when he gets in and out. The docks -- the walkways are only allowed to be four feet wide in this area due to conservation easements and all of that stuff. So when he gets out there he needs to be able to maneuver to turn around if he needs to and get back. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that's what --I was just trying to figure that out. Because I have a mother who's in a wheelchair and I know what it takes to maneuver. And that five -foot area down to the boats -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- certainly wasn't going to get somebody in a wheelchair on and off. Page 9 14 1June 3110 h MR. SCOFIELD: He can get on the boat when he gets -- you know; obviously there'll be a ramp onto the boat there and -- to the smaller boat for him. And when he gets off, obviously he's going in the right direction. But if he were to get out there and had to turn around, that's what that's for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a comment. But Rocky, code five -foot turnaround is -- 1 mean, the dock is 15 feet you're making for the turnaround? Do you think that's excessive, or -- and since, you know, when the dock comes through the mangroves, it really could cut over towards where you're positioning the lifts at an angle too and kind of cut away some of that -- you know, there is concern over excessive dock in this review. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, a five -foot turnaround is what most people would be looking for, not a 15 -foot turnaround. And could you not angle that over a little bit and kind of make that a little bit easier to come around that area for the neighbor? MR. SCOFIELD: That may be possible. What we're stating here -- you know, we did this -- obviously design this way, and we're staying under the state rules. This — the state rules in outstanding Florida waters is under -- 500 square feet or under. That's what this dock was designed to. And, you know, the 15 -foot area was just a design feature. I think that's -- you know, is it -- could it be cut down a little? Maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what's a better position on that, you may want to take those two docks, the five -foot and the four one, extend them straight out till they meet and create a comer, and that be the outside corner of that deck that you've put there. And move the rest of the deck in closer to the mangroves. That's a dead space anyway; you're not going to put a boat there, it's not going to hurt anybody to -- MR. SCOFIELD: Of the turnaround area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. You understand what I'm saying? MR. SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might be a solution, and it would eliminate some of the concerns maybe the neighbor has over view. It leaves the same amount of deck but moves it inside closer to your property in an area you can't use and nobody could use anyway. Instead of making it go out farther. So do you see anything that would be problemat -- MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, 1 don't -- yeah, just looking at it, yeah, that could be moved in. You see the five -foot figure? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: Here, let me put the bigger one on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, take that five -foot -- MR. SCOFIELD: That could just be, yeah, brought back five feet right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCOFIELD: And that would give a little bit better angle for the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it also would, you know, keep it to an inside area that you -- MR SCOFIELD: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- couldn't use anyway. MR. SCOFIELD I don't think the owner would have any problem with that. COMMISSIONER CARON: This is what you're talking about'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just slide it over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what is going to happen on that deck'? I mean, is that for a table and chairs, or -- MR. SCOFIELD: No, you can't -- you're not allowed to do that. The state regulates that. Even though this is exempt, they call those -- you know, it happens, but that's called non -water dependent structures. You're not supposed Page 10 16 tune 3, 110 to have umbrellas and tables and all that stuff there. Anything you put out there needs to be water dependent. A dock box to have your supplies for your boats, you know, that's okay. Table, chairs, lounge chairs, stuff like that is not. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So why are you making it 15 feet by 15 feet? I know you truncated the comers a little, but why does it have to be that big? What's going to happen out there? It's certainly not for a handicap turnaround. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. Well, it's -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if it was, it's a bad design anyway, because the guy would have to back the length of the dock to turn around. So what is going to happen on 15 feet by 15 feet? MR. SCOFIELD: Well -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the mic. MR. SCOFIELD: I'm sorry, excuse me. Ray was actually -- yeah, that's what I think Mark was talking about. Now, if you want to cut down that turnaround area a few feet, you know, that's not a problem. This was just a design that the owner wanted to go with. We were staying under the 500 square foot rule to be exempt from state regs in this area. And, you know, I don't see any problem with what Ray just put up on the screen. We still don't believe even reducing that -- that can be reduced a few feet, but it's still not excessive, we don't believe it is, for the wheelchair. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's solely going to be open for a wheel --in other words, the question I'm asking, what are you going to use it for? If you're going to use it for a turnaround, it's excessive. MR. SCOFIELD: It's a turnaround and for dock box storage for supplies for the boats. If you want to make a recommendation to reduce that five feet, I can certainly, you know, put that to the owner. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will certainly make that recommendation, that it not be larger than a 10 -foot by 10 -foot. And even that's giving you a lot of extra room. It's giving you five by five extra. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, if they move it in like this drawing shows and it's in dead space anyway, and they're not exceeding the limit set by the state, what difference does it make? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, the state has a maximum of threshold. And they're designing this thing to meet the threshold and essentially getting as much dock as they can get. So I just -- he's not answering why they really need it. It can't be for handicap turnaround because it's an excessive amount to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm looking at it from a different angle. Who cares why they need it? They have an ability to put that much in, they own a waterfront lot, that's not a bad design. If they want to use it to put a dock box or give themselves more latitude to walk back and forth, especially in a wheelchair on the edge of a water, what's wrong with that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, because I think what it will be, it will be a table with an umbrella and chairs and a place to go down by the water and sit. CHAIRMAN SPRAIN: It could -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the state doesn't want it out on these docks. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, it could be that in any condition you have here. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, I mean, that's -- you know, that's conjecture. I mean, anybody can go do that, even on a five or six -foot dock if they want. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But then why do you want it so big? I mean, just to --so that you can brag to the -- MR. SCOFIELD: That's what the owner conveyed to us that he would like to have for his son and what they would want, and we were staying under the state rules. And we don't view that -- as Mr. Strain said, that's dead space area, especially when you move it back in anyway closer to the mangroves, so we don't feel it's excessive. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would favor Commissioner Schiffer's view on that, to reduce the size, and Page I 1 161 Jue 3, 2010 a3 10 -by -10 is fine If that's a question - -1 don't know that that's a view issue. And I can understand that, you know, we can countenance the idea of okay, they'll probably put tables and chairs there anyway. But it just seems extraordinarily large. And if it's the -- if the premise is for turnaround for the wheelchair, that falls short, in my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other conunents by the Planning Commission? (No response.) CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Rocky, thank you. Ashley? MR. SCOFIELD: If I may, I believe there's some public speakers here today, if I could re- address the board after they're done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. And l believe that this would be Ashley's, probably last presentation before this board. She is moving to the CRA. It's called the flight of ODES, because Nick is there. MS. CASERTA: It's not true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ashley, you've been a real good help to this board so we thank you. And the best of luck in your new position. The CRA is very fortunate to have you coming on board. MS. CASERTA: Thank you. It's Bayshore, not the hnmokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only who's spoken up for Nick, so -- MR CASALANGUIDA: 'there's a little extra in the check, Ashley. MS. CASERTA: For the record, Ashley Caserta, Senior Planner with the Zoning Department. I just have a few things I wanted to point out. There was a typo on Page 6 of my staff report. And that staff report -- towards the bottom it states that staff analysis indicates that the request meets four of the five primary criteria, and it should read all of the five. I had a few conversations on the phone and over the e -mail -- over a -mails that I sent to you from Mr. and Mrs. Olah. And Sylvia Olah is here to speak. And 1 forwarded their comments to this panel. And I did receive one phone call from a neighbor at 43 Southport Cove stating that they have no objection to this petition. And that's all that I have, unless you have any questions for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ashley, thank you. Ray, do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: None on this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does anybody in the public wish to speak on this item? Yes, ma'am. Just come on up and identify yourself in the microphone, and let us know what you have on your mind. MS. OLAIL Silvia Olah. 0-L -A-H. S-1-I.-V-1-A. Good morning. First of all, I want to apologize that my husband's not here with me. He had to leave yesterday because he had a prior business commitment in New York. And so 1 -- we both felt it was so important us to be here and comment and express our concerns, and so I'm here. I don't want beleaguer you, because you've received our written comments already, but I just -- just as a brief background, we purchased the home last November, 2009, with the intent of making it our primary residence and retirement home. And the boatlift and dock has been there for the past 11 years. And we are looking forward to a wonderful -- living in a wonderful environment and boating possibilities for us. Currently you can see in our packet our aerial view of our dock. We have an unobstructed water view and an unobstructed waterway access. And we feel and we're concerned that the proposed dock will have a negative impact on both. 'the way the dock protrudes out into the waterway, if you're looking at the edge of our dock, which our dock protrudes about 20, 25 feet. So we're actually in the middle of their walkway and seeing a very huge dock structure Page 12 1 b 1 1b3 June 3, 2010 there. The private homes around our cove with their docks all have boats either parallel or very, very close to the water line and not protruding right into the waterway. And in looking at how we have gotten the design from Ashley, who was so kind to forward it to us, we feel our ability to dock into our boatlift that faces the adjoining property of the proposed dock will be difficult. We've asked a few people in our community that own homes and own boats there tojust come and give a quick visual look. And they said that even an experienced boater, which obviously we're not yet, would have some difficulty maneuvering the dock into that specific boatlift. And also what we didn't mention in our small letter was our concern of safety and property damage. In these maneuvers, should something occur, we would not have to have -- we would not like our safety and the safety of our passengers affected, as well as damaging -- possibly doing some damage to the proposed dock or odd dock as we maneuver the boat into that boat slip. And I know that the aerial shots give you a view, but if you are standing at our dock looking at the waterway, it really looks as if the protrusion of that dock will be -- will be right in that waterway. So basically in conclusion, and thank you so much for listening to our concerns and taking them into account, we currently have, you know, an unobstructed water view, unobstructed waterway passage from both our docks that is -- will be compromised. And on the other hand, the owner of the proposed dock will have an unobstructed view and an unobstructed access to the waterway we feel at somewhat at our expense. So we hope that there is some type of dock configuration available that would mitigate what we feel we are concerned about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Olah? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ma'am, I appreciate your concerns, I do. But I'm going to ask you what I think might be a little bit of a tough question for you. When you buy a property and you have a lovely place and you look out and see unencumbered, it's lovely, you don't want to see that changed. But I mean, in reality, you must know things will change, right? MS. OLAIL Uh -huh. And we -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And your question -- what you're looking for is something to be reasonable, and that's where the real question ties, what is reasonable. And I have -- I've done a bit of boating myself, sailboat, which is a singles crew and quite challenging to maneuver, and so 1 can appreciate your concern. But at the same time, because I have boated I understand that just like driving a car, one learns how to deal with it. Why do you believe that you and those persons -- why do you believe with that much distance that you will have difficulty with your dock? What is it that you see that I fail to see? MS. OLAH: Well, we were looking at purchasing two boats, somewhere between 20 and 28 feet. And the distances -- the distance between the riparian line from us and the riparian line from them would restrict the size of the boat. I tried to call several boat dealers to understand if there is some type of formula, if you have a 20 -foot boat how long -- how much of a space do you need to maneuver into a slip such as ours. And I was told there is no formula, that it depends on the radius of the boat. So, you know, having that much space, whatever the space is, restricts. And I'm not quite sure how much room we have based on the angle we would need to come in on at that boat dock. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I -- pardon me. MS. OLAH: And it's just a concern and we're just expressing it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. And you mentioned New York where your husband is. And I think that most persons, especially young people, when they start out with parallel parking, they wish the cars were two lengths away instead of being like that. And it's a matter of leaming and it's scary, and I understand that. Page 13 161 1 June 3, 2010 �✓ And fm not going to judge how you will do, but I know that most boaters get adjusted. I wish you well with that. I think your concerns are valid, but they may not be as severe as you expect they could be. MS. OLAH: I do appreciate that. And the only consideration we're asking is, is there anything that could be done to the proposed dock that would, you know, mitigate or help us to have the least amount of negative impact. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 1 understand that. And I have one last question relative to that. I was looking at the pictures that were given us in our packet. And from your house it seems that the -- I'm guessing now because I haven't been there. It would seem that you cannot -- if you're standing by your lawn, I'm assuming you have a lawn, you couldn't see past the mangroves because they seem to be high. So your view is that of mangrove. And in the distance you see the waterway from a floor. So you would have to go out to your dock in order to see that there's an obstruction caused by any other dock; is that correct? MS. OLAH: Well, we do have a wraparound terrace on the second floor that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second floor. MS. OLAH: -- oversees everything. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right. Well, 1 thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you had said the view that you were concerned about when your initial discussion started was From your dock. MS. OLAH: Right, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. And from your dock, any dock that's put north of you will have a change in your view. But you said something, you were going to get two boats somewhere between 20 and 28 feet. Your permit that you supplied to us shows 18 feet for one boat and 24 from the other. And it shows the 18 -foot boat on the side facing this particular neighbor, and it shows your setback to be I S feet and you're only 13 feet. You know, a lot of your concerns may be self-imposed. If your dock was built properly or if you wanted larger boats and you rebuilt your dock to accommodate larger boats, you may be able to avoid the concerns that you have here today. MS. OLAH: You know, this was just recently brought to our attention. We purchased the home in November of 2009. And we aren't at the state of mind -- you know, we're intent on looking into our boat acquisitions after my husband retires at the end ol'this year so, you know, I'm not totally cognizant of all the details. I'm sure we'll discover it as we discover everything else when we come down here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to be careful, because if you go out to purchase a boat and you buy one in excess of what you were supposed to put there, you could end up in some more trouble, so -- MS. OLAH: 1 appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I'd check all that stuff before you go buy and save you some effort. Or at least before you go buy, if you want to change your docks to accommodate a larger boat, come in and get the right permits for it. Okay, anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. OLAH: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rocky, did you want to have any final comments? MR. SCOFIELD: Yes, I just wanted to say a few things. I appreciate Mr. Murray's comments on the mangroves. I've been on this site, and a lot of these areas up here, the mangroves do hide the docks from the first floor of the patios. Obviously when you get to the second story on these places, you can see a lot of everything. But, you know, my client from his second story, he's got a pretty tall house, he can see all the other docks too. And that's just a function of living on the water. Nobody has an unobstructed view, pretty much. You know, you're going to see a dock here and there in this area. Page 14 161 03 June 3,2 1 So with that, my client -- I met with Mrs. Olah yesterday, and I understand her concerns. And the way their dock -- they didn't build -- they inherited that dock; they bought the home. And as you pointed out today, there are some problems with that. But that's what they're stuck with. I understand that. We're here today for -- to get an extension for my client who no fault of his that that dock is the way it is and that their problems are the way -- we have designed this dock not to be a problem with anybody. And that's what we're here on the -- there's plenty of room to the south of the neighbor's dock, the Olah's dock. There's 33 feet from their dock to the south property line. And that's totally unobstructed access in that area. So Mr. McKenzie is -- you know, he wants to be a good neighbor, and I can certainly -- the comments that were made today, by bringing the turnaround area in five feet, reducing it to 10 feet, I don't -- if you want to -- if that's your wish, I can run that by Mr. McKenzie. Again, he -- you know, he doesn't want to cause any problems here. But we're not -- our dock designed the way it is should stand alone. But, you know, we're open to what you have to say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's interesting this reduction in footage. If you take and lop off the five feet that extends past the five -foot dock that you have out there, you end up with a 10 -foot area. So maybe that's all you -- could you put that diagram back on? I think that's all you need to do. Instead of moving anything back in, you just simply lop off the outside five feet and you end up with an area that's -- see what I'm saying? MR. SCOFIELD: That would probably work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's not what you're saying on the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's Ray's architecture. MR. SCOFIELD: No, no, no, hejust moved the whole thing back. I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Saw off everything -- MR. SCOFIELD: Just saw that off. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Drop the five feet that's outside the five -foot dock and you're covered. MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct. I don't think Mr. McKenzie would have a problem with that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He shouldn't. MR. SCOFIELD: And that would obviously give the neighbor a little bit more comer to cut coming into their lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, does that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I like that. That's fine. Let's go with that. But Rocky, one thing too, is if you want to help a handicapped person, instead of making the dock five feet wide, if you made that six, maybe even seven, that's where the help would be, not where the two docks intersect, to give him the chance to turn around. In other words, getting on and off the boat's going to be his problem. That's where he's going to need the dimension. You know what I mean? Where you have the five -foot leg of that, if you were in here saying I've got to make that seven for handicapped, I would be -- MR. SCOFIELD: Right. Well, they're going to put in a -- there's a ramp platform between the dock and the boat that's going to have enough width where they can angle back and go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But that's where it needs to be turning -- MR. SCOFIELD: I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The second thing, just a quick -- MR. SCOFIELD: He said that this -- you know, that that would be okay with the ramp system. They're going to have a pontoon boat and have a ramp out to it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: After then one question is after a dock is installed, is there an as -built survey to anything to catch the problem that happened on their lot? I mean, first of all, you didn't build that dock to the south, right? MR. SCOFIELD: No, I did not. And I didn't do the BDE either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But when you complete a dock, do we have a system where we do a survey to -- dock. MR. SCOFIELD: Usually you -- the county has an as -built survey that's required. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Showing it in the wrong place? Because that's a really poorly positioned MR. SCOFIELD: You bet. Page 15 161 June 11010 03 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This boat's going to cantilever off the back of the lift and make it even worse. MR. SCOFIELD: If you look on the aerial -- and this is a problem. You know, when docks were built, and I probably have done this in the past too, but when they -- surveys obviously weren't required. When this BDE was done, surveys weren't required. Somebody just handed in a drawing, we -- you know, everybody assumes it's all -- the drawings are in good faith, that's the way it is. That's why the BD -- obviously the BDE would not have been passed if the dock angled over. And you can see when -- excuse me. ' I he -- when you look at the riparian line -- now, the walkway, the Olah's dock -- or used to be the Leck (phonetic), they're the people that used to own it. It's 15 feet where it meets the land, okay. That's what it was shown on the old drawings. But when they built it, it angled out, and that's where you get the 13 feet. Of course there were no as -built surveys as you're -- certifications as you're saying now. Those are in place today. And surveyors go out and lay out -- we're not into -- unless we're into construction management, which we don't do most private residential, but we sure ask that the contractors get a surveyor to lay out the points of the dock so it is where it's supposed to be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But in the construction of a dock even today there's no survey required and there's no as -built survey required? MR. SCOFIELD: I believe there is. I believe there is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this isn't that old. This is 10 years old? MR. SCOFIELD- That was done in'99. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's I I years. That should have had all those surveys. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, those rules weren't in place then of the surveys. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, based on the drawing you have here, that 42 feet, does that mean the Olah's boat dock has a 22 -foot dock extension as well'? MR. SCOFIELD: That 42 feet -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because Ms. Olah doesn't believe they have a dock extension, but I think --it looks like they do. MR. SCOFIELD: They do. There was an after - the -fact boat dock extension applied for by the contractor at that time. What had happened, if you read back through all the paperwork, that was the Leck residence, prior to the Olahs. You know, they showed it out 20 feet. Well, as we know, that's a -- they got a pennit for it and then lifts went in also. Now they're out 32 feet. And that's where it happened; they made them come back in for an after- the -fact. The 42 feet, if you look at the aerial, whenever we -- and if you zoomed it out, you'll see the whole peninsula. Whenever we come into you, we do -- everybody in the area, we go in from on the computer on the aerials, and we calculate, we estimate. And it's pretty close, where -- how far out the extensions are. A lot of these extensions I have in files, so we know that. Now, the discrepancy between the 32 feet and our 42 feet, you know, that's what we estimated off of an aerial. So, you know, 1 don't know how pertinent that is here right now, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And looking at the prior, where you showed the Olah's dock, I believe with -- of course this is a guess - timation, but looking at the numbers there, I would be very concerned if they were to put in a 28 -foot boat in there and try to mix it. There's just -- that would be the wrong size boat for that area. Neither side there looks like it would be okay. MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the problem you have is a 28 -foot boat is in actuality at least a 34 -foot boat -- excuse me, a 32 -foot boat. You have outboards hanging out, you have bow pulpits. And then, you know, 28 -foot boat is overall length of 32. Then you're going to need more than That to maneuver, obviously. And you have to keep the boats apart. So they have some problems there that they're, you know, putting in a bigger boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a quick -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- question. Page 16 161 1 �3 June 3, 2010 Ray, could you go to the other picture you have. And the question might be, Rocky, is maybe when they did the riparian lines they didn't just extend the property line. We've had great testimony on where riparian goes. And should it not go perpendicular to the center of that channel? So maybe those lines rotate upwards in their appli -- MR. SCOFIELD: You know, no, they don't. Their appli -- I mean, I can show you their application. It comes straight off. And that's what -- you know, yeah, you know, if -- the thread of that channel, it's pretty close. It's almost exactly perpendicular to the thread of the channel the way those lines are right now. If you drew straight down through there, that cut, it's pretty darn close. They may cant a little bit, but it's not much. But when we have older docks that have already been through the process, they've been approved, we kind of have to go with their -- what their riparian lines they used back then. Because if we change them drastically, then they wouldn't be in compliance and that kind of thing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But the riparian, if somebody did do a center line, I could see where that angle would lift up and essentially bring their dock into compliance and actually start raising questions on your -- MR. SCOFIELD: It might shift a couple of feet, but the center line there is pretty close to being perpendicular. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, I just said that to make Mark's tooth hurt more. So I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Rocky, I have one question. It's not really an issue, Ijust want -- I'mjust curious. When you do the drip line dots on your maps for the mangrove line, do you go out and survey those drip lines or do you pull it off the aerial? MR. SCOFIELD: No. Surveyed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Survey. MR. SCOFIELD: That's all -- if you look at your foldout surveys, the drip line's on there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, but they match the aerial. So I didn't know which one you took them off of. But you actually survey them and it just happened in this case they do match the area. MR. SCOFIELD: What we do, if you'll no -- it doesn't exactly. We super- impose -- we layer on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky, you're getting into more detail than I needed. MR. SCOFIELD: Okay, wejust layer that over the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's not belabor the point. I needed it for background. Thank you. MR. SCOFIELD: It's surveyed. You can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rocky? MR. SCOFIELD: -- see there, it's not quite -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good man. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll close the public hearing, entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we recommend approval of this with the adjustment made by cutting out the dock and the extension past the five -foot section of the dock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it wouldn't be to recommend. Make a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I made it to approve, not recommend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you said recommend. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I'm approving. I know this is the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray seconded. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I'm not certain it's as clear. I would want to match it to a drawing or something. Page 17 161 1 3 June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Ray did a sketch. And Rocky, also -- MR. SCOFIELD: In the consent we will revise the drawing and bring it back in for the consent agenda. And it will be -- I'll be here and we'll put that on the overhead for the consent agenda. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That would be good. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Rocky, you don't have -- see the little truncated piece? You don't have to do that. 1 mean, this drawing is somewhat deceptive in scale. But see the little piece that -- you know, the original design had almost a hexagon thing going. MR. SCOFIELD: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You don't have to keep that little hexagon -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Square it off. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the piece of that, okay? You could square it off. MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, we have to change it for all building permits and everything anyway, so CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN S'T'RAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7 -0. Okay, thank you all. Item #9B PETITION: BD- 11L2009 -1157. MICHAEL AND DEBRA ROTKVICH Next item up is Petition BD- PL2009 -1 157, Michael and Debra Rotkvich. It's at Lot 43 of Southport on the Bay, unit two. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, it's all yours. MR. KELLY: For the record, my name is Mike Kelly. 1 am the president of Paradise Docks, who will be the builder of this project. And first thing I must do is apologize, I didn't have any colored beautiful photographs like Rocky did, but I have some things to show this construction of this dock. I hope this is clear enough. Cl IAIRMAN STRAIN: Clearer than what? MR. KELLY: Well, anyway, we're going to be located right across the street, as a point of reference. As you notice, the Little Hickory Bay, we're on the other side of Little Hickory Bay and the — and I've got an additional overhead. And this is the actual location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's much better. MR. KELLY: Thank you very much, 1 appreciate that. But the location is almost directly across the street from them. Not -- almost. But this site location is in the Little I lickory Bay area. Page 18 161 one 3,110 63 Oh, there you go, that's even better. As you can see in reference to the one wejust discussed, it is very close to --just a little bit south of that. As you can see, both the neighbors on either side of Mr. Rotkvich have docks existing. We're going to have a 25 -foot setback on either side. And I designed - this dock is meant to not impede the navigation of any other docks or interfere with their navigation whatsoever. As you can see, this is an older drawing, but I believe about a 25 -foot boat is about the maximum we can get in there. I had initially a 30 -foot boat, but Mr. Rotkvich indicated that he didn't plan to purchase anything that large. This is an older drawing. And at this time he was going to put a single -- either a PWC, which is personal watercraft, jet ski type of watercraft, or a flats boat on the other side. The dock extends into the water 48 and a half feet. We're approximately -- well, we are 58 feet, a little in excess of 58 feet from the thread of the channel. And this is a survey that was done by the water with depth readings all the way out. And they used the rangefinder that is accurate within a tenth of an inch to determine the actual thread of the channel. So the dock was again designed to give -- to not impede navigation from any of the neighbors. And it is set up for ease of access for Mr. Rotkvich for both of his watercraft. By the way, the -- both of the watercraft, if you add them up, do not exceed the 50 percent rule for the watercraft limit. Even after this older drawing. At this point I have another drawing. I don't think it's quite -- actually, that drawing that you had would be -- the color photograph, that would be great. We've already obtained DEP and Army Corps approval for this project. It has a 25 -foot setback from the riparian lines to the -- to each side of the dock. That gives 25 feet from his dock to his riparian line. And then as you can see, his neighbor's docks on either side, there's no problem with their navigation. I was contacted by the neighbor to his right as you're facing the water, and he requested a copy of the plans, which I provided for him. I sent them to him by fax. So he -- that's all he requested. And he was happy with the result. So -- at this time -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is that the way you oriented the lift, the -- it's going to actually cantilever out a little further than the dimension you requested. In other words, it's going to protrude past the -- you know, your dimension. And I think there might be concern, because we really have to measure to the -- MR. KELLY: To the vessel? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to the total vessel size. So in other words, all these dimensions here, there is one little small four -foot showing one of the beams of the thing, but are we asking for the right amount? Because for example, that 48 -five, or 46 -five, you're actually -- the motors and everything are going to stick out way past that. MR. KELLY: It's -- actually we're asking for 48 -five. I'm sorry, did I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is that including -- okay. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir, that includes the vessel. Ashley checked me on that. I had it to the edge of the outside lift piling. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. KELLY: Yes, and the drawing should show that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it shows the 46. You can take it down and see the -- oh, I see it. Okay, never mind, it's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Kelly, I must admit, you've confused me a little bit. Why did you show a drawing that is old when we have drawings in the packet that — which one are you trying to have us agree to? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. The one in the packet, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So what was the relevance of the one that was old? MR. KELLY: What I did, sir, is I was -- this is my first Planning Commission, so I was unaware of what Page 19 161 1 June 3, 2010 drawings I needed. So I reached into my pile of drawings and I happened to get one that was old. We are actually drawing one very similar to this. Let me get -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I have to pose this question while you're looking then. Because that drawing showed I thought a 30 -toot boat and this drawing that I'm looking at shows what I think may be a 25 or 26 -foot boat. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So which is it that we're searching for'? MR. KELLY: The 25 -foot boat, yes, sir. And it's in your packet. I happened to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I recognize that because I'm looking at it. MR. KELLY: And that's the one that I'm seeking approval on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we work with that ono, please? MS. CASERTA: For the record, Asl>ley Caserta. Exhibit A, as attached to the CCPC resolution, is also the proposed drawing that was included with the packet. I believe Mr. Kelly used the exhibit that was approved by DEP. I believe it's the exact same dock with a different size boat shown. That DEP exhibit is also in your packet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MS. CASERTA: But the one that's attached to the resolution shows a 25 -foot vessel, and that is the one we are looking at. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if[ heard you correctly then, what we're saying is that the DEP approved a vessel up to 30 feet. MS. CASERTA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the dock that would be constructed based on the newer, even though it would accommodate potentially a 25 or 26 -foot vessel, it could accommodate a 30 -foot vessel; is that what we're saying? MS. CASERTA: As I understand it, it could accommodate a 30 -foot vessel. The -- my criteria that I reviewed to doesn't have anything to do with the size of the vessel, but it does have something to do with, and I do look very closely at, where that vessel is going to be moored and how far into the water it's going to go as far as protrusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you understand my concerns, that the size of a vessel has something to do with the weight, which has to do with any kind of force on it against the dock and the structure of the dock. So you build it to the size of the vessel to hold it, that's where I'm coming from. MS. CASERTA: Understood. And the DEP and the exhibit that is shown attached to the resolution both show a 48.5 -foot protrusion. Same protrusion. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. KELLY: As a matter of clarification, we didn't need to put that 30 -foot boat on there because Mr. Rotkvich indicated -- but even if we did put a 30 -foot boat on there, the combined length of the vessels do not exceed the 50 percent rule, the Collier County rule for vessel length. But we just reduced it to what he actually had planned. And when I showed him the initial drawing and we signed off on it, I showed him what I could maximum the -- the size of boat I could maximum put on that particular lift. That's the reason for it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Bob:' COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, in talking about the combination of length of these vessels, this dock is being constructed to handle two personal watercraft. I mean, that's what you've got space for. Otherwise this whole configuration could be different. So he may not own one right now, but you're building so he can have two. MR. KELLY: He mentioned that he would potentially have a single water-- personal watercraft. I told him that DEP's regulations as well as Collier County requires that he have no more than two vessels. The design of this lift, they don't make a four -post lift for a personal watercraft, for single personal watercraft. Page 20 161 1 b3 June 3. 2010 The reason I designed this like this, because that's the size of a lift that you can get. And he's also talking about the possibility of setting it up for a flats boat. Because it's very shallow in that area. And Mr. Rotkvich likes to fish, and to get into the more shallow areas to fish he wouldn't be able to do that with a 25 -foot center console type boat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, could you put the diagram on the projector that shows the water depth? We have one that shows how your water depth graduates the distance and feet you go out. Looks like it's attached to your DEP permit MR. KELLY: Oh, okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that one there. You need to -- MR. KELLY: Oh, he's already got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pit it all in for me. Okay, that's fine. So you're looking at -- you need three feet of water depth to get to your personal watercraft depth? MR. KELLY: Well, no, sir. But the requirement of DEP is that you have at least three foot for a vessel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you need three feet of depth in order to dock the personal watercraft. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: According to this diagram, the three feet is 20 feet out from the mean high water line, right? Is that correct? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. That's what it shows on the diagram, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Where is the boardwalk of that diagram? MR. KELLY: Well, the -- this particular diagram cannot show the complete boardwalk because it's -- it goes out appro -- well, let's see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'm getting at is it looks like you're 20 feet out from the mean high water and 30 feet out from something. On the bottom of the page your arrow says mean high water line /property line and it points to what I assume was the measurement line where you're taking all your measurements from. Is your mean high water and the property line the same thing? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. It's on the survey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then if your mean high water and property line is the same thing and you're 20 feet out from the mean high water property line, then how does that relate to the page that you attached to your permit from the county that you just had up there that shows you being actually 24 feet out to the launch for the -- or actually the boat dock for the personal motor craft, the one that you moved to the -- yeah, on that one. Now, back off of that one a bit. You got to back off of it a little bit. Okay, towards the bottom. Do you see where it says mean high water property line? It's the second line up from the bottom. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your measurement from that line is 25 plus four to the lift for the personal watercraft. So you're actually almost 30 feet. That seems to conflict with your depth find of 20 feet that you show on the document that we previously discussed. The documents don't seem tojive. And while we're on that subject, in the very first document you showed us from the DEP -- MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you showed a mangrove drip line that is completely different than the mangrove drip line on the application to the county. And I've seen no documents in your package that shows how your mangrove drip line overlays to the aerial, such as we saw in the first application. And the reason that's important is if that mangrove drip line changes and you've got the depth, you can move these docks in further and it wouldn't need such an extension. MR. KELLY: Well, I have to address this particular slide that we've got up here. The mangrove -- that does not conform to the mangrove drip line, where I've got labeled the mangroves. It's just to indicate that there are mangroves in there. I did not conform that to the mangrove drip line. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KELLY: So that's just an indication. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, let's address the distance from the property line mean high water line. On this drawing it shows to the lift for the personal watercraft 29 feet. And the width of the piling might make it say close to Page 21 16 1 Ine 3, 210 30. But on the DEP application that we pointed out earlier, you're showing 20 feet for that position from the same line. So that's a distance of 10 feet more. And I'm wondering how we got there. MR. KELLY: One moment while I look for this particular drawing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll tell you what, we need to take a break for the court reporter. Why don't we do that, you can get your paperwork organized, you know what questions I'm going to have and then we can come back. So let's take a break until 10:00, we'll come back and 10:00 and resume. Thank you. (Recess.) (At which time, Conmussioner Murray is absent.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from break. We were fortunate to have a lot of reading handed out to us on break, so -- Melissa, this is your first meeting. And ever since Nick took over, we've had less to do. But then occasionally we have these big volumes of documents to read. So you will have a very good weekend reading all this, I'm sure. So Mr. Kelly, let's go back to your issues. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you been able to figure out these dimensions? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir, I have. The depth chart that you have which is the side view, those measurements into the water, the depths are -- were taken at the -- at those distances. Not these distances that are on the side view, but where the lift is going to go. We actually have on the aerial -- or on the overhead view we have the survey. And this is what was approved through DEP and what I actually submitted. And it is part of your package. It is going to be 30 feet out, and it is three foot at the point of the dock. I put this together. The drawing of the side view with the depths, I put it together later for DEP. And obviously they didn't catch this or question it. But it was incorrect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which was incorrect, the application of the DEP? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. The -- I had to provide them with depth readings and the side measurements or the side view. So that went with the DEP package. And I never changed it for Collier County when I put in the application. So this is incorrect, the side view distances out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then how do we know where the depths fall in relationship to the entire length of the dock, starting from the mean high water line? Because, I mean, that's a requirement. We need to understand where your depths go to understand why you're justifying a depth so you can meet the primary and secondary criteria. And this kind of puts the kibosh on that a little bit. MR. KELLY: Well, the surveyor provided me with depth readings all the way out. And I tried to superimpose those depth readings, and I obviously made an error in the distance on the side view. It is three foot at the lift point on the survey, which is 30 feet out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I -- I don't think the mindset is to say you can't have a dock. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Generally we try to get people to get their docks. If you own a piece of property in the water, you know, you should have a right to have a dock. But I think we have to have complete and accurate records every time we issue a permit or we could have problems like you saw with the neighbor in the prior hearing. Your documents I think could use a little touching up. 1 think if you gave us a depth chart with the dock overlaid on the depth chart and with the drip lines that matched the aerial so we see how the mangrove drip lines match with the docks and how the docks match with the depths and how the boat areas all line up. Because the way it appears now, you may not need as much of a protrusion based on depth as you're asking for, and that is one of the criteria that you have to meet. So you nught be better off coming back to us with some more better laid out documents so we can finalize this. Hot that's just a suggestion. We'll wait and hear what Ashley has to say and then the rest of the questions from the Planning Commission. I just -- I think we should use a little more information to make sure that there's no mistake in the way you build a dock versus what you're permitted for. Page 22 161 1 b3 June 3, 2010 MR. KELLY: Well, sir, we have an aerial. And again, it's not -- and it shows the overlay. I can't make it out very well. It's a copy. The -- there is a dock drawn on an aerial view of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. KELLY: -- of this area that we want to propose this dock. And it shows all the mangroves there. So you have the mangrove drip, but — the drip line. But I'm trying to see if I have a good copy of that that would -- and I don't think that I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have the -- but you don't have an accurate drawing right now then of the depth going out as the dock goes out, one over -layed on the other; is that a fair statement? MR. KELLY: That's a fair statement, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And here's some of the criteria that you have to meet. And you probably are aware of this. Secondary criteria number one talks about the dimensions of the dock and it said, there must be at least one special condition related to the property. These may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth or sea grass beds. And if you don't have a mangrove reason to have the docks out that far and you don't have a depth reason to have the docks out that far, you don't meet all the criteria to be out that far. Now, you may have those reasons that may be legitimate, but I think you need to clearly show those based on the fact that the drawing that we were looking at is in error. I think a corrected drawing and I think a drawing showing the actual drip line of the mangroves instead of an erratic line would go a tremendous way to help you make your case that this is needed. At least that's my thought. You may hear more before the days over, but -- MR. KELLY: Well, I wanted to mention the fact that the -- that the secondary lift, the one for the flats boat, or the PWC, whichever they elect to put on there, will need approximately 18 to 24 inches of depth just for the lift. You've got a cradle system, you've got a bunk system that holds that vessel up. And that's I think part of the requirement from DEP, that you have at least three foot at the point of a lift. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, and I'm not disagreeing with you at all. No, you're not -- I'm not trying to disagree with you. I'm simply -- I don't have the documents in front of me telling me that that distance that you have out is where you need to be to meet that depth. In fact, I have a document that says you don't need to be that far out to meet that depth. That's the conflict. MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, anybody else have any questions of the applicant before we go to the staff report? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And back again on -- above the watercraft you have a 12 -foot by 18 -foot dock area you're building, right'? MR. KELLY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Am I reading that right? Because you have --well, why do you have a diagonal pattern, just to represent that that's part of the existing dock? MR. KELLY: The program that I used to draw these with is called Smart Draw, and they don't have the ability to -- or did not at the time I drew these over a year ago, have the ability to draw the dock pattern the other way. This is not the dock pattern. I've already made that aware to Mr. Rotkvich. So that's not the pattern. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Well, what is that -- why do you have that large area there? You saw in the prior hearing that we were concerned about bringing too much dock out. What is going to happen out there? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. Two things: First off, it is difficult to load; and you really shouldn't load a boat, and it's difficult underneath a lift. So you need a docking area or a staging area where you can place a boat to off -load and on -load coolers or fishing gear, whatever you need. It is not recommended by any lift company that you ride a lift up and down or have -- you know, try and put that on underneath a lift. So that's part of the reason. The other reason is Mr. Rotkvich has family that comes down and visits from time to time, and they would Page 23 161 1 3 June 3. 2010 like a fishing area that they could go out there and enjoy the evening and fish or do whatever they want to out there. But the main reason is for the -- for the departure of the boat, loading and unloading the boat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why isn't it then four feet, five feet? Why do you need essentially eight feet by 12? I mean -- MR. KELLY: Well, the maximum amount of terminal plattonn that is allowed pretty much is 160 square feet that DEP likes to abide by. And they do have the four -foot access walk. So we kind of stayed within those regulations. And of course the larger lift has to go out that far to accommodate a 25 -foot boat. And therefore, we just -- that platform just fit within that -- in those criteria. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, on this --I believe it's the one you have up on the visualizer right now. That mangrove line there, that is a surveyed mangrove line; is that what you were telling us? MR. KELLY: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and if that is a surveyed mangrove line, that means mangroves are not an issue in relationship to the placement of your dock. So now it becomes a depth issue, and that isn't going to be an important one. MR. KELLY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ashley? MS. CASERTA: I just thought I would touch on that, as opposed to waiting until it was my turn to comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's your turn. I think we're done asking. MS. CASERTA: Okay, primary criteria number --sorry, secondary criteria number one, whether there are special conditions not involving water depth related to the subject property whichjustify the proposed dimensions and location. fhe reason it is designed, as 1 understood it according to the application, the reason the proposed dock is designed at this location is because there's an existing dock that protrudes into the water through the mangroves at this same location. So that is what justifies the location and placement of the accessed walkway through the mangroves. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was more talking about if you look at the positioning of the boat against the location of those lines that were squiggly in regards to the drip line -- MS. CASERTA: Yes. CI (AIRMAN STRAIN: -- if the boat can go closer to the mangroves, it wouldn't need to be so far out. So that's how I was looking at it. 1 wasn't too concerned about where the walkway was coming through the mangroves. MS. CASERTA: I understood your point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's all yours now. You want to make a regular presentation, or -- MS. CASERTA: The only thing I have to say is that 1 received one phone call from a neighboring property owner at 43 Southport Cove that stated they had no objection to the petition. And I'm available to answer questions. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have a question of Ashley? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Silence. Thank you. Ray, do we have any public speakers registered? MR. BELLOWS: I have a speaker form, but it's tilled out by Michelle (sic) Rotkvich, I guess. MR. ROTKVICH: It would be Michael. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, Michael, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you want to come up and speak, or -- I mean, if your agent has spoken all you needed, that's fine. But it's up to you if you want to say something, you're more than welcome to. MR. ROTKVICH: Ijust had a couple ofconcerns about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to come up and use the microphone, and state your name. And if you could, spell the last spelling of it for the court reporter. Page 24 161 ne 3, 110 03 MR. ROTKVICH: My name's Michael Rotkvich. Last name is R- O- T- K- V- I -C -H. I'm the owner of 54 Southport Cove. We received a restoration for the shoreline as far as adding vegetation. And within it we have all intentions on complying with the vegetation. But I would like some consideration on two issues. There's an existing tree, ficus trees that are planted in the backyard. They've been there for I believe forever. But I know at least 17 years, the previous owner planted it. And I have a four -inch flagpole that just encroaches into the easement by maybe a foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I hate to tell you this, but this has been advertised only as a discussion on your boat dock extension. If there are other issues, they cannot be brought up for any kind of discussion or motion today. So -- and there are processes within the county to address all those that you have to go through first before you bring this issue up. MR. ROTKVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ashley, is there anything different? MS. CASERTA: Attached to the resolution there is a planting plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. CASERTA: And so that's what he's talking about. Because the environmental reviewer had requested that planting plan be in place as part of this boat dock extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But we're not dealing with his removal of a ficus tree or of a variance on a flagpole, though, pre we? MS. CASERTA: The planting plan as I understand it is requiring those to happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I stand corrected. Sorry. If the -- but the planting plan -- Ashley, just come on back up. The planting plan doesn't allow for a variance, does it? I mean, if he's saying he has a flagpole encroaching and to be honest with you, I didn't pay much attention to the planting plan, so maybe we need staff to -- and 1 see Susan walking on up. Maybe she can enlighten us as to what this issue is about and how it relates to the boat dock extension. MS. MASON: Good morning. For the record, Susan Mason with Stormwater and Environmental Planning Section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stormwater? MS. MASON: That's our new section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They stuck you in Stormwater? MS. MASON: And Environmental Planning. And -- maybe I'll just say and Environmental Planning really loud. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy. Why don't you just take a big stick over at ODES and just stir it all up and see what comes out of it. MS. MASON: I had to say what section because 1 couldn't remember my department name. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't blame you. MS. MASON: The reason that the planting plan -- the replanting plan is required for this part of Lely Barefoot Beach's PUD requirements, there's a 20 -foot -- all these houses that are up in this area in Southport Cove have a 20 -foot conservation easement at the back of their property and it's required to be maintained and the -- largely mangroves but other native vegetation. There are some properties that don't comply with this. The previous boat dock extension that you just heard, you may have noticed in some of the photos, you can see on that vacant lot they had put up their silt fencing and all the protective signage so they don't encroach into their 20 -foot required easement and don't damage it. There are some existing homes and some other properties that don't have the native vegetation. And when those come in for review, we do have them come into compliance with the conservation easement and make it either part of a boat dock -- if it didn't require an extension, it would be at the building permit review. This applicant was given the opportunity, when they came in, to either supply the restoration plan as part of this review or to -- that we could turn the case over to Code Enforcement. They elected to provide the restoration plan. Page 25 161 1 63 June 3, 2010 And as part of that plan, on Page I under existing conditions section, the third paragraph, it does say that the sod, the flagpole and the non - native exotics will be removed. And that would be a requirement of maintaining it in its natural state. And to kind of further answer your question about whether or not a planting plan could approve a variance, no it could not, it would have to be in compliance with the existing platted conservation easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I appreciate that background. And now, sir, let's get to your other questions. You had the ficus tree issue and a -- MR. ROTKVICI I: The location -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- issue with your flagpole. What is it you wanted -- MR. ROTKVICH: The location of the flagpole. CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to do with the -- let's start with the liens trees. What is it you were asking in relationship to this -- MR. ROTKVICH: Well, 1'd like to -- if I could incorporate it into that layout for the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Conservation plan? 1 can probably tell you no before she does. Ficuses are not much longer allowed as acceptable planting in Collier County. At least some of the species. And they're not something I think you would want to see in a conservation plan, because it's not native. So I would say no to that. I don't think you can go there. And is that -- Susan, please correct me if I'm wrong on those assumptions. MS. MASON: No, you're substantially correct. There was -- there's a couple of native ficus species. I don't know the species that this is referring to. However, since the professional who prepared this, who is a biologist, you can see on the last sheet of the planting plan, the credentials for the person who prepared it, he is qualified. Since he had stated that they were to be removed, it would be a non - native ficus. And the same with the structures. Like a flagpole could not be permitted. The easement does allow -- really the only structure is the dock to pass through the mangrove area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the flagpole. So what that means is if you want the flagpole to stay there, you have to go through a variance process. And it would probably mean amending your conservation easement. I don't even know if, to be honest with you, that would even be worth it. Are there any other questions you had, sir? MR. ROTKVICH: Well, no. 1 just wanted to make that statement. When I bought the property a year ago, there was nothing stipulating that I had to -- I didn't even -- I didn't know that the easement had to be landscaped. I figured it was a developer that cleared the lot and was permitted to do so. And I have to re- landscape the lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we found this is happening quite a bit in the county. So you're not alone, if that helps you any MR. ROTKVICH: Well, I'm alone today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ROTKVICI I: You're welcome. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we're back at -- I think we've heard all the public speakers, we've had the comments. Mr. Kelly. And I'll turn to the rest of the board for an opinion too. I don't know how to get through to the end point today with approval with the documents that aren't as complete as they need to be. I don't think you've got a problem if you get the rest of -- if you bring the documents, fine tune them. Bring us an accurate depth document showing where the dock is located in relationship to the depth and all that, and to come back and request right now a continuance to come back at another time. Now, you don't have to do that, we can vote on it the way it is, but it may not be a favorable vote if you don't come back with better paperwork. It's up to you. MR. KELLY: I'll request a continuance. Cl [AIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the rest of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER C:ARON: It's the right thing to do. MR. KELLY: So what you would like to see is the depth readings going out, accurate depth readings? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need the depth readings showing where the dock is located in relationship Page 26 161 1 1�3 June 3, 2010 to the depth, since you've told us now that the other document we have is not accurate. And we also -- I think it would be helpful to know where that drip line is of the mangroves, to show that you're not intruding in the mangroves and whether or not they impact the docks. In case the depths show you could be moved in, the mangroves may be the prohibiting factor. So I think those two things would be important for you to bring back to us. Okay? Does that work for everybody? Okay, so the motion's been for -- the applicant's asked for a continuance. Is there a motion to accept that? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much, sir, we appreciate it. Item #9C PETITION: VA- PL2009 -045. SARA BARRERA Next item up is a variance petition, VA- PI,2009 -045, Sara Barrera at 202 Washington Avenue. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly swom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any comments from -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a disclosure. I asked for and received the copy of the plans that I believe were submitted for permit in 2008 -- or, I'm sorry, a year ago, 2009. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other disclosures? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I had a conversation with the applicant during the break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's it, great. Thank you. I guess the presentation is being made by the applicant. Mr. or Mrs. Barrera? MR. BARRERA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You can make it as short as you want. And we canjust ask you questions, however you'd like to proceed MR. BARRERA: Good morning, everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to identify yourself first for the court reporter. MR. BARRERA: My name is Jose Barrera. B- A- R- R- E -R -A. MRS. BARRERA: My name is Sara Barrera. S- A -R -A. B- A- R- R- E -R -A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 'Thank you. MR. BARRERA: We'rejust here with this petition for that we can keep our very much needed space. We're kind of nervous, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's quite all right. I notice all your neighbors are in support of what you're trying to do. MR. BARRERA: Yes, sir. We spoke with everybody, and nobody is opposed to it. Everybody is -- it's okay Page 27 with 161 une 3, 2010 3 We even spoke with the -- it was a high school and they weren't against it either. So we're just here and hoping we can, you know, approve it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll make this as painless as possible. MR. BARRERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we'll ask -- we'll see if there's any questions. Any questions from the Planning Commission of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the staff have a report? You may break a record today in being the fastest processed application. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes. Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning Services. And we are recommending approval of this variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of staff? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, 1 have a question. I'm wondering if the county discovering this eight -foot encroachment and bringing it before this board is a really good use of staff time and expense for the homeowner, the $5,000 that he had to pay. Considering how many similar violations you could potentially find in Immokalee if you really started looking. Do we really want staff to be, you know, looking for that kind of thing? Especially since it's not really a negative eflect on anybody's health or welfare of the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Paul, I certainly do agree with you. I think the only way this should have come up is if there was a complaint filed. And if there wasn't a complaint filed, it shouldn't be in front of us today and these people shouldn't have had to waste the money to be here. MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, I can respond to that. There is a copy of the code enforcement case in the backup. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there a complaint? MS. GUNDLACH: Yes, there was. They responded to a complaint. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're kind of stuck with it, unfortunately. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question of Nancy. Nancy, did they obtain a permit or they're in the process of? MS. GUNDLACH: We can ask them. Have you applied for a building permit? MR. BARRERA No, ma'am. They say we just need like an after- the -fact permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. BARRERA: I think so, yes. Yes, because we submitted everything there. So that's what it is, after -the -fact permit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So these are being processed as we speak? I mean, they were drawn up in 2008, October. The date of this, Nancy, I guess -- where did you get it from? MS. GUNDLACH: From our applicant. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which is five, 2009. 1 mean, you're going to have to -- this still means you have to get a building permit. MR. BARRERA: Yes, sir. I think that's what was said with Maria Rodriguez, 1 think, we have to get an after- the -fact permit. And I don't know, something that we have to pay some twice the amount of the fines or something like that. That's all I really know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. BARRERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's odd that there was a complaint tiled but there's no objection to this. MS. GUNDLACH: Yeah, I noted that in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we know who filed a complaint? Was it an individual or was it -- MS. GUNDLACI I: Well, complaints filed with code enforcement are anonymous. Page 28 16 ! 1 63 June 3, 2010 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's another problem with this County. So — COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But, you know, that being said, Mark, I don't think it's a good idea for people to go ahead and enclose carports without obtaining building permits because of things like this. A carport is not the same as an enclosed building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but when the process costs more to fix the problem than the problem costs to do, I mean, this is a lot of money. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, then the money versus penalty we could look at. And I think Nick is looking at that stuff. But the concern is there's no way we should give anybody the impression we encourage you to do your carport enclosure without a building permit first. Because I think you may have difficulty getting a permit, because it's difficult to get a permit, even if you do it brand new_ COMMISSIONER CARON: And I mean, this one involves a bathroom, and it involves plumbing, not -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: --just the structure alone. I think there area lot of potential pitfalls here that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then what happens is the -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Hopefully they've done it right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- they'll look for a statement from a design professional who will endorse that everything was done properly. Which; the only guy I think can do that is Superman, who can look into things. So it is a -- it's a mess if you build it ahead of time. And you know that better than anybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regardless, they're in the process to get it fixed and I think that's where we're at today. Does this board have any questions or concerns they want to ask of anybody at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Paul -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Go ahead, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- it's his turf. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, no, no. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion that we recommend approval of this variance. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Midney. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6 -0. And by the way, let the record show Mr. Murray had to leave earlier for a prior engagement. And thank you very much. And again, sorry you had the expense to get here today, but -- MR. BARRERA: I appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, old business. We don't have any. Anybody? (No response.) Page 29 16 .tune 3, 2010 Item #11 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: New business. Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Just for discussion purposes, as you hear these variance processes, we're looking — working with the County Attorney's Office to come up with an administrative variance process that would be a little different. This building is what, 10, 12, 13, 15 years old? Things like this where you talked about the expense in coming in front of the Planning Commission, criteria, time, if an application was filed. These are the kind of things you'd want to see handled more administratively. Cl IAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick, to be honest with you, the issue that I'm having with it is not the fact they're coming -- have to come through the process. That's fine, it's safe, it makes it work. But the cost. Someone said it was $5,000. That's huge. To get to a -- just to come in and ask for permission, just because somebody made a mistake. I don't know if they intentionally made one or not, but they didn't -- you know, I don't know why we'd want to charge someone that kind of money. That's a lot of money. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's based on advertising, staff time, preparing the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, so -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: --packages. If you want to do an abbreviated process for something like this, I'm sure we could come up with an abbreviated — CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think ifyou're coming in with a suggestion that there's a better way to do it that would save the public money, I'm all for that. So -- I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But here's the thing we've got to he careful. We do not want to endorse what this guy did. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And he's showing drawings with assumptions of footings that I know are not there for a carport. And you don't want to make it where it's easy for somebody to take a carport like he did and just enclose it. There's life safety issues on the inside of the house, there's issues on ventilation of the windows that Donna brought out, that there's plumbing in this case. God only knows what's happening. And we -- you know, we have a building process. We can never encourage anybody to do it. I lis only reason he's before us is he made the mistake of violating the setback because the original carport did. But in the design of that neighborhood, you know, maybe the main building had a setback and carports had a different setback, and that makes sense, because a carport's an open structure. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And we're discussing criteria, time, if it was the original owner. I mean, if there's things that we could look at that would, you know, qualify for an abbreviated process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And I think that's the key. And I don't disagree with Brad's position; Ijust disagree with the costs for the public to do anything here. And we're just -- we've got excessive costs. It would be nice if we could be user - friendly, financially. Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I want to say that I totally agree with Brad. I really think we have to be very careful on these types of variances. We should be supporting the people who follow the rules as opposed to making exceptions for those who don't follow the rules in the beginning. And as I did say, this one has plumbing issues and other things. So it could be — as well as electrical and potentially structural, as Mr. Schiffer pointed out. So I really think we have to be very cautious. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And whatever we do obviously will be vet in front of this Commission. But the idea is to come up with criteria. Maybe there are no building issues, you know, building permits were secured. It's not the original owner, time. I mean, different criteria that we can work with the County Attorney's Office to bring back with discussion in front of this Commission to say what makes sense for an abbreviated process. Page 30 161 1 p3 June 3, 2010 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let's look at it this way: I mean, you have a lot of projects where people enclose a carport that's within the setbacks that are silent, we never hear about that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in that process you double the permit fee. That's your only thing. Now, if the mistake is that they cause a very -- you know, a setback issue or something that would come before us, that should be the additional cost that we look at. You've studied all your costs, do you think the $5,000 is a fair number? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, it's representative of staff time going into the project to review it, meeting with the neighbors. If it's something that's contentious where people come in and ask for a lot of information. So, you know, it's never the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe we ought to be looking at the cost on a case -by -case basis and not penalizing the smaller innocuous applications like this for the averaging out of the more contentious ones. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe the cost should be a not to exceed, and you bill it in- house. MR. CASALANGUIDA: A base cost or, you know, cost plus. This is the base cost and if it becomes contentious, requires more time, it's added on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And have a cap so that if it's an easy one, it's easy. And then do they to come before a board like this is the question. What do you think? I mean, who should argue whether that setback -- I mean, obviously if there's no neighbors complaining, that's a situation different than if a neighbor's complaining. So what if you had it where in -house there's -- you've got really good letters, somehow certify the letters of the neighbors and -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, we're going to be bringing some documents forward for your review with some criteria, and we can talk about it some more at that point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we give it some time for you to suggest something and we'll go from there. That way the County Attorney can review it to make sure it's sufficient. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ahern? COMMISSIONER AHERN: Code Enforcement follows this until they get their permit, correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Okay, anybody else have any questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I think we are done. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. Second -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Ms. Caron. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER AHERN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. We're out of here. Thank you all. See you on the 15th. « *a «� Page 31 16 I b3 June 3, 20 There being no further business for the good of the Comity, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:32 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on as presented or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 32 FMAMj1 U oilier County Government JUL 3 2010 Productivity Committee Special Meeting Agenda BY . ............... Gewnty Manager's Conference Room June 2, 2010 1. Call to Order -Steve Harrison 2. Review /discuss task and objectives 3. Next steps in the process 4. Public Comment s. Adjourn 161 1 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta Misc. Comes. Date: Item tR: 4 Cn, ies?o: 21 2 Illier JUL County Government 201Q Productivity Committee Special Meeting Agenda BY: ° ^ °"""'CBYM'ty Manager's Conference Room June 7, 2010 1. Call to Order -Steve Harrison Fiala 16 1 1 fbi Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 2. Continue to assess the potential economic impacts and sources of revenue for the Jackson Labs project 3. Next steps in the process a. Public Comment S. Adjourn Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: °�s'o: 7 77 R 3� Productivity Committee's t Subcommittee to xU(. ' 3 N10 Analyze Financing in regard to the Jackson Labs Project BY: ................ --County Manager's Conference Room June 11, 2010 10:OOam 1. Call to Order Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 2. Assessment /Analysis of Possible Financing Options 3. Public Comment 4. Adjourn Misc. Correa Date: Item S: 'nnirj ?� 0 JUL, 2 3 2010 Collier County Government Productivity Committee Meeting Agenda By....... -- o— County Manager's Conference Room June 16, 2010 1:00 P.M. Introduction A. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman B. Approval of the Meeting Agenda Fiala 16 Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 45 C. Approval of the May 19, 2010 Productivity Committee meeting minutes D. Approval of the June 7, 2010 Productivity Committee meeting minutes E. Approval /acceptance of the June 11, 2010 Jackson Labs Finance Subcommittee meeting minutes II. Old Business A. Continue assessment of the potential sources of revenue for the Jackson Labs project B. Update on the FY 2011 Proposed Budget -Mark Isackson C. Update on collaboration with the Collier School District (letter from Superintendent Thompson attached) III. New Business A. Discussion regarding the annual summer recess (August) IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments V. Public Comment Misc. Corres: VI. Adjourn -The next meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2010 at 2pm in the County Manager's Conference Room Date: Item #: JUl > ,; 1010 Productivity Committee's Subcommittee to BY: Analyze Financing in regard to the Jackson Labs Project County Manager's Conference Room July 7, 2010 10:OOam 1. Call to Order Fiala 16,E 1 h� Halas Coyle Coletta 2. Assessment /Analysis of Possible Financing Options 3. Public Comment 4. Adjourn Misc. Corres: Date: Item _ _.,,es ,c. �30MEW31 Collier County Government JUt_ 2 3 2010 Productivity Committee Special Meeting Agenda By : ...................County Manager's Conference Room July 12, 2010 1. Call to Order -Jim Gibson 16i1 1 e Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta ' 2. Approval of meeting minutes from June 16, 2010 3. Continue to assess the potential economic impacts and sources of revenue for the Jackson Labs project A. Washington Economic Group (WEG) Report update (teleconference with WEG representatives) B. Review responses to Productivity Cmt Questions C. Dr. Chuck Hewett (arriving about 3- 3:30pm) D. Update from the Jackson Finance Subcommittee (Janet Vasey /Jim Gibson) 4. Next steps in the process S. Public Comment 6. Adjourn Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: ,;Ps �, 16101 � COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT —June z, zuiu z p.m. Members Present: Steve Harrison, Doug Fee, Jim Hoppensteadt, Vladimir Ryziew, Joe Swaja and Janet Vasey. Members Excused: Brad Boaz and Jim Gibson were excused. BCC Liaison: Commissioner Coyle was in attendance. Staff Present: Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Office; Leo Ochs, County Manager; Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager; David Jackson, Executive Director, CRA; Sam Tucker, Aide to Commissioner Coyle; Barbetta Hutchinson, Office of Management and Budget. Others Present: Tammie Nemecek, Economic Development Council INTRODUCTION: Call to Order: Steve Harrison confirmed a quorum and called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. Discussion on Jackson Labs: Commissioner Coyle passed out information regarding Jackson Laboratory, BioFlorida and what the Productivity Committee is being asked to do for the Board. He reminded the group that this project has been approved by the state, but the federal government has yet to approve funds. If funds are not allocated, then the project will not move forward. He gave a brief background about the facility, their contributions in genetic cures, their patents and areas of potential growth. He has also asked for letters of intent from other potential companies would be move into this area. He said the project for the Productivity Committee is two -fold: First, the committee should determine whether the proposed project is economically viable for Collier County. They should review the audited financial report from Jackson Labs, along with their budget for the Institute of Personalized Medicine. In addition, the OTTED report, the Burnham agreement and the report from the Washington Economic Group should also be reviewed. The Commissioner invited the members to join him for a tour of the Burnham facility on June 18th. Tammie Nemecek volunteered to escort any member who would like a tour before that scheduled date. Second, if the committee decides it is viable, they should make recommendations concerning sources of financing for the project. He asked them to think outside the box. 161k 10 There was discussion regarding sales tax, gasoline tax, impact fees and franchise fees. The Commissioner stated that any recommendation must be fair and equitable to all citizens of the county. Any ideas will be reviewed for legality by the County Attorney's Office. The Commissioner stated that the Board will not be raising the millage rate unless it is recommended for the partial funding of the research facility. Doug Fee asked if there is a website containing all the information regarding this project. Tammie Nemecek said that there is a link on the EDC website. Mad Ryziew asked for a copy of the business plan. Commissioner Coyle said that it should arrive on June 3'd and he will get it to Mike Sheffield so that it may be distributed to the group. Janet Vasey asked if there will be any more costs involved in building the second phase. The Commissioner said that we will take one step at a time. Steve Harrison asked if Barron Collier would donate the land. Also, would it be possible to maintain the building and rent it to Jackson Labs? The Commissioner said that no negotiations have been started, but these things need to be discussed. We need to make sure that the county has a protected interest. Commissioner Coyle said that the issue is urgent, because the Board decides the millage rate on July 27"' and a decision must be made regarding feasibility before then. The group scheduled a meeting for Monday, June 7t" at 3:00 p.m. to go over the business plan with Commissioner Coyle. In the meantime, Steve Harrison will work with Tammie to determine assignments for individual members. Steve also asked the group to think about creative financing possibilities. Janet Vasey will work with the staff on financial issues. Tammie Nemecek will get a list of EDC contacts from other parts of Florida and give to Mike Sheffield so that he may get them to the group. Public Speakers: Norman Whitney, Lavigne Kirkpatrick and Duane Billington. Adjournment: Joe Swaja motioned to adjourn the meeting, Vlad Ryziew seconded and the group unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 4:04 p.m. Next Meeting: The next meeting of the Productivity Sub - Committee Meeting will be held at 3:00 p.m. on Monday, June 7, 2010. This meeting will be held in the County Manager's Conf. Room in Bldg F, 2nd floor at 3301 Tamiami Trail East. Approved by Productivity Chair, Steve Harrison 161 10 June 7, 2010 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 7, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Government Productivity Committee, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 PM in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, in the County Manager's Conference Room, 2nd Floor, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Stephen Harrison James Gibson Janet Vasey Joseph Swaja Douglas Fee James Hoppensteadt Vladimir Ryziw ALSO PRESENT: Commissioner Coyle —BCC Liaison Mike Sheffield — Assistant to County Manager Crystal Kinzel— Clerk's Finance Office Tammie Nemecek— Economic Development Council Robert St. Cyr —Dir. Community Outreach, Clerk's Office 161 11 01 June 7, 2010 1. Call to Order — Steve Harrison The Special Meeting was called to order by Chairman Steve Harrison at 3: 00 PM A quorum was present. Others present were the following: Leslie Norins, MD, Rainey Norms, Eric Watler, Chuck Mohlke, Tim Wallen, Duane Billington, Ron Maglothin, Michele McKenney, Robert D. Jim Pilon, Brenda Fioretti, Harold Hall, Ellie Krier, Michele Klinowski, Leslie Prizant, Russ Gowland, Cheryl Pavliek and Georgia Hiller. 3. Continue to Assess the Potential Economic Impacts and Sources of Revenue for the Jackson Labs Project Mr. Harrison summarized the sources of revenue and options for investments to be discussed for feasibility. • Millage Rate (Property Taxes) • Incremental Real Estate (Sales) Taxes • Excise Tax • Franchise — Utilities etc. • Change in Sales Tax Janet Vasey gave a summary on the OPPAGA Report. The report showed different State areas that have had biotech research information for funding. She spoke with Richard Bookmen Executive Dean for Research from University of Miami Miami/Dade County. He offered information of his experience that could be shared with the Commissioners if they were interested. She has made calls to the other Counties and hopes to hear back soon. As the options were discussed, different figures were given for Franchise fees with government entities, such as a Franchise Agreement with FP &L and any other provider of electrical service in the County. More information needs to be researched. A surcharge on Property Tax such as 10% was also discussed, along with the millage rate. A handout of the Washington Economic Group was reviewed, with the earnings and output tables given in the report. Commissioner Coyle stated they need something specifically derived for Collier County. They also need to look at an estimate of revenues that will be generated, what organizations are likely to locate in the County and when, what jobs will be brought into the County and when, and what salaries will be paid and the benefits to Collier County. There are particular figures they know that are generated in the County, such as gas tax per capita, property tax revenues per capita and the sales tax. When taking the gross income, it is common knowledge some portion will be spent in the County and they will derive specific benefits from those figures. 1611fb June 7, 2010 Commission Coyle stated the complication they are facing now is they do not have a business plan from Jackson Labs. Jackson Labs is making sure they answer all the questions OTAD has before signing an agreement with the State and feels that will be accomplished at the end of the week. Commissioner Coyle was not too certain it will be accomplished in that time span. He would like Jackson Labs to specify the number of jobs, when they will have them and what the salary levels will be. How much of their money will be put into the project and for how many years is an important piece of information needed. What other Organizations will locate in the County would be another piece of information needed. He would like to see a letter of intent. He will work on receiving all the above information, as it is very difficult to work further without a business plan. There are others expressing interest in leasing space or building on the campus. There are also other sources of funding such as philanthropy, Federal grants, sale of products and services. The Stimulus program was also discussed in which they need further information for that option. The County is always looking for Federal Stimulus monies whenever possible. A question was asked if they decided on a Franchise Tax is a Bond possible. The answer was "yes" with Commissioner Coyle favoring the long -term investment of bonding. It is an acceptable accounting principle. Janet Vasey mentioned the whole area benefits so the whole area should pay for those benefits. The City of Naples and Marco Island have a Franchise Tax. Being Homesteaded, Non - Homesteaded, and commercial could get complicated. A Sales Tax (gasoline taxes) was discussed knowing some of the figures generated could be verified. Janet mentioned she did a study on a discretionary sales surtax. It would have to be '/2 or 1 percent - nothing in between. A half cent would generate $22.5M per year and could start January 2011. It would need to go to a vote -- but rolled into Jan 1 s` and end on Dec 31 ". According to the Florida Statutes, there are only eight reasons it can be done. Local Government infrastructure surtax — but only for something the County would own. This can be discussed further with the County Attorney's office. It was mentioned that not all of the information flowing through the community is necessarily accurate or credible until they receive a business plan from Jackson Labs. The County needs to provide credible information to the public. Too many issues are being raised. The unknowns could be removed if there was a Business Plan. Many funding options were discussed knowing more work needs to be done on the financing aspect. The Committee can work on the options until they get a Business Plan with more numbers that are accurate in all aspects of the project. (Jim Hoppensteadt arrived at 4:06 PM) 161 1 �j June 7, 2010 The County would not get revenues from Jackson Labs on impact fees unless there is construction for homes etc. A summary was given by Chairman Harrison: • Surcharge (County wide property taxes) • Franchise Tax (Could be Bondable) • Obtaining a Multiplier and Data from CIBA (Employment, sales tax and property tax on construction) • Sales & Use Tax • Y2 or 1 cent Sales Surtax A template will be provided later in the week for economic analysis, etc. Mr. Harrison stated they need to look at protecting the taxpayer so that any funding will not be commingled into other County funds. Going through a legal Authority was suggested for "protected money." 4. Next Steps in the process Committee members will look further into the different funding options. The Finance Subcommittee will meet to go over details of each. It was suggested to ask someone from Jackson Labs to attend one of their meetings to quiz them on financials, their business plan, and data. 2. Approval of Minutes from the June 2, 2010 meeting Joseph Swaja moved to approved the June 2, 2010 minutes. Second by Mr. Ryziw. Carried unanimously 8 -0. 5. Public Comment Speakers: Leslie Norins — this was his first meeting and was impressed. He is in favor of bringing Jackson Labs to Collier County. Michelle McKenney — can see benefits of Jackson Labs coming to Collier County. It is an immense opportunity and will have a great payback. Rainey Norins — has seen many economic changes in Collier County over the years and need to change the economic focus. In favor of Jackson Labs coming to Collier County and will see the benefits. Eric Walter — he hears the number of $130M and didn't feel that it was that much. The County should just do it. Ron Maglothin — stated everything sounds great, but it would be a burden put on the taxpayers. It is a great project, but do not ask the taxpayers to pay for it. Brenda Fioretti — President of the Naples area Board of Realtors representing 3,800 realtors that fully supports bringing Jackson Labs to Collier County. The Board of Directors did take a vote and recognize it will have to be supported by tax dollars. 4 June 7, 2010 Harold Hall — will need analysis for real numbers to present to the BCC and taxpayers. Need to come up with economical justification and will Collier County benefit. Duane Billington — would like to see Jackson Labs come to Collier County but questioned impact fees. Timothy Wallen — questioned the construction end of it — will it be local residents? Too much lack of information and still uncertain as to whether they should come to Collier County or not. Next Meeting — Joe Swaja moved to hold the next meeting on Monday, June 14 at 1:00 PMif Jackson Labs has their Business Plan in by Friday morning otherwise it will be canceled Second by James Gibson. Carried unanimously 8 -0. Joe Swaja moved to hold a Finance Subcommittee meeting on Friday, June 1Ph at 10 AM. Second by Janet Vasey. Carried unanimously 8 -0. It was noted that the $130M from the State is contingent on Congress passing another Medicaid bill. (FMAP matching fund) They would like Mr. Hewitt (Jackson Labs) to attend one of their meetings. Doug Fee will ask Mr. Fishkind to attend their June 16`s meeting if possible. 6. Adjourn There being no further business to come before the Committee, Mr. Swaja moved and Mr. Ryziw seconded to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned by the Chairman at 4:55 PM. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE a�=X� , �' � L/ Stephen Harrison, Chairman The minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chairman on as presented , or as amended 161 1 M MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY FINANCE SUB - COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 11, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Productivity Finance Sub - Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, in the County Manager's Conference room, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Harrison Janet Vasey James Gibson ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Department 16141 M 1. Call to Order Chairman Harrison called the meeting to order at 10:00 AM. 2. Assessments /Analysis of Possible Financing Options The purpose of the meeting was for the Subcommittee to develop funding options for the Counties funding requirement of $130M for Jackson Labs in Collier County. The concept is for the building to be constructed in 2011 and occupied in 2012. The funding is required to match the $130M to be made available by the State of Florida through a program to attract businesses to Florida. It would need to be determined if the $25M land donation offered by Barron Collier Investments would be considered part of the $130M required for County Funding. At this point, the Subcommittee determined to base the discussions on funding $130 without consideration of land cost donation. The funding option would need to be met in following calendar year (CY) increments: CY 10 /11 — $28M CY 12 — $36M CY13 —$17M CY 14 —$12M CY 15 —$13M CY 16 —$14M CY 17 —$1OM The document "Jackson Laboratories Economic Feasibility Review — Revenue Options" was circulated for review. The document provided the following 6 fund raising options for consideration: Option 1 — 10 percent Property Tax Surcharge. Option 2 — Electric Franchise Tax Option 3 — Sales and Gas Tax Option 4 — Property Tax on Construction Option 5 — Rental Income on Jackson Labs Facilities Option 6 — Royalty on Jackson Labs Commercial Revenue The Subcommittee identified a further option: Option 7 — ' /z percent sales tax increase It was noted that a sales tax assessment may only be implemented on the first of the year and requires voter approval. A question was asked if it was approved in November, would there be ample time to implement the increase by January 1, 2011? Staff would review past increases and determine the amount of time to implement a tax increase. The Subcommittee reviewed the ramifications of the various options and evaluated different scenarios revising the variables affecting the overall financing outcomes. Following the analysis, the following 4 Options were determined to be the most feasible: (in no particular order of preference) Option 2 — Electric Franchise Tax The Option would require a 2.5% increase in electric bills to customers. It would generate approximately $9.5M annually and meet the funding requirement in 25 years. Bonding would be required at an estimated 4.5% interest rate. It would not include rate payers in the City of Naples or the City of Marco Island. This would have an impact of approximately six dollars on an electric bill of $200. Option 7 — Sales Tax Increase The Option would require a Y2% sales tax increase and generate approximately $22.3M annually. It would sunset in 6 years and not require bonding. To meet the annual requirement, it would be necessary to utilize a combination of property tax revenue in the first two years of the term. Approximately .1 millage increase in the first year, and .2 millage increase for the second year. Option 2 — Property Tax Increase This Option would require a. 15 millage increase for a term of 30 years. This would require bonding and have an impact of approximately $20 annually on a property valued at $200,000. The Subcommittee formulated Option "2a ", property tax increase, but "pay as you go," requiring no bonding. Option 2a - Property Tax Increase — Pay as you go The following millage rate increase schedule was outlined to meet the annual requirements: Year 1 -.45 Year 2 -.6 Year 3 -.3 Year 4 thru 30 - .2 Options 2, 2a and 7 would require voter approval. It was noted the analysis is based on a "worst case scenario' and does not incorporate secondary benefits of construction employment and related spending, possible increases in property taxes due to an influx of employees, spin off businesses that may locate to the area, etc. This benefit would require a separate analysis. The Subcommittee determined. Ms. Vasey would develop a matrix for use by the Committee outlining the requirements and ramifications of each Option. Mr. Hoppenstadt is being charged with reviewing the "Burnam Agreement." Another individual (Joe) to be charged with reviewing the OTTED Report and Jackson Labs Agreement. 161 1 0� Staff to email all Productivity Committee members a copy of the Report/Agreement. 3. Public Comment Speakers Mary Alcoff, expressed concern that the Subcommittee is viewing /favoring options that do not require public approval. The Subcommittee noted they were charged with developing recommendations for the funding options. Some of the Options do require public approval. The recommendations will be sent forward to the Productivity Committee and ultimately the Board of County Commissioners will make the final decisions. Dr. Jack Conroy, former President Chamber of Commerce expressed concern that the number of employees generated, the number of spinoff businesses, the amount of secondary spending, etc., may be grossly overestimated. In addition, asked if there is an avenue for the County to capture revenue based on the "intellectual property" created and sold by Jackson Labs. The Subcommittee noted they have not received the business plan from Jackson Labs and the analysis is in its preliminary stages with many numbers estimated. The analysis does contain a category on "Royalties" which envisioned the intellectual property scenario. Duane Billington thanked the Subcommittee for their work and noted the analysis should include the "exemption of impact fees" James Athenus requested clarification if the County has investigated the viability of Jackson Labs. He did some research on the company and had trouble acquiring any information. He questioned Jackson Labs track record, financial status and how the $130M funding figure was derived. The Subcommittee noted the State of Florida has initiated a program to attract these types of businesses. There are models for this type of venture with facilities in Miami, Orlando, Palm Beach, St. Lucie, etc. The contributions for the total project are: State of Florida $130M, Collier County $130M, Philanthropic $120M and Jackson Labs of $500 — $700M. Larry Basik expressed concern on the concept of raising the sales tax and questioned if the County has reviewed Jackson Labs financial statements. The Subcommittee noted The County is in possession of the 2009 - audited financial statement of Jackson Labs. Judy Hill questioned if Options 2, 2a and 7 will require any fees for collection. The Subcommittee noted this would need to be investigated. 1461 lok There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 11:55 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE Steve Harrison, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 161 1 JA June 16, 2010 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 16, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Productivity Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 1:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, in the County Manager's Conference room, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Harrison Vice Chairman: James Gibson, Jr. Janet Vasey Bradley Boaz (Excused) Joseph Swaja Douglas Fee James Hoppensteadt Vlad Ryziw ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Department Commissioner Halas, BCC Liaison Commissioner Coyle, BCC Chairman Tammie Nemecek, Economic Development Council 1 b 1 1 June 16, 2010 I. Introduction A. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman Chairman Harrison called the meeting to order at 1:00 P.M. B. Approval of the Meeting Agenda Mr. Gibson noted Objective A for the committee was "To determine the economic viability of Jackson Labs for Collier County" and Objective B is "If the center is in the best interest of the county, make recommendations." He expressed concern item ILA does not address the economic viability of the proposal. He suggested the committee should determine if the objectives have changed. Commissioner Coyle provided an update noting the State of Florida Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development (OTTED) has notified the county they will not work on the Jackson Laboratory's contract until they can confirm the status of Federal funding. The BCC should be in the position before July 27 when the millage rate will be set, to determine if it is viable to proceed with the project (should the State and Federal funding be made available.) He recommended that the Productivity Committee determine if the proposed project is economically feasible; if so; identify the most effective financing methods. Due to the notification by OTTED, the recommendations do not need be completed by June 22, 2010. The public hearing for the BCC scheduled for that day will continue with public speakers. Mr. Hoppensteadt moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following change. Item ILA include determining the economic viability of the proposed project. Second by Ms. hasey. Carried unanimously 7 -0. Commissioner Coyle noted the business plan was submitted by Jackson Laboratory. He outlined the following funding timing for the proposal. $720M of funds are required over a 10 -year period and anticipated as follows: • $100M -Endowments. • $260M - State and Local Government • $340M - Jackson Labs (in the form of grants, etc.) • $ 20M - Barron Collier The breakdown for the State and County Commitment is: • State: FY11 - $50M; FY12 — $40M; FY13 — $40M • Collier County: FY11 — $45M; FY12 - $40M; FY13 - $40M • Barron Collier: FYI l - $5M (Land Donation) • The estimated cost of construction is approximately $500 sq /ft. Commissioner Halas expressed concern on the misinformation being disseminated to the public that the funding is to create 200 jobs proposed by Jackson Laboratory. The concept is to create an overall economic benefit by 161 1 � June 16, 2010 developing a "Research Campus" with spin off businesses and related research facilities. Discussion occurred on the ramifications of the funding timetable on the county, and how the Barron Collier contributions may be applied under the funding categories (count toward Collier County source, treated as endowment, etc.) Commissioner Coyle noted several spinoff businesses have expressed interest in occupying the campus including a University of South Florida Satellite Campus, Edison Community College Charter School, and a Biotech Research Company. Various parties are in the process of attempting to obtain letters of intent from any interested organizations. Ms. Vasey outlined the 4 revenue options identified by the Finance Subcommittee: • Option 2 — Electric Franchise Tax • Option 7 — Sales Tax Increase • Option 2 — Property Tax Increase • Option 2a - Property Tax Increase — Pay as you go Commissioner Coyle left at l: 50pm C. Approval of the May 19, 2010 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes Mr. Swaja moved to approve the minutes of the May 19, 2010 meeting subject to the following change: Public Speakers - last name from "Evans" to "Fletcher" Second by Mr. Ryziw. Carried unanimously 7 -0. D. Approval of the June 7, 2010 Productivity Committee Meeting Minutes Mr. Swaja moved to approve the minutes of the June 7, 2010 meeting. Second by Mr. Ryziw. Carried unanimously 7 -0. E. Approval of the June 11, 2010 Jackson Labs Finance Subcommittee Meeting Minutes Mr. Fee moved to approve the minutes of the June 11, 2010 Jackson Labs Finance Subcommittee meeting minutes subject to the following change: • Page 2, paragraph 2, line 2 - from "requirement of $130M over 30 years for construction of Jackson Labs..." to "requirement of $130M for Jackson Labs..." Page 2, paragraph 2, line 5 from "to match the $130M appropriated by the State of Florida..." to "to match the $130M to be made available by the State of Florida..." Second by Mr. Swaja. Carried unanimously 7 -0. 16 ! 1 6A June 16, 2010 II. Old Business A. Continue assessment of the potential sources of revenue for the Jackson Labs project Ms. Vasey submitted the draft document "Jackson Laboratory Financing - If we decide to spend $130 million on Jackson Laboratory, how would we pay for it? for review. Committee discussion occurred on the following topics: • Funding ramifications if the State of Florida does not appropriate the additional $80M of funds in FY12 and FY13. • The feasibility of ensuring a Risk Management Plan is in place for the proposal. • The committee may need to develop an avenue for the collection of additional data (from Jackson Labs, etc.) in order to render recommendations. • Concern the related spinoff businesses or related facilities may not re- locate to the area as anticipated (i.e. technology advances allow work to be completed remotely). • Should the county's economic viability analysis of the proposal be limited to the Jackson Laboratory Facility or the entire research campus that may be created • Ensuring any analysis includes a majority of the businesses related to the campus may be 501 c non -profit corporations who would not be required to pay property taxes. • A committee is being formed to approach organizations that may have an interest in relocating to the research campus. Discussion occurred noting there are many questions which need to be answered before recommendation can be made. It was determined committee members should submit individual questions to Mike Sheffield who will categorize them and attempt to obtain responses from the necessary parties. Tammie Nemecek left at 2: 5Opm Mike Sheffield recommended and the Committee agreed the item "Update from the Productivity Committee" should he removed from the June 22 BCCAgenda. Discussion occurred noting: • The proposal may want to be identified as "Jackson Laboratory Research Development Area," "Personalized Medical Campus" "Medical Research Campus /Village," etc. as opposed to "Jackson Laboratory." • The original scope of task assigned to the Productivity Committee may have been to identify financing options for the proposal, however according to Commissioner Coyle it should be expanded to include the economic viability of the proposal. El l §6, 1 1 June 010 Speaker Duane Billington addressed the committee noting many of the related businesses may be non - profits not paying property taxes. In relation, to the Sanford/Burnham Medical Research Institute in Orlando they did not commit until the other major facilities (VA Hospital, etc.) committed to the area. The Research Institute was not the incubator for the economic development in the area. He has raised the same questions as the committee, but has had difficulty in obtaining answers to any of them. Break 3:15pm Reconvened: 3: 25pm Item IIA was to be continued after Item H. B B. Update on the FY 2011 Proposed Budget - Mark Isackson Leo Ochs, County Manager and Mark Isackson submitted a copy of a memorandum to the BCC dated June 14, 2010 — FY 2011 Budget" and provided an updated on the budget highlighting the following: • The County Property Appraiser has determined the taxable value of properties decreased 12.1% for FYI I over FY 10. • A millage neutral budget proposed was accomplished with a 5 percent reduction in operating expenses, a decrease in capital expenditures and restructuring of commercial paper debt, etc. • The county is primarily funded by residential development as the commercial taxable values are 10% of overall taxable values. • The county continues to actively pursue grant funding. • Current county debt service levels are $77M annually (total debt outstanding $765M end of FY09) including principal and interest with an anticipated reduction to approximately $73M by FYI 3. It was noted the millage rate may be set by the BCC on July 27, 2010 including any proposed Jackson Laboratory . financing and reduced if necessary. Commissioner Halas left at d: 00 PM Discussion continued on item ILA Ms. Vasey reviewed the draft document provided which outlined the options and ramifications of the proposed financing sources. The document will be updated based on the new information which continues to be acquired. Discussion occurred on how the committee can provide recommendations on the additional request outlined by Commissioner Coyle today — determine the economic viability of the proposed project. More information is needed to make the determinations. 161 1 �� June 16, 2010 Mr. Ryziw noted he has completed a preliminary economic impact study and submitted a document "Collier County Productivity Committee — Proposed Jackson Laboratory Institute of Personalized Medicine (700 Acre Research and Development Village, Ava Maria, Florida) — Conceptual and Preliminary Community Economic Benefits Associated with Construction " — First draft dated June 14, 2010. He noted the report needs to be supported by additional information which could be provided by organizations such as WEG (Washington Economic Group) or Fishkind and Assoc., etc. Mr. Swaja moved to authorize the Committee's Chairman to direct a letter to Commissioner Coyle notifying him the Committee has identified funding options for the Jackson Laboratory Project. The options need to be refined, but meet the objectives required by the County for funding project. In addition, there is a preliminary study developed to assist in identifying the economic impacts to the County. In order to finalize the study, the Committee request the BCC authorize expenditures to any necessary parties who may assist in providing data to complete the study. Second by Ms. Vasey. Carried unanimously 7 -0. The Committee determined the following preliminary meeting dates to complete the tasks assigned. • July 7, 2010 • July 14, 2010 The Regular Meeting will be held on July 21, 2010. C. Update on collaboration with the Collier School District (letter from Superintendent Thompson attached) This item was heard immediately after approval of the Agenda. Mike Sheffield noted a letter was included in the packet from Superintendant Thompson which indicated if the Productivity Committee has a specific item to be addressed, they will send a representative to the meeting. III. New Business A. Discussion regarding the annual summer recess (August) None IV. Committee Member /Staff Comments None V. Public Comment None The next meeting is scheduled for July 21, 2010 at 2 P.M. in the County Manager's Conference Room. 16 1 1 Oq June 16, 2010 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 5:16 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE c Steve Harrison, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 16 1 1 ��j July 7, 2010 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY FINANCE SUB - COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, July 7, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Productivity Finance Sub - Committee Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 10:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, in the County Manager's Conference room, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Harrison (Excused) Janet Vasey James Gibson ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager Crystal Kinzel, Clerk of Courts Finance Director Derek Johnson, Clerk of Courts Finance Office Mark Isackson, Office of Management and Budget 161 1 July 7, 2010 1. Call to Order Mr. Gibson called the meeting to order at 10:03 A.M. 2. Assessments /Analysis of Possible Financing Options Mr. Gibson noted the purpose of the meeting was to continue updating the draft document on the options for funding the $130M required by the County in the Jackson Laboratory proposal. Discussion occurred on the following topics: • Terms and ramifications (affects on the County Bond Policy, etc.) of any proposed bonding required to fund the proposal. • The possibility of negotiating with the Office of Trade, Tourism and Economic Development (OTTED). The timing on the distribution of their $130M of funds required for the proposal as funds may be expended first as opposed to a real time match of funds by the County. • An email from Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney, to Janet Vasey dated June 24, 2010 indicates utilizing the sales tax for economic development is not permitted by the Legislature. The concept, if proposed, may be subject to litigation. It was noted that the report should identify the following funding options (positive or negative): 1. Franchise Fee 2. Property Tax — "pay as you go" — State and County contributing 3. Property Tax — "pay as you go" - utilizing the States $130M up front (1" 3 years) 4. Property Tax — as a pledge for a general revenue bond 5. Non Ad- valorem — as a pledge for a general revenue bond 6. Combination of Franchise Fee and Property Taxes 7. Sales Tax Discussion occurred noting other areas in the State (Orlando, Palm Beach, etc.) that have developed similar facilities, and are larger in population, have utilized less County funding in their projects. Other funding sources such as private donations were counted as local matches. Ms. Vasey noted she asked Jackson Laboratory if private donations (i.e. the proposed Barron Collier Companies $ l OM donation) could be utilized to offset the required County funding? Jackson Laboratory stated this was not an option for this proposal. The value of a land donation may be counted up to $5M and the County is required to provide $125M in "cash" funds. It was noted it should be determined if infrastructure expenditures can be counted in the local match. Discussion occurred noting there are other beneficiaries to the proposal that should be considered for donations (Lee County, area hospitals, etc.) 161 1 July 7, 2010 Ms. Vasey will amend the draft to include the above funding options and other issues identified today, including encouraging Jackson Laboratory to seek local grant funding for developing the facility which may be available. 3. Public Comment Speakers Duane Billington thanked the Subcommittee for their hard work in exploring all issues associated with the proposal. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 11:05 A.M. COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE —Vti a s Gibson These minutes approved by the Board /Committee on as presented or as amended 16 ! 1 �i July 12, 2010 MINUTES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, July 12, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Productivity Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, in the County Manager's Conference room, Naples, Florida with the following members present: Chairman: Steve Harrison Vice Chairman: James Gibson, Jr. Janet Vasey Bradley Boaz (Excused) Joseph Swaja Douglas Fee James Hoppensteadt Vlad Ryziew ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager Crystal Kinzel, Clerk's Finance Department Tammie Nemecek, Economic Development Council 161 1 bA July 12, 2010 1. Call to Order -Steve Harrison, Chairman Chairman Harrison called the meeting to order at 2:00 P.M. 2. Approval of meeting minutes from June 16, 2010. Mr. Hoppensteadt moved to approve the minutes from the June 16, 2010 meeting. Second by Mr. Gibson. Carried unanimously 7 -0. 3. Continue to assess the potential economic impacts and sources of revenue for the Jackson Labs project. The Committee determined to take up item 3.D first D. Update from the Jackson Finance Subcommittee (Janet Vasey /Jim Gibson) The Committee reviewed the latest draft document "Jackson Laboratories (Jax- Florida) Financing — How would we finance the 5130 million to bring Jax- Florida to Collier County? What are the financing alternatives? " The Finance Subcommittee had reviewed the document at their last meeting and added a couple of additional alternatives and raised some additional issues. Ms. Vasey noted: Page 2 indicates other areas within Florida that developed research complexes of this nature had local matches comprised by a variety of other funding sources (private donations, land, hospital, Walt Disney, etc.) than that required for the Collier County proposal. When Jackson Laboratories was approached on the feasibility on the concept of utilizing the $ l OM donation proposed by Barron Collier Companies as a portion of the local match, she was informed this was not allowed under the proposed business plan. Discussion occurred on the reasoning for not allowing private donations within the County to be counted toward the County match. Tammie Nemecek noted the business plans were different for the other areas. The business plan proposed by Jackson Laboratories indicates $125M of Collier County's funding requirement must be in "cash." Ms. Vasey continued providing an overview of the revenue alternatives outlined in the draft which include the advantages and disadvantages: a) Franchise Fee of2.4% - requires bonding in two tranches - $80M in FYI and $50M in FYI 3. b) Property Taxes — "pay as you go" — requires varying annual millage increases from FYI — FY20 ranging from .45 to .04. c) Property taxes — (option 42) "pay as you go" — requiring State funds paid as soon as available in first 3 years and then utilize the local County match — would require a range of annual millage increases from FYI — FY20 of .26 to .07. Concept needs to be negotiated with the Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development (OTTED). 16 1 1 �� July 12, 2010 d) Property taxes — (option #3) used as a pledge for a general revenue bond — requires approval by voter referendum. e) Non -ad valorem revenue - used as a pledge for bonding. f) Combination of franchise and property taxes — 2.5% Franchise fee and .1 increase in the annual millage rate. Requires bonding. g) Sales tax increase — County Attorney expressed concern on the concept due to: a) The Statute contains requirements for use of the funds which do not include "economic development purposes" and litigation is likely to occur on the concept; b) Inter -local agreements between the Cities of Naples /Marco Island and Collier County for transfer of the funds collected in the city jurisdictions to the county would need to be implemented. It was noted that the document should include sources considered (positive or negative) by the Committee to assist Board of County Commissioners in their decision. The Committee recommended the following revisions to the options outlined in the document: a) Revise "home" to "property" where cited for the impacts on a landowner. b) Revise "home" to "property" where cited for the impacts on a landowner; Advantages - indicate no bonding is required and the proposed annual millage increases could be halted if the project does not proceed beyond a certain time frame. c) Advantages - indicate no bonding is required and the proposed annual millage increases could be halted if the project does not proceed beyond a certain time frame. Discussion occurred on the concept of other sources of revenue contributions such as Lee County, Seminole Tribe, Hospitals, Collier Building Industry Association (CBIA), Barron Collier Companies, etc. The following documents were introduced to the Committee: • "Collier County Productivity Committee — Proposed Jackson Laboratory Institute of Personalized Medicine (700 Acre Research and Development Village, Ava Maria, Florida) — Conceptual and Preliminary Community Economic Benefits Associated with Construction " — Second Draft dated July 12, 2010 prepared by Vlad Ryziew. • A Brief Economic Impacts and Return on Investment to Collier County, Florida From the Jackson Laboratory — Florida dated July 9, 2010 prepared by Washington Economic Group, Inc. (WEG Report) Discussion occurred on the findings outlined in the WEG Report, as well as the parameters and assumptions utilized for its preparation. It was determined to 16 I 1 b July 12, 2010 address the issues under Item #3.A when the consultants were available via teleconference. Discussion occurred on the following topics: • The parameters utilized and conclusions in Mr. Ryziew's document. • Consideration should be given to an introduction in Ms. Vasey's final document on the reasons an additional funding source is required to finance the proposal (due to the lack of funds available in the existing County budget) The Committee determined to hear Item #3.0 before Item 43.A. C. Dr. Chuck Hewett (arriving about 3- 3:30pm) Dr. Chuck Hewett, Jackson Laboratories was available to answer questions posed by the Committee: The following was highlighted: • The funds provided by the County, State, etc. will be placed in a "Trust Fund" and drawn on by the recipient as certain milestones are met. • At any point the project does not move forward, any monies remaining in the `Trust Fund" would be returned to the fund provider. • The funds provided by the County would be utilized as follows: First, construct the facility; second, purchase, maintain and replace equipment and third, fund operating deficits. • The Committee may want to outline the risk factors associated with a $130M cash layout. • Any National Institute of Health (NIH) Grants received allow the recipient to maintain the benefits of Intellectual Property Rights. Mr. Hewett is aware the County would like to discuss the ramifications of the possible revenue stream. • Jackson Laboratory's concept of other facilities developing around the cluster are prioritized as follows: ♦ A small specialized hospital (approximately 50 beds) within one year (2014/15) after completion of the lab facilities. ♦ A general hospital serving Eastern Collier County. ♦ A Medical School Department established within the specialized hospital. ♦ Teaching facilities in combination with the two hospitals. ♦ Establishment of "Bio -tech Park" as the cluster develops. Jackson Laboratory has two other facilities — Bar Harbor, Maine and Sacramento, California. These areas have not developed into "clusters" due to the following reasons: ♦ Bar Harbor is 75 acres bordered on 3 sides by National Park Lands and residential development on the 4`h side. There are satellite businesses that have established within the region, but not directly adjacent to the Lab's property. Also, it was not the primary purpose of the facility when it was developed. 161 1 �� July 12, 2010 ♦ The California facility has only been open a year and half and developed under the auspices of different purposes - supplying laboratory animals to other West Coast facilities and to conduct contract research. Jackson Laboratories is confident they can attract the necessary employees to make the endeavor successful. Potential employees would be drawn to the area due to Jackson Laboratories shift to clinical research; an opportunity to participate in, and build an institution that conducts personalized medical research from the ground up; the quality life in Collier County and the affordable housing in Eastern Collier County. Availability of professional "spousal employment' in the region will be one of the most critical challenges in attracting employees to the research park. Facilities such as Naples Community Hospital, Physicians Regional, Lee Memorial Hospital and the newly created Bio -tech Park in Fort Myers will assist in providing spousal employment opportunities. Mr. Hewett left the meeting. Break: 4:15pm Reconvened 4:21pm A. Washington Economic Group (WEG) Report Update (teleconference with WEG representatives) Russ Meyer of Fishkind Assoc. was present and Mary Snow, Rich Harper and Michael Schiebe of Washington Economic Group were available via teleconference to answer questions on the report they prepared. Discussion occurred on the details of the report with the consultants answering technical questions posed by the Committee. Following the discussion, the Committee requested the following information be provided: I. Employment estimates for - permanent full time village employment within the boundary of the proposed village; Construction Employment - Direct, Indirect and Induced. 2. Page 5 - Table 3 — "Research & Education Village — Collier County Return on Investment" be amended to a 23 year schedule. 3. The source for the categories developed in estimating the potential types of development in the research village comprising the 3,000,000 sq. ft. of building area as indicated on page 2 of the report. Discussion occurred on the feasibility of the Committee identifying opportunity costs associated with the $130M proposed to be expended on the proposal. Some Committee members noted they were charged with providing determinations on the specific proposal, not developing findings on opportunity costs or a cost benefit analysis for a series of proposed projects. 161 1 h July 12, 2010 B. Review responses to Productivity Committee Questions A memorandum from Tammie Nemecek to Michael Sheffield, dated July 12, 2010 — "Re. Answers to Questions from Productivity Committee" was provided for informational purposes. The questions were submitted by individual Committee members to Mr. Sheffield following the June 16, 2010 meeting. 4. Next steps in process Discussion occurred on how to proceed to the final product requested by the BCC. It was noted the funding options have been identified and the report may be finalized for review at the next meeting. In regard to the economic viability, there is a great deal of uncertainty in the data (assumptions, parameters, findings, etc.) provided to develop specific findings. The Committee could identify economic pros and cons and provide general information on the viability of the proposal. Discussion occurred on identifying alternative sources of funds to assist in offsetting any responsibilities for Collier County taxpayers (surcharges on construction, payments in lieu of property taxes for non - profits locating within the village, etc.) Mr. Swaja moved to direct the Chairman and Ms. Vasey to draft separate documents to be reviewed and merged by the Committee regarding the "economic viability" of the Medical Research Village. Second by Mr. Gibson. Mr. Fee requested clarification if one of the documents will determine that the proposal "is not economically viable" and the other determine "it is economically viable." Chairman Harrison stated the documents will outline broad viewpoints on the economic viability of the proposal and be reviewed by the Committee at the July 19, 2010 meeting. Motion carried 6 `yes —1 "no." Mr. Fee voted "no. " 5. Public Comment Speakers Georgia Hiller requested clarification if there is a specific strategy to induce the related facilities to locate to the research village. Is there an "innovation zone" involved in the project or any tax incremental financing under consideration? She expressed concern the WEG Report as submitted provides findings on the internal rate of return which is negative. What should have been provided was a "net present value" analysis which would possibly show a greater negative rate of return for the County. Tammie Nemecek noted the incentives for future organizations to locate to the research village have yet to be determined. The State of Florida does have an incentive program. There is a general concept in place that is used in all types of 161 x M July 12, 2010 these endeavors. Tax incremental financing could be used and may want to be considered. Harold Hill noted the Committee should not only consider the direct return on investment but also the socio- economic benefits to the residents of Collier County created by the proposed project. He expressed concern on the cost of the project and felt it is too expensive at this time. Bob St. Cyr disagrees with the assumption Jackson Laboratory will be the catalyst for attracting all the related facilities intended to locate in the village. He presented the document "A Resource Guide for Technology Based Economic Development Positioning Universities as Drivers, Fostering Entrepreneurship and Increasing Access to Capital" prepared by the State Science and Technology Institute. He recommended all members of the Committee read the document. As outlined in the document, the catalyst to develop research villages in all other areas in the US has been a Research University as the driver, with related facilities to follow. If Jackson Laboratory concept, as currently proposed, is successful, it will be the first in the US employing this concept. Discussion occurred noting the Committee acknowledges developing a research cluster is critical to the success of the project. If there were signed commitments from a number of entities in addition to Jackson Laboratory indicating their intent to develop facilities within the research village, it would reduce the risk in the County investment. Tammie Nemecek noted negotiations are currently on -going for commitments from a variety of organizations to locate to the research village. The next meeting is scheduled for July 19, 2010 at 2 P.M. in the County Manager's Conference Room. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 6:45 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY PRODUCTIVITY COMMITTEE Steve Harrison, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 7 Halm '� Hen: Coyle Coletta (V AGENDA IR AIVID65 .JUL 0 9 2010 i02fo of County Commissionem COLLIER COUNTY HISTORIC /ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD WILL MEET AT 9:15 AM, WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010 AT THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, CONFERENCE ROOM 610, LOCATED AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES FLORIDA. NOTE: ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE HAPB WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. THESE MATERIALS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. I. ROLL CALL /ATTENDANCE II. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA IV, APPROVAL OF MINUTES: April 21,2010& May 19, 2010 V. LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REPORT: A. Ashley Caserta (Preservation Board Liaison) Resigns VI. OLD BUSINESS: A. The Arlington of Naples at Lely Resort Update • Revised Survey and Assessment B. Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore Update C. Historic Brochure Review VII. NEW BUSINESS: A. Amendment /Annual Ethics Coverage Memo and Pamphlet VIII. PUBLIC COMMENTS IX. BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS X. ADJOURNMENT Misc. Com: �1 Dade: Item 9 ^pies lo: 161 1 _ I COLLIER COUNTY July 1, 2010 Michael Zimny Certified Local Government (CLG) Coordinator Bureau of Historic Preservation R.A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0250 RE: Collier County Preservation Board Meeting Dear Mr. Zimny: Please be advised that a public meeting for the Collier County Historic and Archaeological Preservation Board has been scheduled for Wednesday, July 21, 2010 and will begin at 9:15 a.m. at the Collier County Growth Management Division, Conference Room 610, located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida I have attached the agenda and the minutes from the May 19, 2010 meeting for your reference. If you have any questions concerning this meeting, please do not hesitate to call me. My phone number is 239 -252 -2958 or you can e-mail me at: Raybellows @colliergov.net. Sincerely, ' "v &4 Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Department of Land Development Services (Historic Preservation Coordinator) cc: Preservation Board Members (7) Sue Filson Ron Jamro Bill Lorenz Steve Williams Ian Mitchell V Wilsomiller 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 -8507 Phone (239) 649 -4040 Fax Nos.: Accounting: ...... . .......649 -5476 Administration: ............. ...............263 -6446 Business Communications :...............26316422 6/2008 Survey Crew Staging: . .......................263 -6447 Design Studio: ................................... 649-4909 Development Design: ................. ...... 263-6494 Environmental: ............. ..................... 263-6491 Human Resources: ............................ 263-6445 Main (Mailroom): .... ... .............. ....... 643-5716 Planning: . . ...... ......... -- ................ 263-6491 Public Infrastructure: .. .... — .............. 263-6492 Survey: — - .. - ................... ............ 643-6682 Transportation :............ .......................263 -6465 Mr. Ray Bellows Collier County CDES 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 We are sending attached via: ❑ Client Pickup ® Delivery ❑ Mail ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Disk ❑ Thermal Plot ® Other: Report Agenda ib +- 1 � " LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL Date: 5125/10 PIN: N0101 -- 400 -- 000 - -ESM File Designator: Project Name: The Arlington of Naples Ref: Archaeological Investigation — 2008 Report ❑ Overnight Express, the following items: ❑ Copy of Letter ❑ Shop Drawings Copies Date Drawing File No. Descri tion /Sheet Numbers 1 6/2008 Archaeological Investigation — June 2008 Report for the Arlington of Naples These are transmitted as checked below: ❑ For approval ® For your use ® As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ For Bids Due ❑ ❑ Prints Returned After Loan To Us Dear Ray: As per your conversation with David Hurst, attached please find one copy of the Archaeological Investigation — June 2008 Report for the Arlington of Naples for your review. Please call if you have any questions. COPY TO: Ashley Caserta Collier. County Development $ervlces0 Original to Client nzerzmo- zusac -ve 1. u+nerw N0I0I4�. E$gM -DVl Copy to Project File SIGNED t6 Lucia S. Martin If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF 8CR747 AND 8CR750 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONSERVANCY, INC. Davie, Florida 33314 For: STOCK DEVELOPMENT Naples, Florida 34103 JUNE 2008 AHC PROJECT NO. 2007.02 AHC TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 782 Archaeological Investigations of 8CR747 and 8CR750, Collier County, Florida By: Robert S. Carr, M.S. Joseph F. Mankowski, M.A. David Boschi, B.A. John G. Beriault, B.A. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL CONSERVANCY, INC. 4800 SW 64th Avenue, Suite 107 Davie, Florida 33314 (954) 792 -9776 archlgcl@bellsouth.net www.flarchaeology.org For: STOCK DEVELOPMENT 4501 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 June 2008 AHC Project No. 2007.02 AHC Technical Report No. 782 (i e t 161 Table of Contents List of Figures ii Consultant Summary 1 Project Setting 3 Previous Research 10 Cultural Summary 15 Methodology 24 Summary of Sites 28 Results and Conclusions 53 References Cited 61 Appendix 1: Summary of Test Units 70 Appendix 2: Lely Sites Positive Shovel Test Log 74 Appendix 3: Lely (CR747 and CR750) Specimen Catalog 84 Appendix 4: Survey Log Sheet 92 Appendix 5. Florida Site Forms: CR747, CR749, CR750 95 i 1�5 161 List of Figures 1. Map of Parcel 26 -B project area 2 2. 1876 plat map of Township 50S, Range 26E, with modern site information superimposed 5 3. 2004 color aerial orthophotograph of the Parcel 26B area 6 4. Soil survey showing soil types found in Parcel 26 -B 7 5. View north through live oak/saw palmetto low hammock 8 6. View west toward the flatwoods area 8 7. View southwest at the deepest part of Henderson Slough 9 8. View north at a rock escarpment 9 9. 2004 color aerial orthophotograph showing Henderson Slough area and associated sites 14 10. Shovel test map of the 8CR750 site areas 26 11. Map depicting sites 8CR747 and 8CR750 27 12. View east at Test Unit 1 32 13. View north at Test Unit 2 32 14. North wall of Unit 1 33 15. Plan view of Unit 1 33 16. East wall of Unit 2 34 17. Plan view of Unit 2 35 18. View south at Test Unit 3 36 19. View south at the solitary upright limestone boulder in Unit 3 36 20. East wall of Unit 3 37 21. Unit 3 plan view showing features and soil contexts 37 ii 1bl) 22. View north Test Unit 4 23. View southeast at Test Unit 4 24. West wall of Unit 4 25. Plan view of Unit 4 26. Units 5 and 18 plan view 27. South wall of Units 5 -18 28. View north at Test Unit 8 at 8CR747 29. View north at Test Unit 9 at 8CR747 30. North wall of Unit 8 31. Plan view of Unit 8 32. North wall of Unit 9 33. Plan view of Unit 9 34. View north at Teat Unit 10 35. View north at Test Unit 11 36. Unit 10 south wall 37. Unit 10 plan view 38. East wall of Unit 11 39. Plan view of Unit 11 40. Unit 12 west wall 41. Unit 12 plan view 42. View north at Test Unit 12 at 8CR747 43. View north at Test Unit 13 44. East wall profile of 1.5 x 1.5 -meter Unit 16 iii 38 38 39 39 40 41 42 42 43 43 44 44 45 M 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 I 1 161 1� 45. Units 13 -14 -16 plan view where human remains were found 50 46. South wall of Unit 15 51 47. Plan view of Unit 15 51 48. West wall of Unit 17 52 49. Map of archaeological sites at the Lely Parcels (Henderson Slough area) showing locations and reinterment site of human remains 58 50. Fiber tempered pottery (obverse view). 59 51. Fiber tempered pottery (reverse view) 59 52. Bone artifacts 60 53. Lithic artifacts 60 L Consultant Summary In December 2006 through March 2007, the Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (AHC) conducted phase II archaeological investigations for Stock Development of prehistoric sites 8CR747 and 8CR750. The sites are located west of County Road 951 in central Collier County (Figure 1). The sites were discovered during a Phase I archaeological survey conducted by AHC in 1993 (Carr and Steele 1993). All three sites were re- examined during an updated Phase I assessment to determine their current condition and significance (Beriault and Mankowski 2004). This assessment was conducted to fulfill historic resource requirements as part of South Florida Water Management District permits and review by DHR No. 2004 -2775 in response to Florida's Chapters 267 and 373. This assessment was conducted in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89 -665), as amended in 1992, and 36 C.F.R., Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. The work and the report conform to the specifications set forth in Chapter IA- 46, Florida Administrative Code. This investigation was intended as a more thorough examination of sites 8CR747, 8CR749 and 8CR750 with the goals of recovering a representative sample of cultural material and determining the extent and significance of the sites prior to the proposed development of the subject parcel. As a result of this assessment, it was determined that Site 8CR749, reported in 1993 as being located between these two sites, was determined to be a northerly extension of 8CR747, and a request made to Florida Division of Historic Resources to delete CR749 from the site files. AHC personnel excavated a total of 336 shovel tests (50cm2) across the parcel (Figure 10). In addition, seventeen one -meter test units were excavated in the southerly part of 8CR747 and 8CR750. In June 2006, prehistoric human remains were encountered in Shovel Test 146 at 8CR747. These remains included bone fragments and teeth. Additional excavations indicated that these human remains were isolated and fragmentary. Notification of the discovery was provided to the State and the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes, as pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statute 872.05, the Unmarked Human Graves Act. Additionally, nine I meter square units were dug adjacent to Shovel Test 146 which resulted in the recovery of a few additional human remains. These human remains were reinterred at CR752 located in the wetland preserve on May 15, 2007. It is the consultant's opinion that sites 8CR747 and 8CR750 are of local and possible regional significance and are potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places based on Criteria D. It is recommended that archaeological monitoring be conducted during any clearing and subsurface alterations to the parcel, with the goal to locate any additional human remains to act as mitigation for proposed adverse impacts to sites 8CR747 and 8CR750 by development. I 1 161 1 a5 j i q, PARCEL - I - 26 —B LELY a' CULTURAL DRIVE i i Figure 1. Map of Parcel 26 -B area N TOWNSHIP 50S, RANGE 266, SECTION 22 USGS Map: BELLE MEADE, 1991 O 1000 2000 3000 Feet approx. O 300 600 900 Meters approx. 2 16 1 1 P5 Project Setting Sites 8CR747 and 8CR750 are located in Section 22 in Towmship 50 South, Range 26E west of County Road 951 and south of College Parkway in the parcel previously known as the Lely Resort Estates parcel (Figure 1). The original Lely Mcsort Estates parcel was a t 3200 -acre polygon with sides more or less oriented to the cardinal points, parts of which are bounded to the north by Lely Cultural Parkway, to the south by parts of U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail), to the east by areas adjoining CR 951 (Collier Boulevardi), and to the west by areas of Lely Estates. The general parcel since has been subdivided and Parcel 268, containing the two sites was sold to-Stock Development. Parcel 26B encompasses approximately 30 acres. The relevant USGS map is Belle Meade, Fla. The subject parcel encompasses pine flatwood and oak hammocks abutting a deep wetlands. Overall, the parcel is situated on the southwestern side of a group of cabbage palm, live oak, and tropical hardwood hammocks known locally as the Rattlesnake Hammock. High ground areas include live oak/saw palmeno /cabbage palm hammocks with varying percentages of tropical hardwoods that inchade myrsine, white stopper, camphorwood, soft - leafed and shiny leafed wild coffee, wild lime, lancewood, gulf gray twig, strangler fig, gumbo limbo, willow bustic, hog plum, coral bean, fire bush, hackberry, red mulberry, and others. Flanking these high ground areas and running north -south aae deep sloughs, bald cypress swamps and marsh ponds. These areas contain standing mrater much of the year and support a rich diversity of plant and animal life. Some of the plant species present include cordgrasses (Spartina spp.) and succulent marsh plants such ras pickerelweed (Pontederia lanceolata) and arrowhead (Sagittaria spp.) and ferns such as swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), Thelypteris and Osmunda ferns. The deep open marshes of the area are likely relict burnt cypress solution holes and pond features as evinced by the abundant dead snags and logs of that species. At present, many of these features contain pop ash (Fraxinus caroliniana), pond apple (Annona glabra), coastal plain willow (Salix caroliniana), and buttonbush. All of these environmental zoaaes were intensely exploited by prehistoric Indians, early white settlers, and hunters. Pivaeda sand occurs within the subject parcel (Figure 4). The geology of the Rattlesnake Hammock area is characterized by solutioned limestone caprock lying exposed or overlain to various depths by san(Is or shelly marls. In cypress sloughs, but particularly in cypress dome/solution ponds there are potentially deep deposits of muck or peat. A fine tan sand found extensively in the district is Immokalee fine sand which usually overlies relict marine deposits of sheMy marl and marly limestone caprock that are part of the Pleistocene Caloosahatchee and Fort Thompson formations. These marine marls contain lenses and deposits of clay intermixed with varying percentages of sand. These clays may have been a source fuu pottery manufacture by the Formative period Native Americans. Mantling the Immokalee sands are windblown deposits of gray sands of varying depths. Both the Caloosahatchee and Fort Thompson marls and the Lissociated limestone caprock 3 161 ` P)h Both the Caloosahatchee and Fort Thompson marls and the associated limestone caprock contain the index fossil bivalve, Chione cance[lata in quantity. Depths of sand or marl overburden seldom exceed 70 centimeters. Many higher ground formations in the area appear to be bedrock unconformities that consist of fully exposed tabular slabs of limestone caprock containing numerous rounded solution holes. The wetlands adjacent to the Lely sites is a deep cypress marsh/slough referred to by Carr and Steele as the "Henderson Slough" (Carr and Steele 1993). it was their contention that this low area provided a canoe link to Henderson Creek, particularly during the wet season, allowing canoe travel to Rookery Bay. This was highly possible during pre - drainage days, and it is likely the that entire area of Rattlesnake Hammock (whether assessable or not by canoe) was a destination for Native Americans inhabiting the coastal Shell Island/Rookery Bay area for as long as 3000 years. Some of this coast -to- interior traffic could also have easily occurred on foot trails north and east into the interior leading from the head of Henderson Creek or from other points along the coast. 4 a 161 1 V 4 1 54 F M1T E TA °t �W. d f 3i f� .fit g e i � i M1vS ,v E a { -3 i !t L,Y N� • i. �,. 4 yTE.N`t •,P..' O �' R , S t L'{ L ,M1 i O 1f L. p Y � Is ^t: an „e4F y e a ( Ey Is 71 a'' �•',; if !Js' 11f Figure 2. 1876 plat map of Township 50S, Range 26E, with modem site information superimposed. N I .: t�;_ _ . :;� T- � i r (,; i I qJ`�� r1f a � a i e J t A tWl�r f l ri 1 o, l ��?,4 Cr al �1, AI T- � i r (,; i I qJ`�� r1f a � a i e J t 3�) ? d� %« � q\\2 }\ ad ` N -I C' . Previous Research Southwest Florida has been a focus of archaeological investigations since the 1880s, although much of the early work was directed toward the recovery of museum quality artifacts rather than understanding cultural processes, Griffin (1988:48 -50) noted that these early reports were mostly casual observations, and few appear to refer to southwest Florida, but rather refer to the southeast and Key West areas. Kenworthy's (1883) informal report on shell mounds and ancient canals was one of the first reports on southwest Florida archaeological sites. At about the same time as Kenworthy's investigations, Simons (1884) gave a narrative account of some of the very large coastal shell middens, and Douglass (1885) provided further information about prehistoric canals (although he did not believe that they were prehistoric). One account described a canal near Gordon's Pass that is probably the Naples Canal (8CR59), and another further north may be the Pineland Canal. Douglass' diaries record excavations of a post- contact era site (8CR41) on Horrs Island, as evidenced by the presence of European artifacts (Griffin, 1988:50 -51). Douglass visited Lostman's River and other areas in the Ten Thousand Island area including Horrs Island (1890). In 1895 Durnford reported that cordage and other artifacts were recovered from a mangrove muck pond on Marco Island (8CR49). The material was shown to Cushing, who mounted a major project to recover more material from the site. Cushing (1897) reported recovering wood and other perishable artifacts from the muck pond on Marco Island, adjacent to a large shell works and midden village site. Publication of illustrations of the spectacular finds generated a great deal of subsequent interest. Wells M. Sawyer, a young artist accompanying the expedition, produced an excellent and presumably accurate contour map for the entire Key Marco Shell Midden. This map is valuable to present -day efforts in understanding many of the now obliterated features and interpreting (reconstructing) the "architecture" of the shell midden. Widmer (1983) notes that Cushing also focused attention on the nonagricultural chiefdom level of social organization supported by the rich estuary and marine resources, although his anthropological observations have remained overshadowed by the wealth of artifacts. Moore (1900, 1905, 1907) investigated a number of sites along the Collier /Lee County coast, apparently attempting to find material comparable to Cuslling's finds. Although Moore provided information about site locations and general contents, most of his work was extremely crude and uncontrolled, by both contemporary archaeological standards, and by modern standards. The first attempt to systematically survey and investigate archaeological sites was initiated by Ales Hrdlicka, who visited a number of sites along the coast and tidal mangrove estuaries in 1918, focusing on the Ten Thousand Island region (Hrdlicka 1922). Hrdlicka noted that southwest Florida was a distinct region within south Florida and made an attempt to type sites by function. 10 161 1 o Matthew Stirling's (1931, 1933) excavation of a burial mound on Horrs Island represents one of the first controlled excavations in Collier /Lee Counties (although he attempted - stratigraphic control, Cushing had little success in his wet site excavation). The site was named the Blue Hill Mound, but it is not recorded under that name in the FMSF (either as a primary or secondary name), so it is unclear exactly which site he excavated, although it was probably site 8CR41 (McMichaels, 1982). These reports by Stirling are preliminary, and apparently neither a final report nor a skeletal analysis has been published. John M. Goggin was the first to define a south Florida cultural area (Glades Area), and describe south Florida ceramics (Glades ware), establishing a basis for later archaeological work. He published an analysis of the ceramic sequence in south Florida (Goggin, 1939, 1940). In later reports (Goggin, 1947, 1949a, 1949b), he formulated a basic framework of cultural areas and chronologies that is still current (although modifications with additional data have been made, see further discussion below). Goggin (1949b) summarized much of this information in an unpublished manuscript, which Griffin (1988) thoroughly described. In passing, one unfortunate aspect of Goggin's work was a dependence on informant information for location of sites (especially interior sites) and lie had a real concern that existing sites would be looted. This concern resulted in his either deliberately or incidentally reporting vague locational data for many sites. Some of these sites have never been satisfactorily relocated, although a few have undoubtedly been re- recorded by later investigators. For several decades, much of the subsequent archaeological investigations in the region took place in Lee and Charlotte Counties, especially in the Cape Haze, Charlotte Harbor and Pine Island areas. It is rumored that Goggin had a "gentleman's agreement" with many of the other leading practicing Florida archaeologists of the time that the South Florida area was his exclusive province to investigate. If this rumor is correct, it might explain the neglect shown the southwest Florida area in the archaeological arena from the end of World War II to Goggin's death in 1964. In 1956, Sears reported on a large village and mound complex at the mouth of Turner River on Chokoloskee Bay south of Marco Island, and in 1967 he reported on the results of a survey of the Cape Coral area (Sears, 1956, 1957). Laxson (1966) reported on excavations at Turner River Jungle Garden site, which is upriver from the Turner River site, although these have been confused in recent accounts. Van Beck and Van Beck (1965) excavated three small test pits on Marco Island (at the Marco midden, 8CR48) associated with the Cushing site (8CR49). The resulting publication of this work was some of the first reported scientific archaeological work to come from the southwest Florida area in nearly twenty years (Van Beck and Van Beck, 1965). In 1967 through 1969, Marco Island was extensively surveyed and a few sites were tested through excavation by Cockrell, Morrell, and others (Morrell, 1969). No complete site 161 1 0 report was ever published, although an unpublished and incomplete manuscript is available. Some of these sites were discussed in Cockrell's master's thesis (1970). Widmer performed a survey of Big Key, John Stevens Creek, Barfield Bay, Blue Hill Bay, and Collier Bay, which are proximal to Marco Island (Widmer, 1974). Widmer eventually utilized his southwest coast experience to write a doctoral dissertation on the Calusa that not only remains the definitive work on that group, but also explored the relationship between subsistence adaptation and cultural evolution (Widmer, 1983). In Lee County, Arlene Fradkin and other investigators from the University of Florida began an ongoing involvement with the Pine Island Sound /Sanibel Island area in the 1970s. Her first investigations were at the Wightman site on northern Sanibel Island ( Fradkin, 1976). Several archaeologists excavated at Horrs Island in the 1980s. McMichaels (1982) reviewed sites on Horrs Island in a Master's thesis. In 1983, Marquardt began a series of investigations at Josslyn Key, Useppa Island, Pineland, Buck Key, Galt Island in Lee County, and at Big Mound Key in Charlotte County (Marquardt, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1992). Marquardt and Russo have investigated Horrs Island in Collier County. A number of the large shell midden village sites they excavated appear to be late Archaic, and they expect to document a more elaborate social organization at these sites and larger sedentary or semi - sedentary population sizes than previously known for that period (Russo, 1990, and pers. comm.). Most of these studies focused on the coastal sites, as have subsequent summaries and discussions. Recent work on the interior has made significant advances in documenting the extent and intensity of inland resources, especially in the Big Cypress and Everglades parks ( Ehrenhard et al., 1978, 1979; Ehrenhard and Taylor 1980; Eluenhard et al., 1980; Taylor and Komara 1983; Taylor, 1984, 1985). Griffin's (1988) synthesis of the Everglades Park data is the defining work on south Florida archaeology to date. Athens (1983) summarized some of the results of the Big Cypress survey, but more analysis of this data resource is needed. Beriault and colleagues (1981) reported on salvage excavations at Bay West Nursery (8CR200). Their description of the site includes a well known but rare and infrequently documented Early and Middle Archaic use of ponds for cemeteries. it, 1995, Widmer and Story began an ongoing investigation at the Key Marco Midden (Widmer, 1996). In the first season they excavated with the help of graduate students and volunteers. The results of their work have appeared in the Florida Anthropologist. In the last two decades the pressure of development as well as a recognized need for preservation or mitigation of prehistoric sites has led to a number of reports by commercial cultural resource management consultants. While most of these reports are limited in scope due to restriction to a small tract of land, many have produced useful summaries of regional archaeological, as well as insightful analysis of the relationship between site types and location and ecotypes (Almy and Deming 1982, 1986a, 1986b, 12 161 1 05 1986c, 1987, Austin 1987, Carr and Allerton 1988a, 1988b, Deming and Almy 1987, 1988, Fay and Carr 1990, Fuhrmeister et al. 1990, Martinez 1977, Miller and Fryman 1978, Swift and Carr 1989). Arthur W. Lee, John Beriault and others in the Southwest Florida Archaeological Society (SWFAS) have recorded and investigated a large number of archaeological sites in Collier and Lee Counties. It is an ongoing effort of the Society to publish and disseminate reports and manuscripts (Lee et al. 1993, 1997, 1998, Beriault 1973, 1982, 1986, 1987, Beriault and Strader, 1984). Many of these reports deal with small interior seasonal sites. In addition, Beriault has provided several unpublished manuscripts as to site types and areas (Beriault 1972, 1987). The Archaeological and Historical Conservancy has assessed several large parcels in the Rattlesnake Hammock area. In 1993, AHC personnel investigated the Lely Estates Parcel locating seven prehistoric sites (Can and Steele, 1993). In 1998, a Phase One assessment of the three square mile Winding Cypress parcel adjoining the present subject parcel was conducted locating eleven prehistoric sites (Beriault and Carr, 1998). In July 2003, AHC assessed the 43 acre Newton PUD Parcel between Johns and Amity Roads east and adjoining the present subject parcel and documented four sites including an eastern component of the Buschelman Site, 8CR726 (Beriault 2003). In November, 2003, AHC personnel worked on the proposed CR951 (Collier Blvd.) road widening area adjacent to and west of the subject parcel. In that study, the area of the western part of the Buschelman Site (8CR726) was examined, and one previously unrecorded archaeological site, the Sable Palm Road Site (8CR877), located one -half mile south of the Buschelman Site, was recorded (Beriault 2003). In February 2004, AHC investigated the +1800 -acre Feathers Parcel (a.k.a. Toll Rattlesnake Parcel) adjacent to the subject parcel locating five archaeological sites (Beriault, 2004). In February 2004, AHC investigated the +1 800 =acre Feathers Parcel (a.k.a. Toll Rattlesnake Parcel) adjacent to the subject parcel locating five archaeological sites (Beriault, 2004). From 2004 to present, AHC has performed Phase I through Phase 3 assessments of the 14.65 acre Hawthorne parcel for Stock Development resulting in the detailed examination of sites 8CR726, 8CR752, and 8CR751 ( Mankowski and Beriault 2005, Mankowski 2006, Mankowski, et al 2007). Most recently, Mankowski (2006) completed a Master's thesis that analyzed the cultural material and stratigraphic data from all of the Lely sites. His study revealed that the sites contain an uninterrupted sequence of Late Archaic, Glades I and Glades II settlements. Some of Mankowski's findings have been included in this report. 13 1 1 05 Cu -Rural Summary Stirling was the first to distinguish the indigenous prehistoric cultures of southern Florida in 1936 by defining a Glades cultural area, including all of south Florida (Carr et al., 1994b:9; Milanich, 1994:5 -6). Griffin (1988) pointed out that this was not formulated as a strict cultural area, but it was rather a geographic region with some common cultural traits. Kroeber (1939), in a review of North American prehistory, utilized a slightly different term, the "South Florida Area," basing his definition on both environmental and cultural factors. Subsequently Goggin delineated more particular boundaries for southern Florida and divided the region into three sub - areas: "Okeechobee" around Lake Okeechobee, "Tekesta" for southeast Florida and the Florida Keys, and "Calusa" for Southwest Florida (Carr et al., 1994b:10; Goggin, 1947:114 -127). Following Goggin's study, subsequent researchers have refined or altered the cultural distinctions attributed to southern- Florida's prehistoric populations. There has been criticism that Goggin's names and definitions were based on historic accounts of the main (proto) historic groups found in the respective regions and not on the archaeological evidence of spatial, temporal, and cultural differences (Sears, 1966; Griffin, 1974; Carr and Beriault, 1984; Griffin, 1988). Griffin, in particular, questioned the distinctions. He believed that South Florida cultures varied only by local environmental conditions and ceramic exchange rates. Griffin believed the inhabitants of prehistoric southern Florida were mainly dwelling on the coast and that the interior was nearly uninhabited and under- utilized. Griffin designated the entire southern Florida region as the "Circum - Glades" area (Eck, 1997:5; Griffin, 1974:342 -346). This new designation for the area was furthered by a widely circulated book on Florida archaeology by Milanich and Fairbanks (1980). Griffin later (1988) retreated to some extent from his earlier position as further research (particularly by Ehrenhard, Carr, Komara, and Taylor in the Big Cypress and Carr in the eastern Everglades in the 1970s and 1980s) showed abundant sites (and concomitant use and habitation) in the interior and Everglades. Carr and Beriault, in particular, have taken issue with the concept of a Circum- Glades region. Carr's research in the Big Cypress and Everglades and his subsequent analysis demonstrating variation of key cultural markers (particularly in decorated ceramics) formed the basis for this contention. There is abundant evidence for cultural (and probably political or tribal) diversity in the various areas of south Florida. Carr and Beriault particularly noted and defined differences between the lower southwest Florida coast, which they termed the "Ten Thousand Island" region, and the area to the north, which they called the "Caloosahatchee" region. This latter area they believed to be the seat of the historic Calusa chiefdomship, although previous (and some subsequent) researchers have called the entire southwest Florida from Cape Sable to the Cape Haze peninsula (and beyond) in Charlotte County "Calusa." Griffin, in his definitive 1988 synthesis on Everglades archaeology, attempted to reconcile and refine some of the conflict in the definition of south Florida prehistoric and historic culture areas. As stated by Carr and colleagues (1994b), "the issue... appears in part to be one of trying to determine the significance of regional and temporal variation, rather than whether these differences are real." There is evidence that changes through 15 161 wt] time in regional political affiliations or realties makes any model not addressing this complex issue two - dimensional. The Calusa hegemony that was in place by the time of the arrival of Europeans may have begun as early as 800 AD in the Ten Thousand Island "district" or area (Griffin, 1988:321; Carr et al., 1994b:12). There is currently ongoing research to further refine present thought as to cultural affiliations in south Florida. It would seem only a matter of time before new directions and emphases provide a more accurate summation of south Florida cultural affinities. Using the present models, the coastal zones of Collier County and southern Lee County contain three distinct culture areas. Indian Hill on Marco Island lies thirty miles from the projected interface by Carr and Beriault (1984) of the Caloosahatchee area (called the "the `heartland' of the Calusa," Carr et al., 1994b:12) to the north, and the Ten Thousand Islands area to the south. At a yet undefined point to the east lies the Okeechobee cultural area, but the boundary, if it is a definite, fixed one, is likely to occur in the vicinity of the Immokalee rise forty miles or more to the northeast of Indian Hill, Further work is in progress by Carr to address the issue of where the southwest boundaries of the Okeechobee culture area occur. Temporal Periods and Adaptations At the same time that the south Florida archaeological cultural models have evolved over the past 60 -plus years, so have the temporal markers or framework on which we base evolution of that culture. Much of this latter effort has resulted from comparisons made between the recovered artifacts from the 100 -year period of scientific and nonscientific excavation and collection by the various individuals and institutions (and others) enumerated in part above. This Floridian effort must be seen against the broader background of archaeological work in eastern North America and the New World as a whole. All of these efforts have been mutually complimentary and certainly not exclusive. In south Florida, the following periods and adaptations are generally accepted. Part of this chronology involving the later or Formative period is called the Glades sequence in honor of Goggin, the greater part of whose work in defining the ceramic sequence or markers has withstood the test of time and subsequent criticism ( Goggin, 1939, 1947, 1949c). From Goggin's day to present, pottery variability in form, substance, and decoration has proven useful for providing time markers, at least during the archaeologically -brief (+ 3500 year) period spanning the late Archaic and Formative periods that it was produced. Other artifact types and their variations have, to present, proven somewhat less reliable as absolute indicants of prehistoric age. Radiocarbon dating, a phenomena of the last 30 -plus years, provides, within the standard deviation expressed in plus -or -minus years BP (before present), a relatively absolute date for a given sample and provides a yardstick to measure traits or distinctions in provenienced artifacts. Determining and adequately defining what traits we can discern against this absolute is part of the ongoing function of the regional archaeological effort. 16 16 1 �5 The following information is generalized and abbreviated. The dates are approximate; transitions between periods are in reality more gradual that the manner they are expressed for convenience. Paleo Period (14,000 - 8,500 BPl During the Paleo Period, Native Americans began moving into the southeastern portion of North America into Florida. Most evidence of their presence in Florida carr be reliably dated to about 10,000 BP. There are no known Paleoindian sites in Collier County. Several are documented from elsewhere in south Florida, including Warm Mineral Springs and Little Salt Springs in Sarasota County (Cockrell and Murphy, 1978; Clausen and Gifford, 1975), Harney Flats in Hillsborough County (Daniel and Wisenbaker, 1987) and the Cutler Fossil Site in Dade County (Carr, 1986). During this period, the terminal Wisconsian ice age, the climate was probably less extreme, with cooler summers and warmer winters. The climate was also drier, and sea levels were lower (Carbone, 1983; Allerton and Carr 1988a; Griffin, 1988). One reason that possible Palen period sites have not been discovered in Collier and Lee Counties is that the shoreline may have been as much as 100 miles further west due to lower sea levels. Drier conditions may have made the interior very inhospitable, and the shallow estuarine and littoral sites that existed were flooded by post -ice age Holocene sea rises. Any possible interior sites from the Paleo Period may be unrecognizable due to lack of diagnostic artifacts, subsequent reuse of site areas, low population density, and few permanent camps. These and other factors may help explain the absence to date of identifiable Paleo period sites in Collier and Lee Counties. On the other hand, the southwest Florida coast south of Charlotte Harbor may have been uninhabitable during this period due to an absence of key conditions for the successful hunting of large game, a trait of the Paleo period. Archaic Period (8,500 - 2,500 BP) The Archaic period reflects a post - Pleistocene shift in adaptation marked by an increase in the seasonal exploitation of a broad spectrum of food resources, a more restricted use of territory due to regional specialization, and more semi - sedentary habitation sites. No ceramics are known until the Late Archaic. During the Archaic, regional specializations became more marked, not only with material culture but also with distinct local utilization of local plant and animal resources. As mentioned above, there is, as yet, no firm evidence of human presence in southwest Florida during the Paleo period. This apparently is also true for the Early Archaic (8500- 700013P), as there is evidence of an environment too and to support scrub oak, and the presence of shifting wind formed dunes (Watts, 1975; Widmer, 1983). No early Archaic sites are known from southwest Florida (Allerton and Carr, 1988:14). 17 16 1 "Ip5 By about 6500 BP mesic conditions began to spread, although localized xeric conditions continued (and still exist in some areas) through south Florida. Middle Archaic sites dating from this time are rare, although the Bay West Nursery site (8CR200) in Collier County and the Ryder Pond site (8LL1850) in Lee County near Bonita Springs provide evidence of occupation, as do several sites in southeast Florida. The Bay West site is a Middle Archaic cypress pond cemetery, associated with a lithic scatter. The Ryder Pond site is a similar mortuary pond site surrounded by pine flatwoods (Carr and Heinz, 1996). Beriault has also recorded several aceramic shell scatters in coastal sand hills (paleo dunes), some of which may date to the Middle Archaic. Griffin (1988) summarizes evidence indicating that despite the rise of available surface water, brackish estuaries and other major modern landscape features had not formed, and population (or repopulation) was still sparse. During the Archaic period sea levels began to rise at a fairly rapid rate, estimated at 8.3 cm. per 100 years 6000 -3000 BP, and 3.5 em per 100 years afterwards (Scholl et al., 1969), although whether sea levels were steadily rising or oscillating is still unclear (see Griffin 1988; Allerton and Carr, 1990 for recent reviews of the literature). Data is somewhat difficult to sort out as sea level rise was accompanied by both shore regression and transgression in places. As conditions became wetter (and wanner) in the interior, cypress swamps and hardwood sub - tropical forests established themselves by about 5000 BP (Carbone 1983, Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). By late Middle or early Late Archaic times (4000 years BP) there were significant shell mounds and middens on Horrs Island, Marco Island, and elsewhere in the coastal regions, suggesting that the estuary system had been established and was being utilized to provide the subsistence basis for denser populations and semi- sedentary settlements (Morrell, 1969; Cockrell, 1970). At Useppa Island in Lee County, excavations have provided radiocarbon dates from pre - ceramic shell middens ranging between roughly 4900 BP and 5600 BP, suggesting that the Middle Archaic as well as Late Archaic periods saw a growing dependence on shellfish resources (Milanich et al., 1984). There are aceramic coastal sand hill and interior wetland sites as well, but these have not been demonstrated to be Archaic despite some investigators equating aceramic with preceramic. Radiocarbon dates for these sites would clarify this point. Allerton and Carr (1988) noted that a number of stratified sites in the wet mangrove and marsh areas of the Fverglades, as well as on Horrs Island, contain Archaic preceramic horizons, although it is unclear if aceramic was equated with preceramic. Additional supporting evidence of interior use by Archaic peoples will provide a new dimension to the archaeological understanding of Archaic resource utilization. Allerton and Carr point out that if the wet tree islands were initially used by Archaic people, then at least some of the hardwood hammocks in swamp environments were raised in elevation (with subsequent changes in vegetation) clue to human activities. Post- Archaic people extensively utilized these hammocks and continued to advance their development as distinct geomorphic features. This is obviously an area where additional archaeological investigations have a potential to contribute to understanding the interaction of geomorphic and cultural evolution in southwest Florida. 11.1 1611, 1 V Toward the end of the Archaic there was the introduction of fiber- tempered pottery into the archaeological record, often used as a marker of the Orange Phase, commencing at about 4000 BP, either coincident with or soon after the development of the extensive shell middens. The Late Archaic Orange Phase subsistence strategy is characterized by intensive use of shellfish and marine resources, as well as being marked by an accelerated trend toward regional specializations. A number of the large shell middens on Marco Island (Cockrell, 1970), Horrs Island (Russo n.d.), Cape Haze (Buller and BuIlen, 1956), and elsewhere date from this period or earlier, as they contain fiber - tempered ceramics, although there are known aceramic (preceramic ?) levels below the Orange Phase deposits that may date to the Middle Archaic. These shell middens are usually capped by deposits from later occupations as well. Formative Stage or Glades Periods (2500 BP - 500 BP) The Formative or Glades adaptation, based on hunting, fishing, and the harvesting of shellfish and plants, was similar to the Archaic, but was characterized by increasing specializations in gathering strategies and tool- making. Earlier writers have typed this hunter - gatherer society as primitive or "low - level' (Kroeber, 1939). However, there is certainly evidence from the specialization of tools, from the beautifully- executed wood carvings from Key Marco in Collier County and those from Fort Center near Lake Okeechobee (Cushing, 1897; Sears, 1982), and from the historic accounts of the Calusa hegemony, that the south Florida area had an advanced culture that Goggin (1964) has called a "stratified non - agrarian society." The preceding Late Archaic late Orange phase (also known as the transitional phase) was marked by changes in pottery, and terminated with the relatively rapid replacement of fiber - tempered pottery with sand - tempered, limestone- tempered, and chalky "temperless" pottery. It was also characterized by changes in ceramic style and often by reduction in the size of stone projectile points. The Formative Stage (beginning about 2500 BP) is divided in south Florida into the Glades Periods sequence. Subsistence adaptation is marked by a narrowing spectrum of resource use, as well as continued trends toward regional diversity and ecological specializations, marked in part by the proliferation of inland resource extraction encampments. Formative Period cultural evolution eventually led to increased political sophistication, perhaps initially of modest dimensions, but culminating in broad regional political alliances and regulation of materials and goods (i.e. resources) between the coast and inland areas (Milanich and Fairbanks, 1980). By protohistoric and contact times the Calusa were the dominant tribal group, gaining broad political influence and at least partial control over much of south Florida as far north as central Brevard County. Historically, the main Calusa village has been regarded as "Calos" on Mound Key in 19 Estero Bay in Lee County, although 50 to 70 large villages were under direct Calusa control by contact times (Griffin, 1988). During the Formative Periods, village sites grew to the proportions of large multi -use complexes, particularly along the coast and barrier islands of southwest Florida. Some of the projected intra -site functions of the elements of these complex shellworks were as temples, canals, causeways, temple and platform mounds, courtyards and watercourts. Current research involving the excavating of large contiguous areas of'these shell mound complexes is beginning to establish demonstrable uses for the features of these large sites, upon which heretofore were merely speculated (Widmer, 1996). Tidal estuary rivers and inland hammocks along deep water sloughs, marshes, and permanent ponds were seasonally visited for extraction of natural resources, and are now marked by small to relatively large black dirt middens, some of which may have been semi- permanent hamlets. The pine and cypress flatwoods appear to have supported few sites, although areas around Lake Trafford and other rich interior areas developed substantial sites, including sand mounds, and may be more similar to the Okeechobee cultural area than to the coastal cultures. In 1992, Dickel and Carr excavated a Deptford Period burial mound (the Oak Knoll Site) in the Bonita Bay Tract north of the Imperial River. Exotic trade items and seventy or more human burials were among the material findings. The resulting conclusions and subsequent surveying and testing of the Bonita Bay Shell works (8LL717) suggest social stratification and complexity may extend further back into the past than the Formative period (Dickel and Carr, 1992). Coastal sites (shell middens) reflect a predominate dependence on fish and shellfish, wild plant foods and products, and larger inland game. The inland sites show a greater reliance on interior resources, including large, medium and small mammals, turtle, small freshwater fish, alligator, snake, frogs, and, sometimes, freshwater shellfish. Interior and coastal resource exchange can be documented by the consistent finds of moderate amounts of marine shell in many interior middens, as well as interior resources in coastal middens. The Formative Stage (with a nod to Goggin) has been often termed the Glades cultural tradition. Much of this "tradition" is focused on decorated ceramics, the minority in the archaeological record, although the majority of recovered (rim) sherds are plainware. However, despite this, pottery (and its decorations) is usually utilized as the major temporal marker(s) for fitting sites into a temporal framework. Changes in pottery do not represent mere changes in artistic motifs, but reflect inter- and intra - regional trade contacts and outside cultural influences (possibly through exogamy, shifting of populations, and even the through evolution of a culture through time). Whatever the influences, the Glades tradition is continuous from post- Archaic times to contact times. Despite the fact that exogamy is likely to have been practiced, traders or other specialists probably moved between major cultural areas in small numbers, and genetic flow probably accompanied cultural exchange, although perhaps not on the same scale. This 20 16 1 t,, I may have increased in later times due to use of traditional obligations of kinship and intermarriage to stabilize alliances that were not codified into a formal legal system. The following table has been modified from several sources, but it is predominantly based on Milanich and Fairbanks (1980), Griffin (1988), and Allerton and Carr (1990). Dates have been rounded somewhat and translated to Before Present (BP). There are some differences of opinion in the dates; particularly -about the timing of the Glades [a and Ib division. TABLE 1: GLADES CULTURAL SEQUENCE Glades Ia (2500 BP - 1500 BP) First appearance of sand tempered plain pottery, but little else to mark a difference and the preceding Late Archaic. Sand tempered plain remains a predominate type throughout the Glades sequence. Glades Ib (1500 BP - 1250 BP) First appearance of decorated sand - tempered ceramic (Ft. Drum Incised, Ft. Drum Punctated, Cane Patch Incised, Turner River Punctate), plainware common. Pottery rim grooving and incision decorations become widespread. Glades IIa (1250 BP - 1100 BP) First appearance of Key Largo Incised, Sanibel Incised, Miami Incised, and plainware is common. Distinction between ceramics of southeast and southwest Florida becomes apparent. Ten Thousand Island area distinct from Caloosahatchee area. Glades IIb (I 100 - 1000 BP) First appearance of Matecumbe Incised; Key Largo Incised common on east coast, Gordon's Pass Incised common on the west, and plainware common throughout. Glades IIe (1000 BP - 800 BP) First appearance of Plantation Pinched, but few decorated wares with a preponderance of plainware (there is some evidence of population reduction - perhaps due to a cataclysmic event). Non -local pottery (e.g. St. Johns Plain and Check Stamped, Belle Glade Plain) appears. Glades IIIa (800 - 600 BP) First appearance of Surfside Incised, increasing quantities of St. Johns pottery (especially on Fast Coast), and Belle Glade pottery. 21 161 Glades IIIb (600 BP - 500 BP) Glades Tooled rims appear (rare on West Coast), zoned punctate designs, but general decline in incised decoration. Belle Glade ceramics common on west coast. St. Johns ware present but rare on West Coast, common on East Coast. Glades IIIc (500 BP - 300 BP) Continuation of IIIb ceramics, with pronounced flaring of rims and embossing on Glades Tooted ceramics. Mound burial construction less common with intrusive burials into existing mounds, appearance of European goods, plainware common. By European contact times (the first half of the 16th century), the southwest coast of Florida was maintaining a vigorous, expanding political chiefdom with a broad network of alliances, as well as a rich and ancient cultural tradition without an agricultural base. However, direct conflict with Europeans and, more importantly, exposure to European diseases led to the rapid decline of the Calusa. By the mid 1700s their numbers had greatly diminished. The remnants of this once - powerful tribe may have left south Florida in the 1760s with the Spanish for relocation in Cuba. Others may have become indistinguishable from Spanish Cuban fishermen who worked the great fishing "ranchos" in the Pine Island Sound region catching and salting fish for export to Cuba. Other groups of Native Americans may have fused with the Creek- derived Seminoles. In the late 1700s, members of the Creek tribe were forced into Florida from Georgia and Alabama. They were later called Seminoles, from the Spanish tern "cimmarones." Pressures from colonial (and later) white encroachment on their traditional territories forced them into the Big Cypress and Everglades area by the 1830s. By this time, most of the cultural identity of pre- contact times had been lost, although some of the Calusa subsistence strategies may have been partly adopted by Seminoles. A number of Seminole period sites have been documented on earlier Glades middens. This coincidence may in part reflect the paucity of high land in the interior (Ehrenhard et al., 1978, 1979, 1980; Ehrenhard and Taylor, 1980; Taylor and Komara, 1983; Taylor, 1984, 1985). Older midden sites (particularly those called "black dirt' middens) can be rich agriculturally as well as archaeologically, making these foci for historic Seminole gardens and fruit groves. Seminole periods in south Florida are divided into 1(1820- 1860), II (1860 -1900) and III (1900 -1940) (Ehrenhard et al., 1978). Post -1940 Seminole camps are designated "Late Seminole" in some reports. These designations reflect the different stages of Seminole migration into south Florida, Seminole displacement and active conflict with the expanding American culture, and the eventual refuge by Seminole remnants in Big Cypress and Everglades regions. Military records, and, in particular, several sketch maps by military personnel done in the 1830s and 1840s and the Ives military map of South Florida (1856) shows evidence of investigations at and near "Malec) Inlet," "Casimba," "Good Land," and "Cape Romans." 22 10 16 141 Rattlesnake Hammock Area History The Rattlesnake Hammock area has always been attractive for settlement during prehistoric and historic times. There is evidence from 19th century maps that Seminole villages and encampments were in the general area of the hammock. By the 1880s, white settlers and homesteaders such as the Whiddens, Carrolls, Smiths, and Kirklands had settled the - area -of Henderson Creek immediately south; of Rattlesnake Hammock. These early settlers farmed the Henderson Creek area and hunted up into Rattlesnake Hammock. Various early sportsmen visiting or wintering in Naples took oxcart trips into the Rattlesnake Hammock area to hunt. The advent of the Tamiami Trail in the late 1920s further opened access to the area. The completion of the Atlantic Coastline Railway by 1928 also enabled logging of pine and cypress in the Belle Meade area south of Rattlesnake Hammock. State Road 951 was built in the late 1950s /early 1960s and opened up Rattlesnake Hammock to development by landholders. The Sabal Palm Road community was created during that time period. Landscaping demands in the rapidly - developing Naples area caused early residents such as the Langford family and "Monkey" Hunter to dig and transport cabbage palms from the hammock. Other individuals such as Seth and Buster Johns harvested cypress trees for their sawmill on Johns Road near the subject parcel. In the early 1980s, a Naples area tradition, the Swamp Buggy Races, was moved from a locale it had occupied since 1953 on Radio Road to a larger modern facility at the newly created Florida Sports Park east of the intersection of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and CR951. This venue comprised a series of races by "classes" of homemade off -road vehicles, generally utilizing outsized tires and custom made chassis called "swamp buggies ". The first swamp buggy was reputed to have been created by Ed Frank Sr. of Naples in the 1920s with the original purpose of using the vehicle for hunting. Formal races the week prior to hunting season were first held in the late 1940s at a marsh called Newman's Pond slightly north of downtown Naples. The present -day Races carry on this local tradition and feature ever more powerful and creative machines driven by drivers who are now members of an association and featured on various television Sports Channels. The Sable Palm Road /Rattlesnake Hammock area today is experiencing increasing development with condominium communities and upscale single family home construction being created along the CR 951 (Collier Boulevard) corridor. 23 1611-1 06 Column samples (20cra) were collected from Units 2, 3, 4, arnd 5 -18. These column samples were sifted through 1/4 ", 1/8 ", and 1/16" tiered screens to recover faunal and botanical specimens as well as samples for C -14 dating. This material was analyzed by AHC archaeologist Joseph F. Mankowski for his Master's Thesis ( Mankowski 2006). Collections All recovered materials (FS 1 — 160) were transported to the AHC lab in Davie where they were washed and analyzed (Appendix 3). The collections will eventually be transferred to the Collier County Historical Museum. All field notes, maps, and photographs repose at the AHC office in Davie. 25 ?�_ > _y� >O lbl yam 230 220 N1000 F2 — N990 — N980 — N970 — N960 �- N95.0 �— N940 �— N930 N920 N910 — N900 N890 ^ N880 — N870 a — N860 — N850 1° — N840 — N830 — N820 — N815 — NbtO N808.5 sm ivm Sv J■ - N768.5 :e4 0 N748.6 \ - N728.5 )UiH - N708.5 Figure 10. Shovel test map of the 8CR747 and. 8CR750 site areas, ® = POSITIVE SHOVELTEST= DANI•-0 ASSIGNED ARBITRARY t000Nl1000W, ® = NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST ALSO KNOWN AS SURVEY PT. #8436 Q = JOE MANKOWSKI 2005 SHOVEL TEST� CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY N = 2005 and 2007 TEST UNITS SITE AREA CONTOURS IN 10D1,4 N VALS 0510 20 49 60 Meters approx. 166 26 ( / 8QR74', 22 21 xq L 11 16 8 11 ]].,, R /11 i t0/ ® xA n ■ ■ ■� ■ IN )6 >s xa �■ i■�1Li �1■ )e 181 IN 126; 43 ) ` ) ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ i ■ I ■ ■ as a at aE v •s v P n v� ® x ■ ■ � 1 ■ 162 �� tzn 'yxl ■ ■ ■ w es u w a 41 ao as tb n IN L ■ p ■ lox tat 1W » v I� ss eA(6 IN 153 S ■ ■ ■ ■ ® r ■ ■ ■ .a...� -- 1 � 1® fns i lbl yam 230 220 N1000 F2 — N990 — N980 — N970 — N960 �- N95.0 �— N940 �— N930 N920 N910 — N900 N890 ^ N880 — N870 a — N860 — N850 1° — N840 — N830 — N820 — N815 — NbtO N808.5 sm ivm Sv J■ - N768.5 :e4 0 N748.6 \ - N728.5 )UiH - N708.5 Figure 10. Shovel test map of the 8CR747 and. 8CR750 site areas, ® = POSITIVE SHOVELTEST= DANI•-0 ASSIGNED ARBITRARY t000Nl1000W, ® = NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST ALSO KNOWN AS SURVEY PT. #8436 Q = JOE MANKOWSKI 2005 SHOVEL TEST� CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY N = 2005 and 2007 TEST UNITS SITE AREA CONTOURS IN 10D1,4 N VALS 0510 20 49 60 Meters approx. 166 26 ( / 8QR74', ■�`■ ■ ® xA n ■ ■ ■� ■ IN )6 >s xa )e )a n ■ y�� / e5T 06 93 b2 61 dye/ ® ISO B9 / �8 n 68 �� ® x ■ ■ ■ ■ tl_ ■ ■ _■ �w ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ '•..w ;) IN IN 16a lox tat 1W » v I� IN 153 S ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ .a...� -- 1 � 117 118 tta 11] IItLMIKo t WT'O EEC 1 _ 1 J31 ■ t ' 1 20 MEIERTRMISE`T tao 2 tit s —e— !-is up zW -the tex `j is t4J )) 1681 9i •1111n:' 9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■1 ■ t1,, /x91 i68 293 i91 ie] 29 Zl! x 1''],, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 % zu a3 ■ :62 ■ us us 2" �r_:: ■ 308 a96 39E ■ ye ■�■ 2 P0.PPEP WIRE E 'sr„ J61 vs n6 at vs 232 2m 4. Us M �235 254 11 . - -25,Z 3]n TAB '264' %�Cr 366 me zs): aRF` 261.. -:.. G,ZP as i.BS,j 0// °'s`t,`., " ",,n,;1.. a■os z ry6060,ps 261 i lbl yam 230 220 N1000 F2 — N990 — N980 — N970 — N960 �- N95.0 �— N940 �— N930 N920 N910 — N900 N890 ^ N880 — N870 a — N860 — N850 1° — N840 — N830 — N820 — N815 — NbtO N808.5 sm ivm Sv J■ - N768.5 :e4 0 N748.6 \ - N728.5 )UiH - N708.5 Figure 10. Shovel test map of the 8CR747 and. 8CR750 site areas, ® = POSITIVE SHOVELTEST= DANI•-0 ASSIGNED ARBITRARY t000Nl1000W, ® = NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST ALSO KNOWN AS SURVEY PT. #8436 Q = JOE MANKOWSKI 2005 SHOVEL TEST� CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY N = 2005 and 2007 TEST UNITS SITE AREA CONTOURS IN 10D1,4 N VALS 0510 20 49 60 Meters approx. 166 26 1 JSEOT - -- f FV;pcseo / CR747 / SITE AREA I , 1 � 200.METER TRANSECT � • , t , % eAROEG YA0.EF E '. i .. O�cy ♦ ♦ a a 1 1 r 1 f 1 f e e / 1 / \pIORTH -SOUTH 0.45E111JE 161 "1P — 91000 - N990 N980 - N970 — N960 — N950 N940 I— N930 — N920 — N910 — N900 N890 — N880 — N870 N860 — N850 N840 N830 - N820 - N816 N610 — NE03.5 — N788.5 — N768.5 — N74 &.5 — N728.5 ,— N708.5 Figure 11. Plop depicting sites 8CR747 and 8CR750. = AREA OF CULTURAL REMAINS =AREA OF EXPOSED CAPROCK 0510 20 40 60 Meters apprOX. 27 M N O ti b P N N f�0 V Obi 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I I I I I E I DATU 4 8 8C E ♦ _ e /— — ♦ e 1 JSEOT - -- f FV;pcseo / CR747 / SITE AREA I , 1 � 200.METER TRANSECT � • , t , % eAROEG YA0.EF E '. i .. O�cy ♦ ♦ a a 1 1 r 1 f 1 f e e / 1 / \pIORTH -SOUTH 0.45E111JE 161 "1P — 91000 - N990 N980 - N970 — N960 — N950 N940 I— N930 — N920 — N910 — N900 N890 — N880 — N870 N860 — N850 N840 N830 - N820 - N816 N610 — NE03.5 — N788.5 — N768.5 — N74 &.5 — N728.5 ,— N708.5 Figure 11. Plop depicting sites 8CR747 and 8CR750. = AREA OF CULTURAL REMAINS =AREA OF EXPOSED CAPROCK 0510 20 40 60 Meters apprOX. 27 Summary of Sites Site Name: State Site Number: Environmental Setting: Location: Site Type: Site Function: Lely #1 8CR747 Cabbage palm / live oak / hardwood hammock Range 26E, Township 50S, Section 22 Black earth midden Habitation / resource extraction / mortuary Description: The site is characterized by a large patchy midden with the deepest cultural deposits occurring at two elevated knoll features near the site center. The site area within the subject parcel encompasses about 2 acres ( +1 hectare) and measures about 200 meters north -south and up to 140 meters wide. Cultural deposits average 20 to 30 cm deep. The site's deepest deposits occur on the easternmost knoll adjacent to the slough, with some cultural deposits there in excess of 140 cm depth. The site area is vegetated in live oak/saw palmetto /cabbage palm hammocks with tropical hardwoods that include myrsine, white stopper, camphor - wood, soft - leafed and shiny leafed wild coffee, wild lime, lancewood, gulf gray twig, strangler fig, gumbo limbo, willow bustic, hog plum, coral bean, fire bush, hackberry and red mulberry. The site elevation is up to 50 -95 cm above the cypress slough to the east side of the site, although most parts are about 50 cm above the adjacent wetlands. Chronology: Prehistoric: Late Archaic Period to Glades I -II Collections: Faunal bone, pottery: fiber- tempered, sand tempered plain, marine shell Previous Research: Carr and Steele (1993), Beriault (2003), Beriault and Mankowski (2005), Mankowski (2006) Preservation Quality: Good to excellent in the western portion of the site within the subject parcel, the only disturbance noted was burrowing animal activity. Ownership: Private W. 16111b6 Significance: Site is of local and possible regional significance, and is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, based on Criteria D. 29 Page 30 Omitted from Document 61 1 Site Name: Lely 94 State Site Number: SCR750 Environmental Setting: Climax cabbage palm/live oak/hardwood hammock Location: Range 26E, Township 50S, Section 22 Site Type: Black earth rnidden Site Function: Habitation / resource extraction Description: The site was recorded in 1993 by Willard Steele as being on the noithernmost end of a large cabbage palm /live oak hammock west of Henderson Slough. Systematic gridded Phase Two shovel testing established the site area is a series of patchy scatters of cultural material found at depths of 0- 45crn. The site area within the subject parcel encompasses about 1 acre ( ±.5 hectare) and measures about 90 meters north -south and up to 60 meters wide. Cultural deposits average 20 to 30 cm deep. There are at least two overlapping cultural horizons, an early Formative deposition mantling an Late Archaic deposition. Chronology: Prehistoric: Late Archaic Period to Glades I-II Collections: Faunal bone, sand tempered ceramics, marine shell, Hernando point Previous Research: Carr and Steele 1993; Beriault and Mankowski 2005; Mankowski 2006 Preservation Quality: Good to excellent, the only disturbance noted in the area was burrowing animal activity. Ownership: Private Significance: Site is of local significance, and is potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places based on Criteria D. 31 161 10 Figure 12. View east at Test Unit 1 situated along easterly edge of 8CK74 "/. This unit contained no consolidated limestone caprock, and the basal levels were compact mottled marl. Figure 13. View north at Test Unit 2 excavated at the foot of the limestone bench or escarpment on the south of the midden knoll at 8CR747. Note the rising pinnacle limestone caprock in this unit. 32 NW NE 16 I I d5 o cm WS 10 CM - ^� ,x •� Y � c 20 CM CON XT9 IEVELTWO 30 CM LEVEL THREE 50 CM 60 CM l LEVEL FOUR 70CM F - _____ - -r 80 CM ' l _ r _ _ _ LEVEL FIVE NOALLY �i/ go Cm \�C�OATb �•✓ ✓eSONj �Y WATEP. LEVEL Figure 14. North wall of Unit 1 NW 01121 DATUM � X 7ACF7 �'6A4 `f '"f '7 3 M X 824N/ SE SW Figure 15. Planview of Unit L showing features and soil contexts encountered at 85cn depth and the emerging solutioned, and pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. 33 HE SE 161 1 �5 0 CPS ZoN� 10 CBA � VtM�pOGK 0 C a LEVEL ONE E.. 30 CM �d1� 40 CM LEVEL. TWO 50 CM ♦ - LEVEL THREE 60 CM �.- LIME$TONE �♦ CAPROCK 70 CM NFE � h 80 CM _ � � LEVEL FOUR 90 CM _ _. __ ._ _ __ -- __ .. ____ CONTEXT 14 -NOT FULLY EXCAVATED Figure 16. Fast wall of Unit 2 showing the three soil contexts encountered and the solutioned, highly pinnacled limestone caprock surfacial/basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to manly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. 34 161 j a5 x +55CM CAPROCK ESCARPMENT OR BENCH x +BOCM X- 50CM X +45CM Figure 17. Planview of Unit 2 showing soil contexts encountered at 70cm depth and the emerging solutioned, and pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand.The test unit encompassed Shovel Test 150 and was situated at the foot of a 60 -cm high rock bench or escarpment on the south edge of a knoll at 8CR747. 35 X +25CM X +30CM X +1 OCM X +15 M X +1 OCM X+ CM NW NE x OCM X 30CM I G X OCM X 28CM � T750' l S EL TABULAR E T x M LIMESTONE AREA' X 70CM, '. X 30C SOLUTION HOLE X 32CM: COMPLETELY THROUGH ROCK X X70CM X 70CM., X CM FLAT ESTON O DATUM X3 824.5N1 ROC ,'- 980.25 X 23 X SCM X SCM X 72CM SE SW Figure 17. Planview of Unit 2 showing soil contexts encountered at 70cm depth and the emerging solutioned, and pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand.The test unit encompassed Shovel Test 150 and was situated at the foot of a 60 -cm high rock bench or escarpment on the south edge of a knoll at 8CR747. 35 Figure 18. View south at Test Unit 3. A solitary upright limestone boulder in occurred the southwest corner. This unit was situated along the easterly edge of 8CR747. 161 "1 �6 36 Figure 19. View south at the solitary upright limestone boulder in Unit 3. This } stone was approximately 60cm. tall and rested in a bed of cultural material mantling a culturally sterile / � .' limestone marl. 161 "1 �6 36 0 CM 10CM- 20 CM 30 CM 40 CM 50 CM 60 CM 70 CM so CM 90 CM NE SE LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL3 LEVEL 4 161 10 Figure 20. East wall of Unit 3 showing the four soil contexts encountered and the marly limestone basal zone with a single standing boulder. The soil contexts were bladdsh to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. 4OR FROM NW NE 60 CM. � x 60CM X 60CM yytt a DARK GRAY- TAN SAND. DARK i �J j� Jff SAND SOLITARY STA DING "f ��ii11b�'�`'i 'Eb YF,LLOW( STONE - , %��:�IND1l 'CIS 'RL ". M �� Ill X12 M 1 DATUM 970W ' x..,i'- ' asr elf "CM SW o� i DARKER GRAY -TAN SAND SE ST15t I Figure 21. Unit 3 planview showing features and soil contexts encountered at 60 -85cm depth. The soil contexts were blackish to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand followed by a whitsb yellow mottled limestone marl basal zone below at 60cm. One unusual feature was a solitary limestone boulder standing on end in the southwest corner of the unit. 37 < •.� }� �� ;i ��,, �} n, , *', +� _,� �. -:'� ..r "��i�t �., �. ?s s � �•��r ,,'�L��'�,� t ��ft d� J �r�ry'ii�� 'P� ' t l�r p! f ` ,` f )i '�i.'nt '�F�i � � :' V' i a f �_ � Ft � �/ i � l �, • =v;�: r �, su � <� ,.. � ��LC1N � $`1�1r7e��t �� „2��[��'C��'fir� J ; ' `� � r�' �1� a ��N }t��l".e4��,�. i f F� 4,r� lam; � � (t tY � >�. i ^� +�S t r s} •/ 1 ,- �� `' ' �� "i ti ' {� 9 �'�r"; � � � � �� ,� < fi t an � ��4 }� to �, d i 1 i� ��F � t nrd � r : � 2 � , i � v �S'd �. A � ?, y�'�' � .' J� 'fit �' d :Y »6.�ys. '1 "¢� ' '�i �. i � ( �,.. { by J 't � '� ', 1 rin � � `� - °�� f i �'' � '� a:' � ri,, �. � /' � _ & � i R was ° � � i i n w J �� r t,�� l� �� 5 1 161 10 SW NW NW X 15Ct I X tOCM X X 28CM X25C XacM X1 l X 30CM X 40CM fir, X 96CM X 13CM fic DATUM 1atiM X 30 X 10CM NE SW SE Figure 25. Planview of Unit d showing features and soil contexts encountered at up to 106cm depth and the emerging solutioned, and somewhat pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. 39 DATUM 833N1 986W SW UNIT 5 833N 985N UNIT 11 83: 98, St 161'f�1 1�5 E C Figure 26. Units 5 and 18 planview showing features and soil contests encountered at up to 153cm depth and the emerging solutioned, and pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. .M o -iOCM 10 -20CM 2030CM 30 -40CM 80 -90CM 90 -100CM 100 -110CM 110 -120CM 40 -500M 50 -600M 60 -70CM 70-BOCM , . 120 -130CM 130 -140CM 140 -150CM 150 -160CM �t E C Figure 26. Units 5 and 18 planview showing features and soil contests encountered at up to 153cm depth and the emerging solutioned, and pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. .M UNIT IS (BEGUN BY JOE MANKOWSKI) 0 CM 10 CMS.- THIN ZC 20 CM CONTEXT 1 of HAF cONGRE 30 CM 40 CM CONTEXT14 50 CM 60 CM 70 GM 60 CM CONTEXT 15 90 CM 100 CM 110 CM 120 CM CONTEXT 18 130 CM 140 CM 150 CM SHELL MARL/ 160 CM LIMESTONE BEDROCK 16 I 1�fi UNITS(DAVEBOSCHI AND MARK LANCE[) SW LIMESTONE LIMESTONE BEDROCK/ ESCARPMENT Figure 27. South wall of Units 5 -18 showing the five soil contexts encountered and the solutioned, solutioned limestone escarpment and caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of concretion. 41 iv 4 �i r, r� r°V4 sr � +a vi i 0 CM 10 cm 20 CM 30 CM 40 CM 50 CM 60 CM 70 CN 80 CM so CN NW NE 161 10 Figure 30. North wall of Unit 8 showing the four soil contexts encountered and the relative lack of solutioned, somewhat pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. NW NE DATUM E x5 M 1020W ,X¢5 M' SE sW Figure 31. Plan view of Unit 8 showing features and soil contexts encountered at up to 65cm depth and isolated limestone caprock boulders. The soil contexts were tan- gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. 43 0 CM 10 CM 20 CM 30 CM 40 CM 50 CN 60 CA 70 CT 80 CK 90 C uai HE 16 I 1 t5 Figure 32. North wall of Unit 9 showing the three soil contexts encountered. NE -- - SE SW Figure 33. Planview of Unit 9 showing features and soil contexts encountered at 63cm depth and the emerging solutioned, and somewhat pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to many gray silty midden soils with vanable percentages of sand. 44 � ,tit :� a "�'+�m�'itii � , �1'a '� � s��'�4 � r � � ��jj � .p � � �y� � t ' � �7 �` � � y � V t� ��Ldi� �1 n � � � Y C ,�� r� � a � � V t� a -. 'i -�? . �"d f 'S ,r�Jr�t fl c s-`,� r � J [� � !.� �Y .�F rat r 1�u 41i- • i o )i l it n F,�, ��f � ��'• t .. � 'tl i ,i - � i i1 " � �.�,., .. .� ,:u �,. ow � ' ;� �� i '1, � ,� -;�::. �, {w {w 1:; ly .ice 7 � ?aye "'tiZr �' > >,�. a � t Sy .�� Jyrl i>t �. �Tty. it %C( � ��` \ i k ,� �N� ��]tti 9�� r -� ` °' � '� � , �: I ( � � ?��, � k'�' �q F by �i�" C �, ( t � � �, t �d� s -� ltiu ,r�; Ft i4 - ;S � ! �� I i �� , � �� r `� �; � \>`. non °�° �__ .. � �... ..., .��. _.. ,:��:� 00M 10 CM 20 CM 30 CM 40 CM 50 CM 60 C% 70 Ch SO CN 90 Cf SE SW 16 1 1 L025 Figure 36. Unit 10 south wall showing the three soil contexts encountered and the solutioned, somewhat pinnacled limestone caproek basal zone. The soil contexts were brown to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. NVV NE THROUON XOCM X2CM HOLE r J X cM CAPROCK NIX X3C .. OCM X X X X DAStM x(jl -I S1 9N/ ODD i� M x tO15W LM . S E Figure 37. Unit 10 planview showing features and soil contexts encountered at 79 cm depth and the emerging solutioned, and pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. 46 161 NE SE E- NW -- - - __ NE X' X 73CM 65 X 42 0.1OCM X 00 10 -20CM q- ?iX OCM 2030CM X 73CM 30 -40CM _ AZ �d. 7 „• 40.50CM lsa Z. .. 50 -60CM v .,.CM 60 -70CM 40CCM X5 X994'.. 'a' '. 70 -80CM DATUM j 820W 1025W U X73CM X 8CM SE sW Figure 39- Planview of Unit 11 showing features and soil contexts encountered at 73cm depth and the emerging solutioned, and somewhat pinnacled limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were gray -tan to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. 47 161 SW NW 0CM 3 .. 10 CM 20 CM v +t �•r 30 CM 40CM 50 CM 60 CM 70 CM 80 CM 90 CM Figure 40. Unit 12 west wall showing the three soil contexts encountered and the lack of limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were brown silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. NW -- CM X X 40CM 40CM X 60CM X X 45CM i X +2C X+5 M X50 X 60C 0CM X 60CM X X +5CM X + CM FLAT, TABULAR LIMESTONE BOULDER X +3 OC X 35C X GRAY -TAN X+1 NE DATUM 60CM X -' ) OOONI 43C X sE K� OOOW r , SE SW Figure 41. Unit 12 planview showing features and soil contexts encountered at 70cm depth and limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. 1 ��, 1H }� d I IA \ \ » 6 O CM 10 CM 20 CM 30 CM 40 Ch 50 Ct, 60C SE IAA 161 I t6 Figure 44. East wall profile of 1.5x1.5 -meter Unit 16 encompassing the Shovel Test 146 where human remains were found showing features and soil contexts encountered at up to 60cm depth. X 7CM DATUM X SCM VX 40C J X 23CM 824N/ SE 1021w .5 X 1 METER UNIT 14 sw Figure 45. Units 13 -14 -16 planview where human remains were found showing features and soil contexts encountered at up to 30cm depth. 50 NE NW 1 X 1 METER UNIT 13 X 62CM i, X 7CM ,! 4t X 28GM FLATTENED X68CM ., CONCRETION ADHERING GRAY -TAN " ro ROCK CULTURALLYSTERI E z10 SAND' Iif 146, REA '.� SXSC40 r X45 X5oCM_ F X 3 M �Vk�X X SSCM W X SeCM I— X X3 CM IJU P p :E X 45CM X 30CM X 40C X 59CM '. P X18C X X 10CM X 150M X OCtfl X 5$C X10CM X 62CM X t0 X 15C X 50C X 20CM X 7CM DATUM X SCM VX 40C J X 23CM 824N/ SE 1021w .5 X 1 METER UNIT 14 sw Figure 45. Units 13 -14 -16 planview where human remains were found showing features and soil contexts encountered at up to 30cm depth. 50 0 CM 10 CM 20 CM 30 CM 40 CM 50 CM 60 CM 70 CM 80 CM 90 CM SE 54V 161 1 O5 Figure 46. South wall of Unit 15 showing the four soil contexts encountered and the lack of a limestone caprock basal zone. 51 0 SW NW Figure 45. `Nest wale of Unit 17 showing the four sail contexts encountered aid. the absence of a limestone caprock basal zone. The soil contexts were blackish to marly gray silty midden soils with variable percentages of sand. I1 Results and Conclusions Archaeological investigations were conducted at sites 8CR747, 8CR749 and 8CR750. A total of 336 test holes and 17 units was dug (Figures 10). These sites were investigated prior to proposed development to determine the sites' significance, chronology, extent, and to identify intrasite activity areas. Sites CR747 and 750 are located adjacent to the west side of Henderson Slough. The sites are black earth middens and were occupied intermittently from the Late Archaic to mid - Formative periods, a span of at two to three thousand years (c. 1500 BC — c. 1000 AD). Cultural materials occur in varying concentrations across the two sites, with the most dense deposits occurring on the south and eastern parts of 8CR747 adjacent to the slough. A total of 91 shovel tests (29 %) were positive for prehistoric material. A total of 210 field specimens representing cultural materials from discrete levels was recovered from the shovel tests, test units and the four column samples. It was determined as a result of these investigations that site CR749 was actually the northern extension of CR747, and all data from that component will be treated as part of CR747. Stratigraphy Five major soil contexts based on and interpreted form 24 field contexts described during excavations were identified at sites 8CR747 and CR750. Site sediments are characterized as dark gray, brown or nearly black soils with various percentages of sand or marly concretion present. The siltier the texture of the soil, the more likely, that it is associated with cultural deposits. The sites' upper horizon averaging 10 to 15 cm of a dark gray sandy aeolian (windblown) soil (Context 1). This soil has accreted since the sites were abandoned. Very little cultural material was observed in this zone, and what is present may have been re- deposited by tree -falls or animal activity. Underlying the upper context is a 20 to 35 cm thick horizon of silty dark brown to gray - brown sandy soil mixed with prehistoric material (Context 2). This midden horizon contains faunal bone, marine shell and ceramics. Often, this context is more compacted, and it was noted that most of the pottery sherds recovered were small (less than 3 cm across) suggesting intense foot traffic. The third context is a lighter, less- silty, sandy horizon measuring 10 to 30 cm thick, that frequently contains marly concretion. Several units had a high frequency of faunal remains in the top portion of this context, and in most units, faunal bone was at least moderately present. Ceramics were present in lesser quantities or not at all. The fourth context, present in most units, is characterized as a marly gray, increasingly sandy or limey 10 to 30 cm horizon with decreasing amounts of faunal bone. One or two pieces of sand - tempered plain ceramics were found in at least two units at this depth, but their presence may be a result of redeposition due to animal burrowing or tree fall. In 8CR747 at least one unit faunal material did not occur within 15 cm of approaching 53 16f 1� caprock. Most units with deep fissuring or solution holes had faunal material fingering down into those features. Test units placed in the eastern edge of 8CR747 contain darker more organic soil reflecting the proximity to the western edge of Henderson Slough. These units frequently lacked a lithified limestone basal zone but contained a lower zone of tannish sandy marl in various degrees of consolidation. Many of the units contain patchy to dense formations of gray concretion. These concreted areas are often associated with cultural deposition. Both sites contain sterile sediments and deposits of cultural materials within solution cavities associated with pinnaeled limestone caprock. Loose limestone boulders and a gray marly concretion near the caprock (which is created by soil processes acting on carbonates in the midden) are usually found at the interface between the sandier soils and limestone. This concretion can achieve a rock -like consistency. Cultural deposits occur within and beneath the concretion and into solution holes and deep declivities below the concretion. It was noted that an elevated midden knoll in the southeastern portion of 8CR747 contained the deepest and most intensive deposition of cultural remains and associated concentration. This formation was an elongate feature oriented northeast /southwest mantling a limestone shelf or bench. Unbroken cultural deposits in Units 5 -18 reached depths of nearly 160cm, or to limestone bedrock. This locale for the most intensive prehistoric activity was likely chosen because of the prominent caprock unconformity and its close proximity to the slough. The presence of loose or seemingly piled limestone boulders were observed in six units at 8CR747. Many of these formations are likely the result of natural disturbances from tree falls. Hurricane Wilma in late 2005 felled many trees throughout the Lely sites, and the fallen trees brought up loose rocks and significant amounts of soil in their root balls. This type of tree -fall over a period of centuries has probably contributed greatly to disturbances to these sites. One solitary limestone boulder was noted in Unit 3 placed along the west edge of Henderson Slough. There is a slight possibility the stone may have been intentionally placed in a upright position in prehistoric times. Cultural material occurred throughout four to five of the six general contexts, although sparse within the thin windblown surface deposits and occasionally in the basal zones in the most intense locales in the southeastern portion of 8CR747. The contexts with cultural material were interrupted with no intervening sterile strata suggesting a nearly continuous if somewhat sporadic and variably intense occupation of the sites over a long span of time. Artifacts Ceramics are the most common artifact type found at the two sites. A total of 154 pottery sherds were found, of which 129 are sand tempered plain and 25 are fiber tempered (Figures 50, 51). The fiber tempered pottery includes four examples with a small number of fiber holes, often referred to as "semi -fiber tempered" pottery. No decorated pottery 54 was found. The ceramics recovered from CR747 and CR750 are similar to those of other Lely sites. The fiber- tempered ceramics are rarely reported at interior prehistoric sites and are more common at coastal sites (i.e. Cockrell 1970). Other types of artifacts were scarce at CR747 and CR750. A double hole drilled sharks tooth and two bone points were found (Figure 52). A chest bi -face and flake was also recovered (Figure 53). No shell artifacts were observed. Ecofacts A large quantity of faunal bone and a moderate amount of shell were uncovered at CR747 and CR750. Much of the shell was marine in origin, indicating that marine resources were transported from the coast to interior villages and camps. Other evidence of coastal exploitation included a drum fish tooth and sharks tooth. An analysis of the faunal samples from the sites may establish the seasonality for these episodes of camping and hunting/gathering. Three column samples were collected for faunal analysis and their analysis is still pending. Of particular interest is the large number of marine shells (both food and tool related) and sharks teeth (modified and unmodified) that occur on the sites, indicating the importance of coastal resources for the prehistoric occupants. Marine Shell A total of 1.58 kilograms of shell refuse was recovered representing six shell species. Lightening whelk (Busycon contrarium) was the largest shell species found at the Lely sites. Recovered shell represents food refuse and debitage from shell tool manufacture. Table 1. List of Shell Species Common Name Scientific Name Sunray shell Lightning whelk Eastern oyster Conch Fighting conch Clam Macrocallista nimbosa Busycon contrarium Crassostrea virginica Strombus sp. Strombus alatus Venus sp. Faunal Bone A total of 11.043 kg of faunal bone was excavated from CR747 and CR750. Nineteen species of fauna were identified and are listed in Table 2. All twenty species occur across the Lely sites. Faunal bone was found throughout all levels and was the greatest quantity of cultural material found overall. Bone deposits ranged from very sparse to very dense. Turtle bone represented the most common species found, with snake being the second most dominant type. Deer and fish remains were found in equal frequency within the test units and shovel tests. Other species occurred from sparse to moderate quantities. 55 Table 2. List of Fauna Common Name Scientific Name Mammals White- tailed deer Raccoon Opossum Cotton rat Gray squirrel Amphibians and Reptiles Frogs Pond turtle Snapping turtle Mud turtle Box turtle Softshell turtle Water snakes Black racer Cottonmouth moccasin (Odocoileus virginianus) (Procyon lotor) (Didelphis virginiana) (Sigmodon hispidus) (Sciurus carolinensis) (Rana spp.) (Emydidae) (Chelydra sp.) (Kinosternon sp.) (Terrapene carolina) (Apalone ferox) (Nerodia spp.) (Coluber constrictor) (Ancistrodon piscivorus) Fish Bony fishes (Osteichthyes) Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) Catfish (Ariidae) Lemon shark (Negaprion brevirostris) Bull shark (Carcharhinus leveas) Tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier) Drum Fish (Aplodinotus grunniens) Human Remains The only human remains found were small cranial fragments, long bone fragments and teeth in Shovel Test 146 and Units 13,14,16 in the southwestern portion of 8CR747. These units were dug adjacent to Shovel Test 146, On May 15, 2007 the human remains were reinterred at 8CR752 since that site is within the wetlands conservation preservation area. Site Chronology Both 8CR747 and 8CR750 are characterized by ceramics indicating a Late Archaic to Formative period occupation. A lower aceramic context occurs across the sites, suggesting an Archaic period deposition. Fiber - tempered plain ceramics marking the Late 56 Archaic Period were found indicating occupation as early as ca. 1000 B.C. Based on ceramic types, the sites were continuously occupied from ca. 3000 BP to 1000 BP. Intra Site Activities Sites CR747 and CR750 are characterized by both overlapping and distinct cultural deposits which probably represent discrete occupations associated with subsistence and habitation activities. Ceramics, marine shell, faunal bone, and other cultural material indicate areas of habitation, food processing, and tool manufacturing. Site 8CR747, in particular, has varying concentrations of cultural material suggesting that site activities decreased to the north and west away from the adjoining slough, Locations of shell debitage from robust lightning whelks (Busycon contrarium) indicate that the manufacture of shell tools occurred. A partial stone biface recovered from Unit 7 and an intact Hernando Point from 8CR750 (see cover) recovered by Joseph Mankowski during prior investigations ( Mankowski 2006) indicates that the manufacture or retouching or stone tools from imported chert. Antler and deer bone debitage and tools indicate marrow extraction and the creation of pins and points. Drilled and undrilled sharks teeth indicate cutting activities probably associated with food preparation and wood working. Conclusions In summary, archaeological investigations at two sites - 8CR747 and 8CR750— indicate that long term prehistoric occupation occurred at the sites. Site 8CR747, measuring 200 meters in length, is one of the larger middens documented in interior Collier County. Large quantities of cultural material indicate subsistence activities and tool manufacturing which suggests substantial populations, possibly 50 to 100 people, and possibly overall larger populations associated with other coveal encampments abutting Henderson Slough (i.e. CR727, CR752). The area reported as site 8CR749 was extensively investigated by systematic shovel testing and should now be regarded as a northern extension of 8CR747. That site should be removed from the Master Site File as a distinct site. Sites 8CR747 and 8CR750 are considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places based on Criteria D. This assessment and subsequent monitoring during any subsurface disturbances associated with the development of 8CR747 and 8CR750 should act as mitigation for the loss of the this site from pending development. Any significant features uncovered during monitoring should be fully documented and in the event that isolated human remains are found, the provisions of Florida Statute 872.05, the Unmarked Human Graves Act, will apply. 57 161 I �p- LELY CULTURAL DRIVE f f RCEL2 75 (TR ST-1 t � e UN Mum R756 PA 3 : d (T CT 26BI . . > Location of eiatermeat • " S, �' l Kaman remains site G fnund in 2006 Location of •- '�. a S 1• hwnan remains found on 1 -30 -07 " PA CEL1 :T4 (-IAIA THORNE) 8CR747 'Y c a r• M T•a a n o: Y Y: Y Y Y r.- a.w. .w. a.,.. a.... ST 1& d ez o s ■.�o s ,a sr43 � r `m0 ■ STdO ST4l y �^ a A4xd�s moo O _ g8CR726 0 Rq r s vw �i sr4s � <n a ST -2 ST47 S.011, e d� r2 C 2 ST42S ST a UST45 ST -23 S 3124 ST -2a SaRy aa5T40 R,q 1i5T1a Figure 49. Map of archaeological sites at the Lely Parcels (Henderson Slough area) showing locations and reinterment site of human remains. \ = CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARIES \ ° PARCEL i (HAWTHORNE) BOUNDARIES ® =POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST = PARCEL 2 (TRACT 26A) BOUNDARIES =NEGATIVE SHOVELTEST \= PAP.CEL3 (TRACT 26B) BOUNDARIES = SHOVEL TEST NOT DUG N = 3 FOOT SQUARE TEST UNIT 0 200 400 600 Feet REN �' >, �_ f i �f �. � �s B I ", A 16 ! 1 �6 Figure 52. Bone Shark itooth, S -D55; D: point l ed hark tooth, pin, i 32; Figure 53. Lithic artifacts. A: Archaic stemmed point, ra- vaor+, B: Chert flake, FS -D70 ED 161 1o5 Agenda Item 6.6. EXHIBIT 11w _ CULTURAL ARTS VI LLAG E AT BAYSHORE MPUD A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD, A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: THE PIZZUTI COMPANIES TWO MIRANOVA PLACE, SUITE 800 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43215 and BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34112 PREPARED BY: BANKS ENGINEERING 10511 SIX MILE CYPRESS PARKWAY, SUITE 101 FORT MYERS, FL 33966 EMI. BELLOMO- HERBERT & COMPANY, INC. 833 HIGHLAND AVENUE, SUITE 201 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32803 DATE FILED PUDZ -PL -2010 59 REV 1 CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE. --- DATE: 3 /30/10'°"'. - DUE: 4/27/10 - -`" - � �� F - �1W g. -` ... °� � - �. .. L� _ m .ti. c.. , ., �'a {L N r:• -. %J dY' � 3 � - � - t `� :a W _ ,a _ T .° _ o - co-}' t �)V .d, ` f Jr. .:rY = b per! 5 � -. r � ... �'. ' y 9 �, F -_.. _. � -. �. ` �Y f ... — � _ �_ ,c i �� i iFIP Efi: f c!i �. � - x'143 &�&_ .: ..� �� La�mn... p t I I r3 ,��iF�Ypk�x� <�4 1��1. .. _. F �i�$.. �"�d� �.� _ � '/ // v CR567 ME t� Eleall V) "U 0 u wI a q w -8227 w � �ccat'ic,2 SURVEY` 4066 r ao � v - —N Zoning:-CITY OF NAPLES -- - - a ° -- \�� SANDPIPER ST o 0 j� m � N A N O C O 3 c v OLPt,' Isle Gp 's 4C MUP o :0 0 o v v ■1111111 ... �Iilllll� 1111 IN N O cu 17 cu L . LEON Zoning: RMF -6 1! ;; d� r �o cu M5d t= suoti � C�a g C�\ o o � of E 30 T d a i 1 1 r .. . . ... . .. . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . . r r r PIS ' 1 aAramaa JIL V msrxoan •xl jI la 1 S'i ' @ pit y 1 A ; I i 11 If ��! li I e I I , 5 •€ € tE ', � �,� E' i E' � ,• 8 9` T�� 6FE i i� �, 7Rf : { �� c ; 1 � Il i Vi t'- j�(j7� �i 4 � . i i lig UNPU ITE➢ SUGDE PARR UYPU l]'E➢ 2S �� i m ' + s•I LLf R) 3 1 ! 1 I « + Eil rl -• and -7.� d y 11 O ,qC) z EISV ,D,, age ml 66 Q 7--� F, \mmumminig IMMIX O � uu v 0 � U Ile C) 0 r) II JI SZ V2i0 o AV9 S -aldYN ` 1 - � n a s a n HG mocidoo 0- a K MAM 0 6I O C\2 U ^^V,, JI SZ V2i0 o AV9 S -aldYN ` 1 - � n a s a n HG mocidoo 0- a K MAM 0 6I O C\2 Cat- eY C014nty Administrative Services Diviji'Dn Human Resources Memorandum AgJAtim 7.1 W � To: County Commissioners, County Manager, County Attorneys, Division Administrators, Executive Directors, Directors, Chief Inspectors, Purchasing Supervisors, Purchasing Agents, Advisory Board Members From: Amy Lyberg, Human Resources Director Date: June 7, 2010 Subject: CMA 5311 Amendment/Annual Ethics Coverage Enclosed for your review is a copy of CMA 5311 — Code of Ethics, which was amended with new language at the meeting of May 11, 2010 by the Board of County Commissioners. The revised CMA includes a new provision on page two of the CMA, section M, which reads: M. Employees may not serve in a decision - making capacity for any entity that receives funding (either directly or indirectly) from the Board of County Commissioners, including grant funding. Prior to an entity making a request for funding from the Board of County Commissioners, any employee serving the agency in a decision - making capacity must resign from that position. The Board may, with good cause shown, waive this restriction upon a super majority vote. Additionally, we have included a copy of the 2010 "Florida Commission on Ethics Guide to the Sunshine Amendment and Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees" booklet. The Board provided for a thirty day window from the date of approval (5/11/10) for employees to come into compliance with the added language in our CMA. This provision applies to all employees of the County Manager's Agency, regardless of the position they hold. We encourage you to carefully review any and all volunteer or philanthropic position(s) you may hold. Also, please follow up with your staff to make sure they have a copy of the revised policy, which is also posted on the HR intranet website. Each employee should review his or her involvement with entities outside of the scope of their work responsibilities to make sure they are not in violation of the new directive. In addition to the CMA and this booklet, it is the responsibility of all employees of the Board of County Commissioners Agency, as well as Advisory Board members, to be familiar with the County's Ethics Ordinance (No. 2004 -05, as amended). Should you have any questions regarding the provisions of this ordinance, the County CMA or the Florida Commission on Ethics publication, please contact the Office of the County Attorney. Enclosures Eaas. a CMA # 5311 161 1 �6 CODE OF ETHICS [Effective Date: May 4, 1999 (Revised: October 1, 2001; Revised: October 1, 2003; Revised: May 1, 2009; Revised: May 11, 2010)] § 5311 -1. Purpose. The purpose of this Instruction is to provide for the implementation of a Code of Ethics procedure authorized by the County Manager. § 5311 -2. Concept. Code of Ethics: It is the policy of the County to ensure that all employees conduct their employment duties in a manner which is free from any conflicts of interest. Additionally, the standards of conduct as outlined by the Florida Commission on Ethics, and the Collier County Ethics Ordinance as amended, and Florida Statutes, shall be guidelines, and in particular instances, requirements for County employees. Violation of the Code of Ethics may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. A. No County employee shall disclose confidential information gained by reason of their official position, nor shall they otherwise use such information for their personal gain or benefit. B. If an employee of the County is an officer, director, agent, or member of, or owns controlling interest in any corporation, firm, partnership, or other business entity which is subject to the regulation of, or which has substantial business commitments with the County or other political subdivision of the State of Florida, they must file a sworn statement to this effect with the Circuit Court of Collier County and give a copy of the statement to the Division Administrator and the County Manager. C. No County employee shall transact any business, during working hours for the County, in his/her official capacity with any business entity of which he /she is an officer, director, agent, or member, or in which he /she owns a controlling interest. D. No County employee shall have personal investments in any enterprise, which will create substantial conflict between his/her private interest and the public interest. E. No County employee shall purchase any County tax certificate or tax deed. The intent of this rule is to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest on the part of either the County or the . employee. F. No employee shall accept, or agree to accept, either directly or indirectly, any favor, gift, loan, fee, service or other item of value, in any form whatsoever, from any organization or individual, if the employee knows or reasonably should know that it is intended to reward or influence the employee in the performance or nonperformance of his or her appointed duties. Violation(s) of this standard shall be considered a very serious breach of the Code of Ethics /Standards of Conduct and it is presumed that the appropriate discipline for violation(s) of this standard shall be discharge, absent compelling mitigating circumstances. G. No County employee shall solicit a contribution for another person for a gift to a Supervisor, Page 1 of 2 CMA #5311 161 1�6 make a donation as a gift to a Supervisor, or accept a gift from an employee he or she supervises. H. Nothing in this section shall prohibit voluntary donations or the exchange of gifts of nominal commercial value between or amongst County employees or with public officials on special occasions or established holidays. A special occasion, as contemplated in this section, includes those times when it has been regarded as customary to give a gift, such as a birthday, a wedding, the birth of a child or a grandchild, adoption, a graduation, a promotion, permanent departure from the workplace or community, hospitalization, the loss of a loved one, retirement, or other similar occurrences. L Nor does this section prohibit County employees from participating in fund- raising activities for charitable purposes or the receipt of unsolicited advertising or promotional materials, of nominal commercial value, from an individual or entity that is not currently in a contractual relationship nor likely to be in a contractual relationship with Collier County. J. No County employee shall participate in the selection of a vendor or the approval of a contract if that employee has received a gift, directly or indirectly, from someone representing the vendor or a contracting party, including relatives. K. Nominal commercial value means anything with a value of less than $50 in the marketplace. L. No County employee shall serve on Board of County Commissioners' Advisory Boards or Committees, to reduce any potential perceptions of conflict of interest by the public. M. Employees may not serve in a decision - making capacity for any entity that receives funding (either directly or indirectly) from the Board of County Commissioners, including grant funding. Prior to an entity making a request for funding from the Board of County Commissioners, any employee serving the agency in a decision - making capacity must resign from that position. The Board may, with good cause shown, waive this restriction upon a super majority vote. § 5311 -3. Currency. The Human Resources Department is responsible for maintaining the currency of this Instruction. § 5311 -4. Reference. Collier County Personnel Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2000 -05, as amended: Code of Ethics: It is the policy of the County to ensure that all employees conduct their employment duties in a manner which is free from any conflicts of interest. Additionally, the standards of conduct as outlined by the Florida Commission on Ethics, Chapter 112, Fla. Stat, Part III, and, as may be applicable, County Ordinance No. 04 -05, as amended, shall be guidelines for County employees. Page 2 of 2 Fiala RECEIVED Halas Henning JUL 12 2010 Coyle o0ard of county commissioners Coletta 161 •1 �e June 14, 2010 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE CONSERVATION COLLIER LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 14, 2010 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 A.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Administrative Building "F", 3d Floor, Collier County Government Complex Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Bill Poteet VICE CHAIRMAN: Michael Delate Tony Pires Jeffrey Curl Jeremy Sterk Thomas Sobczak .Annisa Karim (Excused) Clarence Tears Lauren Barber ALSO PRESENT: Alexandra Suleck], Conservation Collier Coordinator Jennifer White, Assistant County Attorney Cindy Erb, Real Property Management Melissa Hennig, Prin.Environmental Spec.,Program Man. Misc. Corres: D*._ D Cqpies to: 161 1 &-(,o June 14, 2010 1. Roll Call Chairman Poteet called the meeting to order at 9:OOAM. Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. I.I. Approval of Agenda Mr. Delate moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Pires. Carried unanimously 7-0. III. Approval of May 10. 2010 minutes Mr. Delate moved to approve the minutes subject to the following change: Page 5, paragraph 7, Mr. Pires motion — from "Carried unanimously..." to "Motion carried... IV. Old Business A. Real Property Management Update — A-list properties Cindy Erb, Real Property Management provided the following updates: Unit 53 — closing on one parcel today. Cycle 6 properties — Kirby and Murphy parcels closing today. She noted 3 individual property owners in Winchester llead. and Unit 53 have contacted Staff with an interest to sell the properties to Conservation Collier. The most recent appraisals for the area were completed in October of 2009. She contacted Roosevelt Leonard who indicated the values in the area have declined approximately 10 percent since the last appraisal. She requested Committee direction on how to proceed. Staff noted it would be beneficial to continue to acquire parcels within thes'e'ar'eas for consolidating management activities. The new appraisals would cost approximately $16,000 in total for the two areas. This may cost the County more than the savings created by them, Mr. Pires moved to direct Staff to continue working with the 3 property owners interested in selling their properties to Conservation Collier. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7-0. The Committee determined new appraisals would not be necessary due to the cost ,nay be more than the potential savings to the County. The Committee directed the Outreach Committee to review the issue how to proceed if further property owners in the multi parcel acquisition areas propose parcels for acquisition by the Program. 1. Contracts a. Cosentino Alexandra Sulecki presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to approve and Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Paul A. Cosentino, 2 I 61 1 �� June 14, 2010 Trustee of the Paul A. Cosentino Revocable Trust dated Februan 11, 2009 for 8.92 acres under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed $290,.00" and related Agreement for Sale and Purchase for approval. Mr. Delate moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the Agreement. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7 -0. b. Langkil Cindy Erb presented the Executive Summary "Approve an Agreement for- Sale and Purchase for 1.14 acres within the Winchester Head Multi parcel Project under the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Program, at a cost not to exceed$11,925 (I..angkil)" and related Agreement for Sale and Purchase for approval.. ,Mr. Pires moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners ;. approval of the Agreement. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 7 -0. B. Gordon River Greenway Update — City of Naples Utility Project Mr. Curl noted a Stakeholders meeting was held where Grant funding was discussed. Alex Sulecki reported the land swap for the kayak parcel was also discussed. She submitted a document "City of Naples Alternative mater Supply Plan where the City proposes a water transmission line from the canal adjacent to Bears Paw to the City of Naples Treatment Plant. It was originally proposed to cross the Conservation Collier parcel within the Greenway. It would require and "easement by necessity" and be bored underground to limit environmental damage. Subsequent to these conversations, she was informed, the proposal has'been tabled and the City is considering locating the line down the Gordon River. Mr. Tears arrived at 9.•16am C. Annual Report to Board — Staff Update Alex Sulecki reported the Board of County Commissioners accepted the Annual. Report at the May 25, 20 10 meeting including the transfer of $10.3M from the Acquisition Trust Fund to the Land Maintenance Fund - FY 2011 — 2013. The document "Conservation Collier Land ?Maintenance Fund (174) — Projected Expenses and .Revenues FY 2004 — FY 2020" was provided to the Committee for information purposes. Chairman Poteet notified the public if any party is interested in having their land considered for acquisition by the Conservation Collier Hand Acquisition .Program, they must file an application with Staff by August 15, 2010. 1 ' 66 June 14, 2010 Melissa Hennig noted the taxable values released by the Collier County Appraiser for FYI l are projected to decrease by approximately 12 percent from FY 10. The Budget Office had projected a 10 percent decrease. The Budget Office is recommending an additional $1.8M be transferred to a "Reserve Account" for the Land Maintenance Fund to ensure the Program may meet its obligations. D. Tract K, Marco Island Alex Sulecki provided a letter from herself to Dr. James Riviere, Interim City Manager, City of .Marco Island — Re: "Notice f Potential to Pursue Parcel Acquisition within the City of Vfarco Island" dated May 1.7 2010 and letter from herself to Barenardo Bezos, President, Marco Island Civic Assoc. dated May 17. She noted • The City of Marco Island does not have any interest in a joint acquisition of the property, and neither objects to or supports the nomination of the parcel to Conservation Collier. • Anew Charter High School is interested in Teasing the property from the School District and would utilize the property in harmony with the goals of Conservation Collier. She requested Committee direction on the proposed acquisition. Chairman Poteet moved the Committee not consider acquisition of the parcel at this point, but could be re- considered in the future. Second by Mr. Delate. Carried unanimously 8 -0 V. New Business A. Starnes Cattle Lease Melissa Hennig provided the document "First Amendment to .Lease - Lease #CC101 " dated June 14, 2010 for review. Judge Starnes has received an "Equip Grant' to purchase equipment and would like to exchange mowing the property for the County's annual rental fee. The value of the mowing is $6000 annually. The Committee determined this is an acceptable proposal with Dr. Starnes paying an annual rent of $.1 (one dollar.) B. Property Application Status Alex Sulecki provided the document "Applications —.Tune 201 0" for information purposes. She requested Committee direction on acquisition of the Paskanik parcel, one parcel removed from Panther walk Preserve. The Committee had previously requested Staff to contact Bank of America who holds title to the parcel between Panther Walk Preserve and the Paskanik parcel. Bank of America has expressed interest in selling the parcel at market value, but has not yet filed and application with Staff. 4 161 Ism June 1.4, 2010 Chairman Poteet noted Bank of America is inundated with foreclosed parcels and Staff should continue to await filing of the application before proceeding with the Paskanik parcel. C. August Meeting Schedule Mr. Pires moved to cancel the regularly scheduled August meeting far the Conservation Collier .Land Acquisition Committee. Second by Mr. Curl. Carried unanimously 8 -0. VI. Outstanding Advisory Committee Member Program None VII. Coordinator Communications Alex Sulecki noted: • The Land Development Code Amendments regarding monetary or land donations for off -site preserves was approved by the BCC on June 8, 2010. • Nancy Olsen of the Parks and Recreation Department has indicated an amendment of an existing Parks and Recreation Ordinance could be proposed by Staff in lieu of a separate Conservation Collier "Preserve Use Ordinance." • A public meeting will be held June 17, 2010 for discussion of utilizing the Caracara. Preserve as a Gopher Tortoise Preserve. One member of the Committee may attend. It has not been noticed in accordance with the Sunshine Law. Notify Staff if you plan to attend. • At the June 22, 2010 BCC meeting Staff will be presenting several items including Langkil and Cosentino contracts for approval, the Pepper Ranch Hunt Programs, Railhead Scrub Revised Management Plan, a USFWS grant, and the GIS Authorization Form. VILI. Sub - Committee Meeting Reports A. Outreach - Tony Pires, Chair The Subcommittee will meet and discuss web site improvements and a temporary brochure fqr Freedom. Park. A meeting is scheduled for July. B. Lands Evaluation and Management — Mike Delate, Chair The Subcommittee will .meet to discuss the final Pepper Ranch Management Plan. C. Ordinance Policy and Procedures — Annisa Karim, Chair There will be a meeting on June 28, 2010, IX. Chair Committee Member Comments None IX. Public General Comments 5 161 106 June 14, 2010 None X. Staff Comments Christal Segura, Conservation Collier Land Manager received her Fire Certification. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the chair at 9:47 A.M. Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee frill Potect, drairman"P, These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended -7 16 1 j k`' GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU v/ ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Halas 11FIE U Naples, Fl 34104 Henning t: IIII Coyle JUL 2 [Gll February 18, 2010 Coletta BY:....................... I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: V VI. AGENDA January 21, 2010 Budget Report — Caroline Soto Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Doral Circle Entry Renovations C. Reuse Mixing Chamber VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Housekeeping Item X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business XII. New Business A. Railing Quote B. Cost Analysis - Pebble Beach Lighting C. FY -2011 Budget XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment The next meeting is March 18, 2010 at 4:00 p.m CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Corns: Date: —1,L_L L Item* _j 11 C l O r, Mine to GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MF.ya ADVISORY COMMITTEE Halas II d IIII 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Henning Naples, Fl 34104 Coyle 2�12010 I�nljy March 18, 2010 Coletta BY; ....................... I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes AGENDA February 18, 2010 V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Doral Circle Entry Renovations C. Reuse Mixing Chamber VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List C. FY -2011 Budget Review /Approval IX. Housekeeping Item X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business XII. New Business A. Railing Quote B. Cost Analysis - Pebble Beach Lighting XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment The next meeting is April 15, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Corres: Date: Item 1f " ,gies 4 : Ittl 161 1 X31 GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE ✓" 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Fiala y� Naples, Fl 34104 Halas Iul ��II �% I Henning 111A111 April 15, 2010 Coyle JUL , 201p Coletta BY ........................ AGENDA 1. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 2010 V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Reuse Mixing Chamber — Bids C. Lighting Project Update VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Housekeeping Item X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business A. Railing Quote XII. New Business XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment The next meeting is May 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Collier County Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Corres: Date: item #: 1b GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE Fiala 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Halas U imuW Naples, Fl 34104 Coyleng UL 2 .1 2010 O May 20, 2010 Coletta L BY........................ AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2010 V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Reuse Mixing Chamber C. Lighting Project Update VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Housekeeping Item X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business XII. New Business XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment The next meeting is June 17, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. Collier County Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Misc. Corres: Naples, FL 34104 IMm N:� GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION AA�a ;U ADVISORY COMMITTEE Halas 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Henning Naples, Fl 34104 Coyle v ttt�111J' July 15, 2010 Colette Mr:...... AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: May 20, 2010 V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM VII. Landscape Architect's Report — McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report B. Reuse Mixing Chamber C. Lighting Project Update VIII. Transportation Operations Report-Darryl Richard A. Project Manager's Report B. Review of the To Do List IX. Housekeeping Item X. Committee Reports XI. Old Business A. Fence Quotes XII. New Business XIII. Public Comments XIV. Adjournment The next meeting is August 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m Misc. Corres: Collier County Transportation Building Date 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 item 161 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 January 21, 2010 Minutes Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:02 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert (Excused), David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard — Project Manager, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manger Others: Mike McGee —McGee & Associates, Jim Fritchey —CLM, Darlene Lafferty —Kelly Services 111. Approval of Agenda Add: IX. A. County Flag Tony Branco moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: December 17, 2009 Tony Branco moved to approve the December 17, 2009 minutes as submitted. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto • Available Operating Expense $79,479.40 • Budget Amendment of $25,000.00 was processed in lieu of $40,000.00 as it required BCC approval (Executive Summary) Darryl Richard noted the Capital Outlay $17,787.66 combined with the Budget Amendment ($25,000.00) is sufficient monies for the Warren St. Project. Darryl Richard announced a new P.O. was issued for Kelly Services due Mancan closed all Florida operations. Caroline Soto noted the Open Mancan P.O. $2,400.00 will transfer to Operating upon final payment to Mancan. 1 e)-i 161 1ari VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Jim Fritchey reported the following: • Minor Frost damage • Conducting ongoing General Maintenance • Sod and Plant Replacement estimates were approved by Staff Staff added the Sod replacement is at Median #3 (near the canal.) VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report Mike McGee reported: • Crabgrass - CLM is exploring annual method for Crabgrass removal - He requested a quote from CLM to refurbish areas with Crabgrass and Bermuda problems - Suggested expanding the Bougainvillea bed (US41 Front Entry signs) and remove sod strip areas to reduce turf problems - Damaged in- ground Traffic Operations box requires repair prior to sod restoration • Minor tip burn on the Crown of Thorn • Xanadu (at cart crossings) with frostbite requires hand pruning Robert Slebodnik reported the damaged stainless steel box is not repaired as previously requested. Darryl Richard will contact Traffic Operations for update on repairs. Robert Slebodnik questioned if the County is improving sidewalks for ADA compliance due to markings on the sidewalks. Staff will inquire with Pathways Department. After discussion it was concluded Staff will coordinate with Pathways Department to conduct sidewalk upgrades in conjunction with repairs by CLM. Staff reported Baltusrol Plantings (Ilex Shillings) are not irrigated and in a state of decline. It was recommended to notify the Golf Course. B. Doral Circle Entry Renovations Mike McGee reported: • Work will commence on Monday (January 25, 2010) • Curbing demolition will initiate the Project C. Reuse Mixing Chamber Mike McGee reviewed the following information from the Final Plans and Cost Estimate ($45,352.50): (See attached) o Application for ROW Permit was rejected - Adding Utility locates to the Drawings was requested - A Certified letter was sent to County Water and Sewer to obtain Utility information - The Plan is prepared for the conversion inside the Plant 2 161 1 1�1 Darryl Richard will obtain quotes from Annual Contractor for the Conversion and distribute to the Committee. David Larson relayed a resident complaint concerning an overgrown Plant at Forest Hills and St. Andrews (by the canal.) Discussions developed and it was determined Boundary review was needed as the plant may be located outside the MSTU jurisdiction. The Committee expressed interest in maintaining the area as it detracts from the Lely Entrance. Mike McGee suggested the MSTU to take control of the Median on St. Andrews to Warren Street. Staff will review the Boundary Map to verify if the area is within the MSTU Boundary. VIII. Transportation Operations Report — Darryl Richard A. Project Managers Report (See attached) (L-45) McGee Annual LA Services Darryl Richard announced the BVO Selection Committee chose McGee and Associates for BVO 08- 5060 -2R. (See attached) He noted McGee and Associates proposal for Base Level Services is $6,300.00. Robert Slebodnik moved to accept the (BVO) Selection Committees recommendation for BVO 08- 5060 -2R for McGee & Associates. Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. The Committee expressed disinterest in a future BVO process for awarding Bids. It was noted the Committee prefers a Continuing Contract with McGee and Associates and CLM. Staff will review the Committee preference with Purchasing. B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) (Item 3) Subrogation Recovery o Accident on Forest Hills Blvd. was reported IX. Housekeeping Item A. County Flag Staff will order (2) sets of Flags. X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business -None XII. New Business A. Railing Quote Jim Fritchey reported quotes from (3) fabricators have been requested for the Aluminum Fence. 161 1 81 B. Cost Analysis - Pebble Beach Lighting Mike McGee reviewed Scope of Services: (See attached) • Task 1: Preliminary Lighting Analysis $2,740.00 • Task 2: Final Lighting Analysis & Concept $2,180.00 Jennifer Tanner reported on Solar Light installation by the Civic Association: o Originally 1 light was installed - 48 Pebble Beach Blvd. o To date 3 additional lights were installed o The pole appears very small o The light when illuminated is blue and provides low light After discussion it was agreed to present the Pebble Beach Lighting Study at a future Civic Association meeting. Robert Slebodnik moved to approve the Proposal by McGee & Associates in the amount of $4,920.00 to study Lighting in our (Lely) Community. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Darryl Richard reviewed the Lely MSTU Boundary Map. He noted the (Warren Street) Median is outside MSTU jurisdiction. Tony Branco suggested including the comer lot on Warren Street if a Boundary expansion took place. X111. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:05 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee ,. /Zk �z Robert Slebcdnik, Chairman These minutes aP44roved by the Committee on as presented X or amended The next meeting is February 18, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 N -A+ O CO OWO V OWi N A W N+ O (NO V ONE N A W N+ O tO OD V Ch N A W N O O O V O N A W N �10 10 �000O1 -I n� OOTOA�C �Mz�r0 zcnm -��OZ- i Mzzz'�vcO aicmi�ai �pp �� m =M =m —G)c (n ��0cz O mDD mtnl<Tmc Dmmm zpp zz D�bT�r� —�� izc'n- �im�cci�mmc) szG) {��ZCmm -{ >D r�� m m ,z,z O T r u MM w M O po «<T-iI N m2z >E nn�m To TT �m00 M-0-9W13— � �OO� Z��yG�G� mcziZC?8t,:5M MMmmmmm mn4mx << cm Om >z ;Mu pmo4zmnpp2y4��TM0m -IzMrr M y�� Ozz �� X�m mcz <ON �zc0i>T i z0;0: � nA Qn �p�p -+c;c0 20 c �N TEA �O� W z ��rnm cnmDDpp --10 ;Q00 �ZZ�0v z mZ�nz��Z mmm �°mm0�mz <ooD�DmOmZT2 C.) z z O O m m 0 0 y z z K D W �_ - M X v c m y m D 0ZZ mm O _� �m Z rr� Co Zm�� 0 M 0 0 � M m m m c r- m X � O 0 D m n 0 r 0 -< O M D 0 n D A O O IO O w 0 0 0 0 0 =1 o o O 0 D 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 n <A us vi EA fl EA IA EA w i CJD W J W W 00 CT N N O EA CA 1 NI4W EA O OI N CD O O 0 in O W O O OD N W O OI'M M O l"I O N O N A W A A CNJf O� 000 O O Ol O O O (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 00000000000 O o O O O O O O O o O O o 0 � (A En (n w CA Cn (n C, C. En (n (A N (T W (p (p J CD O w 8 N O J j CT J O Cn (T J CT (D Q1 W W N N co O (b O CT w EAw w EA'Aw EA fAw w EA fA W U N (D m A N A O A OJ W co co V co COT OD O O A O W O O) O 01 O (D 0 0 CT J A N Cr O J 0 0) (T O N O N J CT O N O WW EA EAWW W W W W W W EAW CA w OD A W O o, O O EA FA EA EA fA EA fA EA EA 463 EA 161 N C in Ao a N O O .r O o 0 0 0 0 EA EA EA EA fA fA 0 0 3 3 3 CD D 3 MD 7 O. a EA EA EA EA W A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N N CT (T CT (T (T (T OC cT -- (T N CT CT OC - CD Cm—p (D Cp fD 7 D D CD O O O CD OD 7 7 0 0 j N N N ? N OO 3 � M C- T T N ` x W V W CWT O A CT fT A O N OD A � 3 n A CD O' C A OD C m O A O) y v 0 O W EA fA EA (A EA O W 0 '71 T T T T L7 (7 (� G d C7 0 0 0 0 j a j T O O p p O O O 7 1 G7 CD G7 m m xo 3 m'm a Ol c (o CD CD N m N m W A Dx� 9. Q. z nm �� 0 0 o OM>vD> N 0 CD CD m �? >> 3 m 0 0 0 $ N o [ 0� o on O () O 9 N 7 7 c O CL _ MS = N 0 CO CD CD (D A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N N CT (T CT (T (T (T OC cT -- (T N CT CT OC - CD Cm—p (D Cp fD 7 D D CD O O O CD OD 7 7 0 0 j N N N ? N OO 3 � C- T T N ` W V W CWT O A CT fT A O N OD A A A 0 O N N O N CT Ut N N fD N d) O O O O fO N O O N J A (T J— N N O O O O A 0 0 0 w O O OC o 0 O N O O O O O O O W O O O O O W W O W 0 O W O W O (D w 0 0 0 0 OD O O J A o 0 0 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 J N A w O) OD O O o 0 0 0 0 W m o 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 v O Of '71 T T T T L7 (7 (� G d C7 0 0 0 0 j a j T O O p p O O O 7 1 G7 CD G7 m m xo 3 m'm a Ol c (o CD CD N m N m W A Dx� 9. Q. z nm �� 0 0 o OM>vD> N 0 CD CD m �? >> 3 m 0 0 0 $ N o [ 0� o on O () O 9 N 7 7 c O CL _ MS = N 0 CO CD CD (D T T T W �NNn O O O O N A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N N CT (T CT (T (T (T OC cT -- (T N CT CT OC - CD Cm—p (D Cp fD 7 D D CD O O O CD OD 7 7 0 0 j N N N ? N OO 3 � C- T T N ` Ei m ti ID m T z N N_ n (�, i ti RD T W 0 Z; :1 '�' 0 -� N SOD' C11 M CD n •� ;0 .T T M M fD W W A O O N CT W w W W n O N W O N N O) (T A T A J J J J T ID N O O y m_ N m V A O O W A O CD N CD W O N N O m CO CD O w W O `G A N CD A `< M ; N CD Sk ID O- m T d O 7 W 0(n WCD m m 3 rn Cp n � O M m g c< m Mo (n ' ; o n N. (D °o ° CD O 3 0 Si c 0 O7 O N C. 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O N W O Z 9D O(T b CD N (O (A W CT W w m Z J A CD Z O Z Z (WT CO CT N (OD� D DOOOO JWD0 DW m MW D N O DGD CT S 3 (D i O2 Ot D7 W W O1 co W 0 CD O 0 a m 0 N N W CT (T O O O O W(D N N m O(D CD _ T T T W �NNn O O O O N CD Cm—p (D Cp fD 7 D D CD O O O CD OD 7 7 0 0 j N N N ? N OO 3 � C- T T N ` Ei m ti ID m T z N N_ n (�, i ti RD T -� N SOD' C11 M CD n •� ;0 .T T M M fD ID N O O y m_ 66Ci1.' m Nr O O M 2 Q ~ N CD Sk ID O- m T d O 7 W 0(n WCD m m 3 rn Cp n � O g c< m Mo (n ' ; o n T °o ° CD O 3 0 Si c 0 O7 O _s O CD OG a d m C N O C � � 7 3 (D i 0 a m 0 N f0 r S d a (A (A fw w EA w CA w (A (A CA EA EA EA (A EA w Efl EA Efl .T T p CO W w N � N D O 0 0 J O A N A cT O W J O CO 0 N O A [n O (T J J O) A 7 D 7 3 8-4 tD O N O O N N c0 J 0) W J O cT N O O A w CT O cT N N O O O CT O CA A O N w (T EA EA EA EA EA fA (A EA EA (A 69 EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA W N A N O N T CDD a o) A oD aD m o o �n m w w c. (T O A N W W 0 O OT NO.OpD a m — OA A (A o w A CO o A T v .o O O O N T J O N O O T O CT f p D m Q A i f) 1 L ID C 1 v N c") C 161 1 �' Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: January 21, 2010 Lely MSTU Project Status (L -47) ACTIVE - Installation of Mixing Chamber Recommendation from McGee & Associates to have Committee consider alternative `source' for water and utilize a `mixing chamber' to allow the Committee to switch from re -use water to either potable water or well water. 8- 20 -09: McGee & Associates Proposal (dated 7- 29 -09); $3,876.00 total proposal 9- 17 -09: Po 45001 10200 & Notice to Proceed sent to McGee for completion date of January 16, 2010. 10- 15 -09: McGee 30% plans submitted; staff coordination with IQ Water Dept. for new connection 01- 19 -10: Utilities is coordinating with McGee to confirm location of various underground installations; ROW Permit Issue is pending results of utility locates for plans. (L -46) ACTIVE - Relocation of Irrigation Pump (Warren Street) to `outside' of Utilities Facility; McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 7- 23 -09: Based on official request from Utilities Department on July 16, 2009 that Lely MSTU `move the pump outside of the utility sub - station' staff has investigated the site with McGee & Associates and is coordinating with Utilities in (1) moving the pump outside of the sub - station; and (2) re- connecting with a new `tap' the service line. 8- 20 -09: McGee & Associates Proposal (dated 7- 29 -09); $2,340.00 total proposal 9- 17 -09: Po 45001 10201 & Notice to Proceed sent to McGee for completion date of January 16, 2010. 10- 15 -09: McGee 30% plans submitted; staff coordination with FPL for service drop. 12- 16 -09: McGee 90% plans submitted; Cost Estimate Submitted ($45,352.50 total project) 01- 19 -10: McGee plans under review for ROW Permit Issue (L -44) ACTIVE -Dora[ Circle "North " - Entrance Landscape Project (adjacent to Hibiscus Golf Property) McGee Proposal Submitted (dated 11- 20 -08) Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation Inc. total bid: $32,212.34 12-11-09: Notice to Proceed for Friday, December 11, 2009. Final completion of all work, based on 120 day contract completion, shall be considered to be Saturday, April 10, 2010 12- 16 -09: Meeting with Dale Hannula to review project schedule 01- 19 -10: Installation of 2 Benches to be on 01- 21 -10; Bonness Inc. (sub to Hannula) is confirming paver specification for project (coordination with paver vendors and review of product samples) (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going - Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches "; Staff will inspect the project on a 'weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service. (L -45) ACTIVE - On Going - McGee Annual LA Services - Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 10- 15 -09: Committee requests another solicitation with `modified' specifications to be within Budget Constraints 12- 16 -09: Staff will review the BVO Solicitation with Committee at 12 -17 -09 meeting 01- 19 -10: Selection Committee has recommended award to McGee & Associates for new contract; Initial Work Order period is 'one year'; after I" year review with Purchasing will occur. 16 1 1 M January 21, 2010 Meeting Lely MSTU "To Do List" 1. New decorative light; Status: Inactive: `Tabled pending review of Stormwater LASIP plans. 2. Solar light Status: Battery has been replaced and light is functional 3. Subrogation Recovery: a. Accident 859; damage amount: $515.00; Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: Landscape Repair Completed (CLM Estimate E1002519); No Traffic Accident report found to match damage b. Accident # 947; Found on 01 -15 -10 on Forest Hills Blvd. Status: Estimate for $607.00 from Commercial Land approved for repairs. 4. Irrigation Inspections; confirmation of irrigation clock timing per maintenance contractor request /coordination Status: No current `irrigation alarms' or issues with irrigation Committee Request: McGee& Associates to provide proposal to research lighting on Pebble Beach Blvd. Status: Proposal Pending from McGee & Associates Commercial Land Maintenance Full Service Landscape Management 3980 Exchange Avenue • Naples, FL 34104 Office: (239) 643 -6205 • Fax., (239) 643 -5012 E -mail: intb@commiandmaint.net BILL TO: Colder County Dept of Transpottation 1341 East Ta", anti Trail Naples, t=1 34112 LEI `i' MSTU LST CUSTOMER NO. 1;1812010 1 1 45001 11754 1 Net 30 THE F Cri.E.OWING IS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT NUMBER REPOR I ED ON JANUARY 14. 20 iti l bl 0 0 201 162541- 634999 TOTAL I THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE 1.5 % WILL RE ADDED MONTHLY TO ALL INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL PAID -OYe`;t tiitis l�fleC',iatl #lr t enove . +nra re€xtyce TebettYa ae 3150.00 Tabehuia, 12'- 14` oa) 10 R. -move arlci replace Heieri Johnson bougainvillea,'_- pllori ic;.ui iUO.iJP 12 Labor only to mstab cCARaiyptus, Gracie "A ", e" fiepih (per sq. 1.00 12.00 0 5 Irrivatinn Technician Sut)eWSof Labol to ttuUbleshaoi and 65.00 32.50 replace irrigation heads clarnaged by third early. Teel Sysfer� . 01.5 i(nuation Technician Labor io assist_ 551111 31-1 S0 COUNTY TO PR(TVll )E PART.: TOTAL I THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE 1.5 % WILL RE ADDED MONTHLY TO ALL INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL PAID 161 lg1 . J-1 10 10 N�f L. donmw•v J LLG I= 4 t i 1 3 t Lj J • '1; t�:i -' (� �a Si - ;X� � �r jt .� rf � r r �'1„'t � /��If" /, IF t r ! At , .4 OlIV. lk 14 At Or �,' Si-�l ?.�:._�..,! �/` fit, K .�,� � �) T�•. �1 ii. �` �.� � 'axe �! . ,` t � � {� , �� f��. +: � r �, t +� " Imo' • ` ,� \ t a r• • r r� 161 Z bi Landscape Architecture BVO #08- 5060 -2R EVALUATION CRITERIA Page 1 of 6 provides: 4� OPEN DOOR BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY 26 YEARS EXPERINCED IN -HOUSE DESIGN 7 YEARS EXPERINCED CONSULTING ARBORIST MONTHLY & BI- MONTHLY SITE OBSERVATIONS VERBAL AND WRITTEN MAINTENANCE REPORTS r ❖ RESULTS OUR CLIENTS TAKE PRIDE IN COMMITTED TO BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE__ LELY GOLF ESTATES MSTU - ST. ANDREWS BLVD. & US 41 ENTRANCE DESIGN & MAINTENANCE CONSULTING BY McGEE & ASSOCIATES SINCE 1988 Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East/ P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707" Fax (239) 417 -0708 mcgeeassoc0aol.com ,LC 098 * FL 1023A 2 BVO #08- 5060 -2R 7X57ee & ,,A . Landscape Architecture EVALUATION CRITERIA 16 I "7, t1 Experience and Expertise Related to Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting including Staff Experience LELY MSTU St. Andrews &US 41 Pedestrian Safety Median Sight Lines Flowering & Drought Tolerant Plants Page 2 of 6 McGee & Associates is proud of its production record over the past (26) years of designing and landscape maintenance consulting. Our past 26 year continuous working relationships with Collier County Government, Beautification MSTU's and other Municipalities is testament to our problem solving, troubleshooting and project design abilities. There is no substitute for experience. McGee & Associates past experience with roadway beautification projects provides the firm with a networking ability to quickly evaluate and provide recommendations for resolving maintenance issues. Mr. McGee's past experience with roadway maintenance consulting and 7 years experience as a certified consulting arborist gives our firm the ability with every site observation to recognize, evaluate and provide instant recommendations about maintenance issues without having to refer to sub - consultants. Current and past maintenance consulting experience as a licensed entity: Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U. Consultant (1997 to Present) (12 years of continuous maintenance & design services provided) Radio Road M.S.T.U. Consultant (2005 to Present) (5 years of continuous maintenance & design services provided) Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA, MSTU Project Manager Collier County Transportation Division A.T.M. Department 2885 South Horseshoe Dr., Naples, Florida, (239) 252 -5775 City of Marco Island Consultant (1997 to Present) (12 years of continuous maintenance & design services provided) Mr. Bryan Milk, City of Marco Island Parks & Recreation Director, (239) 389 -3903, 1361 Andalusia Terr., Marco Island, Florida Staff Experience Michael A. McGee, r.l.a., i.s.a. is the principle project designer and project manager representing the firm as a team member on all projects. Mr. McGee is a State of Florida Registered Landscape Architect, International Society of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist, IMSA Roadway Lighting Specialist Level I, FDOT certified in Maintenance of Traffic at the intermediate level and FDOT qualified Landscape Architect. David Julien is the firm's AutoCAD Design and Computer Technician. Mr. Julien joined McGee & Associates six (6) years ago bringing his multiple years of computer and surveying experience. Mr. Julien is experienced in computer programs such as AutoCAD, Land FX, Excel, Powerpoint, Horticopia and Word. Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East I P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 mcgeeassocOaol.com ,LC 098 * FL 1023A 3 BVO #08- 5060 -2R 7&57ee &,A Landscape Architecture EVALUATION CRITERIA 161 101 Page 3 of 6 Previous Performance in Landscape Maintenance Consulting Services Proiect Examples Golden Gate MSTU ,w>l� 11ty Lely Golf Estates MSTU Immokalee MSTU City of Marco Island McGee & Associates over its past 26 years of practice has been providing continuous, innovative and result producing landscape and irrigation maintenance consulting services to local municipalities and beautification MSTU districts. The following is a list of roadway landscape and irrigation maintenance consulting projects and the number of consecutive years of annual services that were provided to the projects. Our services included monthly site observations and meetings with the maintenance contractor, project manager and advisory committees. 12 years - Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.U. (6 miles of urban landscaped roadway medians) 10 years - Golden Gate Beautification M.S.T.U. (6 miles of urban landscaped roadway medians) 12 years - Immokalee Beautification M.S.T.U. (1.5 miles of urban landscaped roadway medians) 12 years - Marco Island & City of Marco Island Beautification (9 miles of urban landscaped roadway medians & roadside parks) 4 years - Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. (3 miles of urban landscaped roadway medians) Letters of Recommendation: (See attached letters of recommendation from:) Mr. Bryan Milk, Director Marco Island Parks & Recreation Department Mr. Richard E. Simms President, Golden Gate Civic Association and Chairman of the Collier County Golden Gate Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East/ P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 - 0707* Fax (239) 417 -0708 mcgeeassoc0aol.com ,LC 098 * FL 1023A 4. 7X57ze & A, Landscape Architecture BVO #08- 5060 -2R EVALUATION CRITERIA Ability of Firm to meet schedule requirements LELY MSTU Lely MSTU un- irrigated Cul -de -sac Medians Doral Circle Entry I1 Doral Circle Median Pebble Beach Blvd. Golf Cart Crossing 161 1 01 Page 4 of 6 McGee & Associates is committed from the beginning of every project to perform services within the proposed schedule and budget. Over the past 26 years McGee & Associates has met its overall project commitments. Our multiple year client relationships are evidence of our final work product and our commitment to meet our client's goals and objectives. Mr. McGee as project manager for all projects ensures the firm of maintaining a scheduled workload. Our small firm format provides for maximum hands on control throughout all our projects. McGee & Associates workload is scheduled and tracked with Microsoft Office Outlook Calendar. Our monthly MSTU committee meetings and field review meetings with the maintenance contractor are prescheduled throughout the year to ensure attendance. Our monthly on -site field review meetings with the maintenance contractor are an important part to the overall maintenance program. The one on one communications with the contractor to discuss and review issues or potential improvements is essential. Our monthly general maintenance contractor report sheets graphically display the monthly maintenance requirements while providing the written report from the contractor recording the services provided on a weekly and monthly basis. LELY MSTU IIIIIIIII� IIIlllllll�llllllllllll�lllllllll�llllllllllll�llllllllll� llllllll��llllll� llllllllll�lllllllllll�llllllllll� llllllllll� llllllllllll�llllllll� -CONTItACTOR NOTES AND COMMENTS III llllllllll� MrmIIIII�I�IIlllllllll�lllllllllllll�lllllllll�lllllllll� CONSULTANT NOTES G-O-ON. ITEMS TO SE ADDRESSED ON CORRECTED INIM TO NEXT MONTH INSPECTION: Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 mcneeassoc0gol.com ,LC 098 * FL 1023A BVO #08- 5060 -2R 5. Price LELY MSTU St. Andrews & US 41 Forrest Hills Lake & Golf Cart Crossing Pebble Beach Golf Cart Crossing 0 St. Andrews & US 41 7&57ee & A 1 6� Landscape Architecture EVALUATION CRITERIA Page 5 of 6 McGee & Associates believes in providing its clients with the most economical pricing for the services being requested. The net economic benefit we provide to our clients is providing an excellent finished product at the best qualified lowest price. Our services will include the monthly site observations and meetings as required by the scope of services, as well as additional bi- monthly site observations to review the plantings, irrigation operation and observe the maintenance personnel perform the on -site services. With our office location just one half mile away from the project site along with our open door business philosophy permits us to provide quick response reviews and recommendations to address any unforeseen issues with the contractor, project manager and /or advisory committee member. "There is no substitute for experience" With 26 years of business, design and maintenance consulting experience McGee & Associates has developed the expertise and networking abilities to address any issues related to landscape maintenance consulting. The attached Exhibit A fee matrix spreadsheet is based upon the 08 -5060 Fixed Term Contract Rate Schedule B. Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 - 0707" Fax (239) 417 -0708 mcgeeassocOaol.com ,LC 098 * FL 1023A t s a v 8 v° p � s a 8 g x y < 9 a �p 1611 1 01 E � I $ a ;I 8 � 0 3 II 1611 1 01 BVO OFFER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County Government Center Naples, Florida 34112 161 1 �1 BVO # 08- 8080.2R, "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lety MSTU ", Addendum 3 The undersigned, as Offeror, hereby declares that he has examined the Scope of Services, requirements and schedule and informed himself fully in regard to all terms and condi0ar� pertaining to the project. Addenda received (If applicable): #1_Z #2� #3_ ✓/ The service to be furnished by us is hereby declared and guaranteed to be in conformance with the Scope of Services. The undersigned do agree that should this offer be accepted, to execute the work order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE have hereunto subscribed our names on this 124h day of MAIA, 2010 in the County of c LU6a , in the state of PLOpdDA . Mkiad A. Meft t.mdwWArdiWC P.A. d.b.L. McGw d Aa*ckk* Firm's Complete all Name (Circle ons): o re le Proprietorship, Partners Ip Phone No.(2") 4lT,61011 FAX No._Ca 4 n •01 O E -mail: ried.�y',A.yy,peOAel..LaM SVO OFFER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County Government Center Naples, Florida 34112 161 1 BVO # 08-5080 -2R, "Landscape Archkeetural Maintenance Services for Lety MSTU ", Addendum 2 The undersigned, as Offeror, hereby declares that he has examined the Scope of Services, requirements and schedule and Informed himself fully in regard to all temp and conditions pertaining to the project Addenda received (if applicable): 01 1-f #2,Z #3_ The service to be furnished by us is hereby declared and guaranteed to be in conformance with the Scope of Services. The undersigned do agree that should this offer be accepted, to execute the work order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE have hereunto subscribed our names on this 121 day of T6N. 2010 in the County of CW4111111A., in the state of 1RDW GA NIkhwl A. MCCOIN Lrdre+pAraid" PX I.M1. ".. Mc6a R Apoeim Finn's Complete L&O Name (Circle one): o le Proprietorsh' , a arship Phone No. � 0 FAX No. E -mail: ', cog n BVO OFFER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County Government Center Naples, Florida 34112 16 I 1 t1 BVO # 08- 6060 -2R, "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU ", Addendum 1 The undersigned, as Offeror, hereby declares that he has examined the Scope of Services, requirements and schedule and informed himself fully in regard to all terms and conditions pertaining to the project Addenda received (if applicable): #1_v-" #2_ #3_ The service to be furnished by us is hereby declared and guaranteed to be in conformance with the Scope of Services. The undersigned do agree that should this offer be accepted, to execute the work order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE have hereunto subscribed our names on this jam_ day of 'AN. 2010 in the County of 4OL4 94— , in the state of AOILMA . MlotudA MaGm Lw&W6AWl&w%PA d.ba.. McCks & Arodm Firm's Complete L Name (Circle one): Is Proprletorshl , Perin ip Phone FAX No. (} D E mail: LA 5071 'lAKIA I Ti¢, C-- Address W City a let � P BY: Written Sig Typed ame and Title 161 Cifv ®f Marco Island Firo January 4, 2010 Re: Letter of Recommendation for McGee & Associates for Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for the Lely Golf Estates, NSTU To Whom It May Concern: 1M I am pleased to submit this reference letter on behalf of McGee & Associates. Mr. McGee's company maintains the annual maintenance for the City of Marco Island, Parks and Recreation Department. The following outlines the City's satisfaction with his fmi: Monthly Services • Performs on -site observations of roadway median and park areas with the Maintenance Contractor and Contract Manager. • Provides written and/or oral comments and recommendations based upon on -site observations of the roadway median and par areas, addressing improvements, landscape plants and irrigation maintenance problems or deficiencies. • Comments on the performance of the maintenance Contractor in regards to the required contracted specifications. • Attends monthly Beautification meetings. Upon Request Limited Refurbishment Design-Services • Provides refurbishment design services and observation of installation as requested. Required Miscellaneous Services • Provides assistance in developing annual maintenance specifications • Meets with Contract Manager to review and provide comments for annual maintenance specifications updating for contract and/or bidding purposes. • Attends maintenance pre-bid meeting and assist in preparing any necessary addendums. • Interacts periodically during the month with the Contract Manager and Maintenance Contractor • Provides review and comments on: • Bids and Committee agenda items • New products when requested by the Contractor and/or Contract Manager 50 Bald Eagle Drive, Marco Island, Florida 34145 (239) 389 -6000 a Fax (239) 389 -4359 16!;'1 M Cifv ®f Marco Ma na Page Two January 4, 2010 Letter of Recommendation for McGee & Associates I highly recommend McGee & Associates for the Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for the Lely Golf Estates, NSTU. If you need any verbal verification of this reference, please contact me at 239 - 389 -3903. Very / truly yours, q , Q Dn t to A.AV V V vit v Bryan Mi4k Director I Marco Isl d Parks & Recreation Department BM/pam 50 Bald Eagle Drive, Me Island, Florida 34145 (239) 389 -5000 o Fax (239) 389.4359 6 ctoLo evL c,ate Aro CILv�c Assoc/Lk/Lovk/ MEMORANDUM FR: Richard E. Sims TO: To whom it may concern, RE: McGee & Associates 1-5-10 161 11 01 As president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association and Chairman of the Golden Gate MSTU Committee I am pleased to recommend McGee & Associates. I have had the pleasure of working with Mr. Michel McGee of McGee & Associates since 2003. Over these past years, as an MSTU committee appointee and resident of the community have been Involved in major Is projects and maintenance consulting services provided by Mr. McGee and his firm with excellent results. Mr. McGee and members of his staff are always available to answer questions that our board members have regarding our beautification projects and areas and remains the Golden Gate MSTU Landscape Architect of choice. Should you need additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. PHONE: 239-455 -7082 EMAIL: mstuandmeCyahoo.00m 7 U rte_+ L a� a U N ca c J (D co O LO CD 0 Y U f9 N Y 114 C N O O UC co ` lO 6 NU X LL m 0 2 Y z J Q Z 0 m W LL LL 0 W J F U) W m W W C� G 0 0 Z 0 U W J W fn N (7 0 2 O y a N w O W O' U mg � a 7 m 2 n m W LU m j a Z r 0 O LU W W m i a z Z WW U m5 Z N n i IX W W QUQ 7 Ja Z a w O WW U f g n a Z m w O z W mg � a Z N w O w W W U mg � a z� n L n L Q_ Y C r' L V 161 �� 1 01 X X a e s c d O m n E n L A d C O a x X a m c Y C V CL N L d a c9 .a 8 m X C O C Uy 6 C XY a. C a !° e tl1 Y 3 C � C 0 R b a °1 L r 07 � L L N mfi c m .a O, C E w am d m c O y V Y c m c� L� u c a- 00 Y ~ K d W .ni h C z O 2 a 1 1 \� cc LL �: CL j . X X a e s c d O m n E n L A d C O a x X a m c Y C V CL N L d a c9 .a 8 m X C O C Uy 6 C XY a. C a !° e tl1 Y 3 C � C 0 R b a °1 L r 07 � L L N mfi c m .a O, C E w am d m c O y V Y c m c� L� u c a- 00 Y ~ K d W .ni h C z O 2 a t w z � N d O 9 y5r cm e � o a u o I u y 161 11 0 161 1 �1 BVO # 08- 5060 -211 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" Non- offeror's Response: In the event that you are unable to submit a response for this BVO, please return this form to: Rhonda Cummings, FCCN, CPPB, Contract Specialist, Purchasing Building G, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112. We are not responding to this Request for Information /BVO for the following reason(s): ❑ Our firm's expertise is not applicable to the specifications/scope of work. ® Specifications /scope of work not clearly defined (too vague, rigid, etc.) ❑ Could not meet required project schedule. ❑ Insufficient time allowed for preparation of response. ❑ Current volume of work ® Other reason(s): Could not make the numbers work to meet the minimum hours per task and also include participation of a qualified sub - consultant without exceeding the maximum fee. Name of Firm. URBAN GREEN STUDIO By Signature of Re es ative I b1 BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" COl ter County January 11, 2010 Collier County Purchasing 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34112 Attention: Purchasing Director BVO #08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" Due Date: Monday, January 12, 2010 no later than 2.30 PM Understanding of project and required deliverables We understand this maintenance consulting scope of services to be for the residents of Lely Golf and Country Club to preserve and perpetuate the health and vigor of the existing median and right -of -way landscaping while thoughtfully planning for its future enhancement together with the MSTU Committee and Collier County staff. This will involve monthly site reviews, monthly MSTU Committee meeting attendance, preparation of monthly status reports and review of maintenance contractor report sheets. Additionally, as landscape architect design consultant, Windham Studio will complete miscellaneous design services from time to time to refurbish the project areas as directed and prioritized by the Committee. Lastly, we will assist the committee and county staff in reviewing and refining the annual maintenance specifications for the project areas and assist in the bidding process. Project Scope As the primary team leader, Scott Windham will personally attend all advisory committee meetings and project site walk throughs. He will also review the General Maintenance Report Sheets and prepare monthly written reports to inform the committee and county project manager of project status, contractor performance and related action /resolution items. The monthly status reports will be submitted to the county project manager a minimum of 3 days prior to the MSTU meetings. In addition to the monthly maintenance consultation duties, Scott Windham will provide limited refurbishment design services and construction observation on an as requested basis including preparation of miscellaneous planting plans, specifications, etc. Two other subconsultants will provide support to Scott's primary leadership role including participation in select project site meetings, intermittent review of maintenance reports and assistance with the development of contract maintenance specifications relative to their areas of expertise. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax. (239) 390 -1937 Email: Scott @windhamstudio_com wunv.windhamstudio.com 1, 10, BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" Existina Conditions and Considerations Upon review of the project areas, the medians and ROW areas contain primarily ground cover plantings with a few shrub masses together with a variety of palm and small scale tree species. These planted areas will be closely monitored for health and vigor with special attention to the several flowering species of trees, shrubs and ground covers (ie Plumbago, Ixora, Dwf Allamanda, Crown of Thorn, Jatropha, Cassia, and Hibiscus, etc). Many of the palms observed are very mature and will require careful monitoring and care to maximize longevity particularly the Royal, Washingtonia and Cabbage Palms. Numerous Foxtail Palms were also observed as newer introductions to the median plantings and will be considered for incorporation in future refurbishment efforts. This sort of long range planning together with the committee and county staff will be another component of the review and evaluation process as landscape architectural maintenance consultant. As observed with mature plantings such as this, periodic addition of new plants to 'fill in' where gaps exist as directed by the committee will be an on going task. Together with the committee, clear identification of priority areas will be essential for strategic design and enhancement efforts. Exoerience and Expertise Related to Landscaoe Architectural Maintenance Consultin Scott Windham, Owner of Windham Studio, Inc will act as the prime consultant for this scope of services. Scott has practiced landscape architecture in southwest Florida for 20 years following receipt of his BLA from the University of Florida in 1990. He has been a registered landscape architect in the state of Florida since October 1994 (LA 000 -1516) and maintains a Corporate Landscape Architecture Business License as well (LC 26000365). Windham Studio has enjoyed a positive relationship with the Collier County DOT and ATM staff over the past 5 years and has completed 11 successful Roadway Beautification projects together encompassing over 25 miles. It is from this long standing role as roadway beautification design consultants that we approach this scope of services as a natural extension of proven expertise in successful roadway corridor development. Scott Windham has attended the monthly meetings for the Radio Road MSTU Committee for the past 11 months as design consultant for Phase 3 of the beautification project (1 mile from Livingston Road west to Airport Pulling Road) and he will be assuming the landscape architectural maintenance consultant position for the committee following completion of the Phase 2B beautification project installation in early 2010. This opportunity has provided knowledge and insight into the specific requirements of this type of MSTU consultant position. His current role involves the preparation and presentation of monthly status reports, plans / specifications and budget estimates relative to the Phase 3 project; a team project with Windham Studio as prime consultant together with civil engineer and irrigation sub consultants. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott@windhamstudio.cotu www.windliamstudio.com " 1 8, BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" Documentation of Previous Performance in Landscape Maintenance Consulting Services As with our roadway beautification design projects as well as our other private development projects, we have assembled a team of the highest qualified professionals in their fields to provide unparalleled expertise for this scope of services. Please see (Exhibit B) Letter of Recommendation. Francis (Frank) X Kitchener, General Manager of Renfroe and Jackson, Inc. will act as the horticultural consultant on the Windham Studio team with expertise in landscape maintenance, pest management and diagnosing plant problems and nutrient deficiencies. Frank earned his B.S. in Ornamental Horticulture from Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture and has been managing High -end landscaping for over 15 years most notably as the Grounds and Maintenance Manager for Bay Colony in Pelican Bay for 15 years prior to joining Renfroe and Jackson. He is a Certified Pest Control Operator (CPCO), Certified Arborist, Certified Horticultural Professional (FCHP), Community Association Manager (CAM) and has been certified by the University of Florida in Best Management Practices (BMP). Please see (Exhibit C) Letter of Recommendation. Frank Kitchener has provided landscape maintenance consulting service on the following projects as well as numerous others: • Keewaydin Island- Consult with owners and general contractor to develop a maintenance program for the island landscape upkeep. Trouble shoot insect and fertility issues and make appropriate plant installation recommendations ....... Ongoing • Continental Construction, Ed Wilson 253 -9096 City of Naples LA services- Consulted on City of Naples streetscape issues as well as 5t" Ave corridor. 1996- 1997. • Joe Boscaglia, 213 -7134 • NCH Community Hospitals- Consult on maintenance and landscape of hospital grounds at both the North and South campuses. 1989 - 2009....... Ongoing • Gene Galsterer, 436 -5347 James C. Abney, Owner of James C. Abney and Associates, Inc. will act as the irrigation consultant on the Windham Studio team with expertise in irrigation design, specification and evaluation. James earned his BLA at Mississippi State University in 1989 and has over 20 years of professional irrigation consulting experience including the irrigation design of all Windham Studio past Collier County roadway beautification projects. He is a State of Texas Licensed Irrigator ( #0005636) and a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Irrigation Association Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor ( #018448). James is Knowledgeable and experienced in irrigation consulting, design, engineering and system construction, as well as in system auditing procedures and advanced system management and scheduling. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: Scott @wmdhamstudio.com www. windhamstudio. coai I bi BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" James Abney has provided irrigation maintenance consulting services on the following projects as well as numerous others: • Pelican Bay Development: Reviewed existing systems to determine corrective action necessary to develop an irrigation application management plan. After systems evaluation, provided irrigation design for the entire development's ROW system and developed irrigation system maintenance and application management specifications. • Naplescape 90s, Goodlette -Frank Road — Phase I, Golden Gate Parkway — Phase I: Provided irrigation systems review and catchment cones testing to evaluate the systems' application efficiency and develop a long term remedial and management plan. The City of Naples, Terry Fedelem. Ability of Firm to meet schedule requirements In an effort to control and manage the maintenance consulting schedule, as primary client contact and team leader, Scott Windham will plan and prioritize the entire year of site walk throughs, MSTU Advisory Committee Meetings and related subconsultant meetings as a standing obligation to be worked around. Monthly reminders will be sent to the subconsultants in order for them to plan ahead and allocate resources. All follow up reports and action items will be compiled and distributed by Scott including all necessary subconsultant review and input for seamless one point accountability. Windham Studio has had a history of success in meeting project timelines on prior projects. Our current and projected workload allows us the flexibility to prioritize tasks and shift our available resources as needed to accommodate this project. We look forward to the opportunities and challenges ahead and to deliver this project successfully. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONSULTING SERVICES SCOPE OF SERVICES Windham Studio, Inc. agrees to provide the following services: TASK I. Attend M.S.T.U. Windham Studio will attend all Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.0 publicly advertised meetings. (This proposal assumes one meeting per month with the committee totaling 12 meetings) TASK II. Field Review Windham Studio will attend two (2) meetings per month in the field with staff to review the project. Project review will include two (2) hours to complete each site visit for a total of four (4) hours per month. Windham Studio will attend all of the monthly walk throughs. Frank Kitchener and James Abney will attend one field meeting every other month. TASK III. Review General Maintenance Report Sheets Windham Studio will review and comment on the "General Maintenance Report Sheets' which are required to be submitted by the Maintenance Contractor with pay request submittals. Windham Studio will review of estimates provided by Contractor with recommendations. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff(&,windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com I b1 BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" TASK IV. Monthly Field Reports Windham Studio will prepare monthly written and/or oral comments and recommendations based upon on -site observations of the M.S.T.U. areas addressing: improvements, landscape plant and irrigation maintenance problems or deficiencies. This includes evaluation of Contractor performance per contract specifications. TASK V. Monthly Field Report Submittal Windham Studio will submit the monthly written report to Col Transportation staff three (3) days prior to M.S.T. U. meeting. OPTIONAL SERVICES: TASK VI. Upon Request Limited Refurbishment Design Services 1. Windham Studio will provide limited (minor) refurbishment design services and observation of installation on an as requested basis, i.e. deliverables /functions might be as follows: a. Diagrammatic area sketch planting plans with a recommended plant list. b. Plant field locations by staking, flagging or paint marking. (All proposed refurbishment services will be presented to the County Project Manager for review prior to presentation to the M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee) TASK VII. Upon Request Miscellaneous Services (Estimated) 1. Windham Studio will provide assistance in developing the contract maintenance specifications for purposes of bidding. 2. Windham Studio will attend pre -bid meetings and assist in preparing any necessary addendum related to maintenance contract bidding. It is assumed that Windham Studio will retain the ability to request that the Project Manager shift funds and /or re- distribute activities between tasks, if tasks require different levels of effort than originally estimated. FEES: Please see attached (Exhibit A) BVO Estimated Project Staffing Spread Sheet Thank you for the opportunity to submit this scope of services in order to assist the county and the Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U, Advisory Committee in maintaining and improving the district. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -151 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 161 BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" BVO OFFER BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Collier County Government Center Naples, Florida 34112 BVO #08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" The undersigned, as Offeror, hereby declares that he has examined the Scope of Services, requirements and schedule and informed himself fully in regard to all terms and conditions pertaining to the project. Addenda received (if applicable): #1 Yes, #2 Yes, #3 Yes. The service to be furnished by us is hereby declared and guaranteed to be in conformance with the Scope of Services. The undersigned do agree that should this offer be accepted, to execute the work order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE have hereunto subscribed our names on this 11th day of January, 2009 in the County of Lee, in the state of Florida. Windham Studio, Inc. Firm's Complete Legal Name (Circle one): Corporation Phone No. (239) 390 -1936 FAX No. (239) 390 -1937 E-mail:scoft@windhamstudio.com 8891 Brighton Lane Address Bonita Sorings, Florida 34135 City and Sta4�ZIP BY: Written Signature Scott D. Windham, President Typed Name and Title Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Ftorida 34135 phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Emait: scott@windhamsmdio.coin www.windhamstudio.com 6 BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" (Exhibit A) BEST VALUE OFFER (SVO) ESTINIATEO PROJECT STAFFING Contract Name: "Feed Tema Lendiul Architecture Servkac" BVO Number: SVO#W5D862R ConsultlM NMm: Windham Studio, Inc. ConsulYm Addraw 8891 Brighton Lane, Bal iq Spring$, FL 30135 Project Manager: Scott Windham Telephone Number: 239-3961938 Fax: 2363861937 Date: 1/11110 Project Name: 'Landi Amhleti Mawename Comweing Services for Let, M6.T.W' PerwmN CbwakNbna Nsms Subconirecbl7 Costs -- YEAR 2010 Ja �Fep Ma Ap Ma Ju JN_ W 11- Sao -W ttsc --- Oac. Totals M IRS Totals in Wall Wkalls. Sh Yse Primal, Landscape Arhil Pnmary6 1grel Svcs 60 2.0 X60 1.0 60 1.0 6.0 2.0 60 1.0 6.0 1.0 60 2.0 60 14 60 1.0 6.0 2.0 60 1.0 60 1.0 05 0.1 72 16 ''. Design Associate cons Svcs! 1.0 to t0 10 0.025 4 call Tech,il Ranlrw and Jackwal Inc. 0,i Svcs wmary Svcs 1 I Yes 0 20 2.0 20 1 0 2a 20 20 1 0 _2.0 20 2.0 1.0 2.0 20 20 0.025 02 4 24 FraM xitchenar James Abm and Awl C Tona5ws P".., s Yes _ 10. 20 20 20 20 2_0 20_ la 2.0 2_0 20 20 20 _ 20 00125 02 __. 2. Jams Abne OPUOw SVGS _ _ 10 110 10 1.0 0.025 �24 4 E6TMATED 6TAFFned T, Pn Cbnxksabns Manaaure Reb Coal PM"V BASE LEVEL SERVICES I Wevini Sledb, ini Pnrci Landsca AmM1necl 12 � $128 $9,218 Rena. and Jackson, be. FraM I9lcaener 24 $60 _ 61.440 James C. Abn an All _ James NVe 24 $50 $1,200 hub TObl Prima Services, Labor Cos $11,856 07Tp11.111. SEMAM Wbdham S wla, Inc. Pnnnea LaMscane Archli 15 $128 $2,048 0a3.1 Asaociete Cad Technician l4 $75 '4 562 $900 $248 Renime end Jackson, Mo. �12 Fork hilcaemr Amax C. Abm and Assoc. $60 $120 James Abe 4 $50 $200 Sale Total console SSrvkros Labor Tobl labor nasi _I. COST $2,916 $14,712 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www. windhams tudio. com 7 Costs teas Material, and Placement Sampling and reading WA —_ -,_ Sery MA _ Oeanbse Allocation 410% of 10121 Least) KA Forced Warr f ,t —.— MA Feb mike Oaerased WA Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www. windhams tudio. com 7 I bi BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" (EXHIBIT B) Board of Governors S.C. , Pear Me kd May 26, 2009 P..dm Klm Raunbn Via F .,de., BAY COLONY COMM UNITY ASSOCIATION L.J. Scha .,n To complete these services, Windham assembled a team of sub consultants s�.o., Re: BVO #08- 5060 -1 "Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Bob Mad,cl„ T. , Maintenance Consulting Services for the Golden Gate MSTU" Ed s<anio. engineering and Frank Kitchener, our then Manager of Grounds and 'Ibe BJ .e To Whom It May Concern: Mug Da da"h Tw. As the General Manager of Bay Colony, 1 oversee the operations of this V',0.1.Pab,, exclusive community of nearly 1,000 residences including the tennis club, o golf course, beach club and a variety of resident services. This Th..aaa DMeo Ra,cdb,.,sna.., encompasses the general maintenance of the community streetscape and Rob WD dd common areas to protect and enhance the ongoing investment of the ftb. residents at large. From 2004 -2007, Scott Windham of Windham Studio was W1 WCo kk instrumental in preserving the inherent value in this community through T6Cai,,r thoughtful design and project management services. Ro ald A. Rare. ca .w As prime consultant, Scott and Windham Studio coordinated the design and Jamea E. R!, ,aee,.aa, construction of a multimillion dollar refurbishment of the primary community S.e Wy entrance and gate house, Bay Colony Drive and related common areas Mm MInPab.a including extensive hardscape design of decorative metal entrance gates, Tha, vanare pilasters, walls, decorative paving, landscaping and landscape lighting. The Mmgueea The To complete these services, Windham assembled a team of sub consultants R�.&Wn to bring expertise to every facet of the project including Humphrey Rosal Gerold K. Neavolh sdamo Architects for the gate house design, Agnoli Barber and Brundage for the civil Kwhi, -n Fabda engineering and Frank Kitchener, our then Manager of Grounds and P,e .,d Maintenance for the sustainable landscape design strategies. Fdio, K. Cohen Ta. I have found Scott Windham to be a capable design professional, V',0.1.Pab,, knowledgeable in current trends, effective and well versed in team coordination. Scott is available, communicates readily and responds Fred L.c efficiently to project demands, adhering to predetermined schedules. I highly Doug E,aon recommend Scott and Windham Studio Inc. for this consulting and design T).%,4 °, service. Thank M' A. Ne on, CCM, CAM CEO\ neral Manager Bay Colony Community Association 8700 BAY CoLoNy DRIVE a NAPLES, FLom)A 34108.239.591-2202 a FAX 239. 591.1685 • www.bay- colony.org Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com www.windhams tudio. com 1 61 BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" (EXHIBIT C) Collier County Public Services Division University of Florida Extension OF I FLORIDA 1 IfAS I•k(ension May 22, 2009 To whom it may concern: 14700 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34120 Phone: (239) 353-4244 FAX: (239) 353-7127 Re: BVO 9 08 -5060 -1 "Annual Services for Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consulting Services for the Golden Gate MSTU" As the Commercial Landscape Horticulture educator, I have been involved with the landscape maintenance personnel in Collier County for a little over eight years. I have found Frank Kitchener with Renfroe & Jackson, Inc. to be one of the more astute and thorough individuals in the business. Frank served on my Commercial Horticulture Advisory Committee for about three years (2003 - 2006). Frank provided insightful observations and suggestions on local landscape issues. Frank has always kept on top of new developments, whether it is a new pesticide or fertilizer product or trying new plant material (Zoysia comes to mind!). He also understands the local ecosystem and sensitivity of estuaries and bays. In fact, Frank gave a talk at the Nature Conservancy on mangrove pruning. Frank is one of those go -to -guys I seek when I get stumped on a landscape problem. Frank communicates readily and is a good natured, team playerl I highly recommend Frank for any consulting services. Please do not hesitate to call if any questions! Sincerely, DOUG Doug Caldwell, PH.o. University of Florida Collier Co. Extension (a Public services Department) Commercial Landscape Horticulture Landscape Entomologist 14700 Immokalee Rd. Naples, FL 34120 239 - 353 -4244 x203 c: 239. 273. 0073 _ __ FAX: 239-353-7127 http:l/collier.ifas.ufl.edu/CommHort/HomeCommHort.shtml The Collier County University Extension is a department of Public Services, Division of Collier County Dovammenl and an o%- campus branch of the University, of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural sciences. E# neiun programs aro open to all person wiMout ragard to race, cola, creed, an. age, handicap or national origin. In accordance with IM American with Disabilities Act. plane direct special needs by calling (239) 353 -4244 at bast 3 days Prior to the scheduled program. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff @windhamstudio.com w v.windhamstudio.conn 9 BVO # 08- 5060 -211 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" (EXHIBIT D) REE .1 AcKSON January 8th, 2010 Windham Studio, Inc. Mr. Scott Windham, ASLA 8891 Brighton Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Re: BVO # 08 -5060 —211 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" Dear Scott: Renfroe & Jackson, Inc. is pleased to team with Windham Studio, Inc. in response to the upcoming Collier County ATM, BVO # 08 -5060 —211 "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU ". Renfroe & Jackson, Inc. has participated with Windham Studio on many large projects in the past and we look forward to future opportunities. Francis X Ki(chener Jr. Renfroe & Jackson, Inc. Naples, FL 34117 239 - 455 -5020 office 239 -455 -3151 fax tkitchener (i),renfroejackson.con_i www. renfroej ackson.com Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: ( 239) 390 -1937 Email: scoff ct windhamstudio.com www. windhams tudio.com 10 1N BVO # 08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services for Lely MSTU" (EXHIBIT E) James C. Abney & Associates, Inc. Irrigation Consulting, Site Observation, System Auditing & Management 298444 1h Street SW - Naples, Florida 34116 Telephone: (239) 304 — 8451; Fax (239) 304 — 8452 E -Mail JAAIDC2 @aol.com Date: January 6, 2010 WINDHAM STUDIO, Inc. Attention Mr. Scott Windham, ASLA 8891 Brighton Lane Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Re: BVO #08- 5060 -2R Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services For Lely MSTU Dear Scott: James C Abney & Associates, Inc is pleased to team with Windham Studio Inc. in response to the upcoming Collier County ATM, BVO #08- 5060 -2R "Landscape Architectural Maintenance Services For Lely MSTU." Abney & Associates has always enjoyed working with Windham Studio on similar projects in the past and we look forward to continuing our relationship with you in the future. Sincerely, JAMES C. ABNEY & ASSOCIATES, Inc. Irrigation Consulting, Auditing and Management Javms a AbwelJi, IA, CIT Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor 018448 State of Texas Licensed Irrigator 0005636 Telephone: (239) 304 -8451 Fax: (239) 304-8452 Cellular: (239) 821 -3405 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott(a.)windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 161 16, Landscape Architecture January 20, 2010 Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager Ley Golf Estates Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Professional Landscape Architectural Services for Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU, Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Project Feasibility Study. 2010 -003P. Dear Mr. Richard, The following proposal is being submitted area and accent lighting consulting services to be provided under our current 08 -5060 Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term contract. This Project will seek to develop conceptual lighting concepts for Pebble Beach Blvd. (from St. Andrews Blvd. to Big Springs Dr.). SCOPE OF SERVICES Task 1: Preliminary Liahtina Analysis: A. Research the viable lighting options, technology and provide budget information, sample cut sheets and relevant data to aid the evaluation process. B. Prepare a letter report with design concepts and criteria for the roadway /accent pedestrian lighting. Provide preliminary comparative data on the lighting systems to aid the evaluation process. C. Coordinate with Collier County staff to establish appropriate design parameters. We will also coordinate and follow up on staff review comments at this phase to resolve issues, as applicable. D. Current Collier County aerial photograph will be use as base map. No surveying or mapping to be provided. R; TTMTTff I 3�ZTiL�TIB A. Prepare a final letter report with design concepts and criteria for the roadway /accent pedestrian lighting. Refine the comparative data on the lighting systems based on the preliminary review by staff and the MSTU Committee. S. Prepare layout concepts for the selected fixture on the section of roadway. C. Coordinate with Collier County staff to establish appropriate design parameters. We will also coordinate and follow up on staff review comments at this phase to resolve issues, as applicable. D. Current Collier County aerial photograph will be use as base map. No surveying or mapping to be provided. Reimbursable Expenses: Reimbursable expenses to be billed per contract 08 -5060. Design ' Environmental Management ' Planning ' Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East I P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707. Fax (239) 417 -0708 LC 098 ' FL 1023A 161 1M Page 2, Lely Golf Estates M.S.T. U. Pebble Beach Blvd. Lighting Feasibility Study 01/20/10, 2010 -003P Scope of Services: Design New Pump Station with Mixina Chamber for Alternate Water Source Task 1 Praliminary Llahtlna Anahrsis Task 2 Final Linhtina Analvais & Concert: n Hrs Rat" cost Principal / Senior L.A. 8 $128.00 $1,024.00 AutoCAD Technician 8 $82.00 $496.00 Administrative 4 $55.00 $220.00 Engineer 1 Lump sum $1,000.00 Total: $2,740.00 Task 2 Final Linhtina Analvais & Concert: Totalamount of Fees .............................. ............................... ......................$4.920.00 The professional services to be provided are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded, including, but not limited to the following items: • Environmental Services • Geotechnical Engineering Services • Structural Engineering Services • Hydrogeological Services • Final Design: Site or Street Lighting Services • Land Surveying Services • Site Development/Platting Permitting Services • Field Traffic Counts • Intersection Analysis • Public Hearing Attendance If you should have any questions or need further information please contact me any time. We look forward to working with your Department while improving and maintaining our roadways. Cordially, Michael A. McGee, r.l.a. President, McGee & Associates LC000098 Unit/Hra Rates cost Principal / Senior L.A. 4 $128.00 $512.00 AutoCAD Technician 4 $62.00 $248.00 Administrative 4 $55.00 $220.00 Engineer 1 Lump sum $1,200.00 Total: $2180.00 Totalamount of Fees .............................. ............................... ......................$4.920.00 The professional services to be provided are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded, including, but not limited to the following items: • Environmental Services • Geotechnical Engineering Services • Structural Engineering Services • Hydrogeological Services • Final Design: Site or Street Lighting Services • Land Surveying Services • Site Development/Platting Permitting Services • Field Traffic Counts • Intersection Analysis • Public Hearing Attendance If you should have any questions or need further information please contact me any time. We look forward to working with your Department while improving and maintaining our roadways. Cordially, Michael A. McGee, r.l.a. President, McGee & Associates LC000098 -Ittf GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Fl 34104 February 18, 2010 Minutes Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:02 P.M. 16 ! 1 �1 II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst Others: Darlene Lafferty-Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda Add: X111. D. Sidewalk Repair for ADA Compliance Xlll. E. Warren Street Maintenance Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: January 21, 2010 Jennifer Tanner moved to approve the January 21, 2010 minutes as submitted. Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Budget Report - Caroline Soto o Collected Ad Valorem Tax $198,309.63 Robert Slebodnik questioned if a projected base amount has been established for FY -2011 Total Tax Revenue. Staff conveyed the Budget Office anticipates a decrease in Taxable Values of 8 -10 %. Robert Slebodnik cautioned the Committee and Staff on MSTU expenditures as he foresees a decrease in FY -2011 Revenue stream. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Darryl Richard summarized the following: • Closely monitoring Plant Materials that suffered cold damage • Crown of Thorn on Pebble Beach (Golf cart crossing) were deeply damaged • Crown of Thorn trimming is postponed until the middle of March 161 1d1 o Fresh sod was installed at the Entrance of St. Andrews and US41 (both sides) It was reported Irrigation #3 is running a great deal longer. Darryl Richard deemed the extra watering time was for the new sod. He will confirm watering times for areas where new sod was installed. • New Crown of Thorn was planted at the Entrance • New sod was installed at Median #3 • Bougainvillea was planted • Testing of Xanadu (by CLM) will be added to the To Do List Staff reported the blue pipe (along the canal) was painted green. VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report- Previously discussed under VI. B. Doral Circle Entry Renovations- Discussed under Vlll. A. C. Reuse Mixing Chamber- Discussed under Vill. A. VIII. Transportation Operations Report- Darryl Richard A. Project Managers Report (See attached) (L-47) Installation of Mixing Chamber • ROW Permit was received • McGee and Associates provided Bid documents and Drawings for Project Bidding • A separate Bid solicitation will go out for the Hot Tap Robert Slebodnik inquired on the Water Impact Fee that he received via email from Darryl Richard. Darryl Richard responded Impact Fees were for the Potable Water Tap installation (Warren Street.) The following information was reviewed Assessed Fees • Tapping Fee $940.00 • Impact Fee $6,792.50 • Location for the Irrigation Potable Water Tap -In front of the fire station (Warren Street) o Effluent Water is located inside the Plant o Monies will be transferred from Operating Expense for Drawings by McGee and Associates: - Mixing Chamber - Hot Tap Staff will review Hot Tap quotes with the Committee at the March 18th meeting. 161 1 61 (L-44) Doral Circle "North" - Entrance Landscape Project • Pavers- Complete • Further cost was incurred for the addition of: - Required Curbing- Complete - Crosswalk striping for Pedestrian safety- Complete Robert Slebodnik requested assurance (by Staff) the damaged Sod (due to parked vehicles) on the Golf Course side is restored back to the original condition. Darryl Richard will request the Contractor to over -seed the area with Bahia grass. Work Directive Change(s) for additions to the Doral Entrance Project were reviewed: (See attached) • Change #2 Thermoplastic Striping $1,794.48 • Change #1 Install Type D Curb $1,305.00 Robert Slebodnik moved to approve $3,099.48 to cover the cost of the additional work for the Dora/ Project that was not anticipated when the plans were drawn originally. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) (Item 3) Subrogation Recovery o New Accident #947 - CLM is seeking Tree replacement of equal size - Insurance reimbursement is pending (Item 6) Quote for FDOT Railing (See attached) • Ye Olde Foundry Shoppe $3,925.00 • Staff recommended tabling the quote to obtain information on the vendor and additional quotes (Item 8) Lely Civic Association Request Darryl Richard reported a State Inspector notified Staff the Sign (near US41) was not approved by the State. (Photos attached) Discussion ensued concerning a suitable relocation area for the Sign. The Committee was in agreement the original location was appropriate for the Directional Sign. Staff will revert to the State Inspector for guidance on placement for the sign. In addition to the existing Sign Tony Branco suggested installing a Directional sign on the other side of US41 to identify the Golf Course entrance. 161 1 bl Sidewalk Repair for ADA Compliance Darryl Richard gave the following information: • Staff will Coordinate with Pathways to move forward on the Project • Staff will Photograph the deficiencies for documentation • Request State involvement as it is a Safety issue • Item will be tracked on the To Do List Tony Branco questioned the repair status of avoid the median Sign. Darryl Richard replied Sign Craft has a P.O. for the Sign repair. He will check the repair status. IX. Housekeeping Item Robert Slebodnik inquired if Median maintenance on St. Andrews (to Warren Street) is complete. The suggestion was made for CLM to maintain the Shrubs. Staff noted an hourly labor rate may be incurred. X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business -None XII. New Business A. Railing Quote - Previously discussed Vlll. A. B. Cost Analysis — Pebble Beach Lighting -None C. FY -2011 Budget Staff reported the FY -2011 Budget will be reviewed at the March 18th meeting. Additionally the Chairman will assist Staff in drafting the tentative Budget. Darryl Richard recommended a Budget Amendment to transfer $50,000.00 (Reserves for Contingency) into Improvements General. The Committee requested Line Item 40 be restored to $300,000.00 during approval of the FY -2011 Budget. Kathleen Dammert moved to approve a transfer of $50,000.00 from the Contingency Fund (Reserves) to Improvements General. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. D. Sidewalk Repair for ADA Compliance- Previously discussed under Vll. B. E. Warren Street Maintenance - Previously discussed under IX. XIII. Public Comments -None 4 16 1 I 0 There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:00 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Robert Slob dnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on IR I (1 as presented 1A or amended The next meeting is March 18, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 161 A A A W W W W W W W W" W N N N N N N MW N j N 0 W V T U A W N -+ N O (O 00 V m U A W N O (D m J m (T A W N O (O m V m U A W N -+ O -4 xxx - Imm -I - c��00T0C ar��z�mp�zcz O�mDD�� mzZZ' -'mC �(milcmilcmil�vo �� v� m=M =mZ=��c�m=zo�0- i�G��mb� <Cmm�rx D mmm zOp Zz mj TTEMi ;z,�7 mnmoTO<T Dz(11MmmZZ m x(n2D r G« �T� -mid T� DpG �1(nZZ2T.D�7�AnnmM r(A�� <CA(n z�m'W "> C mmm �� mAO0� Zom ��OO mnZnnp� -42M mmmm"Tmm mZ- Mim?<< p TT j cm Om��p D� WOO -1Z noOp <yw'2OMm' Tm-IZOD� O ZOO c'�� -A n zD WOO-1Z m TT c iv0 ,xg zczn(zi1 �� X�m' -mvz �mm �Z�m2 CQ0mDD0O - IOXZO�� cC�n c <n m�m �O-I z n mm n o n mm �00 ID Z �p mzoo �m mm� ()p �fn� m0<v0�� w �Om?Kmi z m zoo zgm>z �� cmm Zj OO�D T� zD� -y� n z z O O m m v O m z z � r D W M T m c m c m X X m r � m m �m D rDc m Zm0� aZ0- -jm 0 cn z z n m OO m p � Cl) 0 no (fin« -I K D m Kr mm W 0 m D O O 0 -< 0 m y O 0 M l fAkn fA j lAj (A (A j 4Aj (A j 4A j fA j (Aj fA fA fn (A fn fA to C9 �Gn 69 In fA (n 1W 14 �n ll Al cn l fA f� 'A 119 1.9 1 f, I fn fA ca in 1� C9 O m O O O O O O 00 O w OWNAlfn fA OD O O O) � W , (A M fA H) A w w N O V m O m O) m O m O O O O (D O O O V 00 O N O O O y W W N O A OD W V W O A Cn [n U O N m A (n A N N O O O D V -4 N N N U (1) U U (1( Cn A W O W O O O O N O O N O W m D N O O A O ( ( O W m V J 71 OD N U O O O O O EP 0 0 0 0 O O (O (n 0) W U w W O O O O m O O O O O O 0 O O O OD O O) 0) CDT 00 O O O O O v O O O O 0 (n Cl) fn 7 7 2 2 T T T T T n () n W 0 O + N (N D O W G - O O O (� Q 01 01 p p 0 0 0 O O 0 N y (D o m m m CD (� m° m C 3 m m c (B m m m m m N 7 7 m N �� 7- 0) QO f. Q. 0 9. 2 o Z o a r Q 0 D D D D D (i n m (D (D o u C O) (p 0 0 0 0 0 N N� N cc O Q) 2 co 3 N N V V 00 O CD A A (D m W CO tom N -+ m N m U O N A W A A U m U (I (71 0)i O N OD A U Cn O a = O (D V J O O m O O U 0 0 0 (O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 N O O N m O m a (aO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O O O O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O W 0 O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O °' Q° o m m �O $ °- °-' fD m m CD m fA fA M fA 64 1, r o 0 0 (D CD $ ° O o m Cr Cr 0) f11 z 2 N @ 7 C C ' O (n (n co U) (n (n n (f) (f) N fA fA fA fA W fn 0 fn W fA fA fA W D<i (o Q 7 a �' � 0 0� D x m M- , ° Cm N w = T (D 3 0 U ° ° m D ° O ((m 77 � 0) C w < (D O N p' a N O a C o O + CD 7' U O 3 co W (-),a- W W m w o N Q D n (A N (A (n (n („ (n (n fn fn (fl to W (n w (A (n W W fn a .n 3 0 m N N V A Cn (n W m OD 7 D t0 0 n A W cn --� N O (n O (n J J m ( (n (n m N O O O (n N (D J m =' O O O O 0 O A W m m O N 'n O (n 0 0 0 0 O) O O0 A O N 0) (n N j to V A (O J O fD A 0) A N OD A J O A O (n (D J W (n M y J N N W W J (D cn -� -+ N 00 V D) N A V m m m O A Cn A A 00 O -� (D O Ln O O O O O O cn A m (n (D J O i W W W I I m (D A (D O O N iy W A A N (n m U) O) O (n V1 (A M 0 fA M tO d! fA fA FA W W EA fA EA W W fA W W W W (A fA fA fA (A EA EA fA (A fA W fA W W m x ,... .-. 'w pp fDi A W W OD W m W O m A (00 (00 000 O' C (D (O m W J 00 J A V m O N m w W A w w m W O N A O A A 00 (n m m m (1) 00 aD m 00 A O (.J W A O O C 0) P) W O (n O O O CD ' -+ m m O A W N O (n W W O to O O U N W O -; A O J O (O N - "1" m N O (D V W m A y N O 00 m (n O N U A c) (n w O U O T m W N Cn W IA W M fA 'A fA M W fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA W W W FA EA (A fA fA fA fA w fA fA w W w fA fA fA y W W N O A OD W V W O A Cn [n U O N m A (n A N N O O O D V -4 N N N U (1) U U (1( Cn A W O W O O O O N O O N O W m D N O O A O ( ( O W m V J 71 OD N U O O O O O EP 0 0 0 0 O O (O (n 0) W U w W O O O O m O O O O O O 0 O O O OD O O) 0) CDT 00 O O O O O v O O O O 0 (n Cl) fn 7 7 2 2 T T T T T n () n W 0 O + N (N D O W G - O O O (� Q 01 01 p p 0 0 0 O O 0 N y (D o m m m CD (� m° m C 3 m m c (B m m m m m N 7 7 m N �� 7- 0) QO f. Q. 0 9. 2 o Z o a r Q 0 D D D D D (i n m (D (D o u C O) (p 0 0 0 0 0 N N� N cc O Q) 2 N CD 3 3 (D - 7 A A A A A A A A A A A A A O A A A A A O - ca Ln f0 0 m N) w w W W m A W 0 C. U (1) N U n n W W W W W> (7 O N m m N N V J m U A• T A V V V J N U m V A O O N N(0 V d N (D (O (D U N m g � m N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O N OD OD OD OD OD Cn (O J (D m CD (D (� Z Z Z (n 0) (n M (n (n W Cn Z Z A N Z W W (n W U Z Z W (.N) W rn DDDoo0000�wyy 0wy(O(000D 0> (n mmma) m�(n 00w (nw m ikG m (p.Eo (n 0 0 0 0 0 O W CD N N Cn O (D N N O W < « co(n;uTDrrrC(n<n� nppmTTT� O A o °m (° (°- D D D D 0 0 c 0 7 ° CD °' Q° o m m �O $ °- °-' fD m m CD m i (SD Z C) r m m - D r o 0 0 (D CD $ ° O o m Cr Cr 0) f11 z 2 N @ 7 C C ' O m m fU a 8 0 7 ly: n m v v m m m w 2 << C, . x c m N m x m m 7 w 3 v N D<i (o Q 7 a �' � 0 0� D x m M- , ° Cm N w = T (D 3 U ° ° m D ° O ((m 77 � 0) C w < (D O N p' a N cn f a C o O + CD 7' U O co W (-),a- m W T ( o N Q D n (A N (A (n (n („ (n (n fn fn (fl to W (n w (A (n W W fn a .n 0 m --� N N A W 4- 0< '.J N A m N N A N O 0^ O, Cn v W 0 co A N (O N W �! N 00 7 D t0 0 n A W cn --� N O (n O (n J J m ( (n (n m N O O O (n N (D J m =' O O O O 0 O A W m m O N 'n O (n 0 0 0 0 O) O O0 A O N 0) (n f/) fA fA fA (A w (A fA FA fA (A fA to fA fA CO ffl 60 fA fA 60 fA (fl fA A 0) A N OD A J O A O (n (D J W (n M y W J N O m m m A U (n A OD A N m- m 0 - m O A Cn A A 00 O -� (D O Ln O O O O O O cn A m (n (D J O -� m O (n O O O (n O O N (D O O A (P O) O D 0) d Q N 1 bi � r T Z v N '3A W N C O �a O w 0 V !O a c 3 3 �. (D �m d n A w V Zo CO OV .0 , r * O -+ T K W x 0 D N N wZ and A � J V y V T 0� CO a w W A O 0 0 � KJ Aj; > >s.co 0 � - O M nvio�33 l�D rr 7 d tCD CD CD 0 0m Cn m v 3 CD c- CD CD ;0 G7 NA, > n Cn r- O - y N ---I TI O j ( 0 (n _j (n ci °iv D dCDOpm n>W cn D D CD �cn T D n sm CD r 0 z a cr W C b �7C�1 O .7 N n n Ch � M � rt G CD N C CA N d 0 O 7 N (n CD vCDc CD CD CD O � 7 0 N N CCD < O (, N CD CS O ` K N 3 c>, Z n tU nCD 0 CD D OC o cD CD SD , J 0 CD o su z o CD N > 'l > fl to W Z 6• 3 O Sp M D' 3 CD � C 7 CL Q° m CD CD N Q�7 D� I M I y Wm' ay L CD 4) F n r p -f 0 z D M D m 3 a D °s- OwmmmO222m< -av,3 v - cm mw� <�Dm gym° �w3fD��__��imm<. ?5c °' 3 3FD< ° <�D °< 3 C y O C O Chi 0 0 CD V Qp O CD _ _ <° D fi n, CA c O N � D N °- cu 3 r ;r g m m 10 CD m— °� a)i �f a, w`a, � y' Qm =d o y°m 07C' mmv �m� CD i n m D) 00� �a> �.�wy CL CD WO�� oaia °'_o ?v vi 3m CD -wn "' N n CD .. D7 7 N O O _ N O _ �N fD y CD ID N N O 0) N `t O o 0.3 O. c W W p" X N W D 9- O N O 3 O r- N n= 0 S y° °' a F -00 y 7 cl fD 7 yr- d m N CD y N d D 7 a �0 -I .O. f•� 6 C ?�c 0 'O _Dwc Cn S- Q- N N O n :7,0 (D CD to N O Ll C• O 0 a 3 fA a m O D- (C o N a 0 7 -- n, 7 rn 0) - d N a A 7 m L O 3 C Da o CD L1 (O ° x N c -2• •• O y � CD w M H M O z N m A O 3 M z D O z 0 0 � KJ Aj; > >s.co 0 � - O M nvio�33 l�D rr 7 d tCD CD CD 0 0m Cn m v 3 CD c- CD CD ;0 G7 NA, > n Cn r- O - y N ---I TI O j ( 0 (n _j (n ci °iv D dCDOpm n>W cn D D CD �cn T D n sm CD r 0 z a cr W C b �7C�1 O .7 N n n Ch � M � rt G CD N C CA N d 0 O 7 N (n CD vCDc CD CD CD O � 7 0 N N CCD < O (, N CD CS O ` K N 3 c>, Z n tU nCD 0 CD D OC o cD CD SD , J 0 CD o su z o CD 16 w :3 ooU y 7 m CL 7 ik (D m CL d 7 i! OD m w 7 ik V m w 7 !k 0)U7Ay m w 7 !# m ao w 7 ik m z m W < FL m a d O i# wm D1 m K w 0 1 y y m CL m 7 qk IV m CL d 0 %k -+FOOD o ,y„ = m a m aaa M. 7 # m Ed 7 # m 7 ik m aaa � O ik OD m v 7 ik V m d 7 k V��7 m as w'w O 7k UtA m 7 3! m O.a U 7 ik wN m 7 ik m =xzzzzz <wm00000 m y� m ;0@ =D m <a)cL20 -0° G)z 0 zzz-OO;OOzO>O* 000c °m °ocam-•mmmCD ;u, ;D;ocn Dfncn dQm fD N iD= 1• n n 3333 n p n y nid 01 <. Q< mi Q Amm 7 a a n o p poo�O0TOmy°dm' Cl 0 3 m 3 m n m c w�< f � 'O dm m <. N °' w < d N mR2 w °m D 3n�pf7o w- m 3 3 3 3 w p< m 0 3° viy o m i O m C) d a 0 r - - O_ 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 m a s m° r O w c 0 3 3 m 3 m 3 m 3 m 0 a O �. 3 m n O 0 Q p p 3- m w 7. y "' - 7' U r °° 7 7 7 O Oo CD 7 01 r: p p O 7 7 7 w -i CL — O N °' N 0. X C � C 3y9' -oy00m =--rte_ y! o3ywQ °Q av�.3 3o y_ m o m x O w m m ? 0. N °� o°� W N 'm"" m m m a fD m 3 '� O. �-o ^' m y ° m y. o 3 0 Dm w �i y. o o w m 3 .•. cm Wm p C w °°- CO °mcm < 3 w Q� co m y y fD L d O + y 3. �' < m N Op d p N O t N .w�-. `3 < �+ 0 3 O w 0 �, y N ° >> O as fD Co ? 3 a 5.v5m owm� -�aao n w f� Como L7 y awo m 9 = a) m mm m < mmcwy ,a- �N3 a CL 8 �N. °� n wa�,�, m° -��3a � �o° Q N, () O. O .my.. O 4 Q C:r W d w 7 N N y C= N 7 C W y m y m a 7 a= C m p w y y C R y p3j f� y C p w CD Q m C M •D Q 3 O m r.3 CD y.. m 3 c0°o w a ' ? ° m am �m °- 3 y a Q — m O' m m m m" �°' DQ m a 7 CL °o w 3 w � w ��m w to O � N ry O N O � Gi < p7 0 F, in P" 1 01 j� y N '° J m s a� o H m m n ~ ,' J m S y ' g8 o 3 m o .0 m °+ �� m o n ° a N E maa N � a J m N y N J ON m M °�o N Ga m m g3 N m N O O S N m J +gym QC)3 � m N m o. n 3 o m a° W n 3 MA o c o M 3 o 3 - n ^. o m° an d n m E 60 � m 3 w a 3 y -- io' 0 3 m A o m° y O J Q 2 N J m N W p N N N n o n J c n c m m y m v y m A o 0 m m m .Z J e a K a o' a N a° d m O 6 m m o J a W09 f ao y N N t m Jl� G 01 G1 � 1% y Q d n ti N 3 o o 3 m ro = a m o ? m m o m m m = 3 w o^ J o m m o T. w R 3 3 y J o v a 3 Q? m MA nn m_ m p m - O N Q N S d y ° o m o y n O m J d b S oNo ° J m O J yO N n O O 3 a Q ry m m m N m m m o Q° J n m D = a w N �_ ?m 0 �m d � y J GI S° m y a n ti W N N y G a FD m o s O1 A a A N a O Q 3 3 m d Z °Q Qo 0 0 0g -n l _ d E i I 0 L� � 0M.m_. c m � y 6 ml -I c c: M ry A A A A M m A aaemi <.3 m m m m ..m m...N o° V �S� x °ut m F m -'. 3n °n N a �nT3 3 3 N 2 2 N y a a S n N J J cc o O O 0 3 0 3 3 3 o N M N 3 o m c$ m 3 G 3 m o h 3 y 3 N C y y d m N � O J J m NII I � i I I ' i I I II I I I I j j 1, 1 M F+ m N � W o � O � C � 0 3 r �^ r ti A C z O 16 I 3 �1 Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: February 18, 2010 Lely MSTU Project Status (L -47) ACTIVE — Installation of Mixing Chamber Recommendation from McGee & Associates to have Committee consider alternative `source' for water and utilize a `mixing chamber' to allow the Committee to switch from re -use water to either potable water or well water. 8- 20 -09: McGee & Associates Proposal (dated 7- 29 -09); $3,876.00 total proposal 9- 17 -09: Po 4500110200 & Notice to Proceed sent to McGee for completion date of January 16, 2010. 10- 15 -09: McGee 30% plans submitted; staff coordination with IQ Water Dept. for new connection 01- 19 -10: Utilities is coordinating with McGee to confirm location of various underground installations; ROW Permit Issue is pending results of utility locates for plans. 02- 16 -10: Staff is reviewing location of existing utility lines in coordination with Public Utilities Division; ROW Permit issue - pending (L -46) ACTIVE — Relocation of Irrigation Pump (Warren Street) to `outside' of Utilities Facility; McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 7- 23 -09: Based on official request from Utilities Department on July 16, 2009 that Lely MSTU `move the pump outside of the utility sub - station' staff has investigated the site with McGee & Associates and is coordinating with Utilities in (1) moving the pump outside of the sub - station; and (2) re- connecting with a new `tap' the service line. 8- 20 -09: McGee & Associates Proposal (dated 7- 29 -09); $2,340.00 total proposal 9- 17 -09: Po 45001 10201 & Notice to Proceed sent to McGee for completion date of January 16, 2010. 10- 15 -09: McGee 30% plans submitted; staff coordination with FPL for service drop. 12- 16 -09: McGee 90% plans submitted; Cost Estimate Submitted ($45,352.50 total project) 01- 19 -10: McGee plans under review for ROW Permit Issue 02- 16 -10: Staff is reviewing location of existing utility lines in coordination with Public Utilities Division; ROW Permit issue - pending (L -44) ACTIVE —Dora) Circle "North " - Entrance Landscape Project (adjacent to Hibiscus Golf Property) 12-11-09: Notice to Proceed for Friday, December 11, 2009. Final completion of all work, based on 120 day contract completion, shall be considered to be Saturday, April 10, 2010 12- 16 -09: Meeting with Dale Hannula to review project schedule 01- 19 -10: Installation of 2 Benches to be on 01- 21 -10; Bonness Inc. (sub to Hannula) is confirming paver specification for project (coordination with paver vendors and review of product samples) 02- 16 -10: Hardscape items are 100% Completed (sidewalk and brick paver crossing); additional striping is recommended (attn: Bonness Change Order proposal) (L-34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches'; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service. (L -45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 01- 19 -10: Selection Committee has recommended award to McGee & Associates for new contract; Initial Work Order period is 'one year'; after I" year review with Purchasing will occur. 161 1 M February 18, 2010 Meeting Lely MSTU "To Do List" New decorative light; Status: Inactive: `Tabled pending review of Stormwater LASIP plans. 2. Solar light Status: Battery has been replaced and light is functional 3. Subrogation Recovery: a. Accident 859; damage amount: $515.00; Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: Landscape Repair Completed (CLM Estimate E1002519); No Traffic Accident report found to match damage b. Accident # 947; Found on 01 -15 -10 on Forest Hills Blvd. Status: Estimate for $607.00 from Commercial Land approved for repairs. 4. Irrigation Inspections; confirmation of irrigation clock timing per maintenance contractor request/coordination Status: No current `irrigation alarms' or issues with irrigation 5. Committee Request: McGee& Associates to provide proposal to research lighting on Pebble Beach Blvd. Status: Notice to Proceed Issued on February 9, 2010 for McGee & Associates 6. Request for quotes for new FDOT type railing near Canal (on St. Andrews Blvd.): Status: CLM Confirms 2 quotes have been received. 7. Request for new flags at St. Andrews entrance Status: Staff processing order for new flags 8. Lely Civic Association Request: Related to the sign which had to be removed. Status: Original Sign had stated: Country Club Residences, Home of `Royal Palm Country Club of Naples; Left at Forest Hills; The sign was originally installed as a `directional' sign so that people would know that Royal Palm Country Club was `to the left' at Forest Hills; Sign had been found to have been installed without proper permit (within ROW) This is a new item which will be brought before the Committee on 02 -18 -10 Jan 29 10 03:11p tlx /Y /PYtlltl x't:tle cc Mi `l I ZTJ071J1419 LYKUO_yxuw i LK 16i nt/I of �1y '� � � q ydl t P l•'� Ai r r Rx R S i fo �. r r l' �: i Commercial Land Maintenance Full Service Landscape Management 3980 Exchange Avenue • Naples, FL 34104 Office: (239) 643 -6205 • Fax: (239) 643 -5012 E-mail: Info@commiandmaint.net BILL TO: Collier County Dept of Transportation 3309 East Tamtafrti Trail Naples, F134112 LELY MSTU ESTIMATO, CUSTOMER NO. LELY MSTU - THE FOLLOWING IS PER THE REQUEST DARRYL RICHARD 8 I Irrigation Technician Supervisor (Supervisor labor to install sections of fencing. 16 1 Regular labor to assist- 1 Reimbursement for concrete, screws, botts, and fence purchased (cost + 25 %) Please Note: The estimated work hours may be higher or depending on actual hours expended. In addition: There will be reimbursement for freight - unknown at this time. 161 1 V E1002872 65M 520 -00 55.00 880 -00 1525.0 2,525.00 TOTAL THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT TERMS ON REVERSE, SIDE 1.5% WILL BE ADDED MONTHLY TO ALL INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL PAID $3,925.00 2010 -02- 1015:06 , Ye Olde Foundry Shop 2392616595» 2396435012 16 P2 Phone # ?.39 -261 -3911 Fax Pt 239 - 261 -6595 PROPOSAL created for Commercial Land Mnintenonce. Inc. 3980 Exchange Avenue Naples, Florida 34104 JOB NAME /ADDRESS Fencing Special PROPOSAL N` OAT[ 7 „0,2010 E-mail yealdefoundry@ao1.torn Web Site www.yeoldefoundryshappe.com DESCRIPTION '{ApAt2 Artt m n. ,G ORNAMLN IAL ML I AL WORK PROPOSAL NO 20507 Job # P, O./ Change of Order # TOTAL Fabricate welded aluminum fence sections with aluminum rings as per furnished drawing to include line posts Powdercoated choice of standard color. We hereby propose to furnish labor and materials, complete in accordance with above specification, for the above sum, with payment to be made as follows : 50'/.. Deposit required then Progress Draws upon request from Ye Olde Foundry Shoppe, Inc, Balance due upon completion. Due to the constant increase in material costs, this proposal is only valid for 30 DAYS. All materials guaranteed as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alterations or deviations from above specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders. and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate.. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. TOTAL 1,950.00 $1,95000 Signature : e ►�++ �� I�•W._(f ---.- '• G Ye Olde-Foun ry Shoppe,Inc. Signature. Customer F gW 11i; k n gill 0h pn >A c Wi e a � N T D 0 r x Z N O N 161 1 01 z i < o D z� 9 0 NO'i m T ry z' v O n #�{ } #1 } } 1 VI } # L } } F# V } a� g p 1 O g q V s � � 6 � � m p � D y r D W y00 m z m a D O � "zm? y n O 0-0 pnm' � p mu c,.. y a � N T D 0 r x Z N O N 161 1 01 z i < o D z� 9 0 NO'i m T ry z' v O n #�{ } #1 } } 1 VI } # L } } F# V } g p 1 O g q V 1 a b+ � m t �pl�l � vf°AA EE q H m�3 n ri � �1 r. rA ann z�z wz � E I ° 3s 9 a q a � N T D 0 r x Z N O N 161 1 01 z i < o D z� 9 0 NO'i m T ry z' v O n #�{ } #1 } } 1 VI } # L } } F# V } a b+ � m t EE q R y a � N T D 0 r x Z N O N 161 1 01 z i < o D z� 9 0 NO'i m T ry z' v O n #�{ } #1 } } 1 VI } # L } } F# V } n 161 1 0 PROJECT NAME: RFQ 09 -5339 Doral Circle Entry Way Landscape & Iffigation Renovation CHA14CA # 02 (two) DA'V'E (W USUANCE: 82/04/2010 EFFECTIVE DATE: 02/18/2010 OWNW. Collier County Board of Commissioners PROJECT #: RFQ 09 -5339 CONTRACTOR Hannula Landscape ENGINEER McGee & Asso. You are directed to proceed promptty with the following change(s): Description: Refurbish and install FDOT Type Thermoplastic striping at Doral Circle for Pedestrian Safety. Purpose of Work Directive Change: Bring striping up to FDOT Standards Change Order Number Two RW 094339 Dora{ Circle Entry Way Landscape & irrigation Renovation Item Qty Description Ni 2 Add Thermoplastic Directional Arrow 02 276 Add Thermoplastic Stripe 12" (FDOT Attachments: Hanmila Landscape & Irrigation Inc. Proposal Unit Cost Total EA $244.50 $488.00 L.F. $4.48 $1,236.48 If a claim is made that the above change(s) have affected Contract Price or Contract Times any claim for a Change Order based thereon will involve one or more of the following methods of determining the effect of the changes(s). Method of determining change in Contract Price: Method of determining change in Contract Tunes: ® Unit Prices ❑ Contractor's records LUMP Sum ❑ Engineer's record Other ❑ Other Estimated increase (deorease) in Contract Price Estimated change in Contract Time: S1,704.48 Increase deeresse by Q calendar days. r RECOMMENDED: AUTHO_ '�' By: By: McGee & Asso. (see attached email) Daryl Richard, Project Manager, Owner's Representative 02/18110 11:14 AM T WORK OMECTIVE CHANGE PROJECT NAME: RFQ 09 -5339 Doral Circle Entry Way Landscape & Irrigation Renovation CHANGE# 01 (one) DAT]LOW ISSUANCE: 02/04/2010 EFFECTIVE DATE: 02/04/2010 OVNM- Collier County Board of Commissioners PROJECT* RFQ 09 -5339 CONTRACTOR: Hanmla Landscape ENGINEER: McGee & Asso. You are directed to proceed promptly with the following change(s): Description: Add 125 If Type D Curb— Install at West Side of Doral Circle Entry Purpose of Work Directive Change: rrZM DOSCRWTION QTY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL 01 Type D Curb 125 LF $10.44 $1,305.00 Attachments: Hannula Landscape & Irrigation Inc. Proposal If a claim is made that the above change(s) have affected Contract Price or Contract Times any claim for a Change Order based thereon will involve one or more of the following methods of determining ig the effect of the changes(s). Method of determining change in Contract Price: Method of determining change in Contract Times: utitprives ❑ Contractor's records Lump; Sum ❑ Engineer's record Other ❑ Other Estimated increase (Reareeee) in Contract Price $1,305.09 REGOMIENDED: By: Meow & Am. (see attached email) Estimated change in Contract Time: Increase deerease by Q calendar days. AUTHOR12"No. By: Darryl Ric Manager, owner's Representative 02/04110 1:10 PM 161 a1 Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 March 18, 2010 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 3:58 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert (Excused), David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Manager Landscape Operations, Rhonda Cummings - Purchasing Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Jim Fritchey -CLM, Darlene Lafferty -Kelly Services III. Approval of Agenda David Larson moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 40. IV. Approval of Minutes: February 18, 2010 Tony Branco moved to approve the February 18, 2010 minutes as submitted. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 40. Robert Slebodnik thanked Rhonda Cummings for attending the meeting. V. Budget Report - Caroline Soto • Collected Ad Valorem Tax $203,509.66 • Amended Budget- Improvements General $125,000.00 includes the transfer of $50,000.00 from Reserves VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM Jim Fritchey reported the following: • Fertilization is scheduled for April • Coco Plum (Warren Street) maintenance is complete • Irrigation pressure loss was encountered due to ongoing problems with the Reuse system - Declining grass required daily watering (by CLM) 161 1 01 Jim Fritchey inquired on the scheduled completion date for Irrigation due to the issues with pressure loss. Pam Lulich responded: • Mixing Chamber bids are due by April 15th • Proposal to install Tap is pending Committee approval - discussed under Vll. C. VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report-None B. Doral Circle Entry Renovations • Contractor Punch list items are complete • Re- inspection will be scheduled with ROW Department and Darryl Richard C. Reuse Mixing Chamber • Potable Tap was installed • Backflow and meters are in place • Shamrock proposal is to relocate the Tap (inside the plant) - Recommended delaying the Tap relocation until the Mixing Chamber is operational Robert Slebodnik reviewed the Proposal $8,500.00 by Shamrock Plumbing. (See attached) Robert Slebodnik moved to approve $8,500.00 to Shamrock Plumbing & Mechanical, Inc. for the necessary tap for Water Mixing Chamber. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VIII. Transportation Operations Report- Darryl Richard A. Project Managers Report Pam Lulich reviewed the following items on the report: (See attached) (L-44) Doral Circle "North" - Entrance Landscape Project o Issues with runoff were addressed • Sod repair is complete • Inspection will be scheduled (L-45) McGee Annual LA Services o McGee and Associates Proposal $5,775.00 for additional services Pam Lulich inquired if the McGee and Associates Proposal was a Change Order to their existing Scope of Services. Mike McGee clarified a Stop Work Order was issued on the BVO P.O. The Proposal ($5,775.00) is a modification to the (open) existing 161 1 01 Annual Services Work Order. Additionally the Proposal is based on the original BVO Proposal (Pricing) and will prevent a lapse in Services Rhonda Cummings reported on the issuance of Stop Work Orders: • County Clerks office deemed the BVO process is not legal - Payment was suspended to Consultants operating via the BVO Process • Purchasing issued Stop Work Orders to BVO Consultants • County Attorney provided an opinion that the BVO Process is legal • The BVO Process was suspended until the issue is resolved Robert Slebodnik moved to modify the existing P.O. 4500103649 for Lely Beautification MSTU Annual Professional Landscape Architectural Services 2008 -17PR MOD #2. Second by Tony Branco. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. B. Review of the To Do List (See attached) (Item 3) Quotes for new FDOT type railing near Canal (St Andrews Blvd • Additional Vendor information is required • Purchasing requested additional quotes • Item is tabled until quotes are obtained (Item 4) Lely Civic Association Request • Survey will be conducted to establish the property line • Sign can be reinstalled as a real estate sign on Lely Property Item 5) Sidewalks on US41 at St. Andrews -ADA ComDliance Pam Lulich reported the response from various departments on ADA non compliance issue: • David Buchheit- Pathways stated funding is not available - He suggested petitioning Pathways Committee to prioritize US41 E • Road and Bridge stated funding is not available - Documentation (Photographs) of the area will be submitted (by Staff) to Road and Bridge on safety issues and ADA non compliance • She suggested the Committee attend Pathways meetings Robert Slebodnik emphasized this is an ADA violation. Mike McGee noted the FDOT Safety department (in Bartow) allocates monies to address Safety Violation repairs. Tony Branco suggested including accident statistics as the area is high risk. 16 1 1 91 (Item 6) Shrubs at end of Warren Street o Complete C. FY -2011 Budget Review /Approval Robert Slebodnik stated he assisted in drafting the FY -2011 Budget. (See attached) Pam Lulich reviewed the Budget Report and noted: Improvements General • Staff is applying for a Matching Forestry Grant ($10,000.00) to Inventory Lely • Grant matching can be via Labor or Funds • Tree Keeper Program is Web based and provides an accurate record of Trees in the ROW - Location of the Trees - Species - Rating (health of the tree) - Height - Caliper - Maintain fertilization records - Pictures can be added It was stated the Tree Keeper Program is an overall tracking system and in the event of a catastrophe will provide FEMA with vital information. There were no changes or corrections to the FY -2011 Budget. Tony Branco moved to approve the Budget as presented for FY2011. Second by Robert Slebodnik. Motion carried unanimously 40. IX. Housekeeping Item -None X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business Dave Larson was requested to coordinate with the New Bridge Project Manger (at Doral Circle) to add lighting to the Project. XII. New Business A. Railing Quote Darryl Richard stated (2) additional quotes are needed. B. Cost Analysis - Pebble Beach Lighting 0 161 1 01 Mike McGee reported cost estimates were requested from the Factory Representative for Solar Panel Lighting. He reviewed product information from Visionairlighting.com web page XIII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:10 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Ro ert Slebodm c, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on I (? as presented for amended The next meeting is April 15, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 .J, I w l 1'N L /,l i CD 0 0 M D m• co N y N � N W NNN + A cD d N O 7 N N N N N N N N N 0 N 0 N N N N w N N Cr N O N W N N K) S N O N N N C71 N N U N a cn ci, N N c`On O cwn O A A O mco rn rn rnrn rn rn rnrn rnrno)rnrnrn rn rn rnn O O pO 0 AO 0A O O ° ON1 A (N�1 (N� O O O + O A A A A? A A A A A A A A A A O O co ww co OD V OD m 0) 0) m c rnrnrn� nwcn a) rnWrn�rn_wn O V O m N N N ++ �oco 0) O N j O N co O N( j cD m m 0 W O O) co A O A 3 OO O O O 0 O O O OO O O c0 O O N O O O O O O OOD O W + 0 0 0 0 O + CO D 0 0 0 3 W N 3 0 o Cc o v c �� mo M m O c� 0 -ICn 0 v - 1pmm o ry -iT0 m� �r02r r �cn-Ulm* .. to d 0 0 -r� 5'i 0 ,0 -0 -1 (D �(��CD� CTO' Dr m a � c Z Z + Late T —GiG� �m� Xn —w) Z —m� n0 Z 0 O mM.00 �m _jzm ;� � 0Z� mn 00 m CD C -mm m �� A A �v_•m m A O�� O —n� �_•r� �— z cn c>nz _�D ;p '`'z m 3 �D F o m m� 0 A m Tn m� pmmDDp OZ� mm R°n 'R n O �� n, Oz d A °: m o Dm � n D fnD T tn- m� z cpy� Z n 0 Op 1� cnp �m 1 o O� cn Z g ��, »r n =m �zCm op��— cn -4 �O hemp Xzo? o mm N�� O� W� OmZKmm m= m +O np K�° cn 0) mo vv �� m o cn1 W ��DDZ D 3 co m 'D me uoi v cmnai 0U)_0 D (nm Dm zcn trig m m m O CD z3 r m Q,� z � n r m U) n O z < O rn cmi>� m� m D m m m �; m� m 7D �m z U m m m o� v >cn to 0 O X O C O OVOOD OOD N O P. A O)N AN N N N W O) V C V + C) V V W CO A A 0 A 0 m W, A 0 + N A V N -+ W V O 00 O 'OD N 'N V W O V wpp A N O O co A O -� N 0 A too c0 O 00 O Cn +O A0 -+00+ 00000 V OD Cr OOAN O) Co 000 ° m D V X 0 c 40 W A A OD O N N N N N ri W ++ N N ON Cl N W W + W N + N V (n A V A a O Go N + O O) A N O Cn O W V 0 OD 0 Co 0 w V cn c n V N O O j In A OD W "Co V co CO O O A O (0 0 C co W CD Of W (n V O O 0 Al Go OD 0 O +W Cn 00000 NOD 00+ O W O +O co X o O C W W ON V V a W V Cn +A V A O)N +N W A O) C OD W V O O ON W W n V N N V O W + O+ 0 0 0 O O O W N O co O O O N O W A O c0 V O 0) 0 O O O W D c 0. 0.0 40 O N W A+ N + V V W+ W W + -W O A O O A 0 cn O N A W A cn ) co Vl Vl G O O c0 O CD O) m 0 CD O O f + O O ( O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O O O O O a O O O W D c 3 am cn O1 . CD O (71 V 0 -+ N W N W O) + O) W O O N CA V V Cn V tJ1 O N 0 Gl .... O _ N A W A UN1 ppDD A _ co V1 cn + (D 0 a Ca W to 0 O 0 co 0 V O V O O) 000 O) O O) W O O O O O) + W O O O O cn O O O O O O c0 000 0 0 O O O W C O 000 O + O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 + 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 O 000 -t0> n) o � 3 c 03.°1 h 3 f O N V N A fJ1 cn W aD pp <D = O W VV co co yl O O O O O O O O O O O O O W N O N O O W V O O O O 0 0 0 X N 0 CO 0 C CD 0 y► V N to A N W N W CAn A rn N --' + W O N to O A d C W W V W V C0 O W V O V O O cO n O W A co W O v' O O O O OO ) N 0 A A + V CD O O cn OO CO W OOD 00OO co 000OOCJ1 O N H W W O) W W W N Cn Cn ? N+ cn N cn O O + O V O V O A O O A O O O O N 0 N O O N O fn O 0 O cc O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O 000 0 0 O O 0 0 n� c a c w N N A OD Of O) N AA N c0 NN + (D 00 V V A O ON + 0 ++ O)V N N NA OD CJf O cn N"�d tD G O N O 0 O 0 O OD O OD O N pO O O N n O O O 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 co O O O O O O O O 00 00 O 000 O O O O O O k A a D) c am tD � h a" O 000 000 0 0 0 O O COO O C O O 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C O O+ + , 0 d + N + + ri A A N N 00 O O N 0 V N N N A OA N O CnN N O O 0 O 0 W O OD O O Cp71 N O O N O 0 0 cn U1 O O O N O O O O O O 0 O co O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 00 N j @ Q (Di C C_Dj 'D O t0 c0 C D. » W .: D. D. — D. .�.. .H. N Nf?o 7 N CD CD N 7 CD 0 1) MCC (InD c0 t� A CD a CD N w W N D) ch �� x a 00 2. 0 G O) V to O r r r P OD W _� N -+ T 00 Cn A A (0 o)o) No o �+� ° $ o °000 °o °o °o� O O O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O 0000000 000000 0 0 0 0 o vN) o 0 0 O O 0— V 1° o) 40 000 000 0o o0 0 � A co O ° °o + Z Z D D oo co A rn -4 o o Z Z Z Z 0-4°°oo 4 oo w 0 o 0 o e D DDc o�° o DDDD Do 0 � A N t A V N D 0 0 + + A O O 0 N N° OD O N co Cn O) OD W rp N bD O O O OC O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O a e O 40 A 0 0 T N p p O 0 Z CA C+D - -- 0 O _ O O O O O O 1'N L /,l i CD 0 0 M D m• co N y N � N W NNN + A cD d N O 7 N N ki i fb-1 -- CD G) O N D v CD cn Cp 4 N W7 � N 01 N C 0 ? O nCD CD O O 7 a c00 co co CO n.. COD COD C(n D to co co tD CD N < N N N N n 00 00 O coo 0 zi 2! m O 0 t0 NN c� O O OO O ° O 00 0O !03 3 0 D o o o m D D C Z �m m m Si O�X m mnm CD d d a zz mm ur x m CD m O�im - O� 0�� C. MO 0 m a m� ' m m A m 0 0 1 1 in » cn a< m -{ 3 CD N N 3 'c zD '" 0 c mN m m 0 0 D�D� c cm00 0 gA Hn-0 M o < 08 °S e c 0r� {fTilm m� � --I — ;0 m Dzz O 0 uMi 0 > --i � 0 < 0-0 o -<� F- ;0 m 00 e m 0 z mo M D 2 6'0 U V O a N W 01 O W W O C pA' N O 1071 A W CAD V O C2. O O OV X CDf O 'O C W N CO N z d W a �. W N N _ W T W W N C Vt tJ A �OCp Qp NWN �.1 O f�D BOND N C00� 01010 O 00 O O S k 0 6"0 N O CD N jQ�►1 �W 91 O O N N a U NNW W NNW V q Cl V CA N OD o W lD iV N A 00 + V W 00 O O 0 0 O _ W D c a ago N LO CD CL O O O N O �y 0 S cc S 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 W c 3 am m C CL N N CJI O OD 2 O O O N O OO -► 000 000 00 -+ 0 0000 � 0 > N O n � 3 c 3 m fA 4A O � O O N 00 W W I 40 O O O O 1010101 O O O O O 0000 k n < N O t CA r m d X 40 c (O�1 00 aO 0 CD Oo V con �O� GGO 00 000 0 00 m o °° o 3 a 3 c X o 0 0�3- -Q <0 = H N N A CO'f _QO 0 N m 0 c m � CD d o _ W 01 VI EA r CD CD x CD 7 M CD N CD CA N O X CD N co v -W4 Z O O 0 Wes. <7 C~ N O O n CD w V y Cl O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 K (D N CD O CD A Cp c N A O 7 CO C 1 U O N _ CD Cep N D. O N 0 C0 U7 CD y► y A A 0 Op N j a x r N O W n O O O O coo O O 0 O O O O O 3 y -n -n - C N X CD N + O O O c0 07 CD d N O N W 3 N W N p0p7� O -( - = d 7 CUD N y A 005 O 7 7 O O O"< N (D Q CD w O m 494.9 N a N O O N C»f o-- N N 00 O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O X X d N O_' Z CD CD w O (D D C N N �l N _ A V -< O U N c N N i O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O L U N N 3 - _ -_ 0 d o 3 �ad 00 = 4-0 d N 4N0 N a a N V N Cn N N pWj A ,N,pp O A CD T co 42 0 h) fla n d 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O w V e O Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z z Z Z z D D D D D D D D D a D D -:n su y O C V GI N > 3 n l0 N fJl CD co 0 N W O O W W C1 O O O O ... O O O C0 a D e �TIITT IT N _ W O N O� i fb-1 -- CD G) O N D v CD cn Cp 4 N W7 � N 01 N C 0 ? O nCD CD O O 7 161 N -A+ O W OWD V OW) OWi A W N 0 (NO OND J ON) (Nn A w N O CO O V (A N A W N: O O OD V CA w A W N O m m m c c�� D i Oro 9 m n m c CzA y p c z O m D D m N <� m c �tn<ncn�� m mm�mZ�ZClj�mo�<T Dm�� mc�miy� D m m m z �D7 T�]] m<< < mm --I T� D O -{ N m Z z= D Z7 �j 'T C7 (7 { m r { m m z m --i D o (n TT m�� MO pg zMMTw >K xmoZo m azai m�cmnOO�m mn�imm<< �' -�z rn� =mvoD c{nO� C�ZOwTO� p�O v�mrAO -Zi rnZm �c� (mm Cnm > >OO o Oc�-zgmm �zz Ic�iv Z 1m Z�nZ��Z mmm �mm(�x mZ<00 �, mOmMzD�D� n z z O O m m 0 O� z z D� �_ m m �i v c m m m x X n m m �� m C) m Z m D r D C °° z m n� 0 4 m Szz nm O r m G) cn c�F�' �� 00 K m m a r m c« O m n D Cl) n o D 0 { o m D n wI «I fA (Al aI fA (AI al (Al al (AI «.I (A fA fA fA (A EA (A fA fA fA (fl fA w fA (A 6911 fAI fAI fn fA (A to fA1(AI fA EA (A fA (A fA N -+ o N N N N o rn 0--- ww (n (n O 0 W O W V J O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J46,9 fA I M fA fA l JIA fAl fA EA N N m (.n O O (P O O O O o 0 N tD G A IJ T 0 o j� O � o 0 01 w [n O N A W A A N w (n -+ O O to 0 0 0 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O Cl O O O O O O O W O 0 C. 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 Cfl ti? U) 69 !Y) t. U� C" Li U) 11 a w w V J O co to O Cn .P -+ 00 J N (n O) W O N (A J O p w p w (CJ m W 0 0 b. O W O :'7 C= JC= Z•' Z•' Z=: Z:: Z::Z�:Z- 'iZ= :Z= :Z- 'Z= :Z:lZ:�Z�i N '0') O) _ N Cn W W N� � W O cD V J w (A CD V W A A A 0 0 0 Of O J W O O w N O O A w 0 Cn co A Cn J Cn O W O O V C D w O A (D O O J (n W O Co O Cn O O O (D co O O Cn () O O J O w 0 N O O N O — O N N A O (r O O O O fA fA l HI (A 1 fwl (A 1 fAl fA fA (A fA EA EA (A W (A W W (A W <A W W CD l i rn 0 a O O S O O � O N A CD O N W N (O O) N (n W T T T o (oD w C T T � y d x X X x d 0) c v Q M m � d N CD N N _ w N OD A O O N O W O O -� O O O O O O O W fA (A fA EA N A (n o O O O O O O C) O O O EA fA EA fA W (A CA EA EA EA (A fA (A (A fA fA fA 69 N N O O (P W O A -co N W W O O m A (n O W 'WIN N N O O W O) W O W CA fA (A fA fA fA I (A I (A (A fA fA (A EA N_ N -� (O w -� .-� O W V -+�-� W J (n N W J (n Cn (n W A O O W O O O O w N 00 N O A O -� N N N O O O A O Cn (D N W O m O O .+ W O W O w Cl) -+ w W w N J o O O O O J A O O o 0 0 A O O w O A co to 0D to W O O O O w O O w W O O O O O O) 0 0 0 0 W N N OD O V W w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vn O O O O O O V O 0 0 o J Q) w O W (n CA C) T E !. O 2 2 T T T T T T n 0 n< f (p (p p O O O O A 07 (� CA d -2: N 0) O O O p p 0 0 0 (D �. 0 0 0 (D (D fD (D [D N (D m N C r VOi (O/�) N T d (D N C gn D c m m m m m °° m m m go go .gogD z �O N 7 o n N N c o o c c z m D w D D O on nnm (°N N ,° a 3 " O O O v0) �G G p O O O O O m O O C O O O CD ooL1 0) U (D CD fD (1 G CT 3 Cn N 0 C (O CD C CD (D O 7 - i �. CD — (D — - - — — — N W W Cn A W O O Cn Cn N C7 C7 W COL W O ((A�D W W W C7 N Cn w J A O O N N w A N A [D O tD (n 0) O Cn U w (D — O (D w (D W -+ Cn `G A O --� N O A `G G O O O O O O O O O O O co O O O O O O w w m w W w o (D J J tD m o m w O (o Q1 Z Z Z 1n 0 w in w (r w in Z Z A a to Z w it w 0 w& Z Z DDDoOOOOOJwyyoo wD(ON(DOw ODD° O m m 0 m O 0 J U) OD w w w Cn (D OD 7k O. N O O O O C) --• O W co to N (D N (n O (D A W rn 17TDrr[r(nCnj (7O%) OmTTTT w D, a � m D D D `D 0 0 c° °� ° m m m a (o o m O ID ,17 tb N CD CD N (D (D (D CD N N i m N .N. N m, j M CD (D m Sp o m m �' m °-) D-) m m m m m m m m m 3. N Cl) N N in Cn .O-. n r N 'o 'o �. ^. CD m o 0 0 2 2 (D °c c c m m [cl mvv� 0 �-) a ci Q° !0 N y 6 7 N OW N m Cam/) 4Co. i 7 O X N T z 0 N 'o (D r0 (r (D (7') (D p (D _ A D ,Z7 d CD N N N (OD 2 CD lD sc o'ID Cl o via CD 3 m =r fi (D C [U N' Q CD OJ Cl) D o + CD w C) o v � (A EA N W (fl EA fA (A fA W W EA EA fA (A W W fA W fA fA W f» fA EA W .'a T CD -< d- V w (O J A (D W N J O W O W (n N J j w Cn w W J W OA) A 0 0 0 0 0 A O OD N (A W -� Cn O O O O (n A w O N O N D) 60 69 EA ffl (A fA fA fA (A fA fA EA C4 (A C9 10 fA 69 fA EA fA<flW ff)W (A U N Cn w CT A N N w A J Cn O W A O N o V A -N O O p y w N O A 0 w w K) In N A rn w V OD O Cn A (n A A Cn w W o O A (n .— m O O U J O (b w O O Cn 0 C. 0 O O w 0 0 m J CO W O) w OD O) O N m 0 0 m 0 0 0 O Cn w O O N O O O O A O (n O W O to O A cu D c a C 7 to N CL CD C n O 3 3 3 N m x m D � n C C C N A w D 0 d Q' fD 1 9'I "n m Z 00 v ,�AA V/ .l C 0 161 1 6-1 SHAMROCK PLUMBING & MECHANICAL, INC. 3557 PLOVER AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34117 PH 239 -592 -7080 FAX 239 - 263 -3064 WJMSHAMROCK@AOL. COM COLLIER COUNTY ATM ATT: DARRELL RE: EAST NAPLES MANOR WATER PLANT TAP THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROPOSE YOUR UPCOMING PLUMBING PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING REFLECTS TWO DIFFERENT SCOPES OF WORK: * CALL FLORIDA SUNSHINE TO MARK PROPERTY * CALL ACUMARK TO MARK PRIVATE UTILITIES * HAND DIG TO EXPOSE 12" DUCTILE MAIN * TAP MAIN 12" TO 2' * MAKE NECESSARY CONNECTION LABOR 1 MAN 40 HRS @ $40.00 HR $1,600.00 LABOR I MAN 40 HRS @ $40.00 HR $1,600.00 LABOR 1 MAN 40 HRS @ $40.00 HR $1.600.00 * TOTAL LABOR CHARGE $4,800.00 SUB CONTRACTOR LOCATOR $1,200.00 MATERIAL COST $1,900.00 RENATAL EQUIPMENT $600.00 TOTAL JOB COST $8,500.00 DOES NOT INCLUDE: * ANY UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS OR CHANGES FROM ORIGINAL SCOPE OF WORK. THANK YOU, WM J. MCFARLANE PRES /SHAMROCK PLBG & MECH, INC. RECEIVED MAR 0 2 20-10 Transportation ATM Dept. 161 a� Landscape Architecture February 24, 2010 Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager Lely Golf Estates Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Traffic Operations and Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Modification to existing PO 4500103649 for Lely Beatification MSTU — Annual Professional Landscape Architectural Services 2008 -017PR MOD# 2. Dear Mr. Richard, As requested, the following is being submitted for additional maintenance consulting service to be provided under our current 08 -5060 Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term contract. Modification #2 to PO # 45000103649 to continue and extend the Maintenance Consulting Services so the Lely MSTU will not have an interruption in its services. Task 1.0 Maintenance Consultin Unit Rate Cost Principal /Senior L.A. 33 $128.00 $ 4224.00 AutoCAD Technician 5.5 $ 62.00 $ 341.00 Administrative 22 $ 55.00 $1210.00 $ 5,775.00 Total amount of Fees .................. ......................$5,775.00 If you should have any questions or need further information please contact me any time. We look forward to working with your Department while improving and maintaining our roadways. Cordially, V Michael A. McGee, r.l.a. President, McGee & Associates LC 098 Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 - 0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 LC 098 * FL 1023A 16i 101 March 18, 2010 Meeting Lely MSTU "To Do List" Subrogation Recovery: a. Accident 859; damage amount: $515.00; Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: Landscape Repair Completed (CLM Estimate E1002519); No Traffic Accident report found to match damage b. Accident # 947; Found on 01 -15 -10 on Forest Hills Blvd. Status: Estimate for $607.00 from Commercial Land approved for repairs. 2. Committee Request: McGee& Associates to provide proposal to research lighting on Pebble Beach Blvd. Status: Notice to Proceed Issued on February 9, 2010 for McGee & Associates Request for quotes for new FDOT type railing near Canal (on St. Andrews Blvd.): Status: One Quote obtained from "Ye Olde Foundry Shop" (3863 Enterprise Ave, Ste 7, Naples, Florida; (239) 261 -3911) (Quote obtained by CLM). Vendor verification of product design (working drawings) with product sample is pending. Staff to obtain additional quotes for rail from additional vendors as necessary. 4. Lely Civic Association Request: Related to the sign which had to be removed. Status: Original Sign had stated: Country Club Residences, Home of `Royal Palm Country Club of Naples; Left at Forest Hills; Per Committee recommendation staff will pursue placement of sign in approximately the same location that is was prior to removal. Coordinate with State DOT on this item. 5. Sidewalks on US 41 at St. Andrews — ADA Compliance: Status: Original request has been forwarded to Traffic Operations & Pathways Coordinator. Staff will also involve State DOT in review of the `safety' issues /concerns. 6. Shrubs at end of Warren St. : Status: Staff will request trimming from Commercial Land Maintenance 7. Repair of directional sign in Median on St. Andrews: Status: COMPLETE: SignCraft has re- installed sign (reported on 02- 19 -10) Budget Amendment by Executive Summary — move $50,000 from Reserves to Improvements General: Status - COMPLETE: BCC Approved on March 9, 2010. Commercial Land Maintenance Full Service Landscape Management 3980 Exchange Avenue • Naples, FL 34104 Office: (239) 643 -6205 • Fax: (239) 643 -5012 E -mail: info @commlandmaint.net BILL TO: Collier County Dept of Transportation 3301 East Tarr�iami Trail . Naples, F134112 LELY NSTU 2/1512010 1 1 4509111754 CUSTOMER NO. LELY AdSTU - THE FOLLOWING IS PER THE REQUEST t ©ARRYL RICHARD 8 Irrigation Technician Supervisor (Supervisor labor to install sections of fencing- 16 Regular labor to assist. 1 Reimbursement for concrete, screws, bolls, and fence mate purchased (cost + 25%) Please Note: The estimated work hours may be higher or I� depending on actual hours expended. In addition: There will be reimbursement for freight. Charge unknown at this time. 161 10-1 E1002872 0 162541 - 634959 Few 65.00 55.00 TOTAL THANK YOU! WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS PLEASE NOTE PAYMENT TERMS ON REVERSE SIDE 1.5% WILL BE ADDED MONTHLY TO ALL INVOICES OVER 30 DAYS UNTIL PAID 520.00 880.00 2,525.00 2010 -02- 1015:06 Ye 01de Foundry Shop 2392616595» 239 643 5012 16 1 P 212 l PROPOSAL. N; DA1E 2,10,2010 Phone ',`t 239 -261 -3911 E-mail yeoldefoundry@aol.com Fox 4 239 -261 -6595 Web 51te www.yeoldefoundryshoppe.com PROPOSAL. created for Commercial land Maintenance, Inc, 3980 Exchange Avenue Noples, Florida 34104 JOB NAME/ADDRESS Fencing Special '410It11burt 'yiA+w/bpr4 S" rti JUL ORNAMLN I AL ML I AL WORK PROP05AL. NO. 20507 Job # P.O./ Change of Order # DESCRIPTION TOTAL_ Fabricate welded aluminum fence sections with aluminum rings as per furnished drawing to 1,950.00 include line posts. Powdercooted choice of standard color. We hereby propose to furnish labor and materials, complete in accordance with above specification, for the above sum, with payment to be made as follows : 50% Deposit required then Progress Draws upon request from Ye Olde Foundry Shoppe, Inc. Balance due upon completion. Due to the constant increase in material costs, this proposal is only valid for 30 DAYS. All materials guaranteed as specified. All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alterations or deviations from above specificotions involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders. and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. TOTAL $1,950,00 1; ASignature : 1tk4,11 11 �/�.• -+�.: V__/1 Ye OIde-Foun ry Shoppe, Inc. Signature: Customer 161 2 p1 s€} \ \\ \x w o wz x N y 777711 gp gg yy % d Q N �3 �� O � U) 0 G Z \\ \ \ \\ J W r O u O Z 3: O 0I U W W LL p v _ F a � k � z Y N Q sz N Z O a ^ � W ot id4 k h, a 7t gig ffi ~ m \ \\ \x z ¢ y az N a N �3 �� O � U) 0 G Z J W r O u O Z 3: O 0I U W W LL p _ v Q Z z Y N Q Z i N Z O a ^ � W ot Q Q d Q J ~ m z z °m �a fzW � g -=w Qz^ a z z => =wa p w o row ¢ W W N Q W e W Z U N O U Q o v o �rcw (7LL o drw� ZV1Z �Wy o H Li z z r%$ a W W Z �o u« o a ZN orna LR J V `< QF- o m U w w , : H t bb�� RR 2 ye z U� ii a \ \\ \x z ¢ \�\ �3 a¢ m16 Z t�k F OZ ffi F,2 16 I 1 A-1 Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: March 18, 2010 Lely MSTU Project Status (L -47) ACTIVE — Installation of Mixing Chamber Recommendation from McGee & Associates to have Committee consider alternative `source' for water and utilize a `mixing chamber' to allow the Committee to switch from re -use water to either potable water or well water. 02- 16 -10: Staff is reviewing location of existing utility lines in coordination with Public Utilities Division; ROW Permit issue — pending 02- 17 -10: ROW Permit issued for project. Staff request to add bollards to bid due to high use for ballfield parking in area. 03- 10 -10: Final Drawings and Specifications delivered to Purchasing for bidding. 03- 18 -10: Purchasing bidding — anticipate bids by April 14, 2010. (L -46) ACTIVE — Relocation of Irrigation Pump (Warren Street) to `outside' of Utilities Facility; McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 7- 23 -09: Based on official request from Utilities Department on July 16, 2009 that Lely MSTU `move the pump outside of the utility sub - station' staff has investigated the site with McGee & Associates and is coordinating with Utilities in (1) moving the pump outside of the sub - station; and (2) re- connecting with a new `tap' the service line. 01- 19 -10: McGee plans under review for ROW Permit Issue 02- 16 -10: Staff is reviewing location of existing utility lines in coordination with Public Utilities Division. 02- 17 -10: ROW Permit is issued. 03- 18 -10: Shamrock Plumbing quote for $8,500 pending Committee review /approval. (L -44) ACTIVE —Doral Circle "North " - Entrance Landscape Project (adjacent to Hibiscus Golf Property) 12- 11 -09: Notice to Proceed for Friday, December 11, 2009. Final completion of all work, based on 02- 16 -10: Hardscape items are 100% Completed (sidewalk and brick paver crossing); additional striping is recommended. 03- 18 -10: Inspection on 3 -15 -10 indicates that there are outstanding punchlist items (specifically: Sod Repair); Re- inspection is scheduled for 3 -15 -10 to confirm completion of punch list items. (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches "; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service. (L -45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 01- 19 -10: Selection Committee has recommended award to McGee & Associates for new contract; Initial Work Order period is `one year'; after 0 year review with Purchasing will occur. 3- 18 -10: Due to issue with BVO Selection Process (under review at County Attorney Office /Purchasing /Clerk of Court) McGee & Associates has submitted proposal to modify existing Work Order to add $5,775.00 in services for the new year contract. Review and approval by Committee is necessary. 161 a Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 April 15, 2010 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner (Excused) County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Jim Fritchey -CLM, Darlene Lafferty —Kelly Services 111. Approval of Agenda Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 40. IV. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 2010 Tony Branco moved to approve the March 18, 2010 minutes as submitted. Second by Kathleen Dammert. Motion carried unanimously 40. V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto • Available Improvements General $89,688.18 • Remaining Open Purchase Orders $56,855.57 Robert Slebodnik questioned if Permits or Impact Fees were covered under the Water and Sewer Line Item $12,372.75. Caroline Soto will research and report to the Committee if Fees (Permit or Impact) were included in the $12,372.75 Line Item. Darryl Richard reported Secretarial Services are provided by Juristaff in place of Kelly Services. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Jim Fritchey reported the following: o Fertilization of Turf and Plant Materials was performed 4/15/10 A. 16 I 1 1b' o Basic Maintenance is being conducted VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report Mike McGee reported the following information: • Torpedo grass in Median 12 • The Sign is peeling (outbound side) Tony Branco will take a look at the Sign. o Trimming is required around Entry Light Fixtures (US41) Robert Slebodnik reported to Staff a Decorative Post Light was inoperative (1St post inbound.) David Larson reported (2) Median Lights ( Doral) are inoperative. Darryl Richard will advise the Electrician of inoperative Lights at both locations. B. Reuse Mixing Chamber -Under Vlll. B. C. Lighting Project Update Mike McGee stated information will be provided at the May 20, 2010 meeting. VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following reports: (See attachments) A. Project Managers Report (L-48) Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge • Bridge overpass is approximately 50 ft. wide • The present 3 ft. high Wall will be rebuilt utilizing the existing Wall materials (lime rock) - Noted the MSTU will incur cost if a change to the Scope of Services is requested (by the Committee) • Suggested obtaining a separate quote from the Bridge Contractor for Lighting Mike McGee expressed the following: • Challenging to match new stone with the existing materials • Suggested constructing a wall from concrete and facing the Wall with new stone for an updated look • Perceived the existing Barrier Wall is not in compliance with FDOT Standards - Rebuilding the Wall will require an upgrade to current County Standards and Codes 2 161 10 o Considerations for installation of Lighting at the current Wall height - A Residential type fixture is not recommended as it would be at eye level for traffic (safety hazard) - Vandalism - Lighting may be installed on top of the Wall (to avoid potential driver visibility issues) Discussion ensued and the following was concluded: • Request the Contractor install the Wall structure and the MSTU will assume responsibility to face the Wall • Install (4) Light Fixtures (1 at each end of the Bridge) - To correspond with the Fixtures at Doral Circle • Utilize existing Electricity located behind the Park benches in lieu of Solar Lighting • Install single Light Fixtures • A 16 ft. minimum mounting height for Light columns is necessary • Wall facing will match the stone installed by Hibiscus Golf Course Staff will request quotes from the Bridge Contractor and provide to the Committee at the May 20, 2010 meeting. (L-47) Installation of Mixing Chamber Darryl Richard reviewed $59,992.20 quote by Hannula. (See attached) Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the Hannula Bid in the amount of $59,992.20 for the installation of the Mixing Chamber. Second by Robert Slebodnik. Motion carried unanimously 40. Darryl Richard reviewed a document provided by Caroline Soto to address the previous question on the Water and Sewer Line Item. He noted the Potable Water tap was $7,732.50 (See attached) (L-45) McGee Annual LA Services o Change Order is not complete B. Review of the To Do List (Item 4) Lely Civic Association Request • Surveyor located the ROW line • Sign was reinstalled outside of the ROW line (Item 5) Sidewalks on US41 at St. Andrews -ADA Compliance TECM will provide a solution to address the ADA non compliance at US41 and St. Andrews. 16I 1 g� IX. Housekeeping Item -None X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business A. Railing Quote -None XII. New Business -None XIII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 4:50 P.M. Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee 4�-2/ A2�/ Rob rt Slebo nik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented X or amended The next meeting is May 20, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 18 161 A A W W W W W W W W W W N N N N N N N. � N �� -� w U J Mtn A W N � N O w U V M (n A W N 0 w w J M cn A W N O O m m m �cc �� D m�m�r�r�mz�rm -Or zwm -I izc�c� -i �zzzTpc� n Oc fnD Dpcz O�mDD�� m��< ,imc ;zm ZOmmWzZ- :Om ;Fmz� �C_�Z�m�mp�<T DZO -m' m��cmi� =Dy c�mm �Op� Om�tmi�gGZ7 mCZ)ZnnOD<zcmnmm, p--mm mnwm2D< 00 n�� N> cmOm�c�4"zD cnmp�-zjrn000 m�-��m mDyzmOD m mmm OZZ -ZA m- PmpZ �m� zum2 zR°�yD�� nX OOmm -1 cc�c� zW-z c �cnv�� O-� �'zm �f��mm Cnm��00 o Onzzmm z z G)c) ? W D cZm moCOG�D� m m y� mzz Oy O mm mm 00 zz �r DDw z7 mZX [V7 ZM(nm�XX 0 �C/� m 0cn Zm Z r� W ZmpD p-i-�m �ZZ 0X O � m O -i � c ��' � � < < -K z m r m ;u Cn m 0 D m n1 0 Dr C) < O m D p C) 401(AI(A 469i AlfA EAI «I�AIaIfA��4�n tA 464JO C9 fA 69 fA 69 69 V�(A kO 69 C9jjfAjlU9jfA � tO fP Q41141fA (A CA Gg (n In 0 C. cn 31 1'41.- IWIWINI� I I IOI IO OO O O OOO 0 oalo oacialo fA fA l l 4WW S9 fA 401 <0 4M o U V A N W> » ? -1 > CD N A N (n (n m O > .-. O N m A N fA to to b fA fA fA fA A N A A> W V> N V U O o A 0 (n V (D m O O O U N N Cn O O O> O O N> 0 0 O O N N V O W O O> O CD (n > W ) O 0 0 0 N N N A N m T A A o 0 0 A in in U) -u O 7 2 2 2 T T T T T T C) O C) O (n (Nn O O E0I40I� '9�I40IW fAIfnIEA cn O m O m 00 O O O O 00 7 � N, m N N < O C U � O V�1 D a N ? < �! 0 O C r 00 O O O m A -4 CD (n (D m v m Cn N A (n O N N (OD N N fD (n N Cn W T T T 0 0m 00 C TI T � m m m x c v c � m m � m m m CD IGo lD m N m (n O N A W A A (n m (n (n > Cl o cn 0 0 0 (D O o 0 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 o w O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> o 0 0 0 C. 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EA sn w EA EA EA w EA (0 ( W (A f W W > O O O co O U> m ET O N to W . 31 O 0 m U m (D " ' O A m W m 0 0 m m N m (n m O O fA fA fA fA fA fA W fA fA fA fA W W fA fA w co m V Cn W (n A A A W N O m> O N Cn m A m m (n lI O U N O O m 0 0 A (O O O N m W O O U m m m 0' U N m 0 V U 0 0 0' N N O A w O N U A O (n W 0 0 0 fAl -wjEA EA fA EA fA EA En EA fA EA EA fn EA EA EA b _ w m N Oo A O O N C) w o o > o 000 " 0 C. 0 fA Co EA fA EA N A m O O m 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 A fA fA fA fA W EA fA EA fA EA fA fA FA fA fA to fA N N D N m co A U > _ N) J N N U N' W A m W V m (n EA EA fA EA fA 1 fA 1 fA fA C9 fA EA w A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A p A A A A A A p m- > > > > > > m > O > > > > > > > 7 A p > > > n 5 V W W 0 0 N CNn DUD J A P O O N N OmD A OW CO A N N A O m (O Cn N M (n cn m> (D > O W m w W V > m `< A O> N O A `G O O O O Cl O O O > O O O O O O O O O O m W m W m m (n w O J -1 O m (D m m m O cu x Z Z Z (n Z U (n (n Cn N W (n U Z Z A A M Z W (n W (n W cn Z Z D D D o y o 0 o o O -I w A D D o 0 w y m N m o m o D y Q 0 Cn m m m m m �! (n W m m W > m> Cn CD m it d m 0 0 0 0 0> O J w w (D N CD N (T O O m W 0 x T D D r r r r (n Cn (n (7 O Z7 p m T T T T II 1 D D D D n n n c °c a° n m m m ,n o m 0OC ? x O -- S. N m m m m m (D (�D p, O p�j N i N N m N D G O 0- 'G - COD n O Cl CD m m v< << 2 v m v° - m m Q° m v W o o' o' o' w m w CD m (� CD m < T . m m m CD CD m m m T N 2 n r m m m - .. i CD j o 0 0- Z z Z N D) o� °c 0 ID L: f0 n n v z N m V (p cn m 0 N m m p CD m c s 0 ° 0 CD ° O m 3 0 (D m O. 2 91 O N 0_ m m C � N N_ ° C1 0 �7 Cf) O O C) C X O � W C) O =r C. W 0 W fA W fA fA fA fA fA EA 1:9 W fA fA EA fA fA ffl fA 0 fA fA fA W fA W fA fA Ca CD < m 3 0 m N -� A U (-(nn+ N � N A W p 9t m J -+ m -� N) V A O Coil OD (,Nj O W, D (n Cn W 1 m N O (T N O I ' O N W m tD N Cn A 0 0 0 0 0' A O A O ' N' 0(l) O' 'J Cn m O O O O N O 31 0 O m m 0 JA fA EA fA 4G3 fA CO W fA EA fA EA W fA fA fA EA fA W W fA fA fA fA ffl fA fA fA D m A (n N m A J Cn (D N A> CT W N >> -I A m W W a y N O A m > m m N A U (n O A > O A A N J m m -4 U O O A > CO > m 0 -� O N N O CD 31 0 0 U1 ' 0 0 0' 0 0 Cn ' O O Cn ' m 0 m W Cn Cn 31 0 -1 0 A m O O Cn O o 0 O Cn m O O N N W O O O A A O Cn O W D C 3 CL `D 7 ,� CD CD 0 O 3 3 3 m m x m D 7 n 11 C C N Cm/1 D 1 y O - d � _ m Yt 1 61 D r C r wv� C N -4 C Q A N W> » ? -1 > CD N A N (n (n m O > .-. O N m A N m N N A W V N A W U 0 T (n A W J W O O O N O O N N A A> W V> N V U O o A 0 (n V (D m O O O U N N Cn O O O> O O N> 0 0 O O [-.4 W > O W O O> O O m w> U m m m m W 0 0 0 O m O O V A 0 0' O O O 0 0 0 N N N A N m m Cn 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn J O O O O 0 0 9,9 W m m v m (n in in U) -u O 7 2 2 2 T T T T T T C) O C) G CO CO p 7 0 0 0 O O N. Cn Z 91 9) 9) T O O O Q O O O m 9) 7 7 (a c) ) G) G) G) O `< N C el a. 7 r m m m -- O O N N O O m C) C7 D x x n W S7o W fio fM (D n N `Z O _ C) n n m CD 0 O O 3 o O m m m (Dn m uD, o O m ^. (ND cyD (ND v o 3 () O N (/ fn m 0 0 r `G `G O �) w m 0 0 0 0 N C C C 0 N CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 7 J C .Z7 a 0 0 (3"1 N N C1 '_ O _0 CD CD CD Q (O � i 3 CD m 7 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A p A A A A A A p m- > > > > > > m > O > > > > > > > 7 A p > > > n 5 V W W 0 0 N CNn DUD J A P O O N N OmD A OW CO A N N A O m (O Cn N M (n cn m> (D > O W m w W V > m `< A O> N O A `G O O O O Cl O O O > O O O O O O O O O O m W m W m m (n w O J -1 O m (D m m m O cu x Z Z Z (n Z U (n (n Cn N W (n U Z Z A A M Z W (n W (n W cn Z Z D D D o y o 0 o o O -I w A D D o 0 w y m N m o m o D y Q 0 Cn m m m m m �! (n W m m W > m> Cn CD m it d m 0 0 0 0 0> O J w w (D N CD N (T O O m W 0 x T D D r r r r (n Cn (n (7 O Z7 p m T T T T II 1 D D D D n n n c °c a° n m m m ,n o m 0OC ? x O -- S. N m m m m m (D (�D p, O p�j N i N N m N D G O 0- 'G - COD n O Cl CD m m v< << 2 v m v° - m m Q° m v W o o' o' o' w m w CD m (� CD m < T . m m m CD CD m m m T N 2 n r m m m - .. i CD j o 0 0- Z z Z N D) o� °c 0 ID L: f0 n n v z N m V (p cn m 0 N m m p CD m c s 0 ° 0 CD ° O m 3 0 (D m O. 2 91 O N 0_ m m C � N N_ ° C1 0 �7 Cf) O O C) C X O � W C) O =r C. W 0 W fA W fA fA fA fA fA EA 1:9 W fA fA EA fA fA ffl fA 0 fA fA fA W fA W fA fA Ca CD < m 3 0 m N -� A U (-(nn+ N � N A W p 9t m J -+ m -� N) V A O Coil OD (,Nj O W, D (n Cn W 1 m N O (T N O I ' O N W m tD N Cn A 0 0 0 0 0' A O A O ' N' 0(l) O' 'J Cn m O O O O N O 31 0 O m m 0 JA fA EA fA 4G3 fA CO W fA EA fA EA W fA fA fA EA fA W W fA fA fA fA ffl fA fA fA D m A (n N m A J Cn (D N A> CT W N >> -I A m W W a y N O A m > m m N A U (n O A > O A A N J m m -4 U O O A > CO > m 0 -� O N N O CD 31 0 0 U1 ' 0 0 0' 0 0 Cn ' O O Cn ' m 0 m W Cn Cn 31 0 -1 0 A m O O Cn O o 0 O Cn m O O N N W O O O A A O Cn O W D C 3 CL `D 7 ,� CD CD 0 O 3 3 3 m m x m D 7 n 11 C C N Cm/1 D 1 y O - d � _ m Yt 1 61 D r C r wv� C N -4 C Q . 161 1 01 Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: April 15, 2010 Lely MSTU Project Status (L-48) ACTIVE — Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge (Committee Request for `lighting on bridge') 04- 14 -10: Project Plans provided by Stormwater for review by Committee and further consideration of `type of project' and related lighting specifications for bridge. (L-47) ACTIVE — Installation of Mixing Chamber Recommendation from McGee & Associates to have Committee consider alternative `source' for water and utilize a `mixing chamber' to allow the Committee to switch from re -use water to either potable water or well water. 04- 14 -10: Bids Received for Project as follows: (BCC approval on May 11, 2010 (load into NOVUS prior to April 26th) CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID Hannula $ 59,992.20 Stahlman- England $ 75.954.01 Haskins $ 79.155.00 (L-46) ACTIVE — Relocation of Irrigation Pump (Warren Street) to `outside' of Utilities Facility; McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 7- 23 -09: Based on official request from Utilities Department on July 16, 2009 that Lely MSTU `move the pump outside of the utility sub - station' staff has investigated the site with McGee & Associates and is coordinating with Utilities in (1) moving the pump outside of the sub - station; and (2) re- connecting with a new `tap' the service line. 04- 15 -10: Issue of PO for Shamrock Plumbing for 58,500 project cost — pending. (L -44) ACTIVE —Doral Circle "North " - Entrance Landscape Project (adjacent to Hibiscus Golf Property) 04- 15 -10: Project Completed (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches "; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service. (L-45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 01- 19 -10: Selection Committee has recommended award to McGee & Associates for new contract; Initial Work Order period is `one year'; after I' year review with Purchasing will occur. 04- 15 -10: Due to issue with BVO Selection Process (under review at County Attorney Office/Purchasing/Clerk of Court) McGee & Associates has submitted proposal to modify existing Work Order to add $5,775.00 in services for the new year contract. Change Order to existing Work Order is pending. ll�i� 161 1 q1 FOLLOW -UP FOR: April 15, 2010 Meeting Lely MSTU "To Do List" 1. Subrogation Recovery: a. Accident 859; damage amount: $515.00; Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: Landscape Repair Completed (CLM Estimate E1002519); No Traffic Accident report found to match damage b. Accident # 947; Found on 01 -15 -10 on Forest Hills Blvd. Status: Estimate for $607.00 from Commercial Land approved for repairs. 2. Committee Request: McGee& Associates to provide proposal to research lighting on Pebble Beach Blvd. Status: Notice to Proceed Issued on February 9, 2010 for McGee & Associates; McGee to report on status of research into lighting options 3. Request for quotes for new FDOT type railing near Canal (on St. Andrews Blvd.): Status: Staff will obtain additional quotes (need at least 3 quotes) 4. Lely Civic Association Request: Related to the sign which had to be removed. Completed: Sign is re- installed outside of State ROW on US 41. Sidewalks on US 41 at St. Andrews — ADA Compliance: Status: Staff has had meeting with Traffic Operations and TECM; Pam Lulich to report on status 6. Shrubs at end of Warren St. : Completed: Shrubs have been trimmed 7. Repair of directional sign in Median on St. Andrews Completed: Sign has been re- installed properly. Budget Amendment by Executive Summary — move $50,000 from Reserves to Improvements General: Completed: $50,000 has been moved for `Mixing Chamber Project' Funding. 16 1 'I a Ittl GOLF ESTATES BEAUTIFICATION MSTU ADVISORY COMMITTEE 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FI 34104 May 20, 2010 Minutes I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Bob Slebodnik at 4:00 P.M. II. Attendance: Members: Robert Slebodnik, Tony Branco, Kathleen Dammert, David Larson, Jennifer Tanner County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Caroline Soto — Budget Analyst, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Jim Fritchey -CLM, Darlene Lafferty — Juristaff III. Approval of Agenda Add: Xll. A. Davey Tree Proposal Vlll. C. Fence Quotes IX. A. Summer Meetings Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. IV. Approval of Minutes: April 15, 2010 Kathleen Dammert moved to approve the April 15, 2010 minutes as submitted. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. V. Budget Report — Caroline Soto • Collected Investment Interest $2,612.99 • Available Improvements General $89,688.18 A. Caroline Soto announced she was reassigned to the CAT Department and Gloria Herrera is her replacement as Budget Analyst. Robert Slebodnik commended Caroline Soto on a job well done. VI. Landscape Maintenance Report — CLM Jim Fritchey reported the following: o Basic Maintenance is being conducted o Bougainvillea has a Torpedo Grass issue 0 1 Royal Palm (front entrance) requires replacement 16 I 1 bi Mike McGee requested CLM prune the red Crown of Thorn (Cart Crossing and Pebble Beach.) Robert Slebodnik inquired on the progress of the Xanadu. Jim Fritchey responded: • Fertilization was conducted • Required Replacements are underway Discussion took place on replacement Flowers at the Front Entrance. Darryl Richard will email suggested Plant Material images to the Committee for review. VII. Landscape Architect's Report - McGee & Associates A. Maintenance Report Mike McGee reported CLM was requested to prune around the (decorative) Light Fixtures. B. Reuse Mixing Chamber Darryl Richard gave the following information on the Bid Tabulation for Irrigation Water Reuse Renovation: (See attached) • The Project was pulled from the BCC Agenda of May 11, 2010 • Commissioner Coyle suggested performing Value Engineering on the Project prior to presenting to the BCC for approval • Value Engineering will reduce costs without sacrificing quality • Hannula Proposal (cost reduction) $1,785.00 (See attached) Mike McGee noted the total cost reduction is $2615.00 as Bid Tabulation Line Item 9 ($830.00) is not required. Robert Slebodnik moved to accept the Value Engineering Study which will result in a savings of $2,615.00 over the original Bid that was award to Hannula. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. C. Lighting Project Update Mike McGee reported Analysis information is being collected. Staff will distribute the Analysis (CD) to the Committee. He gave a brief summary: 0 25 ft mounting Pole height was suggested 0 2 Options for Light installation Median installation - 13 double Fixtures required - Cost Estimate $149,325.00 Outside Installation (in front of houses) - 26 single arm Fixtures required - Cost Estimate $208,415.00 2 161 1 61 • All Electrical power is located behind the houses - Easements exist between the lot lines of all houses - Project is a boring installation • Existing Meter cabinet is located near Baltusrol (if viable) Discussion took place concerning the visual impact of the proposed Lighting and installing Lighting in darker areas of the Community. The Committee reaffirmed installation of accent lighting was the original intent for the Lighting Project. After much discussion Robert Slebodnik summarized the following: • Pebble Beach Blvd was designated to initiate the Lighting Project • The Lighting Project is under Study • Project is a long range plan which may take years to accomplish - Allows sufficient time to accrue Monies (Budget) for the Lighting Project VIII. Transportation Operations Report - Darryl Richard reviewed the following reports: (See attachments) A. Project Managers Report (L-48) Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge • Install 4 lights • Install Brick material similar to Hibiscus bridge • Haskins is under County Contract with Storm Water - Storm Water is not able to add an MSTU beautification component to their Project Scope • Construction drawings are required - McGee and Associates Quote was presented $4,104.00 (See attached) David Larson expressed concerns with awarding a bid to Haskins Electric. He recommended obtaining additional quotes. Jennifer Tanner moved to approve McGee & Associates Proposal for $4,104.00 for the work on Lighting for the Bridge Project on Doral Circle. Second by David Larson. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. Darryl Richard submitted Quote for reimbursement cost $329.55 by McGee and Associates. (See attached) David Larson moved to allow $329.55 for the reimbursement cost (McGee and Associates) on the Warren Street Mixing Chamber. Second by Jennifer Tanner. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. B. Review of the To Do List -None (See attached) 161 1 ibi C. Fence Quotes Darryl Richard reviewed quotes: (See attached) Ye Olde Foundry o Bid $5,100.00 o Local Vendor o Established 1984 Lykins Signtek o Bid $5,300.00 During discussion the Committee expressed interest in reviewing product samples or photo (of work) by Ye Olde Foundry. It was noted the Ye Olde Foundry installed the picket fence on Golden Gate Parkway (at 1 -75 overpass.) Robert Slebodnik reminded Staff the Fence installation is for (1) side of the road as the Committee perceived the canal view is aesthetically pleasing. IX. Housekeeping Item A. Summer Meetings- Discussed underXll. A. X. Committee Reports -None XI. Old Business -None XII. New Business A. Davey Tree Proposal Pam Lulich gave information on the Tree Keeper Program: • The County applied for a Grant to purchase the Program - Program will be maintained by the County • Quick reference program • Give the value of Trees • Lists predominate Trees • Record health of Trees Summer Meetings Discussion ensued concerning the June meeting. The Committee and Staff were in agreement to cancel the June meeting. XIII. Public Comments -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by the Chair at 5:35 P.M. 4 16 I 1 ki Lely Golf Estates Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee r�'/ , / ' IY&ert SI odnik, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended A The next meeting is July 15, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. CC Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 5 A A W W W W W W W W j W N N IJ N N A. N O (O OD V Q) N A W N O (O O V O) N A W N O (D OD V O) N A W N> O 1�� - la000 -ice OOTO pan �cc >01. iv im�c��G�cmtnym�Zpcz <cn�<�m� D mmm zGpj� zz �mm�mz- ziInZCmc)mpm <T Dzzz mcmm2DD r" m a mmm m�� m� r-m mCZiGZi moDnnD izm mmmpOmm mz-{m D< p mTT m-� mOOmKgm�nQDDmo 2mp- fzmn00 m(2i�- �i�� M m!y,mz D- G) ZOO n� � �zm =0- (n0�-<- ( -OT-I zo.m �m� c 000 m(n�� Ozz ��xDimrmpz c{i�mm �cz'��mm c(�mDD00 �OnzZmm �zz -ac�iv Z �mM-7- .kgAZ mmm c�immv�2 mZ <ooD�D v momoZD�D� z -i -( c� ° n z�' ppc�iiZZ �� D�� _ mmv cmcmnmXx mzz Or� Fj) 00 mm mm Om D r->, m Zmn 6, -m �zZ m O G) m to c ., m �� < � K z m K r 0 2 co 0 m 0 z -i 0 D m D m 0 0 aIfAlffl fAlfA�ffl fAi MIfnl.1fAl -mifA fA fA fn fA fn fA fA fA fA fA fA fA CO CO fA11 EAI - ffl - fA fA I-1- fA - fn fA - N _ O 0) V O O U 0 O to O O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 fA ffl fA fn ffl w ffl 1401469 w O) U � (VO (JD O OAD W (N1i (A fAlfAlfA ffl N O O O m N (A D O O O O 0 0 0 (A J J O _ O -N U J U O On O O °o OD N O) U O N A W A A U DD U U -� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O W O O O O 0 0 0 O O O o O 0 o 0 0 0 C) 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o o o o O o o o o O O O O (A fA (n fn W fA (fl W (n <A W V W AC. Do J U W U A A m O A W co -- j a U A OD U J A N OD N O N O O A 0 J U U N OD A A 0 0 1 N U C) O J- 0 0 0 fA fA fA fA ffl fA W W fA W (A ffl W fA ffl f W O N W A O O N O O O O o C) (D fA En fA fA 16 I 1 il N C A C. U O O (n 0 CD O O .+ 0 00 fA fA fA fA fA 0 O 3 3 3 N 1, 1. , . . ur fA fA fA ffl 'GAI foI fA fA fA fA ffl fA fA fn H3 fA fn N N N W A � O) - (D (Y) A N U O N N (0 W A D) 07 0 0) J fA fA fA fA ffl In W W W g , N °' A J O N N U U OD O N OO A W N N J N O W U U U U N O U O) O 0 0 N N O O N W A W N N 0 U O O A o N A J U 0 O O QD W O W O U W OD > N N W o 0 0 -� O °) (1) J Cn O 0 0> o 0 O 0) A J U .+ A OwD N O O O o 0 0 j (00 O O O CD N 0 0 0 0 , Cr) 0) OD 2 OD f (o (o o O v m- a a v m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m G)G)0G)G)7� m 7 rm m m - -� °° v w 3 0 m m m y w� m m m nFi y 3 (D m v 7 7 CL D xC) W S�fnSiDSM7 2 (°� n� r ��iZ17 o o o Z N '� m° D D D D D 7 ° °' CD (D m (o v c c m v n O+ (�' 7 (n (n (J! d .7. 7 3 C O N N N N N N N 7 .ZI 41 a O O O O `G `G (D 3(D 7 0 n 0 O n N LD - C C C 7 7 c Z7 ED - U u N N c m � v (D m 3 3 m A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A p A A A A A A p - fJ O U 0 co O O ON) En (On v m A (AO 0 0 (ND ONO (D W J 0 0) A O N (0D a N N O 9) N OD do O co A O) J O O N U m U A O O W fA ffl fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA fA W W W W AC. Do J U W U A A m O A W co -- j a U A OD U J A N OD N O N O O A 0 J U U N OD A A 0 0 1 N U C) O J- 0 0 0 fA fA fA fA ffl fA W W fA W (A ffl W fA ffl f W O N W A O O N O O O O o C) (D fA En fA fA 16 I 1 il N C A C. U O O (n 0 CD O O .+ 0 00 fA fA fA fA fA 0 O 3 3 3 N 1, 1. , . . ur fA fA fA ffl 'GAI foI fA fA fA fA ffl fA fA fn H3 fA fn N N N W A � O) - (D (Y) A N U O N N (0 W A D) 07 0 0) J fA fA fA fA ffl In W W W g , N °' A J O N N U U OD O N OO A W N N J N O W U U U U N O U O) O 0 0 N N O O N W A W N N 0 U O O A o N A J U 0 O O QD W O W O U W OD > N N W o 0 0 -� O °) (1) J Cn O 0 0> o 0 O 0) A J U .+ A OwD N O O O o 0 0 j (00 O O O CD N 0 0 0 0 , Cr) 0) OD 2 OD f (o (o o O v m- a a v m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m G)G)0G)G)7� m 7 rm m m - -� °° v w 3 0 m m m y w� m m m nFi y 3 (D m v 7 7 CL D xC) W S�fnSiDSM7 2 (°� n� r ��iZ17 o o o Z N '� m° D D D D D 7 ° °' CD (D m (o v c c m v n O+ (�' 7 (n (n (J! d .7. 7 3 C O N N N N N N N 7 .ZI 41 a O O O O `G `G (D 3(D 7 0 n 0 O n N LD - C C C 7 7 c Z7 ED - U u N N c m � v (D m 3 3 m A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A p A A A A A A p - _ f0 n .� .0.. O _O W W U J A U W O O D U N U J n () W W CA W W W -' C7 O N U A U 0) U N N J J O) O U A A W J J J J ') ON) En (On v m A (AO 0 0 (ND ONO (D W J 0 0) A O N (0D a m an d n) a m o 0 0 0 0 o O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N OD OD OD T OD T (0 O J (D 0 (D 9D p' W CO Z Z Z O U Z U U U U U W U( U Z Z A 0 Z W U W U W (r Z Z (D D D D W O D o 0 0 0 o J w A D D o w y (D ^� (o o °° ODD �' O _)Na m A A O N U Q) O) Q) 0 0 J U W OD W m U (0 OD tO U W U ° 0 0 0 0 O J W (D N (0 N U o (D N O) W ik G T T T QJ T D D r r r r (n (n (n (i O O m T T T T O ZI < 0< m O (� 7 D D D D (D m m (n o 7 0 0 0 0 (o 3 0 C, (� oo C m 7 O N N_ CD O (OD O N mD C fn CA in G7 a a N m ZY 0 Q 'D N ((S' (D (D O) (D 7 d (] n -t O fl. T CD 00 "' ('p (� DI .9 2_ Z N N N m `G 7 y (<� _z � � � N< T � � (D � (OD N N D) � � N N O) O) D�j w (D 3 -4 7 d X X (O r 0 0 0 O) (D O) 7. N 0 0 0 ul ry d Q (D (p D) M 2 2 M 7 N CD CD LD O O O m Z7 m y N. n x� O << (n w (��' N (n m N m O p N T A 0 N (� (» ID 7 O) O d 0�CD 7 o< D2m m - 3 CL m O U O N 7 7 (D O b T 3 Q. cn C X 7 n n V7 + U O 4f 7 (D o m n fA 4A fA fA fA ffl fA fA fA (fl ffl w fA fA to fA fA ffl ffl fA fA fA fA ffl .n I _ 0 O (P OD N A - N -� N -P W A 3 T 0 < O p 0f '1 U J co 0 m O (D N 0 0 OD w o w o w w 7 D 3 g4 O w U j N O O W O U D) N O N O (T W 01 N O M OD O A O O O OD o A N O J O O O U o 0 0 U O OD O OD A O fA fA fA ffl 169 fA fA fA to fA 0 fA fA fn fn fA fn ffl fA fA to fA (a EA ffl fA fA w N w N , N OD U O J O A co A OJ ) N O U U a y -b. O V O O U A (I T I (n O A -N O) O O U 0 U OD O D N O O A m J O 0 0) 0 O O O O O O O O 0 W 0 U D 3 A C CL CD G D D) a (D 3n r C r oo� ic N ca � N C O 161 1 61 Report for Lely MSTU Meeting date: May 20, 2010 Lely MSTU Project Status (L -48) ACTIVE — Modifications to Doral Circle Bridge (Committee Request for `lighting on bridge') 04- 14 -10: Project Plans provided by Stormwater for review by Committee and further consideration of `type of project' and related lighting specifications for bridge. 05- 18 -10: Joel Chambers (Haskins) is to provide quote for proposed modifications. (due prior to 5/20/10 meeting. (L -47) ACTIVE — Installation of Mixing Chamber Recommendation from McGee & Associates to have Committee consider alternative `source' for water and utilize a `mixing chamber' to allow the Committee to switch from re -use water to either potable water or well water. 04- 14 -10: Bids Received for Project as follows: CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID Hannula $ 59,992.20 Stahiman- England $ 75,954.01 Haskins $ 79,155.00 05- 10 -10: Item was pulled from BCC Agenda on May 10, 2010 at the request of staff. Determination of exact dollar amount of `value engineering' is necessary prior to BCC Approval. 05- 17 -10: Hannula submits proposal to `reduce cost' by $1,785.00 based on alternative product for use in filtration. (L-46) ACTIVE — Hot Tap Project (Warren Street) Utilities Facility; McGee Services under Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term; 7- 23 -09: Based on official request from Utilities Department on July 16, 2009 that Lely MSTU `move the pump outside of the utility sub - station' staff has investigated the site with McGee & Associates and is coordinating with Utilities in (1) moving the pump outside of the sub - station; and (2) re- connecting with a new `tan' the service line. 05- 10 -10: Notice to Proceed issued to Shamrock to begin project. (L -34) - ACTIVE - On Going — Ongoing Maintenance Contract: Commercial Land Maintenance; 7- 27 -09: Commercial Land Maintenance has trimmed all shrubs to required specification of "Cut to 18 inches and maintain at 24 inches "; Staff will inspect the project on a `weekly basis'; Contractor is to provide service reports within 12 hours of completion of any contract service. (L -45) ACTIVE — On Going - McGee Annual LA Services — Landscape Architectural Services 01- 19 -10: Selection Committee has recommended award to McGee & Associates for new contract; Initial Work Order period is `one year'; after I' year review with Purchasing will occur. 04- 15 -10: Due to issue with BVO Selection Process (under review at County Attorney Office /Purchasing/Clerk of Court) McGee & Associates has submitted proposal to modify existing Work Order to add $5,775.00 in services for the new year contract. Change Order to existing Work Order is pending. 161 iA'1 FOLLOW -UP FOR: May 20, 2010 Meeting Lely MSTU "To Do List" 1. Subrogation Recovery: a. Accident 859; damage amount: $515.00; Median #8 on St. Andrews Status: Landscape Repair Completed (CLM Estimate E1002519); No Traffic Accident report found to match damage b. Accident # 947; Found on 01 -15 -10 on Forest Hills Blvd. Status: Estimate for $607.00 from Commercial Land approved for repairs. 2. Committee Request: McGee& Associates to provide proposal to research lighting on Pebble Beach Blvd. Status: Notice to Proceed Issued on February 9, 2010 for McGee & Associates; McGee to report on status of research into lighting options 3. Request for quotes for new FDOT type railing near Canal (on St. Andrews Blvd.): Status: Staff will obtain additional quotes (need at least 3 quotes); quotes are due prior to 5/20/10 meeting. 4. Sidewalks on US 41 at St. Andrews — ADA Compliance: Status: Staff has had meeting with Traffic Operations and TECM; Pam Lulich to report on status 5. Doral Circle Bridge Improvements: Status: Staff is coordinating with LASIP Contractor (Haskins) in obtaining a quote for the modifications to the bridge. Quotes are due prior to the 5/20/10 Lely MSTU meeting; quotes are pending from Haskins. 1 m� �n c °7 S� � c N � N ? m N 7 m D m m a, m N N O 49 V p co T O s EA V m O Ut O O 181 a m 1 v .3 r m -rC 3 N 1 C ML Gi D 2 --n �p Do m� � N m c m m z 0 D 0 z z W d N ;0 CD d m N 161 Al d' PROPOSAL Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 -6932 Phone 239 - 992 -2210 - Fax 239 -498 -6818 Sales Representative: Annette Carbary (239) 872 -6634 Manny Gonzalez (239) 340 -0346 DATE May 17, 2010 JOB Lely MSTU Irrigation Water Re -Use Renovation PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: Darryl Richard Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 WE HEREBY SUBMIT ESTIMATES FOR THE ABOVE NAMED PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL. ALL LABOR AND MATERIALS WILL BE FURNISHED IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATION OF THIS PROPOSAL. THIS PROPOSAL SHALL BE VALID FOR A PERIOD OF NINETY (90) DAYS. QUANTITY UNIT ITEM UNIT COST TOTAL COST 1 ea Deduct Netafim Disc -Kleen Automatic Back $ (2,610.00) $ (2,610.00) Wash Discharge Filter with 80 Mesh Filters 1 ea Add Two (2) API Filters, 1" Scrubber Valves, $ 825.00 $ 825.00 Valve Boxes, and Brass Ball Valves TOTAL COST $ (1,785.00) WARRANTY The irrigation system on the materials and workmanship is guaranteed for a period of 12 months from the date of installation, excluding damages by third parties, theft after installation, or damage or loss due to an act of nature. Contractor is not responsible for any cut cables, lines, pipes, or wires that cannot be accurately located and marked by No Cut personnel. Alterations or deviations from the above specifications will be executed only upon written orders and will become extra charges over and above the estimate. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL The above prices, specifications and conditions are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Date Hannula Landscaping, Inc. 161 1t1 RFQ 10 -5482 - McGee Review of proposed value engineering.txt From: McgeeASsoc@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 2:41 PM To: RichardDarryl cc: lulich_P; arnold -n; sillery_t Subject: Re: FW: RFQ 10 -5482 - Lely MSTU Irrigation Water Re -Use Renovation Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag status: Flagged Darryl: After reviewing the Hannula Landscaping & Irrigation, Inc. 5/17/10 proposal we have the following comments. 1. The deduction for the automatic Netafim is not as much as we would have expected based upon the information we provided for pay item #3 in our 5/6/10 letter response to the RFQ 10 -5482. The reason for this is maybe that the contractor may have a different pricing schedule from the pump station manufacturer. 2. The pricing for the API filter and 1" scrubber valves appears not to be excessive based upon our plan detail for the filter & flush assembly. If ou have any other questions feel free to contact us any time. Michael McGee In a message dated 5/17/2010 4:30:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, DarrylRichard @colliergov.net writes: Mike, (McGee & Associates) Please review the Hannula Proposal and make recommendation. I would like to review this with the Lely committee at 5/20/10 regular meeting. Thank you, Darryl Richard, RLA, MSTU Project Manager Collier county Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 telephone: 239 - 252 -5775 Fax: 239 - 252 -6627 Cell: 239- 253 -9083 darrylrichard @colliergov.net From: Scott Smith [ mailto :ssmith @hannulalandscaping.com] sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 3:37 PM To: RichardDarryl Subject: RFQ 10 -5482 - Lely MSTU Irrigation water Re -Use Renovation Darryl, Attached is our proposal for the deduction of the Netafim filters and the addition of the API filters. If you have any questions, please contact me. Regards, Page 1 16101M RFQ 10 -5482 - McGee Review of proposed value engineering.txt Scott Smith, ASLA Estimator 28131 Quails Nest Lane Bonita Springs, FL 34135 o: 239.992.2210 x. 253 c: 239.340.0357 F: 239.498.6818 ssmith@hannulalandscaping.com under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Page 2 Name / Address Collier County BOCC Purchasing Department 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 Sales: Mark Orfield [ 1 Ron Bassett [ ] Description Provide & install approximately 60 LF of 48" high Black Majestic 3 -Rail Galvanized Fence for Bridge crossing. FI Sales Tax ( ) Judy Bassett Qty 161r18j EST /MATE Date 4/29/2010 Quote # 2010 -3106 Mailing Address: 2219 Flint Drive, Fort Myers, FLorida 33916 Ph (239) 334 -8611 Fax (239) 334 -1399 Website: fencedesignbyarctech.com Material Sales: Ron @arctechfences.com Fence Install: Mark @arctechfences.com Visit our website: fencedesignsbyaretech.com Project Total Price field 30 days from quote 7.523.00 0.00 PLEASE REVIEW BEFORE SIGNNING. Customer to remove all obstructions and grade lot lines, proof of survey and exposed survey property pins. Customer is responsible for exposing any underground electrical power lines to pool, low voltage wiring, Gas Lines, Lawn sprinklers, Water lines etc. Fence by Designs will not be responsible for any costs in repair damages for digging in these areas. We recommend designing your fence away from underground pipes. WORK to be performed in acordance with written and permit drawings. Completed in a workmanlike manner. Alteration or deviation from original estimate and signed by client involving extra cost to contractor will require written consent from owner before additional work begans. Schedules are contingent upon acts of God.accidents, materials delivered or delays beyond control. WARRANTY: Normal work condition ONE YEAR. SUPPLIER WARRANTY AS DESCRIBE IN BROCHURES.Fence by designs retain the right to enter property and remove materials not paid by owner. Date Rep signature Date Signature Total $7,523.00 05/17/2010 15:09 2396432499 SIU CRAFT NAPLES FL 161 NON-13IDDER °S RESPONSE Request for Quote: Lely MSTU— Fence Installation HAL-*- UhUl For purposes of maintaining-an accurate bidder's list and facilitating your firm's response to our invitation for bid, we are interested in ascertaining reasons for prospective bidder's failure to respond to invitations for bids. If your firm is not responding to this bid, please indicate the reason(s) by checking an appropriate Item (s) listed below and return this form to: Darryl Richard, Project Manager, Collier County, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes, 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, Florida 34104, Fax: 239 - 252 -6627; email: darrylrichardCaft-01 iemov.net Please indicate "NO BID" on the outside of the envelope or Title of Fax and /or email. We are not responding to this invitation for bid for the following reason(s): Items or materials requested not manufactured by us or not available to our company; n our items or materials do not meet specifications; n Circle one - Specifications were: Not clearly understood, Not applicable, Too vague, Too rigid, Quantities too small, or F-1 Incorrect address used. Please correct; i& 4�1�)� Other reason(s)- -�- Name of Firm: G�.S✓ �Z Mailing Address:'/'' re— City, State, ZIP: Phone' � _ FAX'' By: Signature of R �� 1 05/17/2010 15:34 01 161 , WALKUP FENCE P F 01011 NON- BIDDER'S RESPONSE Request for Quote: Lely MSTU -- Fence Installation For purposes of maintaining an accurate bidder's list and facilitating your firm's response to our invitation for bid, we are interested in ascertaining reasons for prospective bidder's failure to respond to invitations for bids. If your firm is not responding to this bid, please indicate the reason(s) by checking an appropriate item (s) listed below and return this form to: Darryl Richard, Project Manager, Collier County, Department of Alternative Transportation Modes, 2885 Horseshoe Drive South, Naples, Florida 34104, Fax: 238- 252 -6627; email: daMdriehardiftolliergov.net Please indicate "NO BID" on the outside of the envelope or Tale of Fax and/or email. We are not responding to this invitation for bid for the following reason(s): ❑ items or materials requested not manufactured by us or not available to our company; ❑ Our items or materials do not meet specifications; ❑ Circle one - Specifications were: , Not applicable, Too vague, Too rigid, Quantifies too small, r C,7- LZJ .0r- © Incorrect address used. Please correct: Other reason(s): j Name of Firm: "[„k&,J0_tC7 1-1.4e, Mailing Address: —02 e75 City, State, ,SIP: J 266-41 Phony i �- 1 FAX --�- By: Zessr-��.- - e,'r Z4e,,,,,,e Signature of Representative 2010 -05-19 08:50 Ye Olde Foundry Shop 2392616595 >> Collier County BCC 161 QUOTE FORM tety MSTU — Decorative Fence Scope: Manufacture of Fence Material to specifications provided; including Installation as separate Lump Sum (LS) quote. DescriptiQm______ Quantity Unit L'� L . = Total CFence Material Only (1) Lump Sum Installation Only (i) lump Sum -J TOTAL QUOTE: _ lelo` 0 0 Note: installation Cast to incilude'ail associated cwt' for entire installation; minus any required permitting fees which are'BY County'. NAME OF COMPANY: 1P 210 NAME OF ESTIMATOR/POINT OF CONTACT: 2 2,4-- cr'- ��'1� � 2-V zE1 -31// 1111111tlllllllllllllllllllll 1111111! lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll�ili�llrl�llll�lll Quiote due Friday, April 30, 2010 at 5:00 pm EST. Please forward your quote to Darryl Richard, Project Manager (mobile: 239 -253 -9083) At: darrylrichard @colliergoy.net ;or fax 239 - 252 -6827 AI "eL"el YZ 451e Xf & 04/28/2010 14:44 2395913940 LYKINS_SIGNTEK PACE 01/02 ! _Lr 5935 Taylor Road, Napbw,, F. 34109 Cell: x39- 777 -620*1 •Office: 239-594-8494 • Fax: 23949-4---3940 FAX COVER SHEET DATE: PAGES: °• COMPANY: FAX: v2 i lv ATTN: ,��rr c FROM: RE: " 0 �X vt."'p- MESSAGE 04/28/2010 14:44 2395913940 LVKINS SIGNTB( pqC{ 02102 QUOTE FORM Lefy MSTU -- Decorative Fence prov3ed, duding� '/i / - 5CQj.1e: Ma,urfacture of Fence Material i4 specifrcat Cd � j ! installation as separate LtKnP Sum (t5) 'quote- Fence Material Only Installation only Quantity . unit (1) Lump Sum (1) Lump Sum TOTAL QUOTE: Total Nate: installation Cost to include 'aN associated oosN fiw emits installation; minus any re"ired pert*tting fees which are By County'- NAME OF COMPANY- L. NAME OF ESnMATt WIMI1rT OF CalffACT: D l /1111111! /fIf!/fJII!1 /!A lIl! 1!1 t/f! If/! ff/!11 ff/ ff1111 fllJfI!11!I /IllllllI!!11!/lffl / //1 /I/fll1! quote due Friday, April 30, 2010 at S:00 pm ESC. Please forward your quote to Darryl Richard, Project Manager (mobile: 239 - 253 -9083) At: darrylrlchard @colllcergov.net ; or fax 239452 -W7 7&57ce & Landscape Architecture May 19, 2010 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Transportation Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 16 I 10 Subject: Proposal of Landscape Architectural Services for Lely Golf Estates M.S.T.U. Roadway Beautification Project Project Name: Doral Circle Canal Bridge Renovation Improvements (Conceptual and Final Design Services) 2010 -008P Dear Mr. Richard: As requested McGee & Associates is providing the following proposal of services your review and approval. McGee & Associates (M & A) agrees to provide the following "Scope of Services" related to the conceptual design, final design and contract administration services for the proposed MSTU Beautification project. The project area will be generally defined as the existing roadway bridge area crossing the existing drainage canal between the platted right -of -way lines of Doral Circle. See attached "Project Man Hour and Fee Support Calculations "; Sheet 1 for design service hours and costs. Scope of Services 1.0 Planninq Review existing roadway construction record drawings, existing utilities and contact utility agencies, and existing site conditions; along with future proposed roadway improvements and adjacent property improvements in order to develop a generally current set of cad base maps for design purposes. Base map information will be derived from existing on- site conditions, aerial photos, record drawings and current canal renovation construction drawing formation provided by Collier County and/or utility agencies with utilities within the project area. This proposal includes no surveying and base maps will not include exact field location of any utilities or objects in the project area. Research and review applicable Collier County and F.D.O.T. ordinances, codes, standards, design indexes and or regulations related to hardscape, landscape, electrical and irrigation installation within roadway rights -of -way areas. Streetscape design and installation to generally comply with Collier County Construction in Public Right -of -way, Ordinance 93 -64 Construction Standards Handbook latest edition. Collier County is responsible for providing current as- built/record drawings and electronic CAD files to McGee & Associates. If CAD files or information provided by the County is found to not be current or per the on -site conditions then McGee and Associates will submit an additional services proposal to provide services to acquire accurate in field information to be included in the development of the base maps for the Landscape Beautification project. Task 1.0 Planning Sub Total: $ 435.00 Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East/ P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 LC 098 `` FL 1023A j� Page 2, 5/20/2010 161 � 61 Darryl Richard, Project Mgr. Lely M.S.T.U. Doral Cr. Bridge Renovation Improvements Proposal- 2010 -008P 2.0 Conceptual Plan 2.1 Prepare necessary hardscape, electrical and landscape conceptual plans for the Doral Circle canal bridge renovation, to convey the design intent developed by M & A and to receive approval by the MSTU Advisory Committee and Collier County. 2.2 Develop opinion of costs related to the approved final conceptual plans to determine if project is within proposed budget. Task 2.0 Planning Sub Total: $ 881.00 3.0 Final Hardscape and Landscape Design Landscape Beautification plans to be prepared per F.D.O.T. "Design Standards" indexes and the Plans Preparation Manual Volume I & II criteria and processes and in general compliance to the Collier County Right -of -Way Ordinance 93 -64 current edition. 3.1 Attend necessary public, staff and /or project on -site meetings for the project design development and provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or presentations for the project development. 3.2 Develop final design plans based upon the approved concept plans. To minimally include items or services as follows: a. Final design and layout of electric, lighting, hardscape, landscape &irrigation. b. Materials Tabulation of Quantities schedule containing, plan quantities, material types, sizes and specifications. C. Decorative bridge barrier wall, paving and lighting installation details and notes as identified. 3.3 Prepare County approved bidding and installation construction drawings for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 3.4 Prepare County approved bidding and installation written specifications for exhibits or attachments to the final Contract Documents. 3.5 Develop opinion of costs related to the approved final construction drawings to determine if project is within proposed budget. Task 3.0 Final Landscape Design Sub Total: $1,498.00 4.0 Permitting 4.1 Supply and submit required permit drawings to Collier County for submittals and permit approvals. 4.2 Provide required written correspondence, verbal communications or presentations for the project permitting. Task 4.0 - County Permitting Total: $ 245.00 5.0 Contract Administration 5.1 Assist Collier County in developing contract documents for bidding and contract purposes. 5.2 Assist in bidding process and provide review and recommendation of award of construction contract. 5.3 Provide on -site observations for services during construction to determine compliance with plans and specifications, as well as review and approve pay request applications. Task 5.0 - Contract Administration Total: $945.00 ao. Page 3, 5/2012010 Darryl Richard, Project Mgr. Lely M.S.T.U. Doral Cr. Bridge Renovation Improvements Proposal- 2010 -008P 161"'1 6'V 6.0 Reimbursables Per Design services "Professional Landscape Architectural Services" Contract #08 -5060. Task 6.0 - Reimbursable Total: $100.00 7.0 Estimated Design Services Schedule 7.1 M & A shall render its services as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care. During the course of the Project, anticipated and unanticipated events may impact any Project schedule. Days listed are working days, excluding weekends, and official holidays. Task Description 1.0 through 4.0 Design Start: Concept complete Final Design FEE SUMMARY Upon Notice to Proceed 14 days 7 days following response to County comments. Task 1.0 Subtotal: $ 435.00 Task 2.0 Subtotal: $ 881.00 Task 3.0 Subtotal: $ 1,498.00 Task 4.0 Subtotal: $ 245.00 Task 5.0 Subtotal: $ 945.00 Task 6.0 Subtotal: 100.00 Total: $ 4,104.00 Note: Please see Project Man Hour & Fee Support Calculations Schedule for details. 7&:e`iaee A W4" Michael A. McGee, r.l.a., i.s.a. President, McGee & Associates. LC 098 / -� :'\ 161 i- 1 ol x cD X o' V LO CL co 0 0 C) _ O N °�O M o O f g.N O 8O.. . P N Cl O IM N O O WW . CL t8c°9 f M ° N C e°o A fiO A O O dO i N N W (o o Z j j W N N N N J W d LL L c O O N a C U U p p N U CD > F F m O U) c a J U rn W m U a m U Lu W m W H U9 c9 f9 N N d df fA N N b b9 fA f9 M d9 N N f fA f9 M M f fA 69 f9 N N c c9 N N 0 0 0 0 $ $'. o o o g g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N O to 1 1fi', to N P P fD t0 < < t tri O O O co m r W W O f9 f9 f9 c c0 N ( K V (� N M ! !!7 f f9 t N 6 tD N � �j Q N N M M N N y .. u O W , ,� . a L N a a D D M m m M M D N N O» N N M M' N N co » » a a co N LO m a D Fw- Do Q w o w w i O O o ` ` 0 o O 0 O P e p p N C O U Z Z t 0 0 N O Y YI. O O N Y Y) v v) 0 0 0 ui D D D D O O �1 N N' 0 0 0 » O O F U Q W W O t t t9 N N E E9 N N d di M N N N N.. f f9 H H M M N N N N J () Q Q O O W Z O O F N y y M M O Q f6 Q Q V tLpw z z w O o 0 Uy O p W Q 41 = = O O 0 O O O P pp O O O O O O p p O O O p 8 P N p O co cD cV c-4 O O C C ( M M» ( (V N N N N v vi 8 W H W O W V V9 b9 c9 fA N N: r rW E9 N N. N NK M di N N 8 8; M M M N N. f f9 H N N z CV U. N N O z Q U O � �O N N. N N M M. O O P P O O » ». � �O N . .- t t^! l W t t2 0 0 0 0 0 , ,}` r 0 0 Q O O O O 8 q p O O 8 p p 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p p O O O $ $'. 0 0 0 0Z O las O O O O p pp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. O O O a a 0 0 0 O w w O W W LL N Q W W N J z g z g 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O. O O O O O' 0 0 0 U o H y H 0 J V z L L » », M M N N N N Y Y°9. F o o W IL. C S a N L G0 a « f :,' f :i9 d V V F N N, M H H U U, f9 « f9 b9 c9 f9 M c cA fA : fA : ^ N CL Q E Z a a = = O O O O 0 8 8 0 ` O� 8 8 0 0 0 0 8O p 8 W 7 70 W W O O PO N N O Opp pp m m W V c N 8 8 �C9 W C > O O W N N t `$ M M O M M M LL » C O W W w w N N M M Iz Q � � Qa y F Z C � I S v N N Z p S vi 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O I Ip a m m c~ W _ W a a <¢ _ Vq W o $ IL � �v_ZH V O c ci O ¢~ o $ m Ti c U U J Z Z� c y N Z O O O J C7 U U N o c c Q O O m m Z . o J O O r .2 o Z m a ' W N LLI Z a � m o V z W w O W W < a a U m m z Q z N O Z y y o 0 c cV + Ci vi ch C iA A (L C 1 10 1 ol x cD X o' V LO CL co 0 0 C) _ O N 161 1101 Landscape Architecture February 11, 2010 Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA, Project Manager Lely Golf Estates Beautification, M.S.T.U. Collier County Traffic Operations and Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Subject: Professional Landscape Architectural Services for Reuse Water Source Pump Station Design with Mixing Chamber for the Lely Beautification MSTU at Warren Street. 2009 -013, additional request for Reimbursables. Dear Mr. Richard, Per your e-mail we are submitting a detail of the additional reimbursables we are requesting for PO #4500110200. 1) Utility Letters already mailed certified return receipt. 2) Estimate of Reimbusable costs( prints, copies, signed & sealed drawings, ect.) and /or as provided for under the current 08 -5060 Landscape Architectural Services Fixed Term contract. Total: If you should have any questions or need further information please contact me any time. Cordially, I /G"Qd , • &' Fee Michael A. McGee r.l.a. President, McGee & Associates LC 098 $79.55 250.00 $329.55 Design * Environmental Management * Planning * Arborist 5079 Tamiami Trail East / P. O. Box 8052 Naples, Florida 34101 Phone (239) 417 -0707 * Fax (239) 417 -0708 LC 098 * FL 1023A 161 '1D1 DAVEY#-. RESOURCE GROUP A Division of The Davey Tree Expert Company Y 161 161 Shrub and Groundcover Beds, Tree, Lights, and Irrigation Features Inventory of the Lely MSTU Collier County, Florida May, 2010 Prepared for: Collier County Darryl Richard, RLA, MSTU Project Manager Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Prepared by: Davey Resource Group A Division of The Davey Tree Expert Company 5515 Yahl Street Naples, Florida 34109 239 -597 -8386 1500 North Mantua Street P.O. Box 5193 Kent, Ohio 44240 800 - 828 -8312 ce, 161 1 V Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................ ............................... 1 Scopeof Work ............................................................................................ ............................... l DataCollection Method ............................................................................. ............................... 2 GIS -Based Data Collection ................................................................... ..............................2 Pen -Based Computer Technology ........................................................ ............................... 3 GPSUnits .............................................................................................. ..............................3 LocationMethodology ......................................................................... ............................... 4 Tree Inventory Data Fiel ds ................................................................... ............................... 4 Shrub Bed Inventory Data Fields ......................................................... ............................... 8 Groundcover Bed Inventory Data Fields ............................................. ............................... 9 Irrigation Feature Inventory ................................................................. .............................10 LightInventory ..................................................................................... .............................10 FieldHardware ........................................................................................... .............................11 TreeKeeper® 7 Field Options ......................................................... .............................11 Recommended Hardware and Specifications ................................ .............................11 In -field Verification .................................................................................... .............................12 ClientResponsibilities ................................................................................ .............................12 ProjectPricing .......................................................................................... ............................... 13 Lely Shrub and Groundcover Beds, Trees, Lights, and Irrigation Features Inventory ................................................................................ .............................13 The Davey Tree Expert Company .............................................................. .............................14 Davey Resource Group ............................................................................... .............................15 PersonnelProfiles ..................................................................................... ............................... 16 Experience and References ......................................................................... .............................18 TreeKeeper® Users in Florida .................................................................. ............................... 22 Davey Resource Group i 161 1 01 Introduction Maintenance or the right -of -ways in Collier County, Florida requires coordination of departments, staff, and contractors. To ensure that these County- maintained areas look their best and stay healthy and safe, an organized, proactive management program, including a tree, bed, light, and irrigation feature inventory is needed. Scope of Work Davey Resource Group understands the scope of work to include: 1) Inventory of the following features found in the Lely MSTU rights -of -way: ➢ Trees. Approximately 1,400 trees. ➢ Irrigation features. Approximately 300 features. ➢ Shrub beds. Approximately 150 beds. ➢ Groundcover beds. Approximately 150 beds. ➢ Lights. Approximately 25 lights. 2) Upload of the data collected into the County's existing TreeKeeper® 7 software. 3) Creation of three new data layers in TreeKeeper® 7: one data layer for shrub beds, one data layer for groundcover beds, and one data layer for lights. 4) Purchase one field pen tablet computer compatible with the County's existing software system. 5) Provide one or two days of on -site TreeKeeper® 7 and pen tablet training. Davey Resource Group 1 ED" 161 1 01 Data Collection Method Collier's priorities for the inventory project are to be as accurate and efficient as possible in determining locations and attributes. To achieve these goals, Davey recommends that a combination of Geographic Information System (GIS) and Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment be used. During the inventory, all specified features (trees, irrigation features, shrub and groundcover beds) maintained by the MSTU source will be individually examined, identified, and measured by Davey ISA Certified Arborists. Davey's arborists will record all data about each feature while in the field using pen - tablet computers. Davey's arborists work individually, walking the length of each right -of -way to examine each feature in person. Every feature is approached and examined —no windshield surveying is done. Data is recorded using Davey's GIS -based data collection system. GIS -Based Data Collection Pen -based computers, customized with the County's attribute fields, aerial photographs, and other GIS information, will be the primary tools used to collect feature locations and data. GPS units will be used in conjunction with the pen -based computers to obtain locations in open spaces, where GIS information is limited, and /or as a quality control measure. Specifically, Davey Resource Group has found that the most efficient and accurate method for mapping feature locations is to utilize a three- tiered system: GPS technology, map data on a hand -held computer, and the arborist's field judgment. The Recon® or pen tablet is loaded with ArcPadTM and connected to a GPS unit, enabling the seamless functionality between GIS basemap data, GPS location technology, and Davey's site attribute collection program. GIS basemap layers will consist of right -of -way information, parcels, addresses, and digital orthophotographs. This system allows Davey Resource Group to populate the layer in the field as each feature location and attributes are recorded. The GPS shows up as a `bull's -eye' locator on the map serving as the first tier of location during the inventory. The map, ranging from street centerline shapefiles all the way to various resolutions of color orthophotography from a County GIS program, serves as the second tier of location. The data collector, the third tier, draws from experience and applies field judgment to make the ultimate decision based on what is seen in the field and often resolving the inconsistencies that can exist between map data and GPS signals. Used concurrently for each site, Davey's inventory arborists utilize the best available GIS maps, information, and GPS technology to quickly and accurately plot locations. Using this approach, the County will gain these advantages: 1. Increased production rates. Feature location data entry using GIS with accurate basemap information is nearly twice as fast as using GPS equipment alone. Inventory personnel are not limited by weather conditions or interference by buildings or other tall obstructions. 2. High level of feature location accuracy. Admittedly, GPS location data can be more accurate than manual GIS location entry. GIS is only limited by the accuracy of the basemap information provided. However, for urban forest management purposes and for other county -wide use, such as for public works and public utility projects, the accuracy of GIS locations is usually more than sufficient. 3. Faster project completion. With the increased production rates of this methodology and the decreased negative effects of weather and satellite factors, the project can be completed more quickly with less downtime. Davey Resource Group 2 (1?12' The following information briefly describes the use of each technology. Pen -Based Computer Technology Davey Resource Group will utilize pen -based computers specifically configured for this inventory project. During the project, data from these field units will be uploaded directly to a desktop computer for processing and storage. Pen -based computers offer several advantages over paper -based data collection: ➢ Data entry is quick because collectors use simple input forms containing pick lists, check boxes, and buttons to save time and money. ➢ The computer only accepts certain entries, decreasing errors. All information on a particular feature must be entered before the collector can proceed. Crosschecking between fields occurs in real -time, as well, to prevent inconsistent results. ➢ Downloading data directly to a personal computer saves time and eliminates potential data entry errors. GPS Units Davey Resource Group will use GPS (Global Positioning System) technology for this inventory project. Combined with post - processing differential correction, this technology provides the most accurate method of locating positions under favorable environmental conditions. Davey Resource Group's arborists use Trimble® Pathfinder Pro XHTM backpack units that are capable of sub -meter accuracy to record the positions of trees and other infrastructure components. 161 1 M Due to the limitations of current GPS technology, please note that it may not be possible in all cases to get exact GPS data for all features, especially those near very tall buildings, in steep terrain, in the interior of heavily wooded areas, and in situations where several individual features are closely together. All efforts will be made to get location data that is as accurate as possible, but sub -meter accuracy cannot be guaranteed in these situations. The data can be exported in file formats compatible with commercial GIS applications, including AutoCAD ®, ArcViewTM, and ArcInfoTM, or plotted on paper maps. Davey Resource Group 3 0_8 16 I 1 P71 Location Methodology To allow for maximum use of data, features are inventoried by Location, which includes Blockside, or Roadside Designation, and Site Number. Each site location is also assigned Flow Direction, indicating the flow of traffic to differentiate sides of the streets. In order to be consistent in the assignment of site location information, Davey has developed a proven method to determine addresses, site numbers, and blockside definitions. The method developed and used by Davey is designed so that the Client's (County's) staff or contractors will be able to identify the correct site using the database's Location information. The Blockside information is composed of an on street, a from street, and a to street: ➢ The on street is the street that the site is actually located on. Be aware that some sites (e.g., those located on a side street) will be located on a street that is different from the actual addressed street. This means that the on street will not necessarily match the address street. ➢ The from street is the cross street the data collector is moving away from when moving in the direction of traffic flow (opposite of traffic flow when moving up the left side of one - way streets). ➢ Features found along the Roadside, not in Medians, will be designated for each Blockside and sequentially numbered (Site Number). Additionally, Flow Direction will be recorded as the direction of traffic flow — Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, or Westbound —to further distinguish the correct location of the inventory site. Flow Direction can be used as the reference aid. In the event the feature is located in a median or retention pond area, no Flow direction will be recorded. Tree Inventory Data Fields Davey Resource Group will collect the following data fields for trees in the project area. 1. Location —Davey Resource Group identifies the location of each tree. Street tree locations are organized by sequential tree site number and road name, and blockside information. An X and Y coordinate will be generated for each tree. a. Blockside. Street trees will be located using an address number, street name, side of lot, tree number, and blockside information if available (on street, from street, and to street). Each tree at an address will receive a Site Number to aid in locating the site. b. Roadside or Curbside. Davey Resource Group will locate trees planted based on their proximity to either the road or the curb. c. Flow Direction. To aid in locating street trees for future maintenance work, the side of the street each tree is located on using the direction of traffic flow will be noted. Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, or Westbound are used as the reference. d. Site Number. Unique site number. e. Area. Median, Roadside, or Retention Pond. 2. Species —Trees are identified by genus and species using both botanical and common names and by cultivars where appropriate. 3. Tree Size — Diameter is measured to the nearest inch in one -inch size classes at 4 -' /z feet above the ground, or diameter at breast height (DBH)_ Davey Resource Group 4 D26 161 1 01 4. Stems —The number of stems on trunks splitting less than one foot above ground level is recorded. 5. Condition —The general condition of each tree is rated according to the following categories adapted from the International Society of Arboriculture's rating system: Excellent 100% Very Good 90% Good 80% Fair 60% Poor 40% Critical 20% Dead 0% 6. Location Rating —The location rating, along with species, size, and condition ratings, is used in determining the tree's value. The location rating is based on existing land use of the site, the functional and aesthetic contributions of the tree to the site, and surrounding structures or landscapes. Categories for location value include: Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor. 7. Primary Maintenance Needs —The following maintenance needs will be determined based on ANSI A300 standard specifications: a. Removal. Trees designated for removal have defects that cannot be cost - effectively or practically treated. The majority of the trees in this category have a large percentage of dead crown. a Large Tree Clean. These trees require selective removal of dead, dying, broken, and/or diseased wood to minimize potential risk. Trees in this category are large enough to require bucket truck access or manual climbing. c. Small Tree Clean. These trees require selective removal of dead, dying, broken, and /or diseased wood to minimize potential risk. These trees are small - growing, mature trees that can be evaluated and pruned from the ground. d. Young Tree Train. These are young trees that must be pruned to correct or eliminate weak, interfering, or objectionable branches in order to minimize future maintenance requirements. These trees, up to 20 feet in height, can be worked with a pole pruner by a person standing on the ground. e. Palm Prune. These palms require routine horticultural pruning to remove any dead, dying, or broken fronds. f. Stump Removal. This category indicates a stump that should be removed. Davey Resource Group 5 33� ( 16 I 1 81 8. Secondary Maintenance Needs —The following secondary maintenance needs will be determined based on ANSI A300 standard specifications: a. Raise. Trees requiring pruning to remove low branches that interfere with sight and /or traffic. b. Reduce. Selective pruning to decrease height and /or spread of the crown in order to provide clearance for electric utilities and lighting. c. Thin. The selective removal of water sprouts, epicormic branches, and live branches to reduce density. d. Restoration. Selective pruning to improve the structure, form, and appearance of trees that have been severely headed, vandalized, or damaged. e. None. No secondary maintenance is recommended for the tree. 9. Risk Assessment —A risk rating will be assigned using an assessment protocol based on the USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk Rating System. a. Probability! of Failure (1-4 points). Identifies the most likely failure and rates the likelihood that the structural defect(s) will result in failure based on observed, current conditions. b. Size of Defective Part (1 -3 points). Rates the size of the part most likely to fail. c. Probability of Target Impact (1 -3 points). Rates the use and occupancy of the area that would be struck by the defective part. d. Other Risk Factors (0 -2 points). This category is used if professional judgment suggests the need to increase the risk rating. It is especially helpful to use when tree species growth characteristics become a factor in risk rating. For example, some tree species have growth patterns that make them more vulnerable to certain defects such as weak branch unions (silver maple) and branching shedding (beech). 10. Risk Rating —A Risk Rating of each tree is calculated based on the protocol of USDA Forest Service Community Tree Risk Rating System. Generally, trees with the highest numeric risk ratings should receive corrective treatment first. The overall risk rating of the tree will be indicated based on the sum of above risk assessment field values. See the formula below: Risk Rating (3 -10 points) =probability offailure (1 -4 points) + size of defective part (1 -3 points) + probability of target impact (1 -3 points) + optional subjective risk rating (0-2 points) Assigned risk is meant only to be used as a guideline to make safety- driven maintenance decisions and to direct normal tree maintenance programs efficiently. All risk ratings are based on observable defects at the time of assessment. All observations are made from the ground. The following risk ratings will be assigned: a. None. Used for planting and stump sites only. b. Low. Trees designated as presenting a Low risk have minor visible structural defects or wounds in areas with moderate to low public access. Davey Resource Group 6 9 161 c. Moderate. Trees designated as presenting a Moderate risk have defects that may be cost - effectively or practically treated. The majority of trees in this category exhibit several moderate defects affecting <40% of a tree's trunk, crown, or critical root zone. d. High. Trees designated as presenting a High risk have defects that cannot be cost - effectively or practically treated. The majority of the trees in this category have multiple or significant defects affecting >40% of the trunk, crown, or critical root zone. Defective trees and /or tree parts are most likely between 4 -20 inches in diameter and can be found in areas of frequent occupation, such as a main thoroughfare, congested streets, and /or near schools. e. Severe. Trees designated as presenting a Severe risk have defects that cannot be cost - effectively or practically treated. The majority of the trees in this category have multiple and significant defects present in the trunk, crown, or critical root zone. Defective trees and /or tree parts are most likely larger that 20 inches in diameter and can be found in areas of frequent occupation, such as a main thoroughfare, congested streets, and/or near schools. 11. Observations — General observations warranting recognition include the following: Cavity/Decay Grate /Guard Improperly Installed Improperly Mulched Improperly Pruned Mechanical Damage Memorial Tree Nutrient Deficiency Pest Problem Poor Location Poor Root System Poor Structure Remove Hardware Serious Decline Signs of Stress 12. Further Inspection —Most trees in this category require an annual inspection for several years. A healthy tree obviously impacted by recent construction serves as a prime example. This tree will need annual evaluations to assess the impact of construction on its root system. Another example would be a tree with a defect requiring additional equipment for investigation. 13. Clearance Requirements — Pruning, necessary to meet clearance standards over streets and sidewalks, is noted where branches are considered to be interfering with the movement of vehicles or pedestrians or where they are obstructing signs and street or traffic lights 14. Hardscape Damage —Where trees are present, damage to curbs and cracking or lifting of sidewalk pavement one inch or more is noted. 15. Aboveground Utilities —The inventory indicates the presence of overhead utilities at the tree site as well as current conflicts. 16. Growing Space Type — Growing space locations are categorized as: Island Median Natural Area Open/Unrestricted Raised Planter Tree Lawn/Parkway Well/Pit 17. Growing Space Size —The minimum width of the growing space for root development is recorded. Davey Resource Group l b1 33 161 1 p� 18. Tree Row —The linear or non - linear nature of trees in medians and along the roadway is noted by the spacing of their planting either as Clusters or Rows. Rows may be noted by Row Number if they are clearly present. 19. Pond Type —The type of retention pond is noted as Dry, Wet, or Fountain. 20. Additional Notes — Additional information of possible importance is noted here. 21. Date of Survey Shrub Bed Inventory Data Fields Davey Resource Group will collect the following data fields for shrub beds. 1. Shrub Bed Boundary —In the field, the Davey arborist will map the boundaries of existing beds. A bed is defined as a single species of shrub. X and Y coordinate locations will be collected to form a polygon and those points will approximate the shape of the bed. 2. Shrub Bed ID Number —An unique identification number will be assigned to each shrub bed. 3. Species —Shrub beds are identified by genus and species using both botanical and common names. 4. Approximate Number of Shrubs —The approximate number of shrubs per bed will be estimated by performing a rough count in directions perpendicular to each other. A simple math equation, X times Y equals total, will be used to determine the approximate number of shrubs. 5. Approximate Height —The height of the shrub bed will be estimated as less than 2 feet or greater than 2 feet. 6. Condition Rating —The condition of the bed will be rated based on the percent of its healthy plants. For example, a shrub bed with less than 10% of the plants in the bed in Poor condition will be rated as 90% Good. A bed with 25% of the plants in Poor condition will be rated 75% Good. A newly planted bed may be rated 100% Good. Percentages used will be 0, 25, 50, 75, 90, 100 percent. 7. Road Name —Davey Resource Group will identify the road each shrub is located on. 8. Direction —To aid in locating beds for future work, Davey Resource Group will identify the side of the street each bed is located on using the direction of traffic flow — Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, or Westbound, as the reference. In the event the feature is located in a median or retention pond area, they will be identified as Median or Retention Pond. 9. Location Type — Feature locations are categorized as: a. Median b. Roadside c. Retention Pond Davey Resource Group 8 (2 161 lb-I Groundcover Bed Inventory Data Fields Davey Resource Group will collect the following data fields for groundcover beds. 1. Groundcover Bed Boundary —In the field, the arborist will map the boundaries of existing beds. A bed is defined as a single species of groundcover. X and Y coordinate locations will be collected to form a polygon and those points will approximate the shape of the bed. 2. Groundcover Bed ID Number —An unique identification number will be assigned to each bed. 3. Species — Groundcover beds are identified by genus and species using both botanical and common names. 4. Approximate Number of Groundcover Plants —The approximate number of groundcover plants per bed will be estimated by performing a rough count in directions perpendicular to each other. A simple math equation, X times Y equals total, will be used to determine the approximate number of groundcover plants. 5. Condition Rating— The condition of the bed will be rated based on the percent of its healthy plants. For example, a shrub bed with less than 10% of the plants in the bed in Poor condition will be rated as 90% Good. A bed with 25% of the plants in Poor condition will be rated 75% Good. A newly planted bed may be rated 100% Good. Percentages used will be 0, 25, 50, 75, 90, 100 percent. 6. Road Name —Davey Resource Group will identify the road each groundcover bed is located on. 7. Direction —To aid in locating beds for future work, Davey Resource Group will identify the side of the street each bed is located on using the direction of traffic flow — Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, or Westbound, as the reference. In the event the feature is located in a median or retention pond area, they will be identified as Median or Retention Pond. 8. Location Type Feature locations are categorized as: a. Median b. Roadside c. Retention Pond Davey Resource Group 3s 169 Irrigation Feature Inventory Davey Resource Group will conduct an inventory of select irrigation features including scorpios, pump houses, valve boxes, irrinets, and water meters that are located in the project area. 1. Mapping Coordinate —X and Y coordinate locations will be collected. 2. Road Name —Davey Resource Group will identify the location of each irrigation feature so that they can be identified for future work. Irrigation features will be located using a street name. Additionally, each feature will be located using GIS maps and /or GPS equipment capable of submeter accuracy. 3. Direction —To aid in locating irrigation features for future work, Davey Resource Group will identify the side of the street each feature is located on using the direction of traffic flow — Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, or Westbound, as the reference. 4. Feature Type — Irrigation features will be identified as one of the following: ➢ Irrinet ➢ Pump House ➢ Scorpio ➢ Value Box ➢ Water Meter 5. Identification or Serial Number — Identification numbers found on the irrigation features will be recorded. 6. Location Type — Feature locations are categorized as: ➢ Median ➢ Roadside ➢ Retention Pond Light Inventory Davey Resource Group will conduct an inventory of select lights in the project area. 1. Mapping Coordinate —X and Y coordinate locations will be collected. 2. Road Name —Davey Resource Group will identify the location of each light so that they can be identified for future work. Lights will be located using a street name. Additionally, each light will be located using GIS maps and /or GPS equipment capable of submeter accuracy. 3. Direction —To aid in locating lights for future work, Davey Resource Group will identify the side of the street each light is located on using the direction of traffic flow — Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, or Westbound, as the reference. 4. Light Type — Identified as Pole Light or Accent Light. Davey Resource Group 10 C26) lb I 1 D1 Field Hardware TreeKeeper® 7 Field Options A TreeKeeper user is always capable of accessing their live TreeKeeper® 7 software program in the field by using a combination of a Windows XP, Vista, or 7 enabled tablet computer and a cellular air card to access the internet/network remotely in the field. This option requires no special software to be purchased by the user. However there are other options for field software that runs local on the field computer, removing the need of a cellular air card access. Synchronization Module: Requirements: TreeKeeper® 7 (any deployment) and a Windows® 2000 or higher laptop or Pen Tablet computer for field use. What it does: The user can install standalone TreeKeeper® 7 management software on a field computer. This software will synchronize any changes that user makes to the field database as well as any changes made to the master database while in the field. The key advantage of this option is that the user is actually running TreeKeeper® 7 in the field. With this option, anything that can be done in the office can be done in the field. Recommended Hardware and Specifications Panasonic Toughbook 19 Touchscreen PC version. Costs provided here are based on pricing for the described unit and it recommended accessories as of May 17, 2010. Pricing is subject to change based on the unit chosen and the timing of the purchase. Davey is not a manufactor of supplier of hardware. Core 2 Duo SU9300 11.2 GHz - Centrino 2 with vPro - RAM 2 GB - HDD 160 GB - GMA 450OMHD - cellular wireless ready - Gigabit Ethernet - WLAN : Bluetooth 2.0 EDR, 802.11 a /b /g /n (draft) - TPM - Vista Business (CF- 19KDRAX6M) ................ $3,995 No -Fault warranty ........................................................................ ............................... $253 Spare battery .................... Battery charger ................. A/C adapter for charger.... Fujitsu extra 2-pack stylus Davey Resource Group $143 ............................... I....... $184 I ................. $99 ....................................... ............................... $55 11 3� 161 1 01 In -field Verification Davey will provide and assure Collier County an accurate and high - quality inventory project. Davey can make this assurance because Davey will provide both electronic and field verification of the inventory data. Davey also welcomes and encourages the County to periodically perform on -site verification of the data. To ensure quality control during inventory projects, Davey does the following: 1. Davey Resource Group's college- educated, professional urban foresters will conduct the inventory. All of our inventory project managers are Certified Arborists through the International Society of Arboriculture; we do not use students or temporary employees. 2. During the inventory process, extensive quality control algorithms are applied regularly. Using Davey's Proprietary Tree Collector Interface Software, quality control checks verify the accuracy and completeness of the inventory data, such as duplicate sites, proper addressing, and consistent data field collection, etc. 3. Davey's Information Technology Department also runs specific analysis software on the collected data to ensure consistency and accuracy. 4. Davey welcomes and encourages the County to periodically perform on -site verification of the data. Client Responsibilities 1. Provide Davey Resource Group with all maps and other information necessary at no charge. This includes, but is not limited to: digital orthophotographs; available GIS data layers, and /or other electronic or paper copies of maps for roads; pavement widths; right - of -way widths; boundaries and utilities; and an electronic file or printed list of street names and end points. 2. Provide daily contact information and directions as needed during the inventory process. 3. The County is requested to coordinate with Davey project staff to host and conduct an informational kick -off meeting immediately prior to the start of the fieldwork. Davey Resource Group 12 3� 161 Project Pricing Lely Shrub and Groundcover Beds, Trees, Lights, and Irrigation Features Inventory GIS -Based Data Collection of Shrub and Groundcover Beds, Trees, Lights, and Irrigation Features Computerized inventory data collection of up to 1, 725 existing trees, lights, and irrigation features, for a cost of ....................... ............................... $8,600 Additional inventory data collection above 1, 725 trees, lights, and irrigation features, for a unit rate of ................. ............................... $4.72 Computerized inventory data collection of up to 300 existing groundcover and shrub beds, for a cost of .................................. ............................... $4,460 Additional inventory data collection above 300 groundcover and shrub beds, for a unit rate of ........................... ............................... $14.86 TreeKeeper® 7.7 Modifications Addition of three data layers (shrub, groundcover, and light layers) and uploading ofdata into the system .................................................................... ............................... $750 Field Hardware: Panasonic Toughbook 19 Touchscreen PC Option One: PC for use will cellular modem supported by County. No additional software is required; however, some sort of cellular service and air card is required and must be purchased and supported by the County through another vendor that supplies cellular service. Davey does not supply cellular service . ........ ............................... $4,739 Option Two: PC and Davey's TreeKeeper® Synchronization Module. Software is loaded locally on one field computer that meets the specifications proposed herein............ $8,230 Software and Pen Tablet Training One day of comprehensive, on -site training session will be performed .................... $2,000 Two days of comprehensive, on -site training session will be performed .................. $3,000 Davey's bid is based on an estimated number offeatures to be inventoried within the County. This number was estimated by Davey staff at the time the proposal was prepared using our best educated guess. As with any estimate, Davey does not provide assurance that this number is accurate to any degree of certainty. However, any significant deviation between actual and estimated tree /feature counts will be identified as soon as possible while Davey's inventory staff is on the job. In such an event, Davey will contact the Client to discuss an equitable solution which includes negotiating the price per tree /feature upward or downward as appropriate. Davey also reserves the right to renegotiate the price based on timing of award, scheduling of fieldwork, final methodology chosen by the Client, and availability, completeness, and quality of maps and GIS information. Inventory data may be delivered as ESR10 shapefiles or as an AccessT M or ExcelT M Spreadsheet. All prices are guaranteed 60 days from date of proposal. Prices are also dependent upon final methodology chosen by the County, availability, completeness and quality of maps, GIS information, CAD files, and timing offteldwork. I M Davey Resource Group 13 , The Davey Tree Expert Company The Davey Institute 16 I i In 1873, John Davey came to America from England to fulfill a dream —to preserve trees and provide high - quality horticultural services using practical and scientifically based methods. His dream became a reality in 1880 when he founded The Davey Tree Expert Company. Since then, the Company has transformed into a flourishing enterprise that is one of the 20 largest employee -owned companies in America. At Davey, trees were just the beginning of our venture, and we continue to grow to new heights. Among our proud accomplishments is The Davey Institute, launched in 1909 to initiate scientific research in arboricultural practices and to train employees how to better plant and maintain trees. Almost 100 years later, The Davey Institute remains a leader in scientific advancements and education, ensuring the Company's service lines provide the industry's highest quality service. The Davey Institute also has a fully equipped diagnostic laboratory and training facilities. Residential Tree and Lawn Care Services Davey Tree has provided a complete range of tree, shrub, and lawn care services to homeowners for more than 125 years. Our residential services throughout the United States and Canada include tree, shrub, and lawn fertilization, insect and disease management, tree removal, large tree moving, landscaping, and many other specialty services. We also share our expertise with our customers on topics such as vegetation health care, watering recommendations, and planting techniques. Large Tree Moving We have been the tree moving experts since 1926. Exceptional service, capability, equipment, and unmatched survival rates set Davey Large Tree Moving apart from other companies. Our expertise has been recognized nationally on programs such as Modern Marvels (History Channel) and on the pages of National Geographic. We take pride in accomplishing the "impossible" and have transplanted some of the largest trees on record. In fact, we currently hold the records for moving the largest rootball (42 feet), heaviest tree and ball (539 tons), and largest hardwood (73 inches in diameter). Commercial Tree Care and Grounds Management We are one of North America's largest commercial landscape management companies, and we take pride in managing award - winning properties and meeting the toughest grounds care challenges. Davey has been the preferred landscape service provider on some of the country's most prestigious grounds, including Arlington National Cemetery, The Pentagon, and the headquarters of media giant Gannett Co. and its USA TODAY offices. Davey Resource Group 14 C U Davey Resource Group zb 1 1 bl Davey Resource Group (DRG) is the consulting division of The Davey Tree Expert Company. Established in 1992, DRG offers urban and utility forestry management and natural resource consulting services throughout North America. DRG's services include: ➢ natural resource studies and permitting ➢ ecosystems analysis and mapping ➢ ecological restoration and mitigation ➢ environmental planning ➢ tree preservation planning ➢ vegetation management along rights -of -way ➢ asset management and inventories ➢ tree and forest canopy inventories ➢ urban forestry management plans DRG is the leader in urban forestry and has provided expert consulting to a wide variety of clients, including municipalities, parks, cemeteries, golf courses, utilities, and the private sector. Our team of ISA Certified Arborists, GIS/IT specialists, and highly trained scientists and field staff has the knowledge, experience, and technology to help you succeed in managing and understanding your urban forest. Our customized services, which include training, consulting, software programming, and contract forestry, will help you achieve your goals. DRG has inventoried well over 2 million trees while conducting more than 300 urban tree inventory projects. Many of these projects included comprehensive urban forestry management plans and customized software for inventory and data management. In addition, Davey collaborates with other green industry leaders in developing new technologies to inventory, analyze, and quantify environmental benefits provided by tree populations. A proud example is Davey's role as technical advisor and transfer agent for the i -Tree project, an ongoing public /private urban forestry research collaborative with the USDA Forest Service, National Arbor Day Foundation, Society of Municipal Arborists, and the International Society of Arboriculture. The goal is to improve the understanding of the condition, extent, and benefits of the urban forest. DRG is committed to continuous improvement and customer service. We know that to be the best, we must always work to be better. Davey understands that innovation, experience, technology, quality assurance, and communication — provided by a well- trained, professional staff —are keys to successful projects and client satisfaction. Davey Resource Group 15 0// 161 1 V Personnel Profiles Shawn William Bruzda is an urban forester and biologist with Davey Resource Group. Mr. Bruzda performs tree inventories for cemeteries, golf courses, military bases, municipalities, parks, and university and corporate campuses. Mr. Bruzda is also responsible for the creation and dissemination of tree inventory management plans, as well as reports dealing with various applied urban forestry topics. He has extensive experience with hand -held and pen tablet GIS and GPS data collection units and their respective software applications. He has served as project manager on numerous large- and small -scale municipal tree inventories throughout the United States. He has also participated in the collection of data for i -Tree Streets. I -Tree Streets, developed by the U.S. Forest Service, is a model used for analyzing the benefits of urban street trees as well as the costs of managing them. Mr. Bruzda also assists with tree preservation and planting plans, as well as tree appraisals. As a biologist with Davey Resource Group, Mr. Bruzda participates in ecological surveys involving fish and macroinvertebrate identification and data analysis. He also assists with wetlands delineation surveys, bat mist -net surveys, endangered species and habitat studies, secondary source reviews, and technical report writing. Proficient with AutoCAD® and ArcGIS' software, Mr. Bruzda creates maps for a variety of natural resource studies. He is a Certified Arborist (OH- I342A) through the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and member of the Ohio Chapter of the ISA. Mr. Bruzda is a graduate of Kent State University, having received a Bachelor of Science degree in biological sciences with an emphasis in aquatic ecology. Aren Dottenwhy is an urban forester and project manager with Davey Resource Group. She also has the responsibility of business development for Davey Resource Group's urban forestry consulting services in the state of Indiana. As a project manager, Ms. Dottenwhy specializes in urban forestry consulting projects for state agencies, municipalities, golf courses, zoos, cemeteries, and parks. She has directed the street and park tree inventory in Lakeland, Florida and assisted with similar large -scale inventories in Clearwater, Florida; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and Charlotte, North Carolina. Inventories in her home state of Indiana include Greendale, Valparaiso, Madison, Noblesville, and Edinburgh. Through these inventory projects, Ms. Dottenwhy has gained extensive knowledge of GIS -based data collection and GPS technology, tree and palm identification, and tree risk assessment. She is proficient at writing urban and community forestry management plans. Accordingly, she has developed a thorough understanding of the role tree inventories play in urban forest management. Ms. Dottenwhy has coordinated the collection of reference city data for the development of i -Tree Streets in Boise, Idaho; Honolulu, Hawaii; Indianapolis, Indiana; and Orlando, Florida. i -Tree Streets is a component of the U.S. Forest Service's state -of -the -art, peer reviewed, urban and community forestry analysis and benefits assessment software suite called i -Tree. With the experience Ms. Dottenwhy gained in reference city data collection, she has written street tree resource analysis reports for Chattanooga, Tennessee and St. Louis, Missouri. The data analysis in each report is based on the community's reported forest structure and benefit assessment provided by i -Tree Streets software. Ms. Dottenwhy has also coordinated and managed the fieldwork and data collection of the Indiana Statewide Urban Sample Inventory (SUSI) in connection with the Indiana DNR Community and Urban Forestry program. The SUSI project will capture the structure, function, and value of Indiana's urban forests through the utilization of i -Tree Streets. In addition to these project management responsibilities, Ms. Dottenwhy also consults with the Town of Avon, Indiana, providing proper plant health care direction concerning the management of Avon's public tree resource. Ms. Dottenwhy is also responsible for developing and managing natural Davey Resource Group 16 C 161 1 61 resource consulting projects throughout Indiana. She works closely with state agencies, municipalities, and universities in the field of urban forestry to maintain and expand Davey's business presence in urban forestry in Indiana. Ms. Dottenwhy is a Certified Arborist (IN- 3190A) through the International Society of Arboriculture, and a member of the Indiana Arborist Association, Indiana Urban Forestry Council, and Indiana Park and Recreation Association. Ms. Dottenwhy is a graduate of Purdue University and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in natural resource management focusing on human dimensions and communication. Justin Stratton, B.S., supervises the IT group at Davey and is a database programmer and analyst by training. He also is the TreeKeeper® product manager. He has over six years of real world experience in database programming, TreeKeeper® technical support, network client support, and hand -held device software development. Mr. Stratton has experience programming in Visual Studio.net, Cold Fusion, VB6, VBA, C /C++, JavaScript, HTML, Clipper 5.2, FoxPro 2.6, and developing applications in PenDragon Forms and Access 97 and 2000. Mr. Stratton is also a registered Palm OS developer. As a TreeKeeper® 7 product manager, he is responsible for assisting Davey Resource Group's sales personnel, end user support, design specifications, and needs assessment for potential clients. Mr. Stratton holds a Bachelor of Science degree in computer science from Kent State University. Shirley Trier, M.S., is a regional project developer for Davey Resource Group working in the southeast, mid - Atlantic, and northeast regions of the United States. Shirley works with municipalities, businesses, construction companies, and not - for - profit organizations developing and administrating urban forestry projects, including computerized tree inventories, GIS canopy assessments, i -Tree inventories and analyses, and tree preservation plans. Shirley also develops management and planting plans that maximize ecological and social tree benefits to increase the sustainability of urban areas and augment green infrastructure. Prior to joining Davey, Ms. Trier worked for the State of Florida Division of Forestry as an urban forestry grant administrator. Shirley has several years of municipal experience managing parks and natural areas in southern Florida for Broward County with duties ranging from day -to -day facility and grounds management, to the development of park operations manuals and natural resource and emergency management plans. She is a Certified Arborist and Municipal Specialist (FL- 5512AM) through the International Society of Arboriculture and holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in geology from the University of Iowa. Shirley is certified in Natural Lands Management through the University of Florida IFAS and The Nature Conservancy. She is the vice president of Greenscape of Jacksonville and is on the fundraising committee of the First Tee of Jacksonville. Davey Resource Group 17 91i 161 1 01 Experience and References Davey Resource Group has conducted more than 300 municipal urban forestry projects, the vast majority involving tree inventories, management plans, natural resource assessments, and installation of tree management software. Projects for the following communities and institutions demonstrate our versatility and ability to provide urban forestry services in a timely and efficient manner with an unwavering focus on quality. City of Coral Gables, Florida Contact: Daniel Keys 305 - 460 -5130 Coral Gables opted to upgrade their TreeManagerTM for Windows® software to Davey Resource Group's TreeKeeper® 7 subscription software. Davey provided a SQL Server 2005 backend database, the application itself, and the software necessary for accessing the database remotely in the field. Davey also sent a technical support specialist to spend a day with Coral Gables' staff to train them on how to use the TreeKeeper® 7 software package, as well as identify differences in the system as compared to TreeManagerTM for Windows®. In addition, Davey was able to identify and correct a variety of tree records that had incorrect GIS information, adding additional accuracy to an inventory that, at the time, was nearly 10 years old. City of DeLand, Florida Contact: Mariellen Calabro 352- 286 -5365 Davey Resource Group performed a public street tree inventory in the City of DeLand. To meet the needs of the City and complete the City's existing inventory, Davey customized the inventory data fields to match the City's existing tree management database and collected data in targeted areas of the City. Data were collected on 3,600 street trees using pen - tablet computers. Tree locations were determined using a combination of GIS and GPS technology. The inventory data were delivered to the City via Davey's TreeKeeper® 7 standalone software. City of Inverness, Florida Contact: Russell Kreager 352- 726 -2321 Davey Resource Group performed a public street tree inventory in the City of Inverness. Using pen - tablet computers, data were collected on more than 2,600 street trees. Tree locations were determined using a combination of GIS and GPS technology and information about individual trees was collected by an ISA Certified Arborist. The inventory data were delivered to the City via Davey's TreeKeeper® 7 standalone software, where data can be easily queried, tracked, updated, and mapped. City of Jacksonville, Florida Contact: Don Robertson 904 - 472 -2900 Davey Resource Group has conducted a street and park tree inventory for the City of Jacksonville. Davey urban foresters collected data on over 47,000 trees, stumps, and potential planting sites. Each tree was inspected by an ISA Certified Arborist, who assessed tree health and structure, evaluated site conditions, and recommended prioritized maintenance needs. Tree attribute and location data were collected using pen - tablet computers. Tree locations were determined using a combination of GIS and GPS technology. The data were loaded into Davey's TreeKeeper ®7 subscription software which allows the City to plan and schedule work, print reports, and maintain an up -to -date inventory. Color, large- format wall maps were also produced to display the results of the neighborhood inventories. In addition to the Davey Resource Group 18 161 101 street and park tree inventory, the City of Jacksonville commissioned a specialized management plan for Mandarin Road's "Patriarch Trees ". Mandarin Road is designated as a scenic and historic road, and the centuries -old live oaks lining the street make it a unique and special public right -of -way. This plan summarized the urban forest condition and characteristics for all public trees along Mandarin Road, and made individual tree preservation recommendations for the historic trees. Davey analyzed all of Jacksonville's inventory data using the U.S. Forest Service's i -Tree Streets model to quantify the environmental, economic, and aesthetic benefits public trees provide to the City of Jacksonville. City of Jacksonville, Florida Contact: Don Robertson 904 - 472 -2900 Davey Resource Group conducted a street and park tree inventory for the City of Jacksonville. Davey inventory arborists collected data on over 47,000 trees, stumps, and potential planting sites. Each tree was inspected by a Davey inventory arborist who assessed tree health and structure, evaluated site conditions, and recommended prioritized maintenance needs. In addition to the street and park tree inventory, the City of Jacksonville commissioned a specialized management plan for Mandarin Road's "Patriarch Trees." Mandarin Road is designated as a scenic and historic road, and the centuries -old live oaks lining the street make it a unique and special public right -of -way. This plan summarized the urban forest condition and characteristics for all public trees along Mandarin Road, and made individual tree preservation recommendations for the historic trees. Davey analyzed all of Jacksonville's inventory data using the U.S. Forest Service's i -Tree Streets model to quantify the environmental, economic, and aesthetic benefits public trees provide to the City of Jacksonville. City of Lakeland, Florida Contact: Brian Dick 863 - 834 -2234 Davey Resource Group completed a public tree inventory of 79,891 sites for the City of Lakeland. These sites included trees, palms, stumps, and potential planting sites along roughly 741 lane -miles of paved city streets and 108 park/public spaces located in and around the City. The goal of the inventory was to restore the urban forest canopy while improving and updating the comprehensive program to maintain an important resource and asset. The inventory included the location of all sites using pen tablet computers. Tree locations were determined using a combination of GIS and GPS technology. The inventory data were delivered in ArcViewTM shapefile format along with a Microsoft ExceITM spreadsheet containing the entire tree database. Based on the findings of the inventory, an urban forest management plan and a public tree planting plan were prepared. Both plans provide a comprehensive analysis of the current state of Lakeland's street and park/public tree population. Both documents provide guidelines and an action plan to mitigate potential high -risk trees and help increase canopy cover while emphasizing storm - tolerant species. City of Maitland, Florida Contact: Brian Dierks 407 -539 -6252 Davey Resource Group performed a public street tree inventory in the City of Maitland. Using pen tablet computers, data were collected on more than 6,400 street trees. Tree locations were determined using a combination of GIS and GPS technology and information about individual trees was collected by an ISA Certified Arborist. The inventory data were delivered to the City via Davey's TreeKeepero 7 standalone software, where data can be easily queried, tracked, updated, and mapped. A city-wide tree management plan was developed from the tree inventory data that detailed the management needs of the City's urban forest and an estimated five -year tree maintenance budget. Davey Resource Group 19 ( D(/f 161 1 01 City of Miami Gardens, Florida Contact: Tsahai Codner 305- 622 -8009 Davey Resource Group performed a public street tree inventory in the City of Miami Gardens. Using pen - tablet computers, data were collected on more than 15,000 street trees. Tree locations were determined using a combination of GIS and GPS technology. The inventory data were delivered to the City via Davey's TreeKeeper® 7 subscription software, where data can be easily queried, tracked, updated, and mapped. City of North Miami, Florida Contact: Terry Lytle 305- 892 -8639 Davey Resource Group performed a public street tree inventory in the City of North Miami. To meet the needs of the City, Davey customized the inventory data fields to match the City's existing tree management database. Data were collected on 5,000 street trees in targeted areas of the City using pen - tablet computers. Tree locations were determined using a combination of GIS and GPS technology. The inventory data were delivered to the City via Davey's TreeKeeper® 7 subscription software. At the City's request, Davey transferred 15,000 entries from the City's existing tree management database into TreeKeeper® 7 so the City could continue using the existing data while future data collection phases are carried out. City of Orlando, Florida Contact: Andy Kittsley 407 - 246 -3857 Davey Resource Group conducted a street tree and park tree inventory in the City of Orlando. A team of five Certified Arborists inventoried approximately 95,000 trees, stumps, and potential planting sites using pen - tablet computers. Tree locations were determined using a combination of GIS and GPS technology. The trees were evaluated on several attribute categories, including condition, maintenance needs, and potential risk. The data were processed, analyzed, and incorporated into an urban forest management plan. The management plan provides important guidelines that will enable the City of Orlando to manage their urban forestry resources more efficiently. The management plan presents a comprehensive nine -year plan of maintenance activities designed to reduce potential hazards, create a cyclical pruning program, and establish an annual tree planting program. The inventory data were added to Davey's TreeKeeper® 7 tree management software to help the City plan, schedule, and track tree work, and print detailed reports. Davey Resource Group's IT Department integrated TreeKeeper® 7's subscription capabilities and created a local network. This creates a system linking field computers, used daily by City staff, to their TreeKeeper® 7 network. The TreeKeeper® 7 network enables the City of Orlando to maintain the most up -to -date inventory information. City of Tampa, Florida Contact: Steve Graham 813 - 931 -2639 Davey Resource Group conducted a comprehensive inventory of public trees in an area known as East Tampa. Over 1,000 public trees were inventoried using i -Tree compatible data attribute fields. At the conclusion of the inventory, Davey trained City staff members on data collection techniques, data analysis, and other aspects of running i -Tree applications. The training consisted of four hours of field and classroom training regarding using the i -Tree software applications and generating reports. Experienced Davey personnel conducted the training sessions and supplied each participant with a user's guide. Davey Resource Group 20 161 1 01 City of Winter Haven, Florida Contact: Andy Palmer 863 - 291 -5656 Davey Resource Group conducted a comprehensive tree inventory of 20,000 trees and potential planting sites for Winter Haven located in central Florida. Tree data were collected using pen - tablet computers. Tree locations were determined using a combination of GIS and GPS technology. Additionally, species composition, maintenance requirements, condition, and population characteristics were outlined in an urban forest management plan prepared by Davey. The management plan is designed to assist in urban forest management by outlining pruning schedules, advising on tree risk management, and planting program development. An operations review of Winter Haven's forestry program was also performed to analyze the City's current operations. The operations review was used to improve the City's forestry program and help it run more efficiently. A two -day tree planting and pruning training was also held for City staff which included both classroom and field training. Collier County, Florida Contact: Bob Petersen 239 - 774 -8192 Davey Resource Group conducted a tree inventory and irrigation feature inventory of 10,000 trees and irrigation features for Collier County, Florida. Tree and irrigation feature data were collected using pen- tablet computers. Davey assessed tree health and structure, evaluated site conditions, and recommended prioritized maintenance needs in accordance with ANSI A300 standards. Irrigation features including pump hoses, valve boxes, water meters, scorpios, and irrinets were located and identified by type and serial numbers. The inventory data were uploaded into Davey's TreeKeeper® 7 tree management software to help the County plan, schedule, and track tree work inter - departmentally. Davey Resource Group 21 0/" 161 IbI TreeKeeper5 Users in Florida Altamonte Springs Andy Capuano Network 7.5 2004 Collier County Bob Petersen Subscription 7.7 2010 Coral Gables Daniel Keys Network 7.6 2008 Deerfield Beach Chad Grecsek Subscription 7.7 2009 DeLand Mariellen Calabro Standalone 7.6 2008 Inverness Russ Kreager Standalone 7.7 2008 Jacksonville Don Robertson Subscription 7.7 2006 Longwood Debbie Renfro Subscription 7.7 2008 Maitland Brian Dierks Standalone 7.6 2008 Miami Gardens Tsahai Codner Subscription 7.7 2006 Naples Heather Shields Network 7.6 2005 North Miami Keith Miller Subscription 7.7 2008 Orlando Andy Kittsley Network 7.7 2007 Davey Resource Group z "*k Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. i Advisory Committee �] 2885 Horseshoe Drive South D]E V E II V Naples FL 34104 JUL 2 ]. 2010 March 16, 2010 B ' " " " " "' ° " " " " "' AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order 11. Attendance 111. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: February 16, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard C. FY -2011 Budget Review VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architect's Report A. McGee & Associates B. Windham Studio VIII. Old Business IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment b li Fiala Halas Henning. Coyle ., ---- -- Coletta - The next meeting is April 20, 2010 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Misc. Cares: Date: T) 81 Item 90 161 1 d� Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. • Advisory Committee [ z885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 February 16, 2010 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:33 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger (Excused), Helen Carella, John Weber County: Darryl Richard - Project Manager, Tessie Sillery - Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich - Landscape Operations Manager Others: Mike McGee — McGee & Associates, James Stephens — Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty — Kelly Services III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add. V. C. FY -2011 Budget Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as submitted Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 19, 2010 Betty Schudel moved to approve the January 19, 2010 minutes as submitted Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report — Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) o Available Improvements General $410,879.50 Dale Lewis questioned if the Executive Summary went before the BCC. Darryl Richard replied the Executive Summary was approved February 9, 2010 by the BCC for the following: • Bid Awards- Bonness and Hannula Landscaping • Budget Amendment $344,000.00 Caroline Soto stated the $344,000.00 was not reflected in the Budget Report. She will inquire with the Budget Office when the Budget Amendment will be included in the Budget Report. Dale Lewis stated John Weber is excused for the January 19, 2010 meeting. 161 1 DS B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard: (See attached) Phase II Project • Project is underway • Completion date - March 13, 2010 • Contract extension may be required as (Nursery) Plant Material supplies were damaged during the cold weather: — Available Plant size is smaller than preferred — Crown of Thorn installation will be delayed until mid March Discussion took place on smaller Plant Materials that were installed in (2) beds. It was suggested to monitor the Plant growth in lieu of installing replacements due to the Plant Material shortage. Dale Lewis inquired if (Phase I) Sod repairs were complete. Jim Stephens responded negative. He stated Sod repairs will commence when the construction is complete. After discussion it was concluded Phase II Project will proceed on open items, excluding the deferred Crown of Thorn installation. Staff announced Lane Closure Fees were paid to date by Fund 111. Additionally Radio Road MSTU is responsible for future Lane Closure Fees. It was determined Phase III Project Lane Closures should occur in May as fees are significantly lower ($300.00.) Caroline Soto relayed (per Budget Office) the Budget Amendment ($344,000.00) Transfer should take place by week ending February 21, 2010. Staff will notify the Committee when the Budget Amendment Transfer is confirmed. Discussion resumed on the Bid Awards and Phase III Project. It was perceived (by Staff) Phase III Construction can commence in April 2010. The Committee was in agreement to start the Project as soon as possible. Based on the substantial amount of the Contract Bid Award(s) Dale Lewis requested to reduce the 10% Contingency (Motion January 19, 2010 minutes.) The motion was amended to read. Dale Lewis moved to go with a 5% contingency on the new (Phase III) Project. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Darryl Richard reviewed quote from AG TRONIX ($804.00) for an Irrigation Control unit. Dale Lewis expressed concern of additional cost ($15,000 - $20,000) due to items that were not included in the original bid. Staff clarified the new Controller is a By County Item and is required due to Motorola equipment upgrades. OA 161 1 68 Dale Lewis emphasized the necessity of providing potential expenditures so the Committee can Budget monies appropriately. Dale Lewis moved to approve $804.00 for AG TRONIX (Proposal) to pay for two new keypads. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. C. FY -2011 Budget Darryl Richard announced the FY -2011 Budget will be reviewed at the March 16, 2010 meeting. Staff will mail the Preliminary Budget to the Committee for review. REVIEW APPLICANT (See attached) Tessie Sillery announced Helen Carella reapplied to serve on the Radio Road MSTU Committee. Betty Schudel moved to accept (recommend to the Board of County Commissioners for approval) Helen Carella for another term on the Radio Road MSTU. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Darryl Richard announced a Public hearing is scheduled February 23, 2010 for the Budget Amendment ($344,000.00.) VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT- Hannula Jim Stephens reported yard waste is continually thrown over the fence (Berkshire Lakes.) Betty Schudel responded the issue will be in the March HOA News Letter. Jim Stephens reported Devonshire digging has begun. Darryl Richard conveyed Sod repair is included in the Contract (Southern Signal.) Mike McGee reported: • The excavation is removing the backfill against the curb • Did not observe locating markings by Collier County Irrigation • Digging will occur across the Irrigation Main Line (Radio Road MSTU) Jim Stephens stated a police car ( #26$) is parking in the medians. He will email a photo of the car parked in the median to Staff. VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT A. McGee & Associates — Mike McGee - Previously discussed VI. B. Windham Studios -None VIII. OLD BUSINESS -None IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Review Applicant- Previously discussed V. C. 3 161 ib� X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS —None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee - 4m� Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented` or amended The next meeting is March 16, 2010 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 f0 fb V Of N A W N O tO OD V O tr A W N O (O O V O) D A W N> O D v z z r m D D <Z z m e O m m� c c� x oe D m m j m D D m D OO m Dmm Z —x =MSOmzrzxcmmzG» pmxDD<m�-x <m z mrm?D m WM>p T�� T n r mm��nCm < Z� T TT- my0 c7Dy W_OCmomXnmDZm zXmQZmozmw,;OxXnTCnzop�r- Z X OZZ -+zmDmmxao� m�O��zaiozNm * *xmm�p�0 CO) Zfn(n C 5NTI -�Xr -� D cnm >O- imCnmDDOOCZ�m CO) m O cn z-<Omzco� - mXM �mm 0 mmOmov�K0- � nm z mmG�(�mzXa)x 0 Cmm� zzOG)� >C��DD z OD x Xmm0C: nDr rDCO u� —ommz mm X z mm 0 �2� .2 z r- ;u nX cn ai < n D m m Z < K C r m -+ Cl) -I < m A O -i D p m W (� p m m � O g X EA IEA IfA Ifn Ifn fn I EA IEA IM IEfl IN IEA Efl EA EA EA fA fA EA fA fA fA EA fn fn EA fn 6,6 I fA Efl EA EA fn I W EA (A fA (A m v o rn o g f J O — C � w e n n g 0 C I I 1-1-i 1 A >1 I 1 I 1 En IEA IEnIM lfn l(A IEn fA En (n f) (n En cn En (n (n (n En (n (- 10)1fn Ifo (A fo En (A I(A Ito EA fo En fn I1'll A f NnO C � W C m W O C O O C i A O C r 69"If 1 > N 0 cn cn (A w O W A (Do .NP A O O 90 D W C/) p O cD (D O OD J r J -4 O -� M EA Hl fn fA EA (n fA fA w fA w fn fA fn fA (n (A EA EA fn v1 (n m w A U A O N W J (i cn U co w N co W W m V J V (0 V O W A N O A N cn O Cn O) OD O O 10 O) OD O C cn (D O C O O V N A O m W N O (D N w O w N Cn N O) A (A O O O (A O W (D O C) m Vljv)140 " w fn (A fA En fn EA (A fA (A w En EA EA E0)140-(n En (n fA EA En I(A IfA fA (A En (n fA EA fA fA [CZ: in OD O OD W Cn W Cn A N cT W O(D > W O O m O (n CA A V O W O O O CD C) c0 O (T Cn O O O» O O CO O c0 n n O n n. n_ W W m O m(D (it O O N C) O b c) CD m(D 0 0 O O O O O IO a IC) O O A O O(D 0 0 0 0 --� 0 0 0 CD (T O (D O 8 0 Z s 8 0 0) 7C > C 2 2 2 T TI TI T D D D I m o O v c) (u (� m n v v Ili v o 0 0 (D (o (o O_ ' to (D (O 7 c 7 7 7 r Cp O'S O O O (/) c'> (D fN 90 90 7 N N N 7 7 < WD v v m D. CL N Z 0 0 0 j a d O. O N T C) N -0 "O - N 3 0 O O co /) 7 7 7 CD ( (n A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (n (n cn p cn (n cn u, m w m m p m m m m cn m C) C) C) - b o C) C) CD O o CD - o 0 0 0 0 CD O CD (o <OOOOO b b0(p 000000 CD :D J W W 'p D A A (l( Cn --� W 61 (T A A O) J D) J J W J co (� J J J A V A A N O .< w W co J A Cn W .< Cn c0 J N W A A N co co O N A W A N O) A O (D OD C) 0 0 CD 0 C) CD 0 COp Cop 0 8 b o b O OD (b W OD W Cn (O c0 m 0) O (,O Cn CT Z Z CT (1) (n W (il Z Z (n Z W cn W Cn Z C)) C) J C) D D O o O J W D D N D (D O m w D w CA CT O) W W � CT A Cn (D C) cn Oo0 C) A N(noo CD m-0 D N N N W W 5 n O N N m� T ET ET Cn a 7 _� m a n n () n c o (<D n a (o cQ 5 v CD -400 3mmm°- )°- )�m mm ` 7C)0= rp0� DDD � j o 9)m Cl m W n A A CD N m� (a j CD CID E. cn O v N O 7 3 �o + U) CD CD CD D) 'V j O V,5 N 0< Z� O O ... to 7 (D C - C) O EA (A (A (A EA (A (A fA fA fA fA fA fA (A (A fA En EA Efl EA EA (fl fn O- -� O Cr O (D IV A O) A co A m co (n A cD O_ O !P -• J W W (P m V O A A '' W O (n N A O t0 OD -+ A V W J O O (n W m A (n O O A O O O O A 0 C) 0 fA to EA fA EA (fl (A (A fA fA (A (A (A fA fA EA EA EA fA (A (A fn NIN > Cn (b N W A W m ->• J J W> > A O W N V (T OD N W O) --� W -+ OD A cT N (0 O J co J (P m N O O OD W O A A N (D -+ O OD O O A W (O (A (n O O (D > W Cn O CO (T O V O J O A J Cif Cn » 0 C) OD O W (O W N O V (T O O O MT (It O O O) 0 0 0 0 0 (D O (A O W D c CL 1O a (D Q. n O CD A co D O O > M Di C - C� 3 v V J O (O (D y Coco J (D W N A J O N -n 0 O -� -� W N (T W O I N W W A A 0) A N N CO O O N (b (T Cn (n (D (T O W O (n (J) A J J tO (O N m O Cn Cn O Ci) C) C) C) (A 0) > -+ O N C) � Ia' O N c0 tb O (b O O O O O A O O A O V O O O O O O O O O O O C) O J O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) O O O > O > O O O O O O O O O O O O W W V O 0 CD 0 C) C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 » A O 0 C) CD C) C) 0 0 0 O O O A CD 0 O to O to O 0 0 O 1 En IEA IEnIM lfn l(A IEn fA En (n f) (n En cn En (n (n (n En (n (- 10)1fn Ifo (A fo En (A I(A Ito EA fo En fn I1'll A f NnO C � W C m W O C O O C i A O C r 69"If 1 > N 0 cn cn (A w O W A (Do .NP A O O 90 D W C/) p O cD (D O OD J r J -4 O -� M EA Hl fn fA EA (n fA fA w fA w fn fA fn fA (n (A EA EA fn v1 (n m w A U A O N W J (i cn U co w N co W W m V J V (0 V O W A N O A N cn O Cn O) OD O O 10 O) OD O C cn (D O C O O V N A O m W N O (D N w O w N Cn N O) A (A O O O (A O W (D O C) m Vljv)140 " w fn (A fA En fn EA (A fA (A w En EA EA E0)140-(n En (n fA EA En I(A IfA fA (A En (n fA EA fA fA [CZ: in OD O OD W Cn W Cn A N cT W O(D > W O O m O (n CA A V O W O O O CD C) c0 O (T Cn O O O» O O CO O c0 n n O n n. n_ W W m O m(D (it O O N C) O b c) CD m(D 0 0 O O O O O IO a IC) O O A O O(D 0 0 0 0 --� 0 0 0 CD (T O (D O 8 0 Z s 8 0 0) 7C > C 2 2 2 T TI TI T D D D I m o O v c) (u (� m n v v Ili v o 0 0 (D (o (o O_ ' to (D (O 7 c 7 7 7 r Cp O'S O O O (/) c'> (D fN 90 90 7 N N N 7 7 < WD v v m D. CL N Z 0 0 0 j a d O. O N T C) N -0 "O - N 3 0 O O co /) 7 7 7 CD ( (n A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A (n (n cn p cn (n cn u, m w m m p m m m m cn m C) C) C) - b o C) C) CD O o CD - o 0 0 0 0 CD O CD (o <OOOOO b b0(p 000000 CD :D J W W 'p D A A (l( Cn --� W 61 (T A A O) J D) J J W J co (� J J J A V A A N O .< w W co J A Cn W .< Cn c0 J N W A A N co co O N A W A N O) A O (D OD C) 0 0 CD 0 C) CD 0 COp Cop 0 8 b o b O OD (b W OD W Cn (O c0 m 0) O (,O Cn CT Z Z CT (1) (n W (il Z Z (n Z W cn W Cn Z C)) C) J C) D D O o O J W D D N D (D O m w D w CA CT O) W W � CT A Cn (D C) cn Oo0 C) A N(noo CD m-0 D N N N W W 5 n O N N m� T ET ET Cn a 7 _� m a n n () n c o (<D n a (o cQ 5 v CD -400 3mmm°- )°- )�m mm ` 7C)0= rp0� DDD � j o 9)m Cl m W n A A CD N m� (a j CD CID E. cn O v N O 7 3 �o + U) CD CD CD D) 'V j O V,5 N 0< Z� O O ... to 7 (D C - C) O EA (A (A (A EA (A (A fA fA fA fA fA fA (A (A fA En EA Efl EA EA (fl fn O- -� O Cr O (D IV A O) A co A m co (n A cD O_ O !P -• J W W (P m V O A A '' W O (n N A O t0 OD -+ A V W J O O (n W m A (n O O A O O O O A 0 C) 0 fA to EA fA EA (fl (A (A fA fA (A (A (A fA fA EA EA EA fA (A (A fn NIN > Cn (b N W A W m ->• J J W> > A O W N V (T OD N W O) --� W -+ OD A cT N (0 O J co J (P m N O O OD W O A A N (D -+ O OD O O A W (O (A (n O O (D > W Cn O CO (T O V O J O A J Cif Cn » 0 C) OD O W (O W N O V (T O O O MT (It O O O) 0 0 0 0 0 (D O (A O W D c CL 1O a (D Q. n O CD A (A I(A w fn fo co D rn c) 7 n a c (A A W M Di C - CO (3) CO O N 3 v V J O (O (D y Coco J (D W N A J O N (A I(A w fn fo -1 y O 3 v A A C -n 0 O W N O (D v ' S z'II vo o'�p (p,J(a D Nov O_ 00 3 O CO) C 16 I 1 O� March 16, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Project Report (R -22) - ON 11.0 L.D — DEVONSHIRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; 7- 21 -09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install new shrubs — now that new drip line has been installed: Total Project cost estimated per contract 09 -5111 R rates: $8,700.00; 8- 25 -09: Committee agrees with recommendation from Consultant (McGee) to hold off on planting shrubs for areas where we have known issues with tree roots. (This condition applies to many of the areas with shrubs dying back) 03- 16 -10: Request to review shrubs from community received by staff, Committee to review. (R -18) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE III PROJECT (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO 4500105824) 01- 19 -10: Bids received BONNESS INC. $354,673.10; PART B LAND. & IRG. HANNULA LANDSCAPE INC. $224,588.22 (with alternates #2 and #3 selected) TOTAL PART A & PART B: $579,261.32 (Note: $410,879.50 available in Capital Outlay); Budget Amendment is necessary in order to recognize `carryforward' to pay for project. 02- 09 -10: Board of County Commissioners approval of award to Hannula/Bonness 03- 16 -10: Contract Issue is pending. (R -15) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE II -B & Phase I -A (II -B is from Kings Way /Briarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I -A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE: 02 -11 -2010 FINAL COMPLETION DATE: 03 -13 -2010 01- 19 -10: Project mainline and laterals installed Updated Lane Closure fees indicates 9 lane closure days at $600.00 each day; staff closely monitoring lane closures to minimize. 02- 16 -10: Hannula reports 12 days of lane closures to date: 10 x $600 (during Jan.) = $6,000 and 2 x $1,000 (during Feb) = $2,000; Fees totaling $8,000 have been paid by Fund 112 03- 16 -10: Completion date revised to April 5, 2010. (R -19) — ON GOING: MAINTENANCE CONSULTING CONTRACT 8- 25 -09: Ongoing Maintenance Consulting Services from McGee & Associates; LA Services Contract to be reviewed in the Fall for BVO or rotation per `agreement letter' with Radio Road MSTU. 01- 19 -10: Per Committee recommendation McGee Contract to be extended till end of March to cover project activity to `finish up to Livingston Rd'; then Windham is to take over maintenance consulting activities. (R -14) — ON GOING: MAINTENCE CONTRACT — BID# 09 -5111R -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTD/MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" 8- 25 -09: Hannula maintenance Contract #09 -5111 R — Ongoing with 3 one year renewal periods X 'i R d d a c C 3 O 9 Y yo L � m r 41 0 O� U f/1 0 N d a 0 0 i' n c A d C d Q c U d O U u C a D 7 U) E m e 3 f.. Q J 7 N 2 O U v Z c v O d E i 0 a" E J 161 1 b% Radio Road M.S.T.U. Maintenance Consulting Services per Contract # 08 -5060 CO 1 eY COUL'? MY March 15, 2010 Mr. Darryl Richard, Project Manager Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 RE: RADIO ROAD M.S.T.U. Maintenance Consulting Services per the Fixed Term Professional Landscape Architectural Services Contract #08 -5060. Dear Mr. Richard: As requested, we have prepared the following scope of services for your review and approval. This proposal includes maintenance consulting services to be provided on a monthly basis generally coordinated with the M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee monthly meetings. In addition, the limited refurbishment design services will be quoted on a per project basis due to the unknown requirements of the work to be performed. Understandina of project and required deliverables We understand this maintenance consulting scope of services to be for the residents of the Radio Road MSTU area to preserve and perpetuate the health and vigor of the existing median and right -of -way landscaping while thoughtfully planning for its future enhancement together with the MSTU Committee and Collier County staff. This will involve monthly site reviews, monthly MSTU Committee meeting attendance, preparation of monthly status reports and review of maintenance contractor report sheets. Additionally, as landscape architect design consultant, Windham Studio will complete miscellaneous design services from time to time to refurbish the project areas as directed and prioritized by the Committee. Lastly, we will assist the committee and county staff in reviewing and refining the annual maintenance specifications for the project areas and assist in the bidding process. Proiect Scope As the primary team leader, Scott Windham will personally attend all advisory committee meetings and project site walk throughs. He will also review the General Maintenance Report Sheets and prepare monthly written reports to inform the committee and county project manager of project status, contractor performance and related action /resolution items. The monthly status reports will be submitted to the county project manager a minimum of 3 days prior to the MSTU meetings. In addition to the monthly maintenance consultation duties, Scott Windham will provide limited refurbishment design services and construction observation on an as requested basis including preparation of miscellaneous planting plans, specifications, etc. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000363 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 3.1135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: Scott @windhamstudio.com www. windhams tudio. corn 1 Radio Road M.S.T.U. Maintenance Consulting Services per Contract # 08 -5060 Two other subconsultants will provide support to Scott's primary leadership role including participation in select project site meetings, intermittent review of maintenance reports and assistance with the development of contract maintenance specifications relative to their areas of expertise. Experience and Expertise Related to Landscape Architectural Maintenance Consultinq Scott Windham, Owner of Windham Studio, Inc will act as the prime consultant for this scope of services. As with our roadway beautification design projects as well as our other private development projects, we have assembled a team of the highest qualified professionals in their fields to provide unparalleled expertise for this scope of services. Francis (Frank) X Kitchener, General Manager of Renfroe and Jackson, Inc. will act as the horticultural consultant on the Windham Studio team with expertise in landscape maintenance, pest management and diagnosing plant problems and nutrient deficiencies. Frank earned his B.S. in Ornamental Horticulture from Delaware Valley College of Science and Agriculture and has been managing High -end landscaping for over 15 years most notably as the Grounds and Maintenance Manager for Bay Colony in Pelican Bay for 15 years prior to joining Renfroe and Jackson. He is a Certified Pest Control Operator (CPCO), Certified Arborist, Certified Horticultural Professional (FCHP), Community Association Manager (CAM) and has been certified by the University of Florida in Best Management Practices (BMP). Please see (Exhibit C) Letter of Recommendation. Frank Kitchener has provided landscape maintenance consulting service on the following projects as well as numerous others: • Keewaydin Island- Consult with owners and general contractor to develop a maintenance program for the island landscape upkeep. Trouble shoot insect and fertility issues and make appropriate plant installation recommendations ....... Ongoing ■ Continental Construction, Ed Wilson 253 -9096 ■ City of Naples LA services- Consulted on City of Naples streetscape issues as well as 5th Ave corridor. 1996- 1997. ■ Joe Boscaglia, 213 -7134 ■ NCH Community Hospitals- Consult on maintenance and landscape of hospital grounds at both the North and South campuses. 1989 - 2009....... Ongoing ■ Gene Galsterer, 436 -5347 James C. Abney, Owner of James C. Abney and Associates, Inc. will act as the irrigation consultant on the Windham Studio team with expertise in irrigation design, specification and evaluation. James earned his BLA at Mississippi State University in 1989 and has over 20 years of professional irrigation consulting experience including the irrigation design of all Windham Studio past Collier County roadway beautification projects. He is a State of Texas Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 3.1135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -193? Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www. windhams tudio. com 2 Radio Road M.S.T.U. Maintenance Consulting Services per Contract # 08 -5060 Licensed Irrigator ( #0005636) and a Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Irrigation Association Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor ( #018448). James is Knowledgeable and experienced in irrigation consulting, design, engineering and system construction, as well as in system auditing procedures and advanced system management and scheduling. James Abney has provided irrigation maintenance consulting services on the following projects as well as numerous others: ■ Pelican Bay Development: Reviewed existing systems to determine corrective action necessary to develop an irrigation application management plan. After systems evaluation, provided irrigation design for the entire development's ROW system and developed irrigation system maintenance and application management specifications. • Naplescape 90s, Goodlette -Frank Road — Phase I, Golden Gate Parkway — Phase I: Provided irrigation systems review and catchment cones testing to evaluate the systems' application efficiency and develop a long term remedial and management plan. The City of Naples, Terry Fedelem. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONSULTING SERVICES SCOPE OF SERVICES Windham Studio, Inc. agrees to provide the following services: TASK 1. Attend M.S.T.U. Meetings Windham Studio will attend all Lely Golf Estates Beautification M.S.T.0 publicly advertised meetings. (This proposal assumes one meeting per month with the committee totaling 12 meetings) TASK II. Field Review Meetings Windham Studio will attend two (2) meetings per month in the field with staff to review the project. Project review will include two (2) hours to complete each site visit for a total of four (4) hours per month. Windham Studio will attend all of the monthly walk throughs. Frank Kitchener and James Abney will attend one field meeting every other month. TASK III. Review General Maintenance Report Sheets Windham Studio will review and comment on the "General Maintenance Report Sheets" which are required to be submitted by the Maintenance Contractor with pay request submittals. Windham Studio will review of estimates provided by Contractor with recommendations. TASK IV. Monthly Field Reports Windham Studio will prepare monthly written and /or oral comments and recommendations based upon on -site observations of the M.S.T.U. areas addressing: improvements, landscape plant and irrigation maintenance problems or deficiencies. This includes evaluation of Contractor performance per contract specifications. Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www.windhamstudio.com 3 Radio Road M.S.T.U. Maintenance Consulting Services per Contract # 08 -5060 TASK V. Monthly Field Report Submittal Windham Studio will submit the monthly written report to Collier County Alternative Transportation staff three (3) days prior to M.S.T.U. meeting. OPTIONAL SERVICES: TASK VI. Upon Request Limited Refurbishment Design Services 1. Windham Studio will provide limited (minor) refurbishment design services and observation of installation on an as requested basis, i.e. deliverables /functions might be as follows: a. Diagrammatic area sketch planting plans with a recommended plant list. b. Plant field locations by staking, flagging or paint marking. (All proposed refurbishment services will be presented to the County Project Manager for review prior to presentation to the M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee) TASK VII. Upon Request Miscellaneous Services (Estimated) 1. Windham Studio will provide assistance in developing the contract maintenance specifications for purposes of bidding. 2. Windham Studio will attend pre -bid meetings and assist in preparing any necessary addendum related to maintenance contract bidding. It is assumed that Windham Studio will retain the ability to request that the Project Manager shift funds and /or re- distribute activities between tasks, if tasks require different levels of effort than originally estimated. FEES: Please see attached Fee Schedule Maintenance Consulting Services fees will be billed monthly on a time and materials basis per the attached fee schedule and Contract #08 -5060 Schedule 'B'. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this scope of services in order to assist the county and the Radio Road M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee in maintaining and improving the district. Sincerely, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000 -151 Windham Studio, Inc., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone: (239) 390 -1936 Fax: (239) 390 -1937 Email: scott @windhamstudio.com www. windhams tudio. com E �-n W C_ LL CD N O CT NN A �O OD a m PL X CA CY X N CL 0 0 CL O CSI m 0) NN O N 1 C 16 ;� E ;�n i�n i�l Z; 0 8; co co CD CO OD O 0o OD OD W OD 0 OD CD OD W CD CD W co CO C. O (T OD (T O) (T CT (T O 0 O OD (T W O O) O (A W O n W N N N (ANA ON) (NAB M OD (AJi ?N1 (l� (-,I CAT CT cn (A CAT Ul ol cn In (n en Cn (n cn 0) T rn W W w O a O 0 N N N (�O (O V O 0 co O O O O O A CO CD OD O O C(o co w (O O W f.J N Z rn v O O m Z m Z 0) n -i -1 O v -1 TI O r r 2 0 '. v O O- O � x m m v� -i m D C C v N a i j wl 0 p W R m m S Z �2 D 0 Z n C 1 C-) m a n n 0 O m _{ r r r (D w m S S Z � 2R D n m m O c> m m a m D D (D m m 90 0 m 0 0 v '� d m GD Z'I N a m p m m 1 CD O o O m (c z m m n m z O vii -< O rn `-' GZi t Cl) -� v 3 D Cl) O to m m X 2 n a m —' x ,� z L7 W 0 W C) m w m ,� ZO S v rn DO m ?� 2 to z �" G m m w vri cs D D G v w C x ¢D 90 w C) n m z m C m m m D m m 3 3 m n N m y m m m D D Crn N O v z < v_ _ z O m i O ;o v m V n M 9 C N � 7 a i C fit A 0 yl A W A W t2 O O A O A v 0 A O p V W V (T O 0 (0 O 0f O O O A O O O W O O W O O W O V W O w X n aD CD C m 3 a 0 O O O N N W V (b W o OA 0 O co O O W O 0 W N O O A Cp O pp O V 00 CM OD A O O O O O O O O O O N w O OD a c ao C" co 00 i 00p i N _ N O _ O _ O i N CT t o 0 V V CT CT O (T CT O (T O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O O 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0o a 3 C a (o � ° a (CSpp V rn w -O p0 N pf N W U (T CA O O O O O O SO O O O S O O O O O O O Wxn � o m oa t0 N 71 W `tA0 O O co O N O _ 0 N n W c O O( N N O O N �Q G O COD o 'O O co O O Cn O co wad N OD OD N V O OD 11 CT N N W O O O O co O O O O w O CT O O O O V O O O O A Cf H i O O p S i w O CT _ W CT CT 0 N • N N _ (T W VOwf W O pO _Ol W O O O O S O O O 8 O O O O O O O 1 O O O O O O O O O O O A� C � � e A N � N 0 m (o _ _ rn _ _ w -+ a SO C71 _ V � O) DD W N N CT (T CpQT cli 40 qWO p O 8O O N O O O O O O O C K CL CD O C N CD o CL CL w a i o 3 w i o 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 C v O m m 0 i r ' aD i i 0) 10 n w W A O0 D 8 N OD OD W CT N W O t0 O O Po O O O O n O CT O O O O O O O O O O 0 O In O O O O N O O O C, O a d 7 O O O O O O O d a O O O O O O 0 '0 tCD O �• � 0 ? 'i O O O�j O N fCD O � o � CD C cr 0 CL 3. O CED »' 0 ' N y N-D(p s= (D V S 3 T > �O m -O' Q0 2 C N N N (D 7 N CD CD N (D L, Q �-n W C_ LL CD N O CT NN A �O OD a m PL X CA CY X N CL 0 0 CL O CSI m 0) NN O N 1 C 16 I T W C CL 0 m a (n C? rn NN A IN N n m a X N 0 ;0 N CL O 0 ao C M 40) 03 v N o 7 3 fn c 00 OD w w OD OD OD OD OD 00 OD OD OD OD OD OD 00 CL 7 O (D J O W O O W D O (J N N N O C O O O O W O OO N N N N (D N (D N (D N O O U1 O N O O O (N N N Ln tn AAA_ OD OD OD O O O O O O O O O fT A j OD A(D co O t co t (j CD Q (D (D O N O A + O N O O O O 0 0 O O O o zo 0 O 0 0 o 0 m o CD D D D D c i a m co D X (o G7 m v m Gm 7 D m A z z m G7 47 m m m z 0 - z z z - O m AO m O D O 1 <[ O m p m c m m m v T-n T G 1 N m o 0 0 � Ni = m a N ? D m m m m rn ' m i z D y r m -1� C 0 vi D D v �' W �, Z Z 3 O O O O O C O CI) (D �. -D1 v D co T (D = S � 9� � 0 � m m CD v O r0 n �' c z c m v p Q X y 0-n x m ;0 m ;0 � D -�i D C) z � (o (D y r C) r m v v v v O ( T v ;0 m z z z m n -f N T 11y v CD CD (DA m z v ai czi z O C) n o m D�D D D fn O d X m m � m � z n (vn 0 1 m r 0 n -DI to O Or M OD ca co N W m m O z v m m Dv Do O � 90 � m 0 0 ;0 m n n n m Tml m m � co m r 9 ae m m z co C (9p 7 N O. W V O) D) ,p m N A A�A A OD N O O O $ O A $ O O O O O O (0.7 O O O K (D) T C 3 d H a O a (d N N V (� O V� O � O O O .;� ? O O W W W fT N W O O O O O O O O O O CL c CL CL 00 _ M N f4 r c O (00 N N O C. A tD w O W O to O O m O V O V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W 3 C a Z 0 �a S _ . C r N N G U7 O 4 N W W A A pppp�ppp O" O O O O O O O O O o C, O O O O O —1 O O O O O O O O O k (O`) (D) � � d c N O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 O W O n 3 a _ W N A N N O O V O -4 O (� O O O O O O O O O O O A co O O O O O O O O O O O O O A n d w (D H Of O s N O) (O O O N N W N W (O O (D V p.I O O O O c(DD a s (� c N .3► J _ o o o W O O O O _tom O O O O O o O o O O w O W O O % (�C V J2 go C. fOA 0 as 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d J cn M ON) N 'P C7 V O V N `CN) 0) W W ' O O O O W pA V V O O O O O O O O O O O O W O W O .W. O w 0 O C- 0 7 I T W C CL 0 m a (n C? rn NN A IN N n m a X N 0 ;0 N CL O 0 ao C M 40) 03 v N o 7 3 fn c I W C a 0 m a w rn N (P A (n �CD a m a X N 6 o M - o W N � v rn N 0 A o W --I C �� OD co O� a `8 co O 0 O 0 o O O O Q 0 0 v 0 0 o 0 D m O o Z Z O�y C ` d d m m m v C W c m V � 'a W K N tD C x 6 C m Z T 3 O IO Z D tQ N W -i -n m w ` m (n co ID ID to H n O r r m O X 4X0 MQ c CD y r r r D QOj A W N � V tAD to A A O O m W N O W V O N - o m D o x n v c CD y M � — a eA c A N N O W W W W W � wOw f0 � qp W p V O A N O (O v c C Q a o a A O O O O O O O O O c 3 CL 'D to a J C a s 41 N o o W W W O O O O O O O O O O o m D w x o c o _? co {� N N N O O O O O 0D o 0 to 3 c 69 N p 3 p� W O W W N pp� (n O 0))t A O OD W (n O N v O O N ca m o o c r 1 C N N A N N C i < n <D O X ` n 3 m e nD Z 0 3 o m a m a c vi EA o CL < Q Q -I D' 3 3 m O m m m m CAD c w0 00 w °. m o 0 0 D o g o X c M m T m 3 Q — J J N m 0 O A N W p O V .�. N 7 A O N co CL x p N N v :4 tli Cn r Ch t0 O (0) n fH fH V O O 3 O O O O O O O O -n 'n -n m ;i o < 9 5' ID v x m a o °v In 0 0 CD a rn w o (D CD y O O O O O V N i O W O lD 61 1a) Xv p co co CD W `D A N A \ N (D O O O O O O O O t00 Uoi O (�O a ° w v � c c 0 o < ID N Iv o d °J o CD o CD A N { C, V O O O c00 W OD W Q N (n fA EA V O S O O O O O O O O p = C O y M CIO N n I W C a 0 m a w rn N (P A (n �CD a m a X N 6 o M - o W N � v rn N 0 A o W --I C O V Q 6 J 6 _ N N 6 L � I m \ N N I 1 n}, O Q Q X N fm? i Ln 0 c O � i r S � N 0 F� C 0 U 9 C L � � � F p] 6 9 c N C T Y Y s Y T 6 n}, O Q Q X N fm? i Ln 0 c O � i r S � N 0 F� 16 I 1 O`� W W W W W W W W O p V m U A W N O W tN O w V N m m C, W N N N (» D p V > -+ W >> > O V m m N> Z7 -I Q7 00 1 -1 (� O O T p r r p r [n Z m 0 Z m -� -� Z C� C� . z Z ?i O C) Omm cc �1 �D �o-lm0r --E -DC D I�r -� OT -Z> �l> m Tmc itncn �pp DD V mx I--i zr x mx z I* m m Z z z om Mm _+ m D z z v c� z z m o Z D z m m z z m m= D x Xmm mmi, m -gym N�DmGZDxZ- z- nnnmm, T ,MMCMKi�o m�0 c�yy y��mGlm�wim DZm zxm iz mnz my��T TrnzorD -rD z T OZZ �rZ mymp m66g m '<p�X' ZO0L Eq-x�� Tl��p�p Z �n� z��ZG7(7zZ�7_mT ZmX �mmmmzm��D�D>CX2��D 0 G) z O m O m m c 6 p p� Z D W i D � ,Z� p x m m X v x m m G) r m D mnuCi CO ZN DD (nrD --�= Zm�y �m z mm p r rx p OZ m m n >(-(n C) nX mm zm mX c(D-rm < p > fn G) Z n K n co 0 Z D 0 n � � EA (A W (n En fn w EA (n (n (n w (n (A fndEnlEAlfn 694A (A (nl(nlfn (n fn co ro" Of i O J N W O m A V (D i O O O O A O O O O O, OIOCl0C) >I. En EA EA Efl In M Of A V (n co fn En fo fn 1 cn w w w > J V O O O O V W O O A A O O w fn "1EA N W CD m 3 m v r d � N t1N IV � T T T d { � m g ra � 2: - m m w m m m w J 6 a 0 A j ro � w ca m >> w A-N inw N dD U, Cn Cn (n A m O m m m O m CT, O Cn 0 0 o m m --� > O N O w m 01 N (O V O O O O O O O O O O O O J O 0 0 O> O O O O O Cl O O O O O O O O O O O O > O > O V O O O O O O O O O O O O V O O O O O O O O A O O O O O O O O O O O O A O O O N Cn O m O En EA ffl (A En b� EA W Efl (A fA EA to (n fA EA EA Efl (n fA fA EA (D N W A A OWD m O O W (mD O a l m o a � o fn fn fn En EA EA EA to ffl fA En EA to En ffl to En EA En (A (fl EA fn (n 4 W N QNi m N W O N J > w W (D N m W W W m m N O m J O A N O W m m O A O OD (D O O m OD O m 0 (D O O , N J W A CD W N O m J (D O V w m m m 0 O m O OD (D O O Nlw w w fn fn w w En w w fn w w EA EA fnOfn log 1fA fAw fA to 14 A A m in in cn W (D N J (n W A Cn O O co m N U, W m A N m O O O O W N O m O m (n m N (0 V J N O m O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 O V -� O --• O tO (0 w O (D O (o O O O O O O W O op CD 0 -+ O —P Cn Cn V O m O 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- (T O O O 41 O O O O O O m O O O O O O O O O O N O O C) (D A 2m m DD °' �° 0a 0 (8 o m O o o m o CL w y m m m 0 3- c c c r 3 n¢i > >< n cl (c p 90 90 PO nl ul lu � 3 3 �' n M x x N m 3 m �. n N vD a p onn v v nri m ( n. C, z o (nom �nnn o ^ b 7 l0 O) O O (D CA (0 (n C Z CI f _ 411 ft1 ib (� N cE11 3 m co O (n l0 t0 (D (n D A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A EP Cn m o Cn m m Cn Cn w CT, (n 0 Cn (n Cn m Cn O O O O O O O O O O O ' O O O O O O O O (D 0 0 0 0 0 O O O (p 0 0 0 0 0 J W W D A A cJl > Cn n 0 .P m J pl J J W J m (D J J J J A A N (0 .< W w W (D J W A A (J w to CO N A W A N m A O m O m 0 O O O O O (OD (OD O O O O O m m OD OD m m (0 (O m m m (D m (WD (n Z Z Cn m Cn W Cn Z Z >> Cn Z W Cn W Z Cn o J O y D o 0 o J w y D» N y D O m y w O Cn 0 0 C) -+ CD A N (mn O O m p m m a 4U N m n O v I m K m == (n 7 •-�, < Q. O. O O C C < (�j (C—j (d (di1 (Qi CQ� N >> N O4�U O 3 N (�D � � O O >Sp� S D D 2. x v 9m OD A m m ((p� � CD S 3 ii 7 (n � O CD 3 N n m m O CL a c N CO O O CD N Z c c v p N N@ =3 0 (n C + 0 (D (p m (7 W < CO N D 2 2 O v O CD N A M O N O C O 0 0 A(D 0 O EAI(n (A (A (A fn fA fA fn fn fn fA fA w W to (A Efl En fA (A (n N V -+ N N >> N O N A> m N W Cn (O J Cn Cn V OD A m m _m O m O > m n m j A N CO O O W O . W (O O, O N O N A Cn m CD > J J m J 0 (n N J A M O N O O O 0 0 A(D 0 HIEn fn fA fA fA fn en fA w fn fn ffl fA fA w w w w w fn fA t0 N W O m N W A N m J J A (n V N O W N V (D W m N OD O U N N (O O V m V W (D O O m w co A N m p m O m 00 A A o (D Cl O (0 - m m m (D m N O V O A J N O W O O m to m Cl) N O V A O m O m m O, O m 0 0 00 Co O m O W D c � (r, (mss, (p C b O m ~ (D 70 O a 7 O , , O 7 O O 7 O O n En En (A En n O 3 3 n fn EA fA En m D N � K i O (3) W CD J )vvD v0 En {A EA 0 m o _. Nj d --+ J (D O W `D v C Z �vo D N � O CD O C 16 I 1 �% February 16, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Project Report (R -22) - ON HOLD — DEVONSHIRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; 7- 21 -09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install new shrubs — now that new drip line has been installed: Total Project cost estimated per contract 09 -5111R rates: $8,700.00; 8- 25 -09: Committee agrees with recommendation from Consultant (McGee) to hold off on planting shrubs for areas where we have known issues with tree roots. (This condition applies to many of the areas with shrubs dying back) (R -18) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE III PROJECT (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO 4500105824) 01- 19 -10: Bids received BONNESS INC. $354,673.10; PART B LAND. & IRG. HANNULA LANDSCAPE INC. $224,588.22 (with alternates 42 and #3 selected) TOTAL PART A & PART B: $579,261.32 (Note: $410,879.50 available in Capital Outlay); Budget Amendment is necessary in order to recognize `carryforward' to pay for project. 02- 09 -10: Board of County Commissioners approval of award to Hannula/Bonness (R -15) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE II -B & Phase I -A (II -B is from Kings Way /Briarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I -A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE: 02 -11 -2010 FINAL COMPLETION DATE: 03 -13 -2010 01- 19 -10: Project mainline and laterals installed Updated Lane Closure fees indicates 9 lane closure days at $600.00 each day; staff closely monitoring lane closures to minimize. 02- 16 -10: Hannula reports 12 days of lane closures to date: 10 x $600 (during Jan.) = $6,000 and 2 x $1,000 (during Feb) = $2,000; Fees totaling $8,000 have been paid by Fund 112 (R -19) — ON GOING: MAINTENANCE CONSULTING CONTRACT 8- 25 -09: Ongoing Maintenance Consulting Services from McGee & Associates; LA Services Contract to be reviewed in the Fall for BVO or rotation per `agreement letter' with Radio Road MSTU. 01- 19 -10: Per Committee recommendation McGee Contract to be extended till end of March to cover project activity to `finish up to Livingston Rd'; then Windham is to take over maintenance consulting activities. (R -14) — ON GOING: MAINTENCE CONTRACT — BID# 09 -5111R -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTD /MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" 8- 25 -09: Hannula maintenance Contract #09 -5111 R — Ongoing with 3 one year renewal periods to . AGeTRONIX SPECIALIZING IN MOTOROLA IRRIGATION CONTROL SYSTEMS 1304 N. 15th STREET IMMOKALEE, FL. 34142 239 - 657 -5519 I CUSTOMER NAME I Collier County DOATM/Transportation FINANCE DEPARTMENT 3301 Tamiami Tr E, Bldg F 7th Fir. Naples, FL 34112 16 I 1 �1 QUOTATION /PROPOSAL DATE QUOTE NO. 2/11/2010 1 1452 QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. TERMS REP SHIP VIA PROJECT Net 30 SLC Radio Road Phase III ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY PRICE TOTAL PROJECT: Radio Road Phase III ICCCS ICC Terminal Control Unit (NON -BID ITEM) 2 350.00 700.00 (TO PROGRAM NEW MOTOROLA IRRINET M UNIT) USB /SERIAL ADT USB to Serial Port Adaptor (NON -BID ITEM) 2 1 1.00 22.00 SERIAL/ET IER... Serial to Ethernet Adaptor W /Cable (NON -BID ITEM) 2 41.00 82.00 Thank you for your business. TOTAL !�1 $804.00 QUOTE GOOD FOR 60 DAYS. 16 r 1 p� MEMORANDUM DATE: February 12, 2010 TO: Tessie Sillery, Transportation ATM FROM: Sue Filson, Executive Manager Board of County Commissioners RE: Radio Road Beautification Advisory Committee As you know, we currently have a vacancy on the above - referenced advisory committee. A press release was issued requesting citizens interested in serving on this committee to submit an application for consideration. I have attached the applications received for your review as follows: Helen Carella 5090 Coldstream Lane Naples, FL 34104 Please let me know, in writing, the recommendation for appointment of the advisory committee within the 41 day time -frame, and I will prepare an executive summary for the Board's consideration. Please include in your return memo the attendance records, for the last 2 years, of the applicants recommended for reappointment. Please categorize the applicants in areas of expertise. If you have any questions, please call me at 252 -8097. Thank you for your attention to this matter. SF Attachments • • r1 U Board of County Commissioners 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 (239) 252 -8606 Fax: (239) 252 -6406 for Advisory Committees/B Name:— jyjn-a (!2' ale Home Phone: 6�3 64-1 1-k4o5 Home Address: �Q Zip Code: vii 4lLl r--Z- Fax No. -` Business Phone: e-mail address: Place of Employment:?^ Board or Committee Applied for: %2 �% DUi�lIJ 131iU1"! C /DA� I G� G G' Category (if applicable): Example: Commission District, Developer, environmentalist, lay person, etc. How long have you lived in Collier County: Years: -11Z Months: Are you a registered voter in Collier County: Yes No Do you currently hold public office? Yes No �if so, what is that office? Have you ever been convicted of any offense against the Law? Yes No -, If yes, explain: Do you or your employer do business with the County? Yes No \/ If yes, under what circumstances? Would you and/or any organizations with whr you are affiliated benefit from decisions or recommendations made by this advisory board? Yes No yes, please fist the organizations: NOTE: All advisory board members must update their profile and notify the Board of County Commissioners in the event that their relationship changes relating to memberships of organizations that may benefit them in the outcome of advisory board recommendations or they enter into contracts with the County. Do you now serve, or have you ever served, on a Collier County board or committee? Yes ✓ No If yes, please list the committees/boards: 1 Ip Aare- /s /t"� y� �/�'b! _ tRO fb 5EEfY7-!CtMOAl I'PV X1`1 161 Please list your community activities (civic clubs, neighborhood associations, etc. and positions held: Education:�� /G S LH'Q91�• US �l!/ S,5'_ S Gf�f.- Experience: U, )tf d uk( D �2_ cg�� lei dlL'r -� � /"V A/,AF- W Pie/OR .rte 4eT-fKIF- W- t" Please attach any additional information you feel pertinent This application should be forwarded to Sue Filson, Executive Manager to the Board of County Commissioners, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112. Ifyou wish, please faxyour application to (239)252 -6406 or a -mail to suef►h n(& oWereoxnet Thank you for volunteering to serve the citizens of Collier County. A Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South D 130 1 �p 9 , Naples FL 34104 l�J 15 1J Y i9 O JUL 2 1 2010 April 20, 2010 BY ........................ AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: March 16, 2010 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report — Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architect's Report A. McGee & Associates B. Windham Studio Vill. Old Business IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment The next meeting is May 18, 2010 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle — .--- -- Coletta Misc. Corres: Date: Item #: Copies to: !101i 16 I 1 �B Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 March 16, 2010 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:30 PM. IL ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger, Helen Carella, John Weber County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Others: Mike McGee -McGee & Associates, Dale Hannula - Hannula Landscaping, Jim Stephens - Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty -Kelly Services III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add. IX A. Signage Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 16, 2010 Betty Schudel moved to approve the February 16, 2010 minutes as submitted Second by Dale Lewis. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) o Available Improvements General $768,840.30 o Carry Forward line item includes the Budget Amendment $344,000.00 0 Darryl Richard reported the following on Phase III Project: • Sufficient funds are available in Capital Improvements for Phase III Project • Processing of Contracts is underway with County Attorney, Risk Management, and Purchasing - Anticipate receiving the Contracts by mid April 2010 B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard gave the following information: (See attached) 16 I 1 D$ (R -22) Devonshire shrub Refurbishment o Betty Schudel emailed Staff to convey public interest in Hedge Refurbishment on Devonshire (Bellville to Santa Barbara) Dale Lewis reminded the Committee that the Hedge Refurbishment was tabled until Radio Road Phase III is complete. (R -15) Radio Road Phase H -B & Phase I -A • Project delays due to Plant Materials that suffered during the freezing weather • The Project timeline may be extended to April 15d' (R -19) Maintenance Consulting Contract o Windham Studio Proposal for Annual Services was reviewed (See attached) - Base Bid - $11,856 00 - Bid total - $14,772. 00 (based on current annual contract) - For Devonshire and Radio Road Project (report Maintenance issues) Dale Lewis expressed the following concerns for a smooth transition from McGee & Associates to Windham Studio for Maintenance Consulting Services: • Unsatisfactory meeting attendance by Windham Studio • Windham Studio neglected to work alongside McGee and Associates as requested by the Committee to prevent Project delays or additional cost Dale Lewis moved to table Windham Studio Proposal ($14,772.00) until the Committee has a chance to talk to Scott Windham when ever that will be. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0 C. FY -2011 Budget Darryl Richard reviewed the Budget and the following changes were made: Landscape Incidentals o Current 11- Increased to $35,000.00 Dale Lewis moved to put $35,000.00 in the Landscape category for new Fiscal Year. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Other Contractual Services Devonshire o Current 11- Increased to $64,000.00 Sprinkler System Maintenance o Current 11- Increased to $5,000.00 Mulch Devonshire o Current 11- Increased to $16,000.00 Dale Lewis moved to approve from Santa Barbara to Livingston all mulched at the same time. Second by Betty Schudel, Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. 2 % 16 I 1 t Licenses and Permits o Forecast 10- Increased to $36,000.00 Staff suggested installing a placard to read Landscaping Funded by Radio Road MSTU due to the number of positive inquires (by the public) on the funding source for the Landscaping Projects on Radio Road. Dale Lewis moved for (Staff] to get a proposal for signage. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 5 -0. Other Miscellaneous o Current 11- Increased to $8,000.00 Fertilizer Devonshire o Should read $7,500.00 Fertilizer Radio Road • Forecast 10- Decrease to $3,000.00 • Current 11- Decrease to $4,500.00 Dale Lewis moved to approve the Budget as amended, place S% of the total cost center in Reserves, remaining portion in Improvements Capital, and funds not used will be rolled over. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT - Hannula Jim Stephens reported: • Broken irrigation pipes due Boring for the Street Lighting Project • Confirm is needed upon Project completion that the irrigation lines were flushed Pam Lulich noted Hannula can conduct irrigation repairs as a sub contractor. Mike McGee recommended the following: o Street Lighting Contractor should identify the break o Hannula Landscaping perform the irrigation repairs Dale Hannula requested payment from the County in lieu of payment by the Contractor. VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT A. McGee & Associates — Mike McGee reported the following: • Muhly Grass requires replacement (Median 14) • Review of Tree bracing is required • Inventory was taken on missing Crown of Thorn • Accident (Median 14) damage to Crown of Thorn • Mowers are creating grooves in the sod Kj 16 I 1 H B. Windham Studios -None VIII. OLD BUSINESS -None IX. NEW BUSINESS A. Signage Betty Schudel noted the Sign should be a stylish design. Dale Lewis moved if the sign is approved and goes forward Mike McGee will Design the Sign and Betty Schudel will work with Mike McGee (on the Sign Project.) Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS —None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:58 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on L4 — -1 o' as presented or amended_. The next meeting is April 20, 2010 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 161 I �B -W O W N N N N N N N N j N D O V -+ � - — " �+ — W W V 0 En A W O w w V O 0 . W N OA W N O W N N S O -I .ZI 10 -i W W -1 --I n O O 'n O r r Z m -1 -1 Z n C) -i .0 Z 31: T p (7 �cmnm D�� DD v� mSZ2Gm�mZZ�Zm�mSZ�_� �D xX> DD <m�� D m m z y r�� ymm �� y0 ��P�r��cni -( z� A� mz FZ 'o, x xNm Z��'xDD mm m� (m-irm aON�Dmzc� Z,Z�OC�c�m 70 T° TT„„c��2vv m 0 O n D D y O C m o m x ow m D D m Z x m Z T no Z y �I ZO7 U T T D�D Z 0 D r y Ozz ��-zi xDmrm�ov� mom �zG) fM� �� x OHO y Z, )>T mzmDFm2m Dmm C70mm Om �� nOm?�< � nm z yG)C�m�� W z�X> �mmm �z OG�D�v crmz- -4 z OD O m mCm0 ZD 8K- DZ WO Zpm mmXT -r m rcn v y mO C) (1) �� DD cn� AS ZmZD -��m mm r �z m m O cn czi n� mm G) zm mm CDr-m x 1 { 0 0 D cniz G) z - K .rm� m D m m W -i U n cn K Acni- 1- 1- 1v+1(A (A EA En c, En (n (A (n (A 69 EA (A (n Fn En6I(AI(9 (A (Atn (AI(nl(n (A (n En En m � W pp V Nv m N ID o u�'i T T T { o T T N T N d d IJ { � � o v d v_ c - m m `m io 0 O � T W 0 0 N N p O I N W W A A A V --4 W (O 0 00 A P O O O O O O O O W W w � W _ (p A A 000 tD (D O 07 O) N > Efl EA Fn EA EA M W W A A (n V V V N N O A O O V V (D (n cc N O A E 0 0 00 N I --� O O (n In co ( (A I(» I(n 14A En 1V9 n AI0 0o N N W V f(CW,O N Cl� W (D m V O aD A W O O) A OOD O OD (W(�D7 O O, pp I W O O (O O OVi A 0 O O O O O O 0) W (D En EA fA (A (n (A E9 EA (A (A (A (A E9 W (A (A En En EA (A I (A 1--. ..� N W -� E N O V V N O W (n (D (T W N A N (n OD O O -� W O O O i0 (n O N (O V O O OD N O O 0 0 CD O W N O O O O 0o O (O O) (O 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 (D W O O 0 0) Ut 0 0 IV C 0 0 0 ao (n O I C1 J O C) 0 0 0 O O O A O O O O O O O V O O O W (n O v 0 d o O o 0 0 D �? C a d an d -0 0 0 0 (o (n 9 _ (n O cID (p 3 ,< w e 3 3 3 r (p N icn y (D (D (D j N j (» C C C N 3 7 3 7 (9 n fD v F� W 90 3 D 3 N C7 i X X X C N O 3. ,C N N cn n G7 N D D m � N fl' (D 9. (D CL 7 (C N o n e O (3D CD Vl O N C 7 2 O n N T Q _0 _0 'O N 3 W O N (O (O (O A A A A A A A A A A A A -P A A A A A cn (T w v (n cn (n (n N On W C" cn 0 (n cn (n cn (n (T O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 000:;000000 0 0 0 M o pO o O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O V W W D A .L (n U( V C) (7 W -� w A A O V D� v V W V O _ (O(n y V V V V A a N co co W (WO N A W W A N 0) x 0 (NO OD A O W O 000008 0 0 0 0 0 O O OD T T T T T (D m w N 0 0 N W N Z Z (n (n (n W U7 Z Z (n Z W cn W 0 Z M otO DD000 V W �yD PO > NOD wDw O) -40 m O m� (T w A m (D O -' W 0 0 0 O V A N (n 0 0 O rOm mOrrrCnCnL7. Ovrrm��1� —�(n d 0 m m a d m m m m m v o m d d c o Z 5 C C < a D. n (O cL] d N O N 3. ,� N N N N (D (D w 3 0 ((nD m_ N N pnj N ) N N n N N 6) n (,D :63 M 0 7 o G� o co D m CD CD D D m m m 0 C) CD CD _— y n m O a v O S S S (n o O O r (O O O C7 z �' W C n n fD (n m? m a ZI ID a c c c CD o m 3 °' °' 03 � 3 i 0 CD O (p 0 (D � � 3 O .N. 3 7 a 7 n C n O M (A w (A w w Efl (A EA (A EA (A (A (A (A (A 69 EA w (A (A (A (A (A A N -+ OD N N O O (n W IV O O A OD A M A V 3 N (D O V W (n I N O , I N M O V LA A W , V N O I W W p O 0 11, O (.n N A (n V O V W N O O O) Ln O W O O O O O O O 41 fA E9 E9 <n fA (A IA (A E9 EA in E9 (A H9 E9 (A (A (A EA E9 (A (A E9 D A fWD (n W N W A A -4 C) A O W N V V V N N W N (D co co O A M j N O O V W O V O V p O OD O O M A N pp co O D) (D O OD 0 0 A (O (T O) V I O O (D W O O) , co A (n (n Q W V O V O 1A V (n O N O O w CO w o w m O O O W (n O m O m m N O A O O O O W O O O O O m O V O m D N 7 � Q W W C d � V O Ln O A O O V A -4 O C', � (A to fn V9 fA D o W d d N � Q c W c D D v C .A Z C) v D -� 0 C W D m -+ c Nc0 w w w C- 7 A N N O W CL G O O N (fi Cn (Wn (Np W (n O (Jt COn (D 07 O cn 0 O Ln 00 O 0 O 40 N 0 W (n O N O N O W Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O :1 -+ O O -+ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O V O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O A O O O N Ut O O O O O O [� 69 (A (A W EA En (A (A U) (n (n (A EA C, N fA fA (A cfi (A ffl fA fA (A H9 469 (A n O 3 N 3 co N co W V O 3 V N Ul V V — I p N I I W 0 1 19 9 I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I (D 3 W V V N 41 — A m O O W O 11 y EA (A E9 EA E9 69 (fl E9 E9 469 469 E9 (A (A 69 Efl (A (A En W U) Y) (A (A (n En En En N N W V f(CW,O N Cl� W (D m V O aD A W O O) A OOD O OD (W(�D7 O O, pp I W O O (O O OVi A 0 O O O O O O 0) W (D En EA fA (A (n (A E9 EA (A (A (A (A E9 W (A (A En En EA (A I (A 1--. ..� N W -� E N O V V N O W (n (D (T W N A N (n OD O O -� W O O O i0 (n O N (O V O O OD N O O 0 0 CD O W N O O O O 0o O (O O) (O 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 (D W O O 0 0) Ut 0 0 IV C 0 0 0 ao (n O I C1 J O C) 0 0 0 O O O A O O O O O O O V O O O W (n O v 0 d o O o 0 0 D �? C a d an d -0 0 0 0 (o (n 9 _ (n O cID (p 3 ,< w e 3 3 3 r (p N icn y (D (D (D j N j (» C C C N 3 7 3 7 (9 n fD v F� W 90 3 D 3 N C7 i X X X C N O 3. ,C N N cn n G7 N D D m � N fl' (D 9. (D CL 7 (C N o n e O (3D CD Vl O N C 7 2 O n N T Q _0 _0 'O N 3 W O N (O (O (O A A A A A A A A A A A A -P A A A A A cn (T w v (n cn (n (n N On W C" cn 0 (n cn (n cn (n (T O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 000:;000000 0 0 0 M o pO o O O O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O V W W D A .L (n U( V C) (7 W -� w A A O V D� v V W V O _ (O(n y V V V V A a N co co W (WO N A W W A N 0) x 0 (NO OD A O W O 000008 0 0 0 0 0 O O OD T T T T T (D m w N 0 0 N W N Z Z (n (n (n W U7 Z Z (n Z W cn W 0 Z M otO DD000 V W �yD PO > NOD wDw O) -40 m O m� (T w A m (D O -' W 0 0 0 O V A N (n 0 0 O rOm mOrrrCnCnL7. Ovrrm��1� —�(n d 0 m m a d m m m m m v o m d d c o Z 5 C C < a D. n (O cL] d N O N 3. ,� N N N N (D (D w 3 0 ((nD m_ N N pnj N ) N N n N N 6) n (,D :63 M 0 7 o G� o co D m CD CD D D m m m 0 C) CD CD _— y n m O a v O S S S (n o O O r (O O O C7 z �' W C n n fD (n m? m a ZI ID a c c c CD o m 3 °' °' 03 � 3 i 0 CD O (p 0 (D � � 3 O .N. 3 7 a 7 n C n O M (A w (A w w Efl (A EA (A EA (A (A (A (A (A 69 EA w (A (A (A (A (A A N -+ OD N N O O (n W IV O O A OD A M A V 3 N (D O V W (n I N O , I N M O V LA A W , V N O I W W p O 0 11, O (.n N A (n V O V W N O O O) Ln O W O O O O O O O 41 fA E9 E9 <n fA (A IA (A E9 EA in E9 (A H9 E9 (A (A (A EA E9 (A (A E9 D A fWD (n W N W A A -4 C) A O W N V V V N N W N (D co co O A M j N O O V W O V O V p O OD O O M A N pp co O D) (D O OD 0 0 A (O (T O) V I O O (D W O O) , co A (n (n Q W V O V O 1A V (n O N O O w CO w o w m O O O W (n O m O m m N O A O O O O W O O O O O m O V O m D N 7 � Q W W C d � V O Ln O A O O V A -4 O C', � (A to fn V9 fA D o W d d N � Q c W c D D v C .A Z C) v D -� 0 C 161 1A April 20, 2010 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Proiect Report (R -22) - ON HOLD — DEVONSHIRE shrub REFURBISHMENT; 7- 21 -09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install new shrubs — now that new drip line has been installed: Total Project cost estimated per contract 09 -5111R rates: $8,700.00; 8- 25 -09: Committee agrees with recommendation from Consultant (McGee) to hold off on planting shrubs for areas where we have known issues with tree roots. (This condition applies to many of the areas with shrubs dying back) (R —I8) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE III PROJECT (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windham Studios (PO 4500105824) 01- 19 -10: Bids received BONNESS INC. $354,673.10; PART B LAND. & IRG. HANNULA LANDSCAPE INC. $224,588.22 (with alternates 42 and #3 selected) TOTAL PART A & PART B: $579,261.32 (Note: $410,879.50 available in Capital Outlay); Budget Amendment is necessary in order to recognize `carryforward' to pay for project. 02- 09 -10: Board of County Commissioners approval of award to HannulaBonness 04- 20 -10: Notice to Proceed anticipated for May 3, 2010. (R -15) - ACTIVE: RADIO ROAD PHASE II -B & Phase I -A (II -B is from Kings WayBriarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I -A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE: 02 -11 1-010 FINAL COMPLETION DATE: 03 -13 -2010 01- 19 -10: "Lane Closure Fees" totaling $8,000 have been paid by Fund 112 04- 20 -10: Final Completion date revised to May 27, 2010 (R -19) — ON GOING: MAINTENANCE CONSULTING CONTRACT 8- 25 -09: Ongoing Maintenance Consulting Services from McGee & Associates; LA Services Contract to be reviewed in the Fall for BVO or rotation per `agreement letter' with Radio Road MSTU. 01- 19 -10: Per Committee recommendation McGee Contract to be extended till end of March to cover project activity to `finish up to Livingston Rd'; then Windham is to take over maintenance consulting activities. 04- 20 -10: Committee to review Proposal by Windham Studios for maintenance consulting. (R -14) — ON GOING: MAINTENCE CONTRACT — BID# 09 -5111R -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTD/MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" 8- 25 -09: Hannula maintenance Contract #09 -5111 R — Ongoing with 3 one year renewal periods 04- 20 -10: Staff will solicit new bid based on 100% Radio Road Phase III Plans. 161 .� or Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee .0'P 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 April 20, 2010 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:31 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger (Absent), Helen Carella, John Weber County: Darryl Richard- Project Manager, Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinator, Pam Lulich- Landscape Operations Manager, Michelle Arnold- Director ATM Others: Mike McGee —McGee & Associates, Scott Windham - Windham Studios, Jim Stephens - Hannula Landscaping, Darlene Lafferty —Kelly Services III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Add: V. C. Landscape and Curbing Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by Helen Carella. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 16, 2010 Change: Pg 3, VI., bullet one, should read: Broken irrigation pipes "on Devonshire Blvd " due Boring for the Street Lighting Project. Dale Lewis moved to approve the March 16, 2010 minutes as amended. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report— Caroline Soto Tessie Sillery reviewed the following: (See attached) • Received Revenue Structure $279,326.92 • Available Operating expense $61,978,41 Darryl Richard reported: • Phase III monies ($536,815.70) will be encumbered in the April Budget • Juristaff is providing Secretarial Services in place of Kelly Services B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard gave the following information: (See attached) (R -18) Radio Road Phase III Proiect o Anticipates NTP will be issued for May 3, 2010 11 16 ! 1 0 Discussion took place on Lane Closure Fees. (See attached) Dale Lewis addressed the following: o Estimated Lane Closure Fees - $20,000.00 • Perceives Lane Closure Fees are inappropriate as the Project is a Capital Improvement (for the County) • Inquired if TECM was charged Lane Closure Fees during installation of Curbing Darryl Richard confirmed Lane Closure Fees were not charged during Phase I (Curbing between Devonshire and Tina Lane.) Dale Lewis resumed: • Questioned why Lane Closure Fees are applicable as during previous Project Phases fees were not charged (when blending with TECM Project) • Perceived Lane Closure Fees are offensive (to Tax Payers of Radio Road MSTU) as the Project will be complete when turned over to the County After much discussion it was determined a Policy change was adopted on Lane Closures. Michelle Arnold will inquire on the following questions on Lane Closure Policy and report to the Committee via email: • Date the Policy change was adopted • Clarification on the meaning of the Policy • Definition of Capital Improvement (R -18) Radio Road Phase III Project • Pre construction meeting to be conducted in May • Curbing Contract -120 days • Anticipates mobilizing both Contractors simultaneously to expedite the Project (R -15) Radio Road Phase H -B & Phase I -A • Final completion date was extended to May 27`h due unavailable Plant Materials • Replacement of Royal Palms is scheduled due to effect from cold weather (R -15) Maintenance Contract • Requires re -bid due to a 20% increase for Phase III installation (maintenance component) • Suggested Hannula Landscaping meet with Purchasing to discuss options (R -19) Maintenance Consulting Contract Scott Windham reviewed Annual Services Proposal, highlighted the following: (See attached) o Provision is included for minimal Design Services 161 1 �$ o A Support Team was incorporated - Kichner- Horticultural Advisor (limited basis) - James Abney - Irrigation evaluation and assistance • 1 year Contract • Base Bid - $11,856.00 • Bid total - $14,772.00 • Confirmed time served (with Mike McGee) for Project familiarity is Pro bono work o Project completion date -June 2011 Dale Lewis moved to approve (Windham Studio Proposal $14,772.00) as it is a reasonable Proposal for the Scope of work. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4 -0. Radio Road Beautification Sign (See Attached) Discussion ensued on the proposed Sign designed by McGee and Associates. The Committee was in agreement (2) Signs will be installed Radio Road. Darryl Richard will coordinate with Traffic Operations on placement restrictions for the Signs. Staff requested suggestions from McGee and Associates on locations for the Signs. Helen Carella left 4:37 p.m. C. Landscaping and Curbing - Previously discussed V. B. Dale Lewis reported layer of mulch is 1 inch thick on Radio Rd. (Windjammer, along curbing on both sides) Mike McGee will assess the thin layer of mulch. Jim Stephens responded new Mulching will be scheduled for next week (remainder of Radio Road new Projects.) Discussion resumed on approval for the Radio Road Beautification Sign. Dale Lewis moved to approve $3,000.00 plus 20% overrun (for signs.) Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 3 -0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT - Hannula Jim Stephens reported: • Fertilization will be complete by May 1" • Proposal will be submitted to Staff for Devonshire ROW Sod replacement (due to damage from trenching) • Extensive damage from Base(s) installation (County Street Lighting Project) The Committee expressed concern of a possible delay on irrigation repairs (damage from County Lighting Project.) 161 1 0 Darryl Richard requested weekly reports from Hannula on part(s) repairs for payment by the County. VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT A. McGee & Associates — Mike McGee reported the following: o Weed issues o Muhly and Ornamental grass requires replacement B. Windham Studios - Previously discussed V. B. VIII. OLD BUSINESS -None IX. NEW BUSINESS -None X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS —None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT -None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on as presented or amended_ _A_. The next meeting is May 18, 2010 3:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 161 1 June 4 2010 Mala8 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE LLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED Naples, Florida, June 4, 2010 JUL ) 0 2010 3c3r'o Of Counry Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Kerry Adams, Code Enforcement Administrative Secretary Mist Cares: �� Dab: UG L`1191_ Nam 0:I i 16 ! 1 c� June 4 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson called the Hearing to order at 9:00 AM. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Special Magistrate Garretson outlined the Rules and Regulations for the Hearing. The Special Magistrate noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation. The goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:15 AM RECONVENED: 9:30 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item IV, "Motions," the following category was ADDED: "C. Motion for Continuance" • Agenda #8, Case #CEV 20100006190 — BCC vs. Ernest J. Valdastri • Agenda #9, Case #CENA 20100006202 — BCC vs. Ernest J. Valdastri • Agenda #10, Case #CEV 20100006250 — BCC vs. Ernest J. Valdastri (b) Under Item V (A), "Public Hearings," a STIPULATION was reached in the following case: • (originally added under Item V(C), "Emergency Cases ") Agenda #1, Case #CESD 20100007518 — BCC vs. An Trinh/Maria Nguyen (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #2, Case #PR 044953 — CEEX 20100006823 — BCC vs. John & Domenica Fitzgerald • Agenda #3, Case #CEV 20100003409 — BCC vs. Fidela Pena (d) Under Item VI (A), "Motion for Imposition of Fines," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #3, Case #CEPM 20090015776 — BCC vs. Alexander & Joanka C. Diaz Dominguez The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 7, 2010 The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on May 7, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. 16 1 1 June 4 2010 IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction /Abatement of Fines: None B. Motion for Extension of Time: 1. Case #CEPM 20090017229 — BCC vs. Palm Lake. LLC The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was represented by Attorney Louis Erickson. Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Special Joe Mucha was also present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22 -231, Subsections 4, 8, 9, 12I, 120, 12P, 19, and 20. Mobile home being used for rental purposes that is maintained in poor condition. Folio No: 61842240009 Violation address: 3131 Tamiami Trail, #3, Naples, FL 34112 Attorney Erickson stated the Respondent was in the process of evicting the resident of the mobile home park and the situation should be resolved within the next ninety days. Investigator Mucha stated the County did not object to granting an Extension of Time. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for an Extension of Time and requested Investigator Mucha to apprise Code Enforcement if the case should be rescheduled. C. Motion for Continuance: 8. Case #CEV 20100006190 — BCC vs. Ernest J. Valdastri The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Carol Sykora was present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A) Recurring violation of inoperable and unlicensed vehicles parked/stored on residential property. Folio No.: 49532360004 Violation address: 30 Creek Circle, Naples The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent requested a Continuance to the July 16th Docket for the present case and also for Agenda #9, Case #CENA 20100006202, and Agenda 410, Case #CEV 20100006250. Investigator Sykora stated the County would not object to a Continuance. 16 ! 1 �� June 4 2010 The Special Magistrate GRANTED the Respondent's Motion for a Continuance to July 16, 2010 for Agenda #8, Agenda #9, and Agenda #10. 9. Case #CENA 20100006202 — BCC vs. Ernest J. Valdastri The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Carol Sykora was present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws Chapter 54, Article VI, Section 54 -179 and Section 54 -181. Recurring violation of litter consisting of but not limited to, plastic bottles, cans, tools, tires, automotive parts. Folio No: 49532360004 Violation address: 30 Creek Circle, Naples The case has been CONTINUED as noted in Agenda #8. 10. Case #CEV 20100006250 — BCC vs. Ernest J. Valdastri The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Carol Sykora was present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, SECTION 2.01.00(B) Recurring violation of recreational vehicles not correctly parked/stored on residential property and in the County right -of -way. Folio No: 49532360004 Violation address: 30 Creek Circle, Naples The case has been CONTINUED as noted in Agenda #8. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: ( "Emergency Case") 1. Case #CESD 20100007518 — BCC. vs. An Trinh/Maria Nguyen The Hearing was requested by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. Respondent, An Trinh, was also present and represented his wife, Maria Nguyen. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article IV, Section 22 -108 Excavation work done without Permits. Folio No: 35748080001 Violation address: 4613 20 Avenue SW, Naples, FL 34116 16 1 1 0� June 4 2010 The Respondents reside at 1020 22nd St. SE, Naples, FL 34117 A Stipulation was entered into Respondent, An Trinh, on behalf of his wife, Maria Nguyen, and himself on June 4, 2010. Investigator Paul stated the terms of the Stipulation agreed to by the Respondents. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to: 1. Erect a protective barrier around the hole on or before the close of business on Monday, June 7, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate, 2. Completely fill the hole with dirt on or before the close of business on Monday, June 7, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate; -OR- 3. Obtain a Permit for the excavation, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion on or before July 6, 2010, or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondents. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.12 on or before July 6, 2010. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. TotalAmountDue: $112.12 The Respondent stated the hole will be completely filled and Investigator Paul confirmed the protective barrier will not be required if the work is completed. B. Hearings: 1. Case # PR 044935 — CEEX 20100006542 — BCC vs. Francis J. Dole The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Mauricio Araquistain was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130 -66 Failure to display paid parking receipt. 161 1�� June 4 2010 Violation address: Barefoot Beach Access, 170 Barefoot Beach Blvd The Respondent resides at 28103 Boccaccio Way, Bonita Springs Florida. The Respondent stated he read an article in the newspaper that stated cars displaying disabled placards are allowed to park free at the beach. He introduced the article from the Naples Daily News that was marked as Respondent's Exhibit 41 and admitted into evidence. Based on the information in the article, he did not pay the fee when he parked at the Barefoot Beach Access. Park Ranger Araquistain stated a newspaper article does not make policy and his supervisor informed him that, until the Board of County Commissioners changes the policy, the fee must be paid. The Special Magistrate noted Barefoot Beach is in the County while the individual quoted in the newspaper article was a spokesman for the City of Naples. The Respondent disputed the Section of the Ordinance cited by the Park Ranger stating there were no "boat ramps" at the Access area where the ticket was issued. The Special Magistrate explained the Charging Document (i.e., the Citation) was correct and takes precedence over the Notice of Violation which may have contained a typographical error. The Park Ranger stated there is a sign outlining the parking policy at the entrance to the parking lot. The Special Magistrate noted the Respondent was charged with a violation of Section 130 -66 but the Respondent could not find any reference to displaying a paid receipt within the language of 130 -66. She stated the Respondent is entitled to know the particular provision he is allegedly violating. The Hearing was temporarily recessed by the Special Magistrate and requested the Park Ranger contact the County Attorney's Office for direction. 5. Case #CELU 20080002154—BCC vs. MD Investment Partners, LLC The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Heinz Box who was present. The Respondent was represented Cory Mango, Operating Manager. Violations: Prohibited Use of Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.03(B)(5). Unpermitted shed at this location. Folio No: 77020002901 Violation address: 2187 Trade Center Way, Unit 1, Naples 16 f lm June 4 2010 The Respondent's address is c/o MD Investment Partners, LLC, 2187 Trade Center Way, Suite #4, Naples, FL 34109. He confirmed he has the authority to represent the Corporation. Investigator Box presented two photographs which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" and `B" admitted into evidence. He stated Mr. Mango is the Registered Agent for the Corporation and noted the Site Development Plan for the development is #SDP 89 -76. He further stated the violation has not be abated. Mr. Mango stated the shed was on the property when he purchased it six years ago. He attempted to obtain a Permit for the shed but the County could not locate the original Site Development Plan until recently. He stated he will immediately begin the permitting process and requested 90 days to complete the process. Investigator Box stated the County initially allowed only 30 days but would not object to the Respondent's request for additional time. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Completion on or before September 4, 2010, or a fine of $100.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.20 on or before September 4, 2010. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. TotalAmountDue: $112.20 1. Case # PR 044935 — CEEX 20100006542 — BCC vs. Francis J. Dolee The Hearing resumed. Park Ranger Araquistain stated Assistant County Attorney Jeff Wright advised the Citation should be dismissed since an in correct citation was used. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and the Special Magistrate DISMISSED the Citation. 161 1 M June 4 2010 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: Y. IAay"\. X YJ. aVJGNL II. LXvzll= 11 LLJ1 The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau and Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha. The Respondent was not present. Mary Coyne, former rental agent for the Respondent, appeared as a Witness. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Sections 22 -231, Subsections 12b, and 12p. Structure that has exterior siding in deteriorated condition and vacant rental unit that needs interior flooring replaced. Folio No: 62769800000 Violation address: 836 96 °i Ave N, Unit B, Naples Ms. Coyne stated she is a licensed Realtor, has been a rental agent for the Respondent since 1992, and the Respondent currently resides in California. The Special Magistrate noted Ms. Coyne appeared as a witness for the Respondent at the initial Hearing in January 2010. Ms. Coyne stated the property, consisting of six buildings on three lots, is in foreclosure and the Respondent's attorney is handling the short sale which is scheduled for June 7`h for two of the buildings. She further stated because the tenants have not paid rent„ the Respondent did not have the funds to remedy the situation. There are three tenants in the remaining buildings but the Respondent cannot afford the costs for eviction proceedings. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violations have not been abated as of June 4, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $200.00 per day for the period from May 16, 2010 through June 4, 2010 (20 days) for a total fine amount of $4,000.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.69 have been paid. The total amount due to date is $4,000.00. Investigator Mucha verified a Lis Pendens had been filed against the property. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $4,000.00 and noted fines continue to accrue. 7. Case #2007110041— BCC vs. Jose A. Ortega The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. The Respondent was present. 16 1 1 �'\ June 4 2010 Violations: Collier County Ordinance 2004 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A). Unlicensed /inoperable vehicles parked in residential area. Folio No: 61840440209 Violation address: 3085 Karen Dr., Naples The Respondent resides at 4449 E. Riverside Drive, Ft. Myers, FL 33905 Investigator Keegan stated the violation had been abated as of January 8, 2008. A civil fine in the amount of $500.00 has not been paid. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $206.11 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $706.11. The Respondent stated he rented the property and the tenant caused the problem. The Special Magistrate explained the County cannot foreclose on the property for a period of ninety days. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $706.11. 8. Case #2007100198 — BCC vs. Jose A. Ortega The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. The Respondent was present. Violations: Collier County Ordinance 2004 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A). Respondent failed to obtain and affix a current license plate to each vehicle not stored in the confines of a completely enclosed structure, or store same within a completely enclosed structure, or remove offending vehicles from a residentially zoned area. Folio No: 61839840001 Violation Address: 3107 Karen Dr, Naples Investigator Keegan stated the violation had been abated as of November 16, 2007. A civil fine in the amount of $100.00 has not been paid. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $204.78 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $304.78. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $304.78. 9. Case #2007110023 — BCC vs. Jose A. Ortega The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan. 16 l loo June 4 2010 The Respondent was present. Violations: Collier County Ordinance 2004 -41 as amended, Section 2.01.00(A). Unlicensed /inoperable vehicles parked in residential area. Folio No: 61840440102 Violation address: 3069 Karen Dr., Naples Investigator Keegan stated the violation had been abated as of January 4, 2008. A civil fine in the amount of $1,000.00 has not been paid. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $206.11 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $1,206.11. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $1,206.11. 1. Case 9CESD 20090011816 — BCC vs. Abraham Veitia & Lesa Maria Perez The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letoumeau and Investigator Renald Paul. Respondent, Abraham Veitia, was also present and represented his wife, Lesa Maria Perez. Lesa Veitia served as Interpreter for her father. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 04 -41, as amended, Section 10.02.06(B)(1)(a). Enclosing lanai and extending the lanai with no Permits. Folio No: 36245560007 Violation address: 1848 52ND Terr. SW, Naples, FL Supervisor Letourneau stated the violation had been abated as of May 24, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $200.00 per day for the period from May 16, 2010 through May 24, 2010 (9 days) for a total fine amount of $1,800.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.42 have been paid. The total amount due to date is $1,800.00. The Respondent stated he thought the deadline was May 20`h and could not obtain the Permit earlier due to financial problems. Investigator Paul stated the Respondent worked diligently to complete the project and would not object to a reduction in fines. The Special Magistrate DENIED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines. RECESS: 10:58 AM RECONVENED: 11:16 AM 10 161 1 �� June 4 2010 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 4. Case #CEPM 20100003285 — BCC vs. John Kolak The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ron Martindale who was represented by Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22 -231 (15) Private swimming pool not maintained. Presenting unsightly appearance, water stagnate, polluted with conditions conducive to insect infestation. Folio No: 72650003346 Violation Address: 1372 Areca Cove, Naples, FL The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on May 21, 2010 and was delivered on May 22, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 25, 2010. Supervisor Letourneau introduced one photograph, taken on June 2, 2010, which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He stated a Lis Pendens has been filed against the property and the violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either: (1) chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water on or before June 14, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate; -OR- (2) chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water, pursuant to HUD standards, on or before June 14, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.38 on or before July 6, 2010. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.38 16 t 1C� June 4 2010 V. laau"li XI'&LVVJVVIJV /1— Lt, I.. A.\ 1ALLIA L. 1VAux "Ala The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator John Connetta who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22- 231(15). Pool is green in color, stagnate and not properly maintained. Folio No: 74901001448 Violation address: 1579 Whispering Oaks Circle, Naples, FL 34108 The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on May 21, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 19, 2010. Investigator Connetta introduced one photograph, dated February 9, 2010, which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTYof the alleged violation and were ordered to properly maintain the pool to avoid the creation of safety hazards and were further ordered to either: (1) drain the pool completely on or before June]], 2010 or a ftne of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate; -OR- (2) chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water, pursuant to HUD standards, on or before June 11, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property owner(s). If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.56 on or before July 6, 2010. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. TotalAmountDue: $112.56 12 16 1 1 v June 4 2010 7. Case #CEPM 20100003306 — BCC vs. Vanessa L. Curley- Friedland The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ron Martindale who was represented by Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letoumeau The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI, Property Maintenance Code, Section 22- 231(15) Failure to maintain private swimming pool. Folio No: 59940900046 Violation address: 5181 Mahogany Ridge Drive, Naples The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on May 21, 2010. The property and the Courthouse were posted on May 25, 2010. Supervisor Letourneau introduced one photograph, taken on June 2, 2010, which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He stated the property is vacant and the violation has not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either: (I) chemically treat the pool water to kill the algae and provide bi- weekly treatments to maintain clean pool water on or before June 11, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate; -OR- (2) chemically treat the pool water and cover the pool to prevent the intrusion of rain water, pursuant to HUD standards, on or before June 11, 2010 or a fine of $250.00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid -out and assess the costs to the property owner. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of the case in the amount of $112.38 on or before July 6, 2010. The Respondent is to notes Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $112.38 VI. NEW BUSINESS 13 16 l 1 C� June 4 2010 A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 2. Case #CEPM 20090000375 — BCC vs. Primitivo Lara The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letoumeau and Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Ordinance 2004 -58, Section 12, Hazardous and Dangerous Building. Building sustained severe damage due to fire causing unsafe and dangerous conditions. Folio No: 36452720009 Violation address: 5020 27'h Place SW, Naples The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on May 21, 2010 and notification was left by the U.S. Postal Service at the Respondent's residence on May 22, 2010. The property and Courthouse were posted on May 18, 2010. Supervisor Letourneau stated the County abated the violation on April 13, 2010. Fines have accrued at the rate of $250.00 per day for the period from September 8, 2009 through April 13, 2010 (218 days) for a total fine amount of $54,500.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $117.78 have not been paid. Abatement costs of $6,185.37 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $60,803.15. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $60,803.15. 5. Case #CEV 20090015983 — BCC vs. Timothy S. Nelson The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004 -41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A) Unlicensed boat trailer stored in rear of property. Folio No: 22623200003 Violation address: 3461 Verity Lane, Naples The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on May 21, 2010, and the property and Courthouse were posted on May 21, 2010. Investigator Sorrels stated the violation has been abated as of June 3, 2010 Fines have accrued at the rate of $50.00 per day for the period from April 24, 2010 through June 3, 2010 (41 days) for a total fine amount of $2,050.00. 14 161 1 June 4 2010 Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.56 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $2,162.56. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $2,162.56. 6. Case #CENA 20090015974 — BCC vs. Timothy S. Nelson The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws, Chapter 54, Article VI, SECTION 54 -179 and 54 -181. Litter on property consisting of, but not limited to, propane tank, gas cans, chemical containers, paint buckets, spray cans, tabletop, plastic tarp, cooler, stacks of flooring tile, broom, clothing, grill, patio chairs, general trash scattered throughout property. Folio No: 22623200003 Violation address: 3461 Verity Lane, Naples The Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on May 21, 2010 and the property and Courthouse were posted on May 21, 2010. Investigator Sorrels stated the violation has not been abated. Fines have accrued at the rate of $100.00 per day for the period from April 24, 2010 through June 4, 2010 (42 days) for a total fine amount of $4,200.00. Previously assessed Operational Costs of $112.64 have not been paid. The total amount due to date is $4,312.64. The Special Magistrate GRANTED the County's Motion for Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $4,312.64 and noted fines continue to accrue. VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. None 15 16 f 1 June 4 2010 B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's Request. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE: July 16, 2010 at 9:OOAM, located at the Collier County Government Center, Administrative Building "F, " 3rd Floor, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 11:48 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING _Br da Garrets ",pecial Magistrate The Minutes weye approved by the Special Magistrate on as presented I/_, or as amended 16 ':. IVEL . 161 3UL 1 Z�j� June 7, 20 0 � mr6 "�r =JOUnri Com(fii55i006i4 MINUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE INTERSECTION SAFETY PROGRAM Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Naples, Florida, June 7, 2010 Coletta LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Special Magistrate Intersection Safety Program, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in Administrative Building "F," 3`a Floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson Misc. Cares: DO: l (" itam 0: T, C - ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Cpl. Mike Peabody, Collier County Deputy Sheriff 161 1 oti June 7, 2010 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:00 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were outlined by Special Magistrate Garretson. The Special Magistrate noted, prior to conducting the Hearing, Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with the Investigating Officer and view the video recording; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:05 AM RECONVENED: 9:21 AM H. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: • Agenda #1, Notice #1361000065727 — BCC vs. Shirley M. Baker • Agenda 94, Notice 41361000009824 — BCC vs. John DeMado • Agenda #5, Notice #1361000080817 — BCC vs. Maria F. Desa • Agenda #7, Notice #1361000050315 — BCC vs. Edward V. and Lori Collins Fagliarone • Agenda #9, Notice #1361000089743 — BCC vs. Raul Flores or Criselda Gutierrez - Flores • Agenda #14, Notice 91361000076419 — BCC vs. Lisa Marilyn Johnson or Jerald Robert Maxson • Agenda #23, Notice #1361000079702 — BCC vs. Mickey J. Pagliaroli • Agenda #25, Notice #1361000071782 — BCC vs. Alessandra Panella • Agenda #29, Notice #1361000086459 — BCC vs. Terry Read Walston (b) Under Item IV (A), "Hearings," the following cases were DISMISSED by the County: • Agenda 412, Notice 41361000087945 — BCC vs. Robert Joseph Holtz • Agenda 428, Notice #1361000051156 — BCC vs. Wanda Santos The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 3,2010: The Minutes of the Intersection Safety Program Hearing held on May 3, 2010 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as submitted. 161 1 �ti June 7, 2010 IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Hearings: if 1VoAeeffiooiuuuu7 1uuo —D� ru•c wa••c•u.•••c ��•••v�� The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. Respondent, Joseph L. Fontana, 111, resides at 238 Eighth Avenue South, Naples, Florida 34102, and stated he was the owner of the defunct company. He verified the vehicle, purchased in 2003, was registered to the business. The company was sold in 2005, but the vehicle was never re- titled. Date of Violation: April 14, 2010 Time: 5:57 PM Location: Intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Radio Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The light was red for 75.2 seconds. The Respondent stated the intersection is unique. All traffic traveling west on Radio Road turns onto Airport Pulling Road. He noted the Board of County Commissioners repealed the photo -video enforced right turns, although the policy change is not yet in effect. He referenced the prior testimony of Michael Mogil (see Minutes of April 5, 2010) and different timing of the yellow light at the intersection which was recognized previously by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate corrected the Respondent stating the information in the Naples Daily News article was incorrect. The finding of "Not Guilty" was not based on the timing of the yellow light at the intersection. fExcerpt from the April 5 2010 Minutes: "The Special Magistrate stated her decision was not made based upon the information provided by the Respondent. She considered the location, the speed of the vehicle, and the fact that the Respondent's wife made a decision to get through the intersection because she thought it was a safety hazard to stop in the intersection and block traffic. "] The Respondent stated he has driven through the intersection twice a week for several years and has noticed police vehicles following his car through the intersection, making the same turn shown in the video, yet he has never been pulled over or received a ticket. He claimed he did not violate the intent of the right- tum -on -red rule. He further stated the video showed his vehicle slowing down, allowing him enough time to assess the traffic at the intersection, and he not place another vehicle, a pedestrian, or a bicyclist in jeopardy. The Special Magistrate questioned Corporal Peabody on his assessment of the video. The Corporal stated if he were in the field, he would have issued a Citation. 16 1 1 �2 June 7, 2010 The Respondent reiterated he did not violate the intent of the law. The Special Magistrate stated she would lake the case under advisement The case was CONTINUED until later in the Hearing. 10 Notice #1361000085758 — BCC vs. Franciscan Gardens of SW_ Florida, Inc. The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. Respondent, Robert Levine, who resides at 2420 Tenth Avenue SE, Naples, Florida 34117, stated he is the owner of the corporation and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: April 3, 2010 Time: 10:38 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach. Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail North The Respondent objected to Cpl. Peabody presenting the video for review by the Special Magistrate. His objection was based upon his recollection of Florida Attorney General's Opinion, claiming it was illegal for Counties to erect red -light cameras without a State law authorizing it. The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent was making a Constitutional argument. She explained, as a Special Magistrate, she determines whether or not a law that is in effect has been violated but she is not authorized to rule on Constitutional issues or arguments. She further explained that the Respondent could appeal her ruling. The Respondent claimed the Attorney General's Opinion prevented her from accepting "illegally obtained evidence," i.e., the video recording obtained from the illegal use of the cameras. He noted the law has been passed but it was not in effect at the time the Citation was issued. The Special Magistrate stated the law has not been changed, and the evidence to be presented is the video. The Respondent reiterated that he will not accept an illegally issued ticket and wanted his objection "on the record," but requested the Special Magistrate proceed with the Hearing. Cpl. Peabody presented the video for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated he was not the driver of the vehicle on the day of the incident and his employee entered the intersection just as the light was changing. The Special Magistrate reviewed the still photographs taken from the video. Cpl. Peabody noted the vehicle's speed was approximately 13 miles per hour. X6)20101 �Q) The Special Magistrate stated she would take the case under advisement. The case was CONTINUED until later in the Hearing. 11 Notice #1361000070081— BCC vs. Shirley D. Gottschalk The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent resides at 248 Monterey Drive, Naples, Florida 34119, and verified she is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: March 20, 2010 Time: 4:43 PM Location: Intersection of Collier Blvd. and Golden Gate Parkway Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. He stated the vehicle was traveling at 44 m /p/h. The Respondent stated she was a passenger in the back seat of her own vehicle while her daughter was driving. The Respondent referenced Mike Mogil's testimony from a previous Hearing (see Minutes of April 5, 2010) and stated her son -in -law noticed how quickly the light had changed from "barely yellow to red." This is the same intersection timed by Mr. Mogil. She further stated she was not disputing that the traffic signal was red, but was disputing the duration of the yellow light as too short. The Special Magistrate stated she found the Respondent was not in violation because it would have created a traffic hazard if she had slammed on the brakes. She noted the vehicle was being operated under the speed limit. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 13 Notice 41361000054887 — BCC vs. Carlos Jose I¢lesias The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent resides at 1229 SE 2151 Avenue, Cape Coral, Florida 33990, and verified he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Date of Violation: March 4, 2010 Time: 8:22 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road 16 1 1 June 7, 2010 Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The red time was 14 seconds and the speed of the vehicle was 19 miles per hour. The Respondent stated his daughter drove his car to Naples for a job interview. He stated he does not believe in the videos and agrees with the gentleman in the first case that they are illegal. "It looks like the car is going 40 miles an hour. " He agreed the intersection is a very different and claimed his driving record and his daughter's record are clean. He said he saw the car's red brake lights were on in the photographs, but was not sure if his daughter stopped completely or not, and found the pictures to be very confusing. The Special Magistrate asked Mr. Iglesias for his opinion regarding the law which requires drivers to stop before turning right on a red light. He responded if he sees traffic coming from the other direction, he will completely stop. But if he can see clearly and there is no traffic, he will slow down and only make a quick stop. The Special Magistrate noted brake lights will come "on" when a car is slowing down and do not necessarily indicate a full stop. The Respondent stated the videos are exaggerated. The Special Magistrate stated she would take the ease under advisement. The case was CONTINUED until later in the Hearing. 17. Notice #1361000087978 — BCC vs. Linda Marlene LaFrance or William Steven Messer The Hearing was requested by the Respondent, Linda LaFrance Long, who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody The Respondent resides at 4648 Alhambra Circle West, Cape Coral, Florida 34103, and verified the vehicle is jointly registered in her name and her former husband's name, stated, but he gave the car to her. Date of Violation: March 5, 2010 Time: 5:24 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road (at Seagate) and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail N. Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The red time was 1.5 seconds and the speed of the vehicle was 27 m /p /h. The Respondent stated as she approached the intersection, she knew the light was green. She noted it was the first time she had driven through the intersection and she thought she may have been driving too slowly because "the light went from red to green." She claimed she is a very careful driver but did not see the yellow traffic 161 1 Cv June 7, 2010 signal at all. She stated she has been "consumed" with caring for her husband who is in the military and currently recovering from surgery. She produced progress notes from the VA Hospital in Miami and stated she is his only caregiver. The Special Magistrate noted there were unique, mitigating circumstances in the Respondent's life due to her husband's health issues, and found the Respondent was not in violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. 19. Notice 41361000082300 — BCC vs. Robert Norman Levine The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent resides at 2420 Tenth Avenue SE, Naples, Florida 341 IT Date of Violation: March 31, 2010 Time: 9:57 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail North The Respondent made the same objection as in his earlier case (see Agenda #10) which the Special Magistrate noted for the record. Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Respondent stated the video shows vehicles on U.S. 41, heading south, were allowed to turn left, blocking the intersection. He entered the intersection to view oncoming traffic. He stated his vehicle may not have come to a complete stop, but "it came pretty close." The Respondent pointed out a Sheriff's cruiser was also at the intersection and the Deputy could have pulled him over if the Deputy thought a violation had occurred. The Special Magistrate reviewed the video again and ruled the Respondent was not in violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found NOT GUILTY of the alleged violation. RECESS: 10:33 AM RECONVENED: 10:41 AM 16 1 1 June 7, 2010 The Special Magistrate recalled the cases that had been CONTINUED (i.e., "under advisement') and announced her rulings. 8 Notice #1361000097068 — BCC vs. Fine Arts Engraving Company The Special Magistrate addressed the Respondent, Joseph Fontana, stating she could not find a reason to rule that he was not in violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 10 Notice 41361000085758 — BCC vs. Franciscan Gardens of SW Florida, Inc. The Special Magistrate addressed the Respondent stating she could not find a reason to rule that he was not in violation. She reminded Mr. Levine he had the right to appeal her decision. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 13 Notice 41361000054887 — BCC vs. Carlos Jose Iglesias The Special Magistrate addressed the Respondent stating the Citation would stand as issued and ruled he was in violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 Supervisor Waldron stated the County had WITHDRAWN the following case: • Agenda #15, Notice #1361000066113 — BCC vs. Richard Andrew Juliano 2. Notice #1361000084488 — BCC vs. John Randall Clark The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. 16 1 1 �2 June 7, 2010 Date of Violation: April 2, 2010 Time: 11:32 AM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail North Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 3 Notice #1361000068341— BCC vs. Anne Carey Dant The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 19, 2010 Time: 2:38 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 6 Notice #1361000059613 — BCC vs. Nancy Jean Espeio, The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 10, 2010 Time: 8:53 AM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road (at Seagate) and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. 16 I 1 ov June 7, 2010 The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 16 Notice #1361000067707 — BCC vs. Wesley Allen and Shellee Jean Kallas The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondents were not present. Date of Violation: March 18, 2010 Time: 9:04 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport- Pulling Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondents are allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. TotalAmountDue: $112.50 18. Notice #1361000085931— BCC vs. Mamie J. L. Lawfer The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: April 3, 2010 Time: 1:02 PM Location: Intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and U.S. 41 /Tamiami Trail Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTYof the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 161 10-/"/ June 7, 2010 20 Notice #1361000066741— BCC vs. Douglas E. McCracken The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 18, 2010 Time: 10:04 AM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Airport- Pulling Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 21 Notice #1361000077565—BCC vs. Naples Custom Cabinets, LLC The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 26, 2010 Time: 1:46 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Airport- Pulling Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 22. Notice #1361000067673 — BCC vs. Ronald L. Nelson The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 18, 2010 Time: 3:26 PM 161 1Cti June 7, 2010 Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 24 Notice #1361000057567 —BCC vs. Paladin Construction, Inc. The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 6, 2010 Time: 11:34 PM Location: Intersection of Immokalee Road and Livingston Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 26 Notice 41361000064944 — BCC vs. Glenn Frankie Puopolo The County was represented by Cpl. Mike Peabody. The Respondent was not present. Date of Violation: March 16, 2010 Time: 4:05 PM Location: Intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road Cpl. Peabody presented the video and still photographs for review by the Special Magistrate. The Special Magistrate stated a violation had occurred 12 161 1 cti June 7, 2010 Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a fine of $62.50 plus an administrative fee of $50.00. The Respondent is allowed 21 days from receipt of the Order to make payment. Total Amount Due: $112.50 27. Notice #1361000093349 — BCC vs. Susan Sanderson - Collins or John J. Collins The Respondent was present. The Special Magistrate suggested he review the video which he has not previously seen. After viewing the video, Mr. Collins decided to pay the fine. Supervisor Waldron stated the County would WITHDRAW the case. V. OLD BUSINESS: A. Motion to Rescind Previously - Issued Order: None VI. NEXT HEARING DATE: July 21, 2010 at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Building F, 3`d Floor, Naples, Florida There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by order of the Special Magistrate at 11:08 AM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NG rends s�r - Magistrate The Minutes were approved by the Special Magistrate on a 0l as presented ✓, or as amended 13